The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-06-17 00:00:00

TriE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

subject then. In like manner, oar domestic
legislation is now of an essentially quiet type,
because no one can say what a day or even an
hour may bring forth upon the Continent. We
are personally interested, as is shown by the
great ironclad fleet in the Mediterranean ; and
so long as Europe seems to be standing as it
were upon the verge of a volcano, so long will
the annals of our domestic legislation be peace-
ful. Amid conflicting rumours of war it is im-
possible properly to settle the details and to
discuss the clauses of measures tending to pro-
duce great organic changes at home.

shocked by the use of consecrated ground for such
services, and should move "That the Burial
Board do provide two chapels according to the
general usage and the requirements of the Burial
Actg."

This was seconded by Mr. Broomhall.
The Rev. D. Maginnia, in supporting the
motion, referred to the co-operation between
Churchmen and Nonconformists in various local
movements, and said it was in harmony with the
tendency of the times to Obliterate needless lines
of demarcation, and to co-operate in all objects
that could be made common. He had, while in
Ireland, officiated in consecrated churchyards of
the Established Church, and ha had not only so
officiated but the clergy of the Established Church
had attended the services, one of such being now
Bishop of Derry. He had also conducted funerals
in Nonconformist places attended by clergy and
diguatariep of the Church of Ireland. In Derby
there was a cemetery with one chapel, in which
the services were conducted alike by the Church
clergy and Nonconformist ministers; and only one
clergyman refused to conduct the service in the
unconsecrated building. On the ground of
Christian feeling and concord, and in accord with
I what had been actually effected in other places,
he thought one chapel should suffice. With
reference to a remark which had fallen from Mr.
Sherrard, Mr. Maginnis said that on the Continent
there were churches where one denomination suc-
ceeded another in holding their services, and he
contended that in the case of a chapel built out of
the public rates, and to which all denominations
contributed, they should all have equal rights of
access. He considered it would be much better I
for the various denominations to work together.
On enquiry he found that in the two parishes
there were about 300 deaths per annum, not one
a day. He did not think there could be much
collision between them. Before sitting down he
could not help hut referring to matters that had
come under his notice. The clergy and church-
wardens had met in conclave together by circular
to forbid the attempt beinginade whether it was
legal or not and condemned in. strong terms the
resolution they had passed. It was strictly a rate-
payers question who would have to pay. As to
the fear of a want of decorum on the occasion of
services conducted by Nonconformists, he ventured
to say they were human beings with human hearts
and affections; and if he might be excused for
retorting, he would say that the only service which
had grated on his feelings was a perfunctory ser-
vice of representatives of the great church of that
country. If it were found after all a second
chapel was indispensable, church people would
find no more hearty co-operationthan the Noncon-
formists in providing it.
Mr. Prescott said it had been stated that the
bishop would not permit any other service to be
perfoimed in the chapel than that of the Church
of England, but they saw in the papers that day
an instance where the Bishop of Oxford had been
made to do what he had refused to do. What
they should do in this particular case was not to
allow the consecration to take place, and then a
faculty could be obtained from the Chancellor of
the Bishop enabling the clergy to officiate in it.
The bishop had no jurisdiction in the cemetery at
all. He did not know whether they were aware of
it or not that £200,000 was going to be spent in
drainage from Quinton tolliinver Lock. That was
a nice thing for the ratepayers and they were
asked to go to the expense of spending more
money by building two chapels when one would
do, and who would receive the benefit? Why, the
clergy. The Rector of Oldswinford gets £3,000.
The chairman said that was untrue._

