Skip to main content

Full text of "Life and letters of Mandell Creighton : D. D., Oxon. and Cam., sometime bishop of London Volume 2"

See other formats








6 vols. Crown 8vo. 5*. net each. 

5J. net. 

Crown 8vo. $s. net. 

THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION. Crown 8vo. 5*. net 

Addresses. Crown 8vo. 5*. net 

MONS. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6d. net. 


5-r. net. 

sean Lectures preached before the University of Cambridge 
in 1893-4. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d. 

QUEEN ELIZABETH. With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 
y. net. 

1799-1882. With Portraits and other Illustrations. Crown 
8vo. 6j. net 

CARLISLE. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. (Historic Towns.} 

SIMON DE MONTFORT. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. (Histori 
cal Biographies.) 

THE AGE OF ELIZABETH. With 5 Maps and 4 
Genealogical Tables. Fcp. 8vo. zs. 6d. (Epochs of Modern 

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 39 Paternoster Row 
London, New York, and Bombay. 











*I determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ* 






All rights reserved 

HDDAfW r<r u 






Consecration Death of Dr. Magee Enthronement 
Life at Peterborough Church Restoration. 

LETTERS ..... .... 19 


Church Extension Leicester and Northampton Ordina 
tions Relations with Clergy Religious Education 
Diocesan Organisation Clerical Problems. 


Literary Work Social life Travels Birmingham 
Church Congress History of the Papacy, vol. v. The 
Hulsean Lectures Primary Charge. 

LETTERS .......... 101 


Relations with working-men Strike in the shoe trade 
Lectures to working-men. 


Travels Sermons Norwich Church Congress Life of 
Queen Elizabeth Journey to Russia The Romanes 
Lecture Death of James Creighton Shrewsbury Church 
Congress The validity of Anglican orders. 



Congratulations on appointment Farewell to Peter 
borough Confirmation. 




Life at Fulham Lecture on the Picturesque in His 
tory Society The Log of the Mayflower The House 
of Lords The Jubilee The Lambeth Conference 
Travels Ruridecanal Conferences. 



Church difficulties Appointments Curates Preaching 
Religious Communities Business capacities Clerical 


Church opinions St. Ethelburga s St. Cuthbert s 
Speech in the House of Lords* Additional Services 
St. Albans Reservation The position of the Church of 

X. LONDON LIFE, 1898 316 

The Co-operative Congress Mr. Gladstone s funeral 
Divorce Travels Relations with his Sons Religious 
Education Peace Meeting London University Com 



The Holborn Meeting Speech in the House of Lords 
Confession The Diocesan Conference The Arch 
bishop s Hearing Opinions about his decision The 
Bishop s letter to the Rural Deans His efforts to secure 


Lectures Lucerne The Diocesan Conference Travels 
The Church Congress The War in South Africa 
Visits to Windsor and Sandringham. 



The Bishop s New Year s Message Visitation and 
Charge Letters on Church questions Committees on 
Bishops Registries and Local Records Holiday Illness 
Round Table Conference Attempted prosecution by 
Colonel Porcelli The Biarritz Chaplaincy Illness and 
death Funeral 








* OEMS > s 1 2 


INDEX 523 




From a Photograph by Russell & Sons, 17 Baker Street, W. 

PORTRAIT, (Etat. 55 To face p. 284 

From a Photograph by Russell & Sons, 17 Baker Street, W. 


t . i , 







CREIGHTON S consecration as Bishop of Peterborough was 
fixed for St. Mark s day. After Easter, as he was badly 
in want of rest, we went to Devonshire. But on the first 
night of our holiday, he was seized with a severe attack of 
muscular rheumatism, and we had to return to Worcester 
after only two days absence. He soon recovered sufficiently 
to go and stay with the Humphry Wards at Haslemere, 
whilst the necessary arrangements were being made for our 
move to Peterborough, and he found the refreshment he needed 
in rambling amongst the Surrey hills. He went up to London 
for his Confirmation in the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow on 
April 23, and stayed with his old college friend Mr. H. J. 
Hood, whose house he was allowed to use as if it were his 
own during the years that he was Bishop of Peterborough. 
He never at any time had to go to a hotel, but always found 
an affectionate welcome from Mr. and Mrs. Hood whenever 
he had to go to London. 

He was consecrated in Westminster Abbey, together with 
Dr. Randall Davidson, who then became Bishop of Rochester. 
Creighton was presented by the Bishops of Carlisle and 
Lichfield. The sermon was preached by Dr. Butler, Master 
of Trinity College, Dr. Davidson s former head- master, who 
spoke of the new Bishop of Peterborough as the loyal son 


of two great Universities, who had won for himself in no 
common degree the regard and confidence of both/ and 
went on to say, He has thought and written much on the 
history of the Church at not a few of its most momentous 
crises. On such high subjects he ranks, by common consent, 
among our leading authorities. Further, to all this contact 
with the world of learning and of so-called leisure, he has 
added the much valued cure of a country parish. This 
experience, so large and so varied, should surely also be a 

The evening after his Consecration the Bishop had to go 
to Cambridge, where he was engaged to preach the University 
Sermon on the following day. An immense congregation 
gathered to hear him, amongst them many who seldom 
entered a church. He took as his subject the training of 
character, and spoke of what life in a University could do to 
train the scholar, the man of high moral principle, the 
philanthropist, but showed that none of these ideals in 
themselves were able to give that large outlook on life which 
could only come from religion, the one reconciler of human 
activities, the one vivifying power of life. His choice of 
subject was determined by his observation of University life, 
which had led him to conclude that the very existence of the 
high standard which there prevailed was almost a hindrance 
to true spiritual religion ; when all surrounding influences 
made for a worthy and dignified life, some men seemed to 
slip gradually out of any sense of the need of religion for their 
own soul s life. His last message to the University, on 
severing his direct connexion with it, was to assert that the 
life which shut out God must grow narrower day by day, and 
that infinite possibilities were alone opened out to man by 
the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our 
Lord. l 

The next few days were spent in London at Convocation. 
The Bishop s first public appearance in his diocese was fixed 
for May 5, when he was to consecrate a new church at Leicester. 
It proved to be a melancholy and trying day ; for as he 
entered the church he was told of the sudden death of his 

1 This sermon is printed in The Heritage oj the Spirit^ under the title The 
Christian Character. 


predecessor, the Archbishop of York. Gloom settled upon all 
those present Dr. Magee had been deeply interested in the 
church, and had himself said to his successor, * I hope that 
your first act will be to consecrate St. Hilda s Church in 
Leicester. In his sermon at the Consecration, the Bishop 
said that, as a stranger, he could not venture to speak to them 
of one whom they had known so long, but he asked them, as 
they took possession that day of their new church, to 
associate it with the memory of one who would always be 
known as the great Bishop of Peterborough/ Afterwards, 
at the public lunch, he said that, though it would be unseemly 
for him to speak much about himself, he must thank them 
warmly for their reception and for the loyal co-operation 
which they had promised him ; what little work he might be 
enabled to do must be done entirely through the clergy. 
His main business must be to go from one place to another, 
and use the experience gained in one part of the diocese for 
the benefit of the whole ; upon the readiness of the clergy to 
co-operate with him and give him their advice and support 
any fruitful results of his episcopate must depend. 

The vigorous administration of Dr. Magee during his 
episcopate of twenty-two years had left the Diocese in 
excellent order. The special gifts of the two men were so 
different as hardly to suggest comparison between them, but 
the fact that both were noted for epigram and wit, though 
the nature of their humour was very different, led to a 
frequent confusion of their smart sayings, and, in this respect 
at least, the distinction between the two Bishops of Peter 
borough was not always kept clear, and probably never will 
be. The character of Dr. Creighton s preaching and speak 
ing, though absolutely different from the splendid oratory 
which had delighted the diocese of Peterborough, was still so 
full of interest and attraction of another kind as seldom to 
disappoint even audiences accustomed to his predecessor. 
Dr. Bigg writes : 

As a speaker, he was amazingly ready ; all his knowledge, 
all his powers were instantaneously at command. He did 
not care for eloquence, indeed he despised it ; what he aimed 
at was instruction, and for this he always looked more to 
principles than to facts. He was not moving or pathetic, but 

B 2 


stimulating and persuasive. His voice filled the largest 
building without an effort, and yet did not raise an echo. 
People, especially men, flocked to hear him both at Worcester 
and Peterborough. He was never rhetorical or sensational, 
but you carried away the impression of a man who had given 
not his heart only, but a fine intelligence, to the cause which 
he preached. 

Mr. W. M. Heygate, a prominent Leicestershire layman, 
wrote : 

* I shall never forget the wonderful success of his presi 
dential address at his first Diocesan Conference. After the 
well-known eloquence of his predecessor, to which we had 
been long accustomed, it was a matter of astonishment to 
find that our new Bishop could be almost as eloquent, and the 
general remark was " We ve got another Magee." 

Everyone was struck with his rapid and yet lucid speaking, 
and his epigrammatic style. He was always ready to speak 
or preach wherever he was needed, and could do so with very 
little special preparation, if necessary with no preparation at 
all. He was determined to go everywhere and see everything 
for himself. His frankness, his easy manner, his apparently 
unguarded conversation at first surprised and puzzled people 
A Bishop so accessible to everybody was a novelty to them ; 
but it was not long before his invariable brightness and kindli 
ness won all hearts. Dr. Magee s age and delicate health had 
made it impossible for him to go about the diocese as freely 
as Dr. Creighton was able to do. The difference between 
the two men is shown in the following story recorded by one 
of the clergy : 

* His [Dr. Creighton s] relation to the younger clergy could 
not be better illustrated than by his own transposition of the 
mot which his predecessor once uttered at an Academy 
dinner. Dr. Magee had said that a certain picture in his 
possession inspired him with such kindly feelings that " I do 
assure you, gentlemen, a curate could play with me." " Now 
I," said Dr. Creighton (in relating the story) " should have 
felt more inclined to play with the curate." 

The first public appearance of the Bishop in his Cathedral 
was on the occasion of Dr. Magee s funeral on May 9. 


To the Rev. Canon Melville May 10, 1891. 

Dear Melville, Of course the death of the Archbishop 
has cast a cloud over everything. I apprehend that never 
before did a new bishop enter on his episcopate just when his 
predecessor died and was buried in his Cathedral, where my 
first appearance was at his funeral. The position of his 
family was most melancholy : recovering from influenza, 
summoned hastily to a London hotel, having a huge house all 
in confusion and no home, and nowhere to go to, from the 
sad change. I could only imagine what would be the con 
dition of my own family if I had died just now ; works of all 
kinds begun, expenses incurred, everything upside down, 
and all for nothing. It is most deplorable. I cannot imagine 
a sadder state of things. And of course it is an anomalous 
circumstance that the clergy were summoned yesterday to my 
predecessor s funeral, and next Saturday to my enthrone 
ment. I am only glad to hear that Saturday is an awkward 

I am summoned to do homage to-morrow. I shall be 
glad when formalities are over and I can settle to humdrum 

The next week, after doing homage at Windsor on Monday 
and attending a Bishops meeting at Lambeth on Tuesday, he 
was already in full work, holding four Confirmations, and return 
ing to Peterborough to be enthroned on Saturday, May 19. 
Amongst the large concourse of clergy who assembled in the 
Cathedral was the Bishop s former head-master at Durham, 
Dr. Holden, now the incumbent of a small country living in 
the diocese, and delighted to welcome his old pupil as his 

The Bishop gave no address at his enthronement, and 
preached for the first time in the Cathedral on the following 
Sunday, when the Mayor and Corporation attended in state. 
He made no personal allusions in his sermon, but spoke of 
the power that came through the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

The next week the Ordination candidates were to arrive 
at the Palace, in preparation for the Ordination on the 
following Sunday. The workmen were not yet out of the 
house, and everything was still in confusion, when, in the 
midst of all the demands made upon him by his new work, 
the Bishop was taken ill with influenza. He had to hold 
many business interviews in bed, and was so weak and 


depressed that he was unable to give a Charge to the candi 
dates, though he managed to see them individually and to 
hold his Ordination. He soon regained strength and energy. 
On the following Tuesday, having a spare hour, he spent it 
over his History of the Papacy, and the rest of the week was 
taken up by a Confirmation tour. 

In such spare moments as he had, he helped to super 
intend the arrangements of his house, and himself worked 
hard at hanging pictures. The Palace at Peterborough is a 
rambling and somewhat inconvenient house, which has grown 
up round the old Abbot s Hall. The additions made to it at 
different times had not always increased its beauty, and, with 
some interesting features, there -was much about the house to 
grieve anyone with a feeling for architecture. The Bishop at 
once began to consider how it might be improved, and planned 
some work to be carried out in the autumn. The plaster 
which covered the stonework of the front of the house, the 
wall of the Abbot s Hall, was removed, and revealed an in 
teresting lancet window. The square sashes of the windows 
on the first floor were replaced by stone mullions, and 
a few years later the same improvement was effected in 
another wing which looked towards the garden. The chapel, 
a plain modern building, had so far received little decoration. 
Here the Bishop called in the aid of Mr. C. E. Kempe, who 
painted the roof, lined the apse with decorated wooden panels, 
and adorned the altar with a wooden reredos with figures 
carved at Ober-Ammergau. 1 

These improvements were carried out in successive years, 
as the Bishop was able to afford them. He regarded the 
Palace as a building held in trust by him, which he was 
bound to care for and improve as much as he could. The 
portraits of his predecessors, belonging to the Palace, were 
cleaned, restored and rehung in chronological order, and 
he tried to obtain engravings or other portraits of those 
bishops of whom there was no picture. He instituted a log 
book at the Palace, in which all changes made in his day 
were recorded, and hoped that his successors would keep it 
up, so that a continuous history of the place might be 
secured. Very soon after his coming, he began to collect 

1 This reredos was afterwards taken to Fulham. 


books and pictures relating to the history of the Diocese. 
He arranged them in a bookcase in the hall, and it was his 
wish that anyone should feel at liberty to come and consult 
them. It was a constant interest to him to add to this 
collection, which, on his departure, he left behind as a gift to 
the Palace. 

Much was also done to improve the garden. New lawns 
and flower borders were laid out, but it was a work of diffi 
culty, for the poor soil and the smoke from the brickfields 
and the railways made gardening a constant disappointment. 
The Bishop s desire was to make the Palace useful to the 
whole Diocese, a comfortable house where all might find a 
welcome. He had no wish to change his own simple ways 
of living. He kept no carnage, because, living so near to a 
station, it was riot necessary for his work. He always 
travelled without a servant, and tried not to let his visits 
disturb even the humblest vicarage. The only change he 
made in his personal habits was to travel first class so as to 
save himself fatigue, and more often secure solitude. Of 
course the large house and the many guests entailed a 
considerable number of servants, but he constantly en 
deavoured to remind his children that it was only his office 
that made him live on a large scale, and that he wished 
their habits to be as simple as possible. He felt acutely the 
disadvantage to children of growing up in the surroundings 
of an important official position. Writing to his son s head 
master he said : 

1 The thing that weighs upon me is the difficulty, and the 
absolute necessity, of a man who holds a dignified official posi 
tion making his children understand that they have to make 
their own way in the world. You may tell them so, and they 
assent, but they come home and find things comfortable, and 
intend in the future to do the same. Hence my desperate 
desire to have things perfectly understood on my side, 1 

But combined with personal simplicity went a strong 
sense of the dignity of his office. It was that, as well as his 
historical sense, which led him to accept the cope and mitre 
which his friend Mr. Offley Wakeman presented to him. Of 
course he was attacked by some for appearing in cope and 
mitre, but on the whole it made little disturbance, for he only 


wore them in the Cathedral at great functions or in parishes 
where the incumbents desired it. 

Surrounded as it is on more than two sides by great 
stretches of reclaimed fenland, Peterborough has not perhaps 
much to recommend it as a place of residence. Indeed its 
inhabitants are wont to say that its great advantage is the 
excellent railway service which makes it such an easy place to 
get away from. But the Bishop was determined to like it and 
to see all the beauty that could be found in his new surround 
ings. It was an abiding source of joy to him to live under the 
shadow of the Cathedral, which formed the background to 
his garden. He soon knew and loved every stone of the 
mighty Norman church, and was actively interested in the 
successive schemes of restoration by which, of late, its beauty 
and security have been so much increased. As at Worcester, 
he loved to take his friends and others round the Cathedral, 
and would spend hours in showing them every corner inside 
and out, taking them over the roof and up the towers, and 
explaining the history of the building, as he pointed out the 
rich variety of its beauty. One of a party from Toynbee Hall 
taken round by him writes : 

He began his explanation by saying, " Whenever you try 
to understand an old Cathedral, your first question should 
be : When did the middle of it tumble down ? because it 
always did at some time. In many cases the centre gave way 
before the building was finished." He took us on to the 
roof and made us notice the difference between the western 
towers, saying it was always so in Gothic work ; there was 
never slavish imitation, always freshness and character. 
Below in the Cathedral he gave us one of his wonderful 
historical sketches of the times and the circumstances when 
the work was done, carrying us from the Norman invasion to 
the destructive work of Cromwell s army. 

In every possible way the Bishop used the Cathedral as 
a centre of diocesan life. As he said in a paper read before 
the Exeter Church Congress in 1894: 

* The Bishop s church must rank as the chief church, and 
is the natural meeting place for every branch of diocesan 
organisation. The usefulness of such gatherings for impressing 
the need of unity and co-operation is incalculable. ... It is 
through the sense of diocesan unity that the larger unity of 


the Church can best be realised. Every opportunity should 
be taken to bring people from all parts of the Diocese to 
their Cathedral. The mere sight of its splendid fabric 
produces an impression that is not easily forgotten. 

It is sometimes considered a possible source of friction 
that a bishop should live in his Cathedral city, but the happy 
relations which existed from the first between Dr. Creighton 
and his Chapter were never marred by disagreement He 
found it a great help to have a body of advisers close at hand 
whose experience of the Diocese was longer than his own. 
As he said in the Church Congress paper already quoted, * The 
Cathedral still provides helpers and counsellors for the Bishop. 
Deans and Canons are in my experience most ready to help 
him with their knowledge and advice, to represent him when 
necessary in the Diocese, to undertake delicate commissions. 

The Chapter Library, which, though small, contained many 
curious books, soon attracted his interest. There was no 
regular librarian, and the Bishop found the books in a rather 
dirty and neglected condition. At his suggestion the Canons 
wives set to work and dusted them, and when he had time he 
would hunt out the treasures of the library and select some 
of the more damaged volumes to be repaired or rebound at 
his expense. 

As always, he began at once to study the country round his 
new home. Every free afternoon was spent in taking a walk 
till he knew every inch of the neighbourhood. On these walks 
he was often accompanied by all his children, and the long 
procession of parents and children, as they passed through the 
streets of Peterborough and along the neighbouring lanes and 
footpaths, afforded much interest and amusement to the 
inhabitants. A frequent walk was along the great dyke made 
by Bishop Morton in the fifteenth century to keep out the 
floods, which runs into the fen for many miles. The Bishop 
loved the great sweep of sky and the varying effects of light 
over the wide stretches of the fen. His other favourite walk 
was amongst the beautiful trees and great thornbushes of 
Milton, Mr. Fitzwilliam s park, near Peterborough. On all 
the roads along which he went, he learnt to know the children, 
and would stop and speak to them as they opened a gate for 
him, or as he met them coming out of school. 


But the days at home were few ; the greater part of his 
life was spent in travelling about his diocese. At his first 
public speech in Northampton he said that his experience 
of a bishop s life was that it was like that of a commercial 
traveller, because he was always going somewhere with a bag 
in his hand. Peterborough seems at first sight to be situated 
in a most inconvenient position for the residence of the Bishop. 
It lies on what Bishop Jeune called the stalk of a pear-shaped 
diocese. The inconveniences of this situation are to some 
extent compensated for by the railway communications. The 
diocese consists of the three counties of Leicester, North 
ampton and Rutland. The two great centres of popula 
tion, Leicester and Northampton, have little communication 
with one another, though both can be easily reached from 
Peterborough. But the journeys took a great deal of time, 
as all the trains about the diocese were slow. The Bishop 
did not much object to this, for he could prepare sermons 
and speeches and do a great deal of reading in the train. 
But he had to spend many nights away from home. As a 
rule, he tried to be at Peterborough on Sunday, but he was 
constantly away for three or four days together during the 
week. He generally stayed with the clergy, and valued the 
opportunity of getting to know them and their families in 
their home life. He was also a welcome guest in most of 
the great houses of the diocese. Wherever he went, he made 
friends with the children. They were his delight and his 
recreation, and he would come home full of stories of the new 
child friends he had made. There was always a long list of 
special friends amongst the children of the clergy to whom 
books and other presents had to be sent at Christmas ; and 
it was often said that he would certainly be known as the 
children s bishop. 

In a certain sense, he was quite new to his work. He had 
never mixed in church politics, he had very little personal 
acquaintance with leading ecclesiastics. I think that the only 
bishop whom he had ever visited, except his own diocesans 
in Durham, Newcastle and Worcester, was Bishop Stubbs, 
with whom his relations were literary rather than ecclesiastical. 
He had never been a member of Convocation, or attended 
church meetings in London. It is true that his work in the 


diocese of Newcastle had given him experience in the details 
of diocesan administration, and he had seen a good deal of 
church life at Worcester, through going about to many different 
parishes to preach, and through his work as examining chap 
lain. But he was a stranger to the larger world of church 
affairs, and was himself little known to church dignitaries, 
except through his occasional appearances at church con 
gresses. He did not begin his new life with any formu 
lated policy or definite scheme of work in his mind. Per 
haps the leading ideas at the bottom of his episcopal 
activity, though he never stated them or formulated them, 
and they were in truth nothing more than the expression 
of his whole life and character, were the effort to promote 
unity and co-operation amongst all sorts and conditions of 
men, the constant wish to stimulate everywhere the pursuit and 
love of knowledge, and so to be true to the spirit of the Church 
of England, which rests its claim on sound learning, and, as 
regards his own conduct, the constraining desire to show 
kindliness and sympathy to all men. This was from no 
wish for popularity. He cared nothing for that, nor for what 
men thought of him. He never read newspapers to see how 
his utterances were taken ; indeed none of the local newspapers 
published in the diocese were taken in at the Palace. But 
he was animated by an ever-growing sense of the necessity 
to love those with whom he was brought into contact This 
told most specially in his relations with the young. If, at first, 
he sometimes puzzled the older clergy, the younger clergy 
loved him at once. His look, his hand on their shoulder, a 
few words, were enough to make them feel that he was to 
them a real Father in God. The absolute sincerity of his 
interest was manifest at once, no one could suspect it of being 
official. It was the consciousness that his work brought him 
into contact with so many human souls, and that his position 
gave him opportunity to say words of encouragement or 
comfort which would be remembered, that cheered him 
through all the weary toil of administrative detail. 

His clear head and admirable business capacities made it 
easy for him to grasp the formal duties of his new position. 
He wrote on June 13, 1891 : * I am struck with the capacity 
one possesses to develop new activities when called upon to 


do so. His chief object was to see and observe. In one of 
his first speeches he said : I have no scheme of episcopal 
activity : I only wish to watch and see what can best be done. 
I do not wish to be over-anxious, over-active, or over-cautious. 
He described himself as a man wandering about the world to 
pick up any information which might be of use to him. When 
ever he spoke in either of his big towns Leicester or North 
ampton he tried to make his hearers feel that he belonged 
to them and was in no sense apart from any of their interests. 
Speaking in Northampton once, he said that he should not 
be content till, as he passed men in the street, they said : 
1 There goes our Bishop, and then he hoped they would go 
on to say, There goes my Bishop. 

The rapidity with which he got to know his Diocese 
ivas surprising. Dr. A. T. Lyttelton (the late Bishop of South 
ampton) writes : 

4 What chiefly struck me about his diocesan work was his 
grasp. At Peterborough he seemed to obtain with apparently 
great ease and rapidity a knowledge of the clergy, and of the 
different parishes which I have never seen equalled. More 
than most bishops, he relied on personal and informal inter 
course with his clergy as the means of getting to know them. 
This he could do with the greater ease that he was singularly 
accessible and always ready to talk. 

Mr. Grose Hodge (then incumbent of Holy Trinity, 
Leicester) says : 

He seemed to get into touch with the Diocese almost at 
once. And with him the Diocese did not mean the clergy. 
He was the least clerically-minded bishop that ever was. 
His interests were those of men generally. He accepted 
whenever he could invitations to stay with laymen. Our 
business men felt they were quite as likely to get the Bishop 
as the squire was. In scores of country houses throughout 
the diocese, Nonconformist as well as Church, a truer idea of 
the aims and methods of the Church started with the Bishop s 
visit. . . . His intercourse with the clergy was close and con 
fidential. He guided us by personal influence rather than by 
general directions. 

Mr. W. M. Heygate writes : 

The most remarkable point in his character was the 
universality of his knowledge and the rapidity with which he 


picked up and digested every new subject. He was utterly 
ignorant of the Midlands when he was first appointed, and 
yet, before he had been Bishop of Peterborough a year, he 
seemed to know the history and the geography and the dis 
tinguishing characteristics of his diocese better than any of 
his predecessors after many years. He was a wonderful 
judge of character, and I found that he knew what sort of 
a man a given rector or vicar was better than I could tell 
him, and he never forgot the facts and history of each parish 
when he had once learnt them. So determined was he to 
know every parish that, on the occasion of his first visit to us, 
he expressed a desire to inspect Newtown Linford Church, 
which until lately had been a donative under the Earls of 
Stamford and consequently a sealed book to a bishop. I told 
him that no bishop had ever been known to go there, where 
upon he asked me the way. I replied that, if he did not mind 
a bit of a scramble, I could take him a picturesque walk over 
rocks and fern through Bradgate Park. He at once jumped 
at the idea, and I need not say that he knew as much or 
more of the history of that interesting locality (where Lady 
Jane Grey pursued her studies under Roger Ascham) than I, 
who had lived in the neighbourhood all my life. But, to my 
horror, on arriving at the unclimbable hunting gate, by means 
of which I had hoped to effect our exit from the park, I 
discovered that my private key would not fit the lock. The 
granite wall and gates are about ten feet high, and so con 
structed as to prevent the deer from escaping. I looked at 
them for a few minutes with anxious care, and though I felt 
I might manage to scramble up the wall myself, I could 
not see how the episcopal tights and orthodox gaiters could 
overcome the obstacle. The Bishop, however, declared he 
would go wherever I could, and so we managed it ; it was a 
scene I shall never forget. Arrived at the church, for which 
we obtained the key with some difficulty, it was thoroughly 
inspected. But meanwhile the news that a bishop had ap 
peared had passed through the village, and the delighted 
vicar coming up, warmly welcomed the first episcopal visit 
known at Newtown Linford. I need hardly say that a church 
restoration was the result, and further visits from the Bishop/ 

Many were the similar rambles to inspect other churches. 
Wherever he stayed, the Bishop visited as many as possible of 
the neighbouring churches, and whenever he could take a day s 
holiday with his children or with some of the friends that 
stayed with him, it was spent in exploring some corner of the 


diocese. The train would be taken to one village, and then 
we walked across country to return from some other station. 
Sandwiches provided our lunch, and sometimes the whole 
party invaded a hospitable vicarage for tea, or, if this was not 
possible, resorted to some roadside inn. In every parish the 
vicar was visited, and the church was inspected. The Bishop 
was always much vexed when he found a church locked, and 
the keys had to be hunted for. He spoke on this subject in 
his * Primary Charge : 

I am very strongly of opinion that every church should 
be open and accessible to all at all times of every day. I 
know all that can be said against this suggestion. I know 
that people rarely use the church when it is open. Can it 
be expected that the habit will grow up at once ? I know 
all that can be said about inconveniences and dangers of loss 
or of irreverence. . . . But I do not think that there is any 
real danger to be apprehended and I speak with some know 
ledge. For many years past I have been in the habit of 
examining parish churches in various parts of England. I 
have gained considerable knowledge of the way in which 
they are cared for and used. In my experience I should say 
roughly, that about half the parish churches stand open, that 
those which stand open are much better cared for than those 
which do not ; that they are as a rule more highly decorated 
. . . that I can discover no peculiarities of position or of local 
conditions which determine the matter, but apparently only 
the feeling of the clergyman. 1 

There seemed to be a special fitness in the fact that one 
with such a lively appreciation of architecture should be called 
to rule a diocese containing such rare treasures as the 
churches in the valley of the Nene. The beauty and interest of 
the churches he visited in the course of his ministration were 
an unfailing delight and refreshment: to the Bishop, and he 
ever sought to impress upon clergy and people the precious- 
ness of their parish church. 

These fabrics [he said] are messengers of spiritual truth, 
perpetually set before the eyes of men. . . . Men are always 
proud of their parish church, and are willing to make sacri 
fices for its sake. This feeling should be carefully cherished 
as a basis for further teaching. The clergyman is the official 
guardian of the fabric of the church ; and its surroundings 

1 The Church attd the Nation , p. 1 12. 


within and without depend upon his carefulness. The sur 
roundings of the church are as important as the structure 
itself. A trim garden looks ill beside an ill-kept churchyard. 
I am glad to think that there are no remaining instances of 
a comfortable parsonage beside a dilapidated church. l 

Though constantly called upon to preach at the reopening 
of churches after restoration, his sermons were always varied 
and living. He wished to make the people feel the meaning 
of their church : 

* Our villages are but a collection of houses gathering 
round their church. The great memorial of every place is 
its church. What is it that makes a village ? It is the 
beauty, the dignity, the appealing splendour of the House of 
God round which it gathers, and which seems to protect it 
and keep it under its care. The parish churches of England 
are the greatest and most noble memorials of the past. . . . 
This church tells a tale of long antiquity ; it tells how the 
village grew and prospered . . . how those who had received 
blessings from God returned to Him some portion of their 
substance in beautifying and adorning it. 2 

And again : 

To-day you take possession of this restored church . . . the 
ancient fabric is closely connected with all that is most 
intimate in your lives in the past. You have come here when 
your lives were full of joy, and you have come also when they 
were full of sorrow. . . . The village church tells us what 
God has done for our race in days of old. Though many of 
its ornaments are gone, we can make the glory of the latter 
house greater by offering in it a more spiritual worship. :D 

We do not decorate our churches to please God, but 
to make them fitting memorials of our personal relation with 
God, a worthy memorial of His presence among men. 

Churches are beautiful that they may wean those who 
worship in them from the thought of the common things of 
daily life. 

He was anxious that in building new churches men should 
not fall too far behind the traditions of their fathers : 

This shire is rich in its noble churches . . . bringing 

1 The Church and the Nation, p. III. 

Sermon at the reopening of Bugbrooke Church after restoration. May 6, 

1 At the reopening of Rearsby Church after restoration. January 21, 1892. 


home to us the tale of self-sacrifice made in the past for the 
service of the Lord. Its memories are imperative, we can 
not fall below the example which our forefathers set us ; our 
mighty churches are the boast of our shire. They are the 
outward symbol of the cry, " Come and see what the Lord 
hath done for my soul." 

He was always ready to enter into any scheme of restora 
tion and to give his advice and care that it might be done 
in such a way as to preserve and not transform a building. 
On his first visit to Irthlingborough (July 4, 1891) the noble 
tower was lying in ruins ; he preached on hope, bidding his 
congregation remember all they had inherited from the past, 
and determine to hand it on unimpaired. He urged them to 
set to work at once to build up the tower so that it might be 
ready at the next dedication festival. Two years later he 
was summoned to re-dedicate the magnificent lantern tower, 
standing separate from the church, which is one of the most 
striking features of the Nene valley. It had been rebuilt 
with pious care of the old stones ; a tower, as the Bishop told 
the people, unique in England, to them a symbol of God s 
protection, following them into every detail of their daily 

One church he saved after it had been condemned as 
unsafe by the architects, and its destruction ordered that a 
new one might be built. He urged that the matter should be 
reconsidered, with the result that it was found possible to 
strengthen and maintain the old fabric. The care with 
which he entered into the details of schemes for church 
restoration is shown by the following letters : 

To the Rev. S. Short * March 2, 1892. 

Thank you for Mr. Townsend s report, which is very 
good. There is only one point on v/hich I doubt, though he 
puts it doubtfully. It is the expediency of removing the 
plaster inside the church and exposing the masonry. The 
building does not seem to be such that the masonry will 
stand exposure. It was plastered from the first and had 
better remain so. 

Mr. Fitzwilliam s offer almost prescribes the order of 
procedure. He will not begin till you are ready to do 

1 Sermon on laying the foundation stone of the new aisle of St. Edmund s, 
Northampton, June 8, 1891. 


something. In fact, it would be much cheaper to make one 
job of the structural part of the work. This would be : 

(1) Repair of transept by Mr. Fitzwilliam. 
Pointing of all walls. 

Repair of west wall of N. aisle. 
New East window. 
(?) New window in east of N. aisle. 

Thorough repair of drains and gutters. 

(2) New floor : seats : renewing whitewash inside. 

(3) Repair of roof. 

I should say that 400!. should see you through (i) rather 
less than more/ 

This refers to the interesting old church of Northborough, 
a lonely village about four miles from Peterborough. Mr. Short 
says : * The Bishop was the largest of all the subscribers to the 
general restoration of the church, contributing practically 
nearly ioo/. to the work, which could never have been carried 
out without his munificence. 

To the Rev. L. Leney August 5, 1895. 

Let me give you my suggestions as you ask for them. 

(i) I assume that you have a Committee the Church 
wardens and one or two business men. Take them into 
counsel about details. 

* (2) Your work is purely structural restoration, is it not ? 
This makes a great deal of difference about the architect. If 
it is a question of restoring mouldings i.e. of discovering 
what they probably were, and deciding how they ought to be 
treated, then the art of the architect comes in : otherwise it 
is his capacity as a supervisor of building which you need. 
On this point depends your decision whether you ask a man 
like Pearson. 

(3) Your idea of having a report, and then acting upon it 
locally i.e. leaving the application of its details to a local 
builder is rather difficult to carry out. In restoring a tower 
it is a question of individual stones. Shall this one be 
replaced by a new one ? Shall it be re-faced ? or shall it be 
mended by cement ? You can scarcely leave this to a clerk 
of the works. I doubt if an architect would give his name to 
an undertaking of this kind, for which he would be held 
responsible, while he was not really so. 

(4) I am in favour of the most conservative treatment of 
such a tower as yours. 



This refers to the beautiful tower of the church at 

The Bishop was able to see the general work of necessary 
church restoration in his diocese, which had been energetically 
begun in the time of his predecessor, almost completed during 
his episcopate. There was one notable exception, about 
which he was most anxious, the church of Fotheringhay, alike 
conspicuous for its architectural beauty, and rich in its histori 
cal associations. He considered that it held the rank of an 
historical monument, and that as the fabric was reported to 
be in a dangerous condition and the inhabitants of the little 
village could not undertake so large a work themselves, the 
help of the outside public might well be asked. 

It was of course a work of years to get to know the 676 
parishes in his diocese, and some at least the Bishop was 
unable to visit during his short episcopate. But he soon 
made himself felt throughout the diocese. During the 
months of June and July he was almost constantly away from 
home, preaching, confirming, reopening churches, giving 
away prizes at boys and girls schools, everywhere gathering 
knowledge about men and places. 

At Peterborough there were gatherings of Rural Deans 
and Mission clergy, garden parties, meetings at the Palace 
for different societies, constant interviews with clergy, visits 
from curates to be licensed, friends old and new to be 
entertained. Amongst others a large party of Newnham and 
Girton students visited us, and he showed them the glories of 
the Cathedral. 

By the end of the summer he was quite ready for 
a holiday, and on September 22 we started for Sicily. 
We spent a fortnight visiting Palermo, Cefalu, Girgenti, 
Catania, Syracusa, Taormina, and Messina. He never 
enjoyed anything more than the two days we spent in 
rambling about the ruins of Grecian temples at Girgenti, and 
visiting the theatre and forts at Syracusa, he wondered 
whether Athens itself could give such an overpowering sense 
of the greatness of Greek life as did the solitary ruins of 
Girgenti. Taormina he considered the most beautiful place 
he had ever seen. On our way back we lingered at Naples 
and Verona and reached Peterborough again on October 23. 

1891 LETTERS 19 

To Count UgO Balzani Roma: October 15, 1891. 

4 Dear Balzani,- -Your telegram, which was forwarded here 
from Messina, gave me a new pang and prompts me to write 
to you and say how sorry we are that our meeting has 
failed. ... I am afraid that our tour has had too much 
travelling in it for the short time at our disposal, and for a 
week in Sicily we endured a scirocco. We arrived at Naples 
very limp, and stayed there to recover, in which we partially 
succeeded. But at Messina there was no spirit left in us, and 
the thought of the journey home was awful to our minds. . . . 
As we do not want to reach home tired out, we are travelling 
on with carefully regulated journeys, so as to secure a night s 
rest. . . . The purpose still stands to come to Ivrea some 
summer, though we hope soon to see you in England again. 
There is a charm of novelty about us ; you never find us 
twice in the same place. Cambridge and Worcester are things 
of the past, and I cannot say that Peterborough as a place has 
the charm of either. 

But I wanted to tell you something of my impressions of 
Italy. It is now eight years since I visited it, and I am sur 
prised at the advance which has been made. Sicily I never 
saw before ; but it is obviously flourishing, quite orderly, and 
the people industrious, serious, economical, not given to 
pleasure. There are scarcely any caffes in Sicily : the 
" Salone " takes their place : men sit and talk, and that suffices 
them. A door to sit at and a chair to sit on is enough to 
make a Sicilian happy. But Naples surprised me immensely ; 
it is thirteen years since I was there. Now I was not begged 
of, nor was my pocket picked ; cleanliness has grown vastly : 
the town has enormously increased, there is much more 
industry : the loafers are swept away. I had a vetturino who 
perfectly surprised me by his knowledge of history and geo 
graphy. He knew all about European countries, their towns, 
their reigning families, their politics. He even talked to me 
about Cromwell, Ferdinand the Catholic, and Don Carlos. 
He knew about Lord Salisbury and W. H. Smith. I 
wondered if any London cabman knew the name of the 
Italian prime minister : but then doubtless he has not many 
Italian tourists to drive about. However, so far as the cursory 
glance of a traveller can discern anything, Italy is growing 
steadily in the industry, and therefore in the real wealth, of her 

Another thing that has struck me is the way which the 
Germans have taken to travel : many for pleasure : very many 
as commercial travellers. They are willing to pursue small 
gains even in out-of-the-way places. But one story which 



I heard from an Italian commercial traveller seemed to me 
very remarkable. The man was a general representative of 
foreign houses in the clothing trade : he sold Scotch tweeds 
and Lyons silks. He told me he had sent an order for silk 
from Palermo, which the Lyons house refused to execute, 
because the silks were to be worn at the commemoration of 
the " Vespro Siciliano," which they regarded as an affront to 
France. The traveller told me of his amazement at this 
answer : how he wrote that he never mixed politics and com 
merce, and had no idea when the silk was to be worn. The 
French house was firm, and he ceased to act for it. Well, I 
will not continue my vain and frivolous jottings. I have seen 
many things and learned much. I never saw anything so 
Greek as Girgenti, or more full of the past of Greece than 
Syracusa, and I revelled in the Norman works at Palermo 
and Monreale. The only regret attaching to my mind is 
that we have missed you, which you must please forgive. 

Letters, 1891. 
To the Rev. C. A. Potter 

Upper House of Convocation : April 28, 1891. 

Dear Potter,- -Your letter reached me on the morning of 
my Consecration. It recalled many old memories, and led me 
to wonder why you had so long lapsed into silence life, as 
you say, has lately gone rapidly with me ; but, as I look back, 
I see that the happiest time was that which I spent in a country 
parish. ... I sit among seven children, all of whom prosper 
in their way. One feels old when confronted with tall 
daughters and boys at school. 

1 am sitting listening to discussions in which I take a 
languid interest. I am trying to learn something of my new 
duties ; there is plenty to learn and plenty to do. At present 
I have no roof over my head, but hope to settle at Peterborough 
in about a fortnight. . . . 

To Mr. Howard Pease <C )le Orton Rectory : July 8, 1891. 

* Dear Howard, I was delighted to get your letter and to 
read your articles. I thought your story was very good ; it 
had an unexpected incident and a good deal of humour and 
quaintness of conception. Therefore I say go on and prosper. 

I quite think that novels are the form of literature which 
is most adapted to carry ideas into the popular mind at the 
present day. And the question of the literary form of novels 
is one which at present affords great scope for ingenuity. 
Old forms have been used up, new forms are exhausted with 
bewildering rapidity. Probably two forms are the most 

1891 LETTERS 21 

promising : (i) the form which deals with manners and 
customs, local, provincial or social ; (2) the historical novel. 

If I were to develop my views on the last further, I should 
say that the historical novel lent itself to three modes of 
treatment : (a) the romantic used up by Scott and Dumas, 
and their followers ; (/?) the patriotic never used in England, 
but well known in Spain and Italy : rather difficult of appli 
cation to English life ; (7) the psychological or philoso 
phical, which affords an opportunity of developing character 
with a distinctness which a modern setting does not allow. 
We know the complexity of life at present ; we resent the 
attempt to isolate or emphasise one side of it. The modern 
French novel is perfectly ridiculous, because it makes a man 
be in love with a woman for years, tells you nothing of his or 
her life or character, except what concerns that relationship. 
This is absurd, unnatural and fatuous. We are conscious of 
the puppets and can see the strings. There is really no merit 
in such books. 

* There I have rambled on enough to tell you my general 
views ; the diversions of a hard-worked bishop who is always 
wandering about 

To a Cambridge pupil Peterborough: September 10, 1891. 

* Your question is an important one, and has to be con 
sidered with a view to general principles. The first point to 
make perfectly clear is what you want to do. Now I am of 
opinion that a continuous career at Cambridge is not the best 
thing for a man. . . . Reflect that Cambridge can give you at 
best a lectureship with or without a terminable fellowship 
and that its temptations are to easy indolence or absorption 
in. University business. You might or might not like India 
for a permanence. But even a few years there would teach 
you much, both in expanding your sphere of knowledge of 
history and of men and things. It would make you more 
valuable to Cambridge if at any time you wished to return, or 
it would fit you for other work in England. I think that a man 
succeeds by the energy which he has within him, more than 
by a careful adjustment of external circumstances. 

It is a question of a venture. If you feel within you the 
force to make a venture for the good of your own mind rather 
than with a view to any definite career, do so. If you feel 
that you are better suited to pursue a cautious course towards 
the fleshpots of Cambridge, do so. 

But get the issue quite straight. If you go go, because 
you wish to learn, and you gladly take the chance of extending 


your experience. Go without any attempt to forecast or 
adjust the future. Go saying, " I want to become a wiser and 
a larger man ; if I become so, there will be more and better 
work for me to do, somewhere, somehow ; and bread and 
water will not be wanting." 

4 Again, if you go, go at once ; throw over your engage 
ments which are not binding, and put yourself in the hands of 
the authorities to go when they want you. Never dally over 
a career which you are leaving ; get to your new work at 
once. No habit is more to be encouraged than that of 
plunging into what you undertake. 

These are the heads of my advice. You can judge if 
you look within ; you vacillate if you look without 

To Miss Alice Gardner Peterborough, October 27, 1891. 

Dear Miss Gardner,--! so much value my connexion 
with Newnham College that I should submit myself to your 
pleasure in the matter of serving on the Council. But I do 
not know that I would be very acceptable however, that is a 
point which you can probably discover. Also I do not know 
that I can promise absolute regularity of attendance ; but 
I will come as often as I can if I get long enough notice. 

1 I often think of Cambridge with regret. In fact, on 
coming back from a holiday in Sicily it seemed more natural 
to take the train at King s Cross for Cambridge than for 
Peterborough, which has hardly begun to feel like home. 



IN the Diocese of Peterborough there are many small country 
parishes, red-brick villages lying amongst the pastures of 
Leicestershire, clusters of grey or brown stone houses round 
a mighty church in Northamptonshire, besides many quiet 
little country towns such as Towcester, Oundle, or Oakham, 
and growing manufacturing places like Wellingborough and 
Hinckley. The shoe industry, which, owing to the intro 
duction and perfection of the new machines, was, when 
Creighton became bishop, rapidly becoming exclusively a 
factory instead of a home industry, went on constantly ex 
tending into new districts. A big factory would be planted in 
a quiet country village, and the vicar, accustomed to the care 
of a few hundred agricultural labourers, saw his parish invaded 
by crowds of shoe-hands. The question of church extension 
was always a pressing one, especially in Leicester, which had 
grown so rapidly as to outstrip the efforts made by all the 
various religious organisations to keep pace with it. Bishop 
Magee had founded a Church Extension Society both for 
Leicester and Northampton, and in his episcopate of twenty- 
two years, one hundred thousand pounds was spent on church 
building. The churches planned under his supervision were 
for the most part completed, but the need had gone on grow 
ing with ever-increasing rapidity. Dr. Creighton spoke for 
the first time at a Church Extension meeting in Leicester, in 
November 1891. He appealed to the Christian patriotism of 
his audience to see that those who were drawn in from the 
surrounding country to the busy industrial life of Leicester 
should have provision made for their souls health. 

* Industrial civilisation is at first only busied with filling 
men s pockets ; thought and care for their higher interests limp 


like laggards behind the eager pursuit of material benefits. 
The towns, as their streets grow, tell of the activity of the 
municipal body, of the care of the sanitary inspectors. But it 
is left to the quickened conscience of the community at large 
to do what is needed to maintain the high spiritual interests 
without which external things are vain and empty. . . . The 
dwellers in towns are robbed of the beauties of the country, but 
they have some compensations. They have the advantage of 
a quickened intellectual life they ask questions which are 
not asked by the dwellers in the country their spiritual 
nature is not dead ; on the contrary, it is very inquisitive. . . . 
It is useless to multiply wealth, to build houses and streets, 
unless the people who live in them have some high and noble 
ideal of life. 

He asked for 5,8oo/. to meet the most pressing needs, and 
was much gratified when a gift of i,ooo/. from one donor was 
announced during the meeting. 

A few days later he spoke on the same subject at 
Northampton, and said that much social failure had taught us 
that we had neglected in the past to make sure that imperish 
able basis upon which a nation s greatness must ultimately 
depend. Progress goes hand in hand with Christianity. 
The central idea of Christianity is that of unlimited progress- 
progress and liberty. He concluded by pointing out that 
a time had been reached when the Church, in towns, must 
depend very largely upon the voluntary help of its people, 
who must help it as their ancestors had done. 

Year after year these appeals had to be made. As 
he learnt to know the special conditions better, the Bishop 
made his appeal more direct He showed how a link was 
needed between employers and men under the altered con 
ditions of living, since the employers by living away from 
their men had incurred a new obligation ; they must learn 
to look upon the clergy as their agents. He pointed out how 
the great churches built by their ancestors in Leicester still 
remained, whilst the castle and the monastery had perished, a 
sign that it was the spiritual life of the people that must be 
the mainspring of the national existence. It was his opinion 
that the clergyman should be paid for by the people amongst 
whom he ministered, but that the church should be built by 
the munificence of the employers ; but he wished subscription 


lists to be more democratised, and that each person, however 
poor, should feel the call to give what he could. 

On all occasions he insisted that the new churches must 
be an ornament to the city. He was especially interested 
in the plans for the church of St. James to be built on a 
commanding site in Leicester, opposite the Victoria Park. 
He suggested that it should follow the design of a basilica ; 
the architect, Mr. Goddard, a Leicester man, and a personal 
friend, warmly fell in with his views. There was considerable 
opposition on the building committee, but the plan was 
carried through, and a church built which has won much 
admiration, but which the Bishop was destined never to see. 1 

It seemed to him most urgent that he should learn to 
understand so important a part of his diocese as the city of 
Leicester, and that its people should get to know him. So he 
decided to reside there for some weeks in each year. He and 
I settled ourselves in lodgings in Leicester towards the end 
of October 1891, for about three weeks. The days were spent 
in incessant work, meetings followed one another in quick 
succession, clergy were interviewed, institutions visited, and 
many sermons preached. One of the Sundays is described 
in the following letter to my daughter : 

November 2, 1891. 

* We had a tremendous day yesterday. First we went to 
an eight o clock celebration in Mr. Robinson s church, where 
father celebrated, and then we went to breakfast with him. 
. . . After breakfast father and I drove off to another church in 
the outskirts of Leicester, where he preached, and after service 
we lunched with the vicar, quite a young man, living in 
lodgings, and the curate. After lunch we drove to another 
church in Leicester, the great Evangelical church, where 
father instituted a new vicar and gave a little address. . . . 
After that we drove back here to tea and then soon we went off 
again to a great ritualistic church where father was to preach. 
I got there about a quarter of an hour before service, but it 
was crammed, and I got about the last seat. There were 
chairs all up the aisles and people stood all through the 
service, and some hundreds were turned away. After that the 
day s work was over, and we came back here to a quiet and 
frugal meal. 

