tion of Select Vestries within the Bills of Mortality. Petitions against that bill were presented from the select vestries of the different parishes. The petition from the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, stated that the select vestry was established there in 1656, and that there was good reason to continue it therefore. Now the fact was, that not many years ago a trial at law was had regarding this same select vestry-the decision went against it-the power of this select vestry was quashedand the power of managing the parochial concerns placed upon a more popular basis. This was a case in point to show how little custom or prescription could be pleaded in support of these select vestries. In the year 1715 a select committee of this House was appointed on the subject, and having examined into the state of the parish of St. Martin, Westminster, they reported unfavourably to the select vestry there, and came to the conclusion, that more than one half of the poor-rates in that parish was employed for other purposes than the relief of the poor. In consequence of that report, leave was given to bring in a bill to regulate select vestries. That bill was passed upon the 4th of May, 1716, by a majority of 105. He could not discover what became of it afterwards in the House of Lords; for their lordships appeared to have taken no notice of it. It appeared from the Journals of this House, that one of the members of the select vestry of the parish of St. Martin, Westmister, during the progress of that bill, appeared at the bar of the House to state, that they had omitted to mention, the sum of 491. 7s., which had been expended upon a dinner to the church-wardens. It seemed, then, that the act of eating and drinking out of the funds of the parish was not a modern invention. On the 11th of March, 1741, a petition was presented from the inhabitants of the parishes of St. Martin, St. Anne, St. James, &c. against select vestries. These petitions were referred to a committee of the House of Commons, which sat for more than a year; and the result was, that in the year following a bill was brought in, which on the 28th of March, 1742, was lost by a majority of 160 to 132. He had made these statements, in order to show that the complaints against these select vestries were far from being of a modern date and, in truth, the parishion ers of St. Martin's, Westminster, when they found that they could get no relief from parliament, applied to the King'sbench on four different occasions. With respect to the two first proceedings, he had discovered no legal record; but with reference to the two others, he had found two records; and to these he begged to call the particular attention of the House. In 1791, the cause between the complainants in the parish of St. Martin and the select vestry came on before lord Kenyon. The parties had agreed, that it should be tried on a feigned issue; and the point mooted was, whether from time immemorial a select vestry, consisting of a certain number of persons, had existed. Lord Kenyon said, that unless the number of the vestry could be shown to have been always fixed, there could be no legal custom; and the jury found that there had been a select vestry consisting of forty-nine persons. In consequence, the select vestry gained the cause, and the parishioners lost it. But thirty-three years afterwards, in 1823, owing to certain proceedings in the court of King's-bench, the parish books were inspected, and it was found that there had not been a select vestry consisting of a fixed number of forty-nine, but that the number had varied at different times, and was never more than twenty-two. Of course, the jury which had given the former verdict had acted from erroneous information. But, what occurred in consequence of that erroneous verdict? Why, the select vestry continued to exercise their illegal powers, to levy rates, and to perform all their parochial functions, until, in 1823, the court of King's-bench was again applied to, and another feigned issue was directed to be tried. That feigned issue was tried before the present chief justice of the court of King's-bench, lord Tenterden, and it was a very strange thing, that it was not allowed to stand in terms similar to that which was tried before lord Kenyon. Lord Tenterden, for reasons best known to himself, altered it, by striking out the words a certain number," and left it to be tried, whether "a body of parishioners" had acted as a select vestry. Therefore, as it was clear that "a set of parishioners," though not "a certain number," as had been laid down by lord Kenyon, had acted as a select vestry, a verdict was given, as before, in favour of the select vestry, and against the parishioners. The select vestry 66 had, in consequence, governed ever since; | 1819, before parliament. That of 1819 with what benefit and effect the House gave to parishioners, in the country, the should presently hear. They now possessed power to elect vestries, and discountean uncontrolled power over that extensive nanced the then prevailing system of selfand populous parish, and it was right the election. House should know how they had exercised that power. However, notwithstanding this was the case with respect to the parish of St. Martin, there were other parishes that were more fortunate, and the House would be surprised to hear that, in more than one instance, the parishioners had taken the law into their own hands, and succeeded in turning out select vestries. The parishioners of St. Anne's, Westminster, one day broke into the vestry-room, burned all the books, and made themselves an open vestry [A laugh]. They had continued so ever since; and no disturbances whatever had occurred. In the same way the parishioners of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, had their cause tried in the court of King'sbench, and though the select-vestry system had prevailed in that parish for one hundred