Mexborough and Swinton Times March 29
Conisbrough and Consecration
Another Pitched Battle
The annual parish meeting was held in the board School, Conisbrough, on Monday night Mr S Whitfield, chairman of the Parish Council presided, and there were present Councillors Norwood (vice-chairman of the parish council), Ogley, Booth, Gill it, homes, jobs, Sharp, Taylor, Robinson, Marsh, senior and Casey stop
there was an unusually large attendance parochial lectures, amongst them being the vicar (Rev G.H.Stock), C Smallpiece, Messrs G.T. Nicholson, C.Kilner, J Bulmer, W.H. Smith, H.J. Sharp, H Booth, H Savile, J Baker, J Bonnet, C Tennant, C Wilson, J Harrison, F Fisher, F Woodhouse, J Baker, J Brocklesby and Dr Denson.
The Cemetery Chapel
Mr Norwood in accordance with noted given, moved “that this meeting of ratepayers of the parish of Conisbrough do sanction the borrowing by the Parish Council of a sum of money not exceeding £300 with the purpose of extending and dividing the Cemetery Chapel, so that a portion may be set apart for the separate use of the Church of England as required by law.” (Applause)
In moving the resolution he wish to be candid with them. He did not mean to say anything untrue, and would own to all he knew to be correct. On entering that room a call was put into his hand, which at first sight looked like a race card (laughter) and he thought perhaps one of his friends had been to the Lincoln races and wish to give him a tip for the Lincoln handicap (laughter) but are looking more minutely he found it was not arrested, but it tip to ratepayers from the opponents of consecration, and he would say, so far as it went, it was correct (applause) except the foot note. It proved to be an extract from the parish minute book of a meeting held on February 12, 1891, and the first item was that the chairman (Rev J.G.Ward) stated that as a majority of the ratepayers were plainly against the building of two chapels, the majority of the Burial Board and requested him, as their chairman, lay before them the suggestion that they should only be one chapel, and on the unconsecrated portion of this cemetery.
The second item on the Cardoza resolution, which was moved by Mr W.H.Smith, and seconded by Mr J Gillot, as follows:
“That the sum of £1500 be sanctioned by the vestry as the loan to be raised by the Burial board, provided that there be only one chapel, and that on the unconsecrated portion of the cemetery.”
Now he wish to admit all this is true, but he was never in favour of only having one chapel, and he was not sure that the vicar (Mr Wood) was. Mr Wood, as they were all aware was chairman of the Board, but it was all different courtesy, as he believed his party were in a minority. There were three churchmen elected, and four nonconformists on the first Burial Board. Again, the footnote on the card said that the chapel was for all alike. It might have been then – if the churchmen would have used it – but it certainly was not now (hear, hear). The conditions between then and now were very different.
Then Archbishop McGee was a ruler over the See of York, and as it was understood that he did not think the ceremony of consecration necessary, many churchmen agreed to accept one chapel. But now the circumstances are altered; they had in power Archbishop Maclagan, and he said distinctly and decidedly that he would not consecrate any portion of the cemetery unless there was a separate chapel for the use of the Church of England; that he had taken the opinion of the most eminent ecclesiastical Council in the land, and that he would uphold his right, and if the parish do not provide a proper chapel he would issue a mandamus and they would have to bill one, besides having the costs of the mandamus put upon them. (Hear, hear) if they decided to vote the money now it will save the parish much money (Hear, hear).
Now with regard to the arguments of their opponents, in the first place they said that no second chapel was required by law. To that he would say it was their interpretation of the Act. His was that they were entitled to a second chapel. Secondly they said that the present chapel was commodious enough, and is all that is required for the burial service, whether according to the rights of the Church of England, or in accordance with the beliefs of nonconformity. Is answer to that was that the room they were in was logical, or any other large room, but they would not satisfy the consciences of Church people, and everyone had a right in this country to have his religious feelings respected – but that was not the case in Conisbrough (applause).
In the third place they say that any clergyman who uses that chapel was protected by law from any loss or disability through performing the burial service in an unconsecrated chapel, and that the present chapel be used by Church clergyman (the Rev R. P.Roseveare) and that the vicar asked perform the burial service in a private house, which is not as convenient as the chapel, and is moreover not consecrated. Today’s is argument was that it is quite true that clergyman are protected from any disability or loss, but was it wise for a subordinate to go against the wishes of his superior, if you wanted to prosper and live in a peaceful life? (Laughter and Oh! Oh!).