Prescott: I say it is true., And if you had
held me out you would had said so. I say two
thousands pounds to be paid for the ground.
The Chairman: 0 poi, and withdrew the remark
he had made. At tkie point some confusion took
place, and cries of order, and chair.
Mr. Edwards: Sit down, you are only a common

lawyer.
Mr. Prescott; I am not to be put down by you.
After some other remarks, the Rev. T. Williams
said he thought it unfortunate the Burial Board
had thrown down the bone of contention in the
parish, and moved that the Burial Board should
take steps to ascertain the law in reference to the
two chapels before consulting the ratepayers upon
the question,
This was seconded by Mr. W. Edwards.
The Rev. G. F. Adley said the Burial Board had
already decided to build a consecrated chapel;
and as the law stood, if they built a consecrated
chapel, they were bound to build
an unconsecrated chapel as well. The question
was whether they would fight the bishop on the
legal question.
Mr. Shepherd (chairman of the Burial Board)
repeated his views as to one chapel being sufficient.
The right of consecration had no legal effect what-
ever. If *a person might rightfully use a chapel
which was not consecrated, he should wish to meet
their views, but he held that the act of conse-
cration would not prejudice the legal rights of any
other person whatsoever,
The Rev. T. Williams said if difficulties arose
after it might entail an expense equal to the erec-
tion of several chapels.
Mr. Shepherd: The trial of the question will not
involve the parish. Whenever the question is
tried it will not be tried at the cost of the bishop

or the parish.
Mr. Williams then withdrew the amendment.

Mr. Perry replied to the arguments in favour of
two chapels, after which the chairman made some
temarks, and considered is necessary that two
chapels should be built, and put the amendment
first, should there be two chapels?
On putting the motion, there was a large ma-
jority for one chapel.
In answer to Mr. Perry, the chairman said there
were not three-fourths in favour of the motion for
one chapel.
Mr. Prescott demanded a poll, and asked the
chairman to fix the day of poll on a Monday,
others asked for Wednesday,but the majority were
in favour of Monday. On the chairman fixing
Monday, the 19th of June, to open at 9 o'clock
and close at 4, the meeting was then adjourned.

were for fat bullocks".os 15s. 0(14. sheep 765. lambs
475. The attendance of buyers was as usual very
arge, and stook moved off at good prices.
CRUELTY TO • DONKICY...—At the Police Court
yesterday, before COlonel Fletcher and Colonel
Barrows, John Worton, of Clent, was charged
with cruelty to a donkey on the 7th mat, by
allowing it to work in an unfit state.—Special-
constable Doorbar proved that the defendant had a
donkey at Clent Hills, and was at work carrying
persons on the hills. There was a sore on the
back quite raw. Fined 2s 6d and costs.
CRUZLTY TO A Honse.—Thomas Foxhall was
, charged with cruelty to a horse by over driving it
at Oldswinford, on the 6th inst.—Special•constable
Doorbar said the trap contained 10 persons. The
horse was about 12 hands high, and lame, andin a
poor condition. Fined is and costs; in default 7
days.—William Salter was charged with a similar
ofience on the 6th inst.—Special-constable Doorbar
said the trap contained 12 persons. The horse
was on the gallop and was as wet as if drawn
through a pool. Fined 5s and costs.—Joseph
Hipkiss was charged with cruelty to a horse at
Clout, on the 6th met, by beating it with :the
butt end of a whip.—Special-constable Doorbar
proved that the defendant was beating the horse
all round the hill, although the horse was
galloping at the time. The horse had several bad
marks on the body. Defendant pleaded guilty and
was fined 5s and costs.—Thomas Northwood was
charged with cruelty to a horse, on the sth hist, at
Clent.—Special-constable Doorbar said the de-
fendant was riding on the hills racing with another
horse and beating it with a stick. He saw marke
on the flanks. Defendant admitted beating the
horse but said it did not hurt it. Fined 2s 6d and
costs.—William Workman, of Clent, was charged
with cruelty to a donkey at Clent, on the 7th inst.
Special-constable Doorbar proved that the donkey
had two sores on the back of each leg and one on
the tail. Fined 2s 6d and costs.

A BAD HUSBAND.—Joseph Lewis was brought
up on a warrant charged with using threatening
language to . Elizabeth, his wife, on Wednesday.
From the evidence of complainant it appeared that
she has for a long time been subject to
threats from the 'defendant, and on the above
date he threatened to cut her throat. He broke
a quantity of furniture and took some out of the
house and she was afraid of her life. Defendant
pleaded guilty and was bound over to keep the
peace for one month, himself in £lO, and one surety
of £5.