THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1882. THE CATHEDRAL BELLS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2515, 29 April 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1882. THE CATHEDRAL BELLS.

The public will, equally with ourselves, be glad to notice that the Chapter of the Cathedral have, to some extent at least, decided to restrict the nuisance of the almost indiscriminate ringing of the Cathedral bells. As will be seen by the report of the meeting of the ringers last night, certain regulations have been promulgated by the Chapter in this respect. While, however, this is so far satisfactory, there are one or two points to which we desire to draw attention as seemingly contradictory. In the first place the Chapter decline to sanction the proposal of the ringers to have an open practice once a week till 10 p.m., but agreed to allow them to ring two evenings a week, from 7to 8 p.m. This is just what we suggested some time back in an article on the question. Therefore on reading the decision of that grave and reverend body—the Chapter—one, too, which quite accorded with the public feeling on the matter, a feeling of thankfulness arose in one’s mind. On the principle of being grateful for small mercies, it was something at least to get rid of two hours torture. But on reading further this feeling is entirely dissipated, for we find a very peculiar clause, indeed, one which it is hard to understand in the light of those which have preceded it. As we have already pointed out, the Chapter decline to allow an open practice until 10 p.m. one evening in the week. But strangely enough they sanction an open practice every evening after eight o’clock, under a certain proviso. This proviso is almost as ludicrous as refusing permission to ring once a week and granting it every evening. The ringers can have a jubilee every night, provided others are not disturbed—the judges of the disturbance to be the President, and any member of the Chapter. Could anything possibly be more absurd, putting aside for a moment the peculiar contradic ion we have already called attention to. How is the President to bo tbla to judge whether others are disturbed by the clanging clashing of the bells. If wo remember rightly the President, who is the Rev. Mr. Lingard, is an enthusiast on bell ringing. What might therefore be an intolerable nuisance to one not campanologically inclined, would probably be sweet music to him. If one were to ask the musical (?) genius, who is either rivalling a midnight parliament of the cat tribe by torturing a violin or driving the whole neighbourhood to the verge of despair by the feeble wailings of an illtreated cornet, whether he was creating an annoyance, he would indignantly repel the accusation. So would no doubt the president of the bell-ringers believe that the open practice of his subordinates was the music of the spheres. There surely can be no more absurd idea than appealing to such an interested authority on the question of nuisance or no nuisance. Now let us just briefly refer to the crowning joke of the whole affair. The permission for open practice once a week having been declined, that for every evening is granted. We are somewhat curious to know how the Chapter reconcile those two things. If it is annoying to the public—for this is the ground no doubt on which the Chapter declined the weekly permission—to hear the bells two hours a week, how much more so must it bo to have them deafening every one within reach every night in the week. The evil of having it once a week from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. has already been made manifest, and the public have been seriously annoyed thereby. But here we have the Chapter coolly proposing to give permission to intensify this nuisance six fold. Surely they never could intend this. Yet there it is plain enough. The whole upshot of the matter is this, that if the ringers do not confine their practices within reasonable limits, say for one hour twice a week, the citizens will have to take legal steps to prevent what threatens to become a most intolerable nuisance.

OLIVER ASKS FOR MORE!

The letter of the secretary and treasurer of the Cathedral Chapter, as published this morning, seems to us to point to a very bad state of things in connection with the Church of England here. In the first place, let us just remind our readers of what has taken place at the Easter meetings of the various City churches. One and all have had the same tale to tell. The offertories have declined considerably, the revenue of the year has not been nearly so large as of those which have preceded it. And why? Simply because the big musical show at the Cathedral has drawn away the parishioners, and their subscriptions, instead of going to help the struggling churches of tho respective parishes, have fallen into tho coffers of the Cathedral. It may be all very well for the Cathedral services to be kept up to a high state of

efficiency, but bo far as we are concerned it seems to be far better to allow of these becoming a little plainer than to rob the parish churches, so to speak, not alone of their attendants, but what appears to be of far more importance their contributions. Again, we cannot help thinking that it is derogatory to the position the Church should occupy to be continually taking up the role of the sturdy beggar and demanding money. There is no Church in the world so richly endowed as the Church of England in Canterbury. Their estates are innumerable, and yet the cry is “ more subscriptions; pass round the hat again for the Cathedral. The greater part of the building has been erected by private benevolence, mainly owing to the persistent begging we have referred to, and the time has now come when an end should be put to what is scarcely reputable under the circumstances. There' is evidence before us that the very high toned services, towards the cost of which a thousand or two is asked for from the public, have resulted in considerable financial loss to some of the city churches. If therefore, reasoning on the same principle, the services by means of the money thus raised are to be still further improved it follows, we take it, that still more loss must accrue to the parish churches, and so gradually and surely these will bo improved away altogether till nothing but the Cathedral will be left. The Church has been dealt most liberally with by the public. It has the Cathedral, and the least it can do is to provide a revenue for its maintenance

without the somewhat humiliating spectacle being metaphorically presented of the Rev. Canon Cotterill, hat or plate in hand, standing in onr streets exclaiming, “ Pity the sorrows of a poor old Chapter.”