Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page

Advertising

Correspondence.

News
Cite
Share

Correspondence. [In no case are we responsible for the opinions expressed in this column.] To the Editor of the WEEKLY NEWS. THE ABOLITION OF THE MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY. SIR, --Mr Blud's second letter, like the first, is, to put it mildly, full of errors and false conclusions. I refuse to argue with him, as he personally knows nothing whatever of the matter in dispute. He was not at the meeting in question, nor had he been a member of the Society for at least two years. Truth is not likely to be obtained from a witness who only gets information second hand. Dalefield, Mostyn Road, J. H. ATKINSON. Colwyn Bay, Oct. 30th, 1894. SIR,-I am not going to take your space with a lengthy reply to Messrs Jefferies and Atkinson re the above. In reply to the former, I claim to have kept to my official knowledge of the Mutual in my first letter. I did not give any report of the meeting, but simply stated the fact of having heard from several persons who were present that the report was an unfair one. To me it is a sig- nificant tact that the only parties replying to my statement that the report was an unfair one, are Messrs Jefferies and Atkinson. I think I can now make a good guess as to who were your correspondents. Mr Jetferies says this is a painful matter to him. It is to me and no doubt to all concerned, and it would, I think, sir, have been a good thing if this pain had been thought of before this unfair report had been sent to you. I am accused of using unchristian language. Well, I have yet to learn the Christian Religion forbids me to call a spade a spade or base that which is base. It is a fact, sir, as asserted, that, while we levied 1/6 per meeting on the Mutual, we have not done so on other Societies connected with the Church, the only other Soc- iety connected with us having funds is the Band of Hope. In all these things, sir, the Deacons are guided by all the rules of common sense, and act as reasonable men. Mr Atkinson tells us he glories in his unsectarianism, and tells us again, as he has been telling everybody since in office, that the Society was not connected with our Church, and yet he proposed that all the funds of the Society be handed over to our Church. He says the Society is not mentioned in our Church Manual." I enclose to you, sir, our "Manual" for this year, that you may see a full reference to the Mutual on page 8-9. He would have us infer that he has been working to prevent any sectarianism being introduced into the Society, and throws out inuendo's about Congregational methods. Now who would ever think of intro- ducing sectarianism into a Mutual or Debating Society. In this sense, all sectarian or theol- ogical questions are excluded from such Societies. Congregational methods are those adopted by every self-governing Society, namely, every mem- ber having a vote and a voice in its management, methods not always suitable to Mr Atkinson, who often took care not to call every Committee mem- ber to his Committee meetings, and who walks out of a meeting to show his love of free speech when views disagreeable to his own are expressed. We are not ashamed of Congregational methods, methods becoming more popular every day. Now, if Mr Atkinson saw any objection in our rules, in our methods, why did he join the Society, or, after joining, why did he not make his objec- tions known before the Society's meeting. Our rules did not, certainly, prevent anyone joining the Society or election to Committee, could anything be broader. Yet, sir, I contend that none of these things in any way separated the Society from the Church, and that it was a base thing to try and work these rules in order to cause its severance and abolition.—Yours truly, J. BLUD. [We have received the Manual referred to, and on p.p. 8-9 we find the following The Mutual Improvement Society also has been very successful. A variety of subjects of interest have been dealt with, useful information has been imparted, and many a pleasant evening spent. ED. W. N. I THE LORDS AND SOCIAL REFORM. SIR,-It is refreshening to read the vigorous attacks of Mr T. E. Ellis, M.P., and Mr Herbert Roberts, M.P., on the Veto of the House of Lords, in the latter part of their speeches reported in your issue of the 26th. To my mind, however, they do not place in sufficiently strong light the con- sequences of that veto being still exercised for the purpose of nullifying measures of social reform that are imperatively necessary. The political situation in Great Britain, I regard as far more serious than is from a cursory glance apparent. With seven millions of people destitute, hundreds of thousands over-worked or unable to earn sufficient wage, and large numbers killed by industrial accidents, no nation can rest secure. I have always read with interest the histories of different nations, and I gather from them that antecedent to every revolution or social disorder there have been grievous social evils which have been allowed to grow to a dangerous magnitude. Consequent on the block caused by the Lords, there is in Great Britain of to-day a tendency of the nation to split into two factions,—the one advocating immediate, necessary and drastic reform the other the preservation of the ancient constitution with all its evils, and admitting only tardy or partial reform. Let us trust that the people of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland will be separated by no national prejudices or barriers, but all unite in one common league to back everything beneficial in legislation, thus presenting an invulnerable front against sectarianism and prejudice. Should our masses of starving, unemployed, or overworked and underpaid men increase, along with other evils, we, too may fall as other nations have fallen. By carrying through the reforms already demanded can Great Britain be alone saved. If this be not done, it may some day be said of her too:- Not such was your land in her earlier hour, The day-star of nations in wisdom and power I do not flatter,—but have [we not been flattered about England's greatness ad nauseum.-I am, yours faithfully, CHESTER MALAM. 4, Rhiw Bank Terrace, Colwyn Bay. GROES BRIDGE. Sir,—In reply to Mr Porter's letter, even assuming that all the deputation met, and I am not sure whether Mr Parry attended, three mem- bers of the Board recommended the diversion of the traffic so serious a matter should not have been dealt with, except by consulting the rate- payers, and I can only think the grave dangers of the Groes Mill road were not so apparent in July as they are now The County Council were not masters of the situation. The Local Board were contributories and entitled to a voice, and that voice should have spoken on the side of providing a temporary bridge before meddling with the old one if the County Council object, then pay no money at all. But, sir, read the chairman's letter in your issue of the 5th inst., and you will see that the bridge could have been provided, and it was all a question of money. I quite beI-ieve that neither Mr Porter or his colleagues desire to cause annoyance, but the fact remains that people are suffering, and will con- tinue to suffer, very considerable annoyance which would probably never have occured had the depu- tation recommended no diversion of traffic" instead of what they did. The majority of the members of the Board, are rarely if ever seen this side of Groes Bridge, hence they can hardly feel the annoyance which they unfortunately have the power to cause. It life at sea were in jeopardy, and the lifeboat required to be launched at Rhos, what would be the result ? A stronger term than annoyance would be used. W. F. WILLIAMS-REES. Colwyn, 24/10/94.

Advertising

Football.

Advertising

Correspondence.