and seventy years, they overthrew it, and became an open vestry; and the parishioners of St. Giles's, Cripplegate, were equally fortunate. They also instituted a cause; and it was decided, that the select vestry there was not good or valid in law. Some of those select vestries were founded on custom, others on particular acts of parliament. That of St. James's, Westminster, was of the latter description, and dated its origin so far back as the happy period of James 2nd. Now, owing to the increasing population of the parishes in London and its neighbourhood, it was thought necessary, a few years ago, to apply to parliament for some measures to render parochial elections less turbulent than they were before; for it was very natural that in some places anarchy should have produced the same effect in parochial governments, that it always created in states, and have given rise to a complete and perfect despotism. In 1818 and 1819, many parishes, where the vestries were open, exhibited scenes of great confusion and disorder. The consequence was, that respectable parishioners withdrew themselves from the administration of parochial affairs, and none but a few individuals, and those not of the first consideration in their respective parishes, attended at vestry meetings. To correct this evil, a right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Sturges Bourne) brought his two bills, of 1818 and VOL. XXI. If he succeeded in getting the committee for which he meant to move, it was his intention to propose a bill founded on the same principle, doing away with the system of self-election, and substituting the principle of free election. The bill of the right hon. gentleman, which was passed in 1819, had done a great deal of good throughout the country; but there was a portion of that bill,-he alluded to that part which referred to rateable property, and which, in proportion to the extent to which he was rated, gave to an individual more votes than one, with respect to that part of it he doubted whether it could be made to apply to the great parishes of the metropolis. Indeed, he did not think that it could. It appeared from the returns laid on the table of the House, that there were in England and Wales, two thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight select vestries. Many of these were formed under the act of the right hon. gentleman; some were founded on custom, and some were authorized by private acts of parliament. Now, in some of these select vestries, it was notorious that very great abuses were prevalent. But he did not believe that the evils now complained of were at all worse than those which were exclaimed against more than a hundred years ago; for he found in the work of an author of that period, and who was much esteemed in our day-the author of one of the most current books in the English language-he meant De Foe, the author of "Robinson Crusoe"--he found a very strong picture drawn of the evils which were produced by select vestries, in a pamphlet of his entitled "Parochial Tyranny"-a tract not, perhaps, so much known by hon. members as "Robinson Crusoe." De Foe said, "there is not a greater abuse in the world than that of select vestries. It is the most flagrant of tyrannies; for, while the king gives us the. full enjoyment of our liberties, the select vestry makes us the completest slaves imaginable. And there is no mode of saving us but by his majesty taking us out of the jaws of those who may exercise their tyranny in æternum. The power of all other bodies has a termination; parliament is elected septennially, -the mayor and 2 G common council annually; but the select | eighteen gentlemen, who went to inspect vestry is perpetual; for, as the old mem- the pauper children, at the expense of 49, bers drop off, none are put in their place including rose-water for washing the hands, except those who are willing to pursue the and 18s. worth of noyeau, for settling the old practices; so, rogues succeeding rogues, stomach. He adverted to the many visitation the same scene of villainy is carried on to the dinners of Messrs. Joyce and Richardson ; terror of the parishioners. Besides, while the which, for several successive years, had election is vested in themselves, there is no cost the parish from 30l. to 401., and in hope of amendment. If, mistaken in their one instance as much as 477. 11s. He object, they happen to choose an honest observed one item of 1157. 8s. for burying man among them, he is compelled to absent the rector in 1817. Now, he could see no himself for he is placed in a situation reason why the rector should be buried at like the owl amongst birds. He who be- the parish expense; and he was sure that comes a member of a select vestry, like a if the rector had supposed that he should man who goes to the Mint, if he go in have been thus buried, he would have obhonest, he is perfectly sure not to come jected to such a proceeding. It appeared, out so." however, that the sons of a Mr. Bourdillon, who was at the time a select vestryman, furnished the funeral; and thus the circumstance was accounted for. In the parish of St. James, Westminster, he found that, for ten years, the guardians of the poor drew up their accounts in one room, and they were audited by themselves in another. In the parish of St. George, Westminster, until very lately, nearly a pipe of wine was annually consumed in the communion service; but the gentlemen who now conducted the affairs of the parish had diminished the quantity nearly one third. In the accounts of Christchurch, Spitalfields, he saw a charge of 801, for carving the legs of the communion-table, and a certain sum was also charged for a cloth to cover those legs; so that the parishioners were prevented from viewing the elegant carving and gilding for which they had paid. In another place he saw an item of 50l. for repairing hinges. In 1820, about a dozen gentlemen in the united parishes of St. Giles's and St. George's, Bloomsbury, voted 1,6407, for the repair of the church, which sum was taken from the poor-rates, and no less than 9602. was shared amongst four of the members of the vestry. In St. Martin's, Westminster, which was formerly considered a model for other parishes, he found the same extravagant system was carried on. He found in the accounts the following items1818, balance of Easter Monday dinner, 567. 