The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-29 00:00:00

SENDING THE DEAD BODY OF A CHILD TO TUE HOME

Mr. Illingworth asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether he would state what
measures he had taken in the matter of the clergyman
who sent the dead body of a child to the Home Office,
in consequence of a dispute as to the appropriation of a
cemetery.
Sir W. Harcourt, in the course of a lengthy reply, ex-
plained that there was a dispute in the parish resrecting
a new cemetery. It was proposed by the Burial Board,
of which the rector was chairman, to allot to the Dis-
senters a portion of ground which had formerly been
a quarry. This was objected to, and the matter was
referred to the Inspector of Burial Grounds, who
reported that the Burial Board should have shown
more consideration for the feelings of the Dis-
senters. He (the Home Secretary) accordingly
told the rector that he could not sanction a
proposal which seemed to be offensive, and that he
would withhold his sanction to the use of the cemetery
until some proper arrangement was made. He was told
in reply that he would be attacked in the House of
Commons by six influential members. (A laugh.) He
had not heard of the attack, but on Sunday, the 2nd of
November, the dead body of a child was delivered at
the Home Office. It then appeared, on inquiry, that
the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Mirehouse, had been to the
house of the parents of a stillborn child in the palish,
n.ld had obtained the body on a promise that he would
bury it in the presence of the father the same night.
The parents went to the Vicarage, but were put off
WI th some excuse, and the next morning the clergyman
drove to the station, and delivered a box there. He told
the footman to address the box to the Home Secretary,
saying he was sending him a small present. (A
laugh.) The servant thought at the time it was
a box of grapes. (Laughter.) Mr. Mirehouse proposed
to make an apology to him (the Home Secretary ) ; but
in his (the Home Secretary's) opinion there was no
offence against him. The offence seem to him to have
been committed against the Church, of which the
clergyman was a minister—(hear,hear)—against public
decency and against the parents of the child whom he
had deliberately deceived. (Cheers.) He had in-
structed the law officers to advise him whether there
WAil in thin any offenon vabiela orinlrl baproenerled. gzain st
by law, and if that was so, it would be put into the
hands of the Public Prosecutor. (Cheers.) Whether
that was so or not, he would bring the conduct of the
clergyman before the bishop, in order that he might, if
possible, remove the rev, gentleman from the charge
of the parish to which he was eminently unadapted.
(Cheers.)

SPATS ItEDISTRITIVTION
Mr. Gladstone' in giving notice tr_ Altroduce a Redis-
tribution of Seats Bill on Monday next, explained that
he could not be absolutely certa!A that he would be in a
position to introduce the mearare on that day, and in
that case it would be necessrsry to ask for a postpone-
ment. His hope, however, was that it might be intro
duced in a state for its '..mmediate circulation among
members' and viewing the nature of the measure and
the general acquiescence in its principle, he thought it
would be for the convenience of the House that the
second reading should be proceeded with on Thursday
week.

PROPOSED ADJOURNMENT.
Tbe Income Tax Bill having been read a third time,
and the Consolidated Fund (No. 1.) Bill a second time,
Mr. Gladstone moved that the House, at its rising, should
adjourn until Monday next.
Sir John Lubbock protested against the motion as
another attack upon the rights of private members, and
also because it would render impossible the discus-
sion on Friday next of his motion on proportional re-
presentation.
To this the Prime Minister replied that it would be a
very great stretch of power on the part of the Govern-
ment if they were to endeavour to force a motion of this
kind upon the House, hut that was not the case, as they
were merely taking a course which was agreeable to the
general sentiment of the House.
In the course of subsequent discussion Mr. A. Elliot
complained of the surrender which the Government had
made to the House of Lords, and declared that he felt
leFs confidence in them when he found them in concert
with the Opposition leaders. He asked for an assurance
that the freedom of the House should be preserved in
regard to redistribution.
Sir C. Mire, in reply, stated that the freedom of the
House would not be lost by the communications which
were taking place at the present time.
Sir W. Lawson warned the Government that their
credit was at stake, and that unless they brought in a
Redistribution Bill which was acceptable to the
Liberal party it would go hard with them in the
country.
Mr. Illingworth reluctantly admitted that the Prime
Minister was justified in taking the course he had
done, but regarding it as an acknowledgment of the
supremacy of the House of Lords, he trusted no
Prime Minister would ever find it necessary to take
such a course again.
Mr. Labouchere intimated that the Radicals, believing
that everything good in the Redistribution Bill was the
work of the Prime Minister and everything bad that of
Lord Salisbury, would not hesitate to move Radical
amendments wherever they were needed.

IRISH AFFAIRS.
Subsequently a discussion, which was prolonged for
Feveral hours by Irish members, took place as to the
trial and execution of Joseph Poole for the murder of
a man named Benny in Dublin, the position of Mr.
George Bolton and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and the extra
po ice tax in Queen's County.
On a division the motion was carried by 57 to 19, and
the Rouse adjourned at a quarter past twelve o'clock
until Monday next.

In the HOUSE or LORDS, Nov. 25, '9 incount Barring-
ton and the Earl of Kimberley presented numerous
petitions from Leeds and other places in favour of duly
qualified women being admitted to the franchise.
THE NEW WAR AND ADMIRALTY OFFICES.
Lord Lamington, referring to the question of his noble
friend the Earl of Wemyss and the answer thereto, and
also to the fact that a private company was about tc
apply to Parliament for powers to improve Parliament-
street, wished to ask the Government whether it would
not be better to delay any further steps in regard to the
new War and Admiralty Offices until the Government
knew what ground they had at their disposal.
Lord Sudeley thought he ought to ask his noble
friend to ?,•ive notice of his question, but he would now
say that his noble friend was under some misapprehen-
sion in regard to any private company taking any land
upon which those new offices would be erected, as the
company did not propose to interfere in the slightest
degree with this land.

THE INCOME TAX BILL.
This bill having been, on the motion of the Earl of
Kimberley, read a second time, the Standing Order
No. 35 was considered and dispensed with, and the
bill passed through the remaining stages, being read a
third time and passed.
THE JUSTICES' JURISDICTION AND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

AMENDMENT BILLS.
These bills were, on the motion of Lord Bramwell,
severally reed a third time and passed.
The other business having been disposed of, their
lordships, on the motion of the Earl of Kimberley, ad-
burned at twenty-five minutes to five o'clock, until
Monday, the Ist of December.

GAS EXPLOSION IN A Curnes.—On Sunday morning
nnsiclerable consternation was caused at the Pres.
`)yt€ rian Church. Dartmouth-park-hill, Highgate, Lon-
li)n, by an explOsion of gas which took place in the
vestry of the church during morning service. The Rev.
F,dwin Fitzgerald had just commenced his sermon when.
a loud report was heard, followed by the shattering of
windows. It turned out that the church officer, think-
ing; he smelt an escape of gas, had struck a match in
order to test the point, when a violent explosion
occurred, the windows of the vestry being blown com-
pletely out. The officer, William Vincent, was badly
I)urnt. After the alarm had subsided the service was
resumed.