A private in the Army, if you wanted to get on well and be promoted, would never think of doing things contrary to the wish of his commanding officer (hear, hear) even if he was protected by law, and he submitted that the clergyman was quite a much justify the respect trying to do the will of his bishop or archbishop as the case might be. He admitted also that the Rev R. P.Roseveare had on one occasion used the present chapel, but he had since come to the conclusion that it was more desirable for him to use the church. He admitted to, that the Vicar had used a private house, but not for the authorised burial service, as in the Church of England Prayer Book, and only on a very special occasion by request. (Applause)
Lastly they said that the present chapel was built under the supervision and with the sanction and willing consent of churchmen themselves, therefore the circumstances being exactly the same as at the time of the chapel was built, there was no need for any alteration. He had answered this argument before, and again he must say most emphatically that the circumstances of the case were quite different now. (Applause)
He would if they would allow him give a few details of the costs of the proposed alterations and of the yearly burden on the rates. He proposed that a sum of £300 be voted, because he had reliable estimate that the work could be done very well for that amount, certainly not more than would be required and possibly £250 or £200 will be sufficient. The money could be obtained on loan for a period of 30 years, at 3 or 3 ½ %, to be repaid in annual instalments of £10, and the interest for the first year at 3% would be 9 pounds, making a total sum to be paid from the rates of £19. He found that a penny rate brought in £80 so that a farthing rate would bring in over and above the sum required, and yet they had all this extra ordinary opposition on the question of cost, and they must bear in mind that the interest would decrease in amount every year, and the rate would get gradually less.
He would just like to say a few words of the cost as it would affect the working man. At the last election on this matter a great cry was raised that if a second chapel was built working of their rents raise, it was said from 3d to 1s 6d per week (A voice: they did raise ‘em). He believed there were some landlords who did raise their rents on the false pretence that another chapel will be built and that it would increase the rates enormously, but those landlords were certainly not on the Church side. (Hear, hear) most cottage houses in the parish were rated up from £5 to £8 per year, and by compounding in the ice cases they would pay unless than £6 per house per year. Now he had previously shown that the rate will be less than a farthing in the pound, and six farthing amounted to the magnificent sum of 1 1/2p, which would be all that a landlord of a house, rated at £8 per year, would have to pay. He also found that if they only raise rents 8d per week it would amount to 13 shillings a year, and really a did not think there were many landlords would have the cheek to put on an extra 13 shillings from which they would only have to pay 1 ½p. (Hear, hear) he trusted all working men would carefully weigh these facts.
Referring to another matter – at the Parish Council meeting when the resolution was adopted to alter and enlarge the present chapel – they were challenged to come before the lectures. They have done so, and he hoped they would deal failed with them and bought their money. (Hear, hear) he should remember that the feelings of Church people ought to be considered as well as nonconformists. The rights and government of the church at present forbade that they should user chapel, consequently when any church people die and their friends want them to have the last offices of the church read over them their first more to come to the parish church and then to go to the cemetery, a long distance off. Now we should like their friends from Denaby to remember this, and also that it must cost them more to come to both church and cemetery is going to the cemetery. He found that of the burials which had already taken place that 90% are being conducted by the Church of England clergy, and on that part of the cemetery which was set apart for consecration. (Hear, hear) they were unfortunately great number of people who did not go to any place of worship, unless they had a christening, marriage, funeral, and it was this great number had practically it the settlement of this question in their hands, and he asked them respectively not to be led away by agitation and union coercion, but to stick to the church and vote for their rights (applause).