From Leicester he went to assist at a general Mission 

1 See letters on p. 466. 


in Northampton. He had commended the Mission to the 
people of Northampton in the following letter : 

Dearly beloved in the Lord,- -You are aware that the 
clergy of Northampton, acting on a strong feeling of their 
duties as teachers of the Christian faith, have decided to hold 
a Mission in all churches of the town, for the days beginning 
on November 14 next The object of this special effort is to 
provide courses of continuous teaching, suited to all classes 
and to all ages, of the great truths which concern the spiritual 
life of the soul. All knowledge demands attention : and the 
business of daily life makes us forgetful, or heedless, of the 
higher part of our nature. It is well for all of us to have put 
before us, from time to time, the large issues of our lives as 
God s children. We all need greater knowledge of God and 
of ourselves. We should be ready to use the opportunities 
afforded us of increasing this knowledge. I therefore affec 
tionately admonish you not to reject the instruction which 
will be put before you, but prayerfully to seek for an under 
standing heart and a humble spirit, that you may profit to 
vour soul s health. There is much to be learned, and each 


opportunity of learning brings with it a new responsibility. 

The Bishop opened the Mission by an address in All 
Saints church to the Mission workers. He remained in the 
town throughout the Mission, attending and helping in many 
services, everywhere encouraging the clergy by his presence 
and sympathy. He addressed railway men at their dinner 
hour, preached to the inmates of the workhouse, and on the 
last Saturday evening spoke to some three thousand working- 
men in the Corn Exchange. He was always at his best in 
addressing such a meeting. His manly, direct manner 
appealed to the men at once, his crisp and pointed sentences 
rivetted their attention, and his ready humour gained their 
sympathy. In this speech he told them that the real enemy 
of religion in these days, as it had always been, was 
indifference, the old complaint of the world ; men who tried 
to do good had had to face it at all times. 

* If we go back to the time of the Greeks, and ask what to 
the Greek mind was the greatest sin, we find that it was 
insolence. To them insolence meant the failure of a man to 
realise what was his true attitude to life, to understand that 
he was bound, if he would be a true man, to face life boldly 
and fearlessly with all its issues, to think through its problems, 


to recognise the limits under which his life had to be lived. 
Still the same thing is needed. We still ask you to look at 
your life straight, to see what it means, to see what are the 
things that will destroy it. And we are forced to conclude 
with the old Greeks that it is insolence which destroys a 
man s life. . . . What the Greeks called insolence, we call 
irreverence ; and irreverence is at the bottom of indifference. 
It means the want of respect for anything but a man s own 
desires, the want of self-sacrifice, of self-restraint, the want of 
manliness, the want of a desire to think things out, to face 
life and its issues broadly and courageously. ... I have been 
struck during this Mission with the reverence shown by the 
crowds in the churches, but I could not help also being 
struck by the irreverence shown by the crowds in the streets. 
You will ask what I mean by this. I will tell you what are 
the signs of the irreverent spirit. We meet a band of young 
men walking down the street, filling the pavement, singing 
and shouting at the top of their voices, jostling against the 
other passengers. They would tell you that they were merely 
enjoying themselves. But what is the spirit they are showing ? 
It is that spirit of irreverence which means self-assertion, which 
makes them behave as if the world belonged to them and them 
only, without any thought of others. Indifference to religion 
springs from just the same source as that irreverence. . . . 
Irreverence is destructive to society of every kind. Human 
life cannot rest upon a basis of self-assertion. Progress, 
civilisation, human life, all rest upon the assumption that every 
man in the exercise of his own rights shall respect the rights of 
others. . . . In the present day there is an idea that every man 
can settle everything for himself and by himself. We glory 
in our constantly increasing freedom, especially in freedom 
in the expression of opinion, and it is the highest form of 
freedom that every man should speak out the truth that is in 
him and should suffer others to do the same. It is right that 
everyone should exercise this freedom, but a man should not 
speak without a due sense of the responsibility of speaking. 
His words must not be mere echoes of other men s words, but 
must come from the fulness of his own heart If a man 
claims to be free to express his opinion, it should be an 
opinion that is his own because he has thought it out for 
himself. Freedom does not mean the throwing overboard all 
authority and the growth of self-assertion. 

He then delighted his audience by telling them the story 
of a Chartist who talked over with a shoemaker the Chartist 
programme, and said that he agreed with most of it, but did 


not think yearly Parliaments quite long enough, as a man 
could not learn his business in that time. Upon this the 
shoemaker rose and said, If I were sent to Parliament, do 
you think there is any question upon which I should not be 
fit to pronounce an opinion after a night s thought ? 

His presence during the Mission helped to make the 
Bishop well known in Northampton. He formed a real 
friendship with Canon Hull, 1 vicar of All Saints, the leading 
clergyman in the city. When he went to Northampton he 
constantly stayed with Canon Hull, and his knowledge of the 
place helped the Bishop to enter fully into all its needs. 

The visits to Leicester were repeated every subsequent 
autumn, and the consecutive weeks spent there, together with 
frequent short visits at other times, enabled the Bishop to get 
a real hold upon the city. He did not limit his attentions to 
any one class, but tried to make all alike feel that he wished 
them to come to him for any help which he could give. 
During the days of incessant work whilst he lived in his 
Leicester lodging, his only recreation was a visit to a merry 
family of boys in a poor vicarage. Bishop and boys alike 
enjoyed the wild romps which then took place, and he would 
come out from them exhausted but refreshed. He did not 
forget his little friends when he was away from them, and wrote 
to their father : 

December 19, 1892. 

* Will you do me the kindness of taking charge of the 
enclosed and expending it in Christmas presents for your 
children ? It is not fair to throw on you this labour, but I 
feel that perhaps you could do it more efficiently than I could 

During his third stay in Leicester, the Bishop asked the 
clergy to arrange conferences for him with the various 
classes of persons connected with the Church : Sunday and 
day school teachers, churchwardens, sidesmen, choirmen, 
district visitors, and the clergy themselves. About the 
arrangements for these conferences, he wrote to the Rev. H. 
S. Gedge : 

1 Canon Hull died after a long illness some months before the Bishop, and 
unfortunately destroyed befor; his death the letters which he had received 
L roua him. 


October 13, 1893. 

* The numbers that you quote are rather appalling, but you 
may reckon on many absentees, and I think all might be 
asked except Sunday school teachers : I think in their case 
representatives might suffice. 

* I wish it to be known as widely as possible that what I 
want is not to address them, but to confer with them, and 
I want them to talk with me. . . . 

The district visitors were a little alarmed at the high 
ideal of their work which he held up before them. But the 
opportunity of talking over their difficulties with their Bishop 
was much appreciated by all workers. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks 

Craven House, Leicester: November 4, 1893. 

* Dear Stocks,- -The churchwardens attended in their 
thousands and went on till ten o clock. I send you a few 

1 (i) Inventories of Church goods apparently non-existent 
It would be well if the clergy entered their present possessions 
in the Vestry Book, and introduced the custom that the out 
going churchwarden should hand them over to the incoming 
churchwarden, who should sign his name as a receipt- 
appending any necessary remark. 

4 (2) The parish which disposes of its alms in the right way 
is St. George s. There is a relief committee to which clergy 
and district visitors alike recommend. 

1 (3) The alms expended on the poor ought to be accounted 
for at the annual vestry, and with the statement should be a 
book containing names and dates to tally. 

(4) Too great pains cannot be taken to make every thing 
connected with the Church monies and possessions absolutely 
businesslike. Only so will business men give their money. 
They clearly showed that unbusinesslike ways in the past 
strongly influenced them now. 

(5) About church-going they had much to say, but it was 
very like what the clergy say. I give you some suggestions. 
For morning services, 

(a) Shorter, with shorter sermons : ten to fifteen minutes, 
plain and practical. 

(/S) Less elaborate music, more congregational singing. 

(7) Decided irritation against curates who read lessons 
unintelligibly and gabble prayers. Clearly the reading of 
lessons is of great importance. 

* (B) More visiting of men : more downrightness in asking 


them to go to church : more display of personal interest in 
them by the clergy. 

There was a feeling that the men were rather neglected. 

*(e) Sunday morning walks; but a working-man denied 
the necessity of this, as Saturday was a half-holiday ; and the 
men were all up long before eleven. 

(f) Clubs open on Sunday at service-time. 

* (7?) No organisation for looking up absentees. A sugges 
tion that each congregation should have two or three Visitors, 
who looked up those who were by way of coming to church, 
when they began to drop off. One man said : " The clergy 
are not businesslike : we business men have to look after our 
customers, and the clergy should do the same." Said that, 
though sidesman and twenty years in parish, he had not been 
visited six times, and at present the two curates had never 
called on him at all I forbore to ask his parish. 

(0) Working-men, not brought up as Churchmen, find 
dissenting service easier to understand. This is absolutely 
true. Men need training to the Church Service. Sunday 
schools, catechising, children s services, should keep this 
clearly in view. Mission services also. 

(fc) There were complaints about sermons being about 
nothing. Young curates lose themselves in elaborate doctrinal 
expositions which clear up nothing. They use too long 
words. Greater simplicity and sense needed in sermons. 

To the same * Peterborough : November 25, 1893. 

Dear Stocks, . . . . You may make any use you think 
fit of my letter. I think that more attention to the practical 
side of visiting would be well. It might be possible for the 
Church to do more to show itself the friend of the people, 
working for their physical and social welfare, but working 
wisely and seeking for the best way of helping. This cannot 
be done without some knowledge of principles. I can only 
suggest that some addresses be given to clergy and district 
visitors by competent persons. 

The hindrance to churchgoing is indifference : and this 
comes because men do not see the good of it Only zeal for 
their welfare in some way that they can understand will attract 
them. This is the point of attachment between their con 
science and the Gospel which is at present revealed to us. 
All social movements however futile are our opportunities : 
we should sympathise with what is true in them. 

There is one perhaps trivial point which I think important 
It came prominently before me in a remark of one of the 


choirmen, that they would go into church happier if the clergy 
said good day and shook hands with them in the vestry. 
This was a far-reaching remark. The spirit of Christ differs 
from the spirit of the world, not so much in its superior 
activity or capacity, as in its different temper. In a busy 
place like Leicester the clergy have much business and much 
organisation. But they should not do it in the same way as 
worldly business is done. Somehow we should feel and show 
that we meet as Christian brethren, not as men of business. 
We ought to bring kindliness, geniality, courtesy, personal 
friendliness to all that we do. I think that all our meetings 
in Leicester could be improved greatly in that way. If the 
clergy will think it over they will see great force in the choir- 
man s remark. Do they know his family circumstances ? do 
they ever enquire ? Are they his friends ? or are they like 
his employer during the week? Christian influence is the 
influence of a life, and a life must speak to another life, not 
in the abstract way only, but beginning from particulars. 

The Bishop was very particular about the services for all 
kinds of special occasions. He examined the forms used 
elsewhere for Consecration, Dedication and other services, 
and adapted those which best satisfied him for use in his 
diocese. He hated any muddle or sense of fuss, but objected 
equally to unpunctuality, unnecessary pauses and long-drawn- 
out services. He wished everything to be carefully thought 
out and arranged beforehand. His own promptness enabled 
him to get through functions quickly, without giving any sense 
of hurry. Whenever possible he liked to institute a new vicar 
himself, and by his presence and sympathy to encourage him 
in the beginning of his work. Curates were licensed by him 
self in his private chapel, and he always tried to have a talk 
with them about themselves, and about the special conditions 
of the parish to which they were going. One curate remem 
bers his saying, Make a friend of your vicar, don t keep any 
of your difficulties from him. I know this is what he will wish. 

Love for children made him delight in his Confirmations. 
He tried to arrange that the service should not last more than 
an hour, so that the children might not be wearied ; and he 
would never confirm more than two hundred at a time. 
Directions were issued by him to the clergy for the conduct 
of the service in which he went into the most minute detail, so 
as to secure that a continuous stream of candidates should 


come up in an orderly manner. He gave two short addresses 
at every Confirmation, speaking to the children from his very 
heart, and trying always to give them something which they 
could carry away. 

He wrote once : I have been away from home confirming. 
I always like that part of my work ; it is very nice going 
from one village church to another, in this lovely weather, and 
seeing all the young people, and trying to say something 
which they may remember. And again : It is a great 
privilege of my office that I am brought into contact with 
many young lives in my Confirmations. 

His previous experience as examining chaplain helped him 
in making the arrangements for his Ordinations. He knew 
exactly what he wanted. The few days before the Ordina 
tion were meant to be days of serious preparation, yet not 
exactly like a retreat ; he wished them to give opportunities 
not only for teaching, prayer and meditation, but also for 
social intercourse between the candidates and their Bishop 
and his chaplains, as well as with one another. He changed 
Dr. Magee s arrangements by separating the examination 
from the Ordination. The candidates were not invited to 
stay at the Palace during their examination, because he did 
not like to enter into personal relations with men whom he 
might afterwards have to reject. He took great pains about 
the examinations with regard to the choice of subjects 
and other points, and was always ready to support his 
examiners, though he sometimes took a more lenient view 
than they did. His chief concern was with the character and 
general capacities of the men, and for these things he had, 
in the opinion of his chaplains, an almost unerring insight. 
At the time of the Ordination our children were sent away, 
as many candidates as possible were lodged in the Palace, 
and the rest were taken in by the Dean and Canons, but all 
spent the whole day at the Palace. He had at once secured 
the services of Canon Yates, one of Dr. Magee s examining 

To the Rev. Canon Yates February 23, 1891. 

* Your experience of the past and your knowledge of the 
Diocese would furnish a link of continuity ) v/hich I should 
regret to see destroyed. . . . Your fellow-examiners will be 


Bigg of Ch. Ch., now rector of Fenny Compton, whom perhaps 
you know, and who is quite the best examiner I have ever 
come across ; and Arthur Lyttelton, the Master of Selwyn 

He was glad if all three chaplains could be present during 
the days preceding the Ordination, so that they might see as 
much of the men as possible. At meals he would not have 
them sit together or by himself or me, but liked them to 
distribute themselves amongst the candidates. The only 
relaxation allowed was when they took a walk with him in 
the afternoon, or met in his study to smoke and talk after 
ten o clock in the evening. 

Another clergyman was always invited to give addresses 
in the chapel, and also to preach the Ordination sermon. 
He considered it important that the men should not be 
troubled by any possible diversity of teaching, and that one 
man should have the opportunity of speaking his mind fully 
on such an important occasion. The last address in the 
chapel he gave himself, and then he allowed no one but the 
candidates to be present. No record of the words then 
uttered remains except in the lives of those to whom they 
were spoken. One of them writes : 

The abiding impression left on my mind of these 
addresses was a sense of the sacredness and dignity and awful 
responsibility of the Ministry which I had not been able to 
realise before. And his words had such a strange power 
because one felt them to be absolutely and transparently 
sincere. There was none of the pulpit manner, no rhetoric, 
no seeking after effect. You felt that this was not " an 
address," but that he was talking to you all alone by yourself, 
and dealing with your soul individually at the most solemn 
moment in your life. And that absence of the pulpit manner 
was, I think, the secret of the power of all his addresses that 
I ever heard. Other men, even the best, when they preach, 
are at a higher pitch, and in a different key, to what they are 
out of the pulpit. But he was always just himself. He 
never " preached," he just talked to you perfectly naturally ; 
and the effect was greater than the finest oratory in the 

On the afternoons of the days before the Ordination the 
Bishop instituted conferences or meetings for discussion. The 



subject was chosen by the candidates, and introduced by one 
of them who had prepared a short paper beforehand. The 
Bishop then called on each of the priests in turn to speak 
and finally on the chaplains. All considered it a rather for 
midable ordeal, but felt amply repaid by the Bishop s final 
summing up. Dr. Bigg says : * He began in a tone of good- 
natured banter, tearing up any foolish things that had been 
uttered, then defined the terms, then laid down principles, 
then gave sound practical advice, and wound up in an exalted 
impressive strain. Dr. A. T. Lyttelton writes : 

The Bishop summed up the discussion with great skill in 
gathering up the different opinions and in giving his own 
view so as to throw a wholly iiew light upon it. I recollect 
some of these summings up as really extraordinary instances 
of his combination of grasp, sympathy, and originality of 

One of the candidates says : 

1 One felt that when he had spoken there was nothing 
else to be said ; no one could have added anything more, for 
there was no more to be said. It gave one the impression of 
finality. I think this impression never lost its force. Whenever 
I heard him speak subsequently, whether in sermons or 
addresses at Confirmation, or in conversation, the same feeling 
was always present. One might perhaps not always agree 
with him in everything, but one always felt that there was 
a fulness in what he said which was entire and complete. 

Another candidate recalls how, at one of the conferences, 
he had objected to the practice of holding the Sunday school 
in the church as likely to diminish the reverence children 
should feel for the church. In his summing up, the Bishop 
said that he did not agree, but people needed to be taught 
that their parish church was their spiritual home, and not 
a sort of ornamental idol in stone. 

Every detail of the Ordination service was ordered by the 
Bishop. The candidates were sent into the Cathedral on the 
Saturday afternoon so as to be instructed in the arrangements 
for the service, and shown exactly what they would have to 
do. He introduced the plan of having each candidate called 
upon loudly and clearly by name, by one of the chaplains, to 
come up for Ordination. During the singing of the * Veni 


Creator the assisting clergy were made to group themselves 
standing round the Bishop, and thus visibly to invoke a 
blessing on the kneeling candidates. Each man to be ordained 
priest was bidden to bring his stole in his hand, which the 
Bishop himself put round his neck after Ordination. 

Dr. A. T. Lyttelton writes : * In rather a wide and varied 
experience of Ordinations, I have seen none more dignified 
and solemn than those at Peterborough. 

The candidates never forgot the days spent at the Palace. 
The Bishop in all his intercourse with them was extra 
ordinarily free, genial, and communicative. He made them 
easily at home with him ; but at the same time they felt that 
he impressed himself more upon them than anyone who 
approached them authoritatively would have done. 

His excellent memory for faces helped him much in his 
intercourse with them ; he always knew their names, their 
faces, and all about them. When those who had been 
ordained deacon the year before arrived to be ordained 
priest, he remembered each individually, and where they were 
working ; even when he met them unexpectedly, in different 
parts of the diocese, he would show that he knew all about 
them, and astonish them by his extraordinary memory and 
genuine sympathy. 

* I look back, writes one of the candidates, upon the 
three days spent in the Palace at Peterborough at the time 
of Ordination as the most interesting in my life, for the 
Bishop with his magnetic personality inspired us all with an 
intense admiration for him. At meal times all crowded to 
get near his end of the table, and his talk fascinated them. 
It was so interesting, says one, * that we found it difficult 
to eat. It was full of variety ; sometimes he told amusing 
anecdotes, or he would tell of his personal experiences, of 
people and countries that he had seen, speaking of Russian 
novels, or Francis of Assisi, or the beauties of Dalmatia. 
Another time he would startle them by some paradox about 
education, and draw them out to express their own opinions ; 
all with such a light touch and such good-natured humour, 
that he seemed as young as the youngest ; and yet, as one 
of them says, he was always so dignified that we went away 
stirred to the depths of our heart by the example of his 

D 2 


saintly character, and filled with love and admiration for 
him and everything that made him so great. * He never 
oppressed us with his dignity, says another, and never made 
us feel uncomfortable. He met us on our ground, and looked 
at a subject from our point of view, and treated us so fairly. 
When we were beaten in argument, and of course we always 
were, we could not say to ourselves " if he had not been our 
Bishop, I could have said this or that." 

His talk was interspersed with many bits of practical 
advice. 4 Never spend more than two minutes a day over the 
newspaper. * Don t try to do too much ; if any of you over 
work yourselves, don t come to me for sympathy. When 
one man spoke of his difficuity in finding illustrative anec 
dotes for his sermons, and begged that someone would re 
commend him a book, the Bishop said he knew of exactly 
the book he wanted, the Bible, and proceeded to point out 
the interest of the Bible stories, and how they could be used 
to illustrate teaching on questions of the day. He was fond 
of puzzling cocksure people, and when a prim little man 
asked him what books he recommended for devotional read 
ing the reply was : H m, yes, I don t know what devotional 
reading is. He would join little groups of men as they 
gathered in the Abbot s Hall and ask What are you talking 
about ? and mix in the talk as one of themselves. At one 
moment he was a boy among boys, the next he was the 
devout priest, then the dignified prelate, all quite naturally 
and just as circumstances demanded. But, with all his kind 
ness, he left upon men the impression that he was a person 
of whom they would have been terribly afraid, if they had 
done anything to incur his censure. 

A rule had been made by Dr. Magee which Dr. Creighton 
confirmed, that curates during their diaconate might only 
preach one sermon a month of their own composition. Two 
of the sermons had to be sent to the Bishop for his inspection. 
At his private interview with each candidate, he used to speak 
about these sermons, and he also wrote his criticisms on 
them : Good, but are there not too many subjects ? This is 
all wrong, &c. One man remembers two lines of comment 
at the end of his sermon which have since been of value to 
me over and over again. These interviews were looked for- 


ward to with a good deal of dread, produced especially by 
anticipation of the Bishop s possible criticism on the sermons. 
But the dread soon disappeared in the presence of his 
kindly sympathy. He did not attempt/ writes one man, to 
pick our feeble productions to pieces, but he would point out 
to us mistakes of method and faults of construction. It 
seemed to me that the ideal of preaching which he aimed 
at was to reach the hearts of our people by plain ; direct 
statements of that which we ourselves sincerely believed. 

At one of these private interviews, a candidate was some 
what disconcerted because the Bishop, after looking at him 
for some time without speaking, asked him if he were engaged ; 
he then went on to give him some sound advice about the 
social difficulties of the large town to which he was going. 
He was keenly alive to the dangers of a curate s life, and to 
the disadvantage of his allowing himself to get entangled in 
an early engagement. He said that he would like to make 
a rule that no curate in his diocese should be allowed to 
get engaged without first bringing the young lady to him for 
his approval ; but if any did become engaged, he always 
showed a sympathetic interest 

On the Sunday afternoons after the Ordination the candi 
dates were asked to bring any relations or friends who had 
come to Peterborough for the service to tea at the Palace to 
see the Bishop. He always urged the candidates to stay in 
the Diocese, saying : * Don t leave your diocese ; you will go 
where you are not known. 

These days at the Palace [writes one of the men] had an 
enormous effect upon one s relationship to the Bishop. The 
impression which he left was a most marked one. We went 
away absolutely under the spell of his attractive personality. 
He left the impression of extraordinary kindness. I think 
the fascination which he exercised was almost unbounded. 
He had the power of making you feel that you were the one 
person he was interested in, and that he was anxious to see. 
He had the gift of never appearing bored. He never forgot 
us. The indelible impression left is one of great kindliness, 
graciousness, and a charm of manner which it is hardly pos 
sible to overstate. A 

1 This account of the Peterborough Ordinations is drawn mainly from re 
miniscences sent me by the Bishop s chaplains and by the men he ordained. 


The relations begun at the time of Ordination between 
the Bishop and his younger clergy continued during the years 
that followed. One of them writes : 

* I do not know how to analyse his influence on young 
men like myself, which turned admiration into enthusiastic 
devotion and absolute confidence. It was impossible to be 
afraid of him and impossible not to talk to him just as freely 
as if one was speaking to one s own father. He must have 
had a marvellous power of sympathy. We young men 
always felt he was our Bishop, belonging to us especially. . . . 
The happiest evenings in our lives were those nights after 
some long function, when he used to sit with all of us round 
him, 1 and encourage us to attack one of those delightful 
paradoxes of his, and we talked ^without any sense of restraint, 
with all the free feeling of a college common room, without 
feeling conscious of any check imposed on us by his presence, 
and yet somehow, with all that delightful sense of perfect 
freedom and open confidence, we were taken to a higher 
level of thought. 

1 It is useless for me to try to describe his method of 
influencing us. His method was himself. Just to be with 
him gave us all a new ideal and a new enthusiasm, beyond 
that personal devotion to him which made one ready to follow 
him anywhere and do anything he counselled. 

Patrons who made enquiries of the Bishop about suitable 
men for livings, were struck by his knowledge of the curates 
in his Diocese. He would do nothing which might weaken 
the personal tie with them. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks Aug. i, 1892. 

1 gave letters dimissory in one case, and was so impressed 
with the unsatisfactory nature of the proceeding that I have 
since then refused. I have all the responsibility and none of 
the means of assuring myself that I am right. I establish no 
bond between the young man and myself, and know little or 
nothing about him afterwards. I came to the conclusion that 
the temporary inconvenience to the incumbent was less serious 
than the weakening of diocesan unity. 

The following letters further illustrate the Bishop s rela 
tions to the younger clergy : 

1 This was at Mr. Bernard Wilson s house at Kettering. where his curates live 
with him. 


To one who was thinking of foreign service 

Peterborough: April II, 1892. 

* I have been thinking much about you. I see that you 
consider that you ought to go to Assyria, and I incline to 
think you ought. Somebody must go ; the call has come 
without your seeking it : there are no substantial reasons 
against it. Therefore I say, Go. Personally I should have 
liked to keep you, and I shall part from you with real sorrow : 
but I must not try to keep everybody in my diocese. 

I can sympathise with your difficulties in leaving your 
vicar in a strait. But that is just one of the motives which 
ought not to weigh with you. No one would have thought 
that it ought to prevent you from accepting a good living in 
England : therefore it ought not to prevent you from going 
to Assyria. Further, it is a great danger to form a construc 
tive judgment. The issue is simply Assyria or England. 
Times, seasons, conditions, circumstances, ought not to affect 
that. Further, if you decide to go, the sooner the better. 
You cannot have your heart in a work which you are soon to 
leave : life is too short to admit of transitionary states being 
prolonged. It would not be to the real interest of St. Mark s 
that you should stay for a time with the intention of going 
at a convenient season. There never will be a convenient 
season : something is always in the way. . . . Tell me your 
final decision. God bless you. 

To the same < St. Edmund s Vicarage, Northampton : April 21, 1892. 

* My advice certainly supposed that personal reasons were 
equal. But what you tell me entirely alters the case, (i) 
No one ought to commit himself to any work abroad, contrary 
to medical advice. In the army and civil service no one is 
eligible who cannot pass a medical examination. The same 
applies in foro interno to the clergy. 

(2) You are not justified in sacrificing your sister. 

* Therefore I unsay my previous advice, which was given 
on points of principle, not on questions of fact. 

1 But I do say, 

(i) Your mind ought to be made up quickly. 

(2) It ought to be made up decidedly, without any reserve 
about future possibilities. Never keep vague plans 
before you. Decide as well as you can and then 
dismiss the matter. 

* Get the facts before you and decide, and then forget all 
about it. 


To one who was going to Australia 

Peterborough : February 4, 1896. 

I have just seen Mr. and have discussed with him 

the condition of the parish. He has told me of your willing 
ness to stay with him for a time in his present anxiety. I 
cannot recommend you to do so to the abandonment of your 
previous project. Frankly, in this matter I am thinking much 
of yourself, and what is good for you. First, there is danger 
in abandoning a decision for private considerations. Secondly, 
I think that you would benefit in health by a sojourn in a 
good climate ; and that you would benefit by the new ex 
perience which you would there gain. Lastly, I think that 
the mere fact that your relations with your vicar have been 
so intimate is a proof that a variety of experience would be 

You will understand that in saying this I am considering 
you, perhaps unduly. But I think I may venture to give you 
my advice as freely and fully as the facts occur to my own 

To another October 15, 1895, 

* I am very sorry that you think of leaving your work at 

. But I feel that the claims of the Colonial Church are 

so pressing that I ought not to be selfish. If you offer your 
self for work in Brisbane, I should certainly consider that it 
did not break your connexion with this diocese, and I should 
welcome you at any time on your return. 

To the Rev. Canon Watson November 19, 1896. 

There is a point on which I should like you to act in the 
new calendar. I have undertaken to regard some clergy who 
have gone abroad as still connected with the diocese. The 
subject of foreign service is now before the Bishops generally : 
and a proposal, which doubtless will be accepted, is that such 
clergy be printed in the Diocesan Calendar for their diocese 
in a list headed On Foreign Service. I should like to leave 
such a record for my successor. He may remove it if he 
thinks fit. 

To one who had been offered a living in another diocese 

* February 14, 1893. 

* It is natural that L should have greater attractions 

than E , and I have nothing to urge why you should not 

follow your own desires. But there is this to be said : that 
if you leave the diocese you begin your career afresh. I do 


not know what you would ultimately like to settle down to : 
but you could tell me your wishes at any time : you will not 
have a similar opportunity elsewhere. 

I only wish you to look ahead before you decide. I do 

not wish to lay upon you any obligation to E . I am 

thankful for what you have done there : but I cannot ask 
you to go on as a matter of duty. I wish to leave you 
entirely free. May God direct you according to His good 

To the same October 23, 1895. 

I am going to ask you to succeed . I was reading 

the other day a letter of Bishop Grosseteste appointing an 
archdeacon. He said that if he could have found a man more 
suitable, he would not have appointed him to the post. I can 
say the same to you. I know the difficulties which must 
naturally exist, but you are better able to overcome them and 
make a new start than anyone else. . . . You have taken one 
hard post at my request. I feel an added responsibility in 
asking you to take another. God *be with you and direct 

To the Rev. Alan Williams 

The Palace, Peterborough : September 24, 1896. 

* My dear Mr. Williams, I am very glad that you have 
been called to such a useful and interesting work as the care 
of seamen in South Africa. It is a work in which you will 
certainly learn much, and I trust will do much. It demands 
the difficult qualities of entire simplicity and entire straight 
forwardness. It is easier to be complicated than to be 
simple, it is easier to be an ecclesiastical partisan than a 
straightforward Christian. You will have to fall back upon 
your inmost self. Forms are of use to us that they may 
train us into a strength of character which we can display 
under any circumstances, and can adapt to any forms which 
may be most useful to others. 

* This I think is the secret of all mission work readiness 
to approach others from the side from which they can be 
most easily approached, not only from the side on which 
we ourselves have learned. May God bless and prosper you. 

It was not only the younger clergy who were stimulated 
by the Bishop. One of his Rural Deans writes : 

He took the keenest interest in all his clergy, and was 
always prompt and thorough in dealing with any question 
great or small which they put before him. He expected 


them to be as thoroughly interested in their parishioners as 
he was in them, and this in a broad sense. He wished them 
to be ready to make use of all opportunities of healthy 
intercourse with people of all classes and all creeds or no 
creeds. At the same time he gave great encouragement to 
their specially spiritual work, whatever form it might take. 
He was very urgent with them as to the importance of 
promptness and care in all matters of business, and impressed 
upon them the importance of seeing what was the principle 
involved in any particular piece of business, so as to avoid 
worrying about details. Those who were called upon in 
some degree to share his responsibility by holding some 
subordinate office felt in an increased degree the same sense 
of a kindly and yet penetrating influence, impressing upon 
them the need of prompt decision and action and the 
avoidance of mere formality and conventionality. He gave 
his confidence generously, and he expected a man serving 
under him to use his own judgment and act accordingly. 
He was quite frank and candid both in judgment and advice, 
and was a thorough friend to all who worked with him, so 
that he called out a spirit of real loyalty quite consistent with 
occasional honest differences of opinion. 

He met his clergy as an equal, and never wished to impose 
his views upon them : 

To the Rev. Canon Watson <july i, 1894. 

* I thought that our meeting was very useful. I think 
that the fact of its informality contributed to that result. It 
is most useful for me to know what people think, and what 
objects are most worth pressing. I have no hope of suc 
ceeding in anything in which I cannot count on the hearty 
co-operation of the Rural Deans, not only hearty, but 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks (in answer to some objections to his Con 
firmation arrangements) 

October 20, 1894. 

* I am never wedded to my own ideas, but I will not 
change from respect to mere conservatism. I will discuss 
the point with you. 

* October 4, 1895. 

c I am not an obstinate person. I do not want to have my 
own way even when I am sure that it is right. You shall 
have the nine parochial centres and I will solace myself with 


thinking that if I set an example of obedience against my 
own judgment, it may be followed in turn. 

But he never hesitated to speak his opinion plainly, even 
when he did not wish to enforce it. When a certain dio 
cesan board procured the resignation of an official against his 
desire he wrote : 

You must discuss the position fully, and if your board 
thinks fit you must pass a resolution asking me to terminate 
his tenure of office, and then we must proceed to elect a much 
worse man, who will do what the clergy tell him. ... I can 
only stand outside and do \vhat I am told, which is the 
function of a Bishop in his own diocese. 

He wished to be a real friend to his clergy, and recognised 
with glad generosity the help they gave him : 

To the Rev. E. Grose Hodge Peterborough : February, 5, 1894. 

I shall part with you with very great regret ; and it cost 
me much to counsel you to go : but I thought that you ought 
not to refuse. We are only secure when we commit ourselves 
unreservedly to God s will and accept responsibilities which 
are not of our own seeking. Your loss is to me a serious one 
both personally and officially. I owe much to your constant 
kindness and unfailing loyalty. Your support made my 
work in Leicester comparatively easy, and I shall always 
remember that it was at your house that I first made the 
acquaintance of many whose co-operation has been most 
valuable. ... I hope that our personal friendship will remain 

To the Rev. A. O. James juiy 12, 1894. 

* Your letter causes me great regret. I know the difficulties 
that beset your parish, but I trusted that you had overcome 
the worst of them. I remember talking once with Bishop 
Whipple about his work among the Indians. He told me 
that for eight years he saw no signs of making any impression, 
then suddenly they began to gather round him. Is not that 
a parable of the way in which God works ? Can we not find 
parallels in some facts of our own spiritual life ? But the 
state of your health is a serious consideration, and though I 
might exhort you to stand against outward discouragement, 
I could not ask you to go on with work which seriously 
affected your health. . . . You will know that you have my 
fullest sympathy in every way. 


January 22, 1895. 

1 1 agree with you in not liking any question involving an 
individual clergyman from the point of view of " claims." So 
I will tell you exactly what I think. I regard you as one of 
the best clergy in my diocese ; and in the interest of the 
Church generally it is desirable that your gifts should be 
employed in the sphere where they are the most useful. As 
a matter of fact, it is easier to find a man who can do the 
work of a parish like All Saints than to find a man who can 
do the more individual work of a large country parish. If 
you find, after a trial, that the latter work is what you can do 
best, it is clearly desirable that you should do it* 

He tried to help his clergy in all their difficulties : 

To December 26, 1892. 

c It has struck me that your expenses at at first may 

have been considerable, and that rents may be irregular. I 
therefore venture to send you a small donation from a fund 
at my disposal, which may perhaps help to tide over 
difficulties at first 

October 19, 1893. 

I have been able to receive a grant of io/. to enable a 
clergyman to have a holiday. You need one : take it : and 
I hope the weather may continue. 

One of his clergy writes : 

I have wanted to write to you to say what a wonderful 
Bishop he was to me. . . . He was so great, but never too 
great but what he was ready to listen to my comparatively 
trifling troubles. I would not wish obviously that my 
name should be published in connexion with the enormous 
kindness he did me. I was in very great financial difficulties. 
He arranged with a bank, giving his name as a security, to 
find me money to tide over my difficulties. It was wonderful 
the way he did it, and for one who had no claims upon him. 
I wish this could be mentioned in his Life. He literally saved 
me, and enabled me to retain my position. All the world 
knew his intellectual power and his greatness as a Bishop, 
but I am thankful to have been amongst those who were 
privileged to know his tender sympathy and true-heartedness. 

The question of how to relieve the poverty of the clergy 
was constantly before the Bishop s mind. He believed that 
the only really satisfactory plan was to aim steadily and 
constantly at the augmentation of small livings, by adding 


to their endowment in accordance with the scheme laid down 
by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But to meet the pressing 
needs of the moment the Diocesan Conference of 1893 
decided to create a Diocesan Sustentation Fund, and the 
Bishop promised himself to give 2OO/. a year to it for five 

To the Rev. Canon Watson October i, 1893. 

I do not wish either to raise false expectations or to 
appeal in the first instance to the clergy to help their brethren. 
My own wish is that the new fund should be administered 
on the lines laid down by Hey gate and yourself i.e. that it 
should aim at some permanent result I want it to be 
strictly supplementary to the augmentation of poor benefices, 
proceeding on the same lines but allowing greater latitude. 
... I wish in every case where possible to make grants from 
the fund bear some relation to local effort. Nor do I wish 
to receive applications, but would prefer to proceed on the 
recommendations of the Rural Deans. They would take 
cases in hand and stir up patrons and churchwardens to 
begin. When they came with a proposal we could meet it 
... I want to put doles out of court to a great extent/ 

October 20, 1893. 

(l) Let us keep the words of the resolution : the grants 
are to " impoverished benefices " not incumbents. 

(2) I propose to act on actual knowledge, with reference 
to population and poverty, and stir up a parish to do some 
thing. Then when the fund comes to an end, the local 
something may remain. 

He was quick to recognise any local effort : 

To Mr. T. King Smith 

I would like to express to you my satisfaction at the 
prompt and generous way in which the parishioners of Raunds 
have received my suggestion that better provision should be 
made for the vicar. It is very pleasant to me to find such an 
example of loyalty, and readiness to recognise the obligations 
which the changing conditions of the present day bring 
before some parishes. 

The church was endowed in the past by voluntary con 
tributions. When these are now insufficient, the fact has 
only to be faced, and there is willingness to provide. I feel 
sure that Mr. Oldroyd will be drawn more closely to his people 
by this mark of their goodwill. 


He was disappointed by the small response made by the 
appeal for the Clergy Sustentation Fund. He always felt 
that it ought to be taken in hand vigorously by the laity, and 
that it was impossible for the clergy to plead for their own 

The question of the support of voluntary schools was of 
course constantly before him. He was convinced of the 
necessity of maintaining them. * Only by the continuance 
of voluntary schools, he said, can religious education be 
secured. He illustrated his objection to a system of secular 
education from the State, supplemented by religious teaching 
from the various Christian bodies by a parallel : The method 
of dichotomy has always an appearance of simple justice ; 
but the proposal of Solomon to apply it to a living organism 
revealed the true parent. Doubtless her preference for unity 
partook of the nature of obstruction. It seemed to him 
impossible that undenominational religious teaching should be 
satisfactory. He compared the supposed undenominational 
man with the ideal economic man created by a past genera 
tion of thinkers. * When a religious difficulty cropped 
up about education, legislation cautiously and tentatively 
proceeded to invent another ideal being, " the undenomina 
tional man." He was constructed on the same principles as 
the economic man. . . . The undenominational man had for 
his subject matter religion, and therefore could not be 
entirely inhuman, but he was obtained by cutting out of his 
opinions everything which anyone else objected to. 2 Yet 
he was always glad to recognise how good the religious 
teaching in the Board schools often was. 

To the Rev. S. W. Wigg * December 2, 1893. 

* There is only one sentence in your pamphlet which I 
think doubtful. ..." I do not think it well to discourage 
Board school teachers as though their work [in teaching 
religion] was necessarily useless. Nor do I think your 
dilemma, a fair one ; as you roll together your conception of 
the obligation of a Board School teacher and the consequent 
result of his work. What happens is this. A strong Church- 

1 Primary Charge. The Church and the Nation^ p. 68. 

a Peterborough Diocesan Conference, 1895. The Church and the Nation^ 
p. 133- 


man is told to give undenominational teaching ; but he can 
only teach as things appear to him. So far as he teaches, he 
teaches earnestly and well : but some things which he would 
wish to teach, he is forbidden to teach ; this does not make 
his work dishonest to himself, nor useless to those he 

1 1 only suggest some such sentence as this, as being fairer. 
" Undenominational teaching can, strictly speaking, only be 
given by one who belongs to no denomination ; however it 
is given, it implies abstinence on the part of the teacher from 
showing how religious truth comes home to his own heart." 
I dare say you can amend this. 

He was most anxious that no voluntary school should 
be given up unless it were absolutely necessary : 

To the Rev. A. E. Oldroyd * May 8, 1893. 

Your question is difficult. I see that a Board is inevitable. 
My general advice in such cases is keep the Church school, 
if possible, for a smaller number of children, i.e. let the Board 
do the main work, and make the Church school a select 
school. Can you keep it going for, say, 1 50 children ? . . . I 
can only suggest to you to consider the possibility of financing 
a smaller school on a Church basis." 

In this case the school was ultimately enlarged by voluntary 
effort, and a Board avoided. The same was done at Market 
Harborough, where the Bishop encouraged the people to 
make the necessary effort to rebuild their schools. He 
strongly advised the formation of funds to help endangered 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks j u l y 2 , 1892. 

I am glad to hear that an effort is being made in 
Leicester to raise a small fund which may be applied to the 
general maintenance of the Church schools in Leicester. The 
knowledge that local effort can be supplemented by help 
from a central source will be a most valuable encouragement 
to such schools as may have to face special difficulties or meet 
sudden demands. 

To the Rev. S. VV. Wigg April 28, 1894. 

There is no central organisation in Northampton, dealing 
with cases of endangered schools in the same way as does the 
Leicester Board. I wish you could do something towards 
emphasising the need of helping, by advice at all events, in 


every case. Really schools are maintained very often by a 
little heartening from outside. 

He considered the struggle to maintain the voluntary 
schools as a fight for liberty. He said * Surely true liberty 
consists in everyone having his own way so far as is com 
patible with the well-being of society as a whole. . . . We are 
not engaged in a hopeless struggle against a system which 
satisfies everybody except ourselves. On the contrary, we 
are maintaining a principle which makes for a larger con 
ception of individual liberty than that which at present 
prevails. l 

His own view as to the way in which the religious difficulty 
might be met is expressed in trie following letter : 

To Viscount Halifax Peterborough: December 18, 1894. 

The point about education schemes is not, whether or no 
we personally like them, but whether or no they have the best 
chance of being carried. 

* Now I think the first requisite in politics is to have a cry. 
The cry which was raised in 1870 was " No children to be 
taught out of public money, except what the public approves." 
This has led to the endeavour to discover a common 
residuum, which really satisfies no one. But a great many 
people are obliged to profess that it is excellent because they 
see no way out 

1 The only way out is to raise another cry, " All children 
to be taught the religion, or no religion, which their parents 
wish." This principle underlies your scheme, but is not 
stated with sufficient clearness to be catching. The scheme 
is too complicated, too like an attempt to get public money for 
voluntary schools without our equivalent. 

* No scheme has a chance of being considered which is not 
a final settlement, or which merely aims at bolstering up 
voluntary schools against board schools. Your scheme is 
open to the second objection, and also to the first. 

* I have my own view who has not ? Mine is contained 
in two provisions. 

*(i) All efficient schools to be maintained out of the 

(2) All managers to supply the religious teaching asked 
for by the parent, who shall fill up a paper, on sending his 
child to school. 

1 Primary Charge; published in The Church and the Nation, pp. 70, 71. 


* If the parental responsibility were recognised as the deter 
mining element in this matter, all the rest would follow. 
These are very crude opinions. We must give the Noncon 
formists a chance of a fresh start. This in politics is most 
desirable. No cry is ever dropped. You must substitute 
another which goes farther. You will rally no party in favour 
of saving voluntary schools as such. The Nonconformists 
are bound for consistency s sake that fatal incubus in politics 
to protest that they love the existing system. You can 
only cut the ground from under them by starting a new 
principle. Get the idea into people s heads that you are 
offering them permissive instead of prohibitive power, and 
they will possibly listen. Tell them " At present you are 
allowed to say what other people s children shall not be taught ; 
we wish you to say what your own shall be taught." Then 
you have popular control in an admissible form, and all 
dangerous questions are avoided. You recognise the parents 
perfect liberty and provide for it. What more is requisite ? 

Forgive the length of my remarks. But I wish we 
could all agree : at present our fertility is our bane. Some 
one once remarked that every invention which was useless for 
its original purpose could be used for making coffee. 

He wished to improve the quality of the religious teaching 
in the Church schools, and was not altogether satisfied with 
the mode of diocesan inspection of religious teaching : 

To Bishop Mitchinson May 20, 1895. 

This raises the whole question of the nature of diocesan 
inspection. My own opinion generally is, that it has followed 
too closely the example of H.M. Inspectors and aims at the 
wrong end. It formalises and secularises what ought to be 

free and religious. The charge against after all came 

to this, that he paid more attention to religion than to the 
kings of Israel. I know that he regarded religion perhaps 
too exclusively from its application to the soul in the 
sacraments . . . but he was on the right track. The mechanical 
system, however, has laid hold of the clergy, partly because it 
relieves them of responsibility. They say " Scripture know 
ledge is best taught by the master"; but I want them to 
teach religion. ... How I am to get these ideas into the 
mind of the clergy, I do not know. 

Keenly conscious of the good work that might be done 
for the Church by laymen, the Bishop tried to help the Lay 
Readers to make their Association more effective : 



To the Rev. Canon Stocks April 12, 1892. 

* All points are dependent on the vitality of the system. 
If the lay readers already existing will organise themselves 
and show a desire for work, they will become a powerful 
body. But no organisation from above can create ; it can 
only regulate and improve what exists. 

Above all, he tried to encourage his clergy to read and 
think. He organised courses of lectures for them in Leicester 
and Northampton on theology, Church history, and on social 
and economic questions. Cambridge professors and other 
students gave these lectures at his request, and lists of books 
to be studied were printed in the Diocesan Calendar. 

He was equally desirous to .deepen the spiritual life of his 
clergy, and in 1893 arranged for a clerical retreat to be held 
at Peterborough. In the letter of invitation he said : The 
object is to provide the means for quiet meditation on the 
duties of our high calling, and on our own deficiencies. . . . 
The time will be spent in entire quietness, so as to enable us 
to withdraw from the anxieties of daily life, and encourage us 
to meditate upon God and our souls. Between seventy and 
eighty clergy attended the first retreat, which was conducted 
by Canon Newbolt. The Bishop himself undertook the 
reading aloud at meals. After this the retreat became an 
annual institution. 

On first coming into the diocese, the Bishop was naturally 
beset with requests to do things of every kind and sort. 
( Please form a society for the protection of the new Bishop as 
soon as possible/ he wrote. He accepted all requests to open 
churches, * believing that if a man could restore his church he 
deserved recognition. He presided at the meetings of many 
societies ; but soon felt that he must learn how to refuse 
requests, though to say no was always difficult to him. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks August i, 1892. 

I cannot possibly preside at all the meetings of all 
societies. I did so at first, but you must try and repress 
continuous applications. 

Some things he would never do : 

To the Rev. December 24, 1894. 

1 1 am very glad that an attempt is to be made to free you 
from your difficulties. It has my warm sympathy, and I shall 


be glad to express my approval in any way that you think 
proper. But I have a strict rule never to act as patron nor 
Mrs. Creighton as patroness of a Bazaar. The reason is 
obvious. There are so many for so many purposes, that if 
I accept any responsibility for them, the task would be over 
whelming, and any principle of selection would create 
dissatisfaction. I could not give my name to all bazaars, 
I could not investigate them, I could not decide which were 
worthy of my support. I am therefore obliged to stand aloof 
from all. You will see that this is necessary. I can approve 
some objects, and I will gladly signify my approval in your 
case. But the particular method of a bazaar must stand on 
its own basis. 

The work of Missions always lay near his heart and the 
fact that the first Bishop of Mashonaland, Dr. Knight Bruce, 
was a former Merton pupil of his, led to his being the first 
president of the Mashonaland Missionary Association, in which 
he always took much interest. He was not a total abstainer, 
but was glad to help the temperance cause in every way in 
his power. Mr. Grose Hodge says : 

* It is perhaps due to his wide grasp of the Church s work 
as a whole that he was never absorbed in any one section 
of it. He could always see the other side. We could never 
make him an enthusiast in temperance work, though he 
recognised and spoke with admiration of the enthusiasm it 
kindled in others. The Diocesan Society flourished, and 
every officer of it felt that he had behind him in his Bishop 
one who knew the work he was doing, and who trusted him 
to do it, and would give most kindly and wise direction when 
ever he sought it. 

His speaking at temperance meetings won the approval 
even of such an enthusiast as Dr. Temple. His support and 
interest facilitated the carrying out of the scheme for founding 
a Diocesan Home for Fallen Women under the care of the 
Wantage Sisters, in the quiet village of Ketton. He cherished 
a hope of instituting an order of deaconesses in his diocese, but 
found the time not ripe, as the clergy did not seem to him 
sufficiently alive to the need for the work of highly trained 
women. He hoped that the day would come, but he was 
not given time to make the beginning. 

The large schemes for diocesan work did not keep him 

E 2 


from attention to details. He was a great stickler for 
verbal accuracy in anything written, and he was very par 
ticular as to the exact wording of any forms or notices. 

To Canon Watson October 16, 1893. 

. . . By all means print the Thanksgiving Collects with 
my authorisation. Only the expression " Collect for the 
day " is not accurate. In the days when Rubrics were drawn, 
people spoke grammar and talked sense. The Collect is 
of the day, and is followed by a prayer for grace. But no 
man ought to pray for the 25th Sunday after Trinity. It 
would be a gross piece of superstition. 

To the Rev. S. W. Wigg 

* It is well not to travel into* controverted questions more 
than is strictly necessary. . . . On page 10 I suggest for " an 
act of folly," a breach of diocesan duty. 

In the interests of accuracy he revised the brief historical 
chronicle at the beginning of the Diocesan Calendar. 

To the Rev. Canon Watson September 5, 1891. 

1 1 have made a few changes in the earlier part of the 
Chronicle, revising it in the light of recent work, and striking 
out things doubtful. 

1 St. Alban is so mythical and the date so hard to assign, 
that I think he can scarcely be made into a historical character. 
By inserting Aidan as parallel to Augustine, it is made clear 
that Christianity came into England from the north as well 
as the south, from Ireland as much as Rome. 

