Amendment negatived without a di

vision.

other. He would, therefore, move an | of the closeness of the select vestry on the amendment to the second clause, to the other, the present Bill had been projected, effect that nothing in the Act should ex- and it was intended to be made available tend to parishes where the inhabitants as- in all parishes where the bulk of the insembled in open vestry at present. habitants were in favour of its adoption. The fundamental clause was that which was called the adoptive clause, and by it the benefits of the Bill might be extendable to every parish by the wish of the inhabitants. By the Bill, however, as it came from the Select Committee, the power of adopting the measure was not conferred on the rate-payers of a parish assembled at any given meeting, convened by public notice, but by an absolute majority which should constitute two-thirds of the rate-payers of the whole parish. The amendment, however, of his noble friend, proposed that the measure could only be adopted by a ma

The clause having been read regulating the mode by which parishes are to adopt or reject the Bill-the Bill providing that it must be done by a majority of two-thirds of rate-payers,

The Lord Chancellor said, that since the Bill and the amendments proposed on Saturday had been printed, he had given them his best consideration, and the more he looked at the measure, the more important he found it, as it was one which proposed a great alteration in the municipal law of the country, which would be at-jority of the rate-payers present and vottended with the most beneficial or the worst ing at some public meeting. In the former effect in those parishes where it was intro- case, though the great majority of the induced, according to the manner in which habitants might be in favour of the Bill, it it was regulated. It came home to the would be in the power of a few persons to bosom of every family, and, therefore, it prevent its being adopted. It could not take deserved the serious consideration of their place unless the majority of the whole Lordships. The object of the Bill, as his rate-payers, whether absent or present, noble friend had explained, was to limit concurred. To show the inconvenience of the confusion which arose from tumul- that course, he had only to suppose that tuous meetings when the inhabitants of a a case should occur where, unless the maparish met in what was called an open jority was double the minority, it was utvestry, and when, however well sustained terly impossible that the whole of the ratethe discussion on the affairs of the parish payers of the parish could possess themmight be, it was impossible that the busi-selves of the advantages conferred by the ness of the parish could be conducted with Bill. Suppose a parish consisted of 300 any thing like precision and regularity. persons, it required 200 to concur in It was ridiculous to think of every matter favour of the Bill, and not even a majority being left to the disposition of a crowd of of 180 or 190 would be sufficient. That perhaps 10,000 persons; and certainly it was not all; for, though a meeting might must be admitted, on all sides, that no be assembled with ample notices, yet the worse species of law-making could prevail. absence of a certain portion of rate-payers The only principle which, therefore, could was sufficient to prevent that meeting be introduced was that of delegation, a adopting the Bill. It was of no consequence certain number of persons being appointed that the meeting had discussed the advanby the free consent of the rest to act as tages and disadvantages of the Bill; it was their representatives. This principle ap- of no consequence that the majority had plied as well to the affairs of a parish as made up their minds in favour of it, after to those of a kingdom, and, therefore, it exchanging opinions with each other, and formed the basis of the present Bill. The being persuaded of the benefit that must other great mischief which the Bill sought accompany it, because there were so many to put an end to was fully as pernicious absentee rate-payers who never heard one the other way as these tumultuous meet-word of the discussion, and who were too ings; and, from his own professional experience, he could vouch that the system of self-elected vestries was one of the worst that could be acted upon for the administration of the affairs of a parish. With the view of getting rid of the violence of an open meeting on the one hand, and

idle to attend. Suppose, therefore, that one-third of the parish, containing 300 persons, stayed away-one-third plus one. But of 300, 101 were absent-why their staying away neutralized the votes of 199 respectable persons in the parish, which had attended the meeting, and made up

their minds in consequence of what they | effect than that of crippling and impeding heard there. It was even still more the natural progress of the Bill. The ababsurd than the way he first put it, for the surdity of it would at once be seen if the 101 who stayed away might not be against House made the case its own; and, though the Bill, but in favour of it; but if they the clerk at the table would perform his would not take the trouble to attend, they duty carefully and correctly, and declare outweighed the force of those who did. those who were entitled to vote and those The absurdity of all this was self-evident, who voted by proxy, it would not be very and surely their Lordships would never pleasant to find, that every solemn depass a Bill where the persons absent neu-cision of the House was neutralized by a tralized the acts of a meeting which they had it in their power to attend, and by which an idle minority prevailed against an active and substantial majority. The whole clause was full of objections. It proposed that the church wardens should calculate the number of the rate-payers in the parish, and decide whether the majority of them required by the Bill consented or not. Now he had never had the honour to serve the office of churchwarden-and, therefore, did not know how the duties of it were accomplished; but he could not possibly see in what manner this calculation could be made out. It seemed to him to be one of the most difficult tasks that could ever be devolved to mortal churchwardens. How was it possible for that officer to know if a majority of rate-payers consented or not? How was he to know who was abroadwho was at his country-house-who was out of the way? The churchwarden was obliged to declare if the Bill had been adopted by two-thirds of the rate-payers; but it was out of his power and ingenuity to determine the point-first, because several rate-payers might be absent whose opinion could not be taken; and secondly, because a minority not attending the meeting controlled the majority that did. The question had often been raised, whether it was fit that votes should be given by proxy in any case; and now, as they were in Committee, where proxies could not be given, he would say a few words, which must not be construed into anything disrespectful to the House. But in the House the proxy gave a positive declaration either for a measure or against it, but here the proxy was of a negative nature; and the person not present actually voted by his absence against those who were. They had all heard of silence giving consent, but it was the first time that an Act of Parliament provided that silence gave dissent, and he could not understand for what purpose such a provision was introduced, which could not have a better

