Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 01 September 1893
A New Inn for Denaby Main
A Solicitor on the Development of the Village
Mr. Hickmott, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Denaby Main Colliery Company for a license to sell intoxicating liquors in a house in New Denaby, the applicant being Mr. George Wilkie.
Mr. Hall opposed the granting of the application.
Mr. Hickmott said the application was made under section 2 of the Licensing Acts, 1874. They wished for provisional grant of a license for premises proposed to be constructed at New Denaby. The colliery company had now developed one of the largest mining centres in South Yorkshire. They had been working pits there and had recently sunk another shaft, and the output would thus be increased from half a million to a million and a half or two tons annually. So their worships would understand something of the magnitude of that mining centre.
From one pit alone—which had gone through eight seams and there the Barnsley bed had now been commenced to be worked—the output would be 5000 tons per diem. Not taking into consideration the question of the getting of coal and the mineral rents, upwards of half a million of money had thus far been expended, and it was anticipated that considerably more would have to be spent, sufficient coal having been acquired to enable the carrying on of mining operations for more than a century, assuming that it was continuous. He was mentioning these facts because he contended there was real and absolute necessity for the application.
In the village there was a population exceeding 4000. During the last two years there had been 330 new houses erected by the company and plans had been passed by the Rural Sanitary Authority for 600 more. Therefore it would be seen that a small agricultural village had been transformed into probably the most important mining centre in the south of this county, and it was not asking too much to say that they ought to have some control over the licensing question there. It was not for pecuniary gain that the application was made.
In the case of houses occupied by brewers, or their houses occupied by tenants, the sole and only object was one of profit. And there were some licensed victuallers who really held out inducements which, in the interests of the men attending the houses, it would be best if they were not held out. The company would not be sparing in the question of expense, and they wanted to have put up what would be something of a Miners’ Institute. They wanted to be guided by the leaders of the men, so that it might be properly conducted and no undue advantage would be taken.
The sole desire was that every convenience should be given to the miners in that place. Mr. Chambers, the general manager of the collieries, would go into the box and would say that, if the application was granted, under no circumstances would the house pass from the ownership of the company; and not only intoxicating drink, but also non-intoxicating drink and food would also be sold on the premises.
The proposed house would be situate between the Station Hotel at Conisborough, and the Reresby Arms at Denaby; the distance from the Denaby house was 1057 yards and from the Conisborough inn it was 781 yards.
Mr. Hall was opposing on behalf of the owner of the Station Hotel and also on behalf of the tenant of the house. It was hard to conceive why there should be opposition, because the occupiers of the Station Hotel were thoroughly unable to cope with the demands. If this application was granted there would still be plenty of work left for the other innkeepers.
The requirements of Denaby were so inadequate that people went to Conisborough and through the streets there so as to get supplied. He had a document signed by over 90 per cent. of the people in the immediate neighbourhood, saying that the license now asked for would be a public convenience; practically every householder had signed it. There were 515 signatures—all miners—and it was only signed by householders. The inhabitants were practically unanimous in support of the application. The only opposition was from the owner and tenant of the Station Hotel.
He had the authority of the Superintendent of Police to tell the court—and, if necessary, he would ask him to go into the witness box to say so—that he thinks the license is a necessity, and he concurred in the application. The plans (produced) were well adapted for a neighbourhood like that. They would be first-class premises, where food and drink could be obtained, and where men might meet and discuss social and any other questions.
The premises would be under the control of a tenant who would not be “tied” to any particular house, but who would have a free hand to buy the best liquor possible and at the best price, and the colliers in the neighbourhood would all be benefited.
Mr. W. H. Chambers, the general manager of the collieries, was then examined. He said, in answer to Mr. Hickmott, that it was under his supervision that the new Cadeby pits were sunk. There were eight seams of coal, including the Barnsley seam, which was ten feet thick. The company were also owners of other mining work there—Denaby Main—which had been carried on for some time. The company had expended over half a million of money and the works would require the expenditure of a considerable sum more. The output shortly would exceed 1,000,000 tons annually and 5,000 tons daily from the pits at Cadeby would be the output.
