The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-03-07 00:00:00

THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE TREES.
To the Editor.

Sir,—Much has been said lately about the proposal
of the Council to cut down a portion of the trees on
Beipmee Knap, leading to the Great Western Railway
station, and as you are always anxious to of your
columns to any one desiring a fair discussion on public
matters, may I ask you to grant we a small space to
make a few remarks. As a native of this ancient
borough I have often spoken with pride of our
beautiful trees, and I consider it would be only a first
step if the Council are allowed to fell those proposed.
I hope that they will be wise in time, and bow to
the wishes of a large number of the ratepayers. At
the Old Friend's supper I see Dr. Aldridge said it was
proposed to let the land out in building plots, at a
small ground rent. Now, sir, this is all very well, but
who is to build the houses? There are very few work-
ing men with capital enough, and those who have the
means will not build and let houses sufficiently low.
rented to enable the working man to have one to
himself. If the Council are anxious to benefit the
town let them, as they ought, have the fair field
nearest to it, let the trees remain, and if they
have any spare ground, which is very doubtful, they
would lie able to add a fair capital to the funds of the
town, by building a number of small houses suitable
for working men, which would let, and bring a fair
return for outlay, at £8 or £lO a year. But is it a fact,
sir, that they (the Council) intend to pull down the
trees in order to build semi-detached villas? Is it a
fact that 000 will have to be spent in building on one
plot f the land, 1:4430 on another, and 000 or MO on
another plot? Is it a fact, sir, that this movement is
only one which will benefit the large capitalist, whilst
the working man will be left, as now, to huddle three
or four families together in houses of from 4:16 to £25
a year rental? It is high time that something was
done to benefit the working classes, who are the back-
bone of the country, and now that the Town Council
have the opportunity they would do well to build a
number of small houses, and thus they would conduce
to the well-being of those on whom do much depends.
A WORKING MAN.
Dorchester, March 4, 1876.

THE PERSONALTY OF THE DEVIL
To Ad Editor.

am aware that it is not very usual for oditors of
newspapers toadmit remarks upon their articles into their
own columns, but I am sure, it is not your intention to
mislead or misrepresent ; and as many of your poorer
readers trust entirely to you for information, I hope you
will make an exception in my favour, especially as the
subject, to which I mu about to refer, is a very important
one.

In the Televrant of the 25th ult., you say "The Judicial
Council have just settled, not that the gentleman in black
Is • myth, but that a man is none the worse Christian for
holding, so Betsy Prim did with regard to Mrs. Harris,
that there was no such a person. The Rev. Fiera Cook,
the vicar of one of the 'highest ' churches in Bristol, has
been told, after three law-suits, that he has no right to
withhold the sacrament from a parishioner named Jenkins
because the said Mr. Jenkins does not believe in the per.
soinlly of the devil.

—AROw—m—e-tO—re-inark in passing that through Christ
Church, Clifton, is certainly one of the '' highest" locally
yet ecelestleally it is one of the "lowest." support
of this I need only say that the patronage of Mr. Cook's
Church isivested in the Simeon 'trustees and that Mr.
Cook's predecessor was the well-known low-Churchman,
the Rev. Mourant Brock. You have thus dune Mr. Cook,
an injustice, no doubt unintentionally, when you imply
that he is a Ritualist.
But the purpose of my addressing you is to show that.
the Judges when they charged Mr. Cook to administer the
Holy Sacrament to Mr. Jenkins, expressly guarded
against the very inference that you have drawn from it.
They by no means decided that a denial of the personalty
of Satan is compatible with the membership of the church
of England. The following extract from the judgment
delivered lathe Lord Chancellor will prove this: "In the
first place eir Lordships must observe that if they had
here to examine whether the appellant (Mr. Jenkins) has
in point of fact either entertained or expressed the
opinions attributed to him, or if they were called upon to
decide whether thorn° opinions or any of them could be
entertained or expressed by a member of the church
whether layman or clergyman, consistently with the law.
and with his remaining in communion with the church,
they would have looked upon this case with much greater
anxiety than they now feel in this decision. They desire
to state in the most emphatic manner that there is not
before them any evidence that the appellant (Mr. Jenkins)
entertains the doctrines attributed to him, and they
do not mean to decide that those doctt (nes are otherwise
than inconsistent with the formularies of the Church of
England."
Thus justice to Mr. Jenkins requires the correction
which I ask you the favour of allowing me to make.
Again. in commenting upon the decision, you add
stitig of the clergy: ' mince the matter as they Please.
they cannot get over the fact that they are paid servants
of the State and the State they are bound to obey."
Upon this, I would remark that all that the Judicial
Council had to do was to interpret the law of the Church
and determine in to it e rights of one of the mem-
bers. Roman Catholics th
s and Dissenters themselves when
there have been disputes as to the interpretation of their
own Church laws and the rights of their members have
also appealed to the civil tribunal. The laws of Friendly
Societies and even the rights of London Clubs have been
but I must confess that I
cannotocers, who so appeal or ate appealed against " paid
servantsservantsof the State"
.ough osrtaanly when once tthe decided
uinudthersetrdeho manner,
it e
canr' thence be inferred that all
decision is given,. they ake, "are Woad that/tate to
obey."