4 Alfred did not divide the kingdom into counties ; this is 
a pure legend. 

* October 30, 1891. 

* In the Chronicle I would not put the names of the 
British Bishops who are recorded as attending the Council of 
Aries. I cannot think they are genr.ine. ... I am of opinion 
that discreet silence concerning them is best. 

* January 5, 1892. 

My objection was to the insertion of names which are of 
doubtful identification into a short record of Church history. 
When the whole thing is done in two pages, the insertion of 
three names which require a commentary is disproportionate 
to the length of the sketch. ... I always object to put in a 
brief sketch as an assured fact that which is only conjecture. 
Let us stick to assured facts. 


Nothing that concerned the welfare of his clergy was too 
small for his attention. If he received any communication 
or complaint from a parishioner, it was his practice to refer it 
to the incumbent in the first instance. When twenty-eight 
parishioners in a country village petitioned him against the 
hymn-book used in their church, he wrote to inform the 
incumbent of the fact, and added : 

* I need not say that the choice of a hymn-book rests with 
the incumbent : but the discretion of the incumbent is limited 
by the wishes of the people. I have no wish to offer you any 
advice on the question itself : but it is well to meet the desires 
of the people as far as possible. ... I must answer the repre 
sentation in some form, and you must decide what that form 
is to be. 

Nothing caused the Bishop such deep pain as the know 
ledge of real evildoing on the part of any of his clergy. 
The thought of such cases, where often he could do nothing, 
used to haunt him. He tried to deal with them privately, 
and to trust to the force of his own exhortation rather than 
to the law. His Chancellor writes : 

Cases of scandal and immorality he managed without 
public litigation. In such cases, as in everything else, he was 
eminently practical. On one occasion there was a serious and 
apparently well-supported accusation made against one of 
his clergy. The Bishop, however, thought it right before taking 
proceedings to send down the deputy registrar to investigate 
the matter. This investigation resulted in the collapse of the 
whole thing, and the Bishop did not fail to do public justice 
to the incriminated clergyman. 

On another occasion the Bishop wrote to his Chancellor : 

* March 12, 1892. 

4 I had before me a case of a criminous clerk, which pre 
sented many legal difficulties. I acted upon my ecclesiastical 
conception of my office, and asked him to come and see me 
this morning as his Bishop. This was a step involving many 
difficulties, and I was anxious for a talk with you last night 
that I might have your advice how the interview might best 
be conducted without prejudice either to my future position 
as judge, or to the position of the accused. . . . But the 
matter is settled. The man came in response to my original 
call, and submitted himself entirely to me as his Father in 


God. I had taken the precaution to have a deed of resigna 
tion in my pocket ; he signed it on the spot. 

I cannot tell you how thankful I am. If I can pull through 
all my cases in that way but that is too much to expect 

Fortunately he was never driven to a prosecution. But 
the exertion of his personal power, or his authority as a 
Bishop in such dealings with criminous clergy, tried him to 
the very depths of his heart. A man of his tender sympathy, 
combined with so stern a sense of justice, could not see a 
fellow-creature, above all a brother priest, abased before him 
without painful emotion. 

His predecessor s chancellor had resigned, and on coming 
into his office the Bishop had at once to appoint a new 
chancellor. After careful inquiry, he offered the post to Mr. 
G. H. Blakesley : 

April 20, 1891. 

* Dear Mr. Blakesley, I should like to say one or two 
things. First, my reason for hoping that you would accept 
the post of chancellor was entirely founded on a desire to 
secure the services of the best man I could discover by such 
enquiries as I was able to make. Regarding all such appoint 
ments as trusts, I can only say that I have in your case acted 
to the best of my ability on public grounds. 

Next let me express my hope that our relationship may 
rest on personal friendship and not stay on mere official and 
formal lines. 

Mr. Blakesley considers that the Bishop s * power in the 
diocese depended not so much on his official position as on the 
personal influence exercised by his character. * An unclouded 
intellectual fairness seemed to disarm prejudice. He would 
not meet a proposition with the opposite proposition but with 
a reason, probably in the form of a question addressed to 
one s reasoning powers. He would force a man to pay 
attention to his reasoning powers ; and in attending to that, 
the man would forget to keep his passion boiling. He could 
get things done. He instituted a plan of diocesan trustees, 
which has since served as a model for other dioceses. 

To Mr. G. H. Blakesley September 14, 1892. 

* There is a long-standing committee about Diocesan Trusts. 
I told them they positively must have a scheme ready for our 


meeting, and in such a shape that it could be acted upon. 
This stiired them up, and I have heard from time to time of 
their progress. But I have not yet seen the scheme nor your 
opinion. ... I am further enquiring into the titles of all the 
school buildings in the Diocese, and shall find ample scope 
for the activity of the Trustees as soon as they come into 

Whilst at Peterborough the Bishop was little troubled 
with ritual difficulties. At the Cathedral he fell in with the 
wishes of the Chapter in introducing the Eastward position. 
This had always been his habit, but he never wished to offend 
others. Mr. Blakesley says : 

1 It is hardly necessary to mention his natural and un 
affected good feeling in dealing with people. I remember 
that in the course of his visitation he came to a place where 
the clergyman, a very charming old gentleman, had kept up 
the practice of consecrating on the north side. I do not 
know whether the Bishop had any notice of this beforehand, 
but, at all events, just before the service he asked this clergy 
man what was his practice ; and upon that information took 
care to follow the same practice in conducting the service. 
Afterwards I heard the clergyman thanking the Bishop most 
warmly ; and the Bishop, though extremely pleased at the 
old man s appreciation of the consideration shown him, was 
rather surprised that he should make so much of it 

It of course sometimes happened that he had to try to 
make peace between an incumbent and his people. One 
of the most difficult cases of this kind led to a discon 
tented parishioner finally resorting to the painful irreverence 
of sending the Bishop by post a consecrated wafer, which he 
had received at Holy Communion. The Bishop at once 
wrote to the incumbent in question : 

I again ask you to submit to my judgment in the matter 
and to use some form of bread which resembles that in 
common use. Nothing need be said, and everyone would 
feel grateful. The broad reason which I would put before 
you is this. The symbolism contained in the material of the 
Sacrament is the sanctification of our life, its needs and its 
feelings. If the bread is not understood to be bread, the 
meaning of the Sacrament is obscured. Your people do not 
understand what you use to be bread : they have a physical 
repugnance to its consumption as such. The matter is too 


serious for a trial of perseverance between you and them. 
I ask you on this point to give way. 

The incumbent answered that if the Bishop would com 
mand him to make this change and authorise him to state as 
much from the pulpit, he would not venture to disobey ; 
adding that he thought this was a matter within the discre 
tion of the Ordinary. 

To this the Bishop, who had already been much troubled 
by the discord in this particular parish, answered, with con 
siderable sternness : 

I consider that the relationship of a bishop to his clergy 
is paternal and hortatory. I never have recourse to my 
authority as Ordinary unless I am appealed to in that capacity. 
No good purpose would be served by my giving you an order 
which you took as the text for a sermon. 

I am totally unable to follow your arguments. They 
are excellent as abstract propositions, but seem to me to have 
no relation to the actual condition of affairs in the parish 
of . 

* It is, however, useless for me to continue to discuss 
matters with you. I can only say that I cannot agree with 
your assertion of clerical autocracy at all costs ; that I con 
sider your attitude as self-willed and lacking in that sym 
pathy with your people which is part of the clerical office, 
indeed a very large part ; that you seem to me to forget 
your duty " to maintain and set forward as much as lieth in 
you, quietness, peace, and love, among all Christian people, 
and especially among them that are committed to your 

I can only answer any letters which I may receive from 
your parishioners by saying that I have tendered my advice, 
and that it has been refused. 

I am very sorry to be obliged to write to any of my 
clergy, especially to one whose zeal and good intentions I 
admire, in this manner. 

The incumbent was deeply wounded by the Bishop s 
letter, which he considered unjust. At the same time he ex 
pressed his regret that he had used such a word as Ordinary 
in a loose and popular sense, and assured the Bishop that he 
had no desire to claim excessive independence. To this the 
Bishop answered : 


Your letter begins by accusing me of injustice and ends 
by saying that you are not surprised that your language 
conveyed to me an erroneous impression. 

The facts are that I have twice made a request to you, 
and you have twice refused to comply with it. In your 
second refusal you seemed to me to challenge me to give 
you a formal command, and you implied that, if you obeyed, 
you reserved your right to criticise it publicly. 

My opinion is that in the present condition of 

parish the use of wafer bread is undesirable and should be 

* If you think it better to inform your people that you 
discontinue its use at my request, I have no objection. If 
that were the meaning of your letter, I am sorry that I mis 
understood it 

My conception of the Episcopal Office is that of a 
friendly and paternal relationship with my clergy. I do not 
wish to tender advice, or to interfere with their discretion, 
without strong reason, and a sense of responsibility. If any 
one of them refuses my advice and appeals to my authority, 
it is a breach of my friendly and paternal relationship which 
cannot be restored. 

If your meaning was that you wished for my permission 
to state that I was responsible for advising you to discontinue 
a certain use which you had adopted, and that you followed 
my advice, I am quite willing that you should do so. But it 
must remain a matter of advice, not of command. We are 
still working together, though you may feel some reluctance. 

The Bishop s advice was followed ; and a little while 
afterwards the incumbent wrote to tell him that the conse 
quences which he had feared might result had not ensued, but 
that, on the contrary, he had observed a certain softening of 
asperity in some quarters. When some time later this clergy 
man left the diocese the Bishop wrote to express his regret 
at his departure, adding : * I am sorry that on points of 
practical wisdom you did not always agree with me ; but 
that did not affect my respect for your qualities and my 
sympathy with your objects. And the clergyman, looking 
back on the past, says : He and I differed sharply about 
the way of treating certain people. I can see now that 
he was at least sometimes right and I was wrong ; but still 
I think he made some mistakes. I was very angry at the 


time, much more angry than I had any right to be, and he 
treated me with unfailing kindness/ 

The Bishop had a great deal of patronage in his hands, 
but it was for the most part very poor. He was clear that 
it was his duty to attend first to the claims of his own clergy, 
and he valued lay patronage because it brought new blood 
into a diocese. It was grievous to him to have to ask men to 
undertake hard posts without adequate remuneration. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks December 17, 1891. 

4 Do you know of anyone with a missionary spirit who 
would like a benefice of 500 people which is only worth 8o/. 
a year without a house ? It is dreadful to have to ask such 
a question. 

Even such appointments were not made without the 
utmost possible care. * However poor a benefice may be, he 
wrote, I could not offer it to a man who was not, so far as 
I could judge, well fitted for it. 

The diocese soon experienced the advantage of the 
Bishop s business capacity. He was a first-rate chairman, 
always absolutely just, never taking up the time of a meeting 
himself or trying to force his views upon it ; but ever 
ready to find a way out of a difficulty, to clear up the 
point at issue, or show the real bearing of the question under 
discussion. His care in the use of words made him skilful 
in the framing of rules or resolutions. His unvarying good- 
temper enabled him to keep a meeting cheerful and to enliven 
it by an occasional joke. He neither allowed time to be 
wasted in needless discussion, nor did he drive the business 
through so quickly as to give the impression that the only 
thing he wanted was to get it over. What men felt was that 
he wished the right thing to be done. If his way differed 
from theirs, he did not want them to take it because it was his 

Archdeacon Light foot writes : His clear grasp of business, 
wonderful memory, and readiness to listen to current diocesan 
matters often impressed me. In clerical discussions he was 
able to dismiss with great decision, and with no trace what 
ever of acerbity, subjects brought forward for discussion 
which he thought it undesirable to consider. He could keep 


discussions close to the point and control meetings in a re 
markably easy manner. He bore no malice on account of 
opposition and frequently gave way to it when he thought 
the point in question was not important enough to justify a 
struggle, although his own opinion remained unaltered. 

Shortly after his coming the regulations for both the 
Diocesan and Ruri-decanal Conferences were revised. All 
his suggestions were in the direction of greater freedom. 
Elections were to be by ballot, speakers who were not 
members of the Conference might be invited for any particular 
discussion. He did not wish, as had been the custom, himself 
to suggest the subjects for discussion. 

To Bishop Mitchinson March 7, 1892. 

* Your suggestion about Ruri-decanal Conferences exactly 
fits with mine own opinion. There are no questions on 
which I want the opinion of my diocese : but I should like to 
know what amount of vitality the Conferences possess, and I 
think they ought to have powers of initiative. I should learn 
more at present certainly from knowing what they think 
important, than from consulting them on any fixed points. 

In the general work of the Diocese, he had the assistance 
of Dr. Thicknesse, Bishop of Leicester, as his Suffragan, and 
of Bishop Mitchinson, then rector of Sibstone, as Assistant 
Bishop. He was always ready to consult them as well as 
his Archdeacons and Rural Deans on all matters of import 
ance, and treated all those who worked with him with the 
most absolute confidence and frankness. 

He kept no domestic chaplain. Mr. G. J. Gray 1 helped 
him as private secretary for an hour or so every day. All 
letters of importance he answered himself; he was a very 
quick and terse letter writer, and got through his cor 
respondence with much rapidity. He had no rules of order 
or method for himself, and never kept his letters or papers on 
any apparent system, nor did he like that others should arrange 
them for him. Yet somehow business was always promptly 
attended to, important and often unimportant letters were at 
once answered. Papers were not mislaid, and in the midst of 

1 Mr. Gray was then head clerk in the Chapter Clerk s Office. He has since 
been appointed Chapter Clerk. The Bishop found his services at all times most 


the apparent disorder of his study tables, he generally knew 
how to find what he wanted. Only sometimes he would 
come in despair to ask me to find a book or paper which 
he had mislaid. But it was useless to attempt to get him 
to submit to have his papers kept with any system. He 
hated having anything thrown away ; and it seemed to 
cause him real agony when at the beginning of the year I 
persuaded him to allow me to sort his baskets full of pamphlets 
and papers of all kinds. It was a wrench to give up even 
what seemed quite useless to the waste-paper basket ; and it 
was only for a short while at a time that he could bear the 
misery of sorting or arranging. Yet he did not store useless 
masses of letters, and used, at, the cost of great effort, to go 
through at the beginning of each year the correspondence of 
the last, and allow what he wished kept to be sorted and 
filed. His methods were a curious mixture of disorder and 
order. In the ordinary living rooms of the house and in the 
garden he noted the smallest piece of disorder and was 
insistent to have it remedied, but he did not mind what others 
would have considered disorder in his own study. He was 
very particular in his use of books, and could not bear to see 
any of his books carelessly handled ; sometimes it seemed as if 
he hardly liked them to be even read. He valued a book as 
a book, and though trash of all kinds, first books of poems, 
sermons &c. were sent him, he would seldom allow any book 
to be destroyed, and a place for everything had to be found 
on his shelves. He would say, You can never tell what 
may not turn out to be useful, but when a thing is once 
destroyed it can never be used. 

When he was at home at Peterborough he seldom did any 
business in the evening. His working time was the morning, 
and the hours between tea and dinner at eight o clock. He 
always allowed himself to be interrupted by any one who 
wished to see him. He used to maintain, says Canon 
Clayton, that he was not really interrupted in his work by 
suspensions of it. * I shall go on with what I am doing, he 
once said, the moment you leave, just as if you had not been 
here at all. 

He gave the impression that he was ready to talk freely 
and unguardedly with anybody about anybody ; and to invite 


expressions of opinion upon all sorts of questions, persona^ 
practical, or theoretical. People did not always realise that 
this was his method of gaining information, and that he gave 
much less than he got In home life he talked little about 
diocesan affairs, though he was always ready to tell what he 
had done and whom he had seen, but he was utterly averse 
to all gossip or unnecessary talk about what he considered 
mere matters of business, and considered it much better that 
his wife and family should be really ignorant of matters 
which related purely to his official life ; he preferred to talk 
with them on other subjects. Some hasty observers may have 
put him down as indiscreet, but those who knew him best, 
knew how scrupulously discreet he really was. Of course 
many stories got about with regard to his sayings and doings, 
but he never troubled to contradict them, and after a while he 
made a resolution to destroy all anonymous letters unread. 
To a clergyman who had difficulties with his parishioners and 
who wrote to ask him whether it was true as reported that 

the Bishop had said " that it was a pity that Mr. was 

upsetting his parish for the sake of one detail of ritual derived 
from the Hereford use, he answered : 

You really ought not to ask for explanation of reported 
remarks which have no authority. But I do not mind saying 
for this time only that I could not have made the remark you 
quote, for I am ignorant of any Hereford ritual, and I do not 
know why you are upsetting the work of parish. 

As was natural many difficult questions were asked him 
by his clergy as to their procedure under exceptional cases. 
The following letters will give an idea of his way of dealing 
with some of these problems : 

To the Rev. E. Grose Hodge April 6, 1892. 

Dear Hodge, The question of the use of unfermented 
beverage at the Holy Communion has, I believe, been dis 
cussed at the Lambeth Conference, and has been emphatically 

The grounds, I think, are mainly two : (i) the objection 
to make any change in the elements which were used at the 

* (2) The nature of the symbolism involved in the 
emblems chosen. Wine seems to symbolise the emotional 


and passionate part of human nature, which must not be cast 
out but be sanctified. 

* While, therefore, it is impossible to change a divine 
ordinance, there still remains the question, can occasional 
difficulties be met ? 

I think there are at least three ways in which difficulties 
can be minimised, if not overcome. 

*(i) The wine used may be mixed with water, without 
any ceremonial, by the simple expedient of half filling the 
cup with water, before it is placed on the Credence or on the 
Holy Table. 

(2) In the case of those who think it unwise for them to 
partake of wine, however diluted, I have no hesitation in 
saying that they receive the full benefit of the Sacrament 
if they partake only under one 1 kind. My practical advice 
would be to any clergyman who was convinced that the 
objection was well founded, that he should administer the 
bread and give the cup into the hand, but be satisfied with a 
symbolical action of drinking. 

4 (3) It is possible, if there are objections to what I have 
just said, for such persons to be present at Holy Communion 
without communicating bodily, but with the desire to do so 
by faith. 

The rubric at the end of the " Communion of the Sick 
justifies this in the case of " any just impediment." 

1 All these suggestions are, I am aware, to some people 
unpalatable, because they are connected in their mind with 
ceremonies or with ideas with which they do not wish to 
connect themselves. This is no doubt unfortunate ; but 
I think it is well to consider things in themselves, apart from 
associations which are not necessarily relevant. 

1 My point is, that these are modes by which scruples can 
be met, without taking the very serious step of altering the 
Institution of the Sacrament. I do not say that any mode is 
free from objections. But remember that the whole history 
of medieval abuses shows the danger of departing a hair s 
breadth from Scriptural and primitive usage. All that turned 
into abuse was at first successful and convenient, and met 
some need. What was done for practical utility became 
a basis of speculative ingenuity. Think of the practical 
difficulties which would attend on occasional and exceptional 
Celebration. How would you announce it ? Would it not 
form two parties ? How far might it be extended ? What 
amount of scruple, or desire, or convenience would be 
necessary to justify some other change ? 


Again I say the rite itself must remain unchanged ; but 
it is possible, with reasonable latitude, for the individual to 
find a means of adapting the universal rite to his particular 
case. I have merely made suggestions ; there may be other 
modes which have not occurred to me. 

To the Rev. E. A. Knox (now Bishop of Manchester) 

in answer to a question about admitting certain nonconformists to Com 
munion, who were unwilling to be confirmed lest they should seem to cast a slur 
upon the status of communicants in nonconformist bodies with which they had 
been long associated : 

Peterborough: September 22, 1892. 

My dear Knox, . . . The question which you ask me 
is a difficult one, and I have never had an opportunity of 
discussing it with other bishops. When my advice has been 
asked by any of my clergy, it has always been given on the 
side of freedom. In the case which you submit, two un 
confirmed persons are admitted to Holy Communion ; but 
I gather that from time to time a hope is expressed that 
they will be confirmed, so as to do away with an irregularity. 
I presume that the irregularity arises in consequence of the 
Rubric " None shall be admitted to the Holy Communion, 
until such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous 
to be confirmed." The argument from this is that the process 
contemplated by the Prayer Book is Baptism, Confirmation, 
Communion ; and the clergyman does not like to pass over 
or omit one member of it. 

1 The case so stated is a strong one. It can only be met 
by pleading for an historical interpretation of the Rubric, on 
the ground that it was framed for normal cases and did not 
contemplate the case of nonconformists. They were baptized 
outside the Church of England, but their baptism is valid. 
They went through instruction for the completion of their 
baptism, and that completion of their spiritual maturity was 
recognised by the officers of their own body ; but here rises 
the vital question can that recognition be regarded as valid, 
i.e. as taking the place of Confirmation ? 

The statement of the position which you lay before rne 
leads up to the answer, Yes. And if the clergyman in question 
admitted the persons you mention to Communion without 
raising some sort of protest, it would be because he also 
answered, Yes. I think you will agree with me that this 
would be a great responsibility for any individual to under 
take. The position of the Church of England in maintaining 
Apostolic usage as regards Confirmation is unique in 
Christendom, and follows Scriptural precedent without ex 
plaining away anything. The Greek Church combines 


Confirmation with Baptism. The Roman Church omits the 
outward sign, there is no laying on of hands. The Church of 
England without exalting Confirmation to a place which 
it cannot claim, follows the primitive record strictly to the 

I think that a clergyman is acting up to the spirit of the 
Church of England if he practically says : " I cannot ex 
communicate you because you grew up in a system different 
from my own. But I am bound to call your attention to that 
system as a whole. Look at it altogether. If you enter it in 
part, there are obvious advantages in entering upon all that 
it can give." 

The advice which I have given in particular cases has 
been founded on this view. The result has been in almost 
every case that scruples have disappeared. I am willing 
to confirm privately, even to adapt the questions in the Con 
firmation Service to the particular case. But I think it would 
be difficult to lay down an equivalent to Confirmation in 
other systems, or to dispense from it absolutely in some cases. 

* This is my position as an interpreter of the Prayer Book. 
But I fully sympathise with the difficulties of your friends. 
It is to be observed, however, that in their case, as I gather, 
they have been admitted to Communion, without Confirma 
tion so that subsequent Confirmation would not cast a slur 
upon nonconforming Communion, nor admit the absolute 
necessity of Confirmation as a condition precedent. It would 
simply mean an acceptance of the whole system of the Church 
of England ; and a belief that there was some value in a rite 
which, though not founded by Christ Himself, was used by 
the Apostles. 

* Peterborough : September 24, 1892. 

* Dear Knox, Let me supplement my last letter by one 
or two remarks. 

1 (i) It would not naturally be the duty of a clergyman to 
enquire into the qualifications of a communicant who was not 
a parishioner. The fact that they presented themselves, and 
that he had no reason for thinking them unworthy, would be 
a sufficient justification for his administration. But the 
position of the parish priest, who has full knowledge, is 
different. He is bound to make up his mind about the mean 
ing of the rubric " ready and desirous to be confirmed." 

* (2) I, as bishop, on being asked my opinion about the 
clergyman s action, am bound to resolve myself into a judge. 
I cannot, if he interprets that rubric literally, override his 
interpretation and order him to administer. In the same 
way, I can imagine some principles of interpretation which, if 


laid before me, would be sufficient to enable me not to order 
him to discontinue administering if he thought fit to do so. 

(3) But this is purely judicial. Personally I see the 
difficulties on both sides of those concerned. On both sides 
there are conscientious scruples. I gather that the clergyman 
has already surrendered some of his. He commits what he 
believes to be an irregularity, but expresses a hope that it 
may cease. By so doing he has removed some of the scruples 
on the other side, and has raised the question, * Can his 
sacrifice of strict logical principle be met by a charitable 
concession ? 

4 (4) I have not entered upon the question of the value or 
meaning of Confirmation in itself. It is enough to say that 
any effort to draw nigh to God in a definite manner becomes 
to the faithful heart all that the rite implies and even more. 

St. Giles Vicarage, Northampton: September 29, 1892. 

Dear Knox, I am very much obliged to you for 

sending me Mrs. s letter, and I am very thankful that 

anything I said has been of use in bringing about a result 
which will help in promoting harmonious co-operation in our 

Master s service : I fully appreciate Mrs. s attitude, and 

her sacrifice of some scruples to the cause of practical unity. . . 
I need not say how grateful I am to you for helping towards 
this result. I always feel that our differences come far more 
from unchristian temper than from any other cause. In the 
presence of our Lord they surely reduce themselves to small 
proportions. 1 

In answer to a question about admitting to Communion a man who had 
married his deceased wife s sister : 

November 14, 1892. 

The question which you refer to me about admitting to 
Holy Communion persons not legally married is a serious 
one. I have had some difficulty in deciding what answer to 
give. But it seems to me that, so long as two persons 
continue to Live together unlawfully, it is impossible to treat 
them as pious Christian people. If they pledge their word 
that they do not cohabit, but only live under the same roof, 
that alters the case. But so long as illicit cohabitation 
continues, the offence continues. 

It may be that there are extenuating circumstances. 
You may explain that in refusing Communion you are not 
judging. But the Christian community must be protected 
from open scandal, and you are a guardian of that community. 
Deprivation of Holy Communion is a loss of privilege, which 


is forfeited so long as the offence remains. But deprivation 
of Holy Communion does not cut off from Communion with 
God. The Church is more merciful than society : God is 
more merciful than the Church dares to be. In our desire to 
approximate to what we hope may be God s judgment, we 
must not sacrifice the principles which God has commanded 
His Church to enforce. I do not see how those who continue 
to live in a state forbidden by the law of the Church and the 
State alike can expect to do so without forfeiting some 

About the admission of a Roman Priest into the Anglican Church : 

January 5, 1893. 

I liked what I saw of Mr. , but I did not gather that 

his reasons for leaving the Roman Church went further than 
a desire to be free from an excessive discipline, and I 
suspected that this particularly pointed to matrimony. The 
Romans always say that a priest only leaves them to get 
married. This may be so, but it does not affect the question, 
as marriage may well be a point round which a good many 
considerations centre. I should be very glad if you would 
make quiet enquiry about the opinion held of him in his own 

body at . I do not wish to make it easy for him to come 


In answer to a question as to what a clergyman should do who had been asked 
by a Presbyterian living in his parish, a small country village, to baptize his child, 
with the stipulation that the child should not be brought into the English Church : 

September 5, 1893. 

The case which you bring before me does not seem to me 
to fall under the Rubric, which was framed in view only of 
members of our Church, and prescribes the normal proceeding 
towards them. 

4 You are not asked to officiate as a clergyman towards 
members of your own Church : but you are asked to perform 
a rite for those who are not under your spiritual jurisdiction, 
to help them, in fact, in an emergency. 

* Such a matter is in your discretion. Baptism is a rite of 
almost every religious body : it may be performed by a lay 
man in case of necessity. In this instance you are asked to 
perform it, not as a Priest of the Church of England, but as a 
minister of religion. It is something outside your official 
duty and not governed by the same rules. Public baptism 
involves both baptism and reception into the Church of England. 
1 do not see any reason why, in your capacity as a spiritual 
person, you should not perform the first part privately, though 


you are not requested to do the second publicly. It is in 
itself important that a child should be baptized into Christ s 
Church ; and I should be inclined to baptize anyone who 
applied, on grounds of Christian charity. 

In reply to a question how to deal with a Rechabite who refused to receive 
the Chalice at Holy Communion : 

February I, 1894. 

I think that it is entirely unreasonable, even partaking of 
the nature of schism, for an individual to set himself up 
against the custom of the universal Church. Further, such 
a position shows an ignorance of the meaning of the 
Sacrament of the Altar, in which the Bread symbolises the 
sanctifkation of our body in all its necessary wants, and the 
wine symbolises the sanctification of all our emotions and 
imaginings. To refuse to communicate under both kinds is 
to condemn as necessarily evil all the emotional and artistic 
side of life. Is this what your man really and seriously 
means ? 

1 At the same time there is no doubt that Communion 
under one kind is complete ; and I would not limit your 
discretion if you thought fit to use it. 

In former times a man who had a scruple recognised 
that he was a " weak brother : there is just a chance now 
that scrupulosity should be claimed as a sign of strength. 

I should advise you that you told your patient, for I 
must regard him as a moral invalid, to attend and make an 
act of spiritual Communion without partaking. There is a 
certain danger of promoting sectarianism by two modes of 
administration. It would be a question for discussion which 
was better and a controversy would not be edifying. 

In answer to a question about the conduct of burials during an epidemic of 
small-pox : 

May 14, 1894. 

The Rubric which says that the priest shall " go either 
into the church or towards the grave" recognises a discre 
tionary power, which it would be wise to use in the case of 
infection. It would seem that the direction " after they are 
come into the church " specifies the use of the ?salm and 
lesson only in cases when the church is entered. In the case 
when you go direct to the grave, they are not obligatory, and 
I do not suppose that many people would wish them to be 
said in the open air. If they did, it might be well to consult 
their wishes. 


About a child baptized by a Roman Priest : 

May 15, 1894. 

c It seems to me (i) that the baptism was of course valid, 
and therefore cannot be repeated. 

(2) The form of reception in the Prayer-book is " into 
the congregation of Christ s flock," i.e. into the universal 
Church of Christ, which is apart from, and beyond, differences 
such as exist between the Church of England and the Church 
of Rome. There is no form of reception for a child into the 
Church of England as such, and I do not think such a form is 
necessary. I therefore cannot advise you to use the Prayer- 
book form in this sense. 

1 But, this is to be remembered. Baptism is into Christ s 
Church ; not into the Roman branch of it The fact that 
the child has been baptized by a Roman priest establishes no 
claim that it should be brought up according to Roman 
teaching. It is just as much a member of the Church of 
England as of the Church of Rome ; it is " a member of 
Christ." The father can decide with perfect freedom which 
communion it is to belong to, and what tenets it is to be 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks Peterborough: March 18, 1895. 

* I returned late on Saturday, better for my holiday, though 
it was not a great success as regards weather. . . . 

The marriage question is dreadfully difficult, and would 
require a volume. I am sorry for the attitude recently taken 
up by Luckock and others. It is not founded on sound know 
ledge. Speaking generally, the question raises in its ex 
tremist form the problem of the actual application to life of 
the principles of the Gospel. We must remember it cannot 
be remembered too much that the Gospel consists of 
principles not of maxims. The only possible principle con 
cerning marriage is that it is indissoluble. But all principles 
are set aside by sin : and our Lord recognised that as regards 
marriage (the interpretation of Trowsia as prenuptial un- 
chastity will not do. Such a man as the Bishop of Lincoln 
is against it on patristic grounds. It is untenable). I must 
own myself to a strong indisposition to set the Church against 
the State on such a point as the interpretation of the latitude 
to be assigned to the permission of dissolution which our 
Lord s words imply. It has always been found difficult to 
adjust law and equity. But is the Church on this point to 
admit of no equity ? The medieval system was a mass of 
fictions or dispensations and subterfuges. The question has 
always troubled the English Church. Cranmer, Andrewes, 


Laud, alike had no fixed principles. Now the State has 
taken the matter into its hand and marriages are primarily 
civil contracts. We as Christians abhor divorce : but when 
a divorce has been judged necessary, are we to refuse any 
liberty to the innocent and wronged party ? It seems to me 
a matter for our discretion on equitable grounds in each case. 
I could not advise any of my clergy to refuse to solemnise a 
marriage of an innocent person who genuinely desired God s 
blessing. I prefer to err on the side of charity. 

Writing to Archbishop Benson, he treats of the same subject : 

Peterborough: October 22, 1895. 

* My dear Archbishop, . ... As I am writing on histori 
cal subjects, let me advise you, if you wish to laugh, to read a 
review by Professor Maitland in the last number of the 
" Historical Review " of Luckock s " Marriage." It only deals 
with a small point in medieval history, but is delightfully 

On that terrible question of Marriage, Burnet says that 
Cranmer wrote a " large book " on Northampton s case, " the 
original of which I have perused." If this could be found, it 
would be most valuable. What people call " the law of the 
Church " became unworkable when dispensations were cut off. 
English Canonists then disappeared, and ecclesiastical lawyers 
tried to work tentatively a system which they did not under 
stand. Cranmer must have come to some definite conclusions 
and probably thought the matter out 

About the use of the Athanasian Creed : 

1 December 31, 1895. 

1 I have received a complaint that on Christmas day you 
did not say the Creed of St. Athanasius in your church. 
I can only call your attention to the fact that the Rubric 
enjoins its use on certain Holy days and leaves no discretion 
either to you or me. L 

1 At Embleton Dr. Creighton had never said the Athanasian Creed. He 
considered it too difficult for his people, and nobody interfered to prevent him 
doing as he liked. Probably he was altogether more individual then than he 
would have been later, when experience had taught him more about the neces 
sity for order and submission to authority. For himself he valued the Creed and 
I have often heard him defend it. 



WHEN he became a bishop, Dr. Creighton knew that he must 
give up hope of much study or literary production, and he at 
once resigned his editorship of ihe Historical Review. 

To Mr. R. L. Poole Cambridge: February 25, 1891. 

I should like your advice about the editorship of the 
" Historical Review." My first thought has not come off. . . . 
Now I think that, though you will be the motive power, it is 
well to have a figure-head ; a man who can say no without 
giving offence, who can resist pressure because he is removed 
from it. My chief work has been in this sphere, and such 
success as I have had, is due to the fact that I have managed 
to keep a team together without giving much offence, and 
have not seemed to favour any particular school. I have even 
admitted drivel to secure breadth. 

To Mr. C. J. Longman March 3, 1891. 

4 1 have succeeded in persuading S. R. Gardiner to under 
take the supervision of the " Historical Review." This will do 
excellently. Poole will do the hard work willingly, but Gardiner 
will direct. 

To Mr. R. L. Poole April 6, 1891. 

1 Do not alter the title of the Review : let me wear to the 
last my only actual dignities . . . \\ hen I have ceased to be 
editor, I should like just so much recognition as to be put on 
the free list. 

* April 13, 1891. 

1 I look with great regret on the severance of our con 
nexion, which has been very pleasant to me in every way. 
We had a difficult job to do and we have done it somehow : 
at all events we have something to show in the way of an 
accomplished fact. It is improbable that I should ever do so 
big a piece of work again with so little friction and with such 


ready help. I can only thank you very sincerely for your 
willingness to save me, and go beyond the bond, whenever I 
imposed upon your good nature. I hope you will make use 
of my Cambridge ladies for reviews. 

He always continued to be interested in the Review, 
and wrote for it from time to time. He hoped still to go 
on with the History of the Papacy 5 even if his pro 
gress must be very slow, and had brought with him from 
Cambridge a new volume * within measurable distance of 
completion, at which he worked whenever he could find a 
moment. He also amused himself with continuing a series 
of articles which he had begun for * The Leisure Hour on the 
English Shires. These articles were * the result of impressions 
produced by rambles in various parts of England, and their 
object was to point out those local peculiarities of life, 
manners and customs, which year by year are growing less 
strong, as people move about more freely, to try to see how 
those local peculiarities arose, and to bring out the traces of 
the independent life of the English shires/ They show the 
spirit in which he himself rambled about England, and made 
the country which he saw tell him its story. They were 
published in book form in 1897, but, as he stated in the preface, 
increasing occupation had prevented him from finishing the 
series. He added, * I still sometimes hope that I may succeed 
in doing so/ and one day at Fulham, in a spare half-hour, he 
sat down and wrote the first page of a new article which was 
never finished. 

The alterations at the Palace were finished by the end 
of 1891, and at Christmas time we entertained at supper the 
fifty workmen who had been employed on them. The 
Bishop thoroughly enjoyed an occasion of this kind. He 
carved for the men, and talked to as many of them indi 
vidually as he could, and was present all through the evening 
when his children entertained the company with music, and 
the workmen also were persuaded to sing and recite. In 
subsequent years we entertained in the same way the railway- 
men, the postmen, and policemen, and the schoolmasters and 
mistresses of Peterborough. A great many young people 
always gathered at the Palace for Christmas, and any others 
resident in the precincts were invited to join in our Christmas 


tree and games, or to come and dance in our hall in the 
evenings. The Bishop, who had never danced except with 
his choir at Embleton since he was an undergraduate, now 
discovered how much he enjoyed dancing with his children. 
Not only he, but other bishops and dignitaries of the Church 
who stayed with us, used to take part with much vigour in 
the games with the younger children after tea, or in the 
dancing after dinner for the older ones which enlivened the 
holidays. This first year we experienced for the only time 
perfect fen-skating. The meadows round Peterborough were 
flooded, and a hard frost just before Christmas converted 
them into sheets of clear black ice. The Bishop was 
tempted to join the skaters, and delighted in the exercise. 
In later years he played hockey when possible for his winter 
exercise. Two afternoons a week were fixed as hockey after 
noons, on which other young people from the neighbourhood 
joined our children and played in one of the Palace fields. 
The game lost much of its excitement when the Bishop was 
not at home. We played with more vigour than science, 
and many were persuaded to join who had never thought of 
sharing in such a game ; even the district nurses found 
hockey at the Palace a pleasant refreshment after their work. 
Games were known in which several bishops took part. 

In the summer there were scratch games of cricket, 
but they did not meet with so much approval as the 
hockey. Sometimes the Bishop took a fancy for croquet. 
He wanted an excuse for half an hour in the garden after a 
morning of letter-writing. He would turn out from his study 
with his college cap on his head, and call up to the school 
room window for a child to come down and play croquet 
with him. But he was never an enthusiast for the game, and 
deserted it for the amusement of extracting plantains from 
the lawn. A spud was kept in a handy corner by his study 
door, and when his letters became too irritating, he would 
sally out to seek relief by attacking the plantains. 

Visitors at the Palace will remember the way in which 
he used to come out of his study in search of a little refresh 
ment ; it seemed as if he wanted some humanising influence 
in the midst of all the puzzles of diocesan administration. 
He did not want to talk about his work, but to throw it off, 


and the way in which he would linger in talk with any con 
genial person gave an impression of leisure unusual in the 
life of a busy man. One friend remembers how, after having 
returned late one night after a busy day in London, he was 
able to spend an hour and a half in the drawing-room next 
morning discussing the marriage laws, giving the impression 
that he had nothing particular to do. Yet he notes in his 
engagement book that during the first eight months of his 
episcopate he gave 115 sermons and speeches. 

He began at once a plan which was carried out whenever 
possible, of inviting parties of his clergy with their wives and 
daughters, to the Palace for a couple of days. He liked to 
bring together in this way clergy from different parts, so as 
to increase the brotherly feeling throughout the diocese. 
These visits were arranged for days when he was free to stay 
at home and attend to his guests. His only regret was 
that he was so much away that he could not invite people as 
often as he wished. But the personal attention he paid to 
all who came was such as to make them feel that they were 
asked in no perfunctory way, nor left to entertain one another, 
but that they came to see the Bishop himself. Those who 
came to see him on business were asked to stay to lunch or 
tea, and there were unexpected inroads after committees when 
our children had to fly from the table to make room for 
the guests brought in by their father. 

The laity in the diocese were invited to stay at the 
Palace over Sunday, so that they might have the pleasure of 
the Cathedral services. But, though we had frequent large 
Sunday gatherings, they were not allowed to interfere with 
the regular arrangements for the day nor to be a burden to 
the household. The plan carried out without interruption 
since our marriage, that there should be no cooking and no 
regular late dinner on Sundays, still prevailed. He said that 
if people did not like our ways they need not come. But he 
did not wish any guest to feel compulsion to go to church 
because he was in a bishop s house, and everyone was made 
to feel that he was at liberty to do as he liked. 

The Palace was used for meetings and gatherings of every 
kind. The Abbot s Hall was most suitable for this purpose, 
and was willingly granted for any good object, with the in- 


evitable tea afterwards. Amongst the larger gatherings of the 
year was the Conference of Rural Deans, who always stayed 
for a whole day and night They had to be scattered for the 
night in the precincts and throughout the town, but between 
forty and fifty had their meals, and spent the day at the 
Palace. Garden parties were given in the summer, and to 
the last the Bishop was ever trying to discover new ways in 
which the Palace could be made useful to the Diocese. To 
bring people to Peterborough was to make them interested 
in the Cathedral, and helped them to feel it, what he wished 
to make it, the centre of diocesan life. 

In the Holy Week of 1892 he undertook the daily addresses 
in the Cathedral, taking as his subject the chief actors in the 
great drama of the Crucifixion, the Chief Priests, Judas, 
Pontius Pilate and the Multitude. On Good Friday he con 
ducted the meditations of the Three Hours Service which was 
held that year for the first time in Peterborough Cathedral. 

The spring was taken up with Confirmations, Convocation 
and other London meetings. His visits to London were always 
fugitive. He did not like London, and never cared to stay 
there longer than necessary. But the requests for sermons 
and lectures constantly increased. Once a year he used to 
address the Travellers Club at Toynbee Hall in preparation 
for their journeys to Italy. He helped them to plan their 
tours and suggested places to visit that they would never 
have thought of without him. Then he gave them an 
historical lecture to prepare them for what they were to see, 
which/ says a member of the Club, would have been little 
to us but for those wonderful lectures of his ; it is impossible 
to give an idea of the stream of light which flowed from them. 

On May 22 he preached at the Temple Church, and with 
reference to the coming election chose as his subject Religion 
and Politics/ ! He said that it was sad that an election 
should be regarded as a calamity and as certain to stir up 
ill will and animosity, and showed how it might instead be 
used as a means of education. A politician is not merely an 
official of the people, he is an educator of the people. ^ In a 
democratic state, politics are necessarily a mighty means of 
popular education, and every man who takes part in them 

1 Published in The Heritage of the Spirit. Sampson Low. 


should do so with the spirit of a teacher. * He is the truest 
patriot who proclaims that he would rather see the second- 
best way triumph by worthy means, than secure the victory of 
the best way by unworthy means. In no capacity in life so 
much as in politics is a man s character immediately influential 
apart from the things which he does. * We need a more con 
scious and deliberate application of the principles of Christian 
morality to every department of life. It is not wholesome 
that the region of political life should be regarded as dubious. 
After the Trinity Ordination we went with our two eldest 
daughters for a fortnight to the Rhine district. Amongst 
other places we visited the little lake of Laach, which lies in a 
curious volcanic district, and has a fine Benedictine Abbey on 
its shores. As we drove to Laach he read to us out of the 
guidebook strange tales as to the volcanic fumes which at 
times come out of cracks and holes in the earth, so that 
poisoned rats and mice are sometimes found lying under 
banks or in caves. The next day we started to walk round 
the lake, a distance of about six miles, the way lying through 
thick woods. We were overtaken by a thunderstorm, and as we 
were sheltering under the trees, a peasant girl came hurriedly 
along the path and asked the way to the nearest village. 
Noticing her troubled look when we told her that we were 
strangers, and could not direct her, we asked what was the 
matter. She said that her sweetheart had fallen down and 
she was afraid he must be hurt, as she could not make him 
answer. We bade her lead us to the spot, and followed her to 
a deserted building on the edge of the lake, used formerly by 
a seminary in the neighbourhood as a place of holiday resort. 
Telling our daughters to wait for us, we followed her to a 
flight of ruined area steps, leading to the basement of the 
building. She pointed to an opening at the bottom, and said 
that her companion had gone down there to shelter from the 
rain, whilst she stood under their solitary umbrella, and that 
when, after waiting a quarter of an hour, she called to him, 
she could get no answer. Looking down the opening and 
through the hole at the bottom, we could see the dim form 
and white face of a man in the darkness below. My husband 
went down the broken steps, and fortunately remembering 
the guidebook tales of volcanic fumes, put his head in 


cautiously. He withdrew it at once, saying, * I cannot 
breathe there. As he stood an instant thinking, I could not 
refrain from imploring him not to try to go in. But he 
answered at once, * It is impossible to leave a fellow-creature 
to perish there. He bade me catch hold of the belt of his 
Norfolk jacket and be ready to give a pull when necessary. 
Then first filling his lungs with fresh air, he made a plunge 
into the cellar, holding his breath, and tugged the man as far 
as he could, and then threw himself back to get some more 
fresh air. This was repeated several times, whilst I helped as 
well as I could by pulling from behind. At last he got the 
man to the opening, and we dragged him up the broken steps, 
and laid him on the wet grass with his head in my lap, whilst 
the poor girl stood bewildered and helpless watching us. We 
sent our daughters to get aid from the inn, but as we were 
just half way round the lake, they had to run three miles 
through the rain, breathless and exhausted, thinking that delay 
might mean loss of life. Meanwhile in the sodden forest, 
under the drip of the rain through the trees, we tried to bring 
back life to the inanimate form. But the feelings of thankful 
ness at having been allowed to save a human being s life were 
soon changed to disappointment. All our efforts to induce 
artificial respiration were in vain. It was a comfort after 
wards to be told by a doctor that nothing could have restored 
the man, the deadly fumes of the carbonic acid gas must have 
done their work before he was got out of the cellar. But for 
nearly an hour we continued our useless efforts, and then had 
to give in. My husband watched at the edge of the lake for 
the boat which he expected would be sent from the inn ; the 
poor girl and I waited by the body. She was confused and 
stupefied ; the one thing that seemed to trouble her was how 
she was to get home to her own village that night. They 
had come by train to Laach to walk by the lake. At her 
feet lay the little bunch of wild strawberries which they had 
gathered and tied up together during the happy beginning of 
their walk. Cold and wet we waited ; she knelt with me 
whilst I prayed for her, but my words seemed hardly to 
penetrate her mind ; hers was a dull, unattractive face, and 
the strangeness of what had happened, the unknown nature 
of the foreigners who had tried to help her, made her feel 


only utterly bewildered. At last a boat was seen approaching, 
sent from the inn after our daughters arrival. The men who 
came in it refused to move the body, saying it must stay as 
it was till the authorities removed it. So we covered the white 
face with a handkerchief, the girl got into the boat, voluble 
now that she was with people of her own kind, and we, refusing 
to be rowed across, set off to walk back in order to get warm 
after the chill watching. 

At the inn of course we were greeted with many questions ; 
but the occurrence was not considered surprising. No one 
who knew the district would have gone anywhere below the 
surface of the earth in such thundery weather. The landlord 
said that there were parts of his cellars into which he never 
went during a thunderstorm. We were afraid lest we might 
be delayed to give evidence, but the place was so remote that 
things moved easily. The Burgomaster came in whilst we 
were at supper, and asked a few questions, and next morning 
we left by train without any difficulty. Both at the inn that 
evening and at the station next morning my husband was 
treated as a hero. One man after another asserted that he 
would never have dared to try to get the man out, and many 
were the strange stories told us of accidents resulting from 
these volcanic fumes. 

By the middle of June we were back at Peterborough, and 
in July we went over to Dublin for the Tercentenary of 
Trinity College. This was the Bishop s only visit to Ireland. 
We were the guests of Dr. Salmon, the venerable Provost of 
Trinity College, and were much interested by the succession 
of brilliant spectacles with which the occasion was celebrated ; 
they culminated in a garden party at the Viceregal lodge, to 
which many of the distinguished guests, in their magnificent 
academic robes, drove in Irish cars, amidst the cheers and 
admiration of the people of Dublin. The Bishop, together 
with many other representatives of learning, received an Hon. 
Degree and became LL.D. of Trinity College. The Sunday 
after the Commemoration we spent at Birr Castle with 
Lord and Lady Rosse, and were shown the famous telescope ; 
and the Bishop preached in the church at Parsonstown. 
The next week he was back at Peterborough travelling about 
the diocese, preaching, confirming and presiding at the prize 


givings of various schools. He was especially welcome on 
these occasions, for his speeches 1 were not only stimulating to 
all interested in education, but he could amuse and keep the 
attention of the boys. On Sunday, August 7, he preached at 
Oxford to the summer gathering of University Extension 
Students, 2 and then read a paper on the Fenland to the 
Archaeological Congress at Cambridge. 3 

During this and other summers he visited as many of his 
country parishes as possible, and spent Sundays in preaching 
in country villages, sometimes two, sometimes even three, 
sermons in the day. One of his clergy writes, * He was the 
most delightful guest possible, entering into the family life, 
enjoying every subject of conversation, and always taking us 
up some bypath of knowledge which led to clearer judgment, 
without humiliating anyone. How late we used to sit up at 
night listening to him as he talked of subjects that no one 
else present knew much about ! And yet he put us on terms 
of equality, and never seemed to know that we were less at 
home with the subject than he. I remember fascinating talks 
about ancient Spanish literature, the Flemish School of 
painting, the Vaudois, British birds. 

As many August days as possible he spent at home, so as 
to see something of his boys during their holidays, and he was 
able to do a little work at the fifth volume of the * History of 
the Papacy. Many friends visited us this summer, amongst 
others President and Mrs. Gilman from the Johns Hopkins 
University, Baltimore, and the Count and Countess Balzani 
from Rome. 

The Diocesan Conference was held at Northampton in 
the end of September. The chief part of the Bishop s 
opening address was devoted to the subject of Church schools, 
and he spoke of the importance of defining terms and really 
knowing what was under discussion. He alluded to the 
outcry for popular control over Voluntary schools, and said 
* a little thought will show you that at present the control of 
all State-aided schools rests absolutely with the Education 
Department. . . . the actual powers of the managers are so 

1 Some of them have been published in Thoughts on Education. 

1 Printed in Thoughts on Education. 

* Reprinted in Historical Essays and Reviews. 


limited that it seems to me useless to discuss, as a matter of 
principle, who are the persons who are to exercise them. . . . 
The only power of any importance that rests with the Board 
of Management is to determine the nature of the religious 
education which is to be given. 

