Mexborough and Swinton Times, September 8th 1906
Conisboro’ Parish Council.
Mr. Clarkson And The Council.
Mr. Henry Baker was not present at the ordinary monthly meeting of the Conisboro’ Parish Council, held on Wednesday evening, in the Station Road Infants’ School, and that was probably one reason why the business was got through in the uncommonly good time of 45 minutes. There was very little reply important business to deal with and, as there was only a small attendance, it was quickly transacted.
Mr. John Brocklesby (the chairman) presided, and there were present Mr. George Smithson, Mr. David Robinson, Mr. T. W. Mosby, with the clerk, Mr. John Hawkeworth; and cemetery Caretaker, Mr. J. Hodgson.
The Allotment Land.
A discussion took place regarding the question of the valuation of the land required from Mr. B. J. Clarkson for purposes of allotments. It will be remembered that in the first instance Mr. Clarkson offered the Council the land at a certain price, but Mr. Baker objecting and making certain remarks which Mr. Clarkson evidently took exception to, he withdrew the offer, and left the matter with valuers appointed by the Council and himself. These gentlemen failing to agree, an umpire has been called in, and a inquiry will take place in due course.
The Clerk had received a letter from Mr. T. Shearman, the Council’s valuer, respecting the appointment of an umpire. He also requested the Clerk to forward all resolutions passed or rejected by the Council, all letters and documents, so that the evidence could be prepared.
The Chairman said as the inquiry might possibly take place before the next meeting of the Council, he should point out that the valuer would probably require additional evidence to that given by the Clerk and himself (the Chairman). They did not want to pay more than they were forced.
Mr. Robinson said it was about time they settled it.
A Member said the criticism of Mr. Clarkson by a certain member was putting the parish to considerable expense, which was unnecessary.
The Chairman: It Was represented that Mr. Clarkson was robbing the parish, and it was only to clear himself that he took this action.
Mr. Smithson: I should have done the same thing myself if I had been in his place.
Mr. Robinson: £6 or £7 per acre, what is it? You know he has had £7 per acre one for valuation.
The Chairman: In this case he offered us two.
Mr. Robinson: But he did not stick to it.
A Member: Mr. Baker said he was robbing the parish, and that was where the annoyance came in.
Mr. Mosby said that Mr. Clarkson had agreed to £10, but Mr. Baker objected, stating that it was too much, and then, Mr. Clarkson withdrew his offer.
Mr. Robinson: He thought he would get more.
The Chairman: He believes it is worth more.
Mr. Robinson: What was it worth before you took it over for gardens, about 10s. an acre?
Mr. Chairman: No, No. I think the offer was reasonable, and the Council thought so too.
Mr. Pagdin: If Mr. Baker had left personalities out of the question.
Mr. Smithson: That was what started it.
Mr. Pagdin. It brought Mr. Clarkson’s honour into question, and that is a delicate matter with some men.
Mr. Robinson: Then he is making the parish pay for what Mr. Baker said.
Mr. Mosby: That is what it amounts to.
Ultimately Messrs. Wray, Mosby, Norwood, and Baker were appointed to give evidence before the umpire.
A long letter was read by the Vlerk from Mr. George White, on behalf of Mr. Montagu’s trustees, respecting the proposed footpath from Earnshaw lane to the North Cliff path. It stated that the terms upon which Mr. Montagu was prepared, without prejudice, to allow the footpath was set forth in his letter of 25th May last, but the Council’s letter of the 3rd inst. did not deal in explicit terms with his suggestion seriously. Continuing, the letter stated that if the footpath was made, Mr. Montagu would require an agreement drawing up. The Council would have to pay an annual acknowledgement, and would have to erect unclimbable iron fences on both sides in order to protect the tenants of the adjoining land from damage. Other conditions were also proposed.
The Chairman said the footpath would no doubt be a great public convenience, and he thought it would pay the trustees if they made the Council a present of the path, and met them also in regard to the cost of the fencing. There was an agitation going on at the present time in the village respecting another path, and he was afraid that would prejudice their negotiations. They were waiting at present, but ultimately he (the Chairman) thought Mr. Montagu’s trustees would take action against them, and then the question would be determined by the proper authorities. It appeared to him to be a question of give-and-take.
Ultimately the matter was left in the hands of the committee already appointed.
A precept for £100 was issued upon the overseers.