The Sun. — London, England, 1829-04-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.--(LAST NIGHT.) Their Lordships met at Half-past Three o'clock te-day. RECEPTTON OF CATHOLIC PEERS. The Opposition side of the House was crowded ith ladies, in anticipation of the appearance of 'the Catholic Peers of England taking their ?lams under the recent Act for the removal 'of the Roman Catholic Disabilities. Soon after the Lord Chancellor had taken his seat upon the - woolsack, the Duke of Norfolk entered the House, and took the new oaths at the table ; after which he shook hands with the Lord Chancellor. Lords Clifford and DJrmer also took the oaths, and were similarly tweeted by the Lord Chancellor. They were not introduced, as is the usual custom with newly-ere:wed Peers. Earl GREY presented a petition from the Sur geons of Newcastle, relative to the supply of sub jects for anatomical purposes. .Ir. FOSTER presented an account of the re ceipts anti disbursements of the Liverpool Dock Company, pursuant to the Act. Their Lordships then adjourned till Five ntinettes to Fire o'clock. Sir ALEXANDER GRANT and others brought up the Spanish Claims Bill, the Assessed Taxes Corn position Bill, the Greenwich Hospital Bill, East India Company's Writers' Bid, and the Naturalizwion Lord LOWTHER anal others brought up the Clarence Railway Bill. Mr. SPRING RICE presented the Dublin Gas Light B. Mr. GURNEY brought up a Lighting Bill. Mc. CORBETT brought up Sr. Paul's, Covent Garien Improvement Bill, and two private Bills. l'AuxoAY brought up a Roatl Bill. Mr. GREEN presented the Kenyon and Leigh .Junction Railway Bill ; also the Warrington New Railway Bill; an Inrlosure Bill; the Basing stoke Market Bill; Southampton Improvement Road Bill, and another Private Bill. Earl GIC2A pr , .!sented a petition against a Pri. rat* Bill, *The Earl of NIALMESBURY moved that a lequest might be sent to the [louse of Commons, fo a copy of the Report taken last year on the !State of the Police of the Metrope s. It waa of very ronsiderable importance that their Lordships should -obtain this, and have it printed, before the measure was brought into their Lordships' I-louse, upon the subject wtleh the Noble Lord understood was in prorTress elsewhere.--Agreed to. bird TEVNLIAM presented petitions from cer tain inhabitants of Dublin, Kilkenny, and another place in Ireland, praying their Lordships to take into eunsidr.ration the law as affected the Civil Disabili ties of the Jews. 'fhe Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from a Mr. Francis Fortune, praying the :douse to take in►o consideration the duties on Teas. The petition complained of the monopoly in the Tea trade by the East India Company. Whether the House would be disposed to go into this subject at this time, there being so many other important considerations about to come before it, the Noble Marquis did not know, but he considered it his duty to present the petition, since it had been put into his hand. THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA'S GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he had received a note from the Marquis of Anglesea, stat ing he was so ill as to make it impossible for him to attend the House to-night, as he had intended to do, but requesting him (the Marquis of Lansdowne) to give notice to their Lordships that on Monday next he should bring forward his motion, connected with his administration in the Government of Irelaud, and which motion should also, in part, be calling for the production of certain papers. The Duke of WELLINGTON inquired what the papers were that the NoTale Marquis intended to call for? The Margiiis of LANSDOWNE was unable to state, but promised to beg of :he Noble Marquis to /et the Noble Duke know. The Newfoundland Fishery, the Naval Officers Widows' Pension, the Commissioners of the Navy, and the Scotch Seisen Bills, passed through Com mittees.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS -(LAST NIGHT.) Mr. Danvers, from the India House, brought up certain returns relating to Pensions granted by the East India Com; any. Mr. Waller brought up returns from the Office of Woods and . Forests,relating to the Improvements in the Strand. Mr. SANDERSON took the oaths and his seat as Member for Colchester. Sever►l Private Bills were read a third time and passed. The Covent Gar►;en Vestry Bill, on the motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, was read a third time and passed. 'Mr. R. COLBORNE moved for a New Writ for the borough of Horsham, in the room of Hurst, Esq., who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the minister, churchwardens, and inhabitants of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, against the Me tropolitan Road Bill.—Referred to a Committee. Sir BYAM MARTIN presented a petition from the Bankers, Merchants, Ship-owners, &c. of Ply mouth, against the monopoly of the East India Company. Mr. DAVENPORT presented a petition from the Silk Throwsters of Macclesfield, against the proposed reduction on Thrown Silk ; also two other petitions of a similar nature from private individuals. Mr. SPRING RICE moved for various returns relating to Jude: in Ireland. Mr. EGERTON presented two petitions from individuals against the reduction on foreign silks. CORN LAWS. Mr. HUME gave notice that on the 19th of May lie should move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consi deration the Act of the 9th George IV., relating to the Corn Laws, and to submit to its consideration the propriety of imposing a fixed, in , tcad of a fluc tuating duty. The Hoy. Menke: also moved for various Returns relating to the Silk Trade. PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. HUME begged to call the attention of the House to the subject of Private Bilis, and the nt-ces city of giving one day's notice of their first and third reading. He did not anticipate any objection against his motion, but from its importance he would postpone the further consideration till Tuesday next. Mr. HUME th:•u presented a petition against the Corn Laws ; and also one from the inhabitants of the Edgcware-road, praying for a reduction of the additional penny upon Twopenny Post Letters. Mr. Alderman WAITHSIAN and other Mem bers presented several petitions against the reduc tion of duty on thrown siiks. