Page:Item 8 1860.pdf/56

he had called together a meeting of friends and had got up a memorial to the Secretary of State. The answer to that memorial had been hawked about the town until every resident must be well aware of the purport. That reply was so clear and distinct that it was almost impossible to make a loophole in it. Sir George Grey said strictly and positively, through his Secretary that “the payment of a Chaplain out of the funds of the Burial Board would be an illegal payment.” Now, when he objected to the payment of the Chaplain, he argued that on the part of Dissenting minsters(sic) that there was no quid pro quo. They refused to accept the paltry sum of 3s. which the Board had the magnanimity to offer them. If the Board put themselves into such a false position as to say that a large class of gentlemen who were in no way inferior in talent and respectability to the Clergy should only be paid the paltry sum of 3s. they must expect that it would be resented. The Dissenters had submitted to the grievance without complaint, but they contended that the opinion of Mr. Growse was fallacious and that the clause on which it was founded was only intended to meet an exceptional case. The clause was introduced into the Act because there were several parishes joined together in some Burial Boards. The Clergy of the district had no power to make the charges; it was a matter entirely for the vestry. [At this point, Coun. Bromley became uneasy, and gave expressions in an undertone which compelled Mr. Winter to appeal to the chairman to be freed from interruption]. The speaker then went into facts and figures in support of his argument, and also referred to a case at Tynemouth similar to their own, in which the law-officers of the Crown decided against the action of the Burial Board of that town. In conclusion Mr. Winter said he was strongly of opinion that when a course had been settled upon by the Board, it should not have been interfered with, and that the wisest course would be to pay, not by salary, but at so much for each interment. – Coun. Putland also denounced the unwisdom of reintroducing the question after it had been settled. Every member of the Board had the highest respect for Mr. Nightingale, but as a matter of principle he (the speaker) contended that the proper mode of payment was by each interment. As regarded the unconsecrated ground and the Dissenting ministers, the time was come when the latter should stand on a level with the clergy of the Church of England. Such being the feeling, it was not right for one class of gentlemen to receive 3s. for the performance of another class received 7s. or more. – Ald. Ross said although he should not vote against Mr. Ginner’s motion , he thought that an attempt was being made by the Dissenters to show that they were a persecuted body. – Coun. Howell, although a churchman, could not -