There was just the other matter he wished to refer to, and that was a question of fees. Their opponents said that they objected to the vicar of the parish been able to charge any fees over and above is ministering three. Well the from time to time from the vicar himself had said he would not accept a penny of the fees, all of which would go to the parish. And it was stated that he (Mr Norwood) ought to produce a written guarantee from the vicar that he will forego all interest in these fees. This the vicar was willing to do should they get consecration – so he did not see how that could be a stumbling block to rent ratepayers aborting this money. (Hear, hear)
In conclusion if they would vote for the church been upheld, which had for 400 of years provided burial space for Churchmen and Dissenters alike, non-being refused, and he thought it was very hard now their church yard been filled with all nominations – and filled much sooner that would have been if only by church people – that they were denied the consideration which their consciences demanded. He ended by saying: be fair, gentleman, and vote this sum of money, and then this long dispute will be ended, and we shall be able to live together like Christian brothers, and not be always tried to see if the church can beat the chapel of vice versa. (Loud applause)
Mr Gillett seconded. He called attention to the great inconvenience which Churchmen had to undergo in holding the funeral service at the Church before proceeding to the cemetery. It was quite true, as they would be told, that at the last poll the parish was against any expenditure, but something about since then. Mr Sharpe in his election address made the question of consecration an election cry, and where was he at the poll? He was the lowest on the Paul of the successful candidates, and only got him by three votes. (Hear, hear) that showed what the parish thought about consecration now. (Hear, hear)
Opposition
Mr J Brocklesby said there was evidently some reluctance to answer the speech Mr Norwood, and he did not wonder much because there was so much to answer. It was a matter of regret that the question be submitted to a parish meeting so soon after the verdict taken at the last poll. – A verdict which, he thought, was sufficiently emphatic to satisfy everybody that the parish of the opinion that one chapel was amply sufficient. He was very glad that Mr Norwood took upon himself the responsibility of calling that meeting. He was astonished at his audacity and more than astonished at the audacity of Mr Gillett in seconding the resolution, and gentlemen present, after reading the card which are being distributed, and a right to demand further reasons why Mr Gillett had change front. (Hear, hear) evidently Mr Gillett was an inveterate seconder of propositions. (Laughter)
The speech which Mr Norwood had given he regarded as lacking any fresh argument, absolutely no additional reason and been advanced to justify the meeting in granting the sum asked for. He regarded this demand is, from a section of the Church party only, and he asked was it reasonable to expect that a section of the Church party should come to a parish meeting and asked to be supplied with £300 in order to satisfy their whim and fancy? Personally he did not object to the Church party desiring consecration, but the least they could do, if they wanted a chapel consecrated was to build it themselves. (Hear, hear) you remember that one parish meeting, when it was stated that the Church and did intend to build a chapel themselves, and Mr Godfrey Walker shouted out, “What about the generosity of churchmen now?” And he could remember the outburst of applause which followed, and was led by his friend Mr Saville.
Mr Savile: he didn’t try to stop a turnpike up for his own convenience the same as you did, did he? (Laughter and here, here.)
Mr Brocklesby: if you have anything to say to me outside this meeting, consult me.
Mr Baker: Mr Walker isn’t here to speak for himself. Why didn’t you leave him alone? (Applause)
Mr Brocklesby: I mentioned them in order that my authority might be known. I’m not afraid of the matter being investigated. Continuing, he said they possess a convenient and sufficiently beautiful chapel, which was built with the consent of churchmen, and the present chapel was used by all denominations, with exceptional section of the Church party, who decided chapel for their own exclusive use. Was it right that they should spend money on an object from which they could not derive any benefit? He asked them to give that question a very emphatic “no.” (Here, here)
Mr JT Nicholson supported the resolution. Mr Brocklesby had asked for facts, and he thought the fact that 90% of the interments which are taken place in cemetery were on the consecrated portion of the ground was a sufficient fact comments all the meeting. (Hear, hear) nearly all the funeral service at place in the Church, and people be put to the trouble of going to the Church first. Something else he could tell them. Of the interments on the consecrated side there were nearly 90% of dissenters (oh! Poll!) And experiences while that there were cemeteries the Dissenters that chosen their burial ground on the consecrated side, and although they have been rank dissenters they had chosen the church clergy man perform the service over their dead (laughter). He was very sorry there was any feeling against the church. (Oh! oh!) There was more feeling and often against the church than ever there was in olden times. He believed, in Conisbrough, in the church could be put down that they would not be tolerated 12 months. (Oh! Oh! And laughter ). Mr Sharp’s opposition to the church reminding very much of a shorter country fair, which was all shouting and noise and drumming outside, but nothing was seen inside. (Laughter) Talk was cheap – mere sound (renewed laughter)
A Voice: that’s enough sit down.
Mr Nicholson, continuing, said there had been a great deal written in the papers on the question, and the Vicar been accused of say certain things, but he read last week that the writer of the attack upon him apologised, having found out Mr. All that are been done to secure their votes against the chapel .
The Chairman: I think your address is oddly relevant to the subject under discussion. Please confine yourself to the question before the meeting.
A Voice: Next please (laughter)
Mr Nicholson continuing, said that at least they would admit that he had been consistent throughout the controversy (hear, hear) When it was proposed have only one chapel he proposed an amendment that there be two chapels and one consecrated, and in consequence of the amendment being un seconded he asked for it to be entered on the minutes, where it remained for them all to see.