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from St. Pancras, praying relief from the operation of the Select Vestry Act; also a similar petition from St. Bartholomew the Great, City of London; and also from St. Giles's Without, Cripplegate. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from various householders against the Poor Settlement Bill. Mr. FYLER presented a petition from the S:lk weavers of the city of Coventry, signed by 5,000 person,, against the measures now in contemplation. Mr. K. COLBORNE, in the absence of the Hen. Member for Knaresborough, postponed two motions till the 21st May, one relative to Mr. O'Reiley's claims on the Last India Company, and the other for copies of communications with the Queen of Portugal. A Messenger from the Lords requested Reports of the Committee on the Police. Alderman WAITHMAN said,. he trusted the nig } lt Hon. Gentleman apposite would consfn•, in a tacc,ore of eto much importance us that now be fore the 'House, relating to the Silk Trade, to post pone its further consideration for a short time, to give an opportunity to all those interested to ex press their opinions upon its probable effects. Mr. FYLER also wished for a postponement; he knew several Members who wished to deliver their sentimews, and who could not possibly attend this evening. . _ . Mr: Secretary PEEL thought, after the ample notice that had keen given, it was rather too much to expect that a postponement was to take place on account of the accidental absence of two or three Members; it was agreed on all hands that nome measure was necessary ; it was only the principle that required discussion, end that could be done in Comr.ittee, NELECT VESTRIES. Mr. iIOI3HOUSE said that he rose to call the attention of the House to a subject on which it would be necessary for him to address it at some length, but not at greater length than his sense of its great importance demanded. The subject which he meant to introduce to the notice of the House—that of Select Vestries - -was one which, at all times, and especially at more recent periods of our history, had much engaged, and deserved much to engage, the attention of Parliament. It had been at various times agitated in that House—it had frequently been made a topic of legislation; and he was con vinced that these who were disposed to look at the question, and to enter with him freely into its de tails, would concur in opinion with him that, in re ference to its bearing on the interests, the happiness,. and the comfort of the people, there were few topics more worthy of engaging the deliberate attention of the Representatives of the People of England. One of the many reasons which weighed most strongly with him in inducing him to bring forward a motion referring to the whale parochial management of this country, was this—that, on former occasions, when an application was made respecting the local manage ment of certain parishes, the advocates in support of such an application were met (he had been so met himself) by being asked, why did not he and they introduce some plan comprehensive in its effect ? Why did they not introduce some general mea sure for quieting the discontents that prevailed upon this subject ? This, it was urged, would be a less invidious way of proceeding in such 11 business; and therefore it was that, feeling the free of such an observation, he had undertaken to brireg forward the question as a measure of gene ral application, which, he owned, he could have niched to have fallen into the hands of some abler advocate.—(Hear, hear.)—Having endeavoured to impress the House with the importance of the sub ject, he would proceed to call its attention to the enormous amount of parochial assessments for the support of the poor. By the returns laid before the House, it would appear that the Poor Rates of England arid \Vides, for the year ending February, 1828, amounted to 7,784,3564 Of that amount, it would appear that 1,362,0001.—which was 17 per cent. on the whole amount—was appropriated to other purposes than the support of the poor.— (Hear, hear.)—He would admit the reasonableness of the deduction of a considerable portion of this amount for the expence of collection and ma nagement of this enormous sum; but there was still a greater surplus over what was applied to the re lief of the poor to be accounted for than could fairly be set down to the expellees of collection and management. In considering this enormous sum— a satisfactory management and account of which it was the object of the present measure to provide— it would not be unamusing to compare the amount of the parochial rates of this country with the reve nues of America, and of various countries of Europe. These parochial rates, as he bad stated, amounted nearly to 8,000,0001. Besides this, there was an amount of neatly 4,000,0001. for paving, lighting. and church-rates--giving, in their united results, a total of nearly equal to a fourth of the whole reve nue of England, and far greater than the whole reve nues of the other States. For instance, the revenue of America last year amounted to 5,539,0001.; the com bined revenues of Turin, the Two Sicilies, together with Spain and Portugal, did not exceed 12,000,0001. And it was further worthy of remark, in this com parison, that the present amount of our poor-rates was equal to the whole revenue of England 50 years ago. After observing that the total of the pa rochial rates, in 1795, was 2,500,0001., the Hon. Member proceeded to state, that he would next call the attention of :the House to the large parochial revenues collected from individual parishes. In the parish of Mary la-bootie alone, consisting of a popu lation of 120,000, the parochial receipts were 173,0001., which was twice the amount of the re venues of seven German Duchies. The parish of St. James contributed parochial rates to the amount of 63,0001.; St. George's and St. Giles's, Blooms bury, 30,000/. ; Clerkenwell 38,0001.