The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-01 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE VESTRY BILL

Mr. ASTELL presented a petition from the Select Ves-
try of the parish of ➢larylebone, praying that they might
be heard by Counsel against the Bill.
Mr. Al ARRIOTT brought up the Report on the Dover
Harbour Bill, and the amendments were read a second
time.

On the motion of Mr. N. CALVERT, the Clapham
Roads' Bill was read a second time.

Mr. DENISON presented several petitions from Mort-
lake and other places, praying that the Hammersmith Bridge
Bill might pass into a law.—Also a petition from Mr.
R. Kew, of i.urrey Lodge, in favour of the Battersea In-
closure Bill.

Sir E. OWEN brought up the Report of the Canterbury
and Whetstone Railway Committee.
Sir F. BUItDETT said, that he had been intrusted
with a petition from the parishioners of Marylebone against
their Select Vestry. The grievances arising from this
system were loudly and universally complained of, and
needed only an inquiry to be as universally admitted. The
rates of the parish were enormous—not less, he understood,
than 200,0001. per annum. Those rates during the last
few years, under the management of the Select Vestry, had
increased to the amount of 50 or 60 per cent., and the parish
was now incumtered with a debt 0f230,000/. So many
petitions on this subject had been recently presented to
the House, that he thought it unnecessary to do more than
protest against the principle of Select Vestries, which was
unjust and abhorrent to the character of thid country.
Nothing could be more unjust than that any set of men
should be vested with such an arbitrary irresponsible power
over the property of the public. The petition which he
had the honour to present had received more than 5,000
most respectable signatures.
Mr. ASTELL said the parish of Marylebone was
managed in a way which gave very. general satisfaction.—
(Hear, hear. )—The petition was got up in a manner so
extraordinary, that if Hon. Members were ;tquainted with
the circumstances, they would pause before they conceded
to the views of the petitioners. The population of
Marylebone was 120,000, and the parish rates were about
100,0001. per annum. The present 'system worked
well for above sixty years, and the legislature ought not
to undo what had been so long in existence, He
(Mr. Astell) was himself a vestryman, and he could assure
the House, that the greatest attention was paid to the
greatest lailiirsoftie parish, at the head of which was the
landed proprietor in the parish, the Duke of Port-
land.
Mr. HOBIIOUSE observed, that the Hon. Gentleman
had very
o ryufn theile select unnecessarily
informed the House that he was a
Ivestry, as the fact could have ju.

ey
""
-7;
*red from the whole teaour of his arks. It wee an.
seatlid 10 rsproaoh the Mon. Altietsztem.w.ho had the cos-
duet of the Bill, as there waa, nothing uncornmen or in-
formal in the proceedings. Hituonlit scarcely believe that
he did . not neiespprehend hint, when he undeestood the
Rom Mend* *II6V. staid there wee no complaint. He
sulk was net astionain ntakirgi suck ai declemeioe et the
eery EmenWal WOia bfineing their
complaint Went t 1 Eigiokturei soda as the
actual eacitatieho aed "
yews:
true,tl thforeneiyin-t
of the pariah, this us amours short of an ab-
solute change in the meatrism. Ulm& .faire could
satisfy the complaining', Even although, all that had been
alleged in defence of the cast in*?
Inteomziewusouilnd be still
liabi.A4ts.g:tbr
whintelluesed "luduedallythebi;
own accounts from this inspection of the parialtionere ought
to be utterly abrogated. Ma. deemed the .ogle allegation
in itself sufficient to eat the iumeion at re*. Admitting
the respectability of those lea gentleman, it was rather
more probable that 5,000 should be riiht than 123.
The petition, however, he could not consider as issuing
from the vestry. It had been signed elerwhere, and
he therefore did not think it a veetry document. It
was perfectly natural, when men were accused, that
they should say they were innocent, but it was not quite
so natural that they should say let there be no in-
quiry.—(Hear, hear, hear. )—The averment of irregu-
larity in the reading of the Bill, and therefore want of .hoe
notice, was quite unfounded, as it appeared that the super-
scription of the list of grievances (which was sent round
to all concerned) announced the second reading of the
Bill for the 24,th of March, four o'clock. It would seem
aaTsnhdif any h
The
opinions
eshmoucposetndtbr:e.ropy to
urlodnhotaluivenecHeadof:i.inr
fGodrievnnutullsesmi
joianli'
siebsfeifanocrtteezti_s interests
Committee (that was all required by the parish), and he
felt no doubt that a fair statement of their giievauces
would be followed by the remedial interposition of the
House. He had read a pamphlet written on the subject
by toe Rector of Alarylebonne, and circulated by the select
vestry; but it was not the slightest answer to the allega-
tions of the parishioners.

Cu?. BAILLIE said, be was one of the Select Vestry
himself, and considered all the complaints made iu the pa-
rish imaginary. He agreed with the Hon. Member who
spoke last, that all the subject required was a fair dis-
cussion.

Mr. HUME said, that nine out of every ten persons
in the parish were disconcerted with the proceed-
ings of the select vestry. He believed the petition
now about to be presented spoke the sense of the pa-
rish fully and accurately.

Mr. Alderman WOOD declined at present going into
the merits of the Bill. He had done his duty in moving
formerly for a return of the accounts, which were refused
by the Vestry. By that refusal, however, they had most
distinctly shown their disinclination to enlighten the parish
on the subject of their expenditure. As to the second
reading of the Bill, he did not conceive that he had any
reason for self-reproach. lie had come to do his duty at
an early hour, and had acted in compliance with the advice
of others, as well as his own sense of its propriety.
Mr. GEO. DAWSON said the subject of select yestrie4

wag one of great local interest. He thought the parish
should have the power of controling the expenditure of the
parish money, and that any vacancies which occurred in
the select vestry should be filled up by the parish,- and not
by the vestrymen.

