Mexborough & Swinton Times, February 7, 1896.

Conisborough Parish Council

A meeting of this Council was held on Wednesday evening. Mr. H. Whitfield presiding. There was a full attendance of members.

The Clerk reported he had written to the Doncaster Authority in reference to the condition of the roads where the sewerage contractors have been at work, and had been send a reply from Mr. P. E. Nicholson, who stated that the Highway Committee had given instructions to the contractor to place the same into proper repair.

With reference to removal of snow, that matter had to be brought before the Sanitary Committee at their next meeting.

Conisborough Gas Company

The clerk also read a letter from Mr. Nicholson in reference to the gas question, to the effect that there was no formal contract with the Conisborough Gas Company, the payment for lamps being at the same rate as was agreed upon by the Parochial Committee appointed by the Rural Sanitary Authority.

Mr. Whitfield: We want to know the term of years the lamps are to be lit. I think there is something more specific than that. They are not lighting them at the time it is generally understood they ought to do. It is simply an evasion.

Mr. Casey: I think we had better write to the Gas Company to see if we can get a reply from them.

Mr. Whitfield: They are not bound to acknowledge it.

Mr. Casey: No, but they cannot treat us worse than Doncaster has treated us.

Mr. Gillott: There is no time .

Mr. Whitfield: No hours nor days?

Mr. Gillott: Yes! But no years.

Mr. Whitfield: Was there no guarantee for any number of years?

Mr Gillott: No.

Mr. Whitfield: Do you mean to tell me the Gas Company have put up all these lamps without any understanding except for one reason?

Mr. Gillott: Yes! I believe they did.

Mr. Whitfield: I give the Gas Company credit far a bit more diplomacy than that.

Mr. Casey moved and Mr. Senior seconded that the clerk write to the Sanitary Authority for the full terms and conditions of the Conisborough Gas Company.

The proposition was carried.

Trustees to Administer Doles.

Mr. Norwood moved that two trustees be appointed to act with the churchwardens in administering the doles. Seeing that there had been so much controversy over this question that they did not know whether the doles belonged to them or to the churchwardens; he believed, according to the deeds, they were left to be administered by the churchwardens and overseers, and he saw according to the Parish Council Act, the Council had power to appoint trustees in area of the pre-exciting overseers, and he thought it would be the most satisfactory arrangement if they did.

Mr. Milner seconded.

Mr. Whitfield: We want some names, trustees are not myths.

Mr. Norwood: I said two. I suggest Mr. Henry Earnshaw and Mr. George Hill.

Mr. Holmes: I suppose it takes it out of the hands of the Parish Council altogether.

The Chairman: I believe it transpires we cannot deal with these things. I believe it devolves upon us to appoint two trustees.

Mr. Holmes: Is it according to the act we have no locus atendi?

Mr. Norwood read the section of the act.

Mr. Holmes: It says we ‘may.’

Mr. Norwood: Yes.

Mr. Whitfield: Then it is not imperative. Suppose we don’t choose?

Mr. Norwood: We shall have to do it ourselves.

Mr. Holmes thought they would have to admit the churchwardens lost some power through the passing of the Parish Councils Act, and be though one of the boons the act was to confer was to place all doles, other than ecclesiastical doles, under the control of the Parish Council, and there were no ecclesiastical doles in Conisborough.

Mr. Norwood: Oh yes, there is.

Mr. Holmes moved an amendment that two persons be appointed from the Council to administer the doles under their control.

Mr. Whitfield: We cannot put the motion without names. I for one would not vote for dummies.

Mr. Holmes: I want to take a vote on the principle of the thing. You would be influenced by names.

The Chairman: Yes, I should consider the qualifications.

Mr. Marsh: I will second it if Mr. Holmes mentions two names.

Mr. Holmes: I mention Mr. Marsh.

Mr. Marsh: ‘I won’t accept it.’

Mr. Holmes: I name Mr Casey, if he will have it.

Mr Casey. Yes, if it is carried. (Laughter)

Mr. Holmes: I name Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones: ‘I won’t have it.’

Mr. Holmes: I name Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Whitfield: ‘I won’t set.’

Mr. Holmes: It seems you are all frightened. Mr. Whitfield: No, I am not frightened, but I am in as much difficulty as I want to be in.

Mr. Holmes said that chairman was insisting upon too much, and asked the chairman to put the amendment without names. This being done, the amendment was defeated by six to three. The amendment was moved before and not seconded.

Mr. Taylor: It falls through.

Mr. Booth: Let them vote. Mr. Whitfield: I cannot satisfy, but if you will neither act nor let it alone, it would bother and chairman.

Mr. Holmes: Mr. Chairman, you don’t want to compel us to vote for these two men?

The Chairman: Certainly not. But you did not bring your amendment until the very last thing.

Mr. Holmes: If you let Mr. Norwood name any two men you must give us information.

Mr. Whitfiled (leaving the chair): You may do as you like.

Mr. Senior: I move we go on with the next business.

Mr. Whitfield: No, I want to do what is right if possible, but I will let somebody else preside. Mr. Whitfield was requested by the members to resume the chair and put the motion as it appeared on the agenda, this being Mr. Holmes wish.

Mr. Whitfiled resumed his seat and put the motion, which was carried by seven to two. Mr. Holmes amendment for the substitution of Mr. Dufton’s name was lost by six to three. Mr. Earnshaw and Hill were then appointed.

Mr. Casey moved that a petition be forwarded to the Registrar General to appoint a registrar of births and deaths at Conisborough. Mr. Senior seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.