—being twice the • amount of the revenues, and two thousand over, of a Prince who was honoured with the alliance of a daughter of the Royal House that governed this country. He meant - the reigning Prince of Hesse- Homberg, whose revenues amounted to 18,000/. The sum total of the parochial rates of Middlesex alone was 750,0001. of which 101,0001. were ap propriated to other purposes than tl'e support of the poor. It was natural and right that these pa rishioners should be extremely anxious to know in what way their money was expended. lf, in the expenditure of the public accounts, the utmost vigi lance was to be exercised, and the utmost jealousy to be observed, be thought, that in the mode of managing the parochial receipts, it was but fair that a corresponding vigilance and jealousy should be evinced. Thee inhabitants saw no reason why the management of their accounts should be confided solely to the coetroul of a few per sons in the parish, not honester than their neigh bour, and having no claim from their rank, their property, or any other consideration to the irre sponsible powers they exercised. They justly com plained of a body self-elected and self-controuled superintending their interests, and submitted that it was by no means either necessary for, or consistent with, the quiet and advantage of the country, that such an authority should exist in perpetuity. He was sure there was no person who would maintain that there was anything in the Constitution of this country which protected the exercise of this uncon troulable authority now exercised by the Select Ves tile,. Upon a popular authority, with which the House was familiar—upon that of Doctor Burn—it was stated that " the right of voting in the ap pointment of Select Vestries was anciently confined to the payers of scot and lot." No other person had a right to vote on those occasions. The practice by which the Select Vestries became a fixed body was of a revent introduction, and was by no means traceable to the period of their early formation. This right of election was exercised front year to year; and it was only of very moderate date that i many things had been introduced which had been attached to Select Vestries, and which they claimed the superintendence of as rights. For instance, the Nightly Watch Rates had been only established since the 9th of George 11. The Acts respecting paving and lighting had their date no farther back than the 10th of George 11., and the Act relat ing to the Poor Rates was only so far back as the 43d of Elizabeth. It was idle, therefore, to set up ancient prescription as a ground of protection for the powers exercised by Select Vestries. He did not now refer to such authority as was conferred by Act of Parliament on certain Vestries, but to cus toms which had been defended on the ground of prescription. He knew that there was a decision pronounced by what was generally considered good authority—by the Bench of this country—in which the protection of prescriptive right had been given to certain customs claimed and exercised by Select Vestries. He begged, however, that it might be understood that he did not consider himself bound by that decision, nor should the House consider it self bound by it. In looking to the Report of the trial at law which took place in 1691, he found in the Commentary upon it by Holt, that no reasoning or argument was mentioned upon which the decision rested ; but in a subsequent trial, which took place quit the right of prescription set up by the Select Vestry of the parish of Northallerton, tho plea of prescription was held on trial to be ill. The parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields was the parish in which these usurped customs most prevailed, to the griev ance and wrong of the parishioners. That parish of old contained a large district, which had been since subdivided into separate parishes. In old times it embraced the present parishes of St. Margaret's; St. John's, Westminster; St. Anne's, Soho ; St. George's, Hanover-square ; and St. Paul's, Covent garden. In referring back to the early period of the history of it. Martin-in-the-fields, it would be found that in the year 1606 the Select Vestry was chosen by the parishioners at large; and it was not till 1662 that a Select Vestry, clothed with the self-elective and self-controlled powers and authority exercised by the present Select Vestries, was granted by Gilbert, Bishop of London, and subsequently confirmed in 1673. The origin of the Select Ves tries claiming their authority from Act of Parlia ment was in the 10th of Anne, when a grant for building fifty churches was made, and certain au thorities were granted to Select Vestries appointed for the purpose of superintending the construction of these churches. Some of the powers granted for this temporary purpose had since been claimed, and continued, although the grounds had ceased to exist on which they were originally conferred. In 1695, great disturbance prevailed upon the subject of the management of parochial rates by Select Vestries, and in consequence of the petitions against them, which then poured in upon both Houses, leave was granted to bring in a Bill for the Regula _ _ tion of Select Vestries of Parishes within the Bills of Mortality. This sheaved that great discontent had at former periods prevailed upon the conduct of these bodies, and that the subject wax one fitting for legislative superintendence and revision. He would next refer to the petitions which had been presented to the House from the parish of St. Sa viour, Southwark, against the Acts of the Select Vestry of that parish. A trial at law had subse quently taken place, in resisting certain Acts of the Select Vestry, and it was decided that the custims set up by the Select Vestry were not good and rea sonable—the Select Vestry was quashed, and that parish now enjoyed the advantage of a popular Vestry. In 1715 this subject had engaged the at tention of the Legislature ; and on reference to the Journals of the House, it appeared that the Bill for introducing some regulations and control over the Se- lect Vestries of certain parishes had passed this House by a majority of 134 to 34. This Bill he certainly could not trace beyond this House, for it appeared that the other House of Parliament took no proceeding on it. In referring to the proceedings upon that Bill, he found that leave was asked to insert an item which had been omitted in the Report, which item was, a charge of 171. 19s. for a dinner at the Mul berry Tree, so that the expensive entertainments of Vie Select Vestries were by no means a modern practice; but it was an old-established custom, ap parently to provide themselves with a costly banqwet out of the parochial funds entrusted to their manage ment.—(A laegh.)