|
In 1891 a proposal was made by the Nelson Borough Council that would effectively absorb Barrowford into the town of Nelson. The Nelson boundary of Pendle Water, and Colne Water, would no longer be the divide between village and town - Barrowford would consist of two wards within Nelson Borough. Nelson had earlier applied for a town incorporation charter (granted in July 1890) and were of the opinion that the inclusion of the extra 2,365 acres of Barrowford would aid their cause. As will be seen Barrowford were not happy with this and were subsequently left out of the application. Alongside this was the thorny issue of gas, water and sewage supplies to Barrowford whereby Nelson sold gas and water to the village - no sewers existed here at that time. This was to become a major bone of contention between the two townships.
In 1866 Nelson had been granted powers to construct and operate their own gas and water works. Nelson applied for a Provisional Order in 1870 so as to be able to extend the limits of their supply to encompass Barrowford Booth.; a General Improvement Bill of 1879 saw an extension of Nelson water works. By 1888 the rapidly rising population of the area meant that Nelson had to apply to Parliament where they presented the Ogden Valley Water Scheme, this was to enable the construction of reservoirs at Ogden Valley and Black Moss. By the time of the 1891 Bill three of these reservoirs had been constructed.
There was a problem here in as much as the Ogden reservoirs were fed from the infant Pendle Water (and other sources), this meant that the river below the catchments became much depleted at times. The mill-owners of Barrowford were unhappy as there were times in summer when their mill dams were low whilst they still required their normal water quantities. If the supply of 'condensing' water to the mill was interrupted this meant heavy losses to the manufacturers and workers. In a bid to counteract this the Local Board had a duty to supply compensation water, this meant that they should release reservoir water into the river when the flow fell below a predetermined level. Just how well this system worked in the mill-owner's favour I do not know but by 1891 the Local Board were trying their best to put an end to the arrangement.
When Nelson invited Barrowford to be amalgamated into their Borough they promised lower gas prices and no rate increase. The small print also included Parts 11 & 111 which comprised an end to the old water compensation clauses, these were to be replaced by cash payments instead of water supply. As in many factors within the Corporation Bill the Nelson case appears to have been poorly prepared in detail, no actual cash figures for the new compensation were forthcoming. The QC representing Barrowford asked of Nelson why they had not applied for a Provisional Order to cover the compensation clauses, as was normal practice; Nelson replied that they wished to save money by adding the clauses to the present Bill, thus killing two birds with one stone. Also money could not be paid out as compensation under a Provisional Order.
One of the main stumbling blocks as far as Barrowford residents were concerned was that amalgamation with their larger neighbour might force them into accepting a plan put forward by the Burnley Rural Sanitary Authority. Why this Authority were responsible for the sanitation of Barrowford I am not sure - possibly this is a remnant of times past when the whole area came under the auspices of the halmot court at Ightenhill. The Burnley Authority had proposed the compulsory purchase of 17 acres of land belonging to the Carr Hall estate in Barrowford. This was to provide a new sewage works to serve Barrowford, the residents, however, were afraid of the high cost of this to the village. It was suggested by certain notaries of the village that a sewage works could be provided on a quarter acre of land, this would cost no more than £2,000. The more sensible majority rightly dismissed this scheme as being totally unviable
Jonas Sharrard was the secretary of a committee formed by the inhabitants of Barrowford to address the matter of amalgamation with Nelson, five members of which resigned over the issue of the Burnley Authority proposal. Other members were unhappy with the water compensation clauses, these clauses were actually dropped by Nelson two weeks before the Bill went to the House of Commons.
An interesting insight to the dichotomy of interest between the two townships is provided by the original minutes from the first day of the reading of the Bill. Alderman William Hartley (pro-Nelson) was being cross-examined and was asked if he was present at a public meeting held at Blacko last Friday. He replied that he was and that the resolution in favour of amalgamation was passed without a single dissention. There were 70 to 80 people at the meeting, all ratepayers of Blacko, he said. Jesse Blakey (see below), who also attended the meeting, has written in the margin of the Bill minutes "Only three people voted in favour of the resolution. 50 to 60 people present and no more than half ratepayers. They did not say contrary and no amendment was proposed."
