The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-26 00:00:00

ANTI-RITGALISTIO MOVEMENT.

We read in the Record:—" Already many weeks
have elapsed since Mr. Culling Hanbury unequivocally
announced that a meeting would shortly be called at which
• distinguished nobleman was to preside. Hitherto this
expectation has not been fulfilled ; but we believe that
the chief difficulty has arisen from the attempt to obtain
some protestant nobleman of sufficient weight, who would
sonsent to go to the front, and yet be free from the impu-
tation of being what is called an extreme man.' It is
comparatively easy to name a peer who, from his rank,
great wealth, and territorial possessions, would be en-
titled to especial consideration in any assembly within
the precincts of Westminster. But it is not so easy
to induce such a man all on the sudden to emerge from
his privacy, and assume an unwonted prominence in
a great ecclesiastical contest. We understand that the
meeting in Adam-street, which Mr. Culling Hanbury con.
vened, on Friday last, was largely attended. Reporters
were excluded ; but there can be no impropriety in stating
that the chair was taken by the Hon. Captain Francis
Maude, R.N., and that the following are the names of
the committee appointed:—Lord Ebury, Hon. Captain
Maude, J. C. Colquhoun, Esq., Robert Baxter, Faq., I.
Braithwaite, Esq., Robert Hanbury, Esq., Culling Han-
bury, Esq., M.P., Dr. Jardine, J. Lovell, Esq., J. Lord,
Esq. (chairman of the Protestant Association), John
Martin, Esq., P. O'Malley, Esq., Q.C., P. Shaw,
Esq., and John A. Smith, Eaq., The
questions referred to this committee are clearly
stated and very practical. They embrace six points, in-
volving the expediency-1. Of holding a public lay meet-
ing in London ; 2. Of a prosecution at law ; 3. Of asking
fora Royal Commission ; 4. Of trying to obtain a De-
clarative Act of Parliament ; 5. Of memorialising the
Queen ;6. Of petitioning parliament. On these six points
the committee, et which we presume Lord Ebury is the
chairman, was to meet, to musket' liudrePuri in a fort-
night to the Adam-street Conference. lal*
portant anti-ritualistic movement has resulted from the
great gathering of the clergy at Islington. The clerical
committee appointed consisted of the Rev. Daniel
Wilson, Prebendary Auriol, Canon Carus,Cauon Conway,
Revs. Messrs. Cadman, Kemble, Ryle, Walker, Wil-
kinson, Bardsley, and Hathaway. The proceedings of
this committee are private, but we may say generally that
their determination was, as far as possible, to promote
united action, and to prevent the mischiefs sure to result
from disunion. With this view communications have
been opened with the Church Association and Mr. Ilan-
bury's Adam-street conference. At the same time they
ate to press for the diffusionof information throughout the
country by lectures, sermons, and the public press. These
resolutions are excellent ; but if it be the cam that the
clerical committee have resolved, without inquiry,
deprecate legal prosecutions' for violations of the laws
of the church, and to urge, as a substitute, the attempt
to obtain a declarative act of parliament, we think that,
for reasons presently to be stated, such resolu-
tions are premature, and not indicative of sound advice.
There is, however, a third anti-ritualistic movement, on
which, as at present advised, we are disposed to place
grater reliance than on Mr. Hanbury's conference or the
Islington committee. We allude, as our readers must
anticipate, to 'the Church Association,' of which Mr.
Colquhoun is practically the bead. The Church Associa-
tion would in all probability have already held a great and
effective meeting, such as that over which the Earl of
Shaftesbury presided in Freemasons'-hall, in 1850, but for
the distraction occasioned by the abortive attempt to get
up a movement on a broader basis than any which could be
obtained on principles simply Christian and evangelical.
As it is, the vigour displayed by the Church Association
nadir all discoursgemeata is worthy of commendation. Not
only have preparations been made for a public meeting, at
St. Jamesehall, on the 13tn of February, at which Sir
Brook Bridges is to preside, and at which some of our I
most eloquent end effective proteatant speakers are W
assist ; but arrangements have been made for a series of
anti-ritualistic lectures( at St. James's-hall, by such men
as Dr. M'Neile, Mr. Boyd, Dr. Miller, %lr. Rile, Mr.
Hobart Seymour. and Dr. Blakeney. Nor are their pro-
ceedinp confined merely to the expression of opinion or
the diffusion' of instruction : legal proceedings are in pro-
gress. Had there been no distraction—for we will not term
it disunion—we believe that matters would have been
still further advanced, and that the country would have
already witnessed Lord Shit( tesbut7 in the proper
place where the country expects to see him, in any
movement of the laity on questions affecting the stability
of the religious bulwarks of the Protestant Reformation.
We should infinitely prefer legislation to litigation if par-
liament were disposed to assist in putting down ritualism.
But what solid ground have we for supposing that parlia-
ment will at present interfere! It is • remarkable fact
that, although neither Lord Shaftesbury, the Marquis of
Westminster, Lord Harrowby, Mr. Kinneird, Mr. Newde-
gate, nor other protestant leaders in parliament were pre-
sent at Mr. Hanbury's meeting, it did not appear that any
reinforcements had been obtained from km ' extreme
men.' Lord Ebury was the solitary representative of the
House of Lords, as was Mr. John A. Smith of the Com-
mons. This fact alone seems to settle the question of
carrying a declarative act through parliament at the pie-
sent moment."

BSPRZSENTATION OF BOSTON. Mr. Thomas
Parry, liberal, has issued his address, announcing him.
Reif as a candidate for the representation of Boston, which
will be vacant by the resignation of Mr. Stamland shortly
after the opening of parliament. Mr. Parry was returned
for Boston at the last election, but was unseated on •
scrutiny of votes. Bribery was •lao alleged against him.