—A Committee was appc.inted on the subject in 1741, which sat for a year, and in consequence of the Report of that Committee, a Bill was brought into the House of Commons, which on the 28th of March, 1742, was lost Hy a majority of 160 to 132. He had troubled the House with these statements, to show that the complaints against Select Vestries were by no means of a modern date. When the parishioners of St. Martin's-in-thi -Fields —a parish of great extent and population—fourid that they could obtain no relief from Parliament, they made application to the Court of King's Bench no fewer than four times. The first two of those applications were completely unsuccessful. The circumstances attending the second two were so ex traordinary and important, that he begged to call the particular attention of the House to them. In 1791 the case was tried before Lord Kenyon. It had been agreed between the complainants and the Select Vestry that the case should be tried on a feigned issue—namely, that from time immemorial the Vestry of the parish of St. Martin's had been a Se lect Vestry. Lord Kenyon, however, having stated, that if the number of the members of the Select Vestry had not always been fixed, there could be no legal cus tom, the Counsel for the Vestry established by evi dence that the number was 49; and the complain ants were defeated. Now the House would be very much surprised to hear, that 30 years after wards, when the books of the parish were looked into, it was found that the number was, not 49, but 22; it was found also that there had been perpetual variations in the number of the vestrymen, but that it never exceeded 22. Had the Jury, who tried the case in 1791, been aware of that fact, to a moral certainty they would not have returned the verdict which they did return. On that false conception, however, they gave their verdict in favour of the i Select Vestry, who continued to exercise their lle. gal power, levying rates, such as church-yard rates, which were most oppressive. In 1823, the case came again into the Court of King's Bench, and was again tried on a feigned issue. The Judge who pre sided was the Learned Judge who now presided in that Court, Lord Tenterden. It was a strange thing, that after the terms of this feigned issue had been, as before, agreed upon, between the com plainants and the Select Vestry, Lord Tenterden, for reasons no doubt satisfactory to himself, changed the terms of the issue, struck out the words " certain number," and inserted the w ords " Select Body of Parishioners." In consequence of this, the verdict was, as before, in favour of the Select Vestry, which body had ever since retained uncontrolled power over the affairs of that extensive and populous pa- rich. Other parishes had been more fortunate; but the House would be surprised to hear, that in one or two instances, the parishioners had taken the law into their own hands; and, as it was notorious that the Select Vestries had no legal foundation, they had succeeded. In the parish of St. Ann's, Soho, the parishioners broke open the Vestry, and burnt the books, and from that time the Vestry of that parish had always been an open Vestry. The parish of St. Paul's, Covent garden, had been also fortunate, for the question with respect to that parish had been tried before the Court of King's Bench, and although the Select Vestry bad usurped their assumed powers for a hundred and twenty years, they suffered judgment to go against them by default, and it was now an open Vestry. In St. Giles's, Cripplegate, custom was also pleaded; but the custom was found to be not sound and reasonable. So much for the Select Vestries who founded their claims on custom. There were others established by particular Acts of Parliament. The Select Vestry of the parish of St. James founded their claims on an Act so far back as the reign of James 11. Undoubtedly, in conse quence of a great increase of population in the parishes in the vicinity of London, and in London itself, it had been found necessary to apply to Par liameat to pass Acts, the object of which was to render parochial elections lets turbulent than for merly. As in States, so in Parishes, a state of anarchy naturally led to a state of despotism. Be fore the Bills of 1818 and 1819, there were mail parishes, the Vestries of which were open; but in consequence of the turbulence of those Vestries, the respectable part of the parishioners absented them• selves, and a few of the most turbulent parishioners obtained the whole management of the affairs of the parish. The Bills brought in by the Right Hon. Gentleman, in 1818 and 1819, and especially that in 1819, gave parishes the power of creating Se lect Vestries if they pleased so to do—Select Ves tries not self-elected, but formed on the principle, which, if the House would grant him the Select Committee for which he was about to move, he would propose to introduce with reference to the Metropolis, of election from the great body of the parishioners; a principle, the adoption of which had done great good throughout the country. There was one provision, however, of the Bill to which he had alluded, that, in his opinion, it would not be advisable to introduce into any measure respecting the Metropolis—he meant that regarding rateable property, by which i votes were given t o t h e respec tive parishioners n proportion to the amount of that property. The House would see by the'Re- , . • turns on the Table, that thetumber of Select Vv. tries in England and Wales, tiMer the' Right Hon. Gentleman's Act, was 2,868. In most of those parishes, the evils which existed a hundred and forty years ago, were as great as those now existing in the parishes to which he had been lately alluding. Those evils were happily described in a work by an author of much estimation, Da Foe, who wrote Robinson Cr'isoe. In a small pamphlet by De Foe, called " Parochial Tyranny," which, although it might be known to some of the Hon. Members, he had no doubt was not so familiar to the greater number of them as Robinson Crusoe (a laugh), he spoke of the Select Vestries of his time in these terms. The Honourable Gentleman here read the passage to which he alluded, and which was to the following effect :—" There is not a greater abuse in this country than the Select Vestries. By their tyranny they deprive u 3 of the enjoyment