SELECT VESTRIES' BILL. (Hansard, 30 September 1831)

Sir John Hobhouse
moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Select Vestries Bill.

§ Colonel Lindsay
rose to correct a misstatement that had gone abroad. It had been stated that the hon. member for Middlesex had said in that House, that he had refused to pay the rates in the parish of Marylebone; this, however, was not the case, for he had applied to the collector on the subject, who had told him, that the hon. Gentleman had not on any occasion refused to pay, but that, on the contrary, he behaved like a very civil gentleman whenever he was applied to for the rates. With respect to the seizing of goods that had taken place in the parish, the process had been held back for a considerable time; and though it had at last been issued, the sale after all did not take place, as a large body of people had assembled to prevent it. He was a select vestryman of Marylebone; and he begged, in his own name, and in that of his brother vestrymen, to state, that they had no intention of supporting a self-elected system: on the contrary, they were anxious that the Vestry should hereafter be elected by the rate-payers; and, therefore, they had no intention of opposing the Bill of the hon. Baronet. But though they admitted its principle in this respect, there were parts of it which he thought were inapplicable to metropolitan parishes.

Mr. Hume
said, that certainly a little error had crept into the report of what he had said on a former occasion. He had not said that he had refused to pay his rates, for on the very morning that he presented the petition, the collector had been with him to state that he was apprehensive for the peace of the parish, in consequence of which he had addressed a letter to the Secretary of State. What he had stated on that occasion was, that he had entirely concurred in the prayers of the petitioners, who were not willing to pay taxes that were raised by an irresponsible body. He had no hesitation, however, in saying, that rancour was at its greatest height in Marylebone parish, and would not be appeased without some alteration. He was glad, therefore, to suppose that his Majesty's Ministers were to support the Vestries' Bill. If there were any misrepresentation in the petition, he could only express his regret at it; but he had asked the petitioners as to the truth of the statement, and they said, that they were ready to substantiate their state- 881 ments at the bar of the House. He called on the House to look at the confusion which now prevailed in different parishes,—to look also at Islington, where a greater meeting had assembled to resist the Select Vestry District Rates than ever was known before. He hoped that this state of civil war would be put an end to by the passing of the Bill.

§ Mr. William Peel
could take it upon him to state, that no Magistrate could hesitate to grant a warrant for distraining, if applied to by the parish officers.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, before the Speaker left the Chair, he was desirous of putting a question to the Under Secretary for the Home Department, respecting a pauper named Summers, who had been committed to prison.

Sir John Hobhouse
interposed and said, if the matter were likely to occupy the time of the House, he hoped the hon. Member would postpone his question until the Vestry Bill was disposed of, as it had been specially appointed for that hour.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, he apprehended it would not detain the House many minutes from going into Committee. He wished to know from the hon. Gentleman a fact respecting the pauper Summers, who had been taken before Mr. Walker, the Lambeth-street Magistrate, and committed by him to the House of Correction, to hard labour, he believed, and who had died for want of food. Now he was desirous of being informed, whether the pauper had really perished for want of food, and whether any inquiry had been made upon the subject?

Mr. Lamb
said, an inquiry into the circumstances had been made at the Home-office, and it was believed that the pauper had died of starvation, but no fault was to be attributed to the parish authorities, for no application for relief had been made by him. With respect to the man being committed for hard labour, he believed that was not the fact, and that he was properly taken care of at the House of Correction.

§ Lord Althorp,
on the clause empowering a majority of the rate-payers to insist upon the Bill's being adopted in their parish, being read, moved, as an amendment, that instead of "a majority," it should be necessary that at least two-thirds of the parishioners should sign the requisition for the 882 Bill being adopted, before it became imperative on the parochial authorities to introduce it. His object in moving this Amendment, was to guard against a too rapid change in existing parochial institutions.

Sir John Hobhouse
felt himself placed in a situation of great difficulty by the noble Lord's Amendment. He was thankful to Ministers for their support of the Bill, and was anxious to retain it, but could not accede to the Amendment, without materially marring his measure, and creating great dissatisfaction, not only in the minds of the inhabitants of Westminster, but of the adjacent parishes. The result of an extensive inquiry was, that it would be practicably impossible to obtain the signatures of two-thirds of the inhabitants to any single requisition, or in favour of almost any single measure, so that, to all intents and purposes, the Bill would be defeated by the Amendment, should the noble Lord press it earnestly to a division. Indeed, if he could act up to the extent of his own wishes, he would make the adoption of the Bill imperative on every parish, as the best, indeed only, means of putting an end to that dissatisfaction and annoyance which the close vestry system had generated in every parish in which it unfortunately existed; and had only adopted the present middle course with a view to reconcile all parties to its provisions.

