Mexborough and Swinton Times, November 10, 1906
Uproarious Scenes at Conisborough
Parish Councillors Angry
Where Mr Baker Learned His Trickery
“That Horrible Fellow.”
Mr Pagdin’s Pun
The Station Road Schools were on Wednesday night the scene of considerable uproar when a meeting of the Parish Council took place – if it can be dignified with the term “meeting.” Corner boy epitaphs flitted across the room, and some exceedingly sharp interchange took place between Mr Baker and the other members of the Council
The meeting was held in Station Road Infants School. Mr J Brocklesby chairman presided and the following members attended: Messrs C Walker, TW Mosby, G Smithson, Henry Baker, T Packman, W Wilson, HL Smethurst, F Ogley, WW Norwood, HH Wray with Mr Hawksworth (Clerk) and his assistant.
The Clerk stated that the total of the accounts for the month amounted to £22 0s 6d and payment of that amount was approved
Footpaths
The chairman said they had a report from the Footpaths Committee, Mr Smethurst said he met Mr White, of Mexborough, Mr Montagu’s agent, in reference to the footpath from Earnshaw Lane to North Cliffs. Mr White had come to very reasonable terms, agreeing to a post and rail fence with the footpath at the nominal sum of a shilling a yard. Mr Thomas Booth price for the work would be 1/10 per yard and for repairing the fence and doing all the necessary work his tender will come to £14 14s. Mr Thomas Wilson had tendered at 1/8 there yard, the total of his tender being £13.
The Chairman: You recommend that we take this work in hand?
Mr Wray: That is our decision, and if it necessitates a resolution, I move we put the matter in hand at once.
The Chairman: I may say that we have received a letter from a solicitor, which rather upsets matters, but I think this council should accept the report of the committee and have it inserted on the minutes.
Mr Baker thought it would better to have the letter read from the solicitor first.
The Chairman: The committee have gone to very great trouble and pains —
Mr Mosby: And expense.
The Chairman: And they have brought it to a very satisfactory issue, and I think the best we can do is accept the report.
Mr Ogley then moved and Mr Wilson seconded.
The resolution was carried.
The Clerk said he received the following letter from Mr Montagu solicitors, Messrs Avison, Morton and Paxson, Liverpool who wrote:
“30 November 1906.
Montagu Proposed Footpaths at Conisborough.
Dear Sir
Mr George White had an interview with some members of your council yesterday with respect to a new footpath leading down Earnshaw Lane in a northerly direction, which Mr Montagu has been requested by your Council to allow to be used on sufferance. Since this matter was first mooted, damage and tresspas have been committed on Mr Montagu’s property with a view of attempting to establish a public right of way from the continuation of Earnshaw Lane in a westerly direction, over certain other parts which Mr Montagu claims to be his private property.
Mr Montagu is contemplating taking proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court to establish his rights; and we regret, therefore, we cannot advise him until those proceedings are closed and disposed off, to continue negotiations with your Council.
We may explain that letters have been written on behalf of trespasses, which imply that they are prepared to admit Mr Montagu’s claims in consideration of him acquiescent in your Council’s request. Mr Montagu does not admit for one moment that the new footpath is in substitution of the old one, and we cannot advise him in his own interest at the present moment to agree to any arrangement which might be misconstrued by the inhabitants of Conisborough as the abandonment or modification of his undoubted right to the disputed road and parts. At a later date possibly the matter can be revived without prejudice to Mr Montagu’s interest.”
The Chairman thought they showed intimate that the Council as a council, had take no part whatever in regard to the footpath in dispute, and that they were taking action independent of that altogether. He thought the footpath would be of advantage to Montagu estate, because it would lead to 2 other footpaths beingclose – at least he thought so
Mr Smethurst: I expect they only sent that to know how they stand. This matter was considered before any dispute arose over this footpath.
The Chairman: They did not disagree – but they asked to have it put in another place.
Mr Baker: in a better and drier place. It is all right, but as there are so many things brought up I should like to know that it was amicable and right to those people.
On a motion by Mr Smithson, seconded by Mr Wilson, the letter was left to the Subcommittee.
Regarding another footpath at North Cliffs, the committee recommended that it be repaired at five guineas.
Mr Norwood complained of the loose stones left on the parts which the children threw about.
The Chairman; I take it that this committee will act as clerk of works, and see that this is done satisfactorily, because those stones should be well laid down.
