SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 February 1879)

§ MR. W. H. JAMES,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it provided for the nomination of the overseers of particular districts by any independent ratepayers in the place of the members of a customary vestry who were co-optatively elected. He had been anxious a year ago to obtain a Return from the Local Government Board, in order to show how many of these select vestries existed. The expense and difficulty in the way, however, were so great, as he was informed by the President of the Local Government Board, that he was unable to grant it. That select vestries were numerous, especially in the North of England, was notorious. The state of the law relative to the vestry and the overseer was extremely confused and anomalous. They originated at a time when the system of Local Government was entirely different to that of the present day. He was not prepared at that time of night to go into long statements; but wished to point out that it was a very considerable hardship where an overseer received his nomination from the members of a select vestry merely, the ratepayers having no voice in the matter. He knew of a particular instance where independent ratepayers attended at the sitting of a select vestry, and pointed out this injustice. Yet the nomination by the ratepayers in this case was refused by the chairman of the meeting. He did not think it fair that a matter which affected the ratepayers of a particular home parish should be decided by a self-elected body who often lived at a considerable distance. The origin of the select vestry by usage was at a time when the whole of their parochial affairs relating to civil government were in the hands of ecclesiastics. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he was always reluctant to oppose a Bill promoted by a private Member, as he recognized the difficulties with which 2053 they were beset. At the same time, he thought this was an occasion on which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. James) had not made out any real or very good case. No select vestries could nominate an overseer who was appointed by the magistrates. There was no law which allowed that. He could not gather from the remarks of the hon. Member the abuses to which he had referred, and his information was gained from the best authorities most likely to know. He was very reluctant to move that the Bill be read that day six months, as he hoped it would be withdrawn. He would therefore move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, his name was on the back of the Bill; but he was not aware that it was coming on that night. The abuse which he understood was complained of was in the case of a vestry not elected by the inhabitants, but self-elected, and where the power of nominating an overseer by a self-elected body was the same as that held by the vestry chosen by the inhabitants in the ordinary way.