The week finished with five special functions, church 
openings or dedications, and then he went to Folkestone 
for the Church Congress, where he preached one of the 
opening sermons, read a paper on Christian Ethics, 1 and 
addressed meetings of working men and working women. 
As soon as the Congress was over we started for Italy. 
Three days after he had spoken to the working men at Folke 
stone, we were walking over the lovely promontory of Porto 
Fino on the Eastern Riviera, and lunching off an omelet at a 
roadside inn. He wrote to a friend that evening, We are 
perfectly revelling in Italy ; it is too nice for words. 

On this journey he made a study of Etruscan cities, and 
read to help him G. Dennis great work which he carried 
with him as a guidebook. At Volterra and Corneto he was 
captivated by the strange interest of the Etruscan tombs and 
the wonderful riches of the local museums. After a few 
days in Rome with the Balzanis we carried off Count 
Balzani to Viterbo. 

Viterbo delighted the Bishop. We spent a day of inter 
mittent rain in making the circuit of its ruined walls, during 
which he repeatedly declared there was nothing he liked 
better in the world than exploring old walls. 

To Count UgO Balzani Cortona : October 27, 1892. 

* Dear Balzani, After we had recovered from the shock 
of your departure from Viterbo, we took your driver to Castel 
d Asso, which was amazingly interesting. In a lonely ravine 
like that which goes round Ronciglione, we found an Etruscan 
cemetery, of tombs with facades sculptured in the rock. Only 
a peasant s hut and a ruined medieval castle marked the head 
land ; round it flowed a stream, and the whole semicircle of 
rock beyond was crowned with crumbling sculptures of a 
simple architectural sort. Then we visited Bulicame, 2 a 

1 Published in The Church and the Nation. 

1 He felt a special interest in visiting this hot spring because it is mentioned 
by Dante in the Inferno^ Canto xiv. p. 79. 


sulphurous fountain which comes up boiling on a desert 
plain and petrifies everything on its banks. Next day we 
had a lovely drive to Orvieto. The view of the Lake of 
Bolsena from Montefiascone was splendid, and I found at 
Montefiascone a Romanesque church more beautiful even 
than those at Viterbo. At Orvieto we visited some painted 
Etruscan tombs, most interesting, with pictures of a butcher s 
and a baker s shop exactly like those of to-day, yet probably 
700 B.C. At Perugia we found quite another kind of Etruscan 
tomb, with magnificent carvings on the roof, of palatial size 
and splendour. To-day we drove from Perugia here, along 
Lake Trasimeno, all along the site of the battlefield, which is 
most intelligible at a glance. I have improved my mind 
enormously, but pine to return to Viterbo and see Norchia, 
Bieda, Toscanella, and the despised Civitl Castellana. I 
found an Englishman at Perugia who had been everywhere. 
I was at first disgusted, because he had been to more places 
than I had, but, on talking to my landlady, I found that he 
was preparing a new edition of Murray s Guide. He said 
that Toscanella had architecture of surpassing beauty, that 
Civita was one of the most beautiful places in Italy, and that 
the view from Soracte was superb. 

* As you were interested about the milestones about 
Viterbo, I must tell you that coming from Perugia to-day we 
went by kilometres till we entered Tuscany ; then the mile 
stones counted by miles from Florence. I asked my driver, 
and he said it was so in Tuscany, not in Umbria. I noticed 
that he had a longing for Tuscany, and regarded it as a much 
richer land than Umbria. Alas, our journey is coming rapidly 
to an end, but it has been a most delightful and fruitful one, 
thanks greatly to you/ 

We were absent from England for five weeks. On his 
return home, the Bishop had to preach before the University 
of Cambridge the annual sermon in Commemoration of 
Founders and Benefactors. This seimon had been written 
in spare moments during his holiday. He took as his text 
* My heart within me is desolate : I remember the days of old ; 
I meditate on all Thy doings, and spoke of the influence 
exercised by the University through the temper of mind which 
prevailed in it, bred of the unwearied pursuit of truth and the 
sincere love of knowledge of long generations of students, 
many of whom were obscure and unknown, mere names 
recited year after year on the long list of benefactors. 1 

1 This sermon is printed in University and other Sermons. 


From Cambridge he went to Ely for the gathering of 
East Anglian Bishops. It was the custom that the Bishops 
of Lincoln, Norwich, Peterborough, Ely, and St Albans 
should spend two days together once a year, each taking it in 
his turn to entertain the others and their wives. The time 
was spent partly in discussing matters connected with their 
work as bishops, partly in social intercourse. The Bishop s 
share in these discussions, and the way he viewed some of the 
questions brought forward, are thus described by Dr. Festing 
(the late Bishop of St. Albans) : 

4 What struck me from the first, and always, was the way 
he always gave us his best. He never bottled up things for 
an audience. It was the subject that possessed him, not the 
effect he might produce. If anything he was more thorough, 
to my mind, in our little East Anglian conclave than in a 
larger assembly. But in small or great meetings, or in 
private conversation, there was always the lifting the subject 
on to a higher mental level. We got to principles, to wide 
views ; we left mere details, or rather, for he never forgot 
their working value, details were not allowed to be the thing, 
nor were rules and regulations. . . . As a bishop he seemed 
to think much of the duty of a bishop with regard to the 
corporate life, the history of the Church, the position of the 
Church as a body in the world and, the bishop was to rule, 
but it was to be the rule of knowledge and thought, not of 
arbitrary will, so he wanted time in dealing with men and 
things. . . . As to his dealings with clergy and more generally, 
it seemed to me he had great sympathy with the tempted. 
He was sorry for them, and though discipline was exercised, 
he was anxious to open the door to a penitent, so that a man 
might get back again if possible. He had hopes about the 
possibility of repentance, and hopes that in every man s 
character there is a generous bit which may be touched by 
generous treatment and so the man might be lifted up. 
Connected with this, perhaps, was his very deep feeling about 
the possibilities of the love of God. and the superiority of love 
over mere correctness of conduct. He was good at business, 
perhaps a little scornful at times in dealing with men not so 
quick at seeing things as he was. Business seemed to him to 
be justice and righteousness in action. He was very good 
and kind in our private discussions, never scornful, never 
trying to score off our ignorance or dulness. But at times 
he started a theory (so I got to think) rather for the purpose 


of seeing how people would take it and so getting light upon 
the subject. It helped his thought. 

After the Ely meeting came the autumn visit to Leicester, 
during which he went up every week to lecture in London at 
St. Paul s Cathedral on * the Friars. ! These lectures were 
given with only the help of the briefest notes, and showed, as 
a critic observed, how steeped he was in medieval history. 
A Roman Catholic newspaper remarked that : * no son of 
St. Dominic could have sketched with greater tenderness the 
portrait of his spiritual ancestor. 

It would be impossible to mention all the different lectures 
he gave during this winter. As usual he shared with others 
the impressions gathered during his holidays by lecturing at 
Peterborough on * the Cities of Etruria. In Lent he gave a 
course of addresses in the Cathedral on * Some Holy Men of 
Old, beginning with St. Guthlac, and ending with John 
Wesley. He also gave a series of lectures to the Leicester 
clergy on the History of Indulgences, and repeated them 
in Peterborough and Northampton. Besides these, he gave 
many separate lectures in different parts of the Diocese and 
elsewhere. Mr. Grose Hodge writes that his lectures * were very 
largely attended, and many nonconformist ministers sat side 
by side with Anglicans of every type, listening to the clear, 
unadorned English to which the Bishop rigidly kept himself 
on these occasions. " Knowledge," he used to say, " is the 
solution of most difficulties even amongst the clergy. It is 
only ignorance that is intolerant." 

In the spring of 1893, the Welsh Suspensory Bill was 
introduced into the House of Commons. At the Bishop s 
request, meetings were held in all his Rural Deaneries to pro 
test against the Bill. He himself presided and spoke at a 
crowded and enthusiastic meeting in the Drill Hall at Peter 
borough. He said that he spoke that evening as a citizen, 
not as a bishop, and that as a citizen he objected to the Bill ; 
it was the first step towards disestablishment, and it was as 
an Englishman that he objected to disestablishment. It is 
one of the proud boasts of Englishmen at present that they 
can say that they are Englishmen first, and that nothing 

1 These lectures have been published in Lectures and Addresses* 


stands between them and allegiance to their country. But it 
will be very different if the Church of England is disestab 
lished ; then there will be many who will be constrained to 
say that they are Churchmen first and only Englishmen 

This year we went for our holiday in June, immediately 
after the Trinity Ordination. The Bishop had been reading 
Mr. Samuel Butler s enchanting book Alps and Sanctuaries 
and determined to visit some of the places there described. 
We divided our time between the Italian lakes and the lower 
slopes of the Alps, and explored many mountain sanctuaries. 

To his daughter Lucia Monte Generoso i June 13, 1893. 

. . . . After sitting last night in the garden of an 
Italian villa it is odd now to be shivering with one s great 
coat on, and all the windows shut in the room of a ridiculous 
new Swiss hotel. . . . Twice we have dropped down into 
places where English gather, once at Baveno and once at 
Varese. The English consisted of a few men, a few old 
ladies and hosts of girls. I have been looking at these 
girls with despair. They do nothing : they know nothing : 
they don t go and see anything. They sit and gossip ; then 
they read drivelling novels from the library : they sit in the 
garden or have a row on the lake or have a drive anywhere. 
But they know nothing of the interesting things to be seen 
and care less. I went to Varese to see a most interesting 
Sanctuary about five miles off, with a series of chapels reaching 
up the hill. There were about sixty people in the hotel : 
many of them had been staying there for months : I do not 
think that any one of them knew that there was such a place, 
or had any intention of seeing it. They drove by the lake or 
pottered in the town whenever they tore themselves from 
gossip in the garden. Really such people ought not to be 
allowed to travel. It is quite terrible to see what English 
girls become when left to themselves. They were quite nice ; 
quite amiable and doubtless virtuous, but perfectly empty. 
Why did not they stay at home and play lawn tennis? 
What was the good of their travelling ? The spectacle of so 
many English girls has filled me with terror. Don t be like 
them ; have some object in life. The sight of people without 
an object has quite overcome me : at home people profess to 
be doing something ; but when they travel their imbecility 
becomes apparent. There : I have grumbled enough. 

G 2 


As a result of this journey the Bishop got to know 
Mr. S. Butler. He wrote to tell him the pleasure his books 
had given us, and asked him to visit us. After this he came 
frequently, and the Bishop was much attracted by his original 
mind and stores of out-of-the-way knowledge. 

July was filled with a variety of diocesan work. He had 
his annual gathering of Rural Deans, assisted at the diocesan 
retreat, took a quiet day for school teachers, preached at 
Lichfield Cathedral to a gathering of Sunday school teachers, 
went to the Conference of Clergy held at Oxford, where he 
spoke at one of their meetings and preached to them. He 
was at Lincoln to preach the hospital sermon in the Cathe 
dral, and at Marlborough to preach to the boys and speak at 
the prize-day luncheon. These engagements for one month, 
in addition to the ordinary work of consecrating cemeteries, 
instituting clergy, opening churches, presiding at meetings, and 
carrying on all the business of the Diocese, will give some idea 
of the nature of his life. To follow all his various engage 
ments would be impossible. 

In the autumn he attended the Birmingham Church 
Congress, and was glad to find himself again amongst the old 
friends of his Worcester days. He spoke at the Congress on 
1 Science and Faith. Writing to Mr. Cruttwell, he says of this 
speech : * I am glad that you approve of my desperate attempt 
to condense a treatise into a quarter of an hour s speech. He 
showed that natural science could not give men all the 
knowledge which they needed. 

1 The fact that man has the power of asking questions 
which transcend the natural order is a fact to be accounted 
for. . . . Faith also appeals to facts, the facts of consciousness. 
It is not concerned with idle speculations. Man sets the pro 
blem to which faith supplies the answer. ... It will be said 
that this answer is not universally accepted. I reply that the 
experience to which faith appeals is not universal ; and men 
may fail, or may refuse, to gain it. It is so in a still greater 
degree with science. The experience on which any branch 
of knowledge is founded is a matter for experts, and the vast 
majority of mankind enjoy the results of science without any 
care for the principles on which they rest. ... If a man said 
" I think nothing of chemistry. ... I once looked into it, 
but its method was too abstruse and its procedure too round- 


about foi a plain man like myself," we should tell him that 
his ignorance was pardonable, but that the attitude of 
ignorance towards knowledge should be respectful and not 
contemptuous. . . . Faith must always be subject to criticism, 
relevant and irrelevant But the verification of its hypotheses 
must come from those who approach its subject matter, i.e. 
God, in the same patient and watchful spirit as the man of 
science approaches the subject of his study. . . . God working" 
in nature according to His own purposes, this is to a believer 
the revelation of science. But man is endowed with powers 
which rise above the natural order and enable him to stand 
in conscious relationship with God. It is in accordance with 
all that science shows us of natural processes that this relation 
ship should be the object of a gradual revelation. . . . We mur 
mur at difficulties, at slow progress, at apparent waste, at misery 
which we long to remedy, but are powerless. Nature at least 
may teach us to combine patience with effort, and trust in 
the harmony of heaven. 

He also spoke at Coventry to a working-men s meeting 
in connexion with the Congress and preached the closing 
sermon in Worcester Cathedral. 

In this sermon, after speaking of the lessons of the Con 
gress, he stated what to him was the meaning of the English 
Church : 

* We tend, I think, to make too many apologies for the 
supposed defects of the Church of England ; its want of dis 
cipline ; its absence of positive definition on many points ; 
its large latitude of opinion. To me it seems that the Church 
of England is the only religious organisation which faces the 
world as it is, which recognises the actual facts, and works for 
God, in God s own way. . . . The Church of England is rigid 
in maintaining necessary truth, and is careful to draw the 
line between what is necessary and what is matter for ex 
pediency. ... I trust that the time is past when anyone 
wishes, for uniformity s sake, to narrow the limits of the 
English Church. . .Its proudest boast is that it faces the 
world as it is, and faces it simply and straightforwardly. It 
has no reservations, nothing which it need explain away. The 
treasures of the past history of the Church are open to its 
children, and they are free to adapt them to the needs of 
their souls, provided they do not enforce as obligatory what 
has been deliberately left to the responsibility of the individual. 
The aspirations and ideas of the present, in politics, in science, 
in thought, have no terrors for the Church of England, for its 


hold of vital truth has never been encumbered by the rubbish 
of falling scaffoldings and tottering buttresses, which threaten 
to drag the main building into ruin. The Church of England 
faces the world as it is, knowing that the world-spirit is 
strong and operative in many forms, resolute in maintaining 
God s truth. But it draws a clear line between God s truth 
and man s means of expressing it, however noble and beauti 
ful they may be. God s truth set forth in accordance with 
primitive practice, that is the position of the English Church. 1 

During this year, in the intervals of his life of external 
activity, he was occupied in seeing his new volume of the 
* History of the Papacy through the press. He had found 
it difficult to get time for the finishing touches. 

To Mr. C. J. Longman February 25, 1893. 

I will send you very shortly the MS. of another volume 
of my " Papacy." It will be a long time before I trouble you 
with any more. 

He did not yet quite give up hope of carrying his book 
further ; but each year the chance grew less. On Novem 
ber 7, 1896 he wrote to Mr. Longman, I fear that my history 
will remain where it is. Luckily 1527 is a sort of epoch, 
which marks the end of the Renaissance Papacy, and the book 
has a consistency as it is. 

In the next volume, according to his original idea, he 
would have treated the Reformation in England, and some 
pages of the first chapter on the divorce of Henry VIII. were 
written before he was obliged to abandon all hope of con 
tinuing his work. 

The fifth volume of the History of the Papacy deals with 
the beginnings of Luther s career. It contains a study of 
German humanism, and a careful investigation into the history 
and use of indulgences. It ends with the sack of Rome. With 
the central figure of his drama, Luther himself, the Bishop 
was not much in sympathy. He was to him an astounding 
phenomenon, an extraordinary force, without whom probably 
reformation would have been impossible, but Erasmus was 
far more congenial to him. His work stopped before he could 
say his final word about Luther. 

1 This sermon is published in University and other Sermom, 


Ur. Gore (now Bishop of Worcester) wrote to him about 
the book, I have just been reading the last volume of your 
Popes, with great gratitude for "the spirit of judgment." 
The following letters also refer to this volume : 

To Mr. H. C. Lea June 16, 1894. 

I Thank you very much for your notice of my last volume 
in " The New World." It is rare to be reviewed by anyone 
who knows anything of the subject. I quite agree with your 
criticisms, as I know too well my own limitations. My 
method is, to take up questions as they present themselves, 
and to view them as they might have presented themselves 
to an intelligent member of the Curia. I try to take the 
view of a contemporary statesman, who was not a philo 
sopher, or a thinker, but merely a man of affairs. I try to find 
out how he acted on the evidence before him. Thus I have 
introduced nothing into my examination of German humanism 
which had not come before the Curia in the Reuchlin contest. 
I don t hold Leo X. responsible for a knowledge of the ten 
dencies of theological thought. These are discovered after 
wards, by reflection after the event. In the same way I 
looked at Hergenrother, but quailed before the labour of an 
account of the actual grievances of Germany. I had indicated 
them before, in dealing with the Concordat with Frederick III. ; 
they were no heavier than they had been. Anyhow it 
seemed to me that an account of them could only be under 
taken as a separate work, dealing with papal aggression as a 
whole. I incline to think that the future of historical writing 
is on your lines. The study of institutions in detail must be 
done before general results can be summarised. The history 
of the future will be less concerned with facts and more with 
internal development. We are only preparing the way. 

I 1 have lately come across a document which would 
interest you, about Indulgences. It is in a huge Italian work 
in three volumes, " Caterina Sforza," by Count Pasolini. The 
book as a whole would not interest you, but there is a curious 
document from Bona of Savoy, who wishes to make amends 
for the evil life of her husband, Gian Galeazzo Sforza, who 
was assassinated. She accordingly prepared a case for the 
opinion of the Sorbonne, as to how she could merit his 
deliverance from Purgatory. The answer of the Sorbonne 
recognises almost unlimited power of obtaining indulgences 
for another. If you would like this, I will have it copied and 
send it to you 


To Professor Kolde (the distinguished German biographer of Luther). 
(Translated from the German) 

October 5, 1894. 

: I should like to express my gratitude for your review 
of my last volume of the "History of the Papacy 1 in the 
" Deutsche Litcratur-Zeitung" I have learnt so much from your 
books that I am glad to read your opinion of my treatment 
of Luther. My point of view is restricted and somewhat 
abstract. In my opinion Luther s personality is the hardest 
to understand as a whole in all my period. As a man, 
as a German, as the leader of a party, as a statesman, as 
a reformer, in each of these characters taken alone he is 
tolerably clear. But to connect all his sides with the ideas of 
the time, and give them their proper importance in the 
history of the world (weltgeschichtliche Bedeutung\ that 
I feel to be impossible. I have only tried to discover some 
thing about his attitude to the idea of a united Christendom. 
What I have written does not satisfy me myself. It could 
not satisfy a German. That you have not judged me severely 
is a mark of your kindness. 

Dr. Kolde in his answer spoke of his admiration for the 
Bishop s great and beautiful work. He described it as built 
up on a foundation of original research which gathered 
together the results of the great literature of monographs, 
and treated them from a universal point of view. But his 
admiration naturally did not keep him from differing in many 
points from the Bishop s conclusions. The conception of the 
whole book led to its author treating Luther mainly from his 
political side. Dr. Kolde said that amongst German students 
the conviction had grown increasingly strong that Luther 
could only be adequately understood from the religious side. 
To this the Bishop answered : 

* Peterborough : November 15, 1894. 

* My dear Dr. Kolde, I am very much obliged to you for 
your letter, with every word of which I cordially agree. I have 
said somewhere in my book that " Luther had a genius for 
religion." He was not a theologian, nor was he a statesman. 
But the misfortune is that, in times of revolution and change, 
a man is driven to be a theologian and a statesman against 
his will, and must be judged as such. My point of view 
is that it was a misfortune for Christendom that the Reforma 
tion took the form of a breach of unity of the Church. 
All would agree on this, but we Protestants would say 

1894 LUTHER 89 

that it was inevitable. By this it is generally meant that 
there were contradictory tendencies of thought which 
necessitated opposite forms of expression. I do not think so. 
I do not think that any breach was inevitable. The question 
is whose fault was it ? I have investigated this question as 
I would investigate any political secession. I have regarded 
it as a question of governmental wisdom and justice. I have 
tried to show that the Papacy behaved towards Luther both 
foolishly and unjustly at first Luther made no demands 
which the Church ought not to have been able to supply, 
according to its own principles. The Curia was responsible 
for driving Luther to revolt. It must be judged by its fidelity 
to its principles, and it was not faithful. This is the point 
which I have tried to bring into prominence. It is not a 
point which interests man} people ; most people would think 
that it was not worth considering. \Ve are so accustomed to 
the idea of a divided Church that we do not stop to consider 
how it arose, or who was responsible for it. It may be quite 
true that the Roman system was opposed to liberty, but this 
must be made good in the particular facts. 

Great as is my admiration for Luther as a religious 
teacher, I am still more impressed by him as a popular 
leader. He had all the qualities for such a post quick 
sympathy with the average man, a capacity for picking up 
what was in the air and expressing it forcibly. This to me 
accounts for his defects ; he was a man of his own time and 
race ; he has to be understood among his surroundings. But it 
is useless for me to write at length on points about which you 
know so much more than 1 do. I cannot refrain from saying 
that amongst German writers on the subject I found your 
.works far the best. 

To Dr. Richard Garnett Leicester: November 24, 1894. 

Your letter was forv. arded to me at Leicester, where 
I am staying in lodgings, and I am engaged from morning to 
night with meetings and interviews and speeches. Hence my 
delay. . . . Your mention of the articles against Morone 
makes me wish that I could ever look forward to writing any 
more history. Alas, the chances seem to fade away ; I have 
very little hope of any more continuous work. I may be able 
to do something, but I think it will have to be on a smaller 
scale, and of a slighter character. I have just been having a 
most amiable correspondence with Kolde about my view of 
Luther. He practically agrees with me and writes that: 
^Luther in erster Linie als religiose Natur zu begreifen ist. 
Seine Beurtheilung der Dinge auch der politischen ist immer 


die religiose, daher die relative Beschranktheit seines Blickes 
in diesen Fragen . . . . Er war viel weniger Theologe als 
man gewohnlich annimmt." l 

I never thought to get so much out of a German. 

To the same January i, 1895. 

Thanks for calling my attention to Symonds criticism of 
my book ; it is very gratifying. But I see that he feels a pang 
at parting with the idea that the Reformation sprang from 
the scandals of the Roman Court. I have tried to show that 
the revolt against the Papacy was like any other revolt ; it 
was against power oppressively exercised, contrary to the 
popular wish and the popular sense of justice. . . . 

If you have looked at my last volume you may have 
guessed that the question I have before me is, not " Why did 
the Reformation come ? " that is obvious but " Why did the 
old remain, why was it not swept away ? 

* The thing that needs apology is the weakness of the 
Reformation. Surely to explain this we must get to my 
position (which is also Kolde s), that it was led by a man who 
was neither a statesman nor a theologian. 

The correspondence with Dr. Kolde led to a visit from 
him when he came to England in the following year. He 
says that the opportunities he then enjoyed of discussing 
important historical problems with Dr. Creighton belong to 
the most precious recollections of his life. 

In the winter of 1893 to ^94 the Bishop gave the 
Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge. He chose as his subject 
< Persecution and Tolerance. Though he called the 
lectures when published nothing more than a trifling con 
tribution to a great subject, those who wish to understand his 
mind will find it perhaps more clearly expressed in them than 
in any other of his writings. They give the results of his 
learning, they show the principles on which his judgments 
were formed, they tell what he meant by religious liberty, 
they explain the temper in which he approached the opinions 
of others. I will quote only his description of the tolerant 
man : 

* The tolerant man has decided opinions, but recognises 

1 * Luther is in the first place to be understood from the religious side. He 
judges everything, even on political matters, always from the religious point of 
view; hence the comparative narrowness of his outlook in these questions. . . . 
He was much less of a theologian than is generally recognised. 


the process by which he reached them, and keeps before him 
self the truth that they can only be profitably spread by 
repeating in the case of others a similar process to that 
through which he passed himself. JIc always keeps in view 
the hope of spreading his own opinions, but he endeavours to 
do so by producing conviction. He is virtuous, not because 
he puts his own opinions out of sight, nor because he thinks 
that other opinions are as good as his own, but because his 
opinions are so real to him that he would not have anyone 
else hold them with less reality. 

Tolerance is needful to the individual ; for it is the 
expression of that reverence for others which forms a great 
part of the lesson which Christ came to teach him. It is 
the means whereby he learns to curb self-conceit, and submit 
to the penetrating discipline imposed by Christian love. 

His concluding words explain the spirit in which he faced 
the problems that confronted him later in London : 

* There is always a temptation to the possessors of power 
be they an individual, an institution, or a class to use it 
selfishly or harshly. Liberty is a tender plant and needs 
jealous watching. It is always unsafe in the world, and is 
only secure under the guardianship of the Church ; for the 
Church possesses the knowledge of man s eternal destiny 
which alone can justify his claim to freedom. 

Lady Jebb remembers that she heard Dr. Peile, the 
Master of Christ s College, say, after the third Hulsean Lecture, 
I have not heard a sermon like that for twenty-five years ; 
to which she rejoined, I have never heard a sermon like that 
in England. Whilst Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar said, 
* I don t call that a sermon, but an essay, and Colonel Cald- 
well, It was too deep for me ; I went to sleep. 

The lectures were afterwards published. 

To Mr. C. J. Longman May 18, 1894. 

People have been asking me about my Hulsean lectures. 
They seemed to excite some interest. I send them to you 
as they were delivered. If you would have them set up in 
slips, I would perhaps add footnotes. I will also write an 
introduction, and probably an appendix. But I think the 
body of the book had better be the lectures as they were 


To Mr. H. C. Lea j un e 16, 1894. 

I am just about to publish some lectures which I gave at 
Cambridge lately, on " Persecution." My position is that per 
secution is not necessarily inherent in the conception of a 
Church, but is inherent in the possession of power. I there 
fore traverse some of your conclusions in your " Inquisition 
and regard the Church when vested with coercive power, not 
as a religious body, but as a branch of secular institutions. I 
will send you the book when it appears. It is very slight 
and superficial, but is meant to plead for a reconsideration of 
current judgment on the whole question. 

To Mrs. J. R. Green Peterborough : June 10, 1895. 

* I have already forgotten al] about my book. My copies 
were sent out late, because I was in Italy when it came out, 
and Longman had not told me of its issue. 

* I quite agree with you that man s right to freedom of 
opinion is hard to maintain in the face of the claims of society 
on the individual. My only point is that persecution is not 
inherent in religious opinions more than in any other set of 
opinions which are taken as the basis of common life. All 
I urge is that these things should be considered separately. 
Christianity in itself as a system of thought and practice is 
one thing. Christianity as the necessary basis for common 
life is another. It was regarded in the ages of persecution as 
this necessary basis. Its persecuting activity arose from a 
cause which now no longer exists. It is certainly an open 
question, if any set of opinions again become equally regarded 
as necessary, whether or no persecution would revive. If 
tolerance is a virtue, it is only because Christianity has 
learned to regard it so if indeed it has so learned. Any 
other set of opinions e.g. those of "naturalism -would be 
more intolerant if they were predominant. 

When criticised in 1900 for the way in which he ruled, or, 
as his critic thought, neglected to rule, his clergy, he referred 
to this book as showing that he was only acting in accordance 
with opinions that had long been his, the fruit of his study of 
men in life and history. 

After the last Hulsean lecture, on February 11, 1894, we 
started for Algeria. He had found that the spring and early 
summer months suited his country parishes best for Con 
firmations, and thought therefore that a winter holiday might 
best fit in with his work. It was not easy for him to decide 


to desert Italy, but he longed for warmth, and so we went as 
quickly as possible to Constantine, which much impressed 
him. Then, after visiting the ruined city of Timegad, we 
spent a couple of days with the Alfred Peases at Biskra, and 
went to Tunis. On our way we stopped at Hammam 
Meskoutine, and he enjoyed few things more than a long 
walk from there over the hills covered with magnificent 
woods of cork and wild olive to the remains of the wonderful 
Roman fortress Announa. 

At Tunis he felt for the first time the charm of the East and 
enjoyed many rambles in the bazaar. But probably the day 
we spent at Carthage gave him the keenest impression of 
the whole journey. He got back to Peterborough in time to 
take the addresses on the evenings in Holy Week and the 
Three Hours service on Good Friday. 

In May, he spoke at the Royal Academy dinner, and 
returned thanks for the guests. He was much amused 
at the effect produced by this speech. He was as yet 
little known to the great world of London, but it is no 
exaggeration to say that in one moment he found himself 
famous. Everyone spoke about the speech ; he was more 
congratulated about it than about anything else in his life ; 
and said, that he had now reached the pinnacle of fame ; and 
that he could not hope to do anything more remarkable 
than to please and amuse such a critical audience as that 
at the Academy banquet. It is useless to attempt to give 
any idea of the speech from the reports of the press. It was 
his manner as much as his matter which gave it its success. 
The mixture of good-natured banter with real thought, the 
humour and the unexpected turns of phrase delivered with 
perfect ease, in tones that everyone could hear, made him one 
of the best after-dinner speakers of his day. He had probably 
spoken as well in many quiet corners of his diocese or even of 
his Northumbrian parish, but now London had found him out 
In Archbishop Benson s diary there is the following entry 
about this dinner : * Rosebery amusing, but by far the most 
amusing, and in a higher flight and full of sense, was the 
Bishop of Peterborough. Everybody came up to me after 
wards to congratulate me. 

A success of this sort simply amused the Bishop. He 


used to talk quite frankly in his family circle, or among his 
intimate friends, of his successes, speaking of them as if 
they were something outside himself. He would come in 
from a dinner or a meeting, and when we asked him how 
things had gone, he would say, * Oh ! I have been a success 
again ; or, with a little laugh, * It is quite absurd ; my speech 
was again the success of the evening. There was no conceit 
in this ; he claimed no credit for his gifts, but he was too 
clear-sighted not to be aware of the effect they produced, 
and too frank to pretend to ignore it. He said that when he 
had become well known, the pleasure of success was gone. It 
had amused him to surprise people who knew nothing about 
him, but when something out of the common was expected 
of him, nothing that he could say or do would astonish. As 
he once said in a sermon : Everything that we do, however 
well we do it, however much we be praised in the doing it, 
makes it more difficult to do something else. Success even 
more than failure forges for us a chain of habit, and robs us 
of the consciousness of freedom. 

In May a festival service was held at Peterborough to 
dedicate some splendid gifts made to the Cathedral, including 
a great organ, choir gates, and an altar canopy or baldachino 
of alabaster and mosaic. The Bishop had been convinced 
by his study of early Romanesque churches in Dalmatia and 
Rome that a baldachino was the most fitting adornment for 
an altar standing in an apse, as the altar in Peterborough 
Cathedral does. His suggestion that the proposed reredos 
should take this form was adopted, and the beautiful 
baldachino, the gift of the children of Dr. Saunders, a former 
dean, has proved a fine addition to the glory of the marble 
pavement and the rare dignity of the choir of the Cathedral. 

The Bishop preached the sermon at the dedication 
festival, and spoke of the power of the imaginations of the 
thoughts of the heart to ennoble life, and of the way in which 
a beautiful building expressed and stimulated these imagina 
tions. 1 Speaking at the public luncheon afterwards, he said 
that the Cathedral had grown in the affections of the people 
of the diocese ever since they had learnt that its foundations 
were threatened. They had not rested content with doing 

1 The sermon is published in University and other Sermons. 


the work necessary to maintain the fabric, but had gone on 
to beautify it by voluntary effort and personal sacrifice so as 
to make it fit for the service of God. He urged them to 
persevere and do the work still needed. 

The time had come when he must hold a primary visita 
tion of his Diocese. He had tried to think out some method 
of avoiding the ordinary visitation, but in vain. 

To his Chancellor, Mr. G. H. Blakesley 

* Peterborough : April 6, 1894. 

You cannot groan over the prospect of a visitation more 
than I do. 1 thought over all possible means, but nothing 
seemed satisfactory. The amount of formal business in ad 
mitting churchwardens is great, apparently some talk is 
requisite. But what to say is a problem still unsolved. 
I have sent no articles of inquiry to the clergy. I take their 
statistics from the " Church Year Book," which supplies me 
with detailed information. But I have sent articles to the 
churchwardens, and my view is that I am always visiting my 
clergy, but that once in three years the churchwardens should 
feel that they can say their say to their Bishop. 

* That is the only theory I have, that of a safety-valve. 
I can always nail a discontented parish by saying : " Why 
did not your officer inform me, when I had the opportunity 
of investigating ? " 

May 24, 1894. 

Will you come here on Monday evening, so as to be 
ready for the hideous formality which we are to discharge 
on so many days ? . . . I am very sorry for you. I hope 
you are equally sorry for me. 

He delivered the first portion of his Charge at Peter 
borough on May 29 and the remainder in six different 
churches in various centres of the Diocese. In this Charge 


he expresses his views on the current questions of the day 
Disestablishment, the Welsh Bill, social problems, education, 
Biblical criticism, the Local Government Bill. As the Hul- 
sean lectures reveal the temper of his mind, and the principles 
on which his life was founded, so does the Primary Charge 
show how he applied those principles to the questions of 
practical life. It makes clear what manner of man he was, 
more perhaps than anything else he ever wrote. It is equally 
full of humour, of learning, of common sense, of practical 


wisdom, of deep spiritual insight To give any idea of it 
from quotations would be impossible, those who would under 
stand him must read it in full 1 ; but I give a few short 
sayings from it which are specially characteristic of him : 

Liberty is frequently regarded as if it were only a right ; 
but it is also a serious responsibility. The great question for 
the modern world to determine is how men are to be fitted 
to bear the heavy burden of liberty/ 

The great need of our day is that all human relationships 
should be first moralised and then spiritualised. For this 
great end we need not only good intentions, but knowledge 
and wisdom. 

1 The whole question of discipline depends on the attitude 
of the teacher towards the children as human beings. There 
is in every lesson, no matter what the subject may be, a per 
petual appeal, unconscious, I admit, but its effect is cumula 
tive ; and the most important effect of any educational 
system is the general attitude towards life which it has 

* The surest sign of social progress is increasing interest 
in the generation that is to come. 

* The strength of a clergyman s position lies in the fact 
that he belongs to no class and to no party. It is his duty 
to consider only the general welfare, and seek out the prin 
ciples on which it rests. 

4 The service of man without the service of God becomes 
an intolerable burden. Hopefulness in the long run is only 
possible for one who prays. 

No man should always harp upon one string ; all should 
have a resource within themselves which is sufficiently strong 
to prevent them from being entirely under the influence of 
their daily work. 

It is interesting to notice how he foreshadowed some 
provisions of the Education Bill of 1902 : 

I incline to think that our present system errs on the 
side of uniformity. . . . There is need for greater latitude of 
experiment. But any relaxation of central control in this 
respect is only possible if local interest be keen, and if there 
be an intelligent body to whom some measure of responsi 
bility may be delegated. I could imagine a committee of 
the Town Council, or the District Council, which stood 
between the schools and the department ; but the existence 

1 The Charge has been reprinted in The Church and the Nation. 


of such a body would probably presuppose more general 
interest in the nature and contents of education than already 
exists. To quicken such interest is a worthy object. 

In June he went to Oxford to receive the hon. degree of 
D.C.L. from his old University, an addition to his many 
academic distinctions which he much valued. 

The chance reading of Mr. P. T. Forsyth s book Religion 
and Recent Art/ had given him a desire to go to the Wagner 
Festival at Bayreuth, and we went there at the end of July 
with his sister, our eldest daughter and Miss Dorothy Ward. 
He was much amused at the whole experience, and enjoyed the 
operas very much at the time. But the more he thought about 
Wagner, the more doubtful he became about the value of his 
art. He wrote to a niece who was staying at Dresden in 
1900 : 

The attempt to make old legends tell all sorts of great 
truths by means of musical motives seems to me quite silly. 
If I want great truths, I do not find them expressed by music. 
Really Wagner s music is too exciting. The end of music is 
to soothe, to calm, to give repose. Wagner does the contrary. 
Many people have told me that his music always makes them 
feel wicked. I can understand what they mean. ... I seem 
to be giving you a lecture on a subject which I imperfectly 
understand. Like Wagner as much as you like, but like 
other people also. ... It was at Dresden in 1867 that I first 
got to know his music. ... At that time Wagner was thought 
a lunatic ; now he is adored, so wags the world. . . . The 
musical drama is impossible. Music may express feelings, 
but it cannot carry on action. 

His real love was for the old composers, Palestrina, Bach, 
Handel, and of course Beethoven. When he was at home in 
the evenings, he generally asked his daughter to sing to him, 
and though he enjoyed the more modern German songs, he 
was most pleased when she sang old Italian airs. It was 
not often that he could be persuaded to go to a concert, 
but when he did go he delighted in good orchestral or 
chamber music. 

It was in this year that the Church Historical Society was 

founded. The idea originated with a few men in London, 

Dr. G. F. Browne (then Bishop of Stepney), Canon Gore, 

Canon Mason, the Rev. W. E. Collins and the Rev. S. Phillips. 



The object of the society was to study special points touch 
ing the history and position of the Church of England, to 
spread information and to repel attacks. The Bishop was 
its first President, and he held that office till his death. He 
attended the first meeting in connexion with the society in 
September and always took much interest in its quiet and 
useful work. He spoke at its meetings, and allowed several 
of his papers on questions connected with Church history to 
be published by it. 

In the autumn he went to Exeter for the Church Congress 
and preached in the Cathedral on the Sunday before the 
Congress. During the week he spoke at the Free and Open 
Church meeting, at a meeting for the Church House, opened a 
Home for Waifs and Strays, read a paper at the congress on 
Cathedrals in relation to the Cathedral City, the Diocese and 
the Church at large/ besides speaking to a great meeting of 
working men and women. This speech is a good example 
of his method on such occasions. He began with remarking 
that the kind of life he had to lead made him an 
observer of advertisements, and that he found it a help to be 
met at every turn by the wise remark Don t worry. Then 
when he had got his audience into good temper with him, he 
told them that his object was to try to get them to think 
accurately about Church and State. He defined the State as 
1 the community which is concerned with the arrangements of 
the common life and the Church as * the community concerned 
with setting forth the principles on which all life rests. Why 
should not Church and State exist side by side ? For a long 
time they did and nobody thought of doubting the necessity 
of the arrangement, but then something was discovered that 
is called liberty. A good many people nowadays regard 
liberty as a kind of fad. I for my part think that liberty is 
the most valuable principle which has ever been discovered. 
He showed how the Church could not apply liberty in the 
same way as did the State, which allowed the game of 
politics to be played like a game of cricket, the two sides 
taking turns to be in ; the way which had been invented 
in order to maintain religious liberty was to have a national 
Church and, by the side of it, voluntary religious societies. 
He went on to treat of the objections to an Established 


Church, and said that it would not do to point to the example 
of the colonies or America. We must stand by what we 
have inherited, and it would be the greatest blow to civilisa 
tion not only in England, but in Europe generally, if the 
ancient historic land of England abandoned its connexion 
with religion. Then, as if he had been serious too long, he 
enlivened his audience with some anecdotes, and after 
answering various reasons given for severing the connexion 
between Church and State, he concluded by speaking of the 
life and the work of the clergy. Talk about an eight hours 
day. Why most of our town clergy regularly work far more 
than eight hours every day, they never cease from their work 
from the time they get up. His last words were to the 
women, bidding them rise to a higher conception of their 
duties as citizens. 

After the congress, he visited the Bishop of Truro and 
preached at St Austell s. Thence we went to W 7 ells, and he 
addressed the Church-reading Society at Bath. In the 
following week he visited his brother at Carlisle. This was 
his first visit to his native city since he had been a bishop ; 
his fellow-townsmen welcomed him with great pride, and he 
preached in the Cathedral to a crowded congregation. We 
went next to Newcastle, where he spoke at the diocesan 
conference on * The Bible and Recent Criticism, and also 
at a working-men s meeting, and thence for a few days rest 
to stay with Sir Edward Grey at Fallodon, and the Arthur 
Lytteltons at Eccles. 

To his son Walter The Vicarage, Eccles : November 3, 1894. 

My dear Walter, We have been wandering in old 
places and seeing old friends at Newcastle and Fallodon. 
Newcastle was rather horrid, cold and rainy, and I did 
nothing but make speeches, which was a dull occupation. . . . 
On Thursday we went to Fallodon. ... It was a dull after 
noon, but we floundered to the sea by Newton, and saw it in 
a stormy mood. The mud of Northumberland surpasses 
even my expectations ; it was awful. Yesterday was a lovely 
day : the sun shone and it was quite warm. We went to 
Dunstanborough and ate our lunch on the sands. The 
colouring of the sea was blue and green and the sands a brilliant 
yellow, and everything was as nice as it could be. ... On 
the way back we saw a few people in Embleton and looked 

H 2 


into the church, which seemed much smaller than I remem 
bered it to be. Lady Grey from Howick came to tea, and 
Lord Grey and Vera came to breakfast this morning. He 
was full of Africa, having just returned from a journey to 
Bulawayo. They both enjoyed it very much, and he told a 
remark of a colonist who, when the ship came into harbour at 
London on a foggy morning, looked sadly at the gloomy 
weather, and said, " This is no country for a white man." Now 
we are here after a day s journey, with the Lytteltons, and go 
home on Tuesday. Please do try and work harder and get 
out of your form, and tell Cuthbert to screw his head on tighter. 

At Eccles he preached on the Sunday morning and next 
day lectured in Manchester on Carthage. Then he went home 
to entertain the East Anglian bishops for their annual 
meeting at Peterborough, and immediately after that to 
Leicester for his autumn visit. 

On December 2 he was summoned for the first time to 
preach before the Queen at Windsor. 

To his niece Winifred Creighton December 7, 1894. 

1 Last Saturday I went to visit the Queen and preach to 
her on Sunday. That was exciting, was it not ? I arrived 
at Windsor Castle about seven on Saturday and was shown 
to my room. Then a series of officials came to tell me what 
I was to do. At nine I went to dinner with the royal house 
hold, the lords and ladies in waiting. It was the Princess 
of Wales s birthday, and all the royal family almost was at 
Windsor. After dinner we went into the Queen s drawing- 
room, when she presently came in followed by the royal 
family. She is a little old woman, very much crippled in the 
legs by rheumatism, walking with a stick, and leaning on her 
Indian attendant, who was clad in a turban and a magnificent 
Oriental dress. There were the Duchess of York, the Princesses 
Victoria and Maud of Wales, &c. . . . They sat in a circle 
and we sat behind them. Then we had a concert . . . the 
Queen departed about 11.30 and \vepresentlyretired. On 
Sunday morning I breakfasted with the household and, at 
eleven had to preach in the Queen s private chapel. It was 
rather awful having a congregation of about fifty, with the 
Queen and the royalties in a box up above, just opposite the top 
of the pulpit. In the evening I dined with the Queen. It was 
not so awful as I had expected. I sat next Princess Beatrice, 
who was very nice. After dinner the Queen sent for me and 
we had a little talk in the drawing-room. She has a beautiful 

!8 9 2 LETTERS 


voice, and was very nice and friendly. ... I have scarcely 
been at home since the beginning of October. 

After this he was invited every year to Windsor, and each 
visit increased not only his loyalty, but his personal affection 
and devotion to the Queen. 

LETTERS 1892-1894 

To Mrs. T. H. Ward The Palace, Peterborough : February 3, 1892. 

Dear Mary, I have been reading " David Grieve " with 
the greatest interest, and congratulate you most cordially on 
it. It is thoroughly human throughout and sends down many 
shafts deep into the recesses of human nature. It has con 
vinced me that you are quite right in writing novels, and that 
you are enriching English literature with a new mode of express 
ing profound truths in a simple and attractive form. You have 
given an imaginative expression of many of the great problems 
of modern life with great subtlety and refined analysis. I 
think that " David Grieve " will never be forgotten, but will 
have a place in literature as a typical book of all that is best 
in the endeavours and feelings of our day. 

My interest in you will allow me to say that I think the 
advance on " Robert Elsmere " is enormous. That is the thing 
which strikes me at every page. I say this not because I 
depreciate the former book, but because there is no testimony 
which can more rejoice the true artist than the testimony to 
artistic growth. The characters are much stronger, the 
realisation is much more complete. All the people in " David ): 
are real people, not types but realities. One feels that one 
has no right to criticise their actions : they did so, and in so 
doing acted up to the law of their being. All the sub 
sidiary scenes are profoundly true, none more touching than 
old Margaret Dawson in her dotage. Then there is such a 
sense of reserved power about the book, that one surrenders 
oneself at once. The conception of the book is noble ; the 
development is natural and truthful ; the results are inevitable. 
What can I say more ? Criticism of minor points is disarmed ; 
it is not worth while. 

* Two things only I wish to say, though with great 
deference. The reason why I set David above Robert is 
because the intellectual side of things is subordinate to the 
purely human. Tendency is a foe to art ; and the exact form 
of repose which David found for his soul is his own concern. 
I am glad that it was such a good one. But there are 
passages in his " diary " which were written by Mrs. Ward 


and not by himself, and diaries are very dangerous things in 

Then David s power of assimilating knowledge is really 
too rapid. Men can rapidly develop capacities and display 
a power of mastering ideas. But they cannot in the midst of 
a practical life rapidly become acquainted with the literary 
form of ideas. The conception of the historical growth of 
ideas is the last that a self-made man would arrive at I 
think David is too educated. In the constructive part of the 
book you have kept your own literary knowledge well in the 
background : but here and there it breaks out, and finds ex 
pression in the language of definite criticism. You are quite 
strong enough to do without it I only wish to point out a 
temptation which you will be greater if you resist 

But I feel that I have np right even to do this. The 
book fills me with nothing but admiration, and it will be of 
great service to all the best interests of humanity, 

1 Yours always affectionately, 


To a former Newnham student Peterborough : March 16, 1892. 

* I can assure you that, whatever your self may be to you, 
it is one of the least unpleasant things that I know, and I am 
always glad to hear about it. I can only say go on and 
prosper. The impulse will come some day. 

But on one point I should like to console you. I feel 
prayer always difficult, not nearly so much of a refreshment 
as I hoped. I do not seem to improve in keeping my atten 
tion, and my thoughts continually wander. But, after all, the 
value of prayer lies in the intention, and we must only deplore 
our inadequate performance. The essential point is the readi 
ness to submit to God s guidance, and the sincere wish not to 
keep one s life outside of His ken. That we can do : there 
may not be given to us the power of continued contempla 
tion and communing. There are different gifts : we can only 
give what we have, and ask that our store may be increased. 

1 think, however, that there is a tendency to use unreal 
language about prayer, and to apply what is true of moments 
of great intensity of feeling to the ordinary performance of our 
daily duties. Life was not given for prayer, but prayer for life. 

He prayeth best who loveth best 

All things both great and small ; 
For the great God who loveth us 

He made and loveth all. 

Write to me again some day, and believe me, 

* Yours always, 



To Lady Grey Peterborough: August 25, 1892. 

1 My dear Dorothy, I will not inflict a letter upon 
Edward, that would be unkind. But I should like to tell you 
how I am interested in his political progress. 1 He has had 
real good fortune, for he is not bound to mix himself up with 
the claptrap which is mistaken for politics, but is concerned 
with the real thing. For politics really consist in foreign 
politics. In internal matters Parliament can only register 
popular demand : and as statesmen have left off attempting 
to direct and form popular opinion, their skill consists in 
dragging into the foreground something which they think 
will suit their game. But in foreign affairs it is not so. 
Problems are set and have to be solved by wisdom. The 
future of England very little depends on internal changes. 
But the whole of the artificial basis of English life depends 
on England s foreign relationships, and he who maintains 
them wisely will be seen to be the truest patriot. Therefore 
I rejoice that Edward has a worthy task, in which he need 
not sacrifice integrity, which it is so hard to maintain nowa 
days. I do not mean that is harder now than at any other 
time ; but men are more conscious now than of old of the 
sacrifice, and suffer more in consequence. But this is prosy. 

1 You will miss your quiet ; you will become magnificent 
Remember that if at any time you want to come to a place 
where no one will talk politics, this place is open. We never 
talk politics here. 

To Bishop Mitchinson Peterborough : February 23, 1893. 

Dear Bishop, . . . I have sent on to you the rural 
deanery scheme from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They 
raise two points. . . . But their questions about names show 
a stupidity which is alarming. I must really send them a 
memorandum on the subject. 

(i) The termination "-tun," "-ton," "-town" is intel 
ligible ; ignorant people in later times made a termination 
" -stone," which is absurd. I do not know who the historic 
" Sib " was ; but you assuredly live in the town which he and 
his men founded, 2 hard by the similar settlement of one 
Ather. But what kind of a stone would deserve the epithet 
of " Sib " or " Ather " I must leave geologists to determine ; 
and what the meaning of these epithets could be no man 
could say. 

