The Express.
London, England, 1860-04-11 00:00:00

.1101 WATER AT LOND01!_111111DOL

Td A&T—M67 A: sem
10410111011-111kristag lam.....Aligrasea, Gk. Mla

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11.

Wittts the Rev. BRYAN liCtito's friends are ac-
cusing his rebellious parishioners before the ma
gistrates, the Rector himself thinks it proper
and becoming to denounce his Bishop to the public.
He has just published a pamphlet, entitled " Sa-
" crilege and its Encouragement ; being an ac-
" count of the St. George's Riots and of
" their Success, in a Letter of Remonstrance

"to the Lord Bishop of London." From
this " Letter of Remonstrance " it appears
that deeply culpable as the parishioners are
in their aversion to " choral services,"
" Eucharistic vestments," and damask " dorsals "
decorated with deep red crosses, and yet more
culpable as the profane rabble are in their
violent hatred of white-robed boys and wax
candles, there are other parties to whom a much
deeper guilt attaches. The true authors of these
weekly disturbances must be looked for else-
where. While the actual rioters are comparatively
few and belong for the most part to the humblest
clean of the population, the true " encouragers of
" sacrilege " are a large body belonging to all ranks,
but especially to the highest ranks born in Church
and State. There is, it appears from the Letter,
a wide-spread conspiracy against the blameless and
peace-loving Rector of St. George's, if such a
term as conspiracy can be fairly applied to the
independent action of the various public authori-
ties who have been called in any way to deal with
these disturbances. Foremost amongst the
authorities who are formally charged by the
Rector as abettors of sacrilege are the
Churchwardens. They are pre-eminently guilty
because they did not commit the find
dissentient parishioners to the charge of the police.
Next comes the vestry, whose great crime appears
to have been the appointment of an earnest and
popular clergyman to the vacant post of afternoon
!ecturer. Then the police authorities are cri-
minally responsible for refusing to arrest the oc-
cupants of the church indiscriminately at Mr.

Kixti's bidding ; and the Police Magistrates, for
refusing to convict obscure members of a noisy
crowd on trivial and contradictory evidence.
Finally, amongst State authorities the
(lovernment does not escape its share of blame,
the Hoes Serairrear being heavily reproached,
first, for neglecting urgent appeals for' assistance,
then for his reluctance to authorise the attendance
of the police within the church, and finally for
refusing to order the police to remove from the
church those whom the Rector considered tree-
pasaers. But the guilt of these lay encouragers of
disturbance is light and trivial in comparison with
that of the clerical abettors of sacrilege. These are
the Rev. Heim ALLIN and the Bishop of LONDON.
The first created the riots by preaching last May
in the pulpit to which ho had been duly elected ;
and the latter—the Bishop—has actively supported
and encouraged the rioters ever since. Mr.
llavav Kimo'a letter is written on the principle
4,f the climax ; and all its subordinate charges and
.le iations lead up to his grand charge
and grand denunciation of his Diocesan.
The Bishop of LoeUVN is, according to
Mr. KING, the arch-rioter who is directly
respfinsible for the scandalous scenes that
have disgraced St. lkorge's. Great part of the
letter is devoted to the insinuation and attempted
proof of this startling accusation. The letter is
called a " Remonstrance," but the remonstrance,
notwithstanding its assumed humility of tone,
often becomes harsh reproof and downright con-
demnation. The meek and injured air of martyr-
like remignation and endurance in which these
charges are preferred does not in the least
conceal the spirit of bitterness and animosity,
0' pride, arrogance, and resentment, that animates
them. One of the earliest charges Mr. KING
Immo against the Bl.llor is that he publicly
r,-ferred to him in the House of Lords as "hating
" irritated the feelings of a Protestant congregs-
" sten," and "as having had recourse in conduct-
" ing Divine Serviie to practices calculated to
" offend or alienate the great body of the pa-
" rishioners." To most readers this would seem
to be only the statement of a sufficiently notorious
fad; but Mr. KIN.: considerately agrees to pass
it over as possibly "an error of judgment."
Other and later acts of his Diocesan, however,
the Rector cannot explain on this charitable
assumption. The last and most serious of these
was the removal by the churchwardens, at the
815h01..4 Command, of the choir-stalls, the move-
ahle altar-cross, and damask hangings from the
chancel of the church about a month ago. These
ornaments were not only unauthorised, but spe-
cie:ly offensive to the parishioners, and on these
grounds, therefore, their removal *as perfectly