This is one of a number of untruths showing the political chicanery of many of the proponents of the Corporation of Nelson Bill: they began what was to become virtually a 'smear campaign' against the village. Lurid details of the filth and squalor appertaining to 19th century Barrowford were freely bandied around in order to bolster the case for Nelson to amalgamate the village within their hegemony.
Jesse Blakey was a prominent local personality within Barrowford during the later 19th and earlier 20th centuries. He was a Councillor for Barrowford and represented the village on a committee formed to consider the question of amalgamation. Based at 9 Scotland Road in 1891 Jesse Blakey wrote a long-running column in the local newspaper, he would later draw on these articles to write the book Annals of Barrowford. He ran the family firm of ironmongers in the block of shops currently occupied by the Park News agency etc, (opposite the bottom of Halstead Lane on Gisburn Road at the Park Gates). As far as I am aware Blakey owned this whole block of properties.
I have the original draft of a letter Blakey wrote to the Parliamentary Committee set up to hear the Corporation Bill; also with the letter were two newspapers dating from 1891. One of these was the Nelson Chronicle of March 6th 1891 from which I take the following reports, the other was the Express and Advertiser of March 7th 1891. The Corporation Bill presents interesting reading on certain aspects of the social conditions of the time (even allowing for a strong bias by Nelson Corporation against their smaller neighbours sanitary habits!).
Draft letter in Jesse Blakeys handwriting on Crown paper watermarked Waterlow & Sons, London:
Jesse Blakey
I am a member of the Committee appointed by the ratepayers to consider this question.
I have lived in Barrowford all my life and am well acquainted with the feeling of the inhabitants on the question.
I am aware of the principle of the Bill promoted by the Nelson Corporation. The feeling of the village is almost unanimous against the amalgamation with Nelson, proposed by Part 11 of the Bill, and also against the abandonment of the compensation clauses, but these have been withdrawn.
I have great opportunities of noting the opinion of the ratepayers being in close daily contact with them. I carefully noted the effect of the report of the withdrawal of the water clauses and it had little or no effect on the Ratepayers, with regard to amalgamation, and the feeling against it is as strong as ever.
The two questions are quite distinct in my opinion: if we amalgamated our chances of obtaining a market of our own, which we should certainly have under a Local Board, will be gone and a good deal of the trade will go to Nelson which the Barrowford tradesmen ought to have. There is a very strong sentimental objection to amalgamation, especially amongst those who have resided a considerable time in Barrowford and have watched the course of events.
There is want of confidence in the intentions of Nelson and the idea is that they seek amalgamation merely for selfish purposes and from no desire to benefit Barrowford.
Many of the great and the good of Nelson and Barrowford travelled to London to act as witnesses, either for or against the Bill - amongst these were Nelson medical officers and the vicar of Barrowford who all stated that the sanitary conditions within the village were exceedingly bad. The river acted as the main sewer as everything was thrown into it, including animal offal, ashes and rotten waste. The mills higher up the river took water from the river and so, in dry seasons, the river was low and extremely unsavoury. Dr. Charles Harry Pinck of Nelson stated under examination that many privies empty into the river, chamber utensils are emptied into the river, stinking fish is thrown into the river, in fact everything goes into the river! With the exception of the main road through the village most of the streets are ankle deep in mud, with stagnant pools of water standing in them. Most of them are impassable in wet weather. All the houses in the Square (Old Row - now River way and Fountain Square) look onto privies, there are young men and girls waiting their turns to go in: perhaps a hundred people to use the three closets, and there is the overflowing besides.