(2) The older form of the English genitive was " -es," 

1 Sir Edward Grey had been appointed Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. 
f Bishop Mitchinson was rector of Sibstone. 


the more recent " V : there is [no] difference between Elmes- 
thorpe and Elmsthorpe : both mean Elm s village, and per 
haps the elm was the tribal token. 

* To think that clerks should solemnly sit and refer to 
previous lists as of value about such things ! 

1 Pardon my outbursts. But it is a magnificent instance 
of bureaucracy without intelligence. 

To Mr. Horatio F. Brown Peterborough: April 8, 1893. 

Dear Brown, I have delayed in thanking you for your 
book on " Venice." The reason was that I sat down to read 
it, but have been so often called away by business that I have 
only just finished it This fact, however, makes my thanks 
more genuine when they do come. You have succeeded 
remarkably in getting at the essentials of your subject. And 
how hard a subject it is ! Venice is a Ktdtur Stadt ; yet its 
Kultur is not obvious in its history. The impression which 
it produced on Europe in the days of its greatness is not the 
same as the impression which it now makes on the modern 
mind. Its aesthetic appeal is not, as in the case of Florence, 
intimately associated with the events of its past history. 
Nor does its history as such harmonise with modern concep 
tions. Like its site, Venice lies remote from the rest of 
Europe, and it owes its charm now to the same cause as it 
owed its greatness in the past This point you have made 
clear for the first time to English readers. You have made 
Venice intelligible : could more be done ? Your book will 
be indispensable to anyone who really wishes to know. . . 

To the Rev. W. H. Carnegie, Rector of Great Witley 

* Peterborough : April 28, 1893. 

Dear Carnegie, I have been away confirming and had 
not time to write a letter before. But I quite agree with the 
main lines of your book. 2 I think the title will mislead some, 
but titles are very difficult 

Your main position that a certain mental attitude is 
necessary for understanding any subject is indisputable. The 
Agnostic position seems to me eminently unreasonable. It 
is that of one who, having paid no heed to music, goes to a 
concert and calls it " an ugly noise." The general view about 
religion seems to be, that everyone should form his character, 
or allow it to be formed, by circumstances : then, with a mind 
so constituted and a character so moulded, he suddenly turns 
his attention to religion and says : " There is very little in it 
It does not appeal to me" How could it ? 

1 Venice : an Historiral Sketch, * Through Conversion to the CreeJ. 


Further, people s ideas about the nature of evidence are 
very vague. One of my clergy told me that he was at dinner 
with an eminent lawyer who said : " I go to church and bring 
up my children as Christians ; but I am bound to say there 
is not so much evidence for it as would hang a man." But 
the evidence necessary to hang a man is far beyond that on 
which we act for any practical venture of our own. Did he 
have as much evidence of the character of his wife before he 
married her as would suffice to hang a man ? 

1 The question always comes : What is the starting point ? 
What do you expect ? There is in popular talk very little 
correspondence between what people demand from God and 
what He has promised to give. 

1 Forgive these rambling remarks/ 

To Mr. Robert Bridges Peterborough: October 9, 1893. 

4 Dear Bridges, I have already wiped off the reproach 
with which you upbraided me. About a month ago I spent 
a Sunday at Brixworth, which is certainly one of the most 
interesting buildings in England. I do not know another 
which has gone through so many transformations. But all 
old buildings raise questions which are perplexing. Brix 
worth is unknown in early times ; it is not on a Roman road ; 
why had it a basilica of that size ? I could not gain much 
information about other Roman remains in the neighbourhood. 


It is a proof how little has been done for a survey of Roman 
Britain. I wish some society could be formed to work at 
that subject in various localities. 

* But this is an old scheme of mine, which I want to float 
some day. 

To the Rev. R. S. Baker, rector of Hargrave December 9, 1893. 

1 Dear Mr. Baker, I have read your book l with great 
pleasure, and quite agree with your argument that the 
difficulties of unbelief are at least as great as those of belief, 
and that believers are no stupider than unbelievers. A state 
ment of that position is likely to be extremely useful. 

1 Of the three modes of thought which affect the evidences 
of Christianity at the present day, you have omitted one. 
Natural science and historical criticism have been before you ; 
but the study of comparative religion has not I do not, 
however, believe that that line of argument comes before the 
ordinary (man) so much as the others ; indeed its results are 
not yet capable of being formulated. 

1 Rationalism Irrational, 


In reply to a letter sending him in proof a chapter in 
Mr. Lilly s Claims of Christianity. 

To Mr. VV. S. Lilly The Palace, Peterborough : March 26, 1894. 

My dear Lilly, I have been so busy with sermons and 
letters that I have (only) just found time to give your pages 
the attention which they deserve. I do not think that I have 
any suggestion to make of any importance. Perhaps you have 
confined Humanism to Italy, as glorified by Symonds. In 
Germany it was more serious as represented by Cusa, Brandt, 
Trithemius, and the rest, and the difference which German 
scholars felt between themselves and Italians was one of 
Luther s great helps. Again, the papal decadence is un 
doubted in the sphere of politics ; but beneath the surface 
the Papacy was steadily growing, and the growth of the 
Curia is the sign. The very prevalence of immorality was a 
help to it ; dispensations, indulgences, and the rest increased 
enormously, and a new theology justified them, and supplied 
the officials of the Curia with formula. Alexander VI. was 
hailed at his coronation as " semi-deus." Humanism supplied 
a definition, a category which was wanting ; further the 
description was accurate, for the indulgence system and the 
various functions of the Penitentiary and the Rota gave 
the papal power a place in the ordinary life of the 
ordinary man. In fact, a man s soul could scarcely be saved 
without the special intervention of the Pope in some shape or 
another. These claims and the corresponding system dis 
appeared after Trent, silently and gradually as it had arisen. 
Protestant protests, it is generally forgotten, were directed 
not against the system defined at Trent, but a previous 
system, which it is now difficult to reproduce. Let me give 
you an instance. Bona, widow of Galeazzo Sforza, after her 
husband s murder, submitted a case to the theologians of 
Paris, to know if the Pope could give a plenary remission 
from Purgatory, posthumously, to one who died impenitent 
and was described : " symonias fecit scandalosas et notorias ; 
violavit virgines ; scelera infinita, more tyrannorum per- 
petravit." The Paris doctors answered " Yes." Now the 
position of an official on whom was thrust, by general desire, 
the power of putting everyone spiritually right, no matter 
what they did, was enormous. And it was in the period 
called the Renaissance that this grew and prospered. This 
rendered the "reform of the Curia," which is easily pre 
scribed, very difficult. It was not the reform of officials, not 
the loss of income, but the difficulty of getting the papal 

!8 94 LETTERS 107 

power clear of these outgrowths, which had grown from 
popular demand, and of which the abolition would have been 
very unpopular. 

This is wandering, but you say, p. 164, on the people 
at large the Renaissance had hardly any influence." In 
Italian cities it appealed to their eyes ; it influenced their 
morals, it expressed itself religiously in this way. People 
wished to be religious without being moral. Under 
Alexander VI. the religious ceremonies of the Pope were 
scrupulously attended to ; so too under Leo X. There was 
no lack of decorum ; and there was no popular sense of 
discrepancy. The absence of morality is more striking than 
the vice freedom certainly produced strange results. The 
work of the Jesuits in re-establishing discipline, as moral, was 
certainly very difficult ; and they do not deserve the treat 
ment which is often accorded to them. Symonds regards 
them as the overthrowers of the Renaissance; but he has 
supplied enough evidence that the Renaissance led everything 
to destruction the Church, society, politics. He does not 
give his own prescription for the way out of the mess. 
Perhaps we cannot entirely approve of either the Lutheran, 
the Calvinistic, the Anglican, or the Jesuit solutions of their 
problems. But the Renaissance had no solution at all. 

To Mrs. J. R. Green Peterborough t April 21, 1894. 

My dear Mrs. Green, Thank you very much for your 
book. 1 I did not write at once to thank you, because I 
wanted to read it first. I have not yet found time to finish it, 
as I have been very busy confirming and away from home. 
But I am delighted with the book, which is full of new 
information, to me at least, and put so clearly that everyone 
can take in its significance. To me it is admirable as a key 
to the revolutions of the sixteenth century. It reads as if it 
were an introduction to this subject It shows the inner 
history of the fifteenth century, of the Wars of the Roses, and 
the reconstruction of Henry VII. The corresponding reign 
of Louis XII. in France is equally significant of the forces 
behind the French monarchy. In fact, one is led on to con 
sider the reconstruction of Europe on commercial and 
industrial lines. One sees how the Church was the least 
flexible member of society, as such ; its landlords were 
permanent and resident, and had not the means of entering 
into the new conditions. Hence it was an obstacle to the 
aspirations of the middle class. I am diverging. All I can 

1 Town Life in the Fifteenth Century* 


say is that your book seems to me to be the worthy successor 
of Mr. Green s work, and carries on his spirit into a detailed 
treatment of a particular epoch in a way which is sure to be 

To Mr. W. S. Lilly (in reply to a question whether the Bishop knew of any 
instance of an indulgence being given for future and uncommitted sin) 

* Peterborough : September 14, 1894. 

My dear Lilly, It is hard to assert a negative; but 
I should find it hard to believe Reade s statement. Loescher, 
" Reformations-Acta " i. 355, &c., collects all the statements 
made at the time against indulgences ; but there was no 
definite tax, that I know of, for special sins. The poor were 
to have them gratis ; other people were to pay proportionately 
to their income. Weever, " Funeral Monuments," p. clix., gives 
a bull of Alexander VI. to England estimating the payments 
to be made. The indulgences in Loescher are for involuntary 
homicide after the act ; it is true that the ground alleged 
seems trivial ; a stone thrown by accident slew a man, &c. 
But I cannot believe that any indulgence bore on the face of 
it that it was * pro peccatis commissis vel committendis. Of 
course it might be said that an indulgence to be used after 
confession inarticulo mortis practically gave spiritual immunity 
for a sin which a man had the intention of committing at the 
time when he procured the indulgence. But this raises the 
whole question. 

We shall know shortly all that can be known about 
indulgences. Mr. H. C. Lea of Philadelphia is bringing out 
a book on the subject. He is the man who knows most of 
any living man about the institutes of the mediaeval Church. 
But he groans to me in letters over the difficulty of appre 
hending this most slippery subject. 

To the Rev. G. Bell (Headmaster of Marlborough College*) 

The Palace, Peterborough : January 24, 1894. 

Dear Bell, Thank you very much for finding time to 
write and tell me of Cuthbert s promotion. It will be good 
for him to be in the sixth, and I hope he may make a spurt. 
He has been growing so much lately that his vigour may now 
be free for intellectual purposes. 

But I find it very hard to know what is the ideal of 
a boy s development at present. I feel that an unconscious 
change is passing over our educational system, so that its 
external marks no longer correspond as they once did to the 
facts of life. I mean that in our university days we could say 
that success at the university meant success afterwards. But 

1894 LETTERS 109 

this is no longer the case. Life itself is the great educator ; and 
character becomes daily more important than attainments. 
As educational methods have improved their value has grown 
smaller. I find myself choosing men for posts solely with 
regard to their proved capacity ; and I am struck by the small 
connexion between that and their university distinction. It 
used not to be so ; the two used to be closely connected. 
I cannot quite account for the difference. Perhaps you may 
have an answer. 

As regards Cuthbert, all I can do is to point out to him 
that his future is in his own hands. As regards the influence 
of Marlborough on his character, I think it has been entirely 
good. You will in time consider which university he should 
go to. I have no preference. I should like him to get a 
scholarship, if possible, as a stimulus ; but that must depend. 

August 6, 1894. 

One s children ... do not turn out as one expected . . . 
Systems of education and ways of dealing with them seem to 
me to contribute very little to anyone s development- 
positively that is, negatively they have their value. Every 
body has to make himself, and how to fix on him the sense of 
responsibility is a difficult, indeed an insoluble, question. . . . 
Some will learn from the discipline of schools ; others need 
the sterner discipline of life. It is always the same story ; the 
enjoyment of the present obscures the issues of the future. 

To Miss Helen Bell (on her engagement) 

The Palace, Peterborough : August 28, 1894. 

1 My dear Helen ; Your news arrived yesterday just as 
I was leaving home for a hard day s work. I take the first 
opportunity of sending you my congratulations. I am very 
glad. It seldom happens that one know r s both sides ; gene 
rally one has to express one s satisfaction with faith. But 
now I know and can say that nothing could be better. 

4 Well, all I can say is, may you be very happy ; and 
there is all probability that such you will be. 

But letters of any kind are dull reading at such a time. 
The heart, stirred with emotion unfelt before, becomes con 
scious of a new revelation of itself and its capacities, of life 
and its meaning. The stimulus of seeing another heart open 
before it fills it with feelings far beyond the power of expres 
sion. The deep is broken up, and new worlds come into 
sight. The time of an engagement is a time when one is a 
bore to other people, because one is soaring beyond and 
above the ordinary sphere. Treasure your visions, they will 


be useful to you. None of them is a mere dream ; they are 
eternally true. All that we have ever seen is real : alas, that 
we do not see it always. 

* I am moralising ; but the old are glad to renew their 
youth ; and their sympathy is sincere because it comes from 

To his daughter Lucia at Newnham College 

Farnham Castle : October 16, 1894. 

* I am deeply interested in all that befalls you at Newn 
ham, your pursuits, your friends and everything. . . . You 
will find out lots of things about yourself from intercourse 
with others, and from unwrapping your own mind. There 
fore, if it is a bore to you at first in some ways, never mind ; 
you will see what comes and will learn to put yourself by 
the side of others. 

We have been gadding about till I am aweary. . . . 
Yesterday I helped to consecrate two bishops, and came off 
here in the evening. We have Mr. Labouchere staying : he 
is very nice, only he makes me talk and smoke too much. 
He is quite excellent to talk to about politics, because he has 
no illusions. 

To Mr. Edmund Gosse Peterborough : October 24, 1894. 

Thank you much for your poems, In Russet and Silver ; 
they touch a note that vibrates much in me the subdued 
gloom of middle age. This has not yet had its poet : yet 
surely its experiences and aspirations deserve a record which 
you have given with feeling which entrances. I read and 
meditated yesterday in a railway train to my great solace, and 
I am just going away again, and shall finish the book to-day. 
It was very good of you to send it me. It is a memory of 
old times which are never forgotten. Every year of mechanic 
labour makes the expansiveness of earlier days more 

To his daughter Lucia 

* Scotby, Carlisle : October 29, 1894. 

* .... I suppose you are busy between lectures and 
society. I am glad that you enjoy your lectures. Try to 
read all the Domesday you can : it is most useful to get to 
understand old documents. It is merely a matter of a little 
time and practice, and the result is worth getting. Gwatkin s 
lectures will make you think, and so will Seeley s : only 
Seeley s will probably make you think differently from him 
I do not know that history can be limited to politics. The 

1894 LETTERS in 

Greek word larropLa means enquiry, and history is properly any 
enquiry into the past Of course our curiosity is about 
different things at different times. But we want to find in 
any period what was most important in it : and we want also 
to bring it into some relation to ourselves at present. 
Politics, I suppose, means the organisation of society by the 
State : but we often want to know more than that ; literature, 
art, ideas, religion, all have their place, and some periods are 
entirely engaged with them. Of course all these things pass 
into society, but we cannot find them always in government 
or in matters relating to government. I think history is con 
cerned with what men did and thought, just as much as how 
they were governed ; and I do not like any arbitrary limita 
tions. Of course a man may say that political history is 
the chief thing : it is certainly the most difficult, and needs 
most working. 

November 14. 

I see that you are like everybody else, complaining of 
your memory. It does not matter reading books and for 
getting them : you do not forget so much as you suppose. 
Don t read your books as books, but as illustrating a subject. 
Make notes on the subject, and regard that every book you 
read fills up something, gives you some new ideas, makes the 
process more intelligible. Remember that men in history 
were human beings like yourself, and acted from the same 
motives. Gregory of Tours is very good to read, for he is so 
far away, and there is so little of him that you are thrown upon 
your imagination and your intelligence to make out what 
happened. This is just the opposite of Professor Seeley s 
method of analysing methods of government. One begins at 
the top, and the other at the bottom : one with the institutions 
in the abstract, the other with the men. Good-bye : I have 
two speeches to prepare. God bless you. 

To Mr. Edmund Gosse Leicester : November 19, 1894. 

* Your paper on Pater seems to me admirable. It deli 
cately touches his chief characteristics. I have only suggested 
one or two pedantic alterations for academical accuracy. 
Your pages suggest to me many reminiscences, as, how Pater 
when he travelled with his sisters always left a place if anyone 
staying in the hotel spoke to him ; how in quite early days I 
remember dining with him, and Bonamy Price was there : 
conversation turned on ecclesiastical matters, and Pater 
passed on to a dreamy monologue about the beauty of the 
reserved Sacrament in Roman churches which "gave them 


all the sentiment of a house where lay a dead friend." Bonamy 
Price s Protestantism was aroused and a theological discussion 
ensued which waxed so warm that I suggested a retreat to 
the drawing-room. This was in 1873, and proves that Pater s 
interest in ecclesiastical matters was never dead. Again I 
remember Pater interposing in a serious discussion in common 
room at B. N. C. about university reform by saying " I do 
not know what your object is ; at present the undergraduate 
is a child of nature : he grows up like a wild rose in a country 
lane : you want to turn him into a turnip, rob him of all grace, 
and plant him out in rows." Again at our examination for 
scholarships he undertook to look over the English Essays : 
when we met to compare marks, Pater had none : he said 
languidly, " They did not much impress me." He was asked 
to give his impressions, and the names were read out in 
alphabetical order. Pater shook his head sadly as each was 
read, and said dreamily, " I do not recall him," " He did not 
strike me," and so on. At last the reader came to the name 
of Sanctuary, on which Pater s face lit up, and he said, " Yes : 
I remember : I liked his name." 

* I make you a depository of these reminiscences which 
your paper has recalled. It was always a sorrow to me that 
I never saw much of him after leaving Oxford. He would 
never go and stay anywhere. 1 



AFTER all that he had heard about the prevalence of Dissent 
and of the most advanced forms of rationalistic thought in 
Leicester and Northampton, the Bishop was agreeably 
surprised to find how much vigorous Church life there was in 
both places. It seemed to him that opposition had been 
useful, that it had obliged men to think things out, and to 
give their best energies in support of the cause which they had 
made their own. But the growth of Leicester especially had 
been so rapid as to outstrip all religious energies. There was 
no room for animosity between Church and Dissent. How 
ever much each might do, it seemed impossible to supply the 
spiritual needs of the growing population. The Bishop s 
relations with nonconformists were most friendly. He was 
ready to appreciate their work, and to dwell on that foundation 
of faith common to all Christians, but he did not minimise 
differences, and was never concerned with any question of 
reunion ; he did not believe it to be a practical question. To 
him the important thing was that men should try to under 
stand one another, and to wc:k together as far as possible. 
He wrote : I should say that we can join all men in work 
which is hortative or preventive ; when the subject is edifying 
we must do it on our own lines. Canon Stocks, his Rural 
Dean at Leicester, writes : 

* His relations to nonconformists in what has been called 
the metropolis of nonconformity were thoroughly healthy. No 
leader of opinion in the Church of England could be more 
honest in maintaining on certain questions a conviction or a 
policy contrary to those commonly received and held amongst 
nonconformists. This was notably the case on the education 
question. Yet he won their respect and regard, and where 
they differed from him it was never his manner of maintaining 
what he held to be the true position which repelled. 



His habit always was to take people as he found them, 
and to meet them on those points on which he could under 
stand them or sympathise with them. Then, when a friendly 
relation had been established, he could, if he thought well, 
proceed further. 

This habit helped him much in Leicester and North 
ampton. Both places were aggressively Radical in politics, 
and it was a common idea that Churchman and Tory were 
convertible terms. Probably no one in either place ever 
succeeded in defining the Bishop s politics. The split in 
the Liberal party over Home Rule had made him less of a 
party politician than ever ; whilst his office of itself lifted him 
above the necessity of belonging to any political party, and 
this fitted in with the natural tendency of his mind. He used 
to ignore party politics and treat political questions, if he 
touched them, sometimes from the historical side, sometimes 
from a wide national point of view. It was impossible either 
for the intelligent working-men or the hard-headed business 
men of Leicester and Northampton not to recognise his 
absolute freedom from prejudice, the frank openness of his 
mind, the width and comprehensiveness of his ideas, or to 
fail to be inspired by his genuine love for the people and 
desire for their welfare. With the leading business men he 
got on all the better because of his genuine appreciation of 
their capacities. He was sometimes sadly conscious of the 
overwhelming importance attached to material things and of 
the want of culture in a place so new as Leicester ; and this 
made him eager to do all he could to promote the higher 
interests of the city. He was ready to help in every 
educational scheme, and always willing himself to lecture 
either to the Literary and Philosophical Institute, or to the 
Co-operative Society, or to other organisations of working 
men. He never avoided plain speaking, either about the 
failings or duties of his hearers, and he always tried to lead 
working-men to understand the real meaning of the Church, 
and what the existence of an Established Church did for the 
nation. His bits of practical advice were calculated to stick 
in men s minds. He told his audience at a working-men s 
meeting held at the Folkestone Church Congress, that 
their duty as members of Christ s Church was to take 


their children to church on Sunday and sit beside them ; 
to help their clergy, to feel towards them as if they could 
slap them on the back ; to carry their religion into the 
workshop. * You know, he said, that we have a crook in our 
arm. Why was it given to us ? It was given to us that we 
might put it through the arm of another fellow and guide 
him on the straight way. The stories he told, the illustrations 
which enlivened his speeches, showed how intimately he knew 
the life of the working classes. When speaking in his own 
Diocese, he always tried to get his audience to feel the 
personal bond between him and them. To a meeting of 
working-men held at the time of the Leicester Diocesan 
Conference in 1893, he said, Though I already have many 
friends among you, I shall never be satisfied until many of 
you stop me in the streets, shake me by the hand, and tell 
me how you are getting on at home, how the missus is and 
the children. As often as he could, he visited some factory 
or workshop, and was ready to address the men at their 
dinner hour, and to try to understand all about the 
conditions of their work. 

In 1893, with the Bishop s approval, the Leicester clergy 
got up a course of addresses on * The Church and Economics 
in St. Martin s Church on Sunday afternoons, followed on the 
same evening by a conference in the schools on the subject 
of the afternoon s address, at which the preacher might be 
questioned. The Bishop was to give the first address, and it 
was suggested that he should be spared the evening s 
conference. To this he would not agree. 

To the Rev. H. Orford August 30, 1893. 

I am quite with you and Sanders, and will help you as 
far as I can. I could come on January 7, but I feel that I 
ought not to wish to escape being " heckled," and if I came, I 
would go to the meeting also. Suppose my subject was 
called " The Gospel and Society " I would be quite general 
and would try and point out the limits within which the 
Church can actively influence matters/ 

In his address he showed how the spirit of Christianity 
had always led to the * fullest recognition of the equal 
duties and of the equal rights of all men ; equal duties first, 

I 2 


and equal rights following in the second place. In the 
discussions after these addresses men of all kinds of opinions 
joined, but it proved possible to maintain courtesy and good 
feeling. Of course no definite results were attained, but the 
bringing together of men of such widely different views, and 
getting them to treat one another with mutual considera 
tion, could not fail to be productive of a better understanding. 
The Bishop s appearance at such a discussion, and the way in 
which he took part in it, did much to win for him the con 
fidence of the Leicester working-men. 

When he was appointed to London in 1896, he received 
a letter from a man then working as headmaster of a small 
Church school in London showing the effect produced by his 
address on this last occasion : 

I had been a doubter in religious matters . . . but the 
barrenness of scepticism began to make itself felt, and I was 
eagerly watching for some guide to give me some rational 
basis on which I might once more plant my early faith. I 
was in the congregation at St. Martin s when you preached 
the first of a series of sermons on industrial questions. That 
sermon, or rather your Lordship s personality, was the turning- 
point for me. From then until spring in last year I did not 
miss ever hearing you when you came to Leicester. Hence 
my indebtedness to your Lordship. I have many times 
wished to be able to thank you. 

The winter recreation of Leicester is football, and the Satur 
day half-holiday is spent by very many of the inhabitants 
either in playing or watching the game, whilst the great 
roar made by the cheers and shouts of the interested crowd 
penetrates to every part of the town. The Bishop showed 
his sympathy with the amusements of the people by con 
senting to preach at a service held on April 8, 1894, at 
St. Martin s Church, Leicester, for the members of the football 
clubs. He spoke to them of what the Incarnation teaches as 
to the nature of the body and the real unity of life, and said 
that, just as their bodies needed refreshment on Saturdays 
after the monotony of the week s work, so did their souls need 
refreshment on Sundays ; the training, the discipline, the 
recreation that was necessary for the health of their bodies 
v/as necessary also for the health of their souls. The struggle 


after greater dexterity in the football field was a parable of 
the course ot their spiritual life. At football, faculties were 
called out for which their ordinary life offered no scope, and 
in the short, sharp struggle there came to them something like 
a revelation of new faculties, some better, some worse. So all 
life was a revelation. They would constantly find themselves 
called upon to do things they had never dreamt of, and that 
call would reveal to them new capacities. 

Already at Embleton he had shown his interest in 
friendly societies by becoming an Oddfellow, and when 
in 1894 the Oddfellows held their annual gathering at 
Northampton, he preached at the church parade. He 
reminded them that nothing outside themselves could bring 
the peace for which all men long. Men want God s gifts, 
but will not seek them in God s way : 

1 How can you expect the nation as a whole to keep 
peace if in trade disputes you will not show a peaceful temper 
and try to settle your disputes in peaceful ways ; if you are 
unable to discuss political questions soberly and in a fair- 
minded way ? A great responsibility attaches to all those who 
meddle with politics ; their temper of mind, the nature of the 
arguments they use, have a tremendous influence. How 
dangerous is the temper of mind which misrepresents 
opponents, falsifies issues, is full of prejudice, treats great 
questions with levity, refuses to be guided by the evidence 
before it. ... Unless you get rid of that temper in your own 
small affairs, and practise yourselves in conducting your own 
business with sobriety and open-mindedness, you are not doing 
your utmost to make this a peace-loving nation. . . . Your 
deliberations will disclose differences of opinion : it is good to 
have them, but the way in which he approaches differences of 
opinion is a great test of a man. No self-restraint is so 
valuable as that involved in listening to opinions with which 
you do not agree, until it dawns upon you that there are 
stores of hidden wisdom which you do not know, that it is 
possible that your way is not the only way, even that it 
may not be the right way. 

On many other occasions also he preached at the church 
parades of friendly societies. He showed constant interest 
as well in the different co-operative societies, especially 
in their educational work. In the autumn of 1894 he was 
asked to address the Loughborough Liberal Club, and chose 


as his subject, Some Principles affecting Social Legislation. 
Mr. Johnson Ferguson, M.P., was in the chair, and said that 
in the twenty-three years of his political life he had never 
presided at a meeting in a political club which was addressed 
by a bishop. In his speech the Bishop said that all would 
understand that it was in no political spirit that he was 
present with them, and that he was glad that they should 
wish sometimes to hear questions discussed on their own 
merits apart from their political bearing. He tried to get his 
hearers to realise the complexity of social problems ; they 
were not problems to which an answer could be worked out. 
You cannot get things clear because you want them to be 
clear, nor get an answer to a question simply because you try 
to work it out as you would a sum in arithmetic. He spoke 
of their individual responsibility. At the present day 
England is carrying the burdens of civilisation upon its 
shoulders, and the great question before Englishmen is, " Will 
the shoulders of England continue to be strong enough to 
bear these burdens ? The strength of England depends upon 
the collective wisdom and capacity for judgment of its citizens. 
That wisdom and judgment you can only gain after a sober 
survey of actual facts, which you must judge with reference 
to things actually before you, without being carried away by 
dreams or visions. He told them that he thought they 
attached too much importance to legislation. * A law is the 
expression of the will of the community. . . . There can be no 
law if there are many people determined to break it ... no 
advantages can be gained by legislation which leaves any 
considerable body of the community with a sense of injustice. 
In conclusion he stated that the main social problems of the 
day were the more equal distribution of the profits of produc 
tion, and the better organisation of labour ; these two things 
concern not only the men but the masters, the positions of 
the two are not really antagonistic . . . real progress can 
only come about by an absolutely good understanding 
between them. They ought constantly to meet in order to 
discuss matters of equal interest to both. His advice to the 
working-men was to strive not so much for higher wages as 
for regular employment * Common effort, with strict respect 
for justice, mutual regard for all, and that common sense 


which had made England what it was, would enable them to 
solve the problems before them. 

He ever tried to get men to see the connexion between 
their religion and their ordinary life of social and economic 
activity, and therefore willingly brought before the clergy 
in the chief towns of his diocese the proposal made by the 
London Reform Union to observe one Sunday in the year as 
Reform or Citizen Sunday, and to preach to their people about 
a citizen s duties. His suggestion for he naturally did not 
allow it to take any other form was very generally acted 
upon. But when he left Peterborough the custom dropped 
to be revived some years later by the Mayor of Leicester. 

When in 1894 he delivered his Primary Charge, he gave 
that part of it which dealt with social problems at Leicester, 
and spoke of the way in which the clergy might help in 
dealing with these problems : 

The clergy are, as a rule, from the mere nature of their 
vocations, the class in the community which is least versed in 
business affairs. They are little suited as a body to decide 
economic questions. ... I believe that what men of all kinds 
of opinion would all join in advising [them to aim at] is bene 
volent neutrality in trade disputes, constant helpfulness in 
alleviating inevitable distress, outspoken criticism of all 
unfairness, and unswerving maintenance of the great principle 
of justice. ... I would urge my brethren to learn all that 
they can of the actual facts of the occupations of those 
amongst whom they labour, to discover their aims, and to 
apply to all impartially the tests of Christian morality. The 
great need of our day is that all human relationships should 
be first moralised and then spiritualised. 1 

An opportunity soon came for him to put his views into 
practice, and show how his efforts to understand the lives 
and interests of both masters and men, and to give them at 
all times his sympathy and friendship, had won their confidence. 
Early in 1895, there were rumours of disputes in the boot 
and shoe trade. The Bishop was in Italy in February and 
the early part of March, and returned just before lock-out 
notices were issued by the Manufacturers Federation, by 
which 120,000 people were thrown out of work. Leicester 
and Northampton were the places chiefly affected. The 

1 The Church and the Nation, p. 57. 


clergy and other ministers of religion had, some little time 
before, issued an appeal to both sides in the contest, implor 
ing them to give the matter further consideration before taking 
irrevocable steps ; but with no avail. The Bishop wrote to 
Canon Stocks immediately on his return : 

March 18, 1895. 

I The strike is very grievous. The " Times " article to-day 
gives a fair account of the difficulties, I take it. Your 
memorial was excellent and will bear fruit But one feels 
that there must be some time before a basis of agreement 
emerges. The gravity of the crisis, the pressure of public 
opinion, must tell on both sides ; they must be compelled to 
formulate their demands. If I could be of any use, I need 
not say that nothing would stand in my way. But I feel that 
some opening ought to be given me if possible. There have 
been offers of mediation, I see, from sources which might have 
been acceptable. I do not know who would wish to confer 
with me. But, if you see a chance, I will place myself at any 
one s disposal ; though I have nothing to offer except good 
intentions and impartiality. I have been thinking if I could 
write you a letter for the benefit of the clergy, but for publi 
cation. But it is difficult, and might be useless. I will think 
some more, but am overwhelmed with letters just now. I am 
inconclusive, I feel : but about such a matter one can only pray 
for guidance. I own that as a matter of principle I deprecate 
episcopal interference with economic questions. But I am 
ready to sink anything for the purpose of helping. 

Peterborough: March 19, 1895. 

* I enclose you the result of my meditations, and am 
sending you copies for distribution among the clergy. Per 
haps you will also send to the local papers. 

I 1 have had little time for reflection, but I think I have 
said nothing which can give offence. I showed it to Clayton, 
and he had no objections to raise. It is for us to represent 
the moral sense of the public. I hope that my lead may not 
be without effects on the language and expressions of others. 

With this he sent the following letter : 

March 18, 1895. 

* My dear Canon Stocks, I cannot refrain from express 
ing my deep sympathy with my clergy in the sadness which 
they must necessarily feel at the industrial dispute now so 
seriously affecting the welfare of the community in which 
they labour. I am glad to know that all the representatives 


of the Christian religion joined in urging upon employers and 
employed the need for serious consideration before they 
engaged in strife. Their appeal was not immediately success 
ful ; but I trust that the struggle which was held to be in 
evitable will be powerfully influenced by the spirit which 
that appeal expressed. It urged three great pleas the unity 
of society, the grave responsibility attaching to any breach 
of that unity, and fair and open discussion as the only means 
of composing differences. These are truths which ought to 
be before the eyes of all men, and they cannot be too strongly 
or too persistently set forward. They are principles which 
must ultimately prevail. 

My object in writing to you is to exhort my clergy to 
emphasise these truths whenever an opportunity is offered. 
Now that the strife has broken out, they must redouble their 
efforts for peace, and must not lose courage. I would submit 
some considerations for their guidance. 

* The complexity of industrial life raises from time to 
time questions of great difficulty to decide fairly. The boot 
and shoe industry has passed through several stages, with 
exceptional rapidity, during the last few years. It is, I am 
willing to believe, hard for the most fair-minded and best- 
informed man to decide with any certainty how it can best 
be organised. Industrial disputes always involve matters 
about which certain knowledge is almost impossible. They 
cannot be explained as due to greed on one side, or ignorance 
on the other ; and I am glad to think that such causes are 
not alleged in this case. But when an industry has passed 
through rapid changes, there is uncertainty on one side and 
uneasiness on the other. An exact basis of agreement is not 
obvious, not through any want of goodwill, but through the 
limitations of human foresight. I therefore deprecate any 
hasty judgment upon the actual points which are supposed 
to be in dispute. It may well be that the statements on both 
sides are imperfect ; and they are easily misjudged, because 
they deal with details which cannot be understood by them 
selves. We are bound to believe that both sides are sincere, 
and are willing to set the general good before their own 

* But we are equally bound to impress upon both parties 
that suspension from work is to be regarded as affording 
time for a careful examination of the points in dispute, and 
a search for a basis of agreement They could not agree 
before because they had not time both to work and to in 
vestigate great questions. They have stopped work without 


any ill-feeling towards one another, that they may give their 
attention in common to provide for the future. The gravity 
of the situation is now before them. They see ali that their 
disagreement implies to the rest of the community. They 
are responsible for the energy and goodwill which they bring 
to the settlement of their differences. The dispute must be 
settled, not by an appeal to the brute force of endurance, but 
by wisdom and conscience, quickened by a heightened sense 
of responsibility. The whole community has a right to de 
mand that no time be wasted by pride or obstinacy. It may 
not be able to judge of the particular points of dispute ; but 
it can judge, and will eagerly scan, the temper shown in 
bringing these points into shape for decision. 

* I think that it is the great duty of the clergy to urge 
these great moral considerations, without any spirit of par 
tisanship ; to aim at removing hindrances to friendly discus 
sion, to ask day by day what has been done, to discounten 
ance all appeals to passion, to uphold the standard of 
justice, to sympathise with every effort for peace. 

1 They may do something by their exhortations ; they 
will do more by their prayers. It is their great duty to bring 
to bear upon all things " the mind of Christ" I trust that 
all the churches in the town will be open, and that notices 
will be placed at the entrances that they are places for prayer 
and meditation in the sight of God. The hours of daily 
service should also be clearly stated, and all should be ex 
horted to bring themselves into God s presence, who alone 
can " make men to be of one mind." I would further ask 
that the Prayer for Unity in the Accession Service be said 
after the Collects of the Day. 

* Commending you to the grace of God in my prayers, 
1 I am, your faithful servant and brother in Christ Jesus, 


The dispute was more bitter at Leicester than at any 
other part of the district affected. At first it seemed hope 
less to try to get the opposing parties to understand one 
another. It would not be worth while to explain here the 
very intricate and technical points on which the dispute 
turned. The Bishop took all possible trouble to under 
stand it, and completely mastered the questions at issue. 
But from the first he did not think it would be wise for him 
to put himself forward as a mediator. The following letters 
show what he tried to do : 

iS95 LETTERS 123 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks Peterborough: March 24, 1895. 

There is much to be said for prayer meetings, in any 
form, which deal with the need of peace and turn men s 
minds to seek counsel of God. Would a united meeting be 
the best ? I rather doubt about the wisdom of beginning 
with a general appeal. It might be begun humbly in various 
districts. I think that all Christians might well combine and 
we might see what response it met with. If it were begun, 
it should go on daily, be at a suitable hour, and be brief and 
quite simple. 

* But if a general appeal were made at once it might fail, 
as it might seem to be a demonstration on one side or the 
other. What was done simply on a small scale would not 
be subjected to criticism ; but if a large attempt were made 
the language used would be very closely scanned, and every 
one engaged in it would be held responsible for anything 
that was said. 

I have some hopes that the meeting to-day may lead to 
some results. 

1 Who is Mr. Ward, the head of the Masters Federation ? 
Is he a Leicester man ? Could you approach him at all and 
learn if he would welcome a talk over matters ? The best 
hope is that some impartial person or persons should be a 
medium of communication between the respective leaders. 
The first practical step is to secure this if possible. Inter 
vention, unless it is welcomed, would only spoil the future 
chance, and would count as fussy interference. 

1 Peterborough : March 25, 1895. 

1 .... I am always meditating about the strike. Mr. 
Labouchere has supplied an object lesson : (i) he struck in 
too soon ; (2) he simplified the matter too much ; (3) he 
proposed far too much all at once ; (4) he was open to the 
suspicion of making capital out of the offer for political 
purposes ; (5) his proposed board was too large, too political 
and not sufficiently impartial. He has made the matter 
worse, decidedly worse, by his action, and has emphasised the 
need of prudence. 

* Now it seems to me that the first thing to settle is the 
terms of reference to arbitration. The strike cannot go on 
long : it cannot be ended by despair ; it must be made to 
assume the appearance of a compromise, or an approach to 
agreement. Arbitration is inevitable : the question is, what 
is it to be about ? 

This can only be settled by negotiation, and the negotia- 


tion would be easiest by the appointment of one or two persons 
who would let both sides talk the point out, and would simply 
offer their services as removing obstacles and keeping the 
discussion to the point. It would take some little time and 
would need continuous sitting. Could you in any way urge 
this ? It would be best done privately. Could you see 
Mr. Ward either alone or with others. If I could be of any 
use, I am always ready : but I do not wish to interfere unless 
I am to some degree trusted : and I have no qualities except 
average common sense and real impartiality. If I were not 
sure that I was impartial, I would abstain. For this prelimi 
nary work the absence of expert knowledge would not matter. 
Some sort of conference ought to be set on foot as soon as 

Peterborough : March 28, 1895. 

I had reasons of my own for thinking that something 
was being done towards negotiation. It now appears that 
Mr. Labouchere has been finally swept away : and Mr. Ward s 
letter to-day hints at the possibility of negotiations on 
another basis. I wish you would see him and ask if my 
services would be of any avail, either now or afterwards. 
You would frankly tell him that my sole wish was to be use 
ful as a buffer, that I have no prejudices, and that I have no 
axe to grind. He would tell you with equal frankness his 
opinion. I will make no public statement of anything about 
this : it will be merely private between you and him. 

The Bishop was gratified by receiving the following letter 
from the secretary of the Northampton Trades Council : 

March 29, 1895. 

1 My Lord, At the monthly meeting of the above Council 
held in the Town Hall on Wednesday March 27, the following 
resolution was carried unanimously. 

That this Council, representing 9,000 workmen, wishes to 
place on record our hearty approval of the action taken by 
the Bishop of Peterborough, Mr. Labouchere and others, to 
secure a peaceful settlement of the dispute in the boot and 
shoe trade by arbitration, and would respectfully urge upon 
them the necessity of not resting until their efforts are 

The opinion was also freely expressed that any efforts 
made by you would in all probability be more successful 
than those made by any prominent politician. 

1895 LETTERS 125 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks Peterborough : March 30, 1895. 

* You may have seen that the Trades Council of Northamp 
ton passed a resolution thanking me and Mr. Labouchere for 
our efforts after arbitration. But it was sent to me with the 
significant remark that the opinion of the meeting was " that 
efforts made by you would in all probability be more success 
ful than those made by any prominent politician." 

If this view prevails, the time has come when I may at 
least offer my services without presumption. Can you see 
some one of the men s leaders, and discover if they are ready 
to confer, on any such lines as I have indicated ? I simply 
propose to be a go-between, and prepare for a conference, 
which should discuss terms of arbitration. 

* I am giving you a great deal of trouble, but the matter is 
one of vital importance. And you will see that any personal 
intervention of mine is useless till it is accepted as at all 
events harmless. If I were to write, still more if I were to 
go, there would be an amount of publicity which would be 
dangerous. Things are effective in proportion to the careful 
preparation made for them. 

I go to London to-night to preach at the Chapel Royal 
to-morrow, but come back to-morrow night. If you send me 
a telegram saying Come, I will come to Leicester on Monday 
morning at twelve. Otherwise I shall come anyhow on 
Tuesday afternoon. But things now seem to be ripe, and 
time ought not to be lost 

Private Peterborough : April I, 1895. 

1 Your news is excellent. I have written to Mr. Ward to 
ask what hour would suit him on Wednesday. I can now 
tell you in deadly confidence that I saw the President of the 
Board of Trade and also the chief permanent secretary last 
Monday, and discussed with them what they were to do. I 
have an inveterate objection to make personal capital out of 
this or anything. I put it to the President that he was the 
nearest approach to a public representative of the parties 
concerned, and that he was to try first. We entirely agreed 
about the course of action to be pursued. I have been wait 
ing to hear some sign of results. You see that they are 
coming. The next difficulty will be from the side of the 
men. The character of their leaders is not of prime import 
ance : it is their reasonableness. 

After this a conference was arranged in London between 
Sir Courtenay Boyle, the permanent secretary of the Board 
of Trade, and representatives of the men and the masters. 


The Bishop wrote to Sir Courtenay Boyle from Leicester 
to tell him all that he had been able to discover about 
the attitude of both sides, in the hopes that his informa 
tion might be of some service at the conference. In thank 
ing him for the letter, Sir Courtenay Boyle wrote : * Your 
letter was of very great use. A navigator in a strange sea 
highly values a chart* They were in constant correspondence 
throughout the conference. After the first meetings, which 
promised well, Sir Courtenay Boyle wrote : 

* April 6, 1895. 

The great hitch yesterday was as regards country work. 
The men s representatives, not without, I imagined, some 
doubts in their own minds, protested against the right of the 
employers to send out work at all from districts in which 
statements were in force. 

* Are you able to tell me whether there is anything in the 
agreements which amounts to an honourable or moral con 
tract to give all available work to the men in the district 
affected ? If there is not, do you think it would clear the 
ground if an authoritative person were consulted on, and 
advised on this point? ... I think there is a better tone 
than there was. Pray give me any hint that you have 

The Bishop to the Rev. Canon Stocks 

Private * Peterborough : April 7, 1895. 

So far so good. The crux now is the country work, on 
which I want information. Would you mind seeing Inskip 
privately for me, and asking him to tell you his views on this 
point ? Especially discover : 

(i) Does he hold that it is contrary to agreements 
previously made between men and masters ? If so, what ? 
Would he consent to submit this question to some authorita 
tive person to decide ? 

1 (2) Do the men really want the finishing work to be 
retained in the factory more in the interests of the work 
people actually employed or in the interest of the strength 
of their union organisation ? 

* (3) What is the amount of work sent out to the country ? 

* (4) What is the difference in wages for it ? 

(5) Do they object to it altogether, or would they suggest 
its regulation and limitation ? 

1 (6) Have they considered the probable effect of its 
abolition in bringing more hands into the town ? 

,895 COUNTRY WORK 127 

1 1 do not know to what places such work is chiefly sent 
You could ascertain this, and would then write to some 
capable incumbent of such a place and ask him to send me 
a report of the general effect which the system has on the 
village, and the probable results of its abolition. One or two 
such men as you think them capable. Ask them to address 
to me at the Vicarage, Knighton, at once. 

If you would send me the result of your inquiries there 
I should be glad. . . . This is for a report to headquarters, 
where I am anxious to put the matter fully and fairly. 

To Sir Courtenay Boyle April 9, 1895. 

1 I have been spending most of my time to-day in getting 
up the question of country work. The masters are firm that 
they can see their way to no compromise. I have tried to 
get at the bottom of the matter, and it is generally what I 
told you before. The abolition of country work would perfect 
the organisation of the Union and leave the masters at the 
mercy of the men. This they will never agree to. 

At present -the position of the masters is very strong. 
The men are out of their calculations, this is the busiest time 
of the year, and they thought the Federation would break up 
through the inability of the smaller employers to hold out ; 
but (i) the Federation has shown unexpected strength; 
(2) Public opinion has not been enlisted on the men s side. 
The men cannot reasonably expect to win on the country 
work. I think they must withdraw; the question is howt 

1 Let me explain, though perhaps you know, the import 
ance of the question, not for the present but for the future. 
Shoe-work is divided into three main heads the clickers who 
cut the upper leather, the tasters who make up the shoe into 
shape, and the finishers. Clickers and finishers need com 
plicated machinery ; but the work of the lasters, though done 
by this machinery to some degree, is not absolutely dependent 
on it Simpler machinery that could be used even at home 
would suffice. At present the lasting is done in the factories : 
but the men know that this is not absolutely necessary. 
Further the lasters are the representatives of the oldest part 
of the transformed industry. They have the old traditions 
and are strongest in the Union. If the pressure of the Union 
was unreasonable, the masters could at a pinch withdraw 
some of the lasting to the country. Then the clickers and 
the finishers would be dependent on the country workers, and 
the strength of the Union would be broken. 

1 Both sides see this, and they are fighting with reference 


to this occult possibility in the future. The present is not 
of much moment : not much work goes into the country, and 
not much gain is made of it. 

* There is no claim made by the men that masters are 
acting contrary to the spirit of previous agreements : it is a 
new question, though it has long been simmering, and is now 
considered ripe for solution. 

1 The work is sent out by carriers and brought back by 
them in carts : you will see that it cannot be much if it is so 
distributed. The men s cry, " Work begun in Leicester to be 
finished in Leicester," is like an attempt to build a great wall 
of China, and so be secure. If it were acted on it would also 
carry " Work begun in the country to be finished in the 
country -i.e. that factories should be built in every place 
where work was done. This* sounds plausible, but it is 

I had a long talk with the manager of the great factory 
of the Co-operative Wholesale, which obeys Union rules, and 
pays Union wages. . . . This man is very intelligent, and has 
made a visit to the United States to see exactly what the 
competition was. He is of opinion that the surest way to 
secure lasting agreement would be that each side should 
depute two, and they should select an arbiter, who should go 
to America and look at things for themselves. He believes 
that only so could the workmen understand the conditions 
under which English trade has to be carried on. 

You will see that the difficulty about the country work 
is not any actual grievance at present, but is the principle 
which underlies it. Only when the men feel they cannot win 
will they accept some compromise which leaves the masters 
position practically unchanged. As a master put it to me : 
" We cannot bind ourselves always to have all our eggs in 
one basket." I do not see how they can. Of course some 
percentage of country work might be arranged : but this 
would be a barren victory for the men. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks Peterborough: April 15, 1895. 

* I think the masters are now rather too much up. Appar 
ently they claim to decide for themselves what is necessary 
for the management of their business, and will not submit 
that point in any detail to arbitration. Surely some points 
might be submitted. Otherwise their claim deals a blow at 
Trades Unionism altogether. The men demand too much : 
the masters refuse too much. I am afraid the conference 
will break down unless some approach is made to an under 
standing. I have written to very gently. The only 


thing to do is to indicate how things stand. Perhaps, if you 
see anyone, you would point out something of the sort. 
Opinions only prevail by cautious hints : the combatants learn 
from outside opinion. 

To Sir Courtenay Boyle April 17, 1895. 

1 After meditating on your last letter I ventured to write 

to to make two suggestions : (i) that the masters 

should try to find some definition of management which did 
not run too counter to the principles of Trades Unionism ; 
(2) that on no account should the conference be broken off. 
I urged the great advantage of keeping it open, and adhering 
to the semblance of friendly discussion, however great might 
be the provocation to dismiss it. 

I enclose you his answer. You will see that on the last 
point he agrees with me. This is very important, and I hope 
it may encourage you to persevere in your arduous and 
thankless office. 

To the Rev. H. Orford (then in S. Africa) April 18, 1895. 

Leicester is altogether rent by the strike, which gives us 
all much anxiety, and is still far from an end. The matter is 
terribly complicated : the masters are resolute : the men are 
unreasonable : I fear the end will be a great deal of damage 
to the trade of the place. I struggle to do what I can for 
peace, but it is entirely a matter for expert opinion, and good 
intentions avail little. I was in Leicester all last week taking 
Holy Week services at St. John s Knighton. Things seemed 
to be going fairly well as far as the church is concerned. 

The difficulties in the way of a settlement which had at 
times seemed insuperable were at last overcome at a prolonged 
session of the conference between the representatives of masters 
and men, under the presidency of Sir Courtenay Boyle, in 
London on April 19. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks Peterborough: April 20, 1895. 

