Mexborough and Swinton Times February 1, 1895
Conisbrough and Consecration
The Parish Council Accepts the Archbishop’s Compromise
A Long Debate
Personality Fly Broadcasts
Mr Booth Arrives Just in Time
Mr Sharp will make it warm for some of them
A meeting of the Burial Board committee of the Conisbrough Parish Council was held on Wednesday night in the Board room at the Board School. Councillor S Whitfield presiding, and the members present were Councillors W W Norwood, J Gillott, F Ogley, A Senior, J Jones, D Robinson, T.W.Casey, J.Marsh, R.H.Sharp, C Holmes, W Taylor and T.R.Booth
At the outset there were only 12 members present, Councillors T.R.Booth a consecrationist was absent, leaving the rival parties equally balance numerically.
The first business of the meeting was a general character, including the signing of cheques and grants for grave spaces. Then the clerk intimated that it would be necessary to point a cemetery manager in place Mr G.T.Nicholson who had acted in that capacity under the old Burial Board.
Councillor Senior thereupon move that Councillor Jones be appointed manager of the cemetery. Councillor Norwood seconded.
The Chairman: I think it desirable that someone should be appointed to take a more active part in the management than the whole committee can.
Councillor Holmes: I should like to ask whether Mr George will be able to attend to the duties.
Councillor Jones: I don’t know that I ever undertook a duty that I could not fulfil Councillor Sharp: That is not an answer to the question.
Councillor Jones: if I undertake a duty I will see to it – after some further discussion Councillor Jones was appointed unanimously, and agreed to accept the office.
Councillor Casey: I should like to ask if there is a mortuary at the cemetery?
The Clerk: Yes there is.
Councillor Casey: then it is true that the mortuary is used as a stable?
The Clerk: I believe so.
Councillor Casey: Has the caretaker had permission to do that?
Councillor Holmes: Do you think you would do it without?
Councillor Casey: I was asking if he had permission.
Councillor Holmes: Yes, he has.
Councillor Jones: I have heard a great many complaints, and the matter is one that ought to be attended to.
Councillor Sharp asked who horse it was that was kept in the mortuary, and the clerk replied to belong to the caretaker.
Councillor Casey said he suppose the fact that the caretaker found a horse had been taken into account in his salary, and he thought he ought to pay for stable room.
Councillor Holmes: No, it says nothing about a horse in his contract.
Councillor Norwood: It is really necessary for him to keep a horse on account of the lawn mower. The pony is useful to him, but he ought to have a proper stable for it.
The Chairman: Then I will propose that he has the Board room for a stable. There is no other use for it. ( Laughter)
Councillor Norwood: I think he can do with that in his house, it is small enough.
Councillor John said he understood that stillborn children are been taken into the mortuary, and there was a strong feeling in the town against bodies being deposited in a stable (Hear, Hear)
Councillor Holmes said there had never been a complaint made as to that before the old Board.
Councillor Jones: that is not to say it should not come before those.
Councillor Holmes: certainly not; only it looks as if the complaint cannot be of very long standing.
Councillor Sharp thought it was very proper that the matter should be discussed. He did not think they ought to wait for a complaint for the purpose of removing a grievance. It was very natural there should be a prejudice against putting dead bodies in a stable, and it was a feeling they ought to respect. The man took the position caretaker without any arrangement for keeping a horse, and consequently, he had no right to keep it there. So far as he could gather the Board have not given permission.
Councillor Holmes: oh, yes they did.
Councillor Sharp said he did not matter if they had. Out of deference to public opinion he did not think stabling ought to be found there. (Hear, Hear)
The Clerk denied that ever any stillborn children to be placed stable, and after some further discussion it was decided that the manager of the cemetery should enquire into the matter and report to the next meeting.
The Clerk then read the Archbishop’s letter, referring to the question of the consecration of a portion of the cemetery which His Grace stated that he was informed that he could obtain a mandamus compellingly the parish to erect a second chapel, and that he did not wish to proceed to extremities with the Burial Board, and would consequently agree that as a compromise the present chapel be enlarged and a section of it consecrated. He suggested this course as one incurring less expense to the parish.