of our civil liberties; nor is there any prospect of redemption for us, and unless our gracious Sovereign interfere to rescue us from their jaws, they will continue to be our rulers for ever. All other bodies of men in this country are elected by the people; but these bodies are self-elected. The consequence is, that the abuses of -which they are guilty stink in the nos trils of their fellow-citizens. Parliaments are sep tennial, Mayors and Councils are annual, but Select Vestries are hereditary. As the Members of them drop off their places are filled up by others, who are prepared to concur with the main body; and thus the same system of tyranny is perpetually carrying on, to the great terror and injury of the poor pa rishioners. If, by some strange mistake, they happen to choose an honest man, be is either compelled by their conduct to absent himself from their meetings, or to sit in the Vestry-room like an owl among the other birds. Of the Select Vestries, it may be said, as it has been said of the Mint, ' let a man go in honest, and he will not come out so.' " The autho rity which he had before quoted (Dr. Burn) also described Select Vestries pretty much in the same way. He declared, that of all the modes of paro chial administration they were the most nefarious and unconstitutional ; that they deprived the great body of the parishioners of their rights, and the re spectable portion of them of the control which they ought to have over the affairs of the parish; and that they were found to be to oppressive and unjust in their proceedings, that there was a constant struggle making to abolish them, which was no wonder, especially in parishes where they were self-elected : as it could not be supposed that those who were guilty of evil prac tices would elect associates not disposed to connive at those practices, and concur in continuing them.— A stronger opinion adverse to Select Vestries could not be given. He was sure the House would recol lect, that in 1925, that most excellent man, not then in his seat (the Hon. Member for Waterford), in troduced into Parliament a measure for the correc tion of abuses in Select Vestries, or Vestries self elected in Ireland. The principle on which that lion. Gentleman proceeded, and successfully pro ceeded, was exactly the principle which he (Mr. Hobliouse) proposed to introduce—namely, that a small number of persons should not be allowed with out interference or controul to tax their fellow pa rishioners. Such a regulation would now be the more important as Roman Catholics were now, for the first time, qualified to rote in vestries. in con sequence of the measure of the Hon. Baronet, which received the support of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, a great reform took place in Ireland ; and he (Mr. Hob house) hoped, if his views were taken up by the Select Committee, which he trusted the House would appoint on the subject, to be able to introduce into this country most, if not all, of the pro visions ofthe Honourable Baronet's measure. The House would, he hoped, pardon him if he pro ceeded to state some facts connected with the conduct of the Select Vestries of the Metropolis. They had fortunately been able to get at some of the parish accounts; and some of them had been published by the daily press, which had done most essential service to the community on this subject. Of cowl's?, every lion. Gentleman was familiar with the list of items, among which was two shillings for rose-water, &c. &c., which constituted the gross sum of thirty-four pounds expended by the Select Vestry, of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, in a visit the pauper children of the parish at Norwood, at a dinner, at which the Rector was present. It ap peared, however, that these gentlemen dined very often together at the expence of the parish. The Hen. Gentleman here read a long list of charges to the parish to St. Paul's, Covent-garden, of from twenty to nearly sixty pounds each, for dinners for the Select Vestry. One most extraordinary charge on the parish of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, sanc tioned by the Select Vestry, was a charge of 115/. for burying the Rector of the parish, in 1815. ( A laugh.)—He very readily admitted that that gentleman was a most worthy man ; and he was quite sure that if he were alive, he would object to being thus buried at the expence of the parish.— (A laugh.)—lt appeared, however, that the funeral was furnished by some gentlemen with a strange name, Messrs. Bourdillon, and it did so happen that those gentlemen were not only furnishers of funerals, but Select Vestrymen at the time. Ile saw present several Hon. Gentlemen who were well acquainted with the proceedings of the parish to which he was adverting; and who knew that the vestrymen be longing to it frequently decided in one room on their own proceedings in another. Until lately, no accounts were exhibited to the parishioners; arid now those accounts were so made out, that it was a matter of great difficulty to understand them. By their con duct, the Select Vestry of the Parish of Sr. Paul, Covent-Garden, had, in a short period, raised the rate from 2s. 6d. to 3s. I id. in the pound. The practice of allowing Select Vestrymen, in one cepa c:ty, to pronounce upon their own conduct in ano ther capacity, was not confined to St. Paul's. In the parish of St. James, Westminster, the accounts of the Governors of the Poor had for ten years beer, audited by the Governors themselves, in their other capacity of Select Vestrymen, of which body they formed a great majority. Even in the best Select Veggies, all could not be done, by honest arid ho nourable men which they wished to accomplish. In the parish of St. George's, Westminster, until very lately, a pipe of wine was said to be drunk annually at the communion service. That quantity was now reduced by a third. He mentioned this circum stance, to show how sharply even honourable men mutt look about them, when its such situations, to do their duty. As an instance of the strange charges which were sometimes made, there was one among the parish accounts of Christ Church, Spi-' talfields, of 801. for carving the legs of the com munion table, and another for a cloth to cover the legs ; so that the parishioners could not see h all a d the sdoot hepx fi earp l: je e p: h i n sys