MY. John Campbell
considered the close vestry system detestable. That system was like the Town Councils of Scotland; the members elected themselves. This species of management gave rise to all sorts of jobbing. He therefore hoped the Committee would give every facility to correct these abuses. It had been asserted that the Select Vestry system existed many centuries ago, and could be traced to the reign of Richard 1st. This, however, was not the fact, for it had not existed beyond 200 or 300 years. Not only jobs and extravagant expenditure were to be traced to close vestries; but numerous complaints of the parishioners, who, not knowing what was done, and seeing none of the operations of the vestry but the demands for money were generally discontented. He hoped that the Bill would be passed.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that no man could object more than he did to close vestries; but he must say (and he was of the Committee with his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, when that fact was stated 883 which he was about to mention), that evidence was offered, showing, in one instance, that the close vestry acted well. He certainly did think it advantageous to have a considerable majority of the parishioners in favour of the adoption of the Bill before the Bill could be received by that parish, and he thought the number which he had stated a fair one. He had supported the Reform Bill, because he believed that at least there was a majority of two-thirds of the population in its favour.

Mr. Hume
said, that the people were anxiously watching the Vestry Bill. He could assure the House, that it caused a great sensation among the people, more than any other subject except the Reform Bill itself. He knew that the people were satisfied with the Bill as it now stood, and he begged to suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of allowing the clause to remain as at present it appeared upon the Bill.

§ Mr. Protheroe
said, he was in favour of the clause as it now stood, and hoped that the noble Lord would not press his amendment. He condemned the system of close or select vestries, and likened them, especially in the small parishes of large and ancient cities and towns, to the rotten boroughs. He doubted much whether two-thirds of the inhabitants in those parishes to which he had made allusion dare oppose the select vestries, considering that the members of those select vestries were men, generally speaking, of considerable wealth, and very influential in their parishes.

§ Mr. Hunt
doubted whether, upon any subject, two-thirds of the householders could be brought to agree together. If it were necessary that two-thirds of that House must agree upon any subject, he begged to inquire how often the noble Lord would obtain the necessary majority. With respect therefore, to the proposition made by the noble Lord, if it were adopted, it would assuredly destroy the effect of the Bill. He begged to express a hope that the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

§ Lord Althorp
certainly thought his amendment an improvement to the Bill, as it would tend to prevent the hasty introduction of a change of system, but as he was a decided friend to the principle of the Bill, he would not press his amendment against the sense of the Committee.

Mr. Estcourt
regretted that the noble Lord was so ready to withdraw his amendment. He had attended the Committee on this subject, and thought that it was agreed to there, that something more than a majority should be required, to change the system of management in any parish. He thought, as the proposition was a new one, that the Committee ought not at once to proceed to the whole length proposed by the hon. Baronet.

§ Mr. George Robinson
wished the clause to stand as it was. The noble Lord's amendment was, in fact, that a minority of one-third should bind a majority.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, the Bill would not apply to parishes under the common law; it was only intended to apply to parishes in which a usurpation had taken place; and he was decidedly of opinion that a minority should not bind a majority in such parishes.

§ Mr. Byng
said, it was an unfortunate truth, that Governments never would reform themselves, and this rule held good with Select Vestries. Had the Bill passed last year, the parishes would have been in general satisfied, that persons rated at 25l. and upwards should have a vote; but now it was necessary to extend that right to all rate-payers.

Mr. Lamb
wished that the Bill should be carried with the consent of the whole House; but at the same time he thought the Amendment ought to be agreed to. He did not, however, wish to press it, as his noble friend was willing to withdraw it. He thought it indeed too much, that the management of a parish should be altered by a mere majority of one. If, therefore, the Amendment were persisted in, he should give his support to it.

§ Mr. John Wood
said, that if the hon. Member wished to see the Bill passed with the support of the House, and if he wished to pacify the people, he would not support the Amendment. The clause under consideration was only a preliminary measure to having the Act introduced into any parish, and did not imply an alteration in the parish management.

§ Lord Althorp
said, he only proposed to withdraw his amendment from supposing the Committee were against it, but if it were the pleasure of the Committee to support his amendment, he would not withdraw it. He was in favour of all ratepayers having a vote, but considering the property at stake in large parishes, he 885 thought the mere majority ought not to decide.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
would certainly support the Amendment. Property as well as numbers ought to be represented in parishes as well as in the Parliament.

§ Mr. Protheroe
said, it was possible that in small parishes the parish funds might be appropriated to electioneering purposes, by the select vestries. He suspected this might be the case in the city he had the honour to represent. Whether a simple majority or two-thirds of the rate-payers were to have the control was indifferent to him, as long as the whole measure was carried, and an end put to the abominable system of select vestries.