minority who would not attend, and who would not even take the trouble to send their proxies against any measures. His noble friend proposed to get rid of all these inconveniences by a very simple amendment, by which the adoption of the Bill was to be determined by a majority of the rate-payers present, and voting at a meeting convened by general notice to all the parties concerned. But against that it was said, that the parish might not assemble in sufficient numbers, and that the few who did assemble could have the power of acting as they pleased. Now, in his opinion, the probability was, that the bulk of the parishioners would attend the first great meeting at which the adoption of the Bill was to be determined, and there was no reason to think that the opponents of it would be absent, as he ever found that the opposers of any measure (he begged pardon of the noble Lords at the other side of the House) were always the most zealous in their attendance. În the parish of St. Pancras there were 14,000 rate-payers; before the time of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, there were 10,000; and it was probable that if a Vestry Meeting was called, it would be attended by 1,000 or 2,000 persons. Now, if on any given day the adoption clause were to be then mooted, there would be at least 2,000 rate-payers collected, and if, after a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Bill, the adoption of it was carried by a majority, it was natural to suppose that that majority represented the feelings of the parish at large. But all that the 2,000 could do would be useless while 8,000 remained at home, and did not choose to vote at all, or take any part in the proceedings. But suppose there were even 6,000 present, that would not do; and unless there were 7,000, which were the two-thirds of 10,000, and unless they were all in favour of the Bill, it could not be adopted in the parish of St. Pancras. It was fit after stating these objections to the Bill, that he should say that

he had no immediate interest in it. He looked upon it as a public measure, of great importance to every city and parish in the kingdom; but he felt, after having examined it, as was his duty to do, that he could not support the clause as framed by the Select Committee, unless it was amended by the alterations of his noble friend.

The Earl of Delaware observed, that the clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had so strongly objected, had met with the general approbation of the Committee.

The Earl of Haddington thought, that the suggestion which he was about to offer very briefly to the House would reconcile the differences which existed in the opinions of their Lordships upon the subject. He would let the decision of the point be left to two-thirds of the rate-payers present, if they formed a majority of the whole. It was desirable that the Bill should not be imposed upon a parish but by a majority of all the rate-payers.

that, in one respect, there was the slightest difference between them; and, in the instance to which he alluded, he would maintain, that parishes would exercise an act of legislation precisely similar to that which was exercised by their Lordships. When the present Bill was passed, its adoption would be left optional with the various parishes in the kingdom. Now, the voting this Act to be the law in any parish would be an act of legislation in the strictest sense of the word. If such an act was not a legislative one, he did not know the distinction.

Lord Wynford was of opinion, that the Churchwardens should calculate the number of those that actually voted, and that two-thirds of them, under the regulation proposed by the noble Earl (Haddington), should carry the question. He also thought, that there should be a scale of votes, graduated according to the amount of property assessed, and that, for every 257. for which an individual was rated, beyond the original assessment from which What he meant was this--he derived his first vote, he should be ensuppose there were 399 rate-payers in a titled to an additional vote, limiting the parish, and that 300 of them should vote, number of votes to which any individual then what he meant was, that 200 or two- could thus become entitled, to six. thirds of the voters should settle the question. He hoped that he had made himself clearly understood.

The Lord Chancellor observed, that the Bill did not contemplate any public meeting, but there could be no doubt, that the question would substantially be decided by such meetings. He thought that there was a great deal in the suggestion of the noble Earl (Haddington), and that its adoption would be an improvement to the Bill.