16s.; 1819, ditto, 447. 10s. 1823, ditto, 301. 15s. 6d. in 1826, the balance had diminished, as only 141, of the parish money was to be handed over, to Mr. Cuffe; but in 1827, the select had run up a balance of 271. 28. 6d,, exclusive of what came out of their own pockets He observed an item, for Bibles and Prayere In this manner were select vestries described by De Foe, a hundred years ago. And Dr. Burn described the select vestries of the present day in something of the same manner. His opinion was, that " of all the modern modes of conducting parochial affairs, that of select vestries was the most nefarious and unconstitutional; annihilating the rights of the parishioners, and taking away all the control which was necessary over parochial authorities. They are so unjust, that wherever they exist constant struggles are made to abolish them; and no wonder that it should be so, especially in parishes where they elect one another; because, if evil practices prevail, they will only elect those persons who will connive at such practices, or who will assist them therein." Now, it was impossible to conceive stronger statements with respect to the injurious effects of select vestries, than those which he had read; and he believed that they were but too true. In 1825, the right hon. member for Waterford (sir J. Newport) had introduced a measure for correcting the abuses of select vestries in Ireland. The principle on which his right hon. friend proceeded, and which he had endeavoured to carry into effect, was exactly that which he (Mr. Hobhouse) was desirous of acting upon; namely, that four or five persons should not be allowed to tax their fellow-parishioners as they pleased. The hon. member then proceeded to point out a great number of instances, in different parishes, where, he contended, the parochial funds had been improperly expended. He commenced with St. Paul's, Covent-garden, and referred particularly to the famous dinner at Norwood, which was enjoyed by, the worthy rector and books, 331. 10s. 7d.; nearly the same | sufficient not only to fill the table, but the amount was charged every year, but instead hollow under it; but from them very little of being for a number of Bibles and Prayer- satisfaction could be derived; and it was books, he found that the charge was for of little use to appeal to the magistrates, one Bible and one Prayer-book, as a pre- who were either select vestrymen themsent to the retiring churchwardens. He selves, or were intimate with that body. could not avoid noticing another very He did not wish to state names, because curious item; namely, 487. 12s. 9d., due it was a serious charge; but the whole to Messrs. Wood and Co., for the arch- matter might come out some day. One deacon's sermon. On inquiry he learned, gentleman, a magistrate, declared, that he that this was a charge for printing a ser- looked at these accounts, and was ready mon, preached by archdeacon Pott, on to hear complaints,-" but," said he, “I occasion of the death of Queen Charlotte. must be satisfied with the vestrymen's The sermon, it appeared, did not sell, and general oath; I cannot go into any particuthen the parish was made liable. There lar allegation." A dinner was given on was also an item, "Sir R. Birnie, in ba- the passing of these accounts, and the inlance of his account, as churchwarden, 401. dividual in question, being a pleasant man, 16s. 3d." This he had handed over to the who sang a good song, always attended, parochial schools; for which, of course, and, he believed, was in the habit of singsir Richard's name " stood rubric on the ing the first song after dinner. When the walls" as a contributor. But it should be parishioners of Covent-garden were so exremarked, that that account was not settled tremely discontented, they applied for reuntil sixteen years after it was alleged to lief to sir R. Birnie and Mr. Halls; but have been incurred. He observed, too, a those gentlemen refused to grant them any charge of 3,550l. as a gratuity to Fred. relief, and he was sorry to say, that the apBooth, esq., vestry-clerk, on account of plicants complained of the manner in the watch-committee, which had been ac- which they were treated by those magiscumulating, with interest, for several years, trates; which, it appeared, to use no the annual sum being only 1301. But one harsher times, was not becoming. The of the most extraordinary items was same persons applied to Mr. Minshull, and "Feb. 5. 1813, for a petition against the he did afford them relief. He struck off, Catholics, 51." Now, certainly, the vestry from one quarter's payments, no less than had a right to petition against the Roman 801. Catholics, if they thought fit; but that they should have the absurdity-or, he would call it, the audacity-to charge the parish 57. for the petition, was not to be borne. The hon. gentleman then alluded to the electioneering manoeuvres of the select vestry, for the purpose of returning a member for Westminster, and read their resolution of the 19th of September, 1806, in which they declared earl Percy, the present duke of Northumberland, to be a fit and proper person to represent the city and liberties of Westminster in parliament, and that they would give him their most cordial support. They had, however, in the case of Mr. Paull, come to a different conclusions for they had agreed to a resolution, that he was not a fit and proper person to represent the city of Westminster in parliament. In some parishes the parishioners were not allowed to see the accounts. In