A Voice: Dry up, do. (Laughter)
Mr James Thomson stated that he should support the negative moved by Mr Brocklesby.
Mr Kilner said that Mr Norwood made an erroneous statement, which was forced to correct. Yet stated that Mr Ward was in a minority on the Burial Board, but nothing could be further from the fact. He was not in a minority.
Mr Savile: What!
Mr Kilner, continuing, said he was in a majority at that time, and if Church were not known that all mine at that time they could have had to chapels and part of the ground consecrated. Mr Wood, Mr Walker, Mr Blyth and himself were at that time in favour of two chapels. He was not in favour of two chapels today, because church people add let their chance slip, and he was not in favour of things been altered now that they were finished. (Hear, hear).
Mr Holmes said that at the time Mr Norwood had spoken of five of the seven members of the Burial Board were in favour of two chapels and the ground being consecrated, and he remembered at the time telling the Burial Board that they ought to agree amongst themselves what they wanted putting on the ground. So great, however, was enthusiasm of the Church party then that when Mr Nicholson moved and amendment in favour of two chapels he did not get a seconder. (Hear, hear) There was a lot of talk about the inconvenience of conducting the burial services in the church, and a sort of appeal was made to working people to save themselves this inconvenience, but it was not the convenience of the working classes they cared about or else they would use the present chapel, as the law allowed them to do without any penalty. (Here, here) It seemed to him, if the Church party had been honest when the bargain was entered into, the ought to have had a proviso put in the agreement allowing them, when Archbishop McGee and Mr Wood were removed, to have the opportunity of changing their minds. (Laughter and here, here)
Mr R.H.Sharp, was received with great enthusiasm said his name are been mention. He did not know whether seriously or flippantly and he did not care which. A dispute had been raised as to the correctness of the card which are being put into their ants, and he wanted to settle that beyond any shadow of doubt whatever. Here was the parish minute book which any ratepayer was in entitled to see, and in which they will find word for word in Mr Norwood’s and writing the resolution which was printed on the card in question. He was not going to detain them for long for the simple reason there was no new matter brought into the discussion, and no answer had been given to the position which they had taken on this controversy.
In the first place, Mr Councillor Norwood, in his opening statement, had said that the church was entitled to a chapel if there was any meaning in that it implied entitled to it by law. Yet he had searched the Act of Parliament and he could find nowhere the church was entitled to it (hear, hear) and seeing that their declaration to the direct contrary had been before them for the past 12 months, why did not Mr Norwood bring them the act of Parliament and show them where there title to a second chapel was contained (hear, hear).
He challenged him to find anything which bore out that statement in the least degree whatever. When this resolution was passed four years ago in the parish meeting it was not only known, but afterwards prove, that Mr Ward and in his pocket a letter from Archbishop McGee, which he stated that he would not consecrate the ground. It was because of that they said, “Letters put up a commodious chapel convenient to both.” And he believes that there might have had to chapels if they had desired. It was simply to meet the position of the Churchmen at that time that only one chapel was built. The law provided for churchmen using that chapel as it stood, and asked consenting parties to its direction, honestly demanded that churchmen should use it and make the best of it. They had seen our one Archbishop held different views from another, and s’mores Archbishop McGee and live what, he wondered would have happen? Supposing Archbishop Maclagan went home, he said it reverently enough, and another Archbishop came in he said, holding different views the present Archbishop, were they to be chipped and changed about again to suit the mere whim of an Archbishop. (Hear, hear and applause.) It have been said that 90% of the interments had taken place on a consecrated ground, but if the church was so strong all the more reason why they should be able to build a chapel for themselves. (Hear, hear) they would have read would know that very recently that there was introduced into the House of Commons a Burial Bill, by Mr Carvell Williams. That dealt with this exact question. It was passed in the House of Commons by over 100 majority. He wanted to make this perfectly clear that they did not object to consecration as a religious ceremony. They respected churchmen’s feelings when they said they would rather be interred in consecrated ground. He can fully understand that and quite respected that. As a nonconformist, if they choose to let this question stand over until this Bill was passed, they should consecrate the burial ground, the old ground if they liked and the present chapel as well. (Hear, hear) They only objected to that part of the business which the Archbishop put before the committee that interviewed him on the question when he said, “the stipend of the Vicar is low enough and we are going to make it more if we can.”