Mexborough and Swinton Times, December 6.
Conisborough Parish Council.
Explosives for Graves, Brook Square Footbridge
Statements were made at an ordinary monthly meeting of the Conisborough Parish Council on Monday evening which disclosed a somewhat extraordinary state of things.
The chairman, Mr C Holmes, is also one of the representatives of the parish on the Doncaster Rural Council, and he indicated that an attempt has be made by someone in authority at the Cadeby Colliery, where he is employed to hamper him in the discharge of his public duties. A resolution of sympathy with Mr Holmes was unanimously adopted.
In addition to the Chairman, the members present were Mr J Brocklesby (vice-chairman), Mr D. Robinson, Mr W Revill, Mr GH Hirst, Mr C Walker, Mr G. H. Singleton, W. Wilson, Mr G Brooks, and Mr Henry Baker.
The officials in attendance were the Clerk (Mr J Hawksworth) and the cemetery caretaker (Mr A Hodgson)
Explosives for Graves.
With respect to the proposed experiment in blasting the rock in the cemetery, which interferes with the excavation of graves to proper depth, the Chairman stated that nothing had yet been done.
The Clerk stated that Superintendent Blake had intimated that before explosives could be used it would be necessary to have two licenses – one for storing explosives and the other for using
Mr Wilson asked what would be the cost of licenses, but the Clerk could not say
Mr Singleton (the cemetery manager) said he had been informed by a man who sometimes assisted Mr Watson that he could excavate a grave in one day without blasting.
Mr Baker said they ought not to accept statements of which they had no proof. He added that there seemed to have been a great deal of unnecessary noise about the proposal to do blasting.
Mr Wilson: It is a noisy process.
Mr Singleton thought a test ought to be made, and then the members could see whether or not it was really necessary to do blasting.
Mr Baker said he thought it would be a very good plan for two men who were well versed in the matter to see to it, Mr Robinson was well versed in these matters, and another. They could see one got out, and then say what could be done. If they could do it without blasting all the better.
The cemetery caretaker, said they always had done up to now, but towards the top of the hill the blocks of stone were getting thicker.
The Chairman suggested that a grave should be got out on the higher part of the ground, where the rock was honest. They would all like to avoid blasting. If they could. He would not say was an indecent thing, but it was something bordering on it to have to do this thing in the cemetery. He sincerely hoped the necessity would not arise.
The cemetery caretaker: If it does arise we could let graves out without hurting anything.
After a little further conversation the cemetery caretaker was instructed to get out a grave, as suggested by the chairman.
The income in connection with the cemetery for the month was reported to be £5 10s 6d, and the expenditure £6 9s.
One grants of right of burial was signed.
Brook Square Footbridge.
At the last meeting Mr Greathead was requested by resolution to construct a footbridge over the Brook near Brook Square.
Mr Brocklesby mentioned that he had been in conversation with Mr Saville and Mr Greathead and he understood that Mr Greathead would send in a tender. He was shown a bridge across the brook near to the Three Horse Shoes Inn, which was constructed on iron girders, and cement. He asked Mr Saville what would be the cost of such a bridge, and they had received a statement that the cost would be £22 10s.
Mr Baker asked if Mr Brocklesby did not think he was taking a great deal upon himself by consulting men in the matter of that sort after it had been passed by the Council that certain things should be done.
Mr Walker said he had understood Mr Greathead to say he would not do the work if he had to send in a tender.
Mr Baker expressed disagreement at the action of Mr Brocklesby after the matter be dealt with by the Council. They had anticipated they should get something done for about £2 to £2 10s.
Mr Brocklesby said he thought the Council would be very glad to receive the opinion of practical man
Mr Baker suggested that the bridge would be a great benefit Mr Brocklesby, as it was near his property.
Mr Brocklesby said the bridge would not be the slightest advantage to him. As far as he was concerned he would not give a crack of the thumb and finger to have the thing done. The Brook was no service to him; he did not pass over it six times in 12 months.
Mr Baker: But if you get a bridge you will.
Mr Brocklesby: I do not think I shall.