Marylebone forty closely-printed pages of accounts were open to inspection; but they were by no means satisfactory. In St. James's parish accounts were furnished Some of the parishes of London and its environs had had the good fortune to emancipate themselves from this unjust system, and the greatest benefit had been derived from it. Of this number were St. Matthew's, Bethnal-green; St. Mary's, Islington; and St. Luke's, Chelsea. In this last parish, owing to the alteration of system and the conciliating conduct of the excellent rector, the rev. Mr. Wellesley, the poor-rates had been lowered from 4s. 6d. to 2s. 7d. in the pound. It was, on the other hand, a most singular circumstance, that, wherever the principle of self-election prevailed, the parishes, with a very few exceptions, were filled with discontent; but, on the contrary, in those parishes where the popular principle was acted on, no such discontent was known. In St. Pancras, Marylebone, and in the other parishes in which there were select vestries, the consequence was, that the parishioners were obliged to expend their time and money in appointing committees to watch the proceedings of the vestries. He knew it was objected, that to intro duce the elective principle would be to Create tumult in a parish: but did not tumult prevail now? Yes; and the reason of it was, that the elective principle did not exist. He was happy to see that many bills had passed, or were in progress, in which the elective principle, in the appointment of parochial officers, is allowed. In the Marylebone bill he found almost all he wanted, and in the St. Paul, Coventgarden, bill, the elective principle was recognized. He was convinced that the agitation of this question had already effected much benefit. He happened to have a very curious document which shewed what effects the elective principle would produce. In a parish in the city of Bath, the average expense of the poorrates, in the three years ending in 1822, was 7,9421., and that the cost of each pauper was 91. 4s. 3d.; but under the act of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) opposite, the expense was reduced to 4,0901., and the cost of each pauper to 51. 16s. 7d. If the same effects had been produced in other parishes, thousands upon thousands would have been saved to the country. In the parish of Pancras, for instance, where the poor rates amounted, in 1826, to 36,9997., not half that sum was expended in support of the poor. He thought that he had made out something like a case for the interference of the House. It was his intention originally to have moved for leave to bring in a bill; but, upon examination, he found that there were so many difficulties to encounter, and so many local details to be considered, that he felt it to be more respectful to the House to move for the appointment of a committee. This was the motion with which he should conclude. He hoped it would not be opposed; indeed, he did not think it could be. The restoration of tranquillity to those parishes which were now full of tumult and discontent was, in his opinion, an object sufficiently desirable to justify his motion; but it was impossible that any hon. member could deny the broad and constitutional principle, that representation and taxation should go hand in hand, and on this principle he grounded his motion. The hon. member then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the general operation and effect of the laws and usages under which Select and other Vestries are constituted in England and Wales." expen Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was not prepared to offer any opposition to the motion of the hon. member for a Committee of Inquiry; but, at the same time, he begged to be distinctly understood by no means to acquiesce in the charges which the hon. ...ember had, in his opinion, too widely made against select vestries, and much less to concur in the views of the hon. member respecting the abolition of select vestries in London and its vicinity, There were, doubtless, instances of improper conduct in parochial expenditure; but it did not follow, that such instances were to be found in all select vestries. If the committee could find out any plan for auditing parochial accounts, and for checking abuses in the expenditure of parochial funds, he should be the last person to object to such a plan. No doubt there ought to be a full audit of parochial accounts, and that all abuses in the diture of parish funds ought to be checked as far as possible. He could not, however, agree with the hon. member, that, at least in London, a popular election would effect these objects. If persons of respectability and wealth and intelligence were driven from the management of parochial affairs, and such persons substituted as it was likely would be substi tuted, if every man who paid parochial rates had a vote, the evils complained of would be increased and not diminished. As to the committee over which his right hon. friend (Mr. S. Bourne) presided with so much ability, it was discovered by that committee, that an open vestry was so large and cumbrous a body, that it was incapable of transacting parish business; that every body having a voice, there was no time for deliberation. The committee, therefore, decided in favour of select vestries; and recommended that annual overseers might be dispensed with, and that parochial officers might, if it were thought proper, continue in office more than a year. So far as the hon. member's motion contemplated the establishment of checks upon local expenditure, he acquiesced in it; but he wished to guard himself against the inference of concur rence in all the views of the hon. member, and more particularly against the idea, that he acquiesced in the argument that. the principle of the select-vestry system should be departed from, and that that of universal suffrage should be substituted for it. Undoubtedly some improvement |