Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

12 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

ABERGWILI RATE-COLLECTORSHIP.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

ABERGWILI RATE-COLLECTORSHIP. [To the Editor of the CARfARTHE JOURNAL.] SIR,-In your issue of May 23rd is a passage which is intended to pose as a report of a Parish Council meeting at Abergwili on May 17 th. The passage is teeming- with half truths which are "whole falsehoods." Firstly, Mr. Jones, Capel Bach, was elected at a parish meeting by three times the votes than received by Mr. Dav.es, and on Mr. Jones' emphatic denial that he was not a contractor under the Local Authorities, there was no caii for an election in his stead. Secondly, the meeting did not become a "pandemonium," only one person lost his head, and that person's name is for obvious reasons not mentioned by the writer. To say the meeting became a "pande- monium" is a reflection upon the Chairman. Thirdly, the total amount collected in the parish by the rate-collector is £ 1,900, whereas, if ne only gets jd. in the £ it would be £ 9,600. Again, it was not the case that he heaviest ratepayers on the Council were opponents to the proposal to go back to the old system of collecting the rates. Fourth- ly. whatever may be said of the collector's capacity for his office, the object of their proposal seem to be the saving of the salary of £ 20. The total paid for the Llaneliy riots was £ 3,800, and not L65,000 as stated. Lastly, the meeting did not end in geileral jubilatiin suggested by the writer. It was one of the councillors and not the Chairman who said the motion was out of order, and was allowed to drop. The answer when asked why it was not in order, has not yet arrived. It is to be hoped that readers of the JOTJRNAX. in the parish of Abergwili have a more impartial opinion than "Dyffrynoig.YourEi etc., TRUTH. IC. MR. ASQUITH AND THE WELSH CHURCH BILL. [To the Editor of the CARMARTHEN JOURNAL.] SIR,-In moving the &econd reading of the Home Rule Bill on Monday night Mr. Asquith declared that "the Bill had passed through the Commons with a clean British majority-" "nat Mr. Asquith means by this is pretty evident. If the Bill had only succeeded in passing through the Commons by sheer force of Irish votes its doom would have been sealed. But what of those clauses in the Welsh Church Bill which the Government only succeeded in passing by the help of Irish Nationalist votes? Is it too much to asj, Mr. Asquith to be consistent and to apply the same principle to them? On four distinct occasions the Government was only saved from ignominous defeat by the help of Irish M.P. The following list tabulates the figures concisely: — Date. Majority. Irish Votes. Dec. 13 50 75 Dec. 19 56 65 Jan. 10 40 72 Feb. 4 28 60 On the first occasion it was proposed to leave all its endowments to the Church, except the tithe. On the second occasion it was proposed to leave the glebe to the Church. On the third occasion it was proposed to safeguard the rights of curates. And on the last occasion, during the Report Stage, it was again proposed to leave the glebe to the. Church. Not in a single case was the proposal defeated by a clean British majority. I need not remind your readers that Welsh Church- people are not fighting against isolated points in the BilL but against the Bill as a vicious whole, but when the Prime Minister takes his stand upon the definite principle that the Irish Bill ought to become law because the majority in its favour was a clean British majority." Welsh Churchpeople are fully justified in asking him to apply the same principle to each detail of the Disestablishment Bill.-I am, &c-, R. H .RICHARDS- 9, St. David'e-avenue, Carmarthen.

YEOMANRY CAMP --

I MEAN LlTILE BILL -

- LLANSADWRN MURDER

BLOOD-POISON AFTER KNOCKING…

LAMPETER TOWN COUNCIL.

Advertising

CARMARTHENSHIRE ASSIZES

[No title]

Advertising

LLITH TWM 'BARELS

THE SOVEREIGN CURE.