The Express.
London, England, 1861-07-25 00:00:00

11 11 11A/ !.1i

Tirt+ Evcrues, BACIIII 4 AT%D ARIADNE.-4Y LORD
AND MV LAM %Ir. and Mrs. C. Mal/AIm—COOL As A
4r. C %Wiry.. sad Mrs Yaw Wright.—And
TURN' Nti TUE TARLL4. Mr. tkeiptos.—Lionmece NA 7.

KI!1!101pell_

_
Tim EVIMING. A Ilinl aAD irroay.—o YOU LIKE
IT. Ilroors, Maps, 11).16r. Mom Vtida, Widdicomb. and
Aln.• Mary nrovnal. Manny, IL LeelenN, and
Marla Itarrkk—Aad THE TWO MITE.

BRITANNIA.
THY MUM, THR A RTIAA TRI r WTH. Ye. tenni& and
Hr. ana44 —affirms h 1 Iderwa Illklehrand and Oman&
—BABA tram, rHR KING GP THI ARIIAMIN.4.—VIfth Act .4
DOA TV11,131.--Cutaateaca at ball pant

RIG, WATU 10X00! NUDGE.
To
DAT •ab. AlOwoooo. ok, !sok
—Mooing Oft. Oa.— Mimeos. 4k 44k

IA)NDON, THURSDAY, JULY 25.

TO OUR READER&

RPORTINO LNTELLIGENCE.

A late edition of the Express in publighel every
'venial; during the racing aceacon, containing the
results of the tlar's races.

THE facility with which the Rev. Mr. Boxweii.
was able, during eighteen months, to resist the
efforts of the Bishop to deprive him for flagitious
and notorious conduct, and the heavy expense
which he contrived to fix on his diocesan, have
drawn attention to the defective state of the law
as regards the exercise of discipline over the clergy.
Two facts meet the eye at the first glance—the
excessive cost of the prosecution of an immoral
ckrgyrnan in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the ab-
sence of any provision for defraying them. Bishop
Tarr has hail to protect the interests of the
Church in this case entirely at his own
charge. Mr. SETIIO,I"R has brought this case
before the House of Commons, as proving
the need of a reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts,
and ceruimb those metal of nepotism are in their
way—that is to say, a smug, demure way—as
gnat a scandal as the Boswett business itself.
We hope, however, that our "criminons clerks
will not enjoy impunity until the day for reforming
those institutions, entrenched, as all these abuses
are, behind the most powerful interests, arrive. A
High Church contemporary, the award ion, enume-
rating the obstacles to any amendment in that
quarter, says :—" The lawyers will not lend a
" hand to any reform which would interfere with
" their own traditions and fees without creating
" new offices for their consolation. The bishops
" will not accept of any reform which would place
" restrictions on their appointment to their re-
" spective Chancellorships of sone-in law or sons.
" The clergy object to alterations which might put
" them more completely in the power of superiors
"as arbitrary and ignorant as they believe
" some of Lord Piumr.awron's creation to
" be." Moreover, before anything is done
to make the Ecclesiastical Courts more efficient
than they are at present, it would bo well to
know to what purposes their powers are to be
directed, and whether these could not be better
fulfilled by some other agency. Those courts
deal with the faith as well as with the conduct of
the clergy, and it is very doubtful whether the
Church would gain by making it easy for • par-
tisan Bishop to multiply prosecutions for heresy.
Why should not a clergyman charged with immo-
rality be sent before the ordinary courts? Sir
Causer= Careswitti. or Sir WILLIAM Elite
would have made short work of Mr. Box-
while doing him ample justice.
It is no answer to say that acts for
which the lieges in general are not amen-
able to punishment are legal offences in cler-
gymen. The civil courts would do ample justice
with • plain law to administer. And for the ex-
penses of prosecutions, if no other means were at
band, the revenues of a canonry or two would be
well applied in protecting the Church against
scandal. Or the Ecclesiastical Commission, which
found it so easy to double the income of the
Dean of York the other day, might be required to
set aside an annual sum for that purpose. ma
knowledge that 1,0001. a year was accumulating
at interest to enable Bishops to prosecute, would
deter future Boeweita from such contests as we
have lately witnessed.

The interest attaching to another Church ques
tion, which also has this week been brought for-
went in Parliament—the relaxation of the terms of
the subscription required of clergymen, discussed
in the House of Lords on Monday evening—may
seem leas practical than that which we all feel in
the character of the clergy. All, howeve-, who
have considered the bearings of the subject will
agree that it is one of immense importance, and
will have to be looked in the face before long.
Lord Earev, who has for several years urged
upon Parliament the necessity of a revision of the
Liturgy of the Church, gave notice on Monday
that if something were not done by the 006111/WDO-
tical authorities early next year, he should br-ig
in a bill for making the terms of subscription less
strict than they are at present. The chef danger of
the present state of things is that it compels a
constant resort to casuistry. The subscription
DOW required is so rigid that nobody can and no-
body dues make the declarations exacted in their
hest and most obvious meaning. Few, if any,
beneficed clergymen, for instance, would main-
tain as true in their literal and moat comprehen-
sive sense the words they pronounced openly be-
fore the congregation at institution, declaring their
unfeigned great and consent to everything con•
tained and prescribed in the Book of Common
Prayer; and nevertheless those words are uttered
ha lead faith. Practical wisdom accepts them as
the prescribed language of conformity, under such
an interpretation as the necessities of the case
require. lint that interpretation cannot be
literaL It is the wise remark of Dr. V•VONAN
CD this declaration that "its very empluisis m-
u tables it. I -I,mnson sense puts upon its terms
" a construction which alone makes them tolerable,
" but which at the same time leaves little save
" the promise to conform, and the certainty that
" no honest man will promise conformity to that
" with which he doss not in the main sympathise."
This opinion of the extent of the obligation remit-
ing from subscription is confirmed by the language
of the Ilishop of Lemk' in reply to Lord Esear
" His impression was, that a man who conscious-
" timely believed the Church of England to be
" the Church in which he wished to live and die,
" and who was not more attached to any other
" form of Chrietianity than that which the Church
" of England presented, might fairly and safely
" make the entecriptions which were required of
" him by the present law."

But admitting the wisdom and Deeemity of this