The New Schools. – A Heated Discussion.

December 1900

Mexborough and Swinton Times, December 7.

Conisbrough School Board.

The New Schools.

Mr Booth v . Mr Brocklesby

Heated Discussion.

A special meeting of the above name board was held on Wednesday evening. Mr WW Norwood presided and the members present were Messrs J Marsh (vice-chairman), D Robinson, J Brocklesby, Gillott and T R Booth.

The officials in attendance were the Clerk (Mr F. Allen) and the Attendance Officer (Mr Sargentson). Mr Wortley and Mr Whiston were also present.

A Precept.

The Chairman intimated that it was necessary to call upon the overseers for a precept amounting to £850. The sum was arranged, but the precept was not signed and sealed. Mr Marsh moved that the precept be issued on the overseers. Mr Robinson, seconded, and it was unanimously adopted.

To Be Sent To An Industrial School

The Clerk read a letter from the Leeds School Board, with reference to a boy named, to be sent to the industrial School. The board pointed out that is the case was not taken under the Education At it was desirable that the boy should be committed until 16 years of age.

The Chairman remarked that it was not desirable from their point of view. He thought their respective responsibilities should end at 14.

It was unanimously resolved that the boy, Bernard Coulson, be sent to the Shadwell industrial School, under the Leeds School board until the age of 14.

The New Schools.

Mr Whiston, the architect’s assistant, for the new schools, said they had gone through all the items – both himself and Mr Wortley. It was for the board to make up their minds which estimate they were going to accept.

He found out that Mr Wortley had been very liberal, and he did not know himself how Mr Wortley was going to do the work, but Mr Wortley had expressed his willingness to do so.

The Clerk then read a letter from Mr Wortley, dated eighth instant, calling attention to the fact that his item for a reduction had not been accepted, which would cause a delay in the work unless he received an order to cease the work.

There was some further correspondence from Mr Wortley, with a reference to the quantities, which he saw by the newspaper reports they required.

The Chairman explained that Mr Wortley had misunderstood the newspaper reports as it was not what they asked for. All they wanted was for the architect to advise them whether Mr Wortley’s deductions were all right, and practically worth the money. Mr White, when he was present at the last meeting, could not explain the details and items, for the simple reason that he had not got the figures with him. They had asked him to be prepared that night to inform them as to whether the deductions were fair and equitable.

Mr Whiston again explained that Mr Wortley had spent a day with him, and they had gone through all the items. He thought that Mr Wortley was very liberal indeed. (Hear, hear). In fact Mr Wortley had cut off more off than he ought to do in some instances, but he would have to fight it out.

The Chairman said that at the last meeting. Mr White told them it would be about £8 5s 8d per head, and when worked out the schools would cost £2319 6s 8d and a boundary wall, £1632 7s 4d. That was according to the figures, which Mr White gave them. He then quoted the education code with reference to the infants school class in the central hall, which said that it should be specially floored, because of the exercises, and marching of the infants. In the boys and girls school, one class, or in special circumstances, two classes might sometimes be made of the central hall.

There must be a small suitable plan for the purpose and the position of such class classes should be shown on the plan.

Mr Brocklesby: Do we show that on our plan?

Mr Whiston: No.

Mr Wortley remarked that it was one of those bylaws they allowed to be broken in case of necessity.

Mr Whiston said that this was a marching Hall, and they could have two classes.

The Chairman: I suppose it will be necessary to get the sanction of the Department to these alteration?

Mr Whiston: No, no, no! They have all the specifications in London.

The chairman: supposing the school is built of, common brick, and the Education Department find it out, could they interfere?

Mr Whiston: No

The chairman: You are quite sure of that?

Mr Whiston: yes

Mr Brocklesby: We don’t want to be led into a hole over that.

Mr Gillott: I think our Clerk ought to look to that; we could sooner look to the Clerk than the architect.

The Chairman said he wanted to be clear that they could not interfere.

Mr Whiston: they will not interfere.

Mr Marsh: the specifications certainly seem to allow for the alteration to be made.

The Chairman said they had a communication from the Education Department when the loan was sanctioned, stating that it was not to say they were to build extravagantly.

Mr Whiston: It is a straightforward thing this.

Mr Gillott: It has not been very plain up to now.

The Clerk intimated that he did not think there was the least possibility of them interfering. It would be advisable to notify the Education Department of what they were doing. However, there was no reason to put things back or hesitate with the work at all. It would be for the architect´s protection if they wrote.

Mr Gillott: And the Boards protection as well.

Mr Marsh thought the only thing they would be able to do would be to reduce the loan allowed.

The Chairman then referred to a letter of the Education Departments, stating that is the loan was  sanctioned it would not justify any unnecessary and extravagant expenditure on the part of the Board. They were trying to keep within that clause.