The Earl of Falmouth thought, that property, to a certain extent, should be the rule of voting. The majority, under the present Bill, was left at two-thirds of the rate-payers. That numerical majority might, in many parishes in the country, not comprise the one-twentieth of the property in the parish. The noble and learned Lord opposite had drawn an analogy between their Lordships' voting, and parishes voting under the provisions of this Bill. Now, it did not appear to him, that that analogy was at all a correct one, nor did he perceive the least similarity between the legislative proceedings of that House, and the proceedings of parishes under this Bill.

The Lord Chancellor did not think

Viscount Melbourne said, that as he was about to address the Committee on the Bill, he would include the proposition made by a noble Lord on Saturday, by which he proposed the rate-payers of each parish should possess votes according to the sums they were respectively rated at in the parish books. For instance, the person who was assessed at 50l. a-year had one vote; at 757. he had two; and so on for each 257. until it amounted to six votes, to more than which no one person was to be entitled. Now, he would at once fairly state, that he could not approve of those new devices in elections, and he considered that the plan of voting according to property was liable to every objection which had been raised against the principles of Representation lately introduced by his colleagues. The prin ciple of voting according to property, and not on population, was altogether new. He would not open the Reform question, but he thought the principle of voting in parishes might be regulated on the same basis as that introduced in the Bill to which he alluded. According to the original basis of Representation, property was not the standard; for instance, Rutlandshire sent as many Members as the

The Earl of Falmouth was obliged to the noble and learned Lord. It was highly necessary that there should be a considerable majority of parishioners to make any considerable change in parish proceedings. Persons connected with parish affairs knew well, that there was a great deal of trickery and jobbing; and he thought that, before such a measure as this was received, a large majority, as respected both the property and numbers. in the parish, ought to be required.

Viscount Melbourne, in explanation, said that what he meant with respect to the adoption of the principle was, that it was comparatively of modern origin.

largest county. In the county, freeholders | He begged to remind the noble Viscount had the right to vote: in boroughs, the and the Committee, that on an important payer of scot and lot; and the idea of a measure, which had recently passed their graduated scale of voting at elections was Lordships House (he meant the Titheas new and unprecedented as any altera-composition Act), it was made necessary tion proposed by the Reform Bill. He that not only two-thirds of the persons thought that it was founded on an errone- concerned should concur before it could be ous principle, and that it would prove to adopted, but also two-thirds of the value. be most prejudicial in practice. It at- Lord Wynford suggested, that there tacked the principle on which the whole were three-fifths required, both as to numfunctions of Government stood. That the ber and value. majority should bind the minority was a wise and just rule. If there be any thing in the foundation of Government which gave stability to human affairs, it was this principle. But the proposition now advanced set forth a different order of things, and it would establish the power of the minority over the majority; and ten persons possessed of six votes each would outnumber fifty-nine who had only one qualification each. Was there ever such a receipt for discontent drawn up as this? Was there ever a proposition more pregnant with quarrels and confusion? But, in fact, the principle was not fully sustained, for there might be persons among the fifty-nine of greater property than the ten who had outvoted them. A tradesman might have very large and showy premises, and be highly assessed, but still his circumstances might not be flourishing, and he might be actually working at a loss; while another tradesman, who had retired after realizing a considerable fortune, might live near him in a small tenement, which would be rated considerably less than the other, yet, according to the principle now suggested, the poor man would outvote the rich man. The principle had never come under his consideration before, but the objections to it were palpable and decided. In his opinion, it would produce discontent, and prevent what was much to be desired in human affairs-stability and certainty. He was perfectly convinced, that their Lordships would counteract the object they had in view, if the principle contended for by the noble Lords opposite were introduced into the Bill now before the Committee.

The Earl of Falmouth said, the noble Viscount was wrong if he imagined this was a new principle which it was desirable to have introduced into the Bill. The principle, in his opinion, ought to be adopted it would prevent great mischief, which he was confident would arise should the Bill pass into a law as it now stood.

Lord Wynford said, that the principle had been known and recognized for a long time. It was applied to the case of the Bank of England, and to the East-India Company. The right of voting had simply in those instances a reference to property. There ought, in his opinion, to be a graduated scale by which the parishioners should have votes according to their property. If the noble Viscount meant to reject the proposal for a graduated scale, he would divide the Committee on the clause.

The Earl of Shaftesbury suggested, that the best way, he thought, would be, to defer the division until the report was to be received.

Lord Wynford had no objection whatever to take that course. He thought, that a person who was rated at 107. ayear, and who might be a payer one week and a receiver another, ought not to have as much influence in parish matters as a person who was rated at 1,0007. a-year.

The Duke of Wellington said, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had spoken of parish meetings discussing whether they would adopt the Bill or not. It was impossible for meetings consisting of 2,000 or 3,000 persons to discuss any such matters. As he understood, the Bill had been originated in consequence of certain parishes in the metropolis being