Mr Baker suggested that a bridge would make their way to Mr Brocklesby’s Chapel much nearer and if it were erected he would go over it a great deal.
Mr Singleton did not think Mr Brocklesby had gone out of his way in what he had done.
The Chairman was of the opinion that the Council ought to proceed with the scheme that had been adopted.
Mr Brocklesby contended that all he had done was to obtain information.The matter was not of any personal interest to him. There was one remark in the minutes of the last meeting, he did not like, and that was the footbridge was described as being “near Mr Brocklesby’s properly.” It was not near his property but Mr Simpson’s property. The wording of the minute gave a wrong impression.
Continuing he said: I do not want people to think that I want to get a personal advantage out of the rates, because I don’t. Some years ago I proffered to construct a bridge over their free of cost to the parish, but they would not allow it, and at that time I was prepared to do it, but at the present time, in consequence of alterations that have taken place since it is not the slightest service to me what ever.
Mr Baker: As you asked for it, I say would be a great advantage to you have a concrete bridge over there.
Mr Brocklesby: Then you understand my business better than I do myself.
The Chairman: I do not think we ought to discuss this question any further.
Mr Wilson: Certainly not. Let us get on with the business please or else I’m going home. The matter was not further discussed
The Cow Close Dole.
In accordance with instructions, the Clerk had written to the trustees of the estate of the Duke of Leeds, asking for payment of a yearly rent charge of £2 on a piece of land, known as the “Cow Close,” in regard to the exact locality of which there appears to be some doubt. This action was taken on the advice of the Charity Commissioners, who had been appealed to for assistance. The reply was as under:
Red Hall, Leeds, 30 November 1901
Dear Sir,
I receive your letter enclosing corresponds with the Charity Creations. I am not aware of any charge attached to the estates formerly belonging to the trustees of the Duke of Leeds, but now to Lord and lady Yarborough his favour of the parish of Conisborough. The estate pays a rent charge of £1 a year to the vicar of Braithwell, said to be for the benefit of the poor of Braithwell, but this is the only charge of the kind we know of. If you can give me any further particulars I will look into the matter.
Yours faithfully,
J. S. Newstead.
In the course of discussion that followed the reading of the letter, the chairman said it now rested with the trustees of the Parish Doles, who were Mr Robinson, Miss Ogley, Mr Ravenscroft and himself to furnish what evidence they could get in reply to the letter.
The Proposed Tramways
The clerk read a communication he had received from Mr F Parker Rhodes, solicitor, Rotherham giving notice that it was intended to apply for powers to construct an electric tramway under the provisions of the Light Railways Act from Barnsley to Doncaster passing through Conisborough. The Council were asked to express their assent or dissent to the proposals of the promoters. A schedule was attached to the letter showing to what extent the tramway would affect the sewer and water pipes and other matters.
The Chairman said a tramway would be for the convenience of the district.
Mr Wilson thought the Council ought to be in possession of more information before deciding to assent or dissent. It certainly seemed to him that in the first instance, the Council would do right to object to the whole thing, because if there was any advantage to be gained in the future they ought to have that advantage.
The Chairman thought the Council should be staying neutral, because the Rural District Council were really the authorities that had control of the roads over which the proposed tramway would pass. The interests of the parish ought to be safe in the hands of the Rural Council speaking generally.
In the course of further discussion The Chairman said the Rural District Council, had assented to the proposals and as a Rural District Councillor, he had voted for that.
Mr Robinson, holding the view that a tramway would bring trade into the district, moved that the Council give their assent.
Mr Brooks seconded the resolution.
Mr Hirst said that as the Doncaster Rural Council, had assented it was practically useless, whether the Parish Council assented or not. He moved that the communication be laid on the table.
Mr Wilson, seconded, and at a later stage in the discussion, said the matter was one that ought to resolve careful consideration. It seemed to him to be an unreasonable thing to spring a matter like that, upon the meeting. He argued that the Council ought not to commit themselves.
A division was taken with the result that the Council decided to assent by five votes to 4.