One of the petitioners against the Bill was William Farrer Ecroyd, the quaker owner of Lomashaye Mills. He had constructed a number of cottages at Lomashaye to serve his mill workers, the mill supplied gas to these new houses but the Local Board wished to end this arrangement so as to supply the gas themselves. The Board intended to pass a bye-law which would enable them to take over the Ecroyd gas works by compulsory purchase and, no doubt, close it down.
A leaflet giving a few extracts of evidence from the minutes of the Corporation Bill was printed and distributed by Nelson following the House of Commons Committee meeting. The deliberate censoring of witness statements was intended to show Barrowford in as bad a light as possible.
The chief witness for Nelson Corporation at the Parliamentary Committee was Alderman William Hartley. He was a manufacturer both in Nelson and Barrowford, the sole representative for Nelson Borough on the Lancashire County Council, a member of the Nelson Gas Committee, the Watch Committee and many other committees besides. Under cross-examination Alderman Hartley stated that he was a native of Barrowford, now living in Nelson. However, when pressed upon details of the village he appeared to know very little. He did not know the area around Church Street, changed the name of David Street to Davis Street and said he didn't know what was at the top of it as he had never been there. He was unaware of the actual boundaries involved in the extent of the proposed amalgamation (so was the Borough Surveyor!).
Alderman Hartley went on to describe the large amount of building work taking place in the two townships and stated that Barrowford was now a continuous urban area running from Grimshaw's Mill, past Barrowclough's Mill and Berry's Mill down to the river at Reedyford. A large house shown on the map was Reedyford House, the estate of Mr.Tunstall, and this area was ripe for building upon. This area was known as Newbridge, a drain ran under the highway in this area at a depth of only five feet. This is purely a surface drain but the people of Newbridge had connected their sewerage to run into this drain and so it ended up in the river: (This was from the evidence of a committee of the Local Government Board under General Pepys Carey who responded to an earlier application by Barrowford, of 3rd September 1889, for their own urban powers. Finding no sewer provision, and the poor state of the roads and footpaths, this application was refused) - consequently, said Ald. Hartley, this was a great nuisance to Nelson, especially the people of Whitefield Ward.
In continued evidence Ald. Hartley said that the Borough of Nelson had effectively been created within the last quarter of a century - the Local Board was constituted in 1864 when the population was 3,500, by 1871 this was 5,580, in 1881 it stood at 10,381 and at the time of the Bill had expanded to some 25,000. This rapid growth was attributed to Nelson being fortunately sited between Manchester and Bradford, Nelson's goods of cotton, fancy dress and woollens being suited to either of these markets. The local looms could be adapted to either cotton or wool as demand dictated. The acreage of the Borough of Nelson at this time was some 3,185 acres. The public market hall had cost over £10,000 to build and the Town Hall cost £8,000. The park and recreation ground at 19 acres cost £7,700 whilst the fire station (with its steam fire engine) cost £2,500. Nelson was now spending £15,000 to £20,000 on a larger sewage works (at its present site) the land of 11 acres costing £5,000. This new building project was due to be finished by September of 1891 under threat of £10 per week penalty.
A number of Acts had been invoked by Nelson in support of the main Corporation Bill, these dated from 1866, 1879, 1886, 1888 and other dates were related to Provisional Orders. Asked why this was Ald. Hartley said that it was necessary to habitually apply for new powers due to the rapid expansion of the area. Nelson supplied water to Brierfield and Barrowford as well as their own population, these townships were expanding at an abnormal rate also.
The general district rate of Nelson was 1s 9d, there had been cause to lay a Borough rate to now but one was anticipated in 1892. Substantial profits were made by the Corporation from the gas works, water works and markets - these profits go into the general district fund.
The witness goes on to describe the Carr Hall estate as being beautifully wooded with four or five villas being erected upon the site. The new Nelson main sewer will run below Newbridge, 200 yards across the river at a cost of £2,000. This would be adequate to take the extra sewage of Barrowford if necessary.
