rose to make his promised motion with respect to the Regulation of Parish Vestries. He said, that it would be necessary for him upon this occasion to take up more of the time of the House than he should have felt inclined to do, were it not that he was impressed with the great importance of the subject which he was about to introduce to their notice. Without attaching too great or any factitious importance to that subject, he would say that it was one which at all periods had very much engaged the attention of the people of this country,—that it was one which well deserved the general attention of the people, and one which, on various occasions, in recent periods of our history, had been agitated even in that House. He was perfectly well aware, that there existed a great number of im- portant topics which hon. members were in the habit of bringing before the House, and to which they might conceive they had more reason to claim the attention of the House; but he was also convinced, that in looking fairly at this subject, and examining its details, it would be found to be one materially involving the interests, the comforts, the happiness, and the well-being of society; and as such he considered that there were few questions which more deserved the serious attention of the representatives of the people. He was not only impressed with the importance of this subject, because he now brought forward a question regarding the parochial management of this country, but he was also impressed with the importance and necessity of such a measure for this reason,—that whenever applications had been hitherto made to the House of Commons for the alteration of the local government in individual parishes, the answer uniformly to the supporters Of such applications was, that they should bring forward some general measure respecting the system of parochial management throughout the country, and that then, and then only, the subject could be properly discussed. He regretted that this subject had not fallen into abler hands—he regretted that it had not been brought forward by some member of his majesty's government; but, at all events, he trusted that he should have the support and co-operation of the government in the measure which he was about to introduce.

He should now proceed to the details of this subject. At this moment the assessment for parochial management, and of course for the support of the poor, was so immense as to afford convincing proof of the importance of this subject. It appeared, from a return presented in February, 1828, that the poor-rates in England and Wales amounted to 7,784,356l.; and that out of that sum 1,362,000l., being about seventeen per cent upon the whole sum, was devoted to other purposes besides the relief of the poor. What use was made of that money he was not enabled, looking at the return, to state; but, of course, a considerable portion of that money was expended—indeed, the fact was quite notorious that it was so—upon the management and collection of that enormous sum. Honourable members would have some notion of the importance of this subject, when they learned, that the enormous sum thus raised was a great deal larger than what was raised in many states of Europe for their whole revenue. It amounted to nearly 8,000,000l., and if to this were added the 4,000,000l. which were raised for other objects,—for paving, lighting, watching, and church-rates; and the collection and disposal of which were subject to parochial management, they had thus a sum amounting to almost one-fourth of the entire revenue of the country. Last year the whole revenue of the United States amounted to only 5,539,000l. The revenues of Turin, the two Sicilies, Spain, and Portugal, all put together, amounted to 12,500,000l.—a sum exceeding only by half a million the sum levied by parochial rates in this country for the support of the poor, and for other objects of parochial government. That sum, in fact, now exceeded the whole revenue raised fifty years ago for all the objects of the government of England. In 1795, the poor-rates amounted only to 2,500,000l. When they came to examine the details of individual, parishes, hon. members would be surprised at the enormous amount of the rates levied on some parishes. In the parish of Marylebone there were one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitant householders, and the poor-rates in that parish amounted to 173,000l.—a sum twice as great as that raised for the revenue of seven German duchies. In the parish of St. James, the parochial rates amounted to 63,000l.; in St. Giles's and St. George's, Bloomsbury, to 50,000l.; and, in the parish of Clerkenwell, to the sum of 38,000l., being twice as much, and 2,000l. over, as the entire revenue of a state which had been honoured by the alliance of one of the princesses of this country, the Duchy of Hesse Hombourg, for the government of which but 18,000l. was levied annually. The poor-rates in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-fields amounted to 30,000l., and in the parish of St. Pancras to 34,000l.; and the whole of the rates levied this year in Middlesex amounted to 799,000l., out of which the sum of 101,000l. was employed for other purposes than the relief of the poor.

Now, it was natural for the inhabitants of these parishes, when they saw such a large sum of money thus expended,—when they beheld moreover the jealousy with which the House and the country watched over the proceedings of such public functionary as the Chancellor of the Exchequer,—it was quite natural that they should inquire into the proceedings of those to whose management their parochial concerns were intrusted, and whom they looked upon as neither higher nor better than themselves. It was natural that they should be anxious to know whether parliament would sanction the continuance of those self-elected, uncontrollable vestries for the management of their parochial affairs.