“It is a very important question,” said Mr Pagdin, and it was curious that nobody smile when he had the following titbit,: “I know they will throw stones at cattle because I have been stoned myself in the very same place! Things they will throw at a human being they will throw at cattle.”
Mr Smethurst then read the following letter from Mr Saville, builder and contractor, Conisborough:
“I am requested by Mr Smethurst to send a tender for repairing stone wall on Minneymoor. I respectably declined to give you a tender for such paltry jobs. I think that rates and taxes are quite high enough without cutting one another’s prices down to do parish work. I, for one, will not be a party to it. If you can’t trust any of this to do the work of the parish (who pay the rates for same) it would be better not to do it. I hope there are plenty of tradesmen on the council to see and understand the meaning of my declining. It is not from any disrespect to you as a body, but simply to put down such cutting down of prices until one can hardly live. Thank you for past favours”
The Chairman was sorry Mr Savile had taken that view of this case because they could not get the work done without a tender. If they did, the auditor would surcharge them straightaway.
The matter was referred back to committee.
After discussions on lost charities, then came;
Allotments
The Clerk presented a list of accounts respecting allotment, which showed that since taking over of the powers they had had a total deficiency of £21 12s 4d. There were about 4 pounds owing by default; “and some of these,” added the Clerk, “have run away.” (Laughter)
The “Scene”
The Clerk read the following letter from Messrs T Shearman & Sons of Doncaster, the Councils valuers in the matter:
“Messrs Dawson and ourselves (Mr Clarkson valuers) have agreed upon the amount to be paid to Mr BJ Clarkson, for the land you have taken for allotment purposes, and Mr Clarkson has taken the award. We have agreed as follows: for taking 5 acres of land £27 10 shillings; Mrs Dawson’s fees, including solicitor,£5 5s; our fees £3 3s, stamp and writing 4s total £36 2s
Mr Norwood: on which the council paid £10 and Mr Baker £26 2s
Mr Baker: I am rather surprised at you, Mr Norwood I should like you to explain fully.
In explanation, Mr Norwood recalled an incident at a previous meeting, in which Mr Baker promised to pay the difference over a valuation, if any, of £10.
The Chairman reviewed the proceedings leading up to the valuation at length, and said that the offer made by Mr Baker was in the matter of a challenge to himself. But for Mr Baker he ventured to say the whole thing would have been settled long ago. Mr Baker’s intemperate remarks at a previous meeting of the council had resulted in the ratepayers paying an additional sum of £26 2s. Mr Baker’s judgement had been proved to be shockingly bad. It was a very unfortunate thing and he was sorry that one man should be able to upset the decisions of the Council, and that so great a loss should result. He did not think it would have added to the dignity of the chairmanship to accept such a challenge. It might be that Mr Baker, fearing that he was committed to some extent by what was said would offer to pay the difference. He certainly thought the Council, in justice to itself and the ratepayers should ask Mr Baker to pay the difference.
Mr Wilson asked if the additional cost came out of ratepayer’s pockets or out of the pockets of those who pay the rents?
Mr Smethurst: I think for the present ratepayers will have to pay.
Mr Wilson understood that the terms will be amended in such a way that it will neither cost the ratepayers anything eventually, nor result in any profit for the ratepayers. Therefore, it seems clear that any additional expenditure will eventually, at any rate, come out of the pockets of the tenants who took the allotments.
The Chairman suppose they should have to pay it, but when it was paid it would be debited against allotments.
Mr Smethurst was of the opinion that they would never get it repaid, because the all the allotments will remain at the present rents.
Mr Wilson: After this action of Mr Baker, it will be absolutely necessary to raise the rents of the allotments.
After some further discussion on the subject, Mr Baker rose excitedly, and asked: “have you not said all that you have got to say against Mr Baker now?”
“We have not quite finished yet,” replied Mr Wilson amid some laughter.
Mr Wilson then addressed the meeting at some length, the burden of his argument being that Mr Baker was to blame for all the trouble that had arisen. He asked to have the minutes of meeting read at which they agreed to close with Mr Montagu.
The Clerk then read the minutes referred to, but was unable to comply with Mr Wilson’s request in the matter of supply the names of those who voted for and against a resolution to accept Mr Montagu’s offer at £3 per acre.
