Mr. Hobhousepresented a Petition which, he had to state, was most numerously and respectably signed—it was from the Freeholders of the parish of St. James, in the city of Westminster. It complained of a great grievance—it complained of the deprivation of an important national right—the loss of which had occasioned much and serious discontent throughout many parishes of the metropolis, and in various parts of the country. The grievance of which the petitioners complained was, the existence in their parish of a self-elected 1207 vestry; and they prayed that some measure might be adopted, consistent with the Report of the Committee which sat during two Sessions of Parliament. He was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of stating, that on the very first day after the recess he meant to bring in a Bill, the object of which would be, to remedy the evils which formed the subject of the present complaint. The Bill he intended to bring in would be modelled upon the former bill, or rather, would be an exact counterpart of it, in the form it had been presented in and before it underwent the amendments of a committee. He had conferred with his constituents on this subject, and they had declared, that they would rather have no bill at all, than the Bill as amended by the committee. They disliked Mr. Sturges Bourne's bill so much, that they would have nothing to do with any measure framed on its principles. He wished in an especial manner to call the attention of the House to the prayer of the present petition, for such was the indignation which select vestries had excited, that he would not answer for the tranquillity of parishes, if something speedy and decisive were not done, with a view to the modification of the present system. It was right the House should know, that several parishes in the metropolis had resolved not to pay the rates unless the abuse were done away. The people who returned Members to that House had not the smallest control over the parish funds, though they might amount to 70,000l. or 100,000l. a year. In his opinion, the parishioners ought to have a control over their own funds, and he would support no, bill which did not give them that control.
§ Mr. Cressett Pelhamthought many of the inhabitants of the metropolis favourable to Mr. Sturges Bourne's bill.
§ Mr. Denisoncorroborated the statement of the hon. member for Westminster, as to the great and prevailing discontent with select vestries.
Mr. Alderman Woodtrusted, that the hon. member for Westminster would persevere in the motion of which he had given notice. It was absurd to talk of parliamentary reform so long as parish authorities could tax the people without their consent.
Mr. Wilksstated, that the abolition of the select vestry in the parish of Shore-ditch was attended with a reduction in the 1208 rates of 2s.—namely, from 4s. 8d. to 2s. 8d. He entirely concurred in the statement, that parochial reform was necessary.
Mr. Humeinformed the House, that the select vestry of the Parish of St. Marylebone, much to their credit, stated, that they would not offer any opposition to their dissolution; and he would add, that nothing but a confident expectation that the system would be abolished, could keep the people of that parish in their present state of quiet and submission to the existing rates.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that select vestries were one of the greatest practical grievances of the present day, constituting not only a gross violation of every constitutional principle, but of every principle of common sense. There was something in them so preposterous, that an English House of Commons was called upon to get rid of them at once, and the mode of doing so was perfectly simple: it was by a recurrence to the ancient constitutional principle, that no man was to be taxed without his own consent.
§ The Petition to be printed.