Councillor Holmes moved: “That in the opinion of this committee requirements of the parish for burial purposes are been fully met and amply provided for, and any attempt to interfere with the present arrangements be a violation of the constitutionally expressed wishes of the ratepayers and declared by them at the poll in September last.”
Councillor Gillot: I have an amendment.
Councillor Sharp: I beg pardon, Mr Chairman, but an amendment is out of order until the motion is seconded.
Councillor Casey then seconded the motion.
Counselling Gillot proposed that the present chapel be so altered and enlarged as to be converted into two chapels, one of which should be consecrated. He remarked that when the poll was taken on the question the only lost by 52 votes, and he was given to understand that if it had been a vote by ballot they would have had a majority (Hear, Hear)
Councillor Norwood seconded. He thought they ought to consider the feelings of the churchmen in the matter, and the art been taken into account at the outset. They ought to have been two chapels and it was a great injustice that only one chapel was built. Now that the Archbishop was willing to accept this compromise he hoped the Council would agree to it. It would be cheaper to the parish to enlarge the present chapel and to compel the Archbishop to obtain a mandamus, which he certainly would do if his offer was not accepted. He thought the Archbishop was quite right in sticking up for the conscientious opinions of church people. (Applause)
Councillor Marsh said, in reply to Mr Norwood’s charge of injustice to the church people, that if any injustice have been done to them at all it was relayed to the church people themselves. Many had thought it was a fault of the church people that there were not two chapels in the first instance, and in fact, it was even the fault of the Archbishop himself at that time (Hear, Hear) it was known that he would not consecrate, and therefore it was considered useless to build a second chapel, it was for that reason the church people did not take any steps at the time to have a second chapel built. Mr Ward, who was a vicar at that time seem quite content to allow things to go as they were and to be satisfied with one chapel, and he thought he had a very great deal to do with that the way the chapel should be built so that it might meet the requirements of the church. Now they had another Archbishop and it seemed to him that he wanted to boss the shanty. (Hear, Hear and applause)
Now he wanted to consecrate the ground and would not do it unless a second chapel was built and he thought that would be an injustice after having permitted the parish to believe that one chapel will be sufficient. On these grounds he thought they were bound to oppose the request of the Archbishop. He thought if it was the intention of those who offer themselves for election to the Council to propose a resolution of this sort it was their duty to let the ratepayers know of it. He did not find that any of them on their election addresses made any promise of a motion like this (Hear, Hear) and he meant to say that to have been perfectly honest and honourable that was what they should have done. He would have be ashamed to have brought forward a motion like the amendment so soon after the election. It was not as if it was known at the time of the election and this matter would have to be discussed. They all knew that the Archbishop written that letter and it would have to come forward, but nothing was said about it during the election and he could not see how any of them had a right to support such an amendment as that which had been moved. He hoped that the Council will decide against. They ought to take into consideration what it meant. It meant that a parish meeting have to be called, and they would have to get the consent of the parish meeting to carry this through.
That might result in a poll of the parish been taken again, a proceeding which would involve a great deal of expense, and will besides unnecessary, seeing that it was so very recently that they got the opinion of the parish. It was a very few months since the parish said: “No,” and they had no reason to think that the ratepayers had changed their minds. On some matters they would not be allowed to bring a question before the ratepayers again until 12 months have elapsed from their expressing their opinion and it hardly seemed decent and it should be brought up again so soon. (Hear, hear)
Councillor Sharp and great pleasure in supporting the resolution. He agreed with Mr Marsh, especially in that part of his speech very said, that if there was any fault in reference to the buildings of the present chapel, it must be laid to the door of churchmen themselves. The late vicar, Mr Wood, took the most prominent part in connection with the management of the cemetery, and even went so far as to get a private communication from the late Archbishop, and was in possession of the knowledge that he would not consecrate. (Hear, hear.) That letter, he remembered, constituted a very great grievance with the co workers of the late workers of the late vicar of the Burial Board, because he kept that lettuce of 18 months or two years before its contents became generally known; so he said that if there was any blame whatsoever to be charged to anyone, it must be laid at the door of churchmen themselves. He did not know, however, that there was any need to blame anyone, because he held that the buildings is at present erected on the cemetery were quite sufficient for the purpose for which they were intended. Not only was that so, but they had been recognised as sufficient.
