Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4536, 4 October 1875, Page 2

The Supreme Court Criminal Sitttinga will commence at 10 o’clock this morning. By telegram we are informed that there was a strong southerly gale blowing off Port Chalmers yesterday morning, and that in the afternoon a gale was blowing from the same quarter at Poverty Bay. Owing to the wretched weather which set in on Friday night, and which increased in strength on Saturday, the Rifle Association were unable to compete at the Polhill’s Cully rifle range, as announced. The meeting was postponed till Saturday next. Mr. and Mrs. George Darrell were passengers by the s.s. Phoebe, which arrived in port at an early hour yesterday morning. They appear at the Theatre Royal, in connection with the present company, on Saturday, and as well-established favorites with Wellington playgoers, and a welcome accession to our present resources in a dramatic point of view, the advent of Mr. and Mrs. Darrell will be welcomed. “The Bottle” was played at the Theatre Royal on Saturday evening, to a good house. Opinions are apt to differ as to the recommendations of most play s, and, for the matter of that, play-actors likewise, and it is more than probable that “ The Bottle ” forms no exception to the ordinary rule. It is highly sensational, what is vulgarly known as agony being fairly distributed throughout the composition; while it is not without humor, though it be of the low comedy kind, and that again is essentially a matter of taste. “The Bottle” also points a great moral lesson, on account of which Good Templar advocates should regard it with a favor as extreme as their views are said to be by certain cordial lovers of the cup that cheers. “ The Bottle ” shows that in a general way the effect of the cup is not to cheer, but to turn the good to bad, and the bad to worse. In the opening scone the audience arc introduced to a highly respectable specimen of the British workman, who is possessed of a partner in his respectability, and two or three respectable offshoots. As the play advances, the bottle, which may be supposed to contain anything from fourpenny ale to Dunville’s whisky, makes its appearance in the house of Mr. Thornley, and as a natural consequence respectability at once departs, Thornley gets into bad company, and becomes inspired by the influence of the bottle to beat Mrs. Thornley. His children also become contaminated by the parent’s example, and the eldest is seized with a violent love for the companionship of an unfashionable villain who has all the appearance, outwardly, of a London “ prig.” As an appropriate termination to the course of events, the hero kills his wife one day when the influence of the bottle has been more than usually potent. He then says “Ha, ha !” and goes mad. The cast was a heavy one, and it is, therefore, impossible to notice fully the performances of each member of the company who wore concerned in its enactment. Great care had evidently been ■taken in rehearsal, and the representation was far more successful than from various reasons, which it is unnecessary to dwell upon, might have been expected. Mr. Burford's impersonation of Thornley was very creditable, and Mr. Sam Howard succeeded in making a part of Coddles. The lady members were well up in their parts ; Miss Raymond supporting the leading character, and acting well. The burlesque of “LittloDon Giovanni” followed. Mr. and Mrs. GeorgoDarrell having arrived, the Star Company will now have some title to the name which they have adopted, and will be in a position to place upon the boards pieces which they have been hitherto unable to present to the public. “Down in a coal-mine” was fully exemplified by a man named William Andrew, at Green Island on Sunday morning (says the Otar/o Guardian). As some persons were passing near Mr. William Stevenson’s coal-pit at this place on Sunday morning, they heard some extraordinary sounds, emanating, as it were, from the bowels of the earth. After listening attentively for a minute or two, they discovered that the sounds were those of a human being, and came from below the ground. On going to the month of the pit it was found that somebody was below crying out for help, and after a very short time, with the assistance of two persons who found him and constable Vernon, the poor fellow was hauled to the top in safety. It appears that he let himself down the pit, some 90ft. deep, with a rope, as he had been told that a change of air would do him good. After he had been down as long as he thought was good enough for him, ho found he was a prisoner until assistance arrived. We are given to understand that, the change was not beneficial. The Melbourne Leader says : —“ Really, if things go on at their present rate, there will be none of the good old-fashioned beliefs left. It is something, however, that the law is On their side. It appears that a Mr. Jenkins, who is a parishioner of the Rev. Mr. Cook, of Christ Church, Clifton, has had the hardihood to deny the personality of the devil, which has so horrified the pious mind of the vicar that he at once refused to allow the infidel to receive communion at his church, although ho

had been in the habit of doing so regularly every month, besides; attending divine service every Sunday. Mr. Jenkins appealed to the bishop of the diocese, affirming that he was not a ‘ notorious evil liver,’ and that he had not denied any article' of the creed, and asking his loidship’s protection against the outrage. A correspondence ensued, in the course of which Mr. Jenkins writes : ‘ The reason Mr. Cook refused me the sacrament is very intelligible. In speaking to my wife he said, “ Let him tell me that he believes in the devil and j I will give him the sacrament.” In his opinion, therefore, this is the passport to that ordinance. As he could get no satisfaction from the bishop, Mr, Jenkins brought the matter before the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the Dean of Arches in an elaborate judgment has decided that a belief in the personality of the devil is a necessary part of Christian teaching, and that an avowed and persistent denial of such personality did, according to the law of the Church, constitute Mr. Jenkins ‘an evil liver,’ and ‘a depraver of the Book of Common Prayer,’ in such a manner as to warrant Mr Cook in refusing to administer the Holy Communion to him until he disavowed this heretical opinion. This, it must be allowed, is rather rough upon Mr. Jenkins, seeing that in the celebrated ‘ Essays and Reviews ’ case it was decided that there was no hindrance to a clergyman of the Church of England holding somewhat similar opinions. Are we to understand that in that Church there are two standards of faith—one for the clergy, and the other for the laity ; that for the latter being by far the stricter of the two? It would almost seem as if the clergy of the State Church in England, feeling their power over the laity slipping from their hands, were trying, by the application of greater stringency to the doctrines of the Church, to retain the shadow at least of what they are losing.”