xe8 
1828.] Select Vestries. 115 
but “ only examined the sum total.” Moreover, it seems even this most 
exquisite mode of accounting is liable to be altogether prevented by such 
slight occasional accidents as the loss of the parish books. The vestries of 
St. Giles-in-the-Fields, and St. George’s, Bloomsbury, having steadily 
resisted all demands for an inspection of their books, at a meeting of the 
parishioners, held at the Freemason’s Tavern, 23d June, 1828, a 
motion was made by a Mr. Everard, and, we need hardly add, carried 
unanimously, “ That we will unremittingly persist in our endeavours 
to discover the books of this parish, which are stated to be mislaid.” 
But not only is there an utter want of express provision for securing 
accountability to the public—vestrymen have even arrogated to them- 
selves a kind of right to conduct all their affairs in secret. Vestry 
meetings thus become, for the most part, mere private meetings ; and 
all attempt at public investigation is resisted as an impertinent intrusion 
on their sequestered privacy. Indeed, some of the vestrymen seem to 
treat the privilege of misrule as their personal freeholds ; and the mem- 
ber for Middlesex, as one of them, did not scruple to oppose the Mary- 
lebone bill, as “ an attempt to invade and overthrow established rights.” 
Previously to the introduction of that bill, every attempt was made by 
the parishioners to secure, by amicable adjustment, their just represen- 
tation in the vestry, and a control over the parish funds. ‘ The hauteur 
of this self-appointed body,” say the committee, in their Report, “founded, 
as your committee suppose, on the unconstitutional notion of vested 
rights, has been an insuperable barrier to the accomplishment of ‘this 
desirable object.” And, again, they complain that having, at a conside- 
rable time back, addressed to the vestry a respectful letter, requiring 
an answer, “from that time to the present, the vestry have not conde- 
scended to notice or even acknowledge its receipt ;’—and they add, after 
alluding to a previous charge of some equal act of rudeness, “‘ The com- 
mittee, therefore, feel that the personal charge then made against the 
members of the vestry of inattention to, and disregard of, the opinions and 
wishes of the parishioners, has been fully justified; and they ought to 
bear in mind that acts of parliament do not exempt from courteous and 
gentlemanly conduct those whom they invest with petty authority or 
irresponsible power.” 
Absolutely without security for the mode of their exercise, the powers 
thus entrusted to the select are of no insignificant extent. With them 
lies the whole management of the parochial poor. To their superinten- 
dence frequently falls the erection of workhouses and infirmaries. 
Churches and chapels may almost be said to rise at their bidding, or 
become repaired in all the decorations of costly magnificence—land is 
sometimes bought and sold—streets laid out and paved—in a word, the 
entire parochial affairs of extensive districts are submitted to their abso- 
lute control. That the most ample provision of funds may be placed at 
their disposal, they are left to impose parochial rates, with no other check 
than the legal appeals of the individuals liable to their payment ; and, 
_ when these cannot be strained into an adequate provision for their more 
magnificent undertakings, they often contrive to cajole parliament into 
large grants for their assistance out of the public money—the entire 
administration of which is left to themselves. To sum up our brief’ out- 
line both of the functions of the select, and their complete irresponsibility 
in their exercise, with the apt illustration of Mr. Peel—« they are so 
many little parliaments, in their several parishes.” 
Q 2 