I feel that I am making a hearr demand usq. ....._
generosity and sense of f air play. but I trust 1 4,,,r.
appeac to you in vain.
Int
I am, Sir,
Youn oheiiieutly.
A KLAximmoltss,
Tineleton. Dorchester.
[We willingly give insertion 1., the above, beni4 at
have
beesluziouninus totenetixopnlsedoinna_enjoirl ima which we ut
_ --

T. the Evil.,

•
Sir,-1 fear that many of your " imorer realer, will feel themselves greatly perplexed resp‘,
poditionboth of Mr. Jenkhaeandthe ect';
withstanding the explanation of reir erwreepos Ls--;
"A. Klan b swowski I can fancy your
readers" asking themselves whether Me .14,1 ii
really does deny the personalty of the devil and the
eternity of future punishment The letter ,4
correspondent furnished no reply, only, as he is
to do justice to Mr. Jenkins an against your edieerisr44
note, it might be inferred that these view+
maliciously imputed to !de Jenkins by his ""
lastoe But the fact is, Mr. Jenkins did not make any
of his views on these questions, life publieh e a
of family devotion from which he carefully excluded
all those pastimes both in the Old and New Testament
which set forth the existence of Satan,the devil, spirits
and the eternity of future punishment. A cep! ,4
these selections he forwarded to his pastor, which however, was quietly laid aside on his book, shelves
until he was challenged somewhat curtly by hie
parishioner for preaching a sermon on the eternity of
future punishment, which lecl Mr. t'ook to examine
the book of :selections. !fence Jerome the quarrel which
has terminated so disastrously for Mr. Cook. New is
reference to the scriptures which were omitted, Mr.
Jenkins wrote to his pastor to ray that "is thew present generally-received tense they are quite ineonipntitte
with rdiyion or decency." These selections and thie
correspondence were laid before the Privy retrace
and all that they have determine I is, that there is
nothing in the documents submitted for evidence te pastify the charges on which Mr. Cook sought to rese
is cam, that Mr. Jenkins was "an open and notori
evil-liver," and "a depraver of the book of Cornmne
Prayer; 'and in respect of both charges the case was
decided in favour of Mr. Jenkins with costs, as against
Mr. Cook who was admonished not to commit tier
like offence in future—in other words who a,
admonished not to withhold the 'Sacrament from s.
parishioner, who under certain circumstances
his rejection of the doctrines of tie personalty ,1 the
Devil and the eternity of future punishment Nur
although the Privy Council have passed no verdie
the doctrine in question, yet the practical result is tha
to quote from a leader in the Daily we eft the
decision, tbat. "It is now the low of the lo,.jrh,f
member of the eltureh of England may in ceet,i„i„.
stances arow his disbelief in the person& exist, swan
without forfei'ing his rights as nuteroo r -
Fe,muary 17. 1874. Such a member may ale, feads,ja
challenge feel opinions as hell by his ste,see4
adviser, en that your " poorer reader*" will sot
imagine that you were very far from the mark wine
! you affirmed that a man might be a very goel ehratise,
I and member of the Church of England, aryl ye
refuse to acknowledge the doctrine+ .n retie
And so rompletely 'bee Mr. C'ook regard hun..g
the paid servant of the State, that rather th.e.
violence to the higher law of conscience, he elev.+ t)
forfeit his present position, and resign his pej
pastor of the church at Clifton. It would be el little
avail to tell Mr. Cook that in this respect he is no
worse off than dissenting minieter, or memher,
ordinary cluba. Mr. Cook would know that ,Vll
statement; were so much ;list thrown in his eye. He
would know that no liAsenting minister could p
be placed in so humiliating a position,. to be
before civil tribunals to explain the doctrines of
church, and to be admonished that he hal liters ly no
power to think what these doctrines were, or to
demand imlnnission to them on the part of his tam.
bees. The whole matter turns ,e; th, Is t thst a
minister in the State Church has no power whatever
to enforce doctrine or discipline ; that that b a hay
which rests entirely with the civil tritemal, mei not
even with an ecclesiastical one whose judgment Km
just been reversed in the civilk.ent ; and this state of
things in becoming so utterly intolerable that clergy-
men who are not hopelessly lost to the idea of a
Christian church, and sunk in the hayst F.rastianien,
are able to bear it no longer, and are loudly insisting
either on a higher freedom fir the Church or an entire
separation from the State altogether. Perhaps, sir,
you will be able to add these few observation, to your
own brief comment for the further alvantage of your
"poorer readers," and oblige yours, te,

,
NEV,.A

Monday, March 5, 1876.

WA-Rai-A-SI CORPORATION AND SIR
CHARLES DILKE, M.P.

- -
The above worthy M. P. drew very largely on his
own humourous imagination, in that part .1 his
speech given in the House on Tuesday last, so far all
It related to Wareham, and it is to he hoped. that the
motto " aie,y "wins- trout apply to all the rest
of his lively and highly amusing speech, rattled offis
racey style as it was. The simple fart is, that there
has been no Mayor's dinner here, since the year 146
—when the present town clerk and registrar .1 the
county court, (who on the death of Mr. Bartlett, the
last holder of that office. resigned his office of a
capital burg..., for the purpose of accepting the office
' of town cler!:, which ha.l been in his own family just
110 year. before) -- WILS Mayor and ::ave a +pedal
entertainment to the present respected reconler, Mr.
Tanner and his then Young want The Earl of Eldon
—who with the sheriff, midersheriff, and several other
county gentlemen honoured Mr. Filliter awl the
Corporation with their company. This dinner was of
course at the private expence .1 the Mayor who var.
them. For various reasons they base ever sin, been
discontinued. and Sir Charles Dilke himself would
have been highly honoured if he had been invited to
this one.