Sir John Hobhouse
said, that the Bill did not alter the constitution of any parish. The original Bill did, but the present Bill was not like the original measure. The change would be a gradual one. The old vestry would only go out by thirds, some of them remaining in office, therefore, four years after the Bill was passed. If he thought the Bill would affect property, he would not on any account have brought it forward. They were all interested in protecting property. All that he wished was, that those who had to pay the rates should have the control of the expenditure of them.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
hoped the Committee would agree that two-thirds should not be required, and would reject the Amendment. He believed it was notorious, that the greater number of persons possessing property were against the Select Vestry system in their respective parishes. If the Committee divided he would support his hon. friend.

§ Sir George Warrender
said, he had known property out-voted by rate-payers, and he concurred in the Amendment most cordially.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
opposed the principle of the measure; it was the first step towards universal suffrage; and he had no doubt it would create great confusion in such parishes as adopted it. Its effects would be, to take the management of parishes out of the hands of the chief owners of property, and give the control to those who were probably not rated at one-tenth of the amount. He had a petition which he was looking for an opportunity to present, from several of the Vestrymen of St. Pancras, who, he was fully 886 satisfied, had done their duty in an exemplary manner. He feared the proposed system would be found impracticable. They were attempting to introduce a measure which would not work well, but from which, when once adopted, they would find it impossible to recede; he should support the Amendment, although he did not think that it was what it ought to be; still it was better than a simple majority.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
was quite prepared to admit that the system of select vestries required amendment. In his opinion, and he had long entertained it, the whole of those who paid rates were entitled to vote in the selection of those who were to have the power of expending them. Entertaining such a view of the case, it was a matter of indifference to him whether the Bill was to be adopted in a parish by a bare majority, or as the noble Lord (Althorp) proposed, by two-thirds of the rate-payers, and on that point, therefore, he had no objection to go along with the noble Lord. The question, however, of the proportion of votes to be given for the protection of property, was a distinct one, and entitled to much more serious consideration. For his part, he approved much of that part of the bill of Mr. Sturges Bourne, which gave to the extent of six votes in proportion to property, as a protection to the great rate-payers, and for the purpose of preventing their being overpowered by the smaller rate-payers, who contributed but a small proportion of the money to be expended. For the present, he would support the Bill, but he hoped to see some of its provisions modified before it passed the Committee.

§ Colonel Lindsay
said, the principle of the Bill was, that all rate-payers should be on an equality; it was therefore obvious property could have no great influence. With the exception of the Reform Bill, he considered this the most important measure that had been before the House for some time; as it would give to a majority of the rate-payers, without reference to property, the controlling power over the funds of the parish.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
subsequently moved, as an amendment, that the parishioners were to have votes according to their property, to the extent of six votes, in the same manner as it was prescribed by the bill of Mr. Sturges Bourne.

Sir John Hobhouse
reminded the hon. Baronet, that his constituents had rejected the Bill before, in consequence of its containing a clause of that kind, and he should most assuredly oppose such an amendment, by every means in his power.

Mr. Hume
hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his proposition, particularly as he expected to satisfy the hon. Baronet that it was unnecessary, by shewing him, that 5s. paid in rates by a poor man, was of more importance to him than twenty times that sum paid by the rich. On this point the Magistrates were all agreed. The smaller householders ought to have some control over the funds of a parish, as they were so much interested in taking care of them. Another thing was, the poor generally attended in person, while the rich rarely did so, and left their votes at the disposal of some proxy or agent. On this ground alone he was prepared to oppose cumulative votes.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
said, that he should postpone his proposition till the bringing up of the Report, and in the meantime give it further consideration.

Mr. Hume
said, he had great doubts of the propriety of allowing a Vestry to consist of so many persons; the consequence would probably be, that each would trust to the other, and the business be generally transacted by certain parties who would benefit by it.

Sir John Hobhouse
said, that the numbers proposed were not fixed by him; he wished them to be less, but there had been such a difference of opinion in the Committee, and so many objections made, that they were compelled to come to a sort of compromise.

§ Mr. William Miles
said, in his opinion the qualification was too low; he wished it to be at least 20l., and he knew the members for Bristol had been applied to, to support such an amount.

Sir John Hobhouse
said, he was an enemy to any amount of qualification, on the principle that the parishioners themselves were the best judges of whom they would select; but as it was rather a delicate thing, he had yielded his own opinion to the sense of the Committee. He saw no reason why a 20l. qualification should be especially wanted in Bristol. Could the hon. member for New Romney imagine that the rate-payers would choose persons unfit for office?

§ Mr. Protheroe
said, as one of the members for Bristol, he had not been aware that his constituents desired the species of qualification advocated by the hon. Member; on the contrary, from the returns of several parishes, he believed it could not be applicable, for there were in them not enough persons rated above that amount to form a vestry. It was absurd to suppose that parishes were not sufficiently alive to their own interests, to select proper candidates, and many persons from the spread of education, were equal to the situation, although they might dwell in houses of small value.