Mr Robinson: That is quite clear.

The Chairman said at the same time, they ought to intimate to the Department what they proposed to do. There was one matter that was still open for any alteration that was lowering the building. That was a question they had not dealt with.

Mr Whiston contended that the building will be spoilt if it was lowered.

Mr Marsh said the ought not to lower the building, humorously remarking that the pits would lower them in time. (Laughter.)

Mr Brocklesby said, looking at the lump sum, they had got a substantial reduction, but he must confess the reduction was not so much as he had anticipated. He did not infer that the deductions were incorrect. He really thought there would be a large reduction in the pressed bricks. There was a £90 reduction in regard to the boundary wall and £90 in regard to the pressed bricks. In connection with the school. he really thought the reduction would be less. In his mind, it was a question whether it will be advisable to dispense altogether with the pressed bricks, seeing that it was a question of £180.

The Chairman: I said so at the last meeting, particularly with regard to the school front.

Mr Brocklesby, continuing, said that going into the figures he found it would only make them, as a matter of fact, £10 per head per year difference. So far as the rates were concerned it meant 1d per year on a £12 house. There were many houses in Conisbrough more than half that money, and of course, that would mean 1/2d per year in that respect. He reiterated that it was a question, to his mind, whether it would be advisable to dispense with the pressed bricks. They certainly look much nicer, but he did not think they were more substantial than others, or that they would last longer. It was worthwhile considering whether they should dispense with the pressed bricks altogether.

Mr Marsh said he had made up his mind not to vote for common bricks for this building. It would hardly be fair. The Denaby Company were putting the best bricks in their work. It was like “spoiling a ship for the a ha’porth of tar”. He did not approve of any alteration to the exterior of the school.

Mr Brocklesby said, presuming they took pressed bricks. There would still be a saving of £636 7s.

Mr Wortley suggested that steel glazed bricks be used if they wanted a good thing making of it.

Mr Marsh said this cry for reduction had arisen from misapprehension on the part of the ratepayers when it was represented to them what they were going to cost. They had been some years working at it; he did not see that they should spoil it now by taking common bricks. Reckoning the accommodation of the Central Hall it brought the cost down within the £10 limit.

The Chairman remarked that he was in favour of pressed bricks for the school, but not for the wall.

Mr Booth at this stage entered the room.

The Chairman, addressing Mr booth, said there got it worked down to £8.12 s per head. The total accommodation in the school was 400, not 280. The Central Hall would accommodate 220.

Mr Booth: That makes all the difference.

Mr Robinson, contended that they should still adhere to the pressed bricks.

Mr Wortley remarked that if the schools were built of common brick they would equally as good, as the Conisbrough bricks were superior to others.

Mr Booth: Let the ratepayers have their way, this time.

Mr Brocklesby: I think there was ample grounds for taking the course, which I did. You know I felt strongly on the question or I should not resign my position. It was on these grounds solely that I did so. I think the reduction which is taking place proves that there was ample room for saving expense. I am very glad we have saved or are likely to save.

Mr Booth: Don’t say we.

Mr Brocklesby: well, I am very glad that the Board is likely to save so much. I think that considering we only say the sum of £90 on the school by substituting common brick instead of redbrick we should hardly be justified in adopting that course. As I have said, it would only make a difference of about £10 per year, so far as the rates are concerned. It means 1d per year on a £12 house, and that is not a heavy burden on the ratepayers of Conisbrough.

I think that the people of Conisbrough, are sufficiently in love with the things that are lovely and artistic in character, and I don’t think they would object to pay a small sum; at any rate, I should not object myself. I don’t believe in going for everything because it is cheap. I think there will be a difference in the appearance of redbrick and common brick. I propose that we accept the reductions made by Mr Wortley. I’m very pleased indeed that Mr Wortley has met us in such a fair open way, and I am indeed pleased to hear this testimony to him. (Hear, hear).

I propose that we accept all the reductions name, with the exception of £180 in reference to the bricks.

Mr Gillott: there is a lot of difference between £8 per head and £22 per head.

Mr Brocklesby: that was taking the whole thing.

Mr Marsh seconded Mr Brocklesby’s motion.

Mr Brocklesby afterwards moved an amended resolution that they accept the reductions specified by Mr Wortley and sanctioned by their architect, with exception of the school design that the build of pressed brick.

Mr Marsh, seconded the resolution.

Mr Booth said he could not understand this process at all. Mr Brocklesby came to previous meeting and kicked up a big shine about the expenses schools were going to cost. Mr Brocklesby simply takes himself away and resigned on account of the excessive cost. While he was absent from the board they cut down expense a good deal, and the the very next meeting Mr Brocklesby came and objected to the thing they had done.

Mr Brocklesby: No, I didn’t.

