THE GLOBE. FRIDAY OCTOBER 27, 1882. ANOTHER REASON WHY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2670, 27 October 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY OCTOBER 27, 1882. ANOTHER REASON WHY.

Tho k of onr readers who perused the remarks of Mr. Ghrystall, on the occasion of the presentation to Mr. Harris, mnst have been struck with one very significant statement. Mr. Ghrystall, in speaking of the recent events connected with insurance, pointed ont that the Fire Insurance Association having been obliged to reduce their rates of premium very considerably, would find themselves unable to contribute as liberally towards tho cost of fire prevention as they had done hitherto. Now, though we are not prepared to say that the Fire Insurance Association has been extravagantly liberal with its donations, the assistance rendered is by no means inconsiderable when we reflect that it is so much saved ont of tho ratepayers’ pockets. Mr. Ghrystall, now speaking with authority as the official head of the Association, tells ns that this liberality will have to be sensibly curtailed. We wish to impress the fact very strongly on the public, and more particularly that section of it which has displayed such opposition to the water supply scheme. Oar Brigade costs the city a great deal of money one way and the other. The men, it is true, all honor to them, give their services free, but there is plant to be provided, and this is expensive. Reading between the lines the conclusion we have arrived at is, that at no very distant date tho contribution of the Insurance Association, which is exceedingly acceptable, will be withdrawn. This will then leave the whole cost of the Brigade on the city, &n annual expenditure which would far exceed what would be required from the ratepayers to meet the interest and sinking fund in connection with an efficient water supply scheme. We should bo the last to deprecate in the slightest degree the value and efficiency of onr Fire Brigade, but they themselves will admit, as they have cause to know, that their efforts are seriously crippled by the want of water. It is, therefore, nothing derogatory to the Brigade when we say that, efficient as they are, the city would be far safer in case of any extensive conflagration if we had a water supply. The events predicted by us in dealing with this subject before have to a great extent either come to pass, or are looking ominously near. The people who so vigorously opposed any attempt at progress in the shape of an improved water supply mast feel that they have made a dire mistake. In addition to the cost of flashing sidechannels by water carts—a process as inefficient as it is expensive—and watering the streets, we are now likely to have the entire charge of the Brigade on the city. All this would ho saved were it not for the obstinacy of a few who have been enabled, by working on the credulity of the ratepayers, to throw out tho water scheme. We hops they will reflect over these facts, which, though unpalatable, are yet stern realities. By their own fault they have placed themselves and the city in the position of rejecting what is a positive necessity, and having to pay a much larger sum for what is nearly useless. Perhaps this will teach them wisdom on another occasion. In the meantime we can plainly foresee that the harden of the song to be sang by the Insurance Association will be, “ Gentlemen, yon have clamoured for redaction of premiums, and have received 25 per cent, concession. You cannot eat yonr cake and have it too, bo we shall have to reduce or stop altogether the subsidy we have given you towards the cost of yonr Brigade.” This the ratepayers may rest assured will come, and then when they begin to feel in their pockets the bad effects of having listened to the fables of Mr. Olaukeoii and his compeers, they will, perhaps, be glad to listen to and accept a well considered scheme for a water supply.

THE CHURCH FUNDS. It seems to us that the opponents of Mr. Weston’s motion yesterday, in the Synod, for the examination and publication of the Church accounts, failed to comprehend the idea which underlaid Mr. Weston’s proposal. It is perfectly true, as Mr. Hamilton put it, that the general public have no concern with the Church funds or property. But, we would ask, how many Church of England members —who, Mr. Hamilton admits, ought to know something about the matter —have the slightest idea either of the position of the Church or the state of the ’several funds P It is true that attached to the Synod reports every year are a number of accounts, but they are of such a complicated nature that they afford but little information. The Rev. Mr. Mortimer, as it seems to us, struck the key note when he pointed out that the people objected to subscribe because they had an idea that the Church was not only rich in property but was hoarding money. The publication of a clear and succinct statement of the position of the several funds, the calls upon them, and the revenue and expenditure of the proposals held by the Church, would go far towards the dis - sipation of any extravagant ideas as to the wealth of the Church. It is not, we would point out, to pander to idle curiosity, as Mr. Hamilton seemed to think; because very few, except members of the Church of England, would care twopence whether the Church was worth millions or not. But if the Church wishes to receive that support from its adherents which we are told it so much requires, the publication of a clear and concise statement of its position is necessary.