ST. ANDREW’S CHURCH, NETHERTON.

1830. July 16th. This new Church was consecrated and opened by the Lord Bishop Folliott this day. It was built at the cost of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The first Incumbent was the Rev. Arthur Miller, M. A. The body of this spacious Church was built to accommodate 1500 people, and the galleries contain 1000 free sittings. The foundation of this Church was laid by Dr. Booker, the Vicar of Dudley, on November 30th, 1827. On the awful visitation of the Asiatic cholera in England, (in 1831 and 1832) Dudley did not escape this dreadful affliction, which raged for eighteen months with awful violence and fatality in this parish. By the order of the authorities the cholera corpses dying in the parish were all buried in the north east side of St. Andrew’s Burial Ground, Netherton.

From this time to the period of the agitation on the great Reform Bill of (1832) we find no events worthy of record. The burning question of Catholic Emancipation received at the time its petitions to Parliament for and against the measure, in accordance with the expanded or contracted views of the petitioners; but the Vicar of Dudley (the Rev. Dr. Booker) failed not in his episcopalian views occasionally to denounce the contemplated innovation upon our glorious constitution, and to predict the evils that must follow the introduction of Roman Catholics into Parliament. The Doctor was an eloquent preacher and a noble, attractive figure in the pulpit, with a fine voice; during his many years’ ministrations amongst us, he upheld the true dignity of the Church, and endeavoured zealously to promote the glory of God and the salvation of the souls committed to his charge. A fine portrait of the Doctor is to be seen in the drawing room at the Hotel, Dudley.

REFORM AGITATION.

During this period the agitation for Reform was monthly assuming larger proportions, and the mighty voice of the then unrepresented masses was knocking at the doors of the Houses of Parliaments with miles of petitions from all parts of the country, for “a Reform in the Representation of the People.” Dudley joined its neighbours at Birmingham and Wolverhampton in the cry for Reform (neither of which important centres of industry had any share then in parliamentary representation, save through their county members.) The serious aspect of passing events and political agitation, which was evoking most persistent demands for “Reform,” stimulated the great and eloquent leaders of that movement to introduce a “Reform Bill” into the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, on the 1st of March, 1831, “For leave to bring in a Bill to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.

This sweeping measure was to disfranchise 60 “Rotten Pocket Boroughs” of most diminutive numbers of voters holding their rights under all sorts of curious conditions. These Boroughs then sent 120 members to Parliament; besides 47 Boroughs were to lose one member each, making 168 old members to be ejected from the House; this annihilation of “vested rights” was to be supplied by 34 new members to be selected by manufacturing towns, most of which had no Borough representation at all, and 55 additional members were to be added to the counties. Such a startling measure as this necessarily created a wild and frantic torrent of indignation amongst all classes concerned in maintaining the unjust and vicious system of mis-representation and jobbery, whilst those large towns (of which Dudley was one) were jubilant at the prospects of a new feature in those local privileges, “a Borough representation.” This marvellous debate extended over a period of thirteen long nights in the House of Commons, and was carried by a majority of votes.

It is almost needless to say that Lord John Russell’s speech, as published in the political life of the Earl, has become history, and was one of the most telling and searching exhibitions of close, clear, and comprehensive reasonings ever uttered in the British Parliament.

EXTRACTS FROM REFORM SPEECHES.

Mr. Joseph Hume says,—“But I must submit that in whatever way you view the question it is one of immense difficulty, because in the established institutions of this country any change from the worse to the better must always be attended with great difficulty, so far as individual interests and contending parties are concerned. It is with this view His Majesty’s Ministers have done wisely. I candidly confess that when the noble lord stated yesterday that it was not the intention of the Ministry to introduce any clause respecting altering the duration of Parliament, or Vote by Ballot, it struck me that the measure was defective in that respect.”