He was not sure whether they present vicar and user chapel are not, but he did know that Mr Rosevere, of Denaby, and had used the chapel for interments, and if it had not met all needs he would not have used it. By their own showing the place was simply sufficient. He thought there was a good deal of sentiment in the question. Supposing they granted that the buildings were not sufficient, what were they going to do with the bodies buried already? Had they not been decently interred? Surely the building already erected would answer all purposes of propriety better than a private dwelling house would. (Hear, hear) Certainly there was more accommodation at the chapel, and for more propriety and convenience in a private dwelling. Under a consideration of that kind there was no need to erect a second chapel. Then again, the past Archbishop was entirely opposed to consecration. The former Archbishop, Thompson consecrate without two chapels, and the present Archbishop of Canterbury would concentrate without two chapels. Where they then to be put to inconvenience and expense at the ipse dixit of the present Archbishop of York? (Hear, hear)
where were they? Where was the money to come from? They had not sufficient money to hand even to buy a safe. (Laughter) There were all the expense of the Council to be borne, and they added a penny piece to pay anything with, while their powers of raising money were limited to a sum of about £250. Then again what were they asked to do?
There was no plan before them, nor estimate of what the alteration will cost, nothing but a blind resolution put before them. As far as the Archbishop was concerned, he believed it was simply a question of money. (Hear, hear). Some time ago when a deputation waited on the Archbishop of Your in the interests of the old Burial Board, they were not most respectfully met. The experienced treatment from the Archbishop they did not expect at the hands of a gentleman, and his reply to one question had very deeply impressed itself on his memory. He might have spoken a little hastily, but he believed he spoke from the heart, and believed it was the truth. He said the “salary of the Vicar of Conisbrough is little enough at present, and we are not going to lose any chance of making it more.” That proved it was not merely a question of religious sentiment, not that the church people wish for decency’s sake of two chapels, it became solely and wholly a matter of money. (Hear, hear.) The simple fact was that consecration carried with it the fees, and that was all they cared about. (Hear, hear.) This question of fees will become a very great permanent and grave scandal as they well knew. He then related to instances of double fees being charged at Kilnhurst for residents in the parish who had died out of the parish. Did they mean to say there was any sentiment in that?
Councillor Norwood: Oh, they’re a bad lot.
Councillor Sharp: there are a bad lot, and I am glad to hear you admit it. I have gained your vote for the resolution, I should think. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said they were a bad lot, and it was true by the Archbishop’s recent action with regard to grave wreaths. (Hear, hear.) Let them consecrate the cemetery, and these people who were very properly described by Mr Norwood as a bad lot, would be able to do the same thing for Conisbrough with regard to wreaths that been done elsewhere. Let them consecrate the ground and Mr Norwood’s bad lot could dictate to people who had bought their graves what can a monument station erect, let them consecrate the ground, and this bad lot would be able, if any of them chanced to die away from home and was brought to Conisbrough for burial, to demand double burial fees
All this was not to be expected as they consecrated the ground and build a second chapel. Consecration they could not get out of. The old Burial Board had agreed to consecration, and the ground have been divided and could be consecrated tomorrow if the Archbishop liked. But no, there must be a second chapel or he would not consecrate, and he trusted the Council would decline to interfere with the present buildings in the lease, and if that had the effect of preventing consecration taking place at all, then so much the better. (Hear, hear.)
Councillor Booth at this juncture arrived at the meeting, and his appearance was a signal for a smile of relief among the Consecrationist members of the Council.
Councillor Booth: Shall I be in order, Mr Chairman, in asking what is the resolution?
The Chairman: You are in order, but I don’t think you are deserving of it.