4 The news to-day is a great relief to us all, and we can now 
rejoice in the result, which seems likely to establish much 
better relations and to remove all causes of dispute to a 
proper tribunal. I think we may congratulate ourselves on 
the wise attitude taken by the public generally, and on the 
behaviour of the men. 

1 You remember that Sanders spoke of celebrating this 
then far-off peace by a thanksgiving service. It would be 


a good thing if it were acceptable to those concerned. But 
the proposal should seem to emanate from the Mayor and 
the service should be municipal. Probably a Sunday after 
noon would be best next Sunday if possible. The non 
conformists should join : perhaps you would ask one or two 
of the ministers their opinion ; one of them might read a 
lesson. There might be a procession from the municipal 
buildings. If men and masters would walk side by side it 
would be admirable. I would gladly walk between Ward 
and Inskip. But you will see how this can be arranged best, 
if indeed it can be arranged at all. I mean that I do not 
think a purely ecclesiastical ceremony would be worth much : 
that might be done in each church and chapel separately. 
I wish it to be, if possible, a united act : unless it is so taken 
up, it had better be dropped. 

The Bishop succeeded in keeping his part in helping to 
bring about an agreement entirely in the background, and 
his action was never referred to by the public press ; but 
Sir Courtenay Boyle wrote to him : * My own efforts were 
largely helped by your information and counsel, which 
enabled me to see where danger lay and where safety was to 
be sought ; and one of the oldest of the Leicester clergy, 
Canon Vaughan, wrote, We are rejoicing beyond words to 
describe in the prospect of social peace. Rightly or wrongly, 
I cannot help tracing your Lordship s good hand in the 
matter, and, as a Leicester man to the core, I most heartily 
thank you in the name of Leicester. Canon Stocks says : 
1 He helped the leaders on both sides to settle the dispute, not 
only by being a good listener to the statements of their 
different points of view and the arguments in support of them, 
but by suggesting at the right moment the method of inter 
vention and the choice of a reference. But the action taken 
at the critical moment, with such good result, would have 
been impossible if he had not previously in many ways won 
at least a certain amount of confidence in many quarters. 

It was impossible not to feel anxious as to how Leicestei 
would calm down and loyally accept the terms of the agree 
ment, but on July g the Bishop was able to write to Mr. 
Orford, Leicester since the strike has been going ahead, 
steadily making up for lost time. 

Throughout the contest, the Bishop had felt and shown 


great sympathy with the men, but he had distrusted their judg 
ment, and had not felt confidence in the wisdom of their 
leaders. He understood how industrial questions were 
complicated by international competition, and saw the need 
for expert knowledge. He felt that the real difficulty was 
to get the ordinary man to recognise the value and 
importance of that knowledge, or to have any means of 
discovering whether it was possessed by the leaders whose 
brave words attracted him. 

To Mr. Wigham Richardson May 10, 1895. 

* The boot strike kept me very busy for a long time. I 
worked quietly to bring those concerned to the point ; and 
the success exceeded my expectations. The worst of the 
position taken up by the English working-man is its entire 
insularity. He regards " foreign competition as a bogy 
invented to scare him. I believe that one of the best things 
masters could do would be to offer to pay the expenses of 
two of the Union leaders to go abroad with two of their own 
number and judge for themselves the conditions and results 
of the trade they were interested in, on the spots where it 
was most threatening to England. 1 Surely a report from them 
on this subject v/ould be very sobering to wild speculations. 

But this is a large proposal. To return to smaller things, 
I am glad to hear that you are all pretty well. We are all 
growing older, I suppose, in body, though we need not grow 
older in mind. I certainly cannot complain of any temptation 
to rust out 

The Bishop in his frequent lectures to different organisations 
of working-men tried to enlarge their minds and train their 
judgment by lifting them into a bigger world. His subjects 
were generally historical, but they were very varied : the 
Armada, Common Sense, Carthage, Benedictine monasteries, 
are among them. However remote the subject, he showed its 
connexion with modern times by his illustrations and allusions, 
and never failed to bring home to his hearers the continuity of 
history nor to give them some practical lessons to carry away 
He would lecture to the people, says Bishop Thicknesse, * in 
his best manner, give them information good enough and 
conveyed agreeably enough for princes, and when expressions 

1 Mr. Wigham Richardson writes July 2, 1901, that the suggestion has been 
acted on in the engineering trade, and with immensely satisfactory results. 


and noble conclusions fell from what he was saying, such as were 
least expected from a bishop, the faint and almost timid " hear, 
hear " that escaped the surprised listener was really as good 
as a play. His sympathetic fun and humour got hold of his 
hearers through some point in common with them, and enabled 
him to establish the power of influencing them. It is 
remarkable that I cannot recollect any strong feeling of ob 
jection showing itself in the papers or otherwise against the 
Church from anything the Bishop had said on church topics. 
His sojourn in the Diocese greatly disarmed the opposition 
and won the good-will of the disaffected. As was quite truly 
said and answered, " Who were his enemies ? " "He had 




THE varied work of the year 1894 was a striking manifesta 
tion of the extent and versatility of the Bishop s powers. 
Early in the year the fifth volume of the * History of the 
Papacy was published, and later on appeared his Hulsean 
Lectures and his Primary Charge, perhaps in their different 
ways the fullest expression he ever made of his experience, 
his thought and the result of his studies. In the course of the 
same year he gave 170 different sermons and addresses : he 
began one of his most illuminating historical writings, the 
Life of Elizabeth, and he made himself known in the London 
world by his brilliant speech at the Academy banquet. All 
the time the regular work of his diocese was his chief care and 
his first thought. He was gaining that understanding of its 
social conditions which enabled him to help with such wise 
judgment in bringing the dispute in the boot and shoe trade 
to a peaceful issue, and was every day winning more completely 
the confidence of clergy and laity alike. 

Towards the end of 1894, on learning that the proposed 
new Manchester and Sheffield Railway would pass through 
much of his diocese, he made arrangements for the care of 
the spiritual needs of the navvies. 

To the Rev. Canon Stocks October 22, 1894. 

1 Thank you very much for your steps about the Navvies 
Mission. I have written to my brethren of Oxford, Southwell 
and Worcester to suggest that the} put me in command of 
the whole scheme so far as the clerical superintendent is 
concerned. If they agree, then we might have the outlines 
of a plan, and all the parishes concerned would fall in. 

October 24, 1894. 

I enclose you letters from the Bishops of Oxford and 
Worcester. I have not yet heard from Southwell . . . If he 


writes like the others, the organisation will be joint, under one 
superintendent, whom I will appoint, but who will devise a 
working scheme which he will submit to the other bishops, 
taking care in each case to make all possible use of the 
incumbent, if he is willing to do anything, and respecting his 
rights. But the first step is the financial step. This must 
be done in each section by a local committee, whose chairmen 
may constitute a central committee, over which I am 
president. Is that the sort of shape which the whole scheme 
may formally assume ? 

The work of the mission was satisfactorily organised with 
the help of the Navvy Mission Society. The Bishop took 
much interest in it, and showed his sense of his indebtedness 
to the central society by holding a meeting for it at the 
Palace and speaking at its meetings in London. 

On January 10, 1895, he took part in the services and meet 
ings held in Trinity Square and in the church of All Hallows, 
London, in commemoration of Archbishop Laud. In the 
afternoon he gave a lecture in the church on Laud s position 
in the history of the English Church. 1 He said that his 
object was not to eulogise Laud, but to explain the task which 
he undertook and the difficulties which beset him. He as 
serted Laud s unfailing claim to the homage of English 
churchmen because of what he did to fix the character of the 
English Church, but he made no attempt to disguise Laud s 
errors and shortcomings, though he claimed that all might 
unite in admiring his zeal, his devotion, his courage, his con 

Early in 1895 he was invited to Sandringham for the 
first time. 

To his daughter Lucia 

In Convocation ..t London : February 6, 1895. 

I have not written to you since you went back, which is 
very naughty ; but I have been busy and feeble. I never 
told you of my visit to the Prince of Wales ; he was very 
genial, and had hosts of men staying there : amongst them 
Lord Grey and Dr. Jameson, who administers Mashonaland, 
with whom I had many talks about the Mission. He tells 
me that the new bishop is quite the right man, with large 
experience of the colonists in Africa. I also saw the Duke 

1 Published in Lectures and Addresses. 


of York s baby: think of that. The Duke of York is a very 
nice youth, full of interest and ready to talk about anything. 
. . . Everybody was very nice, but there were too many of 
them. I preached a sermon which they seemed to like, in 
the church which lies in the park close by. There was deep 
snow as we pottered about in the afternoon and looked at 
dogs and horses. Since then I have been wandering about 
the diocese, doing all sorts of things that have to be done 
before I go abroad. Now I am in London sitting in Convo 
cation, where a debate is going on about nothing in particular. 
In this weather I wish I was going to stay at home ? . . . 
The Bishop of Lincoln is sitting opposite to me, and has just 
dropped the ink all over his white robes in front, and looks 
very distraught in consequence. 

* We sit and write letters when the debate is not amusing : 
now we are prorogued for lunch, when we eat ham sandwiches, 
in a room like a railway refreshment bar. 

After this he went to Sandringham every year ; he much 
enjoyed his visits, and met there many interesting people. 
At a later visit he made great friends with the royal children. 
He had a tremendous romp with little Prince Edward, then 
four or five years old, and at last perched him standing with 
one of his legs on each of his shoulders, from which perilous 
height the descent was made by a somersault, a performance 
which the Bishop had often practised with his own children. 
The little Prince was delighted, and came up again and 
again to have the exciting experience repeated, whilst the 
bystanders were a little alarmed lest these wild romps might 
lead to some accident, not knowing how safe long experience 
with children had made the Bishop. 

We started for Rome with our eldest daughter in the 
bitter frost which held all Europe from the middle of February 
to the end of March, and saw nothing but snow till we crossed 
the mountains behind Genoa. We left our daughter at Rome 
and went further south to some of the more remote places 
which he loved. 

To his daughter Lucia Cava dei Tirreni : February 19, 1895. 

! I am writing in a lovely spot, to which we came this 
afternoon from Rome. The sun shone on us, but the air 
freezes and icicles hang on every side. In Rome yesterday 
there was the curious sight of frozen fountains with a column 


of water all blocked up by frost. . . . Rome was rather a bore, 
because people knew that I was there and called on me. 
Though I did not return their calls, I still had a sense of 
responsibility which prevented the feeling of a holiday. 
Moreover at all spare moments and for most meals we were 
with the Balzanis, and it is not my notion of a holiday 
to be always talking. Further I gave two lectures which 
required me to be thinking and trying to improve my mind. 
Now that is all over ; we are in a little town of the most charm 
ing situation. ... Its glory is its monastery, which is some 
where up in the mountains and is one of the most famous in 
Italy. It is especially famous for its archives : which are very 
large, and its library is of great importance. Perhaps I shall 
wander up the mountain to see them. Beatrice was beginning, 
I think, yesterday to find her tegs a little in Rome, and to 
begin to enjoy it. At first it is disappointing and bewildering. 
The Balzani children are amazingly grown up. . . . It is a 
comfort, you know, to talk to someone who gets through 
sentences straight, and does not say "you know" and "what 
is it ? " When this power of conversation comes to a child, it 
is quite impressive : and I was certainly greatly impressed by 

* I suppose it is never going to thaw any more. Of course 
it is absolutely unheard of that there should be snow or ice 
in Italy at all : and to have it in the middle of February is 
quite terrible. The people are perfectly amazed and do not 
know what to make of it. ... I am already sorry to think 
that ten days of the holiday have gone. 

From Cava we went on to Paestum, Salerno and Amalfi, 
and thence by the magnificent coast road to Sorrento, and 
after a few days there and at Naples went to Monte Cassino. 
At the little inn at Cassino, the village at the foot of the 
mountain crowned by the great monastery, we spent an 
evening of the kind which he particularly enjoyed. He always 
travelled incognito without any servant and in ordinary, 
rather shabby, clerical attire. There was no one else staying 
at the little inn, but in the evening we heard sounds of music, 
and presently the waiter came and told us that the landlady 
was giving a party and she hoped that we would join it. So 
we were conducted upstairs and found the landlady, a lively, 
handsome young widow, receiving her guests, two or three 
middle-aged women, and eight or nine men. The party 
apparently was to be a dance, and the landlady, the one good 


dancer amongst the women, danced with all the men in turn, 
and was most amiable and lively ; the people were all abso 
lutely simple and friendly, and treated us with the utmost 
courtesy and kindness. We danced with them, talked with 
them, and shared in the very mild refreshments handed round 
in the middle of the party, sour wine, green apples, and hard 
biscuits ; and we parted from our landlady next morning like 
old friends. 

The exceptional severity of the weather still continued 
and forced us to leave the mountains and return to Rome. 

To Mr. Robert Bridges Peterborough : March 19, 1895. 

Italy was cold, and my wanderings were cut short by 
snow. I had meant to wander in by-ways but was driven 
back to Rome. . . . Rome is too big, too civilised and too 
full of Americans to be a real holiday. I more and more 
seek peace and quiet. . . . Now I am beset with work and 
all my diocese is engaged in a strike, so I shall have a high 
time of it, and be abused for what I do and for what I do 
not do. 

The boot and shoe strike had begun just before we got 
back to Peterborough. 

On Whitsunday, June 2, he preached before the University 
at Oxford, on Christian Unity. He never considered that 
organic unity was to be looked for in our day as a practical 
possibility, but believed that the present call was to cultivate 
that temper which would make for the unity of the Spirit. 
He said, in this sermon, that we must beware both of over 
estimating and of under-estimating our differences. Progress 
towards unity would best be assured if existing differences 
were carefully defined, and the reasons on which they are 
founded clearly understood. Every religious body should 
strongly and persistently assert its fundamental basis, should 
try to live on its positive and not its negative teaching, should 
be judged by its own contents arid not by its criticism of 
other systems. He ended by pleading that all would admit 
that they had something to learn and something to teach and 
would seek humility and fair-mindedness. 1 

On June 18 he delivered the Rede lecture at Cambridge. 

1 Published in The Heritage of the Spirit. 


taking as his subject the * Early Renaissance in England. 1 
His study of the Elizabethan times had repeatedly brought 
before him the consideration of the beginnings of the New 
Learning in England, and though he owned that he had 
attempted the impossible in trying to condense such a subject 
into an hour s lecture, he hoped at least to have aroused some 
interest in the history of scholarship, which in his opinion was 
too generally disregarded. Some twenty years before, he had 
said to me that the renaissance in England was a splendid 
subject which still needed its historian. 

On the same day he also spoke at a meeting about a 
memorial to Sir John Seeley, and recalled the characteristics 
of his former colleague : 

* I always used to feel that there was nothing more 
striking than to see Seeley walking along the streets, medi 
tating by himself. He caught your eye, and immediately his 
face lit up ; with that characteristic short quick step he would 
cross the road, and at once put aside all that he had been 
thinking about, and talk with you about something in which 
he thought you were particularly interested. In was this 
power of ready sympathy which gave his conversation in 
society such charm. He was not talking because he must 
talk, but he was talking because you led him to talk. 

He spoke of how Seeley stimulated his pupils and inspired 
them * with deference and respect deference that was 
due to simplicity, and the respect that was won only by 
straightforwardness. He had shown the supreme art of 
the man of letters, because he seized the salient points of 
his subject ; he studied them to the full ; he made them quite 
clear to his own mind ; he consumed all the chips of his work 
shop ; he got rid of all the traces of his toil. Then he spoke 
out : * careful rather to make his conclusion clear than to 
state the exact steps by which he himself had arrived at it 

On Tuesday, June 18, the Bishop gave the addresses at 
the devotional meeting of bishops at Lambeth. Archbishop 
Benson writes about these in his diary : Bishop of Peter 
borough gave four excellent addresses on the tcpuTtrbs 
avQpcoiros rfjs KapSias, as a scientifically true idea, and the 
one important spiritual fact in us, our personality, and three 

1 Published in Lectures and Addresses. 


on St Peter very clever, searching, epigrammatic/ Bishop 
Westcott spoke of them as glowing and powerful. 

At the end of August we spent a fortnight in Normandy 
with our two elder boys. We began with Caen, and then 
walked to many of the wonderful village churches in the 
Calvados district. The Bishop s delight in architecture was 
ever increasing. He judged it the first of the arts, though 
the last to be properly appreciated. Painting, he considered, 
was the first to attract, then sculpture, and last of all architec 
ture, the most learned of the arts, yet at the same time 
eminently a popular art, for it was the most clear and definite 
way in which ideas could be expressed. He made a church 
tell him its own story. First he walked round it outside, 
noticing every little detail and tracing the growth of walls 
and roof. On going inside he went at once to the transepts, 
saying that it was there that the history of the building could 
best be discerned. Each visit to France made him more 
convinced of the pre-eminence of the French in architecture, 
and he was full of plans for future journeys which should 
make him better acquainted with the treasures of France. 
The last days of our ramble were spent at Etretat, where he 
wrote the presidential address for his diocesan conference. 

On his return to England he preached before the 
meeting of the British Association at Ipswich. He spoke of 
the processes by which knowledge is gained, and said that 
they must be the same whatever kind of knowledge was 
pursued. * The pursuit of knowledge teaches reverence and 
humility ; it requires for its success, seriousness, sobriety, 
a sense of limitation, above all a sense of relationship and 
universal truth. To him no grasp of knowledge seemed 
possible without a conception of the unity of truth. All 
knowledge becomes coherent by the revelation of God 
contained in Scripture. That revelation is, like all others, 
progressive, for it is the revelation of a Person, the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and that Person is the centre of all other 
revelations, the point to which they run. 2 These words 
express the central belief of the Bishop s life, the belief by 
which all his ideas and endeavours become coherent. 

1 Published in The Mind of St. Peter and other Sermons 
* Published in The Heritage of the Spirit. 


In the end of September the diocesan conference met in 
Peterborough. In his presidential address l he spoke amongst 
other things of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and of the 
necessity for accurate teaching about the Church, which must 
go on till we have placed the Church beyond the reach of 
party politics altogether. This can be done by showing 
historically its close connexion with the national life of 
England. It must be done also practically, by showing that 
the existence of a national Church makes provision for the 
spiritual needs of all ; while it does not interfere with full 
liberty of combination on the part of those who prefer other 
forms of worship. He spoke of the signs of the universal 
growth in Christian sympathy and forbearance, and said 
* For myself I would thankfully bear witness to the personal 
friendliness of nonconformists, both ministers and people, 
thoughout my diocese/ 

In the discussion that followed, he said that now when 
there was no question of a direct attack upon the Church was 
the time for the clergy to teach the position of the Church, 
its history, its meaning, its importance, and its connexion 
with national life. But in many cases neither the clergy 
nor anybody in the parish knew very much about the Church. 
The clergy took the position of the Church for granted, but 
they could not expect the people always to take that position 
for granted. 

He had been asked to speak at the Norwich Church 
Congress on the National Church : 

To Dr. Jessopp Peterborough : August 5, 1895. 

Is my Church Congress paper to be part of an historical 
series which you begin and Gwatkin continues ? I mean is 
the idea that you establish the national character of the 
Church of England : Gwatkin shows that it was not changed 
at the Reformation ? Then am I to come between you and 
show that the continuity was not broken by the Reformation 
developments, and to fit on to yours by the assertion that, 
such as you show it to be at the first, such it remains ? 

* Peterborough : August 7, 1895. 

I am glad to find that your opinion agrees with mine. 
We have to make the best of it If you show the indepen- 

1 Published in The Church and the Nation. 


dent origin of the Church of England, I will go on something 
like this. The Church in England accepted the papal 
jurisdiction for sufficient reasons, and repudiated it for still 
more sufficient reasons. It was never merged in the Church 
of Rome. The middle ages revelled in ideal theories e.g. 
the Empire did not absorb the English State. The English 
Church submitted appeals to the Pope, disputed papal legates, 
received papal bulls just as far as it liked : sheltered itself 
under the Crown when convenient, finally allowed the Crown 
to resume all that the Pope claimed. Would these be the 
right lines? In a short paper it is useless to get lost in 
details, or to prove ; one can only assert 

Besides reading this paper the Bishop preached in 
Norwich Cathedral on the Sunday morning after the 
Congress, and went the same day to Cambridge to address 

To his son Walter at Marlborough College 

* Peterborough : October 18, 1895. 

* . . . Since leaving Norwich I have been twice to Cam 
bridge, once on Sunday to preach to the undergraduates on 
the "Imitatio": and yesterday to open Selwyn Chapel. I 
saw Lucia and Cuthbert both times. They seemed very 
happy. Cuthbert s rooms are very spacious and look very 
nice : he seems to be taking quite seriously to College life, 
and to enjoy it But before he was an old boy : now he is a 
very young man. Do you understand the difference ? There 
is something in the notion of a " Fresher." He has grown old 
in school experience : now he has a new kind of experience, 
in which he is rather awkward : and the awkwardness goes 
through him. Don t tell him I said so. Lucia has got over 
that period now : the second year is always the period of 

Yesterday we had a great service at Selwyn, and the 
Archbishop preached a sermon. The Warden of Keble was 
there, and multitudes of people whom I knew. I am actually 
going to Cambridge again to morrow to open a training 
college, but my visit has to be very brief. I have had no 
time this week for writing my letters, and have written so 
many this morning that my writing goes anyhow. Love to 

Oswin. God bless you both. 


That autumn we spent six days in Northumberland, 
staying at Howick with Lord Grey, and at Fallodon with 
Sir Edward Grey. 


To his son Walter Peterborough : November 5, 1895. 

* We had a very pleasant time m Northumberland, only 
everybody was attending meetings, and even Embleton 
indulged in a bazaar. I felt as if peace was not to be found 
within the limits of England, and was more than ever 
convinced that even the shortest holiday can only be found 
beyond the seas. I am going to lecture at St. Paul s 
Cathedral on Friday, and on Saturday go to Sandringham to 
keep the Prince of Wales birthday. It is rather awful to 
preach him a birthday sermon. I suppose I ought to feel 
highly honoured ... I had two functions to perform yesterday 
on a dismal day ; they were not very cheerful. Next week 
mother and I go to Leicester, which is severe. 

In this week besides attending the meeting of East 
Anglian bishops in London, at Bishop Festing s house, 
lecturing in St. Paul s Cathedral on Grosseteste, and going 
to Sandringham on the Saturday, the Bishop consecrated a 
cemetery, instituted a vicar in his new church, attended a 
meeting and preached to a gathering of the Young Men s 
Friendly Society at Leicester. The following week was 
spent at Leicester, given up to meetings and services, 
with an expedition to London to give a brilliant and 
learned address to the Church Historical Society, on 
Dispensations, 1 and give his second lecture in St. Paul s 
Cathedral. 2 He wrote to Professor Collins about these 
lectures I am glad to think that my treatment of Grosseteste 
was in your opinion useful. " The unity of the Church " 
in the past sounds so well, that it is worth while to see how 
it worked out 

He received this autumn a request from some Northamp 
tonshire gentlemen that he would allow his portrait to be 
painted and presented to him : 

* November 25, 1895. 

Dear Mr. Oldroyd, I am very sensible of the high 
honour that you and others propose to confer upon me, and 
I am quite sure that Mr. Harris Brown will do more than 
justice to a very unsatisfactory subject 

Mr. Harris Brown, the artist chosen, came to stay at the 
Palace, and the Bishop spent many December days at home 

1 Published in The Church and the Nation. 
1 Published in Lectures and Addresses. 


to enable him to get on with his work, days which the visitors 
to the Palace as well as the artist remember with delight 
The process of sitting naturally bored the Bishop, and people 
were urged to come and amuse him by talking to him. 
Every possible subject grave and gay was discussed, and the 
artist at times found the talk so interesting that it was 
difficult to proceed with his work. As he said afterwards, 
The Bishop gave me some of the golden hours of my life. 
The Bishop was painted in his purple cassock sitting in a 
carved oak chair which had been a treasured possession since 
his Oxford days, against a background of his bookcases 
with their white parchment folios. The portrait gives an 
admirable impression of him at his most genial and intimate 
moments. 1 

In 1896 he first took his seat in the House of Lords : 

To L. C. 115 St. George s Road, S.W.: February 12, 1896. 

I had a hard day yesterday, as I did not get here till 
10.30. I found that trains were bad. However, I had a 
useful time at Thornton and did much business. To-day 
I have been busy all day : went to service at ten, opened the 
Church House, then lunched with Gore, went to the House 
of Lords, took my seat, which is a ludicrous process, but not 
so ludicrous as for lay-lords, of whom I saw six introduced. 
It was like a show in a circus. Then I heard some debate, 
to the end of Rosebery s speech, when I retired with a head 

It was in 1896 that he finished his monograph on Queen 
Elizabeth. It was one of the magnificent series of illustrated 
biographies brought out by Messrs. Boussod & Valadon. 
He was so familiar with the Elizabethan period that it was 
a recreation to him in the midst of his other work to write 
this book. As he said afterwards : * I only wrote the book 
because I had been lecturing on the subject at Cambridge, 
and when the proposal was made. I wrote it for my own 
amusement. It is because it was written with such ease, 
out of the fulness of his knowledge, that this study of 
Elizabeth s character has proved so fascinating. Very soon 

1 A replica of this portrait has been painted by Mr. Harris Brown for 
Emmanuel College. The original will ultimately be added to the collection of 
portraits at the Palace, Peterborough. 


there was a demand for the book in a form which would make 
it accessible to a larger number of readers. 

The proofs of the * Elizabeth followed us during a holi 
day spent in Algeria early in 1896. On this journey we 
explored much of the mountain scenery, taking long drives 
of several days. 

To his daughter Llicia Bougie: February 25, 1896. 

. . . We have just arrived at this place after a drive of 
two days, quite the loveliest drive I ever took. We went off 
for a day s journey in the train from Algiers to a place called 
S6tif, 3,600 feet high. You may imagine it was rather cold 
there on a wet night, in which we arrived. Next day the 
weather was not much better when we started ; and soon 
after leaving it poured with rain and the wind howled. We 
would not have the carriage shut, but kept the front open 
and covered ourselves with waterproofs. We mounted higher 
up on the desolate and treeless country, till we were in a 
pelting snowstorm, which hit one s face and stung terribly. 
I had to lend my luckless driver a pair of gloves, he looked 
so miserable. Presently we began to leave the open plain 
and go down a slight valley which gave some shelter. Storks 
were walking in the fields and ravens flopping about looking 
monstrous. As we went down the valley a few trees began 
to appear, and presently the landscape looked like a bit of 
the Scotch Highlands on a good Scotch rainy day. The 
valley grew more decided when we stopped at a roadside inn 
for lunch. In a miserable little place they speedily produced 
four courses of food and dessert l ; and we drank coffee to 
warm ourselves a little. ... At half-past four we reached a 
little village where we were to stay the night. There the 
splendour of the road began. We were at the entrance of a 
gorge of surpassing grandeur. The banks rose sheer 1,500 
feet ; and were quite close to one another. The road had 
been cut out with the greatest difficulty in the side of the 
rocks : before it was made no one had been able to go up 
the gorge, not even the Arabs. We walked down it as long 
as the light lasted. It was magnificent. At every turn you 
seemed entirely shut in, with no way out before or behind. 
Above were flocks of eagles wheeling in the sky : below were 
coveys of blue rock pigeons, whose colouring looked brilliant 

1 Throughout this journey we were much struck by the resource and capacity 
of the French colonists. The landladies in the roughest and most remote wayside 
inns know how to make one comfortable and provide meals nicely cooked. 

1896 TRAVELS IN ALGE1 145 

against the dark foliage. 1 For the gorge was covered with 
trees, all green and fresh . . . beautiful trees of soft foliage, 
olive and cork, oaks and palms, and shrubs of every sort. . . . 
To-day we started and drove six miles through the gorge. 
When we left it we saw the great snowy mountains circling 
it on every side. . . . Suddenly we came upon the sea, with 
a great line of white breakers rolling in. We followed it 
some eighteen miles till we came here, a town on a bold rock 


jutting out into the sea. . . . Here we are quite warm and 
balmy. We took a walk in the most brilliant moonlight. 
I never saw so clear a sky. You could see that the moon 
was on a different plane from the stars, an effect I never saw 
in England. . . . You will see how wonderfully varied our 
journey was, grander and larger than anything in Europe, 
every part of it quite excellent in its way, and made pic 
turesque by the Arabs and their costume, and their queer 
villages which look like rubbish heaps. This part of Algeria 
is called Kabylia, and the Kabyles are a race by themselves, 
not the Arab invaders, but the Berbers who were the original 
people of North Africa whom the Romans and Carthaginians 
found there. They are fine fellows, very amiable. I am so 
delighted with this experience that I have opened negotia 
tions for another drive of three days into the central high 
lands of Kabylia. I do not know if we will find any place 
to sleep the first night ; but it will be sport if the weather 
will keep up. However, I cannot leave Bougie for two days 
more, it is too nice. 

The projected drive of three days was accomplished 
through wonderful mountain scenery, under the charge of an 
Arab driver. After that we went further west and spent our 
last days at Tlemcen. Much though he was interested in 
Algeria, the Bishop missed the charm of the intercourse with 
the people which he enjoyed so much in his Italian rambles, 
and he also felt the want of the continuous historic interest 
which adds so much to the delight of Italy. The absence of 
family life, the seclusion of the women, the want of any 
visible religious life amongst the people also affected him 
disagreeably. But the wild beauty of the mountains and the 
quite new effects of nature which we experienced made the 
journey most enjoyable : * I am quite enchanted with the 
beauties of Africa, he wrote from Tlemcen ; * the colours are 

1 This is the gorge called Chabet-el-Akhira. 



surprising, especially at sunset ; this place has the most 
gorgeous effects of colour. 

We got back to Peterborough. on March 23. On April 29, 
in accordance with a request received from the Westminster 
District Committee for Church Defence, he lectured at the 
Church House on The Church in the reign of Elizabeth/ 1 
The demand for tickets was so great that the lecture had to be 
held in the great hall of the Church House, which was filled with 
a large and distinguished audience. Next day he lectured 
for the same committee in the evening to a large working- 
class audience on * Church and State. He was by no means 
given to unreasoning optimism, but he was never inclined to 
over-rate the difficulties of the present, and often said that 
men at all periods thought that they lived in momentous times 
and judged their own difficulties to be exceptional. He 
concluded this lecture by saying that never was a time in 
English history when Church and State worked in such 
thorough harmony for the public good as our own days. 

About this time he was asked to his great surprise whether 
he would be willing to go to Moscow to represent the English 
Church at the Imperial Coronation. This proposal had been 
under consideration for some time. On December 27, 
1895, the Archbishop wrote to the Bishop of Winchester, 

It is very right and Catholic if the Czar should entertain the 
idea of inviting the English Church by representation to be 
present at his coronation. . . . Good might come of it. . . . For 
the reasons you mention and others the Archbishop could not 
go. But I should be very glad if the Queen approves in the first 
instance to send the Bishop of Peterborough as our repre 
sentative and accredit him formally in that capacity. ... I do 
not think he ought to to be invited personally. No step 
would be gained in good will between the Churches, only 
personal friendliness expressed. 

The Bishop heard nothing of the proposal till four months 

The Archbishop of Canterbury to the Bishop of Peter 
borough < Florence : April 15, 1896. 

I have a letter from Lord Salisbury, enclosing one from 
Cimiez, 2 to tell me that it is thought desirable that one of the 

1 Published in Lectures and Addresses. 
* The Queen was then staying at Cimiez. 


English bishops should attend the coronation of the Czar at 

It was the wish of the Czar I heard some time ago, and 
Lord Salisbury thinks such a mission may do a great deal of 
good spiritually and politically. Spiritually I believe, politi 
cally I hope, it will. 

4 1 am now requested to depute a bishop. The Bishop 
of Winchester, as Prelate of the Garter, would be our ordinary 
official in such a case ; but I have ascertained privately that 
it would be very undesirable on account of his health. 

* This being the case, I have no doubt whatever that you 
are the right person to go. And I hope that you will do so. 
It would be a real representation of the Church. I need 
not enlarge on the hopes that surround such personal inter 
course. . . . You will know best whom it will be well for you 
to see at the Foreign Office before going, and what letters you 
would require. You would no doubt be kindly willing to 
bear one from me to the Metropolitan or proper dignitary. 
Probably you know Mr. Birkbeck, who is intimate in these 
Russian circles. 

To the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Randall Davidson) 

Peterborough : April 19, 1896. 

My dear Bishop, I am heartily sorry that I should be 
called upon to replace you on an occasion for which you were 
exceptionally fitted. The proposal came to me so unex 
pectedly that at present I only see the inconvenience. How 
ever I must do my best and obey orders ; and I trust I shall 
enjoy it and appreciate it when I am there. It is certainly a 
significant and encouraging fact that on such an occasion there 
should be a wish for a representative of the English Church. 
Such a thing augurs well for the future in which my hope 
is for the abolition of exclusiveness and the interchange of 
ideas, rather than for any formal schemes of what is called 
re-union Russia has much to learn from personal contact 
with other systems, and we have always been ready to learn. 

I shall be in London for Convocation. I am staying 
at Lambeth. I want all the advice and information that I 
can obtain, and shall be most desirous of a talk with you. 
I can only say again how sorry I am that you are prevented 
from going. 

From the Bishop of Winchester to the Bishop of Peterborough 

. . . Putting aside my selfishness, I cannot but rejoice 
that you are going, for I know how you will more than any 



other of us all appreciate and understand the occasion, and 
we shall look forward intensely to hearing its details from 
you. I trust nothing will intervene to prevent you from 

Though the Bishop felt this request distinctly embarrass 
ing, coming as it did so soon after his return from a holiday, 
and when he was full of engagements of every kind, he had 
no hesitation about doing as was desired. I could not 
accompany him. As the bishops of the Russian Church are 
not married, it would have been out of place for an English 
bishop on a state occasion to appear with a wife, so for the 
first time he prepared to go on a long journey alone. There 
was little time for all the necessary arrangements. He had to 
provide for his work during his absence, and to hold many 
interviews with official persons in London in order to obtain 
instructions. The Prince of Wales summoned him to Marl- 
borough House, and had a long talk with him about his 
mission. The Archbishop was interested in every detail. 
He wrote that the Bishop ought to go in the smartest 
clothes the law allows. No possible person could object to a 
cope, and the late Lord Selborne maintained that mitres 
might y and probably ought to, be worn by English bishops at 
their functions. This I think would be right. 

As the Bishop s own cope was not suitable, one of the 
Westminster coronation copes of crimson velvet and gold 
was borrowed for him, and he took his own mitre and pastoral 
staff. It was decided that he should travel with Mr. W. J. 
Birkbeck, who was going to Moscow for the coronation, and 
whose knowledge of Russia and of the Russian language 
would make him an invaluable companion. The Russian 
authorities made everything easy. The Russian Ambassador, 
M. de Staal, said that all Russians would be delighted at such 
a distinguished representative of the English episcopate being 
sent, and that he would be a persona gratissima both to the 
Emperor and to the ecclesiastical authorities. The following 
are extracts from his letters to me : 

Moscow, May 18, 1896. 

At 7.30 we reached Warsaw. We found the troops 
drawn up and a band playing in honour of the Grand Duke 
of Oldenburg, who was with us. There in the scuffle Birkbeck 


chivied the station master, who put us into our carriage. 
Here we reached magnificence. The only thing that could 
not be avoided was the dust 

4 Though we had double windows, a fine sand found its 
way in, and covered everything, and an attendant came at 
intervals and swept up. Our train was entirely for guests of 
the Emperor ; there were only about twenty people in it. ... 

* We reached Moscow in a heavy rain : the army was 
there to greet the Grand Duke, and we had to scramble out 
through them. . . . 

No sooner was I there than the English chaplain came 
to ask me to preach on Sunday, which I agreed to do. ... 
I changed into decent attire and called on Pobiedonostzeff, 1 but 
he was at dinner at 5*30. The rain had ceased a little and I 
went for a walk to the Kremlin. It was dull and things 
looked ugly, but the sight was very impressive : a mass of 
palaces, churches and monasteries on a hill above the river. 
The effect was marred by the preparations for the coronation : 
great wooden stages erected over all possible places. Moscow 
is a big place, very difficult at first to find one s way about. 
I am not staying in the main house of the Embassy, I am 
glad to say, but in a second house which is reserved for 
bachelors. This is much more comfortable and chummy. . . . 
There are a number of young men whom I enjoy talking to. 
The attache s are all very kind to me, and take no end of 
pains. Birkbeck seems to place himself at my disposal. 
I shall let myself be run contentedly. 

May 19. 

* This place is so turned upside down, and everybody is so 
busy, and I can speak no Russian so that, on the whole, I 
can only obey. . . . The whole thing seems to me more and 
more ridiculous, and I keep on asking myself what I am 
doing. But I will tell you my day in detail. ... I was 
invaded by Birkbeck before I had finished breakfast. First 

we went to the Embassy and saw Sir N. O Conor 

Then we drove off to find Pobiedonostzeff, who was at the 
Synod. . . . Nobody was in, and we collapsed into visiting 
a church, in which I learned something of their ritual. It is 
most extraordinary to see the peasants in the streets doing 

1 M. Pobiedonostzeff had been Alexander III. s tutor, and doubtless had 
a great deal to do with the development of that Emperor s strongly national 
ideas. He was made Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod towards the end of 
Alexander II. s reign, and had an enormous influence on the Government of 
Russia during the whole of Alexander III. s reign, and may be said to have shaped 
the internal policy of Russia. 


their devotions. There are eikons l outside : a man will stand 
before each, cross himself, and genuflect three times, say a 
prayer, and then pass on to the next. So they were in the 
church, going on from eikon to eikon ; they are all of old 
Byzantine type, and each one follows an approved model in 
design : thus they have names, the Vladimir Mother of God, 
the Khazan Mother of God, and so on. 

* After lunch we went to the Kremlin and found Sanitscheff, 
the Emperor s confessor, a nice old man of seventy, who 
talked to me in German. He is dean of the royal chapels, 
and has them under his care : there are in the palace itself 
about ten. He took my arm, and showed us over the palace : 
very splendid rooms, with lovely wooden floors, inlaid in 
patterns, floriated. On leaving him we went to Pobiedonost- 
zefT, whom we found at home. He was a thin old man over 
seventy, more like a Frenchman than a Russian, with a thin 
face and large spectacles, clearly as acute as possible, and a 
diplomatist above all things. He was very pleasant and 
most kind, talked about all sorts of things in a general way, and 
gave me a German book about the coronation. I certainly 
thought him a great man in his way, and hope I may see 
more of him. We came back to tea, and I found in my room 
a touching present of bread and salt and a spoon from the 
lady who owns our house. Of course I had to pay a call and 
acknowledge her greeting. 

May 20. 

I went off this morning to see the Patriarch and present 
a letter from the Archbishop. He was a venerable man, 
magnificently attired in purple velvet. He spoke only 
Russian, and communications had to pass through Birkbeck. 
We were with him for an hour, at the end of which he pre 
sented me with an eikon with great solemnity. He kissed me 
on both cheeks, and we kissed one another s hands. The 
interview was quite successful, I think. I was dressed in my 
Convocation robes and tried to look magnificent. We after 
wards tried to find some other metropolitans, and failed. 

The Bishop records in his notebook his interview with 
Gennadius, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. 

Birkbeck translated the Archbishop s letter. Patriarch 
expressed his satisfaction at such a friendly and affectionate 
expression of sympathy, and hoped that intercourse might 
lead to a better understanding between the Churches : the 
English Church was not understood in Russia. 

1 Sacred Pictures. 


Bishop of P : Nor the Russian Church in England. 
There is much in common. 

Patriarch : Asked if we acknowledged Seven Sacra 
ments, understood that we drew a difference between two. 
necessary for all men, and those only used by some. 

* I explained our definition of two only as generally 
necessary to salvation. 

* Patriarch : Therefore you do not exclude ordination 
from Sacraments. There is great interest in Russia about 
your Apostolical Succession. 

Bishop of P : We have no doubt about it. 
Patriarch : In the consecration of Parker, one bishop 
consecrated under the old ritual. 
Bishop of P : Two. 

* Patriarch : That was important. 

1 Bishop of P : We do not think so. The change in the 
ritual observed did not touch the essence of the rite. It was 
merely translation into English and simplification. All else 
remained the same. 

The Patriarch took note of the view. 

I explained the difference between Church of England 
and Church of Rome in attempt to get rid of Roman 
additions : referred to our Convocation Prayer. 

Patriarch : Cordially approved of expression " tyrannus 
papalis." Pseudo-Isidorian decretals in eyes of Romanists 
above Scripture. 

* Conversation then about Bishop Wilkinson s visit, and 
comments made in English press : evidently very touchy on 
this point. 

* I explained political opposition to Church : everything 
done by a bishop sure to be commented on : but this not view 
of Church, but of a party. 

* Patriarch : referred to a suggestion of Bishop Wilkinson 
that a Greek bishop should attend Lambeth Conference. 

* Bishop ofP : Conference was a meeting of our bishops for 
the business of the Church : would be glad of any mark of 

Patriarch : evidently desirous of this in some shape. 
Finally Patriarch said that he would lay the letter before the 
Holy Synod, who would return an answer. Gave me an 
eikon of St. Panteleemon, the Unmercenary One, as a Saint 
before the division of the Churches. 1 

1 St. Panteleemon was one of the class of Eastern Saints known as <uu- 
mercenary because they were men who gave aid to the poor without being paid. 
The great Russian monastery on Mount Athos is dedicated to him. 


* He further expressed his great pleasure at hearing that 
the Queen had used in her chapel the dirge of Alexander III. 
The unity of the Royal families was a tie to bring nations and 
churches together. 

May 23. 

On Wednesday afternoon I paid calls and saw the 
Metropolitan of Kieff, who was not very impressive and did 
not talk about much. At seven o clock we went to a service 
in the big Cathedral of the Saviour, and I saw the beginning 
of vespers with a large congregation who had come to pray 
for the Emperor, and would go on from 7 till 10.30. The 
ceremonial and the singing was very fine. You know the 
churches have an iconostasis, a huge chancel screen with 
gates shut before the altar. Some of the service is sung by 
a deacon outside, some by the priest inside, and then at times 
there is an Entrance i.e. a procession from inside which 
marks a division. Then I came back and dined in peace : 
but I sit up late talking to the various youths as they come 
in from their dinners. On Thursday there was the state 
entrance of the Emperor into Moscow. Birkbeck had 
machinated for places and ultimately we went to the Kremlin, 
where I was placed in the front row of a box built just 
opposite the three churches which the Emperor visited. Of 
course we had to sit and wait for hours. It was a lovely day 
luckily. At first my interest was in my surroundings. They 
were queer enough. In my box was the Armenian patriarch, 
with his black silk embroidered robes and tall pointed head 
dress covered by a veil, falling behind ; then the Lutheran 
superintendent, a German from the Baltic provinces. On 
the left were two boxes, one for the Khan of Bokhara, the 
other for the Khan of Khiva, resplendent in Oriental brocades 
and most magnificent. On my right were Mussulmans from 
the Caucasus, and Lamas from the Thibetan provinces, clad 
in yellow silk. The chief one wore a headdress divided into 
compartments, and in each compartment was a picture of 
Budda. Behind us sat representatives of the Russian nobility 
in uniform. The next row of boxes was given up to nuns, 
all dressed in black ; the next to representatives of institu 
tions, school-girls and the like. In front of us was the great 
courtyard with the grand staircase leading up to the Palace, 
and round it are three churches : between them was erected 
a stage, covered with red and guarded with soldiers. Beyond 
them were a crowd, peasants and artisans, representatives 
of gilds. The great bell of Moscow, the largest in the 
world, boomed out over one s head. Then suddenly it 


burst out into a rapid clang, and all the bells in Moscow 
at the same time. There are more than 2,000 of them ; you 
can imagine the din. This was the sign that the Emperor 
had entered the territory of Moscow. To add to the noise 
minute guns were fired. 

Then we waited for an hour and a half: magnificently 
clad personages paced along the Emperor s stage and made 
endless preparations : last of all came three sweepers, who 
carefully swept the passage. In the porches of each of the 
churches were groups of ecclesiastics and choirs : the clergy 
in cloth of gold, the choirs in a uniform of black and red. 
As the time came nearer incense was swung and everybody 
was on the alert. Then came five marshals with huge gilt 
staffs one after another, behind them the Emperor, between 
the two Empresses, with their mighty trains carried by pages. 
Then the grand dukes and members of the Imperial family : 
then grand duchesses, again with flowing trains : then the 
representatives of crowned heads with their suites. The 
Emperor was first aspersed, then he kissed the cross, then 
he kissed the hands of the three metropolitans and they 
kissed his. They entered the church : the bells suddenly 
ceased, and for a time we heard the sound of music from 
inside. The Emperor reappeared and visited the other two 
churches in like way, and then mounted the stairs to the 
palace. It was now 4.30. I had had no lunch, but a headache 
instead. I had some tea, and walked back and spent a 
dilapidated evening. Yesterday Nicolai 1 found me out and 
busied himself about my affairs in trying to get me a carnage. 
We had only heard of one, which cost 800 roubles, nearly 
9O/. for the fortnight ! You may imagine my horror ; but 
it is absolutely necessary, as I cannot go about in a droschki 
or cab, as they are miserable things, several degrees worse 
than the Roman botte. Nicolai tried to get one cheaper, 
but the first effort failed, and we had to close with the only 
offer before us, as I had to go and see the Emperor at one. 

There in the palace everything was very magnificent ; 
Pobiedonostzeff took charge of me and walked me through 
the rooms, then he introduced me to Briennios, the patriarch 
of Constantinople, the man who discovered the At&a^ 7 /, whom 
I was pleased to see, and several Russian princes came and 
talked. Then, quite suddenly, I was seized and told to go 
through a door, where in a little room stood the Emperor and 
Empress. I really felt quite casual, and had a little conversa- 

1 A cousin of mine from Reval, Mr. Nicolai Koch, who had married my 
elder sister. 


tion with them in English. I made great mistakes in my 
court manners, but I dare say they forgave me. The Emperor 
is a very attractive man, with blue eyes, and a great charm 
about his face, which lights up and is very kindly. We 
talked and laughed, I am sorry to say. The Emperor said 
that I would find the coronation fatiguing : I said, what must 
it be for him ? In fact, we had an afternoon call conversa 
tion. I was treated with great distinction, as I was called in 
first. The Empress looked very nice dressed in white silk, 
and occasionally smiled. Then I went and lunched at a 

I ought to have told you that before going to Court, the 
Metropolitan of Kieff came to return my call. All the 
domestics rushed out of their several dens to kiss his hand 
on the staircase, and I went up mightily in their estimation. 
Later in the afternoon I went to call on the Metropolitan of 
Moscow, but he was ill. There we met Sabler, who is Fob s 1 
second in command. He at once carried us off to a convent 
of Strasnoy, where I had tea with the abbess. They make 
at the convent all the bread for the Communion, and I was 
fed with little loaves made for that purpose and delicious 
jam. But Sabler ordered the choir to come and sing in the 
next room : you know that they always sing unaccompanied 
and consequently have lovely music. I was delighted, but 
asked with amazement how the choir could be gathered at a 
moment s notice. " Oh," was the answer, " it is the nuns." 
" But," I said, " they sing bass." " Yes, of course." I got up 
to look : such a sight. Sombre, pallid, ugly women of all 
ages ; but these were the basses and tenors. It is a speciality 
and takes a vast amount of training ; but they do it. Their 
singing was perfectly marvellous : they can sing pianissimo 
without becoming flat It is quite wonderful. They all 
bowed low before me when they had done. 

Whitsunday : May 24. 

I am getting on, and did a good day s work yesterday. I 
had to square the chaplain to have a special service for the 
Duke of Connaught, at 10.45 this morning. The chaplain 
said there would be no choir, no organist, and no 
congregation. I told him it must be done, as the Duke 
asked for it. He said it would destroy his II o clock 
service, which had been announced. I took the matter in 
hand: said we must have a short service at 10.15, and 
another at 11.15, an d I would preach at both. I mentioned 

1 Pobiedonostzeff, 


it to some newspaper correspondents whom I saw at lunch. 
The church was crowded. I ordered Litany and Ante- 
Communion, and preached a short sermon, which was all done 
in the hour. Then we had Matins, and I went on with the 
celebration, and preached again to the ordinary congregation. 
I lunched with the chaplain, who has a lovely girl of the age 
of ten, with whom I made friends. Then I was ordered to 
see the Duke of Connaught, who was very friendly and 
pleased with my sermon. It was the Queen s birthday, you 
remember, and I took the line of the work of the Spirit in 
diversity of character and unity of purpose underlying 
difference. Then I spoke of the impressiveness of the 
Russian people praying for the gifts of the Spirit to the 
great head of the national family : and ended by saying that 
we could sympathise with them because we knew how much 
we owed to our Queen. The Duke said it made him cry, and 
indeed he wiped his eyes very hard, as I happened to see. 
But this has carried me on to to-day, and I have not told you 
about yesterday. I spent the afternoon in writing my name, 
and then called on Pobiedonostzeff, with whom I talked for 
nearly an hour. He is a most interesting man of powerful 
mind, clear vision, and large knowledge. He talked about 
Kidd s " Social Evolution," and Balfour s book ; he has read 
everything : admires " The Earthly Paradise," and wonders 
how Morris can be a Socialist. I find him one of the ablest 
men I have ever met. Then Birkbeck took me to tea with 
Princess Mestchertsky, who has a large family of daughters, 
and all speak English. They were all very nice, and gave 
me a copy of the Proclamation of the Coronation. It was 
proclaimed by heralds at various gates, who then threw a few 
magnificently printed copies among the crowd. These are 
very rare, and she insisted tha f I should have one, which she 
had got. I give you this as an instance of the kindliness of 
these people. I am called upon, now by stray clergy, and if 
I am in, I scarcely have a moment s peace. Last night I 
could scarcely find time to make a sermon, and I thought it 
was a very bad one, but apparently it did. I think I am 
getting on too well and want snubbing. 