r eh vi expensively yo lg and fifpsasiodrl...fco fora gilding herespf saair nd dsf or another hinges. t. • ie • IGseic.re George's, they gia etr g,hsyee, in another in which a reform was now going on, in the year 1820 twelve gentlemen of the Select Vestry voted 1,6401. for the repairs of the church, 9601. of which sum was shared among those who voted it. Another instance, which it was impossible to call by any other appellation than one of great au dacity, occurred in the year 1820, when the Vestry of the same parish took the liberty of burning all their accounts up to that year, thereby rendering all subsequent inquiries into their conduct nugatory and unavailing. But he must return to St. Martin's-in the-Fields. As the Select Vestry of that parish had formerly been the model for the Select Vestries of all the other parishes, so their accounts were more s ingular than those 'of any other parish. In 1818, the charge for the balance on the Easter Monday dinner of the parish of St. Martin's-in,the-Fields was 511.; in 1819, 44/. 10s. ; in 1823; 30/. 135.; in 182 G, when there was a stir in the parish on the subject, the gentlemen of the Vestry paid Mr. Cuff for one of the excellent dinners with which he 'sup plied his guests, only 14/. ; in 1827, the charge, be sides what the members of the Vestry defrayed out of their own poiskets, was 371.25. Another "strange charge in the Recounts was WM. 7s. 104. for Bibles and Prayer=booke. Finding the same amount every , year, he had been induced to inquire particularly into this charge, and he found that instead of for Bibles and Prayer-books, it was for a Bible and a Prayer-book, of which a present was made to the retiring Churchwarden. Another strange item of charge was of 481. to Messrs. Wood and Adams. On inquiring into the nature of this charge, he found that it was for publishing a sermon which had been preached by Archdeacon Potts on the death of Queen Charlotte. The sermon, though published at the re quest of the Vestry, had never sold, and this charge was to make good the deficiency. Sir R Birnie re ceived in balance of his account as Churchwarden the sum, which he afterwards gave to the parochial schools (and for which benefaction his name was put up in large golden letters), of 401. 16s. 3d. But would the House believe that this account of Sir Richard Birnie's had not been settled until 16 years after the charge had been incurred ? What could be thought of a parish which kept their books in such a state ? The House would hardly credit another circumstance, which Was, in fact, highly penal. On the watch account there was some years ago an annual charge of 130/. to Frederick Booth, the vestry clerk, on the pretext of being a gratuity. That sum had been allowed to remain unpaid, until it accumulated with interest to 3,5851.; and the parish was now paying it off by instalments, and continuing to pay interest for the balance. Added to this, the same Frederick Booth received from 150!. to 2001. annually from the parish for law ex pences. There was another item, small indeed, but of so extraordinary a nature as to be scarcely credible. It was as follows :—" February 5, 1813, for a petition against the Catholics, 51."—(A laugh.)—Now really this was a most extraordinary charge to saddle a parish with. He could perfectly understand how a rector, or how other inhabitants of a parish might be disposed to petition against the Catholics, but it did appear to him to be an al most incredible thing that they should charge a pa rish with the expellee of such a petition; especially when it was considered that parish formed part of a city which returned the two Members by which it was represented by an enormous majority, although those two Members had always been among the warmest advocates of Catholic Emancipation. It had been said by some people, that the members of Se lect Vestries were not paid; that they didgood for the love of good ; that they were philanthropists, and were actuated solely by a wish to benefit their neigh bours. This all sounded mighty well; but if the House looked at the way in which the sums at the disposal of the Vestries were managed, they would see how easy it was for a man without directly put ting any of the money into his own pocket to obtain great advantages and influence by putting it into the pockets of other people. An immense number of tradesmen were employed by the Select Vestries, over whom the members of those Vestries naturally exercised considerable influence. Not content with that, some of them thought it would be a good thing to nominate Members of Parliament. In Sep tember, 1806, the Select Vestry, of St. Paul's Co vent Garden, summoned a Board, at the request of Earl Percy, his present Grace of Northumberland, who desired to pay his respects to them previously to offering himself as a candidate to represent the city of Westminster in Parliament. In his Lord ship's presence a resolution was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried, " That in the opinion of the Vestry of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, Earl Percy was a proper person to represent the City and Liberties of Westminster in Parliament ; arid that the Board would give him their cordial sup port." He (Mr. Hobhouse) was pretty ivell ac quainted with the city of Westminster, and ought to be aware of every legitimate mode of making his political sentiments known to the inhabitants of that city ; and he maintained, that to go to a Vestry, and to receive from that body an assurance of support, was to invest it with more power than either law or usage intended it to possess. lie hoped, however, that these abuses would soon end, and that there would be no more charges for rose water at dinners, or declarations of support of an election candidate proceeding from Select Vestries. He must not omit to state that Mr. Paul, who was on the other side of the question, did the same thing as Earl Percy had done, and waited upon the Ves try, but experienced a very different reception from that body. It was undoubtedly true that according to the present system in some of the parishes go verned by Select Vestries, the parishioners had nevertheless the right of seeing the parish accounts. In the parish of Marylebone those accounts were published in forty closely-printed pages, which any one who went to a specified place