Some hon. members might maintain, that the constitution of this country countenanced the existence of such bodies as these self-elected uncontrollable vestries, but he would refer them to the opinion of a popular author, who was in the hands of every gentleman—to prove the contrary. Dr. Burn states, that under the common law of this country, the parish-rates consisted of scot and lot—that no person had a right to attend vestries but those who paid these rates—but that all the parishioners had a right to be present. He proceeded to state, that afterwards, for the general convenience and better dispatch of business, the people deputed certain individuals to manage their parochial affairs; that, in the course of time, the inhabitants of those parishes thus came to lose their right, not only to be present at and to participate in the management of their parochial concerns, but even the right to elect those persons who were to manage them for them; and that thus the select vestries came to be established. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had heard it declared from the bench in this country, that there existed the sanction of ancient prescription for these select vestries; but he dissented entirely from the doctrine, that there was any real, old, ancient custom to sanction their existence. There was no right attached to these select vestries, which was not of very modern date indeed. Their power of levying watch-rates existed, under the 9th of George 2nd. The power of levying the paving and lighting tax was conferred by the 10th of George 2nd; and the poor-rates were levied, as every one knew, under the 43rd of Elizabeth. It would be found, therefore, that there existed no ancient prescription to sanction the powers exercised by these select vestries. He had already shown from Dr. Burn the manner in which they had been originally constituted. That writer adduced no authority to show that they had any ancient custom or pre- scription in their favour. He mentions a case which occurred in the year 1691, where an issue was tried at law respecting a select vestry, and its power was countenanced and confirmed by the decision of the court; but he adds, that the original commentator on the case says, that the reasons and arguments not having been mentioned, it was impossible to say upon what grounds the opinion of the court was formed in that instance. In the year 1740, a similar issue was tried respecting the parish of Northallerton, and in that case the ancient custom, which was set up by the select vestry, was held by the court to be "ill." He would go to a case which bore more on this point than any to which he had alluded—he meant that of the parish of St. Martin-in-the-fields. That parish formerly embraced the parishes of St. Margaret, Westminster; St. John; St. Anne, Soho; St. George, Hanover-square; and St. Paul, Covent-garden; and it afforded a curious instance of the manner in which the select vestry had gradually usurped the management of the affairs of that parish. The parochial book of the parish of St. Martin-in-the-fields commenced with the year 1576. At that time, no select vestry existed in that parish. The vestry was first mentioned in the book under the date of 1660, when it appeared, that the members of it were chosen by the parishioners at large. A select vestry, on the principle of the present one, was first constituted in that parish by Gilbert Sheldon, bishop of London, in 1662, and it was afterwards confirmed by Humphry Henchman, bishop of London, in 1672. The present select vestry in that parish was established by the operation of the 10th of queen Anne, for the building of certain new churches. By that Act commissioners were appointed, with power to nominate certain persons as the vestry to manage the parochial affairs, and on their decease their places to be filled up by other persons nominated by the vestry thus appointed. It was plain, then, that the select vestry in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-fields was first constituted under the 10th of Anne, in its existing form. It appeared that the opposition to the select vestries manifested itself at an early period. By reference to the Journals of the House it would be found, that on the 15th of January, 1695, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the Regula- 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 quashed—and 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 49l. 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's-bench 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 had, in consequence, governed ever since; with what benefit and effect the House should presently hear. They now possessed an uncontrolled power over that extensive and populous parish, and it was right the 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's-bench, 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 1819, before parliament. That of 1819 gave to parishioners, in the country, the power to elect vestries, and discountenanced the then prevailing system of self-election.

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 septennials,—the mayor and common council annually; but the select vestry is perpetual; for, as the old members drop off, none are put in their place except those who are willing to pursue the old practices; so, rogues succeeding rogues, the same scene of villainy is carried on to the terror of the parishioners. Besides, while the election is vested in themselves, there is no hope of amendment. If, mistaken in their object, they happen to choose an honest man among them, he is compelled to absent himself—for he is placed in a situation like the owl amongst birds. He who becomes a member of a select vestry, like a man who goes to the Mint, if he go in honest, he it perfectly sure not to come out so."

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 eighteen gentlemen, who went to inspect the pauper children, at the expense of 49l., including rose-water for washing the hands, and 18s. worth of noyeau, for settling the stomach. He adverted to the many visitation dinners of Messrs. Joyce and Richardson; which, for several successive years, had cost the parish from 30l. to 40l., and in one instance as much as 47l. 11s. He observed one item of 115l. 8s. for burying the rector in 1817. Now, he could see no reason why the rector should be buried at the parish expense; and he was sure that if the rector had supposed that he should have been thus buried, he would have objected to such a proceeding. It appeared, 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 80l. 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 1,640l. for the repair of the church which sum was taken from the poor-rates, and no less than 960l. was shared amongst four of the members of the vestry. In St. Martin's, Westminster, which was formerly considered a model for other perishes, he found the same extravagant system was carried on. He found in the accounts the following items:—1818, balance of Easter Monday dinner, 56l. 16s.; 1819, ditto, 44l. 10s.; 1823, ditto, 30l.15s. 6d.; in 1826, the balance had diminished, as only 14l. of the parish money was to be handed over to Mr. Cuffe; but in 1827, the select had run up a balance of 27l. 2s. 6d., exclusive of what came out of their own pockets. He observed an item, for Bibles and Prayer- books, 33l. 10s. 7d.; nearly the same amount was charged every year, but instead of being for a number of Bibles and Prayer-books, he found that the charge was for one Bible and one Prayer-book, as a present to the retiring churchwardens. He could not avoid noticing another very curious item; namely, 48l. 12s. 9d., due to Messrs. Wood and Co., for the archdeacon's sermon. On inquiry he learned, that this was a charge for printing a sermon, preached by archdeacon Pott, on occasion of the death of Queen Charlotte. The sermon, it appeared, did not sell, and then the parish was made liable. There was also an item, "Sir R. Birnie, in balance of his account, as churchwarden, 40l. 16s. 3d." This he had handed over to the parochial schools; for which, of course, sir Richard's name "stood rubric on the walls" as a contributor. But it should be remarked, that that account was not settled until sixteen years after it was alleged to have been incurred. He observed, too, a charge of 3,550l. as a gratuity to Fred. Booth, esq., vestry-clerk, on account of the watch-committee, which had been accumulating, with interest, for several years, the annual sum being only 130l. But one of the most extraordinary items was—"Feb. 5. 1813, for a petition against the Catholics, 5l." Now, certainly, the vestry had a right to petition against the Roman Catholics, if they thought fit; but that they should have the absurdity—or, he would call it, the audacity—to charge the parish 5l. for the petition, was not to be borne.