The Committee then went on to the topography of the area and berated the Nelson representatives for the poor quality of their plans (these did not even show most of the buildings in Barrowford and Nelson) and their lack of knowledge of where the boundaries lay. Nelson replied that they only had access to the OS map of 1835 which did not show much of the modern developments. The Committee informed them that more up to date maps could be purchased from nearby stationers and would Nelson please spend that evening acquainting themselves with their plan? The Committee enquires as to the nature of the north part of Barrowford - one member asking if "As a matter of fact are not the only inhabitants known there supposed to have been the Lancaster Witches?" Reply: That is Roughlee township next to it, we are not particular about annexing that rural district. "Is not that part of the district which you are seeking to annex?" Reply: Yes.......and so on! Pasture Lane, rising to 926 feet, is described as having no grouse, no sheep but pasture for cattle. Ald. Hartley has difficulty in convincing the Committee that this is not wild moorland as they appear to think that area is in the Outer Hebrides!
An argument then broke out between the Committee and Nelson as there had been three alterations to the Bill in two days, Nelson did not accept this but it is apparent from the minutes that their presentation was somewhat sloppy.
Ald. Hartley stated that Barrowford would be allowed two wards within Nelson Borough and a reduction in their gas payments for the next eight years. This came as a surprise to the Barrowford representatives as this was the first they had heard of it. There would be proportional representation for Barrowford and freedom from their sewage difficulties.
Asked if the goods from Barrowford were conveyed by the main road to Nelson station Ald. Hartley admitted that they were. Asked where this main road went to ultimately he said "Scotland, the other way it goes to the towns of Gisburn and Settle. Being told that Gisburn was not a town he said that the nearest place then was Settle, but there was no communication with this place.
Barrowford and Nelson both belonged to the Poor Law Union of Burnley. Barrowford and Brogden (a portion of the township in Yorkshire) had school boards but Nelson did not, they used the voluntary school system and so did not apply a school rate.
Many pages of the minutes are then dedicated to details such as the length of the main road through the village and the exact depth and width of the river at various points.
Barrowford retained autonomy by eventually acquiring urban powers, they gained their own council and elected a Mayor. Nelson began to treat the village sewage although the new system took time to install to the more outlying areas. Even when I was a lad the houses at any distance from the roadside village, and many houses in Blacko, were still on the night soil system. The dustbin wagons for the Barrowford were operated by the Urban District Council and the dustmen emptied the night soil on Saturdays as part of their overtime arrangements. The depot was situated at the top of Ingham Street.
Report in the Nelson Chronicle - 6th March 1891:
Nelson Corporation Bill:
On the 2nd of March the following left Nelson and travelled to London to give evidence in support of the Nelson Corporation Bill:
Aldermen Hartley and Astley: Councillors Greenwood and Collins: Mr.R.M.Prescott (Town Clerk): Doctor Millar (Medical Officer): Mr.Boothman (Borough Accountant):Mr.Smith Whitehead (Architect): Messrs. James Aitkin, R.Trafford, E.Butler and Reverend T.Dickinson of Barrowford. Mr.Crowther (Borough Surveyor) left for the same purpose on Saturday. Later on Monday and Tuesday the following other Corporation witnesses followed: Mr.Gott (The Mayor): Aldermen Wilkinson, Whittaker and Evans: Councillor Jackson: Dr. Pinck: Dr. Robb: Messrs. J.Pate, C.Atkinson, Henry Wilkinson and Jonas Sharp of Barrowford. © J A Clayton
On the 3rd of March the NCB came before the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee of the House of Commons presided over by G.W.Hastings MP. The petitioners who appeared to oppose the Bill were owners and overseers of Barrowford: The Lancashire County Council: Burnley Rural Sanitary Authority: The Padiham and Hapton Local Board: owners and occupiers of mills and Mr.John Eastham. The latter petitioners reserved their counsel.