§ Mr. Protheroe
said, he wished to have an amendment applied to the clause, to the effect that particular Local Acts relating to Bristol should be untouched by its operation.

Mr. Hume
had also two amendments to suggest to this clause; the first was, that the numbers of a vestry to be a quorum, should bear some proportion to the number of vestrymen; for instance, where the number was thirty-six, they provided that nine, or one-fourth, should be the quorum, but that number was not increased when the number of the vestry was 120; he would therefore suggest, that where the number was above thirty-six, one-fifth ought to be present to enable them to act. The other amendment he wished to propose was, to insert a provision in the clause, to make it imperative that the proceedings of one meeting should be sanctioned by the next, before they became final.

§ Colonel Lindsay
considered the suggestions of the hon. member for Middlesex 889 an improvement, and he begged leave to second them.

Sir John Hobhouse
said, the check of the popular voice prevented the necessity of fixing the number of the quorum at more than nine, and that number had been adopted from the difficulty of procuring the attendance of a larger number; but as under this Act it was probable the parishioners would select only such persons as would attend, he could have no objection to an increase of their number. With respect to the other suggestion of the hon. Member it was quite usual at present that the proceedings of one parish meeting should be sanctioned by the next, and no doubt the same forms would be continued; but it probably might be as well to insert a proviso in the clause to effect that object. As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bristol, the Act only affected all other Acts so far as they related to the constitution of vestries.

§ Mr. William Miles
said, he had been requested by a Select Vestry in Bristol to move the insertion of a clause, providing that nothing in this Bill should interfere with the rights of Select Vestries over charitable bequests. The hon. Gentleman therefore proposed the following words should be introduced.—"To exempt such Select Vestries as have alone control over Church Charities from the operation of this Act, due provision being made for the annual publication of Accounts."

§ Mr. Protheroe
opposed the introduction of such a clause, and stated that the opinions of the people of Bristol in general were favourable to the Bill as originally brought forward by the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster. Indeed, the fact that this proviso came recommended by a Gentleman who was not regularly connected with that city, sufficiently proved that the majority of the inhabitants would be adverse to its adoption.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
observed, that the hon. Baronet might accede to the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for New Romney, if he deemed it otherwise unobjectionable, as it would not in any degree impair the principle of the Bill.

Sir John Hobhouse
thought the Select Vestry unfit to be trusted with the distribution of the funds of charitable institutions, and had reason to believe that 890 the people of Bristol particularly desired to be included under the operation of the measure. He therefore could not consent to comply with the request of the hon. Member opposite.

§ Mr. Miles
withdrew the Motion.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that a statement had been made on a former occasion, that the Mayoresses of Bristol had misapplied some charitable funds intrusted to their care, and he certainly must attribute to a want of gallantry the fact that no defence had been made for them at the time this statement was made.

§ Mr. Protheroe
begged it to be understood, that he had never sanctioned any such statement as that now alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, for he well knew the difficulty of ascertaining anything of the facts or records in the archives of the Corporation of Bristol, which he did not believe anybody ever saw except the members of that Corporation. The hon. and learned Member himself was one of them, but he believed that even he was sworn to secresy on the subject.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that in 1812 he presented a petition to that House, on the subject of the Bristol election, and then, by virtue of the Speaker's Warrant, he had enjoyed the privilege of consulting the archives of that city. The use he made of this opportunity was, to satisfy himself of the fact, that the charitable funds intrusted to the Corporation were grossly misapplied, and even the names of the persons who had so misapplied them were registered in the Records. The mode in which they were expended was, by applying them to election instead of charitable purposes; and that to which he more particularly alluded was the Lying-in Charity, which was under the direction of the Mayoresses of Bristol, who, out of a population of 90,000 persons, could not find sixty poor lying-in women who were fit objects for the charitable donation of 2l. a-piece, but these Mayoresses, forsooth, must go and apply that fund, which ought to have been sacred, to election purposes. For years past one of the Members of the city of Bristol had been mainly returned by the misapplication of those funds over and over again, and yet one of the hon. Members, when examined before the Committee on Charities up-stairs, declared that those of the city of Bristol were well applied.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
indignantly re- 891 pelled the accusation, and said, he had no doubt if the hon. member for Preston had fully inspected the accounts, he would have found that the balance of the sum not distributed within the year was carried forward to be distributed by the next Lady Mayoress.

§ Mr. Hunt
was ready to repeat his former statement, and insisted that the funds had not been properly appropriated, and that they had been perverted to electioneering purposes by the Mayoresses to whom their distribution had been intrusted.