SELECT VESTRIES BILL. (Hansard, 15 October 1831)

§ Viscount Melbourne
understood, that the Committee had made the adoption of this Bill in a parish to depend on the votes of two-thirds of the rate-payers. He begged to propose as an Amendment, 808 that two-thirds of those who actually voted should be inserted, instead of a similar majority of the whole of the rate-payers.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
said, the Committee had considered that two-thirds of the actual voters was not enough to decide such a question.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, it was the duty of all persons who paid rates to attend the parochial meetings. If they did not attend, then the affairs of the parish ought not to be delayed because of their neglect.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
said, there could be no question but that the Committee thought that two-thirds of the whole number of rate-payers, was the smallest number which could be allowed to decide.

§ Viscount Melbourne
must persist in his Amendment, and he would, therefore, at once move, that the words "all the ratepayers" be left out, and the words "a majority of the votes so given" be inserted in their stead.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
said, he was of opinion there was no meaning in the proposed Amendment. It was quite clear that means would be found to obtain a majority of two-thirds of the voters, and if parishes, upon a majority being procured by any underhand contrivances, once adopted the Bill, the evils which might result would be irremediable, because the harm would be already done. He did not think the noble Viscount had brought forward any grounds to justify such a material alteration.

§ Viscount Melbourne
thought the regulation very absurd as it stood, and as to any fraud or contrivance being practised, the same objection would apply to all meetings of the same nature. He continued of opinion, that the question of adoption or not ought to depend upon a majority of two-thirds of those who attended, and those who did not think proper to come forward and vote ought to be considered as having no interest in the question.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
said, there was this distinction between an adoption of the vestry system, and the generality of matters brought before parish meetings, that the latter were open to future reconsideration, while this could not be; therefore, it was necessary that the manner of deciding on it should be without shadow of suspicion. On these grounds he felt himself called upon to oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount.

The Lord Chancellor
said, he had had 809 some communications with parties interested in this Bill, and their opinions were so strong against the alteration made in the Committee with regard to substituting two-thirds of the whole rate-payers for two-thirds of those who were actually present, that such persons had even gone so far as to say, that they would rather be without the Bill than accept it clogged with such a condition. He wished, therefore, for further time for consideration, that he might fully ascertain what was the general feeling, and what was likely to be the effects of the measure. He should propose, accordingly, that the matter should stand over until Monday.

The Earl of Delawarr
had an Amendment which he wished to have introduced, and which he would then mention. It would have for its object the placing the right of voting on the same principle as was adopted in Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He thought a regulation of that sort indispensable. His proposal was, that all those who paid under 50l. rent should have but one vote, and all those who paid above that sum should have an extra vote for every additional 25l. of rent; but to make such further provision, that no person could have more than six votes.

The Lord Chancellor
said, the multitude of his avocations had hitherto prevented him from reading this Bill, and he requested, therefore, time to make himself acquainted with it. As the Bill was not yet printed, he thought he could do so if the discussion were postponed for a day or two, and in the mean time the Bill could be printed with the Amendments proposed.

The Earl of Haddington
agreed with the noble and learned Lord. It was most desirable their Lordships should know all the Amendments to be proposed without delay.

§ The Duke of Wellington
said, there appeared a misunderstanding on all sides with regard to the Bill. He had understood the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), who had the management of it, proposed to adopt the principles of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and make them applicable to the metropolitan parishes, as the operation of that Bill was at present confined to the provinces, where it had given general satisfaction. If the Bill was passed, it ought to become the general law instead of leaving it to parishes to adopt it or not.

§ Viscount Melbourne
observed, in reply 810 to the noble Duke, that he had not pledged himself to adopt the principle of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, or to any particular view of the question. His only object was, to make the measure efficient, and he thought the noble Earl's Amendment was likely to impair that efficiency, and, therefore, he should oppose it.

The Earl of Falmouth
thought, that property should have its due weight in every parish, and, therefore, he was in favour of the principle of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He had had practical experience that it worked well where it had been adopted. With respect to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, that he required time to consider the effects of the proposed Amendment, he thought that could be hardly necessary, because the clause itself was copied from a bill which was introduced by the present Ministers themselves in the last Session of Parliament.