After a few words from Mr. Alderman WerTninAN and
Sir CifA3. BUURELI, the petition was laid on the table.
WANDSWORTH AND BATTERSEA INCLOStfF:

BILL.

Mr. Alderman THONIPSON presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Putney, against the Battersea Inelasure
Bill.

Mr. DENISON, in moving the second reading of the
Battersea and Wandsworth lnclosure. Bill, expressed a hope
that there would he no opposition offered to the sending of
the Bill to a Committee, as he was satisfied that there the
objections to it would be removed, and a satisfactory arrange-
ment had between all parties. One of the reasons urged
against the Bill was, that a great number of small cottages
would be built upon the fields when enclosed, and that a
vast quantity of poor inhabitants would be thus introduced
into the parish. Should the Bill go before a Con-twitter,
was instructed to say that the promoters of the measure wero
prepared to show that no such result would follow from the
passing of the Bill. In Committee, too, the objections urged
by the trustees of Mr. :llarshall could be satisfactorily ac-
oramodated. He was justified. in asserting that two-thirds
in value, and one half in number of the itic,prietors of the
land were in favour of the measure. The Hon. Member
concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman TttompsoN oppueed the -pith
was instructed to state to the House that the of
the resident owners of land, and the inhabitvits in the
neighbourhood of Battersea, were inimical t the measure.
The Worthy Alderman moved, as an ar:iendment, that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. MARRYAT opposed the Bill, and supported the
amendment.

Lord ALTHORP supported the Bill. He conceived
that it should at all events be allowed to go to a Commit-
tee. The Noble Lord proceeded to advocate the measure
upon its merits, and to contend that unless it could be
shown that the passing of the Bill would be a grievance, it
•hould not be opposed. In conclusion, his Lordship said,
:13 lie was indirectly interested, or nearly so, in the. success
of the measure, although he had taken this opportunity to
express his sentiments in favour of it, lie did not intend
to rote should the amendment go to a division. (Hear.)
Mr. D. W. HARVEY wished to know in what manner.
they were to protect the Metropolis, if this Bill pissed.
If the laud were not to be productive unless this Bill
oassed that might be a reason for agreeing to the passing of
the Bill ; but the fact was that the promoters of the Bill
(lid not intend to make this laud productive, otherwise than
of money to themselves, for their object was to build a new
city there ; the ground was to he let to any person what •
ever who would build houses of tiny description there,
to the detriment of the health of the inhabitantd of the
metropolis.

Mr. FERGUSSON paid that he should oppose the mo-
tion upon one ground, which was that there iTere no open
spaces near London ; and he was, therefore, opposed to
the inclosure of any commons which now exist iu the
neighbourhood of the metropolis.
Mr. SPENCER PERCIVAL said, that he felt bound
to oppose the Bill, for he could look at it in no other light
than as a Bill for establishing a general public nuisance.
Mr. BENETT argued in support of the Bill. Ile did
not see what right they bad to prevent the proprietors of
this land from building upon it. As it was, if they could
come to an agreement amongst themselves they might erect
houses all over it without asking for a Bill from that House.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that the health of the me-
tropolis was always considered a very strong ground of op-
position to any Bill for inclosing lands in its neighbourhood.
In the present case there could be no security against the
building of small houses.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT said he could not see why there
should be one law for land near the metropolis, and another
fur the rest of the country.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that he came down to vote against
the till, but the arguments in opposition to the Bill were
so extraordinary, that he should vote for its going into a
Committee. _

Alderman WAITIIMAN said, that the land in question
was below the level of high water mark, so that ally houses
that were built on the greater part of it must ba. of an in-
, when
thatlie n ast4
et lrite,
al
la,
ferior description. There were so few places of recreation
said, that he also was oppoied to
about the metropolis, that he was opposed to the iuclosure
of any othir commona.
Lord NORMANBY
the inclosure of lands in the neighbourhood of the metro-
polis ; but the present one differed from all others ; for, in
point of fact, the land was in a state of cultivation, except
appeared
darlaedy below the level
for about ten weeks in the year ; so that it could be of
little importance to the inhabitants of the metropolis.
of the river, the air could not be so salubrious as was sup_
posed. He felt bound to support the Bill, which he did
not think at all calculated to injure the metropolis.
For the second reading l2
Against it 92
Majority ,ln
--_._
The Bill was therefore thrown" out.
Mr. BYNG
Thel I r.
House BARING
ddivided,
,i
ds said,
presented a petition rom
the parish of Shored. ' itch, praying for a repeal of the In-
habited house duty.
Sir J. SCARLETT presented a petition from the In-
habitants of the parish of lluniar, in the county of Cavan,
praying for Catholic Emancipation.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Catholic In-
habitants of Maryborough, praying that an alteration may
he made in the Sub -letting Bill, under which they suffer
many grievances.
Mr. TENNYSON moved tlte.Order of the Day for the
third reading of the Pettryn Disfranchisement Bill, fur the
purpose of postponing it until the 190, day oi. April,
. next.
Several petitions in favour of the Catholic Claims were
presented by Mr. SPRIICE and Sir F. BURDETT.
Mr. Secretary PEEL gave notice that on Thursday
next he should move that the House, at its rising, should
..djourn to Monday the 14th day of April.
UNLICENSED RETAILERS OF WINE.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a p-titiou from
e Licensed Victuallers in and near London, prayint that