Conisborough Parish Council – Colliery Officials and the Chairman.

December 1901

Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 06 December 1901

Conisborough Parish Council.

Colliery Officials and the Chairman.

The Chairman’s Difficulties.

The subject of Street watering came up for consideration, and the Chairman stated that the Rural District Council, had made arrangements to take a supply water from the Cadeby borehole.

Mr Baxter asked if the Rural Council proposed to pay sixpence per 1000 gallons for a supply for that purpose.

This Chairman, who is one of the representatives of the parish of the Rural Council, said he understood so, but he was not present at the meeting when the business was done.

Mr Baker asked why Mr Holmes did not attend that meeting, and later, after some conversation, pressed Mr Holmes to answer.

The Chairman said it was a proper question to ask, and the fact that such questions were put, showed that some interest were being taken in local affairs. When he first took the duty of Rural Councillor he believed he should attend, perhaps as well as any other man in the parish, taking into consideration the past attendance of Conisborough members, but somehow or other – he could not give the whole history of the thing,– he could not give the reasons why it was so, but during the last five or six months his liberty had been very seriously interfered with, very seriously indeed.

He took office in April last, and if they took his attendances from April through June, July and August, they will find that he had practically attended every meeting; but since then some things had happened to seriously curtail his liberty. Of course, he did not wish to impute motives to anybody, and if he did this was not the place. The nature of the circumstances connected with his work had changed very much. He had, as of now been engaged in public work or 12 or 13 years, and until the last five or six months he had always had full liberty at his work to arranged to attend meetings. He thought he had a record for attendance that could not very well be beaten in the parish. He could not give the reason for the change, which he referred to for the simple reason he had asked for it himself on several occasions and could not get it.

Lately it had come to this, that if he missed his work to attend a meeting he was punished by having to lose the next day. Supposing there was a meeting of the Guardians on Saturday and he went, he did so with the full knowledge that he would be compelled to lose his work on the Monday. He would not complain about losing his work on the Saturday because it was his duty to attend. He had also been cautioned and threatened with legal proceedings. It had come to this: that if he lost one day to attend a meeting for any other purpose, they made him lose the next day.

Mr Baker: That is a very terrible thing in a free country.

The Chairman, continuing, said that was why he had not been able to attend the meetings of the Guardians and the Rural Council as he would have liked to have done. It was a work in which he was very much interested, and he would like to attend as often as it was reasonably possible for a man to attend. It made a serious inroads into man’s wages when he had to have two days taken off. At the same time he did not think he ought to complain to the public, because the public might be inclined to say that a man in his position had no right to take up that public work; but when he undertook the work he had every reason to believe that he would be able to attend to it, and he entered upon it with a determination to attend and do it full justice.

Mr Baker: From your statement, we may take it that you are actually fined a day’s wage for losing a day to go and attend to your public duties.

Mr Hirst said he should not like to say anything at that meeting that would be in anyway detrimental to Mr Holmes at the colliery, but it was the decided opinion of the majority of the workmen that advantage was being taken of Mr Holmes for the public work he has done in the past. Mr Holmes had said he did not know where the sting came in that he should be so treated, but Mr Holmes had an idea, and he (the speaker) thought that was a place where it should be let out.

Mr Baker: It ought to be known most certainly if there is tyranny practised upon Mr Holmes through doing his public work; it should be shown up to the country, and the people who were at the head of the colliery should also be shown up.

Mr Hirst resuming, said that at the time Mr Holmes was elected as rural Councillor and Guardian in April last, he worked at the colliery on the night turn, contracting or datalling. During that time he had every opportunity to attend to his meetings at Doncaster, but he happened to have an accident in the mine. When he got better, he went back to see the under manager about starting working, and found he could not begin on that particular shift again.

The Chairman here interposed with a correction. He said there was nothing mentioned about the shift. What he asked for was that he should be allowed to work at the coalface, where it would be convenient for him to make his own arrangements.

Mr Hirst said they had seen Mr Chambers on the matter, and they had laid it all before him, and asked to allow Mr Holmes to go back to his own work. All they could get out of Mr Chambers was that Mr Holmes had “got plenty of coal ; we want to find him an official position.”