might see. In St. James's, Westminster, on application, the Ves try furnished accounts extensive enough to cover the table of the House. But from these accounts little satisfaction was to be obtained. Nor was much satisfaction to be derived front any appeal to the Magistrates; for in many cases those Magistrates were themselves Members of the Vestry, or if not, the members of the Vestry were among their inti mate friends. He would mention a case which had occurred, without stating the names of the parties. There was a Magistrate who occasionally received the compliments of those who protested against the conduct of a Select Vestry. It happened that this Magistrate was a very agreeable man, and sung a very good song, and the first song which was sung after the dinner, of the Select Vestry in question, when assembled to settle the parish accounts, was always sung by him. When a compliment was made to this Magistrate of the conduct of the Vestry, his answer was, that he was satisfied that their conduct was justifiable and that he would not interfere. There was another case, in which lie felt no difficulty in mentioning the names of the parties concerned. When the parishioners of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, were so discontented with the conduct of the Select Vestry of their parish, that they applied for redress to Sir'Richard Birnie and Mr. Halls, they were re fused ; and it was his (Mr. Hobliottse's) duty to add, that their application was treated in a manner that was not becoming. The same applicants after wards made the same complaint to Mr. Minshull. He attended to them; by Mr. Minshull 80/, was struck off from the quarterly account of the Vestry; and by him the parishioners of St. Paul's, Covent garden, were first inspired with a hope that they might obtain an ultimate release from the grievances under which they laboured. In the parish of Hamp stead, the auditors of the accounts of the guardians of the poor were guardians of the poor themselves— and thus audited their own accounts. The natural consequence of all this was, that exceeding discon tent prevailed in all the parishes of the metropolis and its neighbourhood. Some of the parishes had had the good fortune in a great measure to emanci pate themselves from the thraldom under which they had so long laboured. St. Matthew,Bethnal-green, had done so; but hors ? He had forgotten to state, that the Select Vestry of St. Martin's in the Fields never held a vestry without barricadoing their doors. The Select Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, imi tated them. The parishioners broke in at the win dows, succeeded in their efforts, and, to a certain degree, secured an open election. St. Mary's, Isling ton, was formerly a close Vestry, but was sow an open one ; although still requiring reform. St. Luke's, Chelsea, was formerly a close Vestry ; it was now an open one ; and the good effects of the change were distinctly manifest ; for, in conse quence of it, and also of the mild and conciliatory conduct of the excellent rector of the parish, Dr. Wellesley, the parish-rate had been reduced from '4s. 6d. in the pound to 2s. 7d. (Hear, hear.) Wherever the principle of self-elected Vestries was preserved, there (with one excepth n) discontent prevailed. In the parishes of St. Martin'e-in-the Fields, St. John, St. James, and St. Margaret, the Vestries were self-elected, and all those parishes were discontented; St. Margaret's less than the others. In the parish of St. George, Westminster, the Vestry was self elected; but he must do the gentlemen of that Vestry the justice to say, that they took great pains to discharge their duty, and the consequence was, that the discontent was but small. In the parishes of St. Anne, Soho; St. Clement Dam's; St. Paul, Covent-garden ; , . Luke Chelsea, Paddington, and St Mary, Ne w tfs; ton, the election for vestrymen had become pap and in those parishes there Willi no discoattati In order to watch the proceedings of vestries,,e o rishioners were obliged to select committees, a nd lose e great deal of time and sacrifice much troub/a Those bodies would be perfectly unnecessary , ft! posing a system to prevail which gave the h r s - d, rishioners a legal direction of their affairs. It'i fe been commonly stated, if you introduce an eleer,';, I principle immediately you have p o pular tumu lt But, he would ask, why did such popular tutn a " t occur, but in consequence of the parishioner se : . 0 having the elective franchise? It was 0 1 d1 t other day that in the parish of St. G e orge, 8 100-6 bury, emancipation took place, and the parishiota had elected their churchwardens with perfect "' I L quillity. The election had continu e d until We"; at night, and no disturbance had taken place. S e t; ral Bills had passed, and others were now ie gress through the Houses, in which the electis'a principle was recognized ; and in a Bill lately ri al . e d for the emancipation of St. Marylebone, be f ° ,te every thing which he thought requisite and wr - i ,;. in his opinion, might easily be applied to 0 1 14 parishes. With respect to the parish of St. Ite Covent-garden, a Bill, giving it an open vestry , 7i - at passed that House without opposition; a nd, a° as he understood from good authority, it W ag 11 .0 likely to be opposed in the Upper House• the parish of tit. James, Clerkenwell, a fli all e ,' °- • elective principle had been introduced, and sots` had been done in the course of last Ir - e ' by the agitation of the question ; for, by I ;. 1 , 1% ; ference to the Returns of the Poor Rates, t parochial expenditure of 1828 was less thee t " s e of 1827 by 141,0001. This diminution, thoug not very great in amount, was important in °li; ment. He had a cut ious document, which he sr°", e o beg leave to read to th e House. It h a d referenc e ' , 14 the management of parishes, and would show b ee . ° the principle of the Right lion. Gentleman ern site, if brought into play, would operate in the ail a i tuition of the revenue of parishes The paritilv° Walcot, in the city of Bath, containing 27,000 in bitants, when under the management of ove not elected by and responsible to the people, hid, on an average of three years, ending in 1822, sP eli c o n annually n e t a ia c l i l l y p 7 a , u 9 p 4 e 2 r l. be fo ir r tg th , e l. p 4 o s o . r2rda.tes, Butth e as a: oo ere n g s e l 7 1 4 ,7 : parish came under the Act of the Right Hon. Gel tlernan (Mr. Sturges Bourne), on an average 1 1 :1 , three yea:'s, ending 1828, the expenditure was ° l , n e l d 4,0901.; and each pauper, upon an averages cost the parish only Ms. 7d. This was a s' e u 'i great reduction, and it showed how immense the difference made by proper and improper rnanag; ment. In the parish of Walcot, under the nevi fl ro tern, the utmost harmony prevailed. The Oc e t were often re-elected, and the accounts w aie er published and seen by everybody. Let the 1 1° Lt, but make a comparison between this parish and t:,' of St. Pancras. In the latter, under the head of p0, 5 i . . 