Mr Bloom (continuing) said Mr Brocklesby raised a big alarm, called the ratepayers together, and Mr Fisons, what were they there for? The love of Mr Brocklesby. If they were, he said the sooner they all resigned on the Board the better. They had cut down the plan, according to Mr Brocklesby, and the ratepayers ideas, and then at the very next meeting. Mr Brocklesby came and wanted the whole thing starting afresh. He moved an amendment that the arrangement they came to the last meeting with Mr Wortley and Mr White should be adhered to, and that the reduction of £816 16s be adopted.

Mr Gillott briefly seconded.

Mr Brocklesby said he must object to Mr Booth´s way of putting his amendment, and in speaking in support of it. He had nothing to say in objection to Mr Gillott’s way of seconding the resolution. In the first instance, Mr Booth said they met in his absence, and decided to cut down expense to the extent of over £800. He (the speaker) said they did not decide to cut down to that extent. They approached the contractor and architect with a view to reduction of the expense of the cost of the schools, and certain figures were submitted to them, and facts were given the way saving be affected, but they did not decide at that meeting to cut down expense to the extent mentioned.

If they had decided at that meeting he certainly should not have moved the resolution that he had done. The figures were only put before them for consideration, then at the meeting they were not in a position to say what they would do. He maintained that it had not been decided on any item for the reduction of the amount to £800. He objected to Mr Booth saying that he got Mr Fison down at Conisbrough, and call the ratepayers of Conisbrough together. He had no more to do with the meeting that was called than Mr Booth had. He was present at that meeting, and so was Mr Booth, who at that meeting expressed himself in favour of reduction of the expenses, and was strongly against the expenditure contemplated. So far as that meeting was concerned, Mr Booth had every bit as much to do with it as he had. He (the speaker) was asked by a ratepayer to attend the meeting, and, seeing he had taken such a part in the matter, he had better not attend. However, he went to that meeting to learn something, and, if possible, to serve the ratepayers of Conisbrough. He had made this protest against the expenditure, and the figure submitted to that Board, and which had appeared in print proved conclusively that the expenditure was unreasonable.

He maintained now, after the deductions made, that the amount was to excessive. They had as much expense as they possibly could, and they could do no more. Mr Booth complained because he favoured press bricks rather than common brick. He considered that it was worth the money, and the ought to go to the expense. He spoke before as a ratepater, and spoke now as a ratepayer. He certainly thought they would be justified in carrying out the resolution.

Mr Booth: I don’t object to pressed bricks.

Mr Brocklesby: Then why not vote for them?

Mr Booth said he objected to a member of that Board coming there first favouring a reduction and then wanted to increase the cost of the schools. As for Mr Brocklesby, saying that he had nothing what’s ever to do with that meeting, it was through Mr Brocklesby’s instrumentality that it was held.

Mr Brocklesby (emphatically) Mr Chairman, I must object. That is like giving you the lie direct.

Mr Bloom: Did you agitate among some of them?

Mr Brocklesby: I did not.

Mr Booth (continuing): It is all right.

In further remarks Mr Booth denied that he had ever uttered a word at that meeting. He objected to a member of the Board – after they had gone through the items and got a reduction in the cost for the schools – wanting to upset the whole thing and start afresh.

The Chairman intimated that Mr Sharpe convened the ratepayers meeting.

Mr Brocklesby said he recollected that it was that meeting where Mr Booth expressied himself strongly against the expenditure. In fact, on one occasion Mr Booth said, “let us all resign.” He questioned as to what that meant.

The Chairman said that it was at a Board meeting that Mr Booth alluded to the expenditure contemplated.

Mr Brocklesby remarked as to him being charged with inconsistency. He thought that if there had been any member inconsistent it was Mr Booth. When Mr Booth practically said, “I’m in favour of pressed bricks, but I will not have them.” If that was not inconsistency he did not know what was.

Mr Booth: You have been the instigator of calling the meeting.

Mr Brocklesby: I have not.

Mr Marsh, stated that no member of the Board had anything to do with the parish meeting being called. He knew how it was called.

Mr Booth. I don’t say Mr Brocklesby had anything to do with the meeting directly, but he certainly had indirectly.

Mr Robinson in a few brief remarks supported Mr Booth´s amendment.

The Chairman said there was a general expression in the parish that the expense should be cut down as much as practical. All their meetings had being held especially with regard to the cutting down of expenses. He would certainly like the question settled once and for all. They had spent a lot of time about it, and had given up their time in the interests of the ratepayers, more than any public body in Conisbrough had done since he could remember. They had given up their time, especially to a matter affecting the parish. There had had Mr Wortley before them, and he considered that Mr Wortley had behaved in a very generous manner to the Board.

The amendment moved by Mr Booth was then put the meeting, and was carried by four votes to 2.

Mr Wortley was afterwards accorded a vote of thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.