If Mr Holmes took an official position in the colliery he would be debarred from his public duties. On one occasion Mr Holmes attended a meeting of the Guardians on the Saturday. Then when he went to work on Monday his lamp was stopped. On Monday evening he was taken ill and stayed off Tuesday. On the Wednesday when he went to work his lamp was stopped again.

Mr Baker: Shame! Shame!

Mr Hirst said the colliery company asked why did not send a report that he was able, but there were other men who could play three days and not have their lamp stopped.

Mr Wilson asked if there was not a danger of the conversation being detrimental to Mr Holmes.

Mr Baker said he did not think it ought to be. Mr Chambers was the head of the Colliery concern and he noticed the other day, when presenting a testimonial to Mr Stones, one of his pupils, Mr Chambers laid down a lesson to Mr Stones, telling him to be careful to do his best for the working man, and never tried to grind him down, but on the other and try to make him happy and comfortable. Surely, Mr Chambers did not know what was going on or he would stop it. He thought himself it was a proper thing for it to go forth; he could not for a moment think Mr Chambers would be a party to such a thing.

The Chairman again said he did not object to the question being asked as to why he had not attended the meetings of the Rural Council and Guardians more regularly recently. It showed a healthy public spirit. A list of the members of the Rural Council, had been drawn up naming those who were liable to lose their seats for absence over six months. It would be seen at his name was not in that list; he had a better record than that: it was only within the last three or four months that the change had occurred.

Mr Hirst said one thing that seemed to confirm Mr Baker’s opinion with regard to Mr Chambers was that Mr Chambers actually nominated Mr Holmes for one of the committees, and in regard to others, had supported him.

The Chairman said it was a fact Mr Chambers nominated him for one committee. That was why he could not understand that. Mr Chambers should do anything anyway to prevent him attending to do work for which he had actually nominated him.

The Chairman, in reply to Mr Brocklesby said that Mr Chambers was seen in the first instance, when there were threats of legal proceedings been taken. The person with whom he had the interview came away with the impression that no more would be heard about it. Mr Chambers had not been seen since the system was adopted of stopping him the day after had been off to attend a meeting.

Mr Robinson thought an indignation meeting of the ratepayers should be held.

Now the chairman said if the ratepayers were dissatisfied with his attendance, and asked him to explain to a public meeting he would do so.

Mr Hirst said on behalf of Mr Holmes it had been suggested to the colliery officials that when he was off in the daytime to attend a meeting he should be allowed to make up for the lost time by working a night shift, but that had been refused.

Mr Brocklesby, before moving a resolution, said: I feel sure all the members of this Council have listened with very great pain to the disclosure – I think I may use that word – made here to night, and we regret very much, that there is any necessity that such statements should be met; and yet we seem to be powerless. If we could help our Chairman, we should be only too glad to do so. I cannot see how we can help at all, but I think it will be of service to him, if we express our sympathy with him under the disabilities he realises at this moment; and we might also express the hope that the undue severity which he is receiving at the hands of the colliery company will be quickly removed.

I think if we pass a resolution embodying those sentiments it will satisfy Mr Holmes, that he has our sympathy; it will also come to the knowledge of the colliery company, and will then give them an opportunity of displaying what really is their intention, and probably some further information may come to our hands before the next monthly meeting. The minutes will then give them an opportunity to display what really is their intention, and probably some further information may come to our hands before the next monthly meeting. The minutes will then come up for confirmation, and if it is necessary after that, which I hope it will be not be, to call a public meeting that course could be adopted. I move that a resolution to that effect the past, and I trust it will have a wholesome effect on the parties concerned.

Mr Baker: I think it is sure to have.

Mr Brocklesby, in submitting a resolution, added: We all have the greatest respect for our Chairman, and we all admire his public life amongst us. He has been able to do much for the benefit of Conisborough and will always found him consistent and practical in his view. We may not always agree with him, but we have always felt readier with a man who is honourable, whose views were sincere and earnestly entertained by him.

Mr Baker seconded the resolution, and expresses sympathy with Mr Holmes, both as a colleague and as a neighbour. He hoped the resolution would cause those who had exercised the tyranny to be merciful, and do that which was right.

The resolution was put for the vice-chair and unanimously adopted.

The Chairman briefly returned thanks