Mr Wilson said of that that of the 11 members present at that meeting everybody voted for the resolution with the exception of Mr Baker.
“To save you time,” he said Mr Baker excitedly, “you have it from me that Mr Baker did so. There are a lot of you against me, but I’m quite ready for you all!”
“Shall we have a resolution on this matter? Or is the chairman.
“Do you mean to say that I cannot reply,” declared Mr Baker indignantly, “when Mr Norwood has gone and expressed himself in this way?.”
Mr Wray then moved that they pay the cheque for the full amount that night, and instruct the Clerk to write to Mr Baker, asking him if he will pay the amount over the £10.
“Will you take anything for cash?” queried Mr Smethurst amid laughter.
The resolution was passed, and Mr Baker then rose to reply. His speech, which was frequently interrupted, was delivered with a considerable show of passion.
“I am pleased indeed, he said at the outset, referring to 3 or four spectators who had come to see the comedy, “that there are others here tonight beside the council. I feel quite proud of that. It is plain to see the very bitter feeling that is aroused by certain people against me now Mr Baker is quite ready to answer all that has been said, and I have to thank you for once sir, for saying what you did – that it was sort of challenge over the allotments. I certainly did feel very much annoyed and upset and Mr Clarkson claiming £10 a valuation for this plan, which was known to everyone to be in a very bad state of cultivation; known to be bad defence; known to be trespassed on all sides; known to be land that Mr Clarkson then put a head of cattle on himself; but he was only too glad to let it any of those poor drivers to put a horse on for a sum of money, and to keep boys there watching them from getting on to the road. I pointed out most things at the time. We were all aware that there had been a fence taken down out of these 5 acres of land; we were all so aware that Mr Clarkson is only paying £1 per acre for this 5 acres, along with the land; and we are also aware that it is the worst part of Mr Clarkson’s farm, which he gets under our respected squire Mr Montagu.”
Several interruptions here took place, and spreading out his hands pleadingly, Mr Baker said: “Do give me a chance; there are all of you against me.”
The Chairman: You say “we” all the time, but personally I shall dispute everything.
“We all disagree with you,” observed Mr Wilson.
“I am very sorry about that,” retorted Mr Baker: “You are one of the local preachers, and you are continually interrupting me.”
Mr Wilson: You’re not speaking the truth.
Mr Baker: You shall have the truth. Remember, you have been threatened to be knocked down for telling lies by Mr Kent here. You know what he told you.
“You must not say that,” remonstrated the Chairman.
“And you allow him to talk to me like that?” Pleaded Mr Baker.
“Mr Wilson has not said nothing to draw such remarks as to have come from you,” the Chairman pointed out.
“Then why do you interrupt me?” Said Mr Baker testily.
“Because I want to put you on the right footing,” explained the Chairman.
Mr Baker said he was speaking of the parish generally.
“But it is incorrect when you say we, observed the Chairman.
Mr Baker: I will say that the parish generally understand this council then – certain doings that are before us. May I say that?”
The Chairman: That is your explanation – yes.
Mr Baker: That is my opinion – very well now, then. I still contend that £10 was too much for this valuation. Proceeding, Mr Baker said he did not wish to say one word against the valuers, although he could say a lot. He went on to complain that although he was put down to give evidence as to the value of the land, he had never been asked to do so.
The Chairman: No one was asked to attend.
“If I had attended,” declared Mr Baker, “I should have told the values something extraordinary.” He should have stated to the valuers that where the land was not arable the seed for it was found by Mr Montagu, and not by Mr Clarkson. Whatever was put there had caused the valuers to do what they had done. In addition to that, had they any chance to have redress for the right-of-way which the Doncaster Corporation had over this land. Not one word has been said about that, and he ventured to say that not one word of that had be put before the valuers. He said it was a most unjust and unfair valuation, with all due deference to the gentleman who had valued it. He maintained that they had acted justly, but on the other hand the Council had not assisted them.
“Now this Mr Norwood – you, sir,” continued Mr Baker, turning towards Mr Norwood, “I challenge you with it.”
“You must address the Chairman, Sir,” said Mr Wilson.
Mr Baker: Let me be, then, and let the chairman deal with me. Now I maintain this: No one knows better than Mr Norwood that this valuation is wrong. No one knows better than Mr Norwood what he said about it, and also that it is done in the interests of certain parties. I maintain that this valuation is got up in a most improper way.”
