The Press.
London, England, 1855-12-08 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

SATURDAY,

clothes for the communion table. All these three are decided to be against law.
Lighted candles are also forbidden ; but candles themselves are not. With
screens, Dr. LuSHINOTON says he cannot interfere. Such is the substance of
this important judgement, In the matter of the altar, Dr. LUSHINGTON bas
mainly relied on the decision of Sir HERBERT JAMES Fusr, in the celebrated
case of St. Sepulchre's Church, Cambridge. Here the law was simple enough,
and it was impossible for the judge in the present case to decide otherwise than
be has done. His opinion on the question of crosses seems to be founded
principally on the expressed opinions of the Bishops in Queen ELIZABETH'S
reign, and their remonstrance against the Queen's use of a cross in her private
chapel. Granting that it is exceedingly difficult to to discover what was de facto
the practice of the Church in the reign of EDWARD VI., we must consider that
GRINDALL, PARKES, JEWELL, and WHITOIFT must have known what it was, and
would scarcely have denounced a practice which, as having then been in exist-
ence, the statute of Un,formity, was intended to sanction. This, we think, is a
fair presumption. But whether it is owing to a confusion of the reporter,
or the Judge's own perplexity, we cannot say ; but we are at a loss
to discover exactly what importance he attaches to what was done in
the reign of CHARLES 11. He seems, however, to imply that nothing was
then determined which would guide him in his prhsent decision. There will
doubtless be various opinions among our readers on this particular question ;
but for our own part, looking purely at the matter-of-fact, we do not think Dr.
LUSHINGTON is quite correct in his view of ecclesiastical practice during the last
century. We belieBe that crosses have been very common. As regards the
various-coloured clothes we should think there can be no doubt that they are
illegal. In Dr. LusHINOTON'S decision on the various other points isised we
fully concur. The only one in which, in our opinion, an appeal is likely to be
of the ,lightest use, being the queslion of crosses, We must sincerely hope
that neither party will, feel very much aggrioved by a decision which, as the
Judge declares, aflects no vital point either of religion or ceremony.

Gossipping letters from our Sebastopol army report that our Commander
in• Chief is not favourable to the continuance of newspaper correspondents in the
camp. The presence of these gentlemen has previously led to some warm re.
monstrances from our Commanders to the War office. It is difficult to believe
that their communications can really give to the enemy any information which
can be used to the detriment of the allied forces. But if so,—and of this cer-
tainly our Commanders should be the best judges—some plan might be hit on
for submitting their letters to a military censor before publication. Of this our
military authorities may be well assured, that if Mr. RUSSELL were banished from
the camp to-morrow, the Times would still not want its " Own Correspondent."

While some of the war-to-the-knife party are still boastfully prod aiming
that the Crimea must be finally severed from the Russiam empire, the engineers
of the allied army are completing their preparations for the total destruction of
the Sebastopol docks—a plain proof that the Allies have not the slightest
Intention of retaining possession of the country, even for a time. This cir-
cumstance shows that the Crimea is merely to be regarded as a battle-field,
which the Allies will quit as soon as the enemy retreats, or when strategical
considerations induce them to select some other theatre of military operations.