May 26. 

I left off on Sunday afternoon and have not had a 
moment since. I dined at the Embassy to celebrate the 
Queen s birthday. We were a party of 70, and dined at 
little tables of eleven each. I took in Madame de Claney, a 
good old German lady, but had not much chance of talking 
to her, as I sat next Princess Louis of Battenberg, who is 


a sister of the Empress, and who talked to me all the time. 
She is amazingly clever and well informed ; those Hesse girls 
have been very well brought up, and are very pretty and 
attractive. She is staying with the Grand Duke Sergius, the 
Governor of Moscow, who is the Emperor s uncle, and 
married another Hesse princess, who is most beautiful. . . . 
Yesterday Nicolai came and took me to the picture gallery 
here, made by a rich merchant, and open to the public. It 
was very interesting, of course all modern Russian pictures : 
they are all realistic, and deal with popular life ; they are like 
everything else in Russia, sombre and triste ; deathbeds and 
invalids and prisoners abound. I had to get up at 5.30, for 
to-day s function. 1 We were in the cathedral soon after 
seven, and I had about the best place possible. It is quite 
needless for me to write a description of the spectacle, as you 
will have seen it in all the papers. It was far beyond 
anything I could have imagined, and the service was, from a 
religious point of view, wonderfully impressive. I will keep 
my description till I get back. When the service was over 
we went out, and saw the Emperor mount the steps to the 
palace. It was a gorgeous day : the crowd was enormous : 
and the roar as the Emperor mounted the staircase, with six 
pages staggering under the weight of his train, and his huge 
diamond crown gleaming in the sunlight, was beyond 
anything that can be imagined. The two Empresses followed. 
When they reached the top they turned and bowed to the 
people, and then passed into the palace. I followed, having 
been invited to the State dinner, which perhaps was not 
described. The distinguished guests had lunch in various 
rooms, but this was not for me. I was presently taken 
charge of by a kindly officer, who led me to a quiet place, and 
gave me a chair. Then he found a room where he supplied 
me with tea. There Pobiedonostzeff found me really his 
care of me knows no bounds and took me to the banqueting 
hall in the Granovitaya Palata. It is a large room with a 
vaulted roof, and a huge square pillar in the middle, which is a 
buffet gleaming with splendid cups. The Court stood in one 
corner by the door : the Emperor s throne was opposite. It 
was on a stage under a baldachino. He and the two 
Empresses entered and were served, while all stood. The 
food was brought in by the great officers and handed from one 
to another. When he called for wine, the Court retired, and we 

1 Mr. Birkbeck writes: I got to the Bishop s by 6.30 and found him ready 
robed. He looked so magnificent in his red and gold Coronation Cope from the 
A.bbey, his mitre and crozier. 


might sit and begin our dinner. 1 It was then 3.30, and I was 
rather hungry. In the other corner of the room was an 
orchestra, and choir, who sang all the time. The tables were 
arranged in the remaining space ; all the great officials of the 
Empire were there, and the table nearest the throne was 
reserved for ecclesiastics. I was in the middle of it, between 
an Armenian bishop and Father John of Cronstadt, the great 
holy man of Russia. Unfortunately he spoke nothing but 
Russian ; but we chummed, as far as we could : he kissed me, 
and drank with me, and was most friendly. One course of 
the repast was the presentation to each guest of a gold medal 
in commemoration of the Coronation. We had a mighty 
repast, but it was soon over, and I came back. On my way 
out the crowd thronged to kiss my hand. They were the 
regular moujiks, and did not know who or what I was : but 
their religious exaltation was such that they wanted 
somebody to be venerated. Father John was in front of me, 
and was mobbed. I soon was mobbed too, but it was im 
possible not to be touched by the evident feeling of the people. 
Poor dears, they are just like children, but such nice good 
children. I got to my carriage at last, and had a sort of 
progress, giving my blessing as I went through the streets. 
My cope was excellent ; it was not on the same lines as 
their vestments, which are all cloth of gold. It felt rather 
odd dining in a cope, but I had no choice. As they do not 
carry pastoral staffs, mine was unique, and I tried to look very 
dignified. I can only say the whole thing quite surpassed 
any expectations I could have formed. It is a thing never 
to be forgotten. I pine to be back, and will now make tracks 
for that purpose : I must try and get away before the crowd. 

c May 27. 

1 Last night after dinner I strengthened myself to go out 
and see the illuminations. The crowd was immense : loco 
motion was difficult, and I went alone, as no one else was 
sufficiently vigorous. I got down to the river and saw the 
Kremlin, all the buildings of which had been covered with 
glass lamps containing candles, so that all the architecture, 
domes, and cupolas, and all, stood out in blue, green, yellow 
or white light, while electric lights rotated all round and fire 
works ascended. . . . 

May 29. 

. . . I will go on with my story. On Wednesday night 
I went again to dine with the Emperor. Is not that a 

The Bishop was the only person not a Russian subject present at this 


mighty honour ? We assembled in a great hall, and then 
went to the banqueting hall : the arrangement of places was 
strictly to show the connexion of Church and State. At the 
principal table sat the ecclesiastics on one side and the 
Imperial party on the other. I was between an Armenian 
bishop and Father John as before ; but opposite me was the 
Duke of Edinburgh, and we talked across the table. The 
dinner was magnificent of course, with a mighty orchestra 
to play all the time. It began at 7 and was over about 8.30. 
When the Emperor retired the guests soon dispersed. I came 
back and took Forestier to see the illuminations, which looked 
even more beautiful. On returning about 12 came Prince 
Andronikoff in a fuss, because I ought to have presented 
myself at an Imperial reception, where all the clergy went to 
congratulate the Emperor. He wanted to know what was 
now to be done. Punctiliousness knows no end ; so I wrote 
to somebody to say I would go yesterday. So in the morn 
ing I had to inform two English chaplains and Birkbeck that 
they were to go with me. At 12.30 I went to the palace in 
my Convocation robes and staff, duly attended. There was 
an enormous throng, but everybody was kind to me, and 
made me a place soon. There was great splendour in a 
mighty hall, and I advanced and congratulated and shook 
hands with the Emperor and kissed the hand of the Empress, 
and bowed and departed. The Empress looked nearly dead 
with fatigue, and had to go on till 5 o clock. It was 2 before 
I got any lunch. Then there were some calls to pay, and 
I came home and fell asleep. Then we went off to visit a 
settlement of raskolniks, who are Russian dissenters, outside 
the walls, a quiet little place with two splendid churches, all 
gleaming with eikons. We had to drive back, and I hastily 
dressed and dined before going to a State ball at the palace. 
There were about 8,000 people there : all stood in rows about 
ten deep, and the Emperor and Empress and royal personages 
and ambassadors walked with their ladies between the rows 
while music crashed. This was supposed to be a polonaise. 
I got out presently on to the balcony and looked at the 
illuminations, which were more marvellous seen from above. 
. . . This morning I had scarcely finished breakfast before I 
had a visit from a professor, who is writing about Anglican 
Orders : then came the charming Bishop of Finland to pay 
a call before his departure. < May 30j lS ^ 

; Yesterday I was rung up by a telephone and received a 
message that there was a ticket for me at the theatre in the 
evening. That is the way that things are done. There is 


so much to do that tickets are issued at the last moment, and 
you never know where to find them ; so most of your time is 
spent in waiting. I went to the Embassy to dinner. . . . 
\Ve went off at 7.30 and waited for the Emperor s arrival. 
The theatre is a very large and fine building ; it held 2,800 
people. I was in the front row of the stalls, and had a 
splendid view. All the stalls were filled by officers in magni 
ficent uniforms and the boxes gleamed with ladies. Opposite 
the stage was the Imperial box ; when the Emperor arrived 
we all stood and shouted, and the band struck up the National 
Anthem, and the enthusiasm was mighty. Then began a 
Russian opera by Glinka, rather old-fashioned ; they only did 
a bit of one act, but it was full of old Russian airs. Then 
came a long pause, and after that a ballet, to which the 
Russians are devoted. It was a great spectacle, and the 
dancing was admirable : but it was of the old style of ballet, 
the Queen of Pearls, under the sea, and rather of the panto 
mimic kind. ... So far I wrote, when I was again rung up 
from the Embassy with the news that there was a ticket for 
me to a stand at a great popular festival given to-day. I 
went to see our landlady, who told me that there had been 
a sad accident this morning. At the distribution of 
memorials of the Coronation to the crowd, the rush was so 
great that many were suffocated. It is difficult to learn 
details. . . . We set out for this great exercise ground 
outside the walls at 12.30, and drove through blinding dust. 
At 2 the Emperor arrived : the crowd must have been 
about half a million : the shouts were tremendous : and caps 
were thrown into the air, never, I should think, to be 
recovered by their owners. There was a vast orchestra and 
choir opposite the Emperor s box. I was just at the left. 
The National Anthem was sung time after time, while the 
people cheered ceaselessly. Guns were fired, bells were rung, 
and the noise and dust were terrific. This lasted for three- 
quarters of an hour, when the Emperor withdrew. Mean 
while there were great stages erected for ballets for the 
crowd : there were huge towers of merry-go-rounds, and 
various forms of entertainments spread all around. 

* Trinity Sunday, May 31. 

This morning I went off to church, and preached and 
celebrated. The Duke of Connaught was there again. Then 
I lunched with the chaplain, and have just returned. I 
received an order this morning to write an account of the 
Coronation for Her Majesty. So I must set to work on 
that with pains and care. I should like to please her. 


* The accident yesterday is a most awful thing. Fully 
1,700 people were killed. There were to be 400,000 presents 
distributed, and in the crush at the beginning the first ranks 
were thrown down and trampled on. It is quite terrible to 
think of, and everyone is plunged in woe. It is useless to 
consider what the mistake was ; but there is the sad fact that 
more people were slain in a holiday than would have perished 
in a battle . . . The action of a crowd is incalculable. 

June 3. 

* On Monday we went for an expedition to the Troitsa 
Monastery, the most holy place in Russia ... I got up at 5.30 
for the purpose. At the Troitsa we first joined the service in 
the church thronged with pilgrims, and saw several children 
communicated, which was odd. Then we visited the Prior, 
who gave us tea and lovely bread and jam. We explored the 
monastic treasury and all the buildings. Then we drove to 
some dependent cells situated in a fine forest, with little 
lakes beside them, very pretty and very interesting for a view 
of Eastern monasticism. We returned about 3, and had 
a large dinner with the chief officials ; it was all of fish, and 
was most excellent. They were very kind, and we carried off 
presents of pictures which they make there. . . . 

The Bishop made the following note at the time of the 
remarks made by M. Pobiedonostzeff in the conversation 
alluded to in his letter of May 24 : 

The unity of the nation depends on the Church. The 
one anti-national power is that of Rome, which subverted the 
ancient organisation of the Church to make it a political 
power. It had succeeded, but the Roman Church was 
materialised in consequence, and the foe of all national insti 
tutions. The supremacy of the Pope was the strongest power 
that existed in Europe : it was highly organised, possessed 
of great wealth. Its members always worked for its objects. 
He was not pleased that Germany and England were repre 
sented by Roman Catholic ambassadors. The Russian 
Church corresponded to the needs of the Russian people. 
Conversion had been wrought by monasteries, which were still 
centres of civilisation. The music of the Church spread 
everywhere, and created a taste which ameliorated life. The 
services of the Church were pure poetry, and impressed the 
great truths of religion on the popular mind. You may speak 
of superstition in the veneration of eikons : it was a prayer 
struggling for expression. It might not be possible to tell 


how it appealed to the ignorant mind ; but superstition 
required exact definition ; nothing was entirely free from it. 
Certainly the superstitions of free-thinkers went deeper than 
anything that could be put down to the most ignorant Chris 
tian. The great enemy of the Russian Church was Rome. In 
Poland its political influence was steadily used for disaffection. 
In the neighbourhood of Austria priests objected to eikons 
and substituted their images. The Bible without the Church 
could be made to mean anything. He spoke of Davies 
" Unorthodox London," and of the religious census in the 
United States. Such dissidence was impossible for a country 
like Russia. 

The Bishop was mucn impressed by M. Pobiedonostzeff, 
and considered him one of the most able and interesting men 
he had ever met ; he described him as clever, spare, and 
sharp a man who could be disagreeable ; but he was convinced 
of the sincerity of his efforts to promote the good of his 
country. M. PobiedonostzefFs opinion of the Bishop was 
expressed in a letter to Mr. Birkbeck in 1901 : 

It was through you that I had the fortunate opportunity 
of getting to know him in conversation, in which we frankly 
exchanged our views, and from which I carried away a most 
gratifying impression. I am not speaking of his intellect, his 
learning, or his literary talent. What was most to be prized 
in him was his heart, a heart sincere, and filled with love for 
men, and with the desire to help them just whenever the 
need presented itself. He was able to understand not only 
the worthy qualities, but at the same time the weaknesses, in a 
man ; while in religious questions he had a soul keenly 
sensitive to every belief and every conscience. For us it was 
delightful to see and to feel with what spiritual penetration 
he had investigated our Church, and had been able to 
comprehend in her a reflection of the soul of the Russian 
people. His attitude towards Church matters was that of a 
savant, and at the same time of a poet, responding with his 
soul to everything that was beautiful, and to everything that 
was right, wherever he might see it ... here in Russia, those 
who knew the Bishop were able to appreciate him. 

On reaching London, the Bishop went straight to Lambeth 
to report to the Archbishop the result of his mission, and on 
June 9 he got back to Peterborough. This sight of Russia 
and of the Russian Church and people on such a momentous 



occasion fired his historic imagination and produced a pro 
found and lasting impression upon him. What he had 
observed and heard convinced him of the absurdity of 
Englishmen attempting to suggest schemes of reform for 
Russia or to solve her problems. Her conditions, her 
civilisation, the character of her people, he saw to be so 
different from ours that it was vain to apply our standards 
to her. Yet all that he had learnt made him clear that it 
was of supreme importance that England and Russia should 
learn to understand one another, and should be drawn more 
closely together, since much of the future of the world, 
especially of the Eastern world, lay in their hands. Moreover 
the strength of both lay in their sense of a national mission. 
There was room for both to fulfil that mission, and there was 
no need for them to hinder one another. 

He often spoke strongly about the folly of the English in 
trying to manage the affairs of other nations by public 
meetings and otherwise, and said that Russia neither ap 
preciated nor understood that kind of attention. His own 
attitude in Russia had been that of one who tried to under 
stand rather than to criticise, and this he felt should be the 
attitude of the English towards the Russians. The sight of 
the way in which the religious life of the Russian people 
found its expression in the national life was specially grateful 
to one to whom the national side of the English Church 
meant so much. In many of his talks with distinguished 
Russians he had realised how, without any organic union, the 
English and the Russian Churches could at least exist in 
perfect harmony and with a thorough understanding of one 
another. His ideas about the whole meaning of the Corona 
tion ceremony he expressed in an article for the Cornhill 
Magazine to which I would refer those who would like to 
see it with his eyes. 

His conclusions about the political condition of the time 
may be judged from the following record of a conversation 
with the Hon. (now Sir) Schomberg MacDonnel (then Lord 
Salisbury s private secretary), who writes : 

He had an extraordinary insight and knowledge of 
foreign politics. I travelled with him for two hours soon 

1 Since republished in Historical Essays and Reviews. 


after his return from the Coronation at Moscow, during 
which time he discussed the whole situation in Europe. He 
was very earnest as to the mischief caused by the antagonism 
of Russia towards England : in his view the great guarantee 
for peace would be a thorough understanding between the 
two Powers : this he hoped might be brought about by Lord 
Salisbury and Prince Lobanoff, though he admitted that the 
latter was at heart deeply prejudiced against England. I 
asked him how he thought Germany would view such an 
understanding : " There was no doubt," he replied, " that she 
would not like it Rightly or wrongly, Prince Bismarck had 
always made the separation of Russia and England a cardinal 
point of his foreign policy ; and the same policy was 
evidently going to be followed in Germany for a long time to 
come." It was a mistaken policy, in his opinion, as he believed 
the best combination possible would be England, Russia and 
Germany : with a good understanding between these Powers 
it would be impossible for anybody to break the peace of 
Europe. France he regarded as a real danger, though unable 
to do much mischief so long as she was kept in check by 
Russia : still her upper classes were idle and effete : her 
middle class and her government corrupt ; and her army not 
to be trusted : better material for a conflagration could hardly 
be imagined : fortunately the absence of any strong claimant 
to the throne was a great safeguard : otherwise the present 
state of affairs could not last Italy would never flourish 
until she hardened her heart and reduced her army : her only 
salvation lay in abandoning militarism for the development 
of the country ; but he doubted if any king would have the 
strength and courage to do it. As for Turkey and the Balkan 
peninsula, he would prophesy nothing, only he thought that 
Russia had fixed her eyes on the Far East more than on 
Constantinople : and he was quite certain that Russia was 
adopting a very different policy towards Mahommedans ; now 
that she ruled over so many of them in Asia, it was to her 
interest to appear as their protector rather than to allow them 
to be bullied : on the whole, he was inclined to think that 
Turkey in Europe would last longer than people anticipated. 
As for Russia moving a finger to aid the Armenians, the idea 
was preposterous : Russia did not want them any more than 
Turkey : they were not of her Church, they did not make 
particularly good soldiers : and they were too fond of 
anarchical and revolutionary sentiments to be welcome 

4 Austria seemed to him to be in a very dangerous position : 
as long as the Emperor lived well and good he would 

M 2 


probably be able to hold the country together ; but after him 
-the deluge ; and the great danger to Europe seemed to 
him to lie in the struggle which must inevitably follow 
between Russia, Germany and Austria herself. 

The Bishop received the following autograph letter from 
the Queen in return for the letter he wrote to her at her 
request describing the Coronation : 

* Balmoral Castle : June II, 1896. 

The Queen wishes to express her warmest thanks to the 
Bishop of Peterborough for his most interesting and instructive 
letter. The description was so vivid and so beautifully 
written that it enables the Queen to understand and follow it 
all as no other description has done to the same extent. 

The Queen feels like a mother to the dear young 
Empress, who lost her mother at such an early age and then 
her father. 

1 She was very often in England from her earliest child 
hood, and the Queen has also a great affection for the young 
Emperor. How terrible that this awful catastrophe should 
have occurred to cast such a gloom over everything ! 

The Queen hopes to see the Bishop on her return to 

Later he sent the Queen a copy of his Cornhill article, 
asking at the same time whether the Empress would perhaps 
like a copy : to this the Queen replied : 

Balmoral Castle : September 8, 1896. 

The Queen is most grateful to the Bishop of Peter 
borough for his enlarged and beautiful account of the 
Coronation at Moscow, and feels sure that the Empress of 
Russia would be delighted to receive a copy. 

* The Queen will give it to her dear grand-daughter if the 
Bishop will send it to the Queen. 

* She trusts she ! may not seem very indiscreet if she asks 
him to let her have a few more copies for her children. It is 
impossible to describe anything more admirably and graphi 
cally than the Bishop has done, giving at the same time such 
an interesting description of what such an act signified. 

How the Queen wishes she could have seen it. 

He was summoned to Windsor in the following autumn 
to give the Queen a verbal account of what he had seen. 
She was so much interested in what he told her that he was 


delayed at the Castle till some more of the Royal Family 
were able to listen to his story. 

At the next Bishops meeting, the Archbishop asked him 
to give an account of his experiences. The Bishop of 
Rochester says : I think he must have spoken over an hour, 
but I don t think we took much count of time : it was done 
with such ease and clearness and point. 

Everyone was keen to hear what he had to tell, and he 
was always ready to show his photographs of Russia and 
recount his experiences. He also lectured several times 
on the Coronation to most enthusiastic audiences, until the 
requests were so numerous that he was obliged to say that 
he would not do so any more. He kept up his own interest 
in Russia, and especially studied the novels of Dostoiewsky, 
who his Russian friends had told him was the most cha 
racteristic of their writers. He was always keen to read any 
book which could add to his knowledge of Russia. 

Immediately after his return he gave the Romanes lec 
ture at Oxford. He had had some difficulty about the 
choice of a subject, and had consulted Dr. Garnett 

December 27, 1895. 

1 Dear Garnett, The Romanes lecture was founded by the 
late George Romanes at Oxford in imitation of the Rede 
lecture at Cambridge. It has only existed for four years, and 
the lecturers have been Gladstone, Huxley, Weismann and 
Holman Hunt. It may be on any subject except politics or 
religion. I enclose you a copy of my Rede lecture, when I 
was fortunate enough to hit upon a new subject of some 
interest. It was suggested to me by coming across a letter of 
Humphry Duke of Gloucester, which I published in the 
"Historical Review last year. Working at the subject 
suggested to me in turn the collecting of these remains into a 
volume for the Roxburgh Club. The materials would fall 
into two groups, (i) Italians connected with England. 
(2) Englishmen who learned in Italy. The collection would 
cease with the coming of Erasmus, when the English 
Renaissance flowed into the general stream. 1 

* The only subjects which I have in my head for a Romanes 
lecture are ecclesiastical, and so will not do. I do not know 
if " Oxford under Elizabeth would not wander into 
ecclesiastical affairs. " Oxford Men of Letters in the Sixteenth 

1 This plan was never carried out. 


Century " are few and undistinguished. I wish Gabriel Harvey 
or Sir John Harrington had been Oxford men. 

April 6, 1896. 

. . . After many struggles I fixed on a frivolous subject 
for my Romanes lecture, " English National Character." It 
came into my head apropos of current events: but I mean 
to plead that history ought to be written and studied more 
with a view to the explanation of existing national character, 
which is the permanent result of the past. Perhaps that 
might occupy an hour without boring people too much. 

The lecture was delivered June I?. 1 He said that the 
subject had been suggested to him by * the sudden interest in 
our doings which other countries had unanimously displayed. 
He traced the causes of the growth of that aloofness of 
England from the general system of Europe, that desire to 
go its own way which, in his opinion, did much to account for 
the way in which England has been and is misunderstood by 
other nations. The lecture is very characteristic of him both 
in substance and in form. His love for his country led him 
at all times to ponder much on English characteristics, to 
compare English men and English customs with those of 
other countries, by no means always to England s advantage. 
Many things in this lecture record the result of his own 
observations as well as of his studies. There are frequent bits of 
practical advice, such as : We should not be so uniformly and 
aggressively reasonable in the advice which we tender them 
[other nations] so freely. * Perhaps it would be kind on our 
part if we drew a sharper line of distinction between the 
advice which we give to one another and that which we send 
abroad. He exhorted Englishmen to try to adopt a more 
sympathetic attitude to people of other nations. History 
should teach us sympathy with tne national past of other 

The death of Lord Lilford in 1896 was a great grief 
to him. To no one in his diocese had he felt more attracted, 
and he had the warmest admiration for his life and character. 
He writes of him : 

To me he was a man of remarkable attainments and 
singular charm, a man whom to know was a lifelong 

1 It is published in Historical Lectures and Addresses. 

1896 LORD LILFORD 107 

possession. . . . When first I met him we were entire 
strangers. ... I found a man confined to a bath chair, a man 
with a massive head of great distinction, full of intelligence, 
bearing traces of that fastidiousness which goes with culture, 
but chiefly attractive by gentleness and a singular expression of 
kindness. A very little conversation showed me that I was 
in the presence of a man of remarkable intellectual power, and 
we were soon talking with a freedom and a range of subjects 
which to me was quite unexpected. I soon found that every 
thing I knew, or in which I was interested, was within his 
ken. . . . We talked of European literature, politics and 
society. We compared notes of travel and experiences of 
various peoples. l 

Intercourse with such a man was a delight and refresh 
ment, and the Bishop was glad of any excuse which 
took him to Lilford. To our children no treat was more 
welcome than a visit to the great collection of living birds 
there. Lord Lilford delighted in children and they in 
him. The Bishop writes : 

* Few more charming pictures linger in my memory than 
one of Lord Lilford being wheeled in his chair through his 
gardens, surrounded by a crowd of children, eager to ask him 
questions about the birds, but restrained by the consciousness 
that they must not come too near and push against him, all 
hanging on his lips as, with quiet humour, he gave them 
information suited to their needs. 

To Clementina Lady Lilford Peterborough : July 13, 1896. 

* I will venture to write to Miss Powys some suggestions 
about the Memoir. I shall be only too willing to put on 
record what I knew and thought for the benefit of others. It 
is indeed true that the young need now-a-days to have the 
secret of character put before them. They are too apt to 
think that they can enjoy the flower of life without its root. 

1 1 fear that life will seem to you dreary and empty for 
some time to come. Indeed in your case it has been suddenly 
emptied of its immediate contents. New interests can only 
slowly form ; and they will form round the consciousness that 
his character and person are an abiding possession, with a 
power to renew. At first the sense of bereavement and of loss 
is paramount . . . you have first to face the fact of an 
irreparable loss. But it is not a mere loss ; there is much that 
remains. The spirit survives and is more clearly seen and 
Introduction to the Memoir of Lord Lilford, by his Sister. 


more vividly understood. As you served the man while he 
was here, and rejoiced in his companionship ; so it is possible 
to serve still the abiding principle of his life and find comfort 
in spiritual communing with it, a part of the eternal life of the 

I know that this seems cold and intangible. We do not 
know where to turn or what to do or think ; but processes are 
going on, healing processes of grace, which slowly make 
themselves manifest. 

4 There is a beautiful sonnet of Petrarch, who sees Laura 
in heaven amongst the angels ; she walks amongst them, but 
from time to time turns her head and looks behind and seems to 
be waiting for him : 

Wherefore I raise to heaven my heart and mind 
Because I hear her bid me only haste. 

There remains a spell of life before the reunion : it is not a 
desert, but has its beauties and its lessons. Can you think 
that you are separated from him for a time that you may 
learn to know him better ? that you may learn something more 
to tell him hereafter something that he taught you to learn 
but which you had not time to learn while he was with you 
because you were too busied with him ? 

* There is a great principle applicable to common human 
life in the words of our Lord, " It is expedient for you that I 
go away, for if I go not away the Comforter will not come 
unto you." There is a spiritual presence, superior in some 
things to actual presence not different but the same, only 
appealing to other parts of one s nature. 

Forgive these imperfect thoughts. It is not through the 
head that one gains comfort, but through the heart. Though 
prayers are dull and dry, they open the heart to God, and He 
speaks and guides and remakes. 

There were many country houses in the diocese where the 
Bishop stayed with pleasure, and soon became a friend oi 
the family. His visits were almost invariably connected with 
diocesan engagements. Other visits he seldom had time to 
pay. For a holiday he preferred to get abroad, where he 
was not known, where he need not talk, and could be at 
peace. This desire for quiet and peace, his long silences 
during days spent in mountain walks, show the need he felt 
for times of thought and withdrawal into himself. But those 
who saw him with others, the life and centre of a big party 
in a country house, the storyteller at a dinner table, would 


have imagined that it was his delight to shine in society. 
This was far from being the case ; peace and quiet, time to 
read a book, these were what he wanted ; he seldom went into 
society without a groan. Of course he must have enjoyed it 
when he was there, as everyone enjoys the sense of success, 
and intercourse with young people was a real refreshment to 
him. He found that the fact that he smoked helped him to 
know young men. Round the fire in the smoking-room, after 
the ladies and many of the elders had gone to bed, they could 
forget that he was a bishop, and he was able to talk and get 
them to talk without constraint or shyness. 

In the summer of this year a great personal sorrow came 
to him. His brother was discovered to be seriously ill, and, 
after undergoing an operation, was sent home with the 
certainty of having only about two months to live. The 
Bishop was able to visit him twice during his illness, and was 
with him during the last week of his life. James Robert 
Creighton was a successful timber merchant in Carlisle, but 
during the last year of his life he had chiefly devoted himself 
to public affairs. He had been a leading member of the 
Corporation for twenty two years, had twice been Mayor of 
Carlisle, and had also been a member of the County Council. 
He was considered by his fellow-citizens to have been the 
pioneer of every movement for the development and improve 
ment of the city in his day. On his deathbed he asked his 
brother to tell his fellow-citizens from him that he wished to 
express to them as his last message * his profound conviction 
that the greatness of England was due to its capacity for 
local self-government, and that its future progress depended 
on the extension of this capacity; he trusted that Carlisle 
would never be without a due supply of men who regarded it 
as at once their duty and their pleasure to devote their zeal 
and energy to the promotion of the common welfare. 

James Creighton s wife had died three years before, and 
his six children were left alone in the world, except for their 
aunt and uncle. 

To Count Balzani 4 The Snabs> Carlisle: September 12, 1896. 

1 Thank you very much for your letter. It is severe to 
watch for a week at the bedside of one whose mind remained 


perfectly clear to the very last, who looked steadfastly to the 
end without flinching, and thought of everybody and every 
thing in the future with perfect calmness. 

There was something quite startling in the detached way 
in which he made wise provision for everything that might 
happen to his children. For the last three years he had to 
try and replace their mother to them ; it was hard to feel that 
he too was passing away ; but he did so with splendid 

We are trying to comfort the orphans, who are all very 
good and affectionate, but there are six of them, and the 
youngest is only nine. We go back to Peterborough next 
week. Luckily I was able to have this fortnight free. 

These days had been kept free, in order that he might 
go to his old parish of Embleton to open a new school. 
His successor in Embleton had just died, and been 
succeeded by Mr. Bolland, the headmaster of the Worcester 
Cathedral School. Now the visit to Embleton had to be 
given up. 

To the Rev. W. E. Bolland 

The Snabs, Carlisle : September 6, 1896. 

* I am very sorry not to be with you at the opening of the 
school. It would have been a very great pleasure to me to 
have had the opportunity of meeting old friends, who are 
very dear to me, and of rejoicing with them at a great 
advance in the welfare of Embleton. I had always felt that 
the old school was inconveniently situated, and was not so 
comfortable for the children as we should have wished. I 
made one or two efforts to secure a better site, and arrange 
for a new building. My attempts failed, and I could only 
commend the matter to my successor. His perseverance has 
been successful, and you must rejoice to enter upon the fruit 
of his labours. The new school will be a lasting memorial of 
his zeal and energy. 

1 1 know that you will not fail in interest in all that 
concerns the training of the young. Nothing that can be 
done, no sacrifice that is required, is too much for that all 
important work. In each generation we must see much that 
we can never achieve, and our hope must be in the 
generations that are to succeed us. We can only labour 
to build up their character, to convince them of our interest 
in their welfare, and to send them out to face life s 
difficulties with the fear of God in their hearts. No pang 
was so great to me in leaving Embleton as my leave-taking 


of the children in the school. Some may perhaps still 
remember bidding me good-bye. 

* I often think of things which I left undone at Embleton ; 
may God give you His grace to do them better than I could 
have done them . . . Say to all who are there on Tuesday that 
I hope God may bless them, and prosper this new school to 
His glory and the good of all who are trained therein. 

To the same The Snabs, Carlisle: September 10, 1896. 

1 Thank you, and please thank everyone else, for your 
kind sympathy. ... I am glad that your opening went off 
well. . . . Such a gathering, as you say, does much good in 
bringing people together. The worst of country life is the 
prevalence of family and other quarrels, which harden into 
standing feuds as in old days. The people at Embleton 
were fond of music and dancing, and I tried to develop social 
life as much as possible. 

* I think you will find that the best thing to do is to live 
amongst the people, learn to understand them, and then 
gently influence them individually. I gather that things have 
improved steadily since I left ; and I hope that some of the 
seed I tried to sow has taken root. The northern people are 
not readily receptive, but what they do receive grows. They 
are quiet, sincere, and say less, not more than they think. 
It is a great thing that they have received you warmly. You 
must win their confidence ; when once given it will not be 

After staying as long as possible at Carlisle, we went to 
Keswick that he might have a little change before going back 
to work. Two days spent in rambling over the mountains 
round Derwentwater revived his love for the Lake country. 
He wrote to his niece, We have just been devising a plan 
that next August you and we, all of us, should take lodgings 
somewhere in the Lake country for three weeks. We can 
occupy several farmhouses and make ourselves merry and 
ramble at will. 1 

He took these orphan nieces and nephews to his heart as 
if they were his own children. I wish we could all live 
together somewhere, he wrote to his niece, but we have to 
live where we are put and make the best of it. And you 
know you are always in my thoughts, and we can help one 
another as much by thinking and praying as we can by 
actual talking. They continued to live together in the house 


that their father had built near Carlisle ; but they often visited 
us, and the Bishop was in constant communication with them. 
However busy he was, he found time for his regular letters to 
his nephews at school and his nieces at home. He said that 
he must give them the best part of his own attention, as our 
children had a mother to take care of them. We always 
considered them as our own children. 

The Diocesan Conference was held at Northampton at 
the end of September. The Bishop devoted much of his 
opening address to a consideration of the marriage laws, 
particularly with regard to the question of marriage with a 
deceased wife s sister. He showed how the opposition to 
such marriages rested on principles, and that the question 
could not be decided simply by reasons of convenience. The 
truth which the Church was specially bound to assert was 
that progress is only possible if men are taught to submit 
their individual wishes to the common good, and to find a 
fuller satisfaction in curbing their desires for immediate 
gratification of their impulses. 

He touched in the course of his address on the question 
of the massacres in Armenia. Mr. Thursfield wrote to him 
about what he said on this subject, and the Bishop answered 
his criticisms in the following letter : 

To Mr. J. R. Thursfield Peterborough : October 3, 1896. 

My dear Dick, I am in entire agreement with you in 
your main contention. But I could not, at a diocesan 
conference, give a lecture on foreign politics : my language 
led, as far as it went, to your conclusion. I said that we 
should learn one thing, " the evil results which spring from 
international jealousies in the past," by which I meant our 
unworthy treatment of Russia. I went on to say that it was 
consequently hard for us " to prove the uprightness of our 
intentions," and I suggested that we should do our utmost to 
make it clear that we were actuated by motives of humanity. 
I am afraid that in your quotation of my utterance you have 
omitted the first part of the sentence : " We must strengthen 
the hands of our rulers by an assurance that we are all 
united in our desires" and that we trust in their wisdom " to 
translate that meaning into practical form." 

1 The Church and the Nation^ p. 148. 


Of course such brief allusions are of no real value. But 
I had in my mind exactly what you say. I am not prepared 
to shriek about Armenia, because I do not think that those 
who shriek are prepared to pay. There is no practical step 
possible except to hand the whole thing over to Russia. Is 
the public who shrieks prepared for this ? I do not think so : 
the old dread of Russia and India remains, and Russia in 
Constantinople would be a shock. Well, how are we to pave 
the way ? 1 am ready to do anything that can be wisely 
done. . . . Since my return I have had a talk with - -, in 
which I very frankly stated my own opinions in favour of a 
pro-Russian or rather cum-Russian attitude on our part. I 
am doing all I can to promote it But I must do it gently 
and cautiously. There are many who are as much prepared 

to denounce Russia as the Turk. Our friend would as 

soon preside at an anti-Russian meeting as an anti-Turkish. 
The defect of our policy as expressed by public meetings is 
that it is hopelessly Pecksniffian. We do not recognise 
differences of civilisation, modes of thought, above all concep 
tions of freedom. If English public meetings will say, " We 
recognise Russia as a great civilising power, with great 
advantages for the work of pacifying Eastern Europe. We 
will take all our jealousies and suspicions out of the way, and 
will do our best to work hand in hand for the good of the 
East "well. But will they ? 

I cannot take so strong a view as you do of the situa 
tion : it is serious, and horrible. But there have been many 
horrors in the course of the world s history, and we will never 
get rid of them till we get rid of human sin. " The wheels of 
God grind slowly." These things have torn up our national 
policy in the past. It takes an effort to make a new one. 
But the trend of men s minds is to be slowly led in the right 
direction. Englishmen above all other people refuse to think 
things out : I am not sure that the disciplinary effect of 
discovering that indignation meetings in England produce 
nothing, is not a necessary step in the political education of 
the British public. Let us hasten to saddle it with responsi 
bility. That was the upshot of my remarks : in my own 
sphere I explain in private what I say in public, and my 
utterances serve as texts for comments. 

1 1 am always projecting a visit to you, but I am always 
horribly busy and business grows every year. 

At the end of September the Congregational Union met 
in Leicester. When in Dr. Magee s days the Church 


Congress was held there, the nonconformists were most kind 
in offering hospitality, and the Bishop now asked his clergy 
to remember this kindness and offer hospitality as far as 
possible to the Congregationalists. He himself addressed 
the following letter to the chairman of the Union : 

September 30, 1896. 

My dear Sir, As representing the Church of England, 
I venture to send a few words of greeting to the members 
of the Congregational Union on the occasion of their meeting 
at Leicester. Christian charity and Christian courtesy alike 
demand some mutual recognition among the servants of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Though we differ, we may differ without 
bitterness, and we may be assured that greater knowledge of 
one another s principles and greater appreciation of one 
another s work will dispel prejudices and misconceptions, and 
so reduce our differences to limits within which they may be 
brought by reasonable discussion. We may see no way 
towards agreement ; but we may at least do something 
towards knitting together the bonds of peace. There is one 
wish which we can all share, and I send it to you in all 
heartiness. May God s Holy Spirit guide us all alike to 
speak the truth in love, and in all we do and say to seek 
first God s kingdom and His righteousness. 

His letter was most cordially received and accepted in 
the spirit in which it was written. In answering him the 
chairman of the Union said, Your lordship commands our 
respectful admiration alike for your valuable contributions 
to Christian literature, your zealous discharge of the duties 
of your high office, and the liberal spirit you have shown in 
your relations to other Churches. Nor are we insensible to 
the great work your Church is doing. We rejoice to feel that 
antagonism of principles need not be accompanied by a spirit 
of narrow exclusiveness. 

In October he read a paper at the Shrewsbury Church 
Congress on The Idea of a National Church, probably the 
most successful of his Congress papers. It was listened to 
with rapt attention, frequently interrupted by signs of 
approval and at the end was followed by such prolonged 
applause, that he had to rise several times to acknowledge 
it. He said afterwards that he did not know what they wished 
him to do, they would not leave off clapping, and he felt like 


a prima donna who had received an encore, yet he could not 
be expected to read his paper again. 

In this paper l he defined what is meant by a National 
Church. He said that it was a result of the conditions of 
human life that the Church must admit differences of 
organisation, that because man in the past could recognise 
no unity that was not structural, they had, since human 
frailty was unable to realise the spiritual order, save in the 
forms of earthly polity, sacrificed unity, which is possible, to 
uniformity, which is impossible. He spoke of the causes 
which had made impossible the maintenance of a uniform 
organisation of the Church, and through which the idea of a 
National Church came into existence. To the National 
Churches he said belonged the right to determine the best 
methods of setting forth to the people the contents of the 
Christian faith. The idea of a Church universal in its 
organisation has failed, because it would not make room for two 
forces which have been most powerful in shaping the modern 
world the forces of nationality and liberty. He concluded 
by speaking of the work of a National Church. It persuades 
rather than commands ; its weapon is influence, not power . . . 
the Church of England has the satisfaction of knowing that 
it is training the generations on whom the future of the world 
depends, and it is content to gender sons and daughters into 
freedom ... it works in hope of repairing breaches, and 
restoring ancient ways. 

This paper was the expression of much that he had 
thought about during the last year. His visit to Russia had 
called forcible attention to the meaning of the national side 
of the Russian Church ; the uniformity in fundamental belief, 
the difference in outward expression, of the Russian and 
English Churches had increased his former conviction that, in 
our imperfect condition, the outward forms of the Church 
must be adapted to the characteristics of the different 
nations. Moreover, beside his Russian experiences, he had 
been following with sympathetic interest the efforts made 
during the last year or so by Lord Halifax and others to 
bring about a better understanding between the Church of 
England and the Church of Rome. 

1 Published in The Church and the Nation. 


In March 1894, Lord Halifax sent the Bishop a French 
theological Review, containing an article by the Abb6 
Portal, writing under the name of Dalbus, on Anglican 
Orders, saying how much he wished that something 
sympathetic in regard to such a treatise, and in reference to 
the desire for unity which it shows, could be put out by 
someone in authority. To this the Bishop answered : 

Peterborough : Easter Eve, 1894. 

Thank you very much for sending me P. Dalbus. He is 
in outlying points very fair, and practically admits all that 
we want. But it is very difficult to take him seriously at the 
end. On his last page he corrects the Bishop of Oxford for 
saying that in the eyes of* R. C. s, all we need is papal 
approbation. Yet this is the one point he makes against us. 
The materia of Orders is the porrectio patence cum pane^ 
because Pope Eugenius IV. said so ; and even if he was quite 
wrong in so saying, nothing but a general council could 
change it. We changed it without a general council, and so 
our Orders are invalid. 

4 Any Roman controversy always comes back to the same 
point : but since the development of Neo-Ultramontanism, 
controversialists have seemed fairer and more sympathetic, 
because they could give up the old stories, and be fair-minded 
with safety. They had an arm in reserve. When pressed, 
they could always say : " You are probably quite right : but 
you acted without the sanction of a general council : there 
fore your action can never be right." Now a general council 
means to them a council summoned by the Pope, and passing 
decrees which the Pope sanctioned. As the Church of 
England owed its rise to the necessity for abolishing the 
papal jurisdiction, it manifestly could not claim the papal 
consent to that step. Therefore all its proceedings have been 
invalid. Moreover they cannot be made valid without the 
Pope s sanction ; and the Pope cannot give that sanction 
without destroying his own historical claims. It is for this 
reason that I think the Roman controversy is really barren 
so far as the Romans are concerned. You may go on well 
enough for a certain distance, and then comes the blank wall 
of the papal monarchy. What Episcopacy is to us as regards 
nonconformists, the Papacy is to the Romans as against us. 

* These remarks are not fitting to this season ; but I send 
them when I can, not when I would. My best Easter 
greetings to you/ 

In the following summer (1894) the Abb Portal came to 


England, and Lord Halifax brought him to spend a night at 
Peterborough. After this visit the Bishop wrote : 

To Lord Halifax Peterborough: August 20, 1894. 

Your visit was a great pleasure to me. The Abbe Portal 
was quite charming, and I sincerely hope that his visit to 
England may be productive of fruit. Good understanding 
can only come from knowledge and sympathy. In foro juris 
the arguments may go on for ever. The great step to 
agreement is the discovery that " except in opinion we do not 
greatly differ." Then opinion is reduced to its due proportion. 

These letters show that the Bishop was not very hopeful 
about the result of the movement to obtain recognition from 
the Pope of the validity of English Orders. Lord Halifax 
was in Rome in the spring of 1895 an d wrote to him about 
the interviews he had had with some leading ecclesiastics 

To Viscount Halifax Sorrento : Ash Wednesday, 1895. 

My dear Lord Halifax,- -Your letter and its enclosures 
are most interesting to me and give much food for meditation. 
The practical question in all such matters is, Who is to begin ? 
That is the great difficulty in all great reforms ; the first step 
must be made by whom ? 

1 Now on the immediate question, the validity of Anglican 
Orders, I can see the Archbishop s reasons for hesitating. 
The attitude of Cardinal Vaughan has been very aggressive 
and exasperating. It is impossible to admit that the Church 
of England is on trial, or asks for any recognition. There is no 
doubt amongst us of the validity of our Orders ; we are quite 
satisfied. Roman theologians have denied it, and have thereby 
made the breach. If they thought fit to take any steps to heal 
it, the effect would doubtless be great. The restoration of 
the unity of Christendom will be not by affirming any one 
of the existing systems as universal, but by a federation. 
What we have to do is to sweep away foolish and one-sided 
controversy, and seek the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
peace. Natural differences, the sense of individual liberty, 
habits and modes of thought are too strong to be set aside. 
But there is no real reason why these should not be 
accommodated in one system, which admits of gradations. In 
the Mediaeval Church, for instance, the Franciscans were at 
first something like the Salvation Army only they denied 
nothing, and did not profess that their way was the only way. 
The Mediaeval Church was very liberal to those who were 


only positive, and not negative. Men might be as simple as 
they chose in their beliefs and in their practice, but it was not 
for them to object to what the Church had once allowed. 
Now some such conception as this must be at the bottom of 
reunion. We do not differ any Christians about the contents 
of the Christian faith, but about the proportion of them, and 
the means of their application to the individual soul. The real 
point of difference is about the means. Well, if someone 
says to me " 1 have found such and such means good for me " 
even though they seem to me complicated, and in some 
ways unreasonable, why should I object? If another says " I 
do not find your means useful to me, and I want something 
more direct and more personal and simpler," I must on the 
same grounds put up with him. If these various methods 
were put side by side, were allowed to work as parts of one 
system, the best would slowly make their power felt and 
approve themselves. But at present nonconformists do not 
discover their poverty : the Romans do not discover their 
want of contact with actual life. That is their real defect. 
They are upholding a system, not making it operative on life. 
Greater knowledge of our Church would help them greatly in 
this : and we need to know something of the greater versatility 
and adaptability of their methods. 

* This is becoming a discourse ; let me sum up by saying 
that if any recognition of our position were given by the Pope, 
it would be of enormous use : but we cannot ask for it with 
out putting ourselves in the wrong. We have done nothing 
to invalidate our Orders : Rome has wantonly denied them in 
the past. We at our worst have never unchurched Rome : 
latterly we have been almost too kind to her/ 

The Bishop hoped at least that a better understanding 
might arise from these negotiations. When in April 1895 tne 
Pope issued his letter to the English people, and many were 
irritated at what they considered its patronising tone, he 
preferred to regard it as a mark of friendliness. He said at 
his Diocesan Conference : 

The fact that Pope Leo XIII. should have issued a letter 
to the English people is at least a manifestation of good will. 
I do not like to criticise that letter in detail. It was addressed 
to the English people, probably as an indication that no answer 
was expected. From me at least it shall receive none. I 
think we may accept a token of friendliness and of Christian 
sympathy in the spirit which it expresses. We must expect 


that everyone who speaks of Christian unity should speak 
from his own point of view. That is inevitable. Everyone 
contemplates unity on the supposition that everyone else will 
ultimately agree with himself. How could he do otherwise ? 
The first step must necessarily be to make us all more deeply 
conscious of the intellectual, the historical, and the sentimental 
differences which keep us asunder. But intercourse, friendly 
feeling, and reflection will enable us or our children to remove 
misunderstanding, to dissolve the veil of sentiment, to go 
behind the prejudices created by mistakes and misdoings in 
the past, to separate what is accidental and temporary from 
what is essential, to discover the real importance of the points 
which keep us asunder, to raise controversy above passion, to 
discuss principles without being troubled by the thoughts of 
temporary loss or gain. . . . Controversy is unfruitful when it 
is blinded by prejudice ; it is only useful when it is directed 
towards the discovery of truth. It is premature to discuss at 
present methods of reunion, they must be left in the hands of 

Holding such opinions, he could not fail to regret deeply 
the publication on September 13, 1896, of the Bull of 
Leo XIII., which denied the validity of English Orders. 
This, which might well be regarded as a gratuitous insult to 
the English Church, could certainly not tend to remove 
misunderstanding. The Bishop expressed his opinion of the 
Pope s action in a letter to Mr. Birkbeck : 

Peterborough : September 14, 1896. 

. . . The Pope of Rome has been at his old games ; and 
doubtless Vaughan and Co. are chuckling. I think their 
victory will not profit them even in this world. It will entail 
on them a very long Purgatory in the next. I wonder if they 
have provided themselves adequately with Indulgences. But 
for the present and for the long future, this will end the 
leanings of the foolish towards the Western Church and will 
bring the Eastern Church into greater prominence. 

He at once agreed when it was suggested to him that an 
authoritative answer should be made to the Pope s letter ; and 
wrote on the subject to the Archbishop (Dr. Benson), who 
answered : 

September 23, 1896. 

1 My present opinion is that it would be desirable that 
a sufficient and strong document should appear from our 

N 2 


Episcopate (addressed ad Anglos). And none could so fitly 
prepare one as yourself, Oxford and Sarum. We should have 
to lay it before the bishops. 

The Bishop of Salisbury came at once to Peterborough, 
when the first draft of the answer was drawn up to be submitted 
to the Archbishop, who was then in Ireland. 

Before he could return it, there came the overwhelming 
shock of his sudden death. 

To the Bishop of Salisbury Peterborough : October 12, 1896. 

My dear Brother, The awful news this morning has 
filled us all with profound sorrow. It is useless to speak of 
the great blow which has so suddenly befallen us ; we shall 
only slowly appreciate all that it means. 