7 rates, the parishioners, for 1826, were charge t t less than the sum of 30,6991., and the number of a: 4 poor relieved was only 773, for which was dolga. 8,6211. For the out-door paupers was charged 10,70 For salaries, prosecutions, county-rates, and o i_ A li/I :d expences, 7,748/. was charged, and to the hei': o f Gratuities was put down 6931. Thus nu g ke e 30,0001. put down to the poor, so much was "r o e for other purposes. Were St. Pancas goeerneuo 4 the parish of Walcot now is, instead of 773 nal l Y i ; e e being maintained for the sum charged, the 1 1 ° 111 e 1 would be 2,208. After these statements he tr na•- i that the House would allow that he had done st en T . thing towards making out a case. The MetrOpe"',,-h Members of that llouse, who experienced so 10 4. 0 trouble with reference to parish management, w°-S i s i do well to assist him in introducing some go ie e r. . system of controul and government. Me was A', that the difficulties of local reforms were very got' Private feelings of individuals were to be consulted; they did not like changes to be made, Jed t heir language constantly was, as long as you make' al charges against us, we will not assent to any refornl. The parish of St. James had set forth a curio 11 reason against any reform—they h a d identifies , reform of the parish with an alteration of thigl e rious Constitution. " What I" said they, "are yo gong to alter the Constitution, and won't you 1 .. ! 7, even our tittle parish alone ?" He would say th: the alterations that he was about :to prop e :, would, he felt convinced, prove beneficial lee parishes at large ; and he had received humor; communications from Clergymen upon the sot l e it e e ; in which they concurred in expressing how gle-Ci lea , would be to see the question set at reste jority of the Clergy, he believed, w e re not 5 of Select Vestries; but they would be in any scheme which would give the people of ej ire , parish a reasonable controul over their own an s, g 0 0 He would now say, that he did not intend to b 0 forward any Bill upon the subject, for it involved many conflicting interests; though, he shoul d e re that the interests of the parishioners at large vi s e paramount to all others. He should propose.° ees e lest Committee to inquire into the subject. He - t o happy that ho did not anticipate any oppositie%ed his motion, for great discontent at present pre/ oi ,! against the existing system. He wished to ado what none would dispute to be the broad rine of the Constitution—that taxation and represent:, tion should go hand in hand. Parishes ought lie: to be allowed to do what Parliament would ne v e . arrogate to itself. lie should now conclude by 0 1 °, 0 ing for " a Select Committee, to inquire into -ti", general operation and effect of the laws and wog: under which Select and other Vestries are constito' ed, in England and Wales." Mr. HUME seconded the Motion. lid glad to join Mr. Secretary PEEL was not prepared to s i . a any opposition to the motion, so far as inquiry e O O , be the means of establishing any check upon exPe e diture ; but in acquiescing thus far, he begged leel to state explicitly that he by no means acqui esce in the Hon. Member's charges against Select V e c , tries in general. Still less was he prepared to 0 65 quiesce in the proposition, that the system of Sel° e Vestries, as now established in London, shouldl/1" abolished. The Hon. Member had certainly P' duced instances of a very lax expenditure of ro e ehial funds, but it was unfair to include in a geo r ral charge those vestries which had properly :cc ducted their affairs, and without any blame attl o c ing to their expenditure or to their system et .e . 4 i t ; mination and audit. If the Committee mete ° 0 devising any plan which was better. than that. 1,4 practice for attaining an economical expendituro-• parochial funds, and a more efficient system .. i nfi r :j . neral management, he, for one, should be eau; 1 : - 0 ( he should be pat ticularly so at the establisbnitwe any efficient system of audit. He could not, uite ever, admit that any effectual remedy of the e,,e would be found in a system of popular elec t ' . e. The greatest advantage would be derived from by tention and application to parochial management' be gentlemen whose property and intelligence svotad a security that no mean and sordid objects woul d e e l ea fluence the decision of the vestry. Any system 1 "";', obstructed the exertions of gentlemen of this deaf. tier) would be objectionable. Any scheme which dr°,, c t from parochial concerns gentlemen of wealth, °'', o substituted those that would be elected if ail vi. e paid rates had votes in the election, would de . ; l ,ie utmost injury instead of effecting any benefit. ' begged the Hon. Member to recollect the rec 6 ,4l tnendation of the Committee on this subject; Wi'.' e ; was founded upon the fact, that in open VeSt r Zei, where the body was very large, no attention W,P7t ever was paid to business by the' Vestry, and'aP.!ii fairs at last devolved upon the overseers. Uriiv erl e , sutTrage and annual overseers were round not swer the purposes proposed. For these .ritsons' to Committee had recommended that power should :et , given to select bodies; and that the annual aprrj ment of overseers might be dispensed with id that officers might.be appointed, with .salaries; holding appointments for a longer period than to year. He was aware that in the cases to whic h. oce was alluding, Vestries were appointed by thostl i i i ing rates, and they were not'seif-elecied . ; ftint" the Committee of 1827 proved that ii 'did inifft s i', that because every pa; - son pail:lt - rites had a