The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-18 00:00:00

ZElte erpreoo.

TO 00EBESPONDENTS.
Adveetiarasente Intended for " The Borer," London Evening
MI, must be et the Office, 10, Bouverie-atreet, by Two
on the dat of publication.

DRURY LANE.
TIM ESlNnts, !Urn. Mr. Phelps, Meows. E. Phelps, W.
Harrbon, and J. Johnstone; Mrs. Herman yin and Mies Poole
—And KAISEILINE AND PETRUCHIO. Mr. T. Swiubourne,
Mr. J. Robins, sad Wm Label Adsms.

MuontAzurr.
TEM MEWL A GAMR OF SPECULATION. Maws. C.
Mathows, Chippendale, P.ogers, do. ; Maclaine' Fitwilllam, Las,
—ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. Messrs. C. Mathews, Comp-
ton, ic.; Mesdames Mathews & 11111.—Fiall OUT OF WATER.

AB
csars.
TRW BMWS. BAJLNABY RITDOL Mews. & Calhaesa,
1. VUliwe. J.G. Shan', : Mrs. John Wood, Wass Augusts
Thomson and Katharine Rodgers, lira Yining, and Mrs. C.
NOrswaiL—Preooded by THE MISTRESS OF TILE MILL.

STRAND.
Teas Ernarnio, NEIGHBOUR& Messrs. Panels, Belford,
sad Murray ; Madames Bwanbccongh, Johnstone, end Hughes.
KINILIVORTH. Mews. JBOO Thorne, & enton ; bles lames
Bwanborougo & Imola so. And TS AT Taß SWAN.

HOLBORN.
TRH MOHR% at 7, NT TURN NEXT. lir. Beillifire lames
Foote and Lanni.—And FLYING SCUD. ews.
CC. Saun Neville,
den,
Del-
more, Blake, Voltaire, He. Meadames F. Jaephs,
Heide Foote, Addeo, Lamm RaTraceml. Ho-

BRITANNIA.
Taw Wrinnin, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Kr. Leslie
and Ulu M. Booth.—Mr. "Dancing Mal" Brian ; Kr. Law-
n= ; Dugwar, the Indian er.—LitURLTITS BRIDAL,
OR, MOSS THAN Arms TREYS.—And BITTER COLD.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BILIDOL
Tail DAT —Naming, loh. Ma.— —Afternoon, lob. BOVA.
in.
TOMOUOW—Morning, llh. Era "Airman, 00.

LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18.

THE Earl of SILLFTE4BURY is not a man to pay
willing homage to the Ritualistic party in the
Church of England, but he has written a letter
in which the power of that party to change the
character of the Church is exalted in terms that
go far beyond anything which its own leaders
have proclaimed. When Dr. PUSEY writes to the
journals to defend himself against some rude and
unlearned assailant, he pleads in the name of
charity for such toleration as might be safely ex-
tended to a small and harmless body of clergy,
content to live unnoticed in the shadow of their
brethren of more popular opinions. We know that
they do not like the Reformation, or the principles
which governed that great change ; but we were no:.
aware that they expected to be able to destroy
RS results in Great Britain. Lord SHAFTESRURY,
however, thinks that this is a serious
danger. If the laity will not come forward and
exercise their power, " a miracle alone, and
" nothing less, will save the Reformation in Great
" Britain." This is a startling sentence ; it is one
which, even when every allowance has been made
for the breadth of popular statement, is sufficiently
alarming. It will be observed that Lord SHAFTES-
BURY has by no means adopted the language of
contempt in which it has been customary to refer
to the Ritualistic clergy. We have seen them and
their doings discussed in important organs of
opinion as if they were a new and strange kind of
creatures—objects of curiosity almost as singular
in their ways as the Texan ant, bat, on the
whole, less worthy of study than that respectable
insect. There is nothing of this tone in Lord
SHAFTESBURY'S letter, just because, like a
man of sense, he distinguishes between the out-
ward signs and the essential character of the move-
ment. Ho does not write about architecture and
music, and incense and ornaments and gestures,
but about the system which they embody and ex-
press. He doesnot mention the histrionic clergy, but
the Bishop of SALISBURY and Dr. Puszv,who, while
they have no doubt been the greatest promoters of
Ritualistic ceremony, can if need be dispense with it.
He very clearly sees that if the pretensions which
these distinguished men make on behalf of their
order were allowed, they " would lay us helpless
" at the feet of our spiritual advisers ; every right
" of private judgment would be taken away, and
" we should have to acknowledge, as it were, a
" God in every member of the priesthood."
But is it really true that the Reformation in I
Great Britain is in danger, and that the only hope
of averting the dreaded result lies in the prompt
and energetic action of the laity ? Lord SHAFTES-
BURY himself, we are persuaded, would not
maintain that the cause of the Reformation
in Great Britain is absolutely dependent
on the success of parties in the church of which he
is so conspicuous a member. There is a church
established in Scotland which is not infected with
the poison he fears, and both north and south
of the Tweed there are vigorous organizations of
Christians, such as the Free Church, the Wesleyan
Methodists, and those numerous bodies which
adopt the Congregational polity, quite capable
of giving a noble entertainment to Protestantism
should it be driven from the Church of Eng-
land. We are not satisfied, however, that
the case is so serious, and our dependence
upon Lord SHAFTESBURY'S remedy so com-
plete as he supposes. He speaks on behalf
of the laity, but has incidentally pronounced an
opinion on the clergy which deserves further
investigation. Will the clerical leaders of the
Evangelical party endorse his statement that
with all the advantage of their position, they cannot
keep the Church of England Protestant except by
the aid of an agitation ? We do not expect it. By
so stating they would wrong themselves and their
brethren.
Lord Swarresarav has described the kind of I
lay action to which he looks forward. The laity
must " address their bishops, memorialise their
" clergy, leave no abuse unnoticed, sustain one
" another, and sink all minor differences to sub-
" serve the common cause." If the Reformation
cannot be saved in this way, then "a miracle alone"
can do it. Were these strictly the alternatives,
we could not hesitate between them. We should
decidedly prefer to trust in the miracle, not only
as more efficacious, hut as more likely to happen.
The intelligent and devout laity ought to have a
voice in the affairs of the Church of England at
all times, but especially at such a time as this.
They are the strength of the Church, but no place
is made for them in its councils. They are ex-
cluded from its representative body, while
the composition of Parliament has rendered
it unfit to give them legislative assistance. It is
true they are told that their interests are pro-