The company had acquired sufficient coal that if the drawing took place continuously it would last a century. Before mining operations commenced at Denaby Main there was but one farmhouse; now the population was over 4000. The company had lately erected 310 new houses and Messrs. Kilner Bros. (glass bottle manufacturers) had built 20. Plans had been passed for the erection of 600 new houses and it was contemplated that the work would be proceeded with at once. With a population computed at five to a house, this would bring a total of 3000; but it might safely be reckoned six to a house.
The proposed house was to be contiguous to the houses, which would surround it, on land belonging to the company. The premises would not be constructed primarily for pecuniary gain, and they would be so conducted as not to hinder the men getting regularly to work. They would be able to get their glass of beer, but no other inducement to get them to stop would be offered; anything contrary to such an arrangement was what was objected to.
Mr. Hickmott: And the house would not pass from the hands of the company?
No.
Mr. Hall: That is a question for the Bench.
Mr. Hickmott: It is the intention to supply also non-alcoholic drinks and food?
Mr. Chambers: It is.
Are the Reresby Arms and the Station Hotel able to compete with the demands made upon them?
No.
The Reresby Arms is closed for a certain time each day?
Yes.
Mr. Slater well conducts his house. He shuts up his house so that the men can go home and clean themselves. It is an exceedingly well conducted house.
Mr. Hall: We have heard about 600 new houses, but none are built.
Mr. Chambers: The population is over 4000 now.
Mr. Hall: There is an off-license at the Co-operative Society, and that belongs to the company?
No, the house is let to the Co-operative Society.
But the property belongs to the company?
Yes.
And that is close to?
Not close to the house proposed to be built.
You want it as a Miners’ Institute?
There is a meeting room provided.
You can have a Miners’ Institute without selling drink?
They have had one provided by the company.
You will have the house and sell the best spirits? (Laughter.)
That is what we are expecting.
Getting the coal and working it that way is a great advantage to the company?
Yes.
Harry Joseph Swethers, architect to the company, gave evidence as to the proposed building, which he said would be 781 yards from an inn in one direction and 1057 yards away in the opposite direction.
Mr. L. T. Baines: How far is the co-operative store away from the proposed hotel?
630 yards.
Jas. Spence, clerk in Mr. Hickmott’s office, deposed to the notice of the application having been inserted in the “Mexborough and Swinton Times.”
Superintendent Blake was asked to enter the witness box.
Mr. Hickmott: Is there a necessity for this license?
That is my opinion.
They will be suitable premises; you have seen the plan?
Yes.
Is the present accommodation sufficient to cope with the demands?
No.
In answer to Mr. Hickmott as to the petition in favour of the application, the Chairman said he did not think the Bench had ever taken a petition.
Mr. Hickmott: The practice varies; I don’t press it.
To the Superintendent: Is the Station Hotel a “tied” house?
Yes, to Nicholson Bros., of Conisborough.
Mr. Hall, in opposition to the application, said he did not know what the raising of a certain quantity of coal by the company had to do with the matter. That was not the question. It must be for the advantage and benefit of the company, or they would not have opened the works. Of course the proposed house was to be the best and the spirits were to be the best, and there was to be a wonderful Miners’ Institute provided. (Laughter.) He could not see where the necessity was for another inn at all in that neighbourhood.
If an institute was needed and refreshments were something to drink, they could have provided anything excepting spirits, mentioned in the Act of Parliament. The great question, and it was a very serious question, was “Yes, or no, is it necessary to increase the facilities for drinking there?” The Denaby Main men lived at home and did not want to go to a public-house. They could go to the co-operative stores and buy wines and spirits, and anything they liked; they could get a small bottle or half-a-dozen bottles without going to a public-house, and the Station Hotel was only a reasonable walk. He opposed the application on behalf of Mr. Montagu and also on behalf of the man who occupied the Station Hotel.
Mr. Hickmott said there was no license for the sale of spirits at the co-operative stores.
Mr. Hall: Very well; they are better without a license for spirits.
It was subsequently stated that there was such a license, but that it was not made use of.
The magistrates retired to consider the question, and shortly returned to the bench. The Chairman said the magistrates were unanimous in granting the application.