The chairman then read the resolution and amendment for Mr Booth’s benefit. He then proceeded to say that he should support the resolution. The Archbishop had said that no vestry could override an Act of Parliament, and he wanted to know how and Archbishop override the Act. The Archbishop said that he would not allow his clergy to conduct a service in an unconsecrated building, but while there was that clause in the act he could not vote for the amendment.
Councillor Holmes then replied on the whole debate. Mr Norwood, he said, had charged them doing something that was not courteous to the Churchmen, and blamed them for seeking to deprive Churchmen of something that belonged to them. Perhaps Mr Norwood and not forgotten an incident at a parish meeting held in the Board School on Christmas eve some years ago. At that meeting they were almost unanimous against consecration, and when he afterwards asked Mr Norwood how it was they did not support their vicar, he said the vicar did not treat them courteously and they were not going out of their way to support him. That was as much as they cared for consecration year or two ago. The churchmen absolutely threw their chances away, and they said that the chief reason for not demanding a second chapel at that time was one of consideration for the ratepayers pockets. There will still need for improvement in Conisbrough and the churchmen had no right, having changed their minds, to come now dip their hands into the ratepayers pockets in this manner.
Proceeding, he said that the chapel as it now stood was commodious enough for very large funerals, but if they were going to alter it they would make two little places about as big as horseboxes, and he did not consider that was the desirable state of things.
He then read the last paragraph of the election address of the Consecrationist Party, and declared that ostensibly they were economists, but in reality extravagant spendthrifts, the first thing they desire to do was not to spend money in the parish when it was needed but straightaway on an object that was uncalled for and unnecessary. There was one member of the Council wins election address said he will be opposed to spending any money was not to be employed for the good of the parish. He would like to know how it was that he had changed his mind.
Councillor Senior said he had always been a Consecrationist, and a very newer, and he certainly should portfolio member if that was what Mr Holmes wanted to know.
Councillor Holmes: I was afraid so.
Councillor Norwood said his name and been freely bandied about, and he thought he was entitled to say something. In the first place he considered it would be an improvement to enlarge the chapel and consecrate part of it. With regard to the statement of Mr Holmes was never at a parish meeting at the Board School in his life, and he certainly never made the remark about Mr Wood which Mr Holmes at put into his mouth. That story was totally untrue (Hear, hear.)
He would not deny that certain members of the church party were in favour of having on one chap, but that did not say that the Archbishop suggestion could should not be carried out now that they found he could not consecrate with one chapel. The church had provided a burial ground for the whole parish in years gone by, and it was only right they should have their privileges with regard to the cemetery. A good deal be made out of the jocular remark she made about the clergy being a bad lot, but they were quite safe on the question of fees in Conisbrough as the vicar had said he would not take the fees.
Councillor Holmes object to Mr Norwood addressing his remarks to the vicar and indeed he objected to Mr Norwood speaking at all. He was out of order as no one could speak after the mover of a resolution had replied.
The Chairman: That is so, strictly speaking Mr Norwood is out of order.
Councillor Norwood: Do you rule me out of order then?
The Chairman: Yes I must stop
Councillor Sharp rose to speak, but the Chairman said he would be compelled to rule him out of order also.
Councillor Sharp: Then I shall take the opportunity of speaking next week, you shall have it as part as I can give it (Laughter)
The Chairman was about to put the question to the vote when Councillor Sharp said: “Will you tell is what the amendment consists of. I suppose a poor man can ask for information?”
The Chairman: I am about to read it.
Councillor Sharp: But we want it to be explained. It is about the blindest thing I have ever heard.
The Chairman: Well, you have had the opportunity of speaking upon it.
The question was then put the meeting and the voting was as follows:
For the amendment:
(two chapels) 7
Councillors Gillott, Ogley, Senior, Booth, Jones, Taylor and Norwood
for the resolution:
(one chapel) 6
the Chairman, Councillor Sharp, Holmes, Casey, Robinson, Marsh
the Chairman declared the amendment carried, and this concluded the meeting.