Mr Balfour-Browne in opening the case said the Bill proposed to extend the boundaries of the borough of Nelson. There were certain other purposes which they sought to compass by the Bill, but that was the most important if it and the one they now proposed to open to the Committee. Nelson was a somewhat phenomenal town. They were used to rapid growth of certain towns in England, but he did not think any town had sprung up so rapidly from a mere village into a town of great importance as Nelson had done. In 1870 the population was 5,400; in 1880 it had grown up to 10,381 and today the Committee would have reason to believe when they heard the evidence that there were 25,000 people in the town. Industries which were carried on were the weaving of cloth, fancy-dress and woollen goods, and the trade had increased to such an extent that recently some new sheds and factories had had to be put up outside the Borough. One had been recently erected in Barrowford Booth, the whole or a portion of which they sought to annex. In 1870 the water limits were extended by a Provisional Order, and in that year they were made to include Barrowford Booth. In 1879 a general improvement Bill was passed which also extended the water works. In 1888 the water supply was running short and they came to Parliament with a scheme called the Ogden Valley Scheme for making reservoirs in the Ogden Valley and certain at Black Moss. Three of the reservoirs had been constructed.
The 1888 Bill also contained authorisation to raise £28,000 for sewage works which were being carried out now and would shortly be finished. In 1889 the local board applied for a Charter of Incorporation, and in July 1889 that Charter was granted. Nelson possessed at the present time very important and extensive Corporation property. They had gas works, water works, park and recreation ground, market hall, town hall, fire engine station, free library and reading rooms and a great number of minor matters which could be mentioned. The indebtedness of the Borough was £181,258 and they had unexhausted funds - at first light £181,000 looked a large debt for a population of 25,000 inhabitants, but when they remembered how very large their limits were and that their responsibilities as to gas and water at any rate had been undertaken for a very much larger district than Nelson they would not wonder that the debt was somewhat heavy. What they proposed to do was to extend the boundary limits so as to include Barrowford, and he pledged himself to prove that there were good public grounds for doing so. They could show first of all that the kind of authority which ruled Barrowford was not of the character which ought to have the government of the place. It was a rural sanitary authority, and the character of the district which they sought to annex close to Nelson was decidedly urban. He must admit that the area was not all urban, but they were quite willing not to take the whole of the township, but to confine their extended limit to the really urban part of Barrowford. The population of Barrowford was 5,500 and it had an area of 2,365 acres: the increase in population of this district had almost been as rapid as that of Nelson. Since 1880 the population of Barrowford had increased 40%. He would quote an abstract from the report of the Medical Officer of Health regarding the sanitary condition of Barrowford. That gentleman stated that there was an absence of privy accommodation and ashpits, that many ashpits were overcrowded, that the river was used as the main sewer, everything being tumbled into the river, that the roads were cesspools and footpaths required forming along the different streets: in fact that Barrowford was in a most deplorable condition.
The Bill was promoted for the purpose of securing a Charter of Incorporation for Nelson, it was at first proposed to include Barrowford, and the parochial committee of Barrowford were in favour of being included, but at a public meeting, which was convened for the purpose of considering the question, opinion was divided. Some of the inhabitants were in favour of being annexed with Nelson, while others thought it would be better for them to be left outside. Under those circumstances Nelson thought it would be better to go for their charter alone, and Barrowford was accordingly left out. The Burnley Rural Sanitary provided a scheme for dealing with the sewage of Barrowford and a Local Government enquiry was held in 1890 into the making of 18 acres of land for the purposes of the scheme. That scheme was strongly opposed and amongst other things these facts were elicited: that the scheme only extended to a part of the district and its cost, though uncertain, was likely to be very much larger than the estimate, and in fact disastrous to Barrowford if it had to bear the cost. Another objection was that the solid sewage would have to be carried across the park. If the Nelson ratepayers eventually showed that urban government was absolutely required for this district then - and apparently the people of Barrowford were prepared to go in for a Local Board if this Bill fails - the Nelson sewage system could be so adapted as to carry the whole of the sewage of Barrowford and treat it. In conclusion the learned counsel said the grounds for asking for the extension were briefly these: that the two places favoured one town, the streets being continuous, and Nelson Corporation lighting both: the interests were identical in every respect and they should be governed by the same body.
