The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-06 00:00:00

MUSIC.

ROYAL ITALIAN OPERA.
Faust was repeated on Saturday evening, and will,
no doubt, continue to be the principal attraction at this
house during the remainder of the sewn.
Probably Pause has not anywhere received so much jus-
tice as at our Royal Italian Opera. The principal characters
are admirably performed. Temberlik firm a powerful Plo-
hire of Faust. He is a great actor as well an • gnat anger ;
and, though his voice lacks the sweetness of Giriglinr's, and is
less suited to the soft end tender plume of the
character, yet, in the more violent and impassioned scenes—
in the expression of dismay, horror, and despair—its
piercing aad strident tonne, sometimes more resembling
shrieks and cries than musical sounds, are wonderfully
striking sod impressive. The old Italian masters knew
what might be done by means of the "orb) Frances. :"
ued of all modern singers, Tamberlik turns it to the
greaten account. Madame Miolan Carvalho was the
anginal Margaret of the Theatre Lyrique, for
whom the part was expressly written. In face and
person she is the very bean ideal of the Gretchen of
Goethe, the ample girl whose heart it the abode of pure
and guileless innocence. In the latter phases of the
character, when her passions are awakened, and she becomes
the victim of sin, misery, despair, and madness, she is YD•
able to clothe the picture with the grand and tragic linea-
ments given to it by Tatiana. Fame's representation of
Mephistophiles shows this admirable actor's usual intelli-
gence. His costume and " make up' are in perfect keep-
ing with the idea which Cnethe's poem and Rexch's illustra-
tions have given of the aspect of the incarnate
fiend, and his cold, mocking manner is thoroughly in cha-
racter. Valentine has found an excellent representative in
Graniani, and Madame Didife is pleasing and interesting in
the character of Siebel.

• In regard to the min en sane and spectacle the whole
resources of the theatre have been employed to give the
representation all possible splendour and magnificence. In
beauty of scenery, richness of decoration, and the skilful
and effective treatment of the scenes when the stage is
crowded with busy and animated groups, even Robert le
Diable, Les Huguenots and Le Prophete, are almost
eclipsed by Faust.

THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER AND THE

FARMERS.

The following correspondent* in reference to a
subject which has already found a pines in oar columns, is
published in the Cheleneford Chronicle:

Birch, June 26,1663.
My dear Lord Bishop,—You are probably not at all aware
that some of an influential body of men—the agriculturists
of this county—have taken offence at certain expressions
in a letter of your lordship's, recently published. Ia that
letter you are supposed to have spoken of their occupation,
their habits, and their station in society, slightingly and dis-
paragingly. For myself lam persuaded that you
did not intend to do so, and that you never
meant, by any words of yours, to depreciate their
occupation or to represent their social position in
any unworthy light, or to discourage friendly intercoune
with them. Knowing, as we all do, your wish that there
should exist the most friendly feeling between the clergy
and the laity, and that you regard their cordial co-operation
as a matter of the utmost importance, I am quite satiatied
that the meaning which has been attached to your words
by some persons is altogether a misconception—an nnfor•
toast. misconception. Nevertheless, lam led to believe
that there are not a kw who have adopted this erroneous
impression and in whose minds feelings of uneasiness, not
to say of irritation, upon this subject, are at work, and I
venture to waist that possibly a few words of explanation
from your lordship may soothe these feelings and set them
at reat.—Pardon me for troubling you upon this matter, and
believe me, &C., CLIARLSS G. Room).

To the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
Da°bury, June 21, 1863.

My dear Mr. Round,— I thank you sincerely for your
letter. It is very satisfactory to know that you understood
quite correctly what I wrote. For myself, I feel surprise
that any of our intelligent yeomanry should have been led
to ermseoas conclusion, such as you report, when they
must know not only how strongly I affirmed the desirable-
ness of intercourse and co-operation between the clergy and
laity in my first public charge, but how constantly I have
been moving in the diocese to promote that object.
My purpose in what I have done was (as it ever
will be) to discountenance the clergy from giving
themselves to secular
.pursuits. It never entered
my mind to speak disparagingly of farmers or their families,
or of their occupations. Surely it is possible to live in the
most !seemly social relationship with them without entering
actively into their pursuits. I regret that any words of
mine should have disturbed the feelings of a body of men
with whom I have ever held the freestinterooluse, and whom
I shall always be glad to meet, in confidence that increased
oommunications will be for our mutual advantage. I shall
be gratified if you will make nay sentiments known.—Be-
Bove me, he., J. C. Reclaims.
Charles G. Round, Esq.