The hon. gentleman then alluded to the electioneering manœuvers 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 conclusion: 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 sufficient not only to fill the table, but the hollow under it; but from them very little satisfaction could be derived; and it was of little use to appeal to the magistrates, who were either select vestrymen themselves, or were intimate with that body. He did not wish to state names, because it was a serious charge; but the whole matter might come out some day. One gentleman, a magistrate, declared, that he looked at these accounts, and was ready to hear complaints,—"but," said he, "I must be satisfied with the vestrymen's general oath; I cannot go into any particular allegation." A dinner was given on the passing of these accounts, and the individual in question, being a pleasant man, who sang a good song, always attended, and, he believed, was in the habit of singing the first song after dinner. When the parishioners of Covent-garden were so extremely discontented, they applied for relief to sir R. Birnie and Mr. Halls; but those gentlemen refused to grant them any relief, and he was sorry to say, that the applicants complained of the manner in which they were treated by those magistrates; which, it appeared, to use no harsher times, was not becoming. The same persons applied to Mr. Minshull, and he did afford them relief. He struck off, from one quarter's payments, no less than 80l.

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, Bethany-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 the mult 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, Covent-garden, 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 showed what effect the elective principle would produce. In a parish in the city of Bath, the averages expense of the poor-rates, in the three years ending in 1822, was 7,942l., and that the cost of each pauper was 9l. 4s. 3d.; but under the act of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) opposite, the expense was reduced to 4,090l., add the cost of each pauper to 5l. 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 36,999l., not half that sun was expended in support of the poor.

He thought that he had made out something like a case far the interference of the House. It was his intention originally to have moved for leave to bring 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."

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. member 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 expenditure of parish funds ought to be checked as far 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 substituted, 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 concurrence in all the views of the hon. member, 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 and for it. Undoubtedly some improvement might possibly take place by the adoption of the recommendation of the hon. member: but he believed that the present system furnished a more effectual check upon the abuse of local expenditure, by committing its control to men of character and affluence, than to such persons as would stand a contest at general parochial elections.

said, that the select vestries under the 59th of the late king were totally different from the select vestries in London. The former were elected annually, and were obliged to report to the general vestry. He was sorry that two bodies so different in their nature were called by the same name. He trusted that hon. members, in considering this subject, would recollect that nothing could be more inconvenient than to lay down one rule for the regulation of all the parishes in the country. The rule which might be very beneficial in a country parish with a small agricultural population, might be very ill calculated for a populous parish in a large town.

said, he did not rise to oppose the motion, but he was quite convinced that the select vestries of many of the parishes referred to by him—Pancras amongst rather—could prove themselves not liable to the sweeping charges of his hon. friend. His hon. friend assumed, that all the members of select vestries ought to be appointed; but he was satisfied it would be found, that the greatest difficulty was sometimes experienced in persuading respectable persons to undertake that very troublesome and onerous office. His hon. friend had alluded to certain alleged abuses—parish dinners, parish favouritism, and parish litigations; but, in an case of universal suffrage, who would be the persons likely to be elected? Not men of rank and affluence, but attorneys who might not have too much practice, and tradesmen whose convenience or profit it might be, to supply to the parish the articles in which they dealt; and in that way would the evil be increased instead of remedied. There might be cause for inquiry in some parishes, but he thought in that others, not deserving it, should be included it in the obloquy sought to be thrown on the system. The evil lay not in the system, but in the want of proper application of it.

said, he was not inclined to throw the blame on persons which belonged to the system. Unless parishes should have the power to direct an investigation of their expenditure, and to remove those who should be found to have acted improperly, there could be no good result from any system whatever. He regretted to hear the right hon. gentleman say, that the system which had so well succeeded in the distant provinces was not applicable to the metropolis. Was it intended to be said, that the intelligent and well-informed inhabitants of London were not capable of doing that which persons less qualified to judge and to act had done with such beneficial effect? There might certainly be an indisposition, on the part of some persons, to perform parish duties; but that might be traced to the election of those persons without their consent. He was of opinion, that the individuals to whom the management of the funds of a parish was intrusted should be persons elected by those who paid the rates; and that the accounts of the parish should be in all cases audited by others than those with whom the appointment to make the disbursements rested.

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.