Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 31 August 1894
Conisborough and Consecration
Meeting Last Night
At the Board School, Conisborough, last night, a largely-attended meeting was held to consider the question of erecting a second chapel on the burial ground and consecrating a portion of the same, which question is to be submitted to a poll on Monday next.
Mr. C. Kilner occupied the chair, and was supported by Messrs. Percy Rawson, J.P. (Sheffield), S. Castle (Sheffield), R. H. Sharp, S. Whitfield, Charles Holmes, G. Dufton, J. Brocklesby, and J. H. Watson, C.C. (Mexborough).
The Chairman, in opening the meeting, said he had not been able to get out the meeting which was held on Monday night, and he was rather surprised that the people of Conisborough had not been able to show themselves in his absence.
He almost thought the first duty of that meeting ought to be to select a deputation to confer with Messrs. Waddington, Lee, Carr, and others of Mexborough, who were so establishing a competition for a small sum, as he had by the town which could claim to have held the ancient parish meeting of the year. (Laughter.)
He thought if they conducted a competition like that for about three years Conisborough would easily make the challenge cup their own property. (Loud laughter.)
They were met to consider the question of building a new chapel on the cemetery, and it was present for the purpose of lifting the voice against that object. (Applause.)
It was the wish of the church people that they had not two chapels and part of the ground consecrated to-day. (Hear, hear.) They had an opportunity for it being done at the time when the chapel was built, but they chose had an archbishop who refused to consecrate.
The time came afterwards when the church party did that if half the ground was consecrated they would be satisfied, and this was agreed to. It seemed to it himself and did not regret it.
They had done them a fair chance to do it, but they had not done it. Now it appeared they wanted to build a chapel at the ratepayers’ expense, and he intended to object to it most determinedly. (Applause.)
He thought the resolution passed at the meeting on Monday night was a breach of faith.
At the last meeting of the Burial Board it was decided to call a parish meeting to consider a proposal, on the part of the Church party, to separate and enlarge the present chapel at the expense of the Church party.
After such an action as that he considered the poll was very properly demanded on Monday night (hear, hear), and he trusted that on Monday next they would emphatically refuse to have a chapel built at the ratepayers’ expense.
Mr. C. Kilner moved “that in the opinion of this meeting it is not necessary, nor does the law require the erection of a second chapel at the part of the cemetery set apart for consecration, and that the chapel as already erected is sufficient for all requirements, and hereby pledge itself to oppose any proposal to erect a second chapel at the ratepayers’ expense and to vote against the same at the poll to be taken on Monday.”
He said that on Monday night the question of consecration was brought into the resolution which the meeting passed, but there was no need to discuss that, the question was already settled.
The simple question before the meeting was that of erecting a second chapel, and he contended that the erection of a second chapel would simply be a waste of public money. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
The idea when the present chapel was built was for it to be used commonly by both parties. (Hear, hear.)
He contended that the greatest amount of money paid in rates came from the pockets of the working classes, and they had the best right to decide whether they would incur the expenditure or not.
They had plenty of liability in connection with the cemetery already; they had a sewage scheme on hand also, and if they had any money to spare let them spend it on the water question. (Hear, hear.)
They could even employ money better in purchasing a recreation ground for youngsters at the top end of the town, and keep the children off the streets. (Applause.)
Mr. Whitfield said they had surely come to very hard times indeed when the aristocratic, opulent, and proud old family called the church had to apply to the parish for relief. (Laughter.)
Let it was true, and they had had to apply to Mr. Gillott, the Guardian, who had told them it was a very urgent case for they were dying at the rate of 400 per cent. (Laughter.)
They were well aware he had never been an advocate for plundering the church. He had fought against dissent on that principle, but he would not allow the church to plunder the dissenters (hear, hear) or himself. (Laughter, and hear, hear.)
He did not want them to think that he was a scoffer. The only crochet he had on this question was the one the breeches pocket.
He blamed the Burial Board for the difficulty, for at the first inception of the Burial Board it was the wish and intention of a great majority of the parish that the Burial Board should be formed under some Act which should not give consecration, and therefore control by the church. (Laughter.)
Someone since then had betrayed them, and now they were in a regular fog. No one appeared to know exactly what was the law. (Laughter.)
Some said there need not be two chapels, and another had said “There shall be two chapels and I am the man to see to it.” (Laughter.)
Let that man try, and he was a man who would see to it also. (Applause.)
Proceeding, Mr. Whitfield referred to the fact that they could never conduct a service in the chapel without censure or penalty, and he wanted to know why it could not be done.
The ground was fit for the Prince of Wales to be buried in and the chapel was good enough to read the burial service over his carcase. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Why could not the ministers of the Church of England use it as it was originally built for, and for them as well as for the dissenters? (Hear, hear.)
The resolution was supported by Mr. Castle, of Sheffield, who said that while he respected the views of any churchmen who had any real belief in consecration, he held that it was a thing for which the churchmen ought to pay the cost themselves. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Percy Rawson, J.P., in the course of his speech in support of the resolution, said he thought that of all the impudent proposals which the Church party had ever made this one made by the party in Conisborough capped all. (Laughter.)
The ground had been bought originally from the Church, and now the church proposed that half of it should be consecrated, which meant that half of it should be given as given back to them without those defending the money. (Hear, hear.)
If they allowed part of the ground to be consecrated they would not only put a rope round their own necks but round the necks of the generations which would come after them. (Applause.)
Mr. J. H. Watson, referring to the variety of opinions held by the speakers on the platform, said he thought when they saw the lion lay down with the lamb in perfect agreement on a common cause it was a sign that their cause was a good one. (Hear, hear.)
It seemed to him that the question intended to be put to the ratepayers by the Burial Board was not, should a new chapel be built, but should the present chapel be divided?
A false issue had been raised for the question which the Church party had originally asked was, whether they would be allowed, at their own expense, to put on an addition to the present chapel, and to be consistent, that ought to have been the question put to the ratepayers.
They must bear in mind it was not a question of opposing the Church of England, but merely a section of the Church of England headed by an Archbishop who was a despot. (Applause.)
In conclusion, he said that the Burial Act, which protected any ground used for burial from any secular use sufficiently consecrated the ground to the purpose of burial. (Hear, hear.)
The resolution was then put and was carried by an overwhelming majority, only four hands being held up when the contrary was put.
Convert to PDF