Conisborough Parish Council – Double Fees for Grave Reopening – The Allotments

September 1905

Mexborough and Swinton Times September 9, 1905

Conisborough Parish Council
The Allotments

An ordinary monthly meeting of the above authority was held the Station Road schools on Wednesday evening, when the chairman, Mr J Brocklesby presided, the other members present being Mr Henry Baker, Mr TW Mosby, Mr G Smithson, Mr C Walker, Mr HH Wray, with the clerk Mr J Hawksworth; caretaker of the cemetery, Mr A Hodgson.

Respecting the irregular lighting of the street, at the last meeting it was decided that the Clerk write to the Rural District Council; but in answer to Mr Baker, the Clerk stated that he had not sent one, owing to pressure of business.

Mr Baker said he had asked that the Rural Council meeting if there was such a letter, but he was informed that one and not been received, and so, in its absence, he voiced the feeling of the Council, and they had decided to write to the Gas company, and to see if something could not be done in the matter.

A deputation attended before the Council from the Allotment holders at Denaby, were formed themselves into an association, respecting the payment of rent, and it was decided that the rents be paid on 1 October and 1 April, instead of February 2 and August 2. The deputation stated that they are resolved the that one of their number received the whole of the rent and hand them over in a lump sum to Mr Wray, the manager of the allotments.

Mr Joseph Eyre attended the meeting, and complained against being charged double fees for the reopening of a grave in Conisborough cemetery.

Mr Mosby asked where he lived, and he replied at 91 Tickhill Street.

Mr Mosby: Then you are not in Conisborough Parish stop

Mr Eyre: I thought I was until I went and saw Mr Hawksworth. I paid 26/6 for the reopening.

Mr Mosby said that six years ago it was decided that after a grave are been purchased the purchase was entitled to have it reopen on payment of single fees, no matter what the original charge was.

The Chairman expressed the opinion that as the Local Government Board had approved of the payment of double fees for reopening the case of people residing outside the parish, a charge such as this must have their approval before it was adopted by the Parish Council.

Mr Mosby remarked that they were uncertain whether the sanction of the Local Government Board had been obtained.

The chairman informed Mr Eyre that this subject should receive attention.

Mr Baker: Did you attend the last meeting? Mr Eyre: Yes, sir.

Mr Baker: And what did Mr Hodgson, the caretaker, said you?

Mr Eyre: I asked him if I could see the Clerk, and he told me he was away. I also asked Mr Baker, and he told me that there was no business doing, so I went back.

Mr Baker: You will remember that option came to you, Mr Chairman, and was talking to you for some time. I said, “Why didn’t he speak up, as we were all here,” and then the matter was hushed up. I should like to know whether Hodgson told you whether this man had asked for me or not?

The Chairman: I did not understand that. I think I communicated to him to the effect that it was a matter we could not deal with, as the Clerk was not present.

Mr Baker: I should like you to give an opinion on this, whether it is right that when anyone comes in at any time and asked for a member of this Board, for the caretaker to inform that member is wanted ?

The chairman: yes, certainly.

Mr Baker: That is all I want to say on the matter. I hope, Hodgson, that you will do it in the future. I would say nothing more about the matter.