The Chairman asked why the promoters of the Bill did not seek to obtain these powers by a Provisional Order? Mr. Balfour-Browne replied that the Bill originally contained clauses for power to obtain relief from water compensation and to compensate in money instead, which could not be done under a Provisional Order. They thought it would be a saving of expense to have the two matters dealt with together, but the water clauses had been withdrawn a week ago. The committee ordered the room to be cleared whilst they considered this point. After deliberation in private for a quarter of an hour the Chairman stated that after looking at all the circumstances of the case, and especially to the fact that the Bill was deposited in that House, contained other important provisions besides those for extension, and that the Corporation would have had a double expense, the Committee had decided to hear evidence, with regard to the extension at any rate before coming to a final decision.
Mr.William Hartley, cotton manufacturer, Deputy Mayor, and Chairman of the Watch Committee, said the progress of Nelson had been very remarkable as the town might be said to have been created within the last quarter of a century. In 1871 the population was 5,580, in 1881 it was 10,381 and in 1890 it was estimated at 25,000. This rapid growth was due to Nelson being situated midway between Manchester and Bradford, and to the fact that the looms could be adapted either for cotton or woollen goods. Thus Nelson was in a position to supply either market. The town was well-sewered, and they were now spending £15,000 to £20,000 for the purification and treatment of the sewerage on the precipitation and filtration system.
For several years they had supplied a number of places outside the borough boundary with gas. The district rate was 1/9 in the £ including 1d for a free library. Up to the present they never had a borough rate. The rapid development of the borough had largely developed an increase in value of the surrounding land. Building was now going on rapidly in Nelson, most of the mill-owners and principle ratepayers had signed the petition for incorporation with Nelson. Opposition developed, however, and as public feeling in Barrowford was divided the corporation, rather than endanger their charter, proceeded without Barrowford.
The sewage works laid down by the Nelson Corporation were constructed as to allow of the sewage of Barrowford being conveyed by them and carried on to the station for purification and treatment. Their was no sewerage arrangement in Barrowford whatever, and a portion of its raw sewage came onto the boundaries of Nelson. At present Barrowford was supplied with gas by the Corporation of Nelson. The added districts would enjoy the advantages of reduced gas charges, a fixed rate, relief from their sewage difficulties, satisfactory street lighting, a recreation ground, and proportionate representation on the Corporation. There was no school board and no school rate in Nelson but such existed in Barrowford. The voluntary school system prevailed in Nelson. They were prepared to give Barrowford two wards.
Mr. Freeman (for Barrowford) was cross-examining witness as to the extent to which density of population extended outwards from where the urban became separate from the rural portions of the district, when the Chairman intimated that the Committee would be glad if the promoters would show on the following morning and draw a line on the map indicating how much they would be prepared to incorporate. The Committee were not disposed to give to Nelson the whole of the large district shown on the map, so that Barrowford would doubtless have something to say.
Mr. Higgin (for the Lancashire County Council) pointed out that the Act 1888 contained a clause which went very strongly against the splitting up of townships. That would be the effect here if the proposal was carried out, for Barrowford was a township by itself. If a part were taken into Nelson and a part left out there would be a splitting up of rating and all kinds of descriptions of representation.
Mr. Bidder,QC, said that recognising the fact that the bill did not involve the taking in of a considerable amount of rural districts, they did not wish to divide the township, but after a careful consideration of the matter they resolved to proceed with the proposals contained in their Bill. As a matter of fact the Corporation would only be too glad to adopt the view of the Committee, and leave out certain portions of the rural district. The Chairman said the Committee had not made up their minds one way or the other as to whether incorporation could take place, but they were of the opinion that so large a rural district should not be added to Nelson. Mr. Bidder said they would undertake to have properly outlined the portions which they deemed necessary to incorporate. Mr. Freeman said that if the bill was to be so vitally altered every now and again it would be impossible for the opponents to know what part they were to discussing. Already the Bill had been altered three times. After some further discussion the Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock on Wednesday.
