The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-07-17 00:00:00

THE STOUR

Some doubt arose amongst the members of the
Board as to whether it *ould be wise to state such
an early date as the 20th March; as it was pos-
sil2le they might not be able to get the money by
that time.

The Chairman said they could go to the parish
and try to get their consent. Mr. Craufurd had
met them in a very liberal spirit, and they should
do the best they could to carry the thing through.
Haskew asked if they could not purchase
the land without the consent of the vestry meet-
ing, and was told they could not; and he thensaid
that taking the question before the vestry would
be as bad as having a new election.
The Chairman said they would go to the parish,
and if they could not succeed in getting the con-
sent of the vestry they would not give it up, 'but
would appeal to the Secretary of State. _ _

Anotlier clause of the draft Of agreement provided
that if the purchase was not completed by the
25th March, the Burial Board should pay interest
on the money for. the sale at the rate of 4 per cent
from that day to the time of its completion.
The Chairman said he had told Mr. Parkes that
they would give him some compensation for hay-
ing to give up the land. At first they would only
take as much as they required for building upon
and for a road into it, and when this buildintrwas
completed they would take to the whole and give
him some compensation for it.
This course was generally assented to.
The Chairman then suggested that a small
committee be appointed to act With Mr. Bernard,for
the settlement of the draft of purchase with Mr.
Craufurd.

Mr. Evers suggested that the committee should
consist of the Chairman Vice-chairman, and Mr.
Stringer. • _ _ .

This- was seconded and carried unanimously.
The Chairman said that after the agreement
with Mr. Cranfurd had been signed, the -nextthing
to do would be to get an agreement with Mr.
Parkes. His idea was that they should ask Mr.
Parkes to give up possession of the land, and
they shouldpay him the compensation he required.
Mr. Evers thought that nothing with reference
to the compensation of Mr. Parkes should come
before the Board.

Mr. Ha.skew was of the same opinion.
It was ultimately agreed to draw up an agree.
men t with Mr. Parkes, and to leave the question
of con.pensation to another meeting. •
The Clerk was, accordingly instructed to draw
up 0,4 agreement with Mr. Parkes, as to giving up
the lease and possession of the land required by
the Board; and he was asked to ,give at the next
meeting of the Board the result of such negotia-
tions.

Mr. Bernard (the clerk to the Board) complained
that his clerk had been to . the Overseers, but
could not get them to pay his account. He could
not understand it, because they would not have
to pay it out of their own pockets. Mr. Stringer
jun., was one of the Overseers.
Mr. Stringer said he was mire his son was not
the obstacle in the way, Mr. Knott was the real
knot in the question.
The Chairman said the Overseers were public
officers, and whilst it was their duty to protect the
parida, and see that no illegal claims were made,
he thought that in this instance they should_ have
put the thittg, in train for the proper.persons to
pay it. He thought they ought to inspect Mr.
Bernard's bye-laws, and then if Mr. Knott dis-
allowed the charges to let him (Mr. Bernard) have
an opportunity of appealing against his decision.
The Overseers ought to enter the account amongst
the others that were to be audited by Mr. Knott',
and thus put them in train for inspection. By not
entertaining the question at all they did not give
Mr. Bernard a chance-of testing the question. He
thought they ought to allow it to come to an in-
spection.
Mr. Stringer said he was sure that as far as his
son was concerned, he had no personal
feeling in the matter. •Jle had consulted with Mr.
Holloway, but could not say what was his advice
in the matter. His son's colleague was away, and
he did not like to act in his absence.

Mr. Haskew suggested that a letter from that
Board to the Overseers, embody ing their views.
might have the desired effect. lie did not think
it was the wish of that Board that Mr. Bernard
should be
.a loser after all the work he had done.

_
Mr. Stringer said he would bring the matter
under his son's consideration, and had no doub t
that he would take some action in the matter.

In the event of Mr. Knott refusing to allow Mr.
Bernard's account—which is for expenses incurred
during the election of the Burial Board—we be-
lieve that the latter gentleman will appeal to the
Local Government Board.