Mexborough & Swinton Times — Friday 30 June 1893
Conisborough—Its Muddlers and Mugwumps.
I will have a bit of talk with the aforesaid gentry, no matter how irreverent or incoherent I may be. It is all for the good and better government of the parish we had notice of last parish meeting. I shall bluster ahead while I can get half-a-dozen to shout for me—but if anybody gets me in a corner, and there is likely to be adversity, you will “instanter” take vote of thanks, and shut them up—a la Kilner and Walker re consecration.
It is very unfortunate I am so often pulled up for being personal. I confess I am not up to date in flummery, even behind Mexborough in amenity, elegant phraseology, and “love” parlance. In Conisbro’ we are a peculiar people. Mr. Walker’s and the late Vicar’s definition of being personal is the mention of their or their partisans’ names and the use of any argument in opposition to theirs.
My first subject is the fourth “slight informality.” We have had three previous slight small and little informalities on the same subject—the lighting question. The first attempt the Parochial Committee agreed on a defined area, the Sanitary Authority say the Local Government Board won’t agree to it; there is an egregious informality that wants yet explaining; we have only heard one side of the correspondence. Can’t adopt the modern Act of 1875, but must adopt one 50 years older. The “second slight informality” did not succeed, because the advocates were defeated on show of hands. They demanded a poll and never carried it out. No explanation ever offered, only at the third “little informality” they apologised for the second “little informality,” forgetting to mention either money or men. Then they go in for eight full-blown lighting inspectors and £200 a year. The opposition this time demand a poll. The chairman (Mr. G. Walker), did not carry it out, because he says he was so ignorant he did not know how, although only a fortnight before his henchmen had demanded the same thing and had coached him in all the latest authorities. Now he says, “Because I did not assist him, I am as simple as himself.” I am not squeamish about the company I keep, but I do draw the line at being classed with lackadaisicals who begin a meeting, advocating, proposing, seconding, and voting on matters which they have not taken the slightest trouble to understand.
Now the next was no informality, but a grand piece of pageantry. Yes, it was the first and last meeting of “The worshipful lighting inspector of Conisborough,” incorporated pursuant to William IV., 3 and 4, c. 90. Messrs. G. Walker (chairman), C. Kilner (vice-chairman), W. H. Smith (hon. sec.), Chambers, Blyth, and Boomer. One recalcitrant member, repudiated the charter, pricked the bubble, and let all the gas escape, when the chairman exclaimed, “How glad he was to find that all their twaddle had resulted in no shine, instead of a gas-shine.”
They would begin de novo. This they did on Thursday, 15th inst., by a parish meeting, Mr. G. Walker, J.P., chairman, surely we shall hear no more of either little or big informalities. The first half-hour was spent trying to find out whether the requisition had been oversigned, undersigned, signed by somebody who should not have signed, or left unsigned by somebody who should have signed. Verdict, perfectly legal. A getting a coach and pair through this time. “Applause loud, long, and boisterous.”
Our “Novus homo” went into business with a vengeance, advising us to go ahead, right or wrong. Let they who say wrong prove it and fight against it—a judicious leader truly. He proposed that the Rural Sanitary Authority should do it, and could do it much better than any other body. Really Mr. Sharp, can it be that only a month ago Conisborough—amongst them—was rejoicing at your return as Guardian? We were in ecstasy a week later when you so castigated the Sanitary Authority at Doncaster, when you held them up to execration. The chairman appealed to you for mercy. Now you are applauding them, recommending eighteen men, seventeen of whom are aliens, as the only competent authority to spend Conisborough’s money.
No more bungling now, because when asked what Act they were going to proceed under, the chairman said he did not know, but Mr. Chambers did. Mr. Chambers said they were going to adopt the—let me be corrected—the Ship Canal Act—no that was not it—the Channel Tunnel Act—that is something as likely, but that was not it—I have it, the Wheatley and Balby Act. “Hear, hear”; “hurrah, hurrah!” Not a soul in the room could tell about Wheatley and Balby Act, and there were just as many wanted to know ought about it.
Mr. Kilner, as usual, seconded. He did so—he said—to avoid that fossilised Act of William IV., which only a month back he was extolling sky high as “the panacea for Conisborough’s darkness.” Now of the two, William IV. is infinitely preferable to Act 1875, because William IV. gives the parish whole and sole control, while 1875 Act almost only gives us one-eighteenth part. This is on a par with Mr. Kilner’s usual pabulum and claptrap.
A short time since he said it would only cost 6d. per head. Now it is 1s. and 1s. 8d. a year. Mr. Kilner should know that a 5s. rate will be required in Conisborough. If the agitators all get satisfied it will then be known who have sold the people’s as well as raised their rents. Mr. Chambers strenuously supported it; what so natural?—quid pro quo. The Rural Sanitary Authority always take us into their confidence. Do they? Did they take us into their confidence about something? Did that come upon us like a thief in the night, and when asked who ordered Wilson said, “I,” and Dr. Mitchell Wilson said, “I’s as the Sanitary Authority.” Yes, verily, one Guardian is the Sanitary Authority for Conisborough, and that Guardian represents “mother parish” Denaby.
The case of Denaby and Conisborough on sanitary matters is on all fours with Church and Dissent, re consecration. Conisborough catches worms and Denaby goes fishing with them.