The consideration of the Bill was resumed on Wednesday. Mr. Bidder, QC, on behalf of the promoters stated that since the Committee rose on Tuesday his clients had carefully gone into the question of the portion of Barrowford to be included in the borough limits of Nelson. In accordance with what he gathered to be the views of the Committee he had laid down a line upon the plan cutting off in round figures a thousand acres in Barrowford which was mainly agricultural land. On the other hand it might occur to the Committee that down in the north-west corner of the map they seemed still to include a considerable portion of land which was undoubtedly rural at the present time, but it was in the market for building premises.
In cross-examination witnesses admitted that a public meeting at Barrowford condemned the scheme, but he explained that the opposition to the Bill was on account of the water clauses, and not on account of the proposed inclusion in the Corporation boundaries of Nelson. The water clauses have now been withdrawn. Mr. Higgins briefly cross-examined the witness, but stated previously that the County Council of Lancashire, for whom he appeared, were neither supported nor opposed the bill.
The Committee, after hearing further evidences as to the unsanitary conditions of Barrowford, ordered the room to be cleared. On the public being readmitted the Chairman stated that the Committee were strongly of the opinion that the present unsanitary state of things which existed at Barrowford was a disgrace to the place, and they were quite determined that it should be put an end to. Would the Burnley Rural Sanitary Authority undertake to make an application with a view to the formation of a local board for Barrowford? Mr. Littler, who appeared on behalf of the owners and overseers of Barrowford, said that they were prepared to go on with their scheme, and with their application for the seventeen acres of land. Mr. Bidder said he would call evidence to prove that the inhabitants of Barrowford were in favour of annexation to Nelson. The Committee adjourned for the further hearing of the case.
Thursday: At the commencement of the proceedings Mr. Worsley-Taylor, who appeared on behalf of the Burnley Rural Sanitary Authority, said since the declaration of the Committee on the previous afternoon he had had an opportunity of consulting his clients. They understood the Committee to declare that without desiring to cast blame upon anybody they have come to the conclusion that there were sanitary defects in Barrowford which called for a remedy at a very short date. His clients, being impartial in the matter, and desiring as a public authority to study the interests of the whole community, had come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lay on the side of annexation to Nelson. They had, therefore, decided to withdraw all opposition to the Bill. The Chairman said he had long seen that one of the most difficult things in the world was for a rural sanitary authority to adequately provide for an urban population. Therefore, for that reason, he should not think of blaming the BRSA. Mr. Worsley-Taylor remarked that his clients had been in the position of brave men struggling under misfortune - (laughter).
Mr. James Aitken, coal merchant and farmer of Barrowford, corroborated the previous evidence as to the unsanitary conditions of the township. He was in favour of annexation to Nelson in preference to the formation of a Local Board for the district. He considered that the scheme which had been presented by the BRSA for dealing with the sewage of Barrowford would be a very costly one. Mr. Aitken went on to say that the meeting in Barrowford at which the Bill was condemned, the Chairman stated that if the water clauses were passed in summer time the river would be almost dry: there would be no water to use in the mills for condensing purposes: and as the result the mills would have to be closed. Now that the water clauses have been withdrawn he believed that the opposition to the Bill had greatly decreased in Barrowford. By annexation to Nelson the inhabitants of Barrowford would secure a reduction of 3d in the 1000 in the price of their gas.
In reply to a question by the Chairman, the learned council for the promoters of the Bill stated that the corporation of Nelson were willing to give Barrowford a preferential rate of 1s 6d in the pound for eight years.
Alderman Whittaker, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Nelson Corporation, was called and examined as to the financial position of the Borough. He said the rate had decreased from 2s 6d to 1s 9d, and no rise was anticipated next year. The Committee then adjourned until Tuesday.
John A Clayton
Barrowford © 2005
|