He went on to say that certain members of the council had done what was wrong by assisting Mr Clarkson and for their own aggrandizement, condemning him (Mr Baker) in the highest and most respectable circles; and he therefore said they had acted in a most cowardly and ungallant manner in doing what they had done. As far as the odds were concerned, he did say distinctly – and he said it still – that if the Chairman would join him to get the correct valuation, and if it was anything above £10 he would pay the difference.
Mr Brocklesby did not accept this challenge.
The Chairman challenge the statement, and added that there had been no collusion between Mr Clarkson and himself, nor did he think there had been any collusion between Mr Clarkson and other members of the Council. (Cries of “Withdraw.”)
“I shall withdraw nothing,” cried Mr Baker.
No one will believe what you’re saying,” putting Mr Wilson.
“I am very glad you said that,” observed Mr Baker. “It comes from you, and I can see your word is a compliment to me. I told you before, I tell you again, that you are a horrible fellow – (uproar) – that what you say and the way you say it, is a great advertisement, and a testimonial, coming from you.”
The Chairman: Have you done?
Mr Baker: I have done in a moment.
The Chairman said it was anticipated that the question will go to arbitration, and in the event of that happening it would then be necessary that representatives of the Council should be called. A certain number of gentlemen – he did not remember who, but Mr Baker amongst others – were appointed to give evidence before the arbitrator, the matter had been settled before.
Mr Baker: Thank you – that is a very good answer, and I thank you for it. I do not want anything but what is right and just. To go further, you say you have not yourself acted in collusion this matter. Did you, when a question was put before you the other day, say: “O, well, I cannot very well: Mr Clarkson is one of my dearest friends.”
The Chairman: No, certainly not.
Mr Baker: You are quite sure.
The Chairman: Positively certain. Now Mr Baker be careful what you are doing. We do not want any trickery.
“When I deal with tricky people I have to resort to trickery,” retorted Mr Baker. He repeated his question, and the Chairman asked what he was referring to. “Is it the valuation,” he asked, “No trickery!”
Mr Baker: That is very good of you.
The Chairman: Was it this valuation question?
Mr Baker: Not altogether. (Uproar.)
The Chairman then explained that he was asked by the man who was engaged in contesting the footpath right away case, to contribute towards the cost, any reply, “No, I cannot do that; Mr Clarkson and I are friendly, and if I contribute to that will look as if I was against him.”
Mr Baker: Didn’t you say he was one of your dearest friends?
The Chairman: You can see how Mr Baker puts this question in regard to another matter.
Mr Baker: when I have tricky people to deal with I must be tricky, and I have verified it here. Therefore if Mr Clarkson is your dearest friend in that department –
the Chairman: I did not say that, please play straight.
Mr Baker: You shall have it straight from the shoulder. I shall say something else if you like.
The Cape Chairman: have you nearly done?
Mr Baker: I understood that I was allowed to reply to all. I’m very sorry that Mr Robinson is not here tonight; I shall see for the future that the votes are recorded. Mr Baker went on to say that they need not put any extra labour and the Clerk by getting to write the letter – it would only be a waste of time. But he (Mr Baker) will pay £10 against Mr Brocklesby’s, as the chairman, if they had an arbitrator in this case, and then they could settle it in a proper way.
The Chairman: We cannot now.
Mr Baker: Then why do we not have an arbitrator? I understood that we were to have one.
The Chairman; Because the valuers agreed.
Mr Baker: Why do we not have the inspector from the agricultural board?
During further discussion Mr Baker asserted that Mr Wilson was trying to blacken his character as elections were coming on soon. But he (Mr Baker) should fight for the position on the District Council.
Ultimately the discussion was closed by the Chairman declared in the resolution passed unanimously voted for it with a section of Mr Baker
Mr Baker’s Flank Movement
The Standing Orders were suspended to enable Mr Baker to go on with the following notice of motion: “To consider the question of neglecting to appoint a Chairman at the annual meeting as prescribed by the Parish Council Act, schedule one, part two, rule three and to move a resolution as follows:
“That the Clerk wrirte the West Riding County Council or Local Government Board, or both, asking them to state our position in the matter.”
Mr Baker asserted that he brought forward the resolution in no spirit of vindictiveness, and the Chairman said he had regarded it as a personal attack on himself, but on Mr Baker statement he withdrew it.
It found no seconder, however, and fell through.