The National Register.
London, England, 1818-05-10 00:00:00

tall)

No. 535.—V0n. Xt.

POLITICAL DISQUISITION.

PARISH VESTRY UILL.

ANIONGST the many subjects which within the
course of the last week have occupied the attention of
Parliament, we cannot select one which appears to us
more generally to interest the public at large, than the
hid nos': betbre Parliament, for the regulation of Pa-
rish Ve trie:,. When we consider it with reference to
tie spirit of our national laws and institutions, we can-
not but feel impressed with a sense of its high import-
ance, and therefore, whilst there yet remains an oppor-
Utility for the influenceof public opinion, on the adop-
t on or rejection of the Bill in question, we conceive it
our duty holdly to promulgate those opinions which the
most deliberate and orimpassioned consideration of the
subject have impressed on our minds. ititout enter-
ing into any discussion en the expediency of those in-
stitutions for the relief cf the pour, with whom every
pariah of the kingdom is so inundated, or in the least
degree intefering in those regulations which any parish
may think it expedient to apply to its own particular cir-
cumstances; we will boldly assert, that the existing
mode of nominating the Parochial Legislature in this ,1
country, is the most perfect in its kind, net only tl:at has
been, but that perhaps can be devised, It so admirably
harmonises with those principles of practicable equality
which are the foundation of our Political Institutions;
it is sanctioned by such long usage, by such gantral
and unqualified approval, that we almost shudder at
the content/a-Arm of the eftleftvours made to introduce
innovation in the operation of it. Such, however, is
the case ! The Bill, it is true, does not go to the
extent of taking from those who before possessed it, a
voice in the regulation of parochial affairs, it is grounded
however on a principle, we conceive. far more dan-
gerous and invidious, the uneleal distribution of power
in favour of wealth. The =jerky of our readers are,
without doubt, acquainted with the purport of the Lill
in question ; but for the information of such as may
not be so, we will briefly state, that it is to add to the
power of the more opulent parishioner in all parochial
.iffairs, by allowing hint one additional vote for every
1. et which ha is rated from '251, up to 1501. by
which many individuals befiae limited to one vote, will
in future be entitled to six. 'I he alleclged motive for
this innovation is, that it will tend to secure the attend-
ance of the more opulent parishioners atVestry meetings,
from which, according to the statement of seine Mem-
ber of the Hoosc, they have been driven, or rather re-
pelled by the force of vq4,-ar clamour, and the rude col-
lision to which they have been exposed with Plehian
e/oeution. Another argument advanced in fitvonr of
this rneature, and by Tar the more ,specious of the two,
is, that the man who contributes more than his fellow
parishioner to the parochial expenditure, ought, in jus-
tice and reason, to have a stronger voice in all that re-
lates to the administration of it. That it is a duty
incumbent on the squire, as well as on the trade.enan
or farmer, to devote his exertions to the public good—
that the public have a right to demand it, are, we trust,
points of fact beyond dispute. The rich in neglecting
to attend theso meetings, have unquestionably been
reprehensible ; butt admitting; (merely for the sake qf
argument) that it is se. and that their motive for se do-
ieg, originated in the disgust they felt in plebian so-
ciety, don it not appear probable, that the proposed
remedy will tend to aggravate the evil ? Will nut
those, flora whom rank and wealth could not before
ensure respect ar.d deference, now feel themselves
:a tared by this new created distinction ? Will there
lzss clamour in ecnscquenee? Will the deportment
the lass towards the more opulent parishioner be less
likely to cite the disgust of the latter? These are
questions, we appit lietlde3) to which there can be but I