* But meanwhile we must do our duty, and feel in 
creasingly the need of promptitude in carrying out what we 
have begun. I have been acting all through as the Arch 
bishop s secretary for this matter : and I have a number of 
letters from him endorsing all that we are doing. It was his 
intention to send on the draft to the Archbishop of York ; 
and then I suggested it should be put in type for revision. 
I spoke to the Archbishop of York at Shrewsbury about 
it, and he quite agreed. It is now desirable that the draft 
should go to him : I will write to the Archbishop s chaplain 
on this matter. But it is a terrible strain to think of anything 
at present. 

* Peterborough : October 27, 1896. 

1 Dear Brother, I have been looking for (i.e. expecting) 
your draft. Perhaps you paused during the vacancy. But 
now can we not get on, so that it may be one of the first 
acts of the new Primate ? 

The Bishop s wish was carried out. The new Primate 
(Dr. Temple) carefully considered and amended the document 
which had been drawn up, and it was issued in February 
1 897 as an * Answer of the Archbishops of England to 
the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII. addressed to the 
whole body of Bishops of the Catholic Church. 

The following letters show what were the Bishop s views 
in helping to draw up this answer to the Pope : 

To the Rev. W. Collins Exeter: October II, 1896. 

* ... About the Roman Controversy : our position is to 
make clear that the national breach with the Papacy is still 


on the same question the papal jurisdiction all comes to 
this. The Roman maintains that the papal supremacy is 
absolutely necessary, and that all are heretics who decline it. 
Talk about Orders and all the rest ultimately comes to some 
technical point, resting solely on the authority of a decretal. 
Press a Roman to the ultimate point, and it is the papal 
authority. The papal power is the one point to get at and 

To Mr. W. J. Birkbeck November 18, 1896. 

I propose to make the Romans cross on the lines which 
I have taken up. Their ignorance must be exposed and the 
bubble of their pretentiousness continually pricked. But I 
do not want to read any of their retorts. A knowledge of 
what they say insensibly leads one to reply in the next thing 
one says oneself. This is a form of controversy, and I detest 
controversy. I want to speak the truth and leave fibs to the 
other side. 

The following is a letter to the Rev. W. Collins about a 
paper on the subject which he had submitted to the Bishop : 

1 Peterborough : December I, 1896. 

I advise a readjustment from the point of view of a clear 
statement for those who are not great Latinists. 

1 On slip 5 go on " Without dogmatising, or without 
assuming any claim to infallibility, we venture to put forward 
some evidence to prove 

*"(i) that the body of the document was written, doubt 
less by eminent theologians, in the English tongue. 

*"( 2 ) tnat it was translated into Latin by some persons 
who either had an imperfect knowledge of English, or of 
Latin, or probably of both, 

" (3) That portions of the document were written in 
Latin, probably by the Pope himself, and were translated into 
English by persons who either were not skilled in the 
accuracies of the Latin tongue, or who had so completely 
made up their minds what the Pope ought to have said, that 
their zeal to make him say it outsped their attention to his 
actual words." 

Then rearrange your evidence under these heads. Under 
(i) say that you have already shown that there is no research, 
and that all the knowledge except a dark sentence about 
Gordon was open to anyone in England. Then gather the 
passages which show from their sense that the English 

^ t* 


original was prior . . . print the Latin and English in 
parallel columns. 

(2) Gather all the ludicrous mistranslations of the 

(3) ... Make the introduction stronger "When we turn 
to consider the composition of Leo XIII. himself, we find a 
pious conclusion written in flowing style, which contrasts with 
the creaking and lumbering form which was doubtless inten 
tionally adopted for arguments about which the writers seem 
to have felt that ambiguity was safest, and that the less said 
the better. The translators fail entirely to reproduce its 
niceties. Their minds are not attuned to the Pope s mode 
of thinking, and they drag it to a lower level, while they 
attempt to give it greater unction." . . . Do not think I am 
troublesome, but the success of this depends on its method. 
It must interest people who care about criticism, and its points 
must be clear. 

The Romans must be smitten just now. It is unfortu 
nately necessary to pin them. We must dispel the glamour 
once for all and get free. We have the chance. They have 
hoped to make a coup : we must turn it into a disastrous 

LETTERS 1895-1896 

In answer to a letter asking him to be lenient to one whom he had had cause 
to rebuke severely : 

Peterborough : February 2, 1895. 

1 It was very nice of you to write to me as you did. It 

was quite natural of you to pity and to think that I had 

been severe, but, my dear boy, one must be severe. Life is 
severe. God is severe. We all do wrong, but we must all be 
taught repentance. You know that the Foolish Virgins were 
only a little careless and lazy, but they were shut out. It is 
just that carelessness and laziness which lead to everything 
that is most wrong. No one means to do anything wrong, 
but they slip into it. The great cause of all wrong is just 
doing the easiest and least troublesome thing, and trusting 
that all will come right. 

However I had a letter from this morning which 

shows that he sees this. If he sees it, all may be put right, 
and he may learn wisdom for the future. I trust that it may 
be of some use to you to see how easily one gets into a sin 
without meaning it. But if people are idle and without self- 
control, their natural propensity is to do the wrong thing. 

This must be seen and cured. I have written to to tell 

him to learn wisdom in the future. 

1895 LETTERS 183 

To the Rev. T. A. Lacey Peterborough : May 19, 1895. 

I have just come back from Rome, and received your 
letter with great pleasure. Your paper on the Roman Claims 
is excellent, and goes to the point the one point. All Roman 
arguments resolve themselves into the assertion of the 
necessity of submission to papal jurisdiction. It is not 
primacy, or recognition, but it is absolute submission to papal 
jurisdiction which is the one necessity for Catholicity accord 
ing to the modern Roman view. This view is not that of the 
present Pope, I believe ; but an institution grasps at power \ 
because so many officials depend on its existence. This was 
the fons et origo malt in the sixteenth century. The revolt 
was against an extortionate Curia, and the Pope upheld it 
because he could not escape. This is the real hindrance still. 
Arguments about outlying things have really little weight : 
they are merely outposts to defend the central position. 

To the Rev. G. C. Bell (Headmaster of Marlborough College) 

Peterborough : August 2, 1895. 

My dear Bell, I am glad that Cuthbert leaves Marl- 
borough with a good record. He has much to learn, like the 
rest of us : public schools teach some things and neglect 
others. At the best they are a period of one-sided develop 
ment, and are consequently fraught with danger. You know 
that I am no unqualified admirer of the system. In fact I 
think that the problem of the future is the entire change of 
all our views about education from top to bottom. But this 
is a slow process. At present we live in makeshifts. But 
I should like to say that I am quite satisfied with the result 
of Marlborough on Cuthbert. It has done for him all that 
I could have expected. At the same time I feel that that is 
largely due to your personal influence and care. With 
another master it might have been otherwise. 

To the Rev. Canon Watson, Rector of Sharnford 

Peterborough: September 18, 1895. 

The subject of the Vestry is at once so difficult and so 
important that I think it needs full discussion. My own wish 
is briefly this, (i) For the purposes of the existing vestry, 
the care of the church, and the appointment of church 
wardens the vestry must remain as at present constituted. 

* (2) But I wish to see that vestry become the constituent 
of an ecclesiastical parish council, chosen from members of 
the church, which should have certain recognised powers, 
among them the election of a representative at R. D, 


conferences, which I should like similarly to see possessed 
of definite powers of some kind and become an ecclesiastical 
district council. I do not see that the care of the church 
and the administration of ecclesiastical charities can be 
taken out of the hands of all parishioners. 

To Mr. W. S. Lilly Peterborough : October 6, 1895. 

1 Thank you very much for your article, which is excellent. 
It lays hold of the most hopeful feature of the present day 
that we really have advanced in the pursuit of truth, and that 
we are willing to waive prejudice, or at least introduce 
it only when it seems necessary to recognise the inherent 
limitations of any particular practice. 

* I suppose you would defend More l on this ground. As 
a theorist he was free, in practice he must act with a view to 
circumstances. I could acquit him if he had merely executed 
the law. My difficulty is that he defended it on grounds 
which he had already theoretically abandoned and condemned. 
I admire More, but he had that weakness which haunts men 
of letters when they become politicians. Their command 
of language leads them astray ; they confuse principles. Of 
course More can be defended on the ground that the " Utopia 
was a skit, and only expressed tendencies which were hope 
less of practical realisation. Indeed it might be urged that 
it was written to show the hopelessness of idealism. 

4 1 am waiting for Acton s Inaugural in an authorised form. 
I was disappointed that a change of the day prevented me 
from hearing it. I am glad to think that I was concerned in 
persuading Acton to go to Cambridge. 

To Miss Constance Barrett Peterborough: October 22, 1895. 

1 It was very nice of you to write to me. I saw, on 
glancing at the proceedings on Saturday, that I should not 
have time to speak. Whenever you organise anything in an 
afternoon remember : 

(i) To begin at 3 punctually, because at 4.30 every 
one s thoughts turn tea-wards. 

* (2) To tell the chairman that he must not speak more 
than ten minutes. 

(3) To eschew windbags even though they be mar 

4 (4) Never to have more than three speakers besides the 

1 In reply to some criticisms of Mr. Lilly s on the Bishop s Hulsean lectures 
;>n Persecution and Toleration. 

iSys LETTERS 185 

* .... I do not mind telling you what I meant to say 
that teaching was best envisaged as an introduction between 
the youthful mind and divine knowledge. All that the 
teacher could do was to make the introduction as little awe 
some as possible. The intimacy between the. two parties 
must be of their making. Yet how much lies in introductions. 
The old plan in which some one muttered " Mrs. Hum-hum, 
let me introduce Mr. Ha-ha," left two people embarrassed in 
the presence of one another with a sense that something was 
expected of them but with no clue to follow. The chances are 
that they hate one another at first sight. You can follow out 
the line of thought. 

It is never worth while speculating how or why two 
people get to know one another. It is enough to accept the 
fact as a thing given. You and I know one another, don t we ? 
Then I always think it is best to say so and accept the fact. 
If I can be of any use to you, well. I am always ready. 
Use me if you will, if I can be of any use. Anyhow life gives 
us nothing better than kindly and sympathetic thoughts one 
of another. Looks and words of recognition make life easier 
for us all. 

To Lord Halifax Peterborough: November 2, 1895. 

I send you my paper as a poor return for yours. The 
Archbishop is desirous to issue it for the Central Church 
Society, so it will be generally accessible. 

I do not think your utterance at Norwich was at all rash. 
But there is one point which I think you ought to keep before 
you. Englishmen will not be moved by the argument that 
.Roman formulae are capable of being explained away. Of 
course we know that Rome s method has been one of accom 
modation and that her practices vary immensely, and that her 
formulae are held in various senses. In fact, Rome has always 
followed, and has not directed, popular religious opinion. 
This is just where the average Englishman takes alarm. He 
believes in truth ; he wants not the widest but the truest 
statement : he believes in raising and educating the people, 
not in finding room for their fancies and sentiments. There 
is somewhere the essential difference between the Latin and 
the Teutonic mind to be got over. It was this which asserted 
itself in the sixteenth century. The Reformation was the 
effect, not the cause, of a breach which had slowly grown : 
and the Teuton has been justified by its results. 

The paper read at the Norwich Church Congress. 


In answer to a request to take part in the movement to grant degrees to 
women : 

To Miss Alice Gardner December 10, 1895. 

No, I cannot take part in any movement towards an 
organic change in the university system. It has always 
seemed to me a very grave question carrying much with it. 
If there was any hope that the University would institute a 
drastic reorganisation of its system, I should rejoice. I could 
conceive the possibility of keeping the universities as corpo 
rations of students on certain defined lines, and then confer 
ring titles of competency on recognised terms to other persons, 
who were not candidates for membership. But I do not 
see my way to considering merely women as such. The desire 
to write B.A. after one s name and to assert that you want 
to do so in the hopes of deluding people in Australia these 
are things in which I cannot profess to concur. 

* You will forgive me/ 

1 Peterborough : December 16, 1895. 

* I do not quite think that you understand my point of 
view. I have no objection whatever to women becoming full 
members of the university. But I want first of all to have a 
clear definition of what is necessary for such membership. I 
doubt if such a definition as would satisfy me would meet the 
requirements of those interested in women s education. In 
fact " a degree " has slowly changed its meaning, or rather its 
meaning is confused. Originally it meant membership of a 
corporation with certain rights attached : now it means a 
certificate of having passed examinations which are supposed 
to imply some capacity for teaching. 

1 1 want the university to face the whole question ts 
separate membership from certificates ; to consider what 
will constitute a M.A., and to leave the B.A. in two classes 
(i) a badge of certain proficiency, (2) a step to M.A. The 
conditions for (i) need not be the same as for (2). But the 
procedure might differ ab initio. I pronounce no opinion 
whether or no the question of sex should be included 
under (2). Personally I think not ; but it ought not to 
remit any part of what is thought desirable. 

To Professor H. Sidgwick 

The Palace, Peterborough : December 12, 1895. 

My dear Sidgwick, I quite agree with you that things 
are not now as they were in 1887, and that the question of 
degrees to women is one which must be considered. But all 


!8 9 s LETTERS 187 

I can see my way to is an attitude of benevolent neutrality 
in the first instance. I would discourage any opposition to 
the request for a syndicate to consider that question, but I 
increasingly feel that the interference of non-residents in 
university affairs is undesirable, and I feel that in this case 
my judgment on the matter of principle goes in one direction, 
and my sense of expediency goes in another. I am willing to 
discuss what I cannot approve. That is all. 

* I am afraid that I should be considered a pedant ; but I 
have a sense of the constitution of a university. Several 
recent changes have confused the old constitutional lines. I 
wish to see some plan by which the degree, as constituting 
its recipient a member of the universitas or corporation, 
should be distinguished entirely from the degree as a badge 
of educational proficiency. If this could be done, I should 
be quite satisfied. Only it ought to be done on a general 
principle. My dread is of the university ceasing to be an 
organised body, and becoming a rabble, connected only by 
the payment of fees. If the university can only say what it 
is I [it ?] can do as it likes. 

To Mr. W. Alison Phillips 

In answer to a question about the way in which the inaccuracy of the assertion 
made by a Roman Catholic that the spiritual jurisdiction of an Anglican bishop 
is derived from the sovereign could best be demonstrated. 

The Palace, Peterborough : December 26, 1895. 

My dear Mr. Phillips, Controversy is generally con 
cerned with the hopeless task of contradicting old misrepre 
sentations, which are never abandoned. 

Let me put the facts as briefly as possible about the 
point you enquire about. 

A bishopric is a barony, and has always been so. It 
descends not by inheritance, but by election. Hence on each 
vacancy it is under the guardianship of the crown, and has to 
be conferred afresh on the new holder. This has always 
been so : and in the good old times, which your friends 
would like to restore, bishoprics were frequently kept vacant 
for three, four, or five years, during which the crown enjoyed 
their revenues. Now they are filled up as soon as possible. 
The bishop after consecration enters upon his spiritual 
functions in their entirety ; but he is not possessed of his 
barony till he has done homage. The ceremony is the old 
feudal ceremony : he kneels before the Queen, places his 
hands between hers, and recites an oath of temporal 
allegiance ; then he kisses hands. A similar process occurs 


in the case of every clergyman admitted to a benefice. He is 
first instituted to the spiritual function by the bishop ; he then 
takes a certificate to that effect to the archdeacon, who 
inducts him to the temporalities. 

It is curious to note that the only other survival of the 
old form of homage is in conferring the M.A. degree at 
Cambridge. There the recipient kneels and places his 
hands in the hands of the vice-chancellor. 

* I hope I have made the point clear. Consecration in 
itself confers on a bishop all the spiritual powers of his 
orifice : he can after that ordain, and consecrate, and perform 
all episcopal acts. But he has not the temporal rights of his 
barony till he has done homage. The only practical 
inconvenience which occurs through delaying homage, as is 
sometimes inevitable, is that, if benefices fall vacant, of which 
the bishop is patron, he cannot exercise the right of 
patronage, as that is the right which goes with his barony. 

To the Rev. G. C. Bell (Headmaster of Marlborough College) 

Peterborough : January I, 1895 [96]. 

* My dear Bell, ... I noticed that in his report 

impressed his masters as childish. This arises because he went 
straight from home. I expect in such circumstances that the 
first term will be spent in finding his feet among other boys, 
and the ways of school life will be new. But, then, this is part 
of my view of what is desirable. I decidedly wish that boys 
should remain boys as long as possible. Hence I dislike 
preparatory schools and all their works. The quality which I 
most wish to cherish is the capacity for growing, both intel 
lectually and morally. It is this quality which our present 
system increasingly destroys. The object of the master of a 
preparatory school is that the boy should get a scholarship 
at a public school. The object of a public school is that he 
should get a scholarship at the university. The object of 
the college tutor is that he should get a first class. These 
may, or may not, be good things ; they are if they come of 
themselves, but they are not worth the seeking. I foresee an 
entire revolution in our educational system coming from the 
discovery that success in it does not mean success in life ; i.e. 
that it does not take into account the real qualities of human 

Think of the change that has come about in that way. 
In the old rough-and-tumble days, men got first classes by 
their ability and force of character. Gladstone and his 
contemporaries did. Balfour and his contemporaries do not 
Again, take bishops. I am the only one amongst the 

1896 LETTERS 189 

younger lot who gained academical distinction. 1 I am quite 
appalled to think that in selecting men for promotion in my 
diocese, their university degree is never an element which 
comes into consideration. The cleverest and most intelligent 
man amongst my younger clergy is a passman from Durham 
University. Now these things seem to me significant of a 
crash. The British public is slow, but it finds out when an 
article does not pay. The higher education is ceasing to 
pay. The upper class has found this out. Young men of 
position are not now sent to the university, but go on a tour 
round the world, as being more educational for actual life. 

1 Forgive this long harangue, but I wished to explain to 
you why I am no believer in our present system. I am 
content to use it, but I do not submit to it. The most 
dangerous part is the preparatory school, for it is applied 
earliest, and succeeds in turning out boys as per sample, in 
the right form for the educational mill. Now I do not want 
to have my sons ground into the regulation shape ; I want 
them to be left capable of learning even at the age of 25. 
You will forgive my obstinacy. 

You will be glad to know that I am quite satisfied with 
Cuthbert s first term at college. His mind has expanded 
normally ; his interests have developed : he reads in the 
vacation with steadiness, and talks intelligently without 
ceasing to be a boy, or losing the inestimable capacity of 
playing the fool. His tutor speaks well of him. He 
develops qualities of practical usefulness. He can influence 

I am a student of the Renaissance. Then they under 
stood education to be the development of the whole man. I 
am still old-fashioned ... I have not thanked you for the 
trouble you have taken, but I do so very heartily. 

To the Bishop of Norwich 

Church House, Westminster : February 14, 1896. 

* My dear Bishop, I have been thinking over the 
question you asked yesterday. 

It seems to me that in deposing a clerk, I should act on 
the same principles as if I were hanging him. We hang a 
man for a definite act, which he is proved to have committed. 
He may have been a very respectable man previously, and if 
his life were spared he might spend it very profitably. But 
he is hanged to show the detestation felt to his act. 

I should degrade a man for a like reason : not because he 

1 The Bishop forgot that Dr. Jayne, Bishop of Chester, and Dr. Talbot, 
Bishop of Rochester, are both double firsts. 


is [a] useless or unworthy priest, but because his act is such 
that it is impossible he should remain a priest. 

* Hence I should degrade for a definite action not a 
constructive charge. 

To the Rev. G. C. Bell Peterborough : April 8, 1896. 

1 My dear Bell, I never wrote about religious education in 
secondary schools. There have been utterances at Church 
congresses more than once : but it is a difficult subject. I 
am not going to the Cambridge conference. The whole 
matter falls into another shape since the new Bill. . . . 

From my experiences at the university I should say 
that schoolmastering as a profession suffered from want of 
vocation. Very few men meant to be schoolmasters, they 
found themselves driven to it for the most part. This is bad. 
There is nothing which parents ought to insist on more than 
that boys should consider in time what they ought to do. I 
once examined all the men I could find at Cambridge on that 
point. The number who had any definite plan of a future 
was infinitesimal. The ordinary answer was " Oh, I suppose my 
father will find something when I leave the university." I was 
so horrified that I preached a sermon on the subject. 

To Mr. Charles Roundell Peterborough : July 21, 1896. 

* My dear Roundell, I am much obliged to you for your 
letter ; it was very good of you to write it. With all your 
diagnosis of present symptoms I entirely agree. I gather that, 
though your remarks are confined to the Church, you see the 
same process in every branch of human effort, not only in 
England but universally. We are in a period of uncertainty 
such as history has never witnessed. Science has said its say 
and has led nowhere ; rationalism has led nowhere ; 
materialism has no hopes. In politics machinery has broken 
down ; liberalism is bankrupt. In international affairs no 
country has a clear ideal of its line of progress. Statesman 
ship has almost ceased to exist : everyone is conscious of 
forces which he cannot control, of impulses and instincts 
generated in the past, not to be regulated by any reasoning 
which can be framed at present. How things are going to 
settle down no one can say. 

* I think these symptoms arise from the force of the 
disintegrating powers, which promised what they could not 
perform, and pointed to possibilities which they could not 
realise. They had this great influence for good, that they 
awakened conscience, and this result still remains. It 

1896 LETTERS 191 

produces the curious condition that men are living on a moral 
sense, transmitted and inherited, while they are restive under 
the discipline and claims of the systems which generated that 
moral sense. They are living on the fruits of a tree of which 
they are anxious to cut away the roots. This is especially 
visible in the decay of Nonconformity. Originally it was a 
system of rigid discipline founded on the theology of Calvin. 
The theology decayed, and Nonconformity tried to keep its 
spirit by identifying itself with Liberalism. It was frankly 
ready to say and do what the most enlightened people wished 
to have said and done. The result has been disaster. 

Now what can the Church do in this crisis ? It must keep 
alive Christian principles as the basis of national life. For my 
own part I believe that the attack on Christianity is 
intellectually repulsed. Most people feel that, and they want 
to work back to Christian principles by minimising them. 
This is called " undenominational Christianity i.e. as much 
fruit and as little root as possible. A popular audience will 
always cheer a reference to " true religion stripped of the bonds 
of theology," i.e. the results of the Christian conscience without 
the faith which formed it. Of course we now have reached 
the actual question of the present day. This underlies the 
education question, this animates Deceased Wife s Sister and 
all the rest. It is the great question of the future. 

This is the point of view from which I regard the question 
which you raise about sacerdotal pretensions. The term is 
used vaguely. 1 It means, in some people s mouths, the 
maintenance of the historic organisation of the Church of 
England. This I think must be upheld in the interests of the 
nation. The machinery of the State may change, because it 
exists to do the people s will. But the Church exists to 
uphold what it considers to be the truth ; and though the 
application of that truth may vary according to the times, the 
truth itself remains, better understood, it may be, but itself 
unchanged. If " sacerdotal pretensions" mean tendencies on 
the part of the clergy to revert to modes of teaching which 
have been wisely abandoned, then I think they must be 
checked by all means. I admit that there are such tendencies : 
I deplore all demonstrations of clerical arrogance as being the 
temptations to which undisciplined zeal is exposed, and 
which constitute a real danger. My idea of the Church is an 
organised society holding a truth which it strives by every 

Mr. Roundell had said in his letter There is a strong feeling that the 
dominant party in the Church is a sacerdotal party, and that there is nothing for 
it but to offer the most determined opposition to all such pretensions. 


means to set forth in the form which is most intelligible. The 
conception of sacerdotalism comes in when there is a 
suggestion that the interests of the Church are different from 
the society which it serves. 

4 But I have no fear of any permanent harm from 
eccentric restlessness. The English conception of liberty is too 
strong to be set aside. Foolish experiments will be reduced 
to due proportions by the working of common sense. 

1 There is, however, this great danger in modern politics 
the enormous power gained by small resolute bodies. 
Extreme people are always shouting and protesting : moderate 
men are content to work quietly. Bishops see most of this 
latter class, in clergy and laity alike. The Church is always 
being judged by the former. 

I need hardly say in conclusion that my own endeavour is 
to understand the views of laymen. I try to see and talk freely 
with every class, and I try my utmost to abate clerical pre 
tentiousness in every form/ , Peterborough : August I3 lS ^ 

( My dear Roundell, Thank you for your very interesting 
letter. I jot down merely a few thoughts which it suggests. 

*(i) There is a barbaric element in society. It would 
seem that every organism carries with it some traces of its 
process of development, as a warning that it may recede if it 
does not advance. 

(2) The organisation of the world into nations is in one 
way fruitful of hope. The spiritual force which moves may 
pass from one to another. Nations are strong as they 
produce character. So far as I can judge, England and Russia 
are foremost in this power. I take little account of America ; 
it is yet an experiment. 

* (3) Questions about Church and State, or Church and 
science, or Church and society, are really questions about the 
adjustment between principles in themselves and their 
practical application. The need.s of society always seem 
simple and easy of settlement : really they have to be 
gradually incorporated into a complex organism by a process 
of adjustment which looks like struggle. Take education, for 
instance. It seems easy to procure it on purely utilitarian 
grounds ; but you would wish it to contain principles of 
knowledge, capable of expansion, i.e. you have a system of 
psychology and of mental philosophy, which are not understood 
or appreciated by the masses. If you stated your system you 
would be regarded as a pedant ; so you fall in with popular 
demand, and try to make it more intelligent where and how 
you can. 



(4) This is what the Church does about everything. It 
has principles about every part of life : many hold ^those 
principles pedantically : in many points their system is too 
abstract ; it is always undergoing silent modifications. Yet 
there must be a system of some sort ; and it cannot rapidly 
change in its outward appearance else the sense of system 
would disappear 

(5) I really think that the intimate connexion of the 
Church of England with national life works this change in 
a remarkably real way. You see one side, I see another. 
You see the theoretical differences : I see the practical 


(6) People will always differ about the permanence of 
existing tendencies of thought, the value of its apparent results. 
You must expect the Church to err on the side of caution. 

To Mr. W. S. Lilly 


(in answer to his criticism of the Bishop s views about Sir Thomas More) 

Peterborough : October 20, 1896. 

. . . You will think me very inconsistent if I say that I 
agree with what you say in answer to my remarks. It is the 
answer of the practical historian to the ideal historian ; of one 
who is tracing human affairs in relation to human character 
to one who is dealing with ideas. It is obvious that the 
great difficulty which besets any man in a high position is 
to be true in all his actions to the best he knows. Ideas 
struggle into recognition in spite of human weakness. Men 
are perpetually seeing more than they can realise. It is not 
rare in history to find cases of the perception of ideal truth, 
with incapacity to act up to it. Now the sixteenth century 
was a period of which the tragic interest lies in that fact. 
Insight into great truths and literary expression of them were 
common : yet never was consistent righteousness rarer. I do 
not blame the men as men : I feel the awful tragedy too near 
to my own experience. What I wrote about More, I wrote 
with the feeling " De te fabula narratur." I was writing as a 
religious teacher, not as a philosophic historian. I had before 
me eternal verities, not human conditions. More was to me 
an example of the law warring in our members. Can there 
be any real liberalism ? Do we not lay down principles 
infinitely greater than we can apply ? For More as a man 
I have the same regard that you have. He was the best 
man of his time. But in a sermon he became to me like 
Elijah, and I was regarding him as against a background of 
eternal truth. 



To a young friend < Peterborough : October 24, 1896. 

* I was very glad to hear from you, that you have been 
diligently [pursuing] a line in life. We all need an object, 
which should be definite from the first, but capable of being 
abandoned if need be. So many people fritter themselves 
away. I think it comes from vanity more than from 
indolence. They do not think they will become excellent, so 
they drop any definite pursuit, and become superior persons. 

* Don t you think the world may be divided into two 
classes ? 

*(i) Those who do things because they take care and 

* (2) Superior persons who do nothing themselves, but find 
fault with what other people do. 

Yet both are necessary. It would be useless for shoe 
makers to make shoes which fitted no-one ; only the remon 
strances of irate customers teach them what to do. . . . 

To the Rev. Canon Scott Holland 

Peterborough : December 2, 1896. 

Dear Holland, I think I can tell you my mind about 

. It seems to me very inadvisable that his most useful 

career should be wrecked. I would treat him as I have 
treated others who have made mistakes if he was submitted 
to me for any post, I would satisfy myself of his fitness for it, 
and deal with him accordingly. But I should regard him as 
on probation for a time. And I should plainly tell him my 
opinion about the past, and would expect a certain amount 
of acceptance of my opinion on his part. 

1 1 do not care about the exact matter on which he left his 
former work. That is not the point The point is, that it is 
the mark of an undisciplined character to throw up a position 
because you cannot get all your own way. This absence of 
self-discipline, this excess of self-assertion, is the great bane 
of the present day. Any ruler of the Church must see that 
it does not infect himself, or any good men whom he has to 
rule. It is the form of the world -spirit which has always 
been most powerful, and infects good people often in pro 
portion to their goodness. To my mind a clergyman who 
through lack of self-control gives way to drink is in the same 
position as a clergyman who through petulance will not work 
in the position which God has assigned to him. To confuse 
little things with great issues is an unfortunate legacy of our 
Church just at present. It is disappearing, but it must make 
haste to go. There is no more ludicrous sight than the man 

1896 LETTERS 195 

who thinks that " Catholic Faith and Catholic practice " are 
locked up in his own bosom, and will submit to no authority 
save that of his own sweet will. Such a man fosters in others 
a spirit of avopia which is entirely contrary to the Spirit of 

I believe is Christian enough and man enough to 

recognise that. You are at liberty to show him this letter if 
you think it wise to do so. A bishop does not get his own 
way : he does not seek it. We cannot restore the order of 
the Church by going, each of us, our own way. I ask 
nothing save loyalty to the Prayer-book services, and con 
fidence in my own desire to be perfectly fair. But he must 
be ready to trust me ; he may have his own opinion about 
my wisdom. 

To a young friend 1 Peterborough. 

* Religion means the knowledge of our destiny and of the 
means of fulfilling it. 

It is not one out of many explanations of life : it is life 
itself. An old writer said truly " Heaven is first a temper 
and then a place." 

1 We must prepare to live in some region or another ; it is 
the highest object of knowledge to know in what region our 
real life is placed. 

1 Religion is not a luxury, it is a necessity. 

1 We all have to live : the question is, how, and why, are 
we living ? 

Everyone really lives on some sort of principle, even if 
he refuses to acknowledge it. 

1 If he feels that his principles are unworthy, he shrinks 
from formulating them. 

The claim of Christianity lies in the fact that it is the 
most complete explanation of life, and supplies the means of 
living the life which it sets forth. 

It is not to be judged by those who fail to be all that 
they wish to be, any more than art is to be judged by those 
who paint inferior pictures. 

You may judge in a sense of what anyone is : you do 
not know what they might have been if they had not used 
some means of discipline. 

If you would judge with any attempt at fairness, you 
should look at the best instances of each kind. 

1 These aphorisms were sent to a friend who had spoken to him about the 
difficulty of faith, when the lives of those who professed much religion seemed 
so unworthy. 

O 2 


The individual is expressed in character. 

Character is an atmosphere rather than a sum of 

1 It is revealed in crises. The great marks of character 
are teachableness and a capacity for growth. 

* Happiness consists in growing into a larger and larger 
world, with increased faculties of comprehension. 

This involves a constant effort ; it is failure to be unequal 
to this effort. 

* Unhappiness generally comes from forming for ourselves 
an ideal, which experience destroys. 

We must have in ourselves the power of replacing it by 
a larger one. 

The Christian, through submission to God, is constantly 
growing out of selfish ideals into a perception of the world as 
God s world. 

* But this process is never completed here. All he can 
hope to do is to carry away the rudiments of a teachable soul 
to face the knowledge of hereafter. 



AFTER the death of Archbishop Benson, Dr. Creighton was 
one of those most frequently mentioned in the newspapers 
and elsewhere as likely to be the new archbishop. The 
Spectator spoke of him as having been generally regarded 
as Archbishop Benson s successor/ but he neither expected 
nor wished it himself. A few days after Dr. Temple s 
appointment as archbishop, Dr. Creighton received the follow 
ing letter from Lord Salisbury : 

Hatfield House: October 28, 1896. 

* My dear Lord, I have the Queen s authority for asking 
you whether you will be willing to accept translation to 
the See of London, which, as you are aware, is vacant by 
the recent appointment to the archbishopric of Canterbury. 
I need not urge upon you the arguments and considerations 
by which you should be guided in deciding on such a step as 
this. There is probably no one in Christendom whose mind 
is better equipped for appreciating the importance of the 
work to which you are invited, or the injury which an ill- 
considered refusal might inflict upon the Church. I doubt 
not that her interests will be your first thought. 

* Believe me, yours very truly, 


His appointment was received with unanimous and warm 
approval. I give a few extracts from the many letters of 
congratulation which poured in upon him : 

From Dr. Randall Davidson, Bishop of Winchester 

November 2, 1896. 

. . . . Need I say how loyally and heartily we shall all 
of us back you up, and with what confidence we shall trust 
your judgment in the problems you have to face as the prot 
agonist amongst us younger men ? You will be overwhelmed 
just now with the glad letters of all who realise what need 
there is for courage and power and level-headed common 


sense and largeness of sympathy and steadiness of purpose, 
in the occupant of Fulham at such a juncture in the Church s 

From Dr. Talbot, Bishop of Rochester November 2, 1896. 

* .... One thing only I regret, viz. The size and weight 
of the extinguisher put upon your study : still even there 
you have your knowledge in hand. ... It is very moving 
to me to think that we two old friends should (with dear 
St. Albans) have this great London work committed to us. As 
I write the words, something of its appalling greatness and 
seriousness rushes over me. . . . There must, I think, be 
ways in which we ought to be able to work together for the 
unity of the Church in London. Think of me as something 
between a colleague and *a lieutenant in all that you seek 
to do. 

From the Rev. Canon Scott Holland < November 2. 

My dear Friend, All our arms are open to receive you, 
as you know well. The old dome is alive with delight. It 
knows you so well already. . . . This big place cries out not 
only for noble drudgery, but also for a Chief, who is at least 
far enough out of the smoke to see how the battle goes. 

From Dr. Guinness Rogers November 5. 

Dear Lord Bishop, I venture as a minister of another 
church to address to you a brief congratulation on your 
recent appointment. I am a stranger to your Lordship, 
though a very sincere admirer of your great work on the 
history of the Papacy, which it was a pleasure to review. But 
I am encouraged to write by your fraternal message to the 
Congregational Union at Leicester. I was privileged and 
honoured by being asked to express the cordial sentiments of 
the assembly in reply. So now I take the opportunity of 
expressing the satisfaction with which, in common with 
numbers of my brethren, I view an elevation which, while it 
is only a fitting acknowledgment of your distinguished services, 
holds out the prospect of more kindly relations between 
your own Church and the Free Churches of the metropolis. 

The following letters show a little of what the Diocese 
of Peterborough felt : 

From the Rev. Canon Alderson Norember 2. 

* .... Of course I knew perfectly well that when the 
Archbishop died we should lose you, but now the blow has 


actually fallen, it seems very hard to bear. You have no 
doubt seen all that the papers say about you, and what they 
say of your short reign at Peterborough is all true, but :hey 
do not know what a delightful neighbour those who live in 
the Precincts are about to lose. 

From the Rev. Canon Hull Northampton: November 2. 

1 . . . . Our best wishes are yours : but alas for ourselves ! 
Your coming here gave a new happiness to the work in this 
diocese, such as I never thought possible before you came. 
And now I feel as if I never wished to enter the Palace again 
when you and Mrs. Creighton are no longer there. 

From the Duke of Rutland November^ 

London s gain is our loss, and were I to fill sheets of 
paper I could only amplify that expression of my feelings 
on this occasion. ... I condole with the whole diocese 
you are leaving on what I fear will prove an irreparable loss. 
It is no exaggeration to say that during your episcopate here 
you have won, and deservedly, the hearts of clergy and laity 
alike. ... I remain your grateful and faithful friend, 


From Mr. H. Labouchere, M.P. November 2. 

I cannot help being one of the many who no doubt have 
congratulated you on your translation, for which the metro 
polis may also congratulate itself. I was at Northampton 
last week, and my Radical supporters were enthusiastic about 
your address on Russia. 

From the Rev. J. T. Lawrance Girton: Decembers. 

* .... The time that I spent at Nailstone under your 
episcopal jurisdiction was the happiest period of clerical work I 
have ever experienced. Guidance, direction and progress 
were in the air. There was a very real sense of belonging to 
a great organisation which was conscious of the social needs 
of the times, and was endeavouring to apply to them the 
principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

A friend who was travelling north on November 2 wrote : 
An old porter at Peterborough came up to me to-day with a 
picture of you. " Do you know him, sir ? " " Yes, well." " Ah, 
I m sorry we ve to lose him. Though he deserves all they 
can give him, and so does his missus." 


The Bishop answered as many as possible of his letters 
with his own hand. I give a few of his answers : 

To Mrs. T. H. Ward Peterborough : October 24, 1896. 

My dear Mary,- -Louise showed me your touching letter, 
which is just like all you think and write so penetratingly 
and sympathetically true. Personally, I shrink from fresh 
responsibility, and I think I can truly say that I am free from 
ambition ... I have never acted, I think I can say, from any 
personal consideration ; and my reputation is always a 
surprise to myself. I never tried to make a hit, and never 
consider anything but the need for simplicity and straightfor 
wardness. But I am writing a panegyric of myself. I only 
wished to say that I want nothing, and aspire to nothing. The 
small things of life are to me more important than the large ones 
love and sympathy, and the power of sometimes saying or 
doing what may help others. Those are the true contents of 
life, and they may be practised anywhere. The power is not 
one s own more and more we all feel that we are the 
creatures of something behind ourselves, which speaks 
through us ; and all that we can do is not to allow our own 
wilfulness to stand between ourself and the message with 
which we are charged. I have been very busy or would have 
written to you before about " Sir George." I am delighted 
that it has been so successful. I hear on many sides 
testimony to the interest which it has excited. Just the 
point on which I doubted its political motive has proved to 
be the most attractive. You were right and I was wrong, 
did not know that the personal side of politics would appeal 
to the public mind ; but it has. I find that one is no judge 
of one s friends books : one is not sufficiently detached from 
the source from which they spring, and follows too much the 
process of their genesis to judge of their cumulative effect. 
In fact, I read your books with my primary interest in you, 
and so lose the dramatic effect of movement in the person 
ages. Your books may be good, but you are so much better 
that you dissolve them for me into modes of yourself. 

After that it is time to leave off. Much love to you all. 

To Dr. Guinness Rogers 

The Palace, Peterborough : November 9, 1896. 

My dear Sir, I am very grateful to you for your 
message of welcome to London. It will be my earnest 
endeavour that brotherly love should bind together all the 
followers of our common Lord and Master. 

1896 LETTERS 201 

To the Rev. Canon Hull 

Heaton Rise, Bradford : November 13, 1896. 

My dear Hull, I am very sorry to have to leave my 
Diocese. I have no ambition ; I never could see how anyone 
could have such a quality. But we must all go where we are 
sent, and must do our best by God s help. 

There is no one from whom I part with greater sorrow 
than you. All our relations have been on a basis of affection, 
and I cannot thank you enough for all your help . . . 

To Count Balzani Peterborough : November 18, 1896. 

My dear Balzani,- -You will know that I am not 
delighted to be again moved, and sent to the most arduous 
work in the Church. I think it was Dean Stanley who said 
that next to the Bishopric of Rome, the Bishopric of London 
was the most important position in Christendom. I feel that 
it is to some degree true, and I have no personal wish for 
increased responsibility. But we are not our own masters, 
nor are we, any of us, allowed to dispose of our own lives. I 
must go and do my best. The family were all plunged in 
woe at first, but we are growing more reconciled. Fulham is 
a nice place. I think you may tell the children that they will 
find more room there than at Peterborough. However, there 
is no cathedral next door, which is a serious omission. 

* Of course I am plunged in business. To wind up one 
set of affairs and enter upon another is serious in itself, and 
all periods of transition are embarrassing. When I have done 
all I can I mean to flee for ten days at the beginning of 
December, perhaps to Hyeres, as the nearest place where one 
can be decently warm. 

To the Rev. Canon Scott Holland 

Peterborough : November 12, 1896. 

My dear Holland, You are a dear man who has the 
knack of saying helpful things. When I came to Peter 
borough you pointed out the usefulness of a bishop saying and 
doing little things outside his ordinary business ; and you 
said how weighty they were, coming from him. I have often 
thought of your words and their wisdom I have been more 
useful, and have gained more influence, by never being in too 
great a hurry to do little things, that were not obviously my 
duty, than in any other way. 

Now I feel the truth of your warning not to rest satisfied 
with the drudgery of my office. I have a strong feeling that 
a bishop ought not to be merely an ecclesiastical official, but 


a link between various classes and various activities. He 
ought to try to make all sorts of things converge, so that the 
standard and efficiency of each is heightened. 

To the Bishop of Colombo < Peterborough : December I, 1896. 

My dear Brother, We little thought in old days what 
was in store for us. Certainly I never wished for the office 
of bishop, or thought myself qualified for it. That I should 
have to rule the most important see in Christendom seems to 
me quite ridiculous. But we can only go where we are sent, 
and do what we are bidden. And I know that you will help 
me by your prayers. It is on leaving one sphere of work for 
another that one receives some comfort from the sense that 
others say they have profited by the little one has done. It 
is a deplorable thing to leave one diocese and go to another. 
In my case it means an entire loss of peace and quietness for 
the future. I could sit down and howl with anguish over the 
prospect. Everything was so sudden. The Archbishop s 
death was a terrible shock, and no one had thought of the 
future. His loss will not be made good for a long time ; and 
we all feel out of gear. I hope we may have recovered 
again before the Conference. The only alleviation to 
London is that it brings friends nearer ; and I feel that some 
human sympathy in that great wilderness is necessary. . . . 
However, I must do my best ; 

Man s the work is, the consequence God s. 

1 The dear Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, wrote to 
me very characteristically, " The parable does not say that 
the servant who was set over ten cities managed them well ; 
but doubtless the King had good reason for his choice." 

1 At present I feel that the Church does not need great 
exploits, but a gradually drawing together of its children ; 
and a larger activity in influencing the world, not from 
without by organisation, but by the quickening power of 
" the little leaven." The world dimly feels a need of the 
Church : and the Church must leave little matters for great 

To the Rev. H. R. Haweis 

The Palace, Peterborough: December 23, 1896. 

. . . I shall, I fear, disappoint many expectations in my 
difficult office. But of this I am sure, that I shall not err 
through want of sympathy with all forms of Christian thought 
and all endeavours to set forth the Gospel to the world. 
Time alone can decide among them : and the more a man is 

1896 LETTERS 203 

sure of his own position, the less will he wish to force it upon 
others, and the more he will trust to the inherent power of 

As far as possible the Bishop tried to cancel engagements 
so as to get time for the necessary arrangements connected 
with the move to London, but there remained many things 
that he was bound to do. 

To his niece Winifred November 9, 1896. 

I have been staying at Sandringham with the Prince of 
Wales to celebrate his birthday, which is to-day. We were 
a large party, including Lord Salisbury, and his son Lord 
Hugh Cecil, Mr. Balfour, Lady Randolph Churchill, and all 
sorts of people. It was rather nice, as I had many talks with 
everybody. The Duke of Saxe-Coburg was there also, and 
Prince George of Denmark, and Princess Maud, and the 
Duke and Duchess of Fife : all very nice and simple, and 
yesterday afternoon I was careering round the Hall with the 
Duke of York s eldest son on my shoulder, and Lord 
Salisbury looking at my agility with amazement. 

I am bored to death with letters and things to do. Of 
course departure to London means winding up much work, 
and beginning more. ... I shall be hopelessly ruined before 
I settle in. That is the worst of an official position, you are 
ruined on every side and can save nothing. I look at my 
children and wonder what is to become of them. They must 
find that out for themselves/ 

* November 29, 1896. 

Now I am on a visit to the Queen ; preached to her this 
morning ; dined with her last night, and had a long talk. 
She is very interesting to talk to, and is now very friendly 
with me, and talks about everything. 

Just at the time when it seemed that all thought of 
historical work must be definitely given up, he received the 
following letter from Lord Acton : 

Trinity College : November 16, 1896. 

1 My dear Creighton, I do not write to congratulate you, 
because I would rather congratulate others on your immense 
opportunities for doing good than you on the threatened loss 
of leisure for writing. Nevertheless I have to bring an 
important matter before you. 

* The Press Syndics have undertaken to publish a 
general history of modern times in a series of large volumes. 


They made me draw up a scheme, which they adopted, and 
they expect me to find the men, and then to ride on the 
whirlwind .... the thing we most require, the thing we 
require first, is your sanction and assistance. . . . Your place 
is evidently in the first chapter of the first volume .... that 
introduction, on the mediaeval roots of modern history, must 
be about fifty pages. That is what I ask of you in the name 
of the university and of our long friendship. Tell me what 
else there is in the first two volumes that should be assigned 

to you/ 

Dr. Creighton to Lord Acton November 18, 1896. 

* My dear Acton, Alas, life closes round me in ways 
which I do not wish, and I doubt if I shall ever have time to 
read or write again. 

Your project fills me with interest, and I will do my 
utmost to fulfil your wishes, because they are yours. I could 
not entertain such a proposal from anyone else : but you are 
one whom we must all try to obey. So much I learn from 
hierarchical habits. But I do not know why you should 
think that I am specially competent to undertake the mighty 
task of summing up the Middle Ages and their legacy to 
modern times. I should have thought the Bishop of Oxford 
would have been the man. I have no chance of ever thinking 
of anything till August next, if I am still alive. 

Your prospectus is admirable, and the book would be 
of enormous value. I hope that you intend to write much of 
it yourself. I wish I had a chance of a visit to Cambridge, 
but you will conceive that I am very busy at present, and I 
propose to go abroad for ten days at the beginning of next 
month. I can only send you such suggestions as strike me 
[he adds a list of possible writers]. I have not yet expressed 
in all my ramblings my admiration for the greatness of your 
undertaking. It will indeed be a mighty work ; and what 
is still more important, it will bring under your influence and 
supervision all the men in England who are engaged in 
historical writing. The effect of this to raise the standard 
will be enormous. I envy you the opportunity, and still more 
the capacity to use it, as you alone can do. 

Lord Acton to Dr. Creighton 

Trinity College : November 20, 1896. 

My dear Creighton,- -Your reply to my petition is an 
encouragement and an heirloom, and I cannot tell you how 
much it strengthens my hands and improves our prospects. 

1896 LETTERS 205 

Your opening chapter will give dignity and public confidence 
to the work. 

It proved, however, impossible for the Bishop to write the 
proposed chapter in time for the issue of the first volume, and 
he was obliged in 1898 to tell Lord Acton that he must give 
up the attempt. 

Lord Acton to Dr. Creighton Trinity College : May 15, 1898. 

* My dear Creighton, I am not thinking of asking you 
to reconsider your decision, for I know how hard you are 
worked, and am not so untrue to our friendship as to wish to 
increase your cares. 

They wish me to do the first chapter in your stead. . . . 
I had intended to write an introduction .... the loss of 
your name and aid is a serious blow to us. ... So I want 
you to write the introduction and inaugurate the undertaking ; 
you are so pre-eminently the man for it, by your present 
dignity as well as by your former connexion with history at 
Cambridge, and with the Review. It will be a great assistance 
to us, and I hope no heavy burden to you. . . . Vagliami 
il lungo studio e 1 grande amore. 

The Bishop could not refuse this request, and wrote an 
Introductory Note which appears in the first volume of the 
Cambridge history. l 

On December 3rd we went to a quiet hotel at Hyeres, 
and spent our days rambling on the hills or by the shore. 
Then he came back for his last Ordination at Peterborough. 

To Rev. H. Orford (in S. Africa) 

Peterborough : December 24, 1 896. 

* I have been long in answering your letter ; but you may 
imagine I have been overwhelmed with correspondence. I 
went to the Riviera for a fortnight s holiday and took your 
letter with me ; but I never put pen to paper and simply 
vegetated. I am very sorry to leave Peterborough, and had 
no wish to go to London. However, I shall have to do my 
best There is so much to do that everything may be done, 
and I can only do what I can. It is a great struggle to wind 
up here, and I have not yet begun to understand what I can 
do in London. 

Much has been happening in England this year. The 

The proposed first chapter was never written. Lord Acton died without 
having begun it, and the History had to appear without it. 


Pope s letter has not had the result which Vaughan expected. 
It has reinforced Protestantism and made the position of 
Anglicanism more definite. It has forced people to consider 
more clearly the points on which we differ from Rome. My 
visit to Moscow has given prominence to the Eastern Church. 
We are learning to behave more sensibly to the noncon 
formists. I was greatly surprised that, when I wrote a kindly 
letter to the Congregational Union which met at Leicester, 
none of my clergy wrote to remonstrate and no Church paper 
abused me. If I can introduce courtesy and good feeling into 
our relationships with nonconformists I shall make a real con 
tribution to the future. 

* On the other hand, education and marriage questions 
remain where they were, or even look worse. 

We were a large party for Christmas, as his nephews and 
nieces, and other young people, came to spend the holidays 
with us. On January 8 we kept our silver wedding. He 
wrote to Lady Lilford the day afterwards. 

Peterborough : January 9, 1897. 

My dear Lady Lilford, I am sorry to hear, though it is 
but natural, that all you have gone through has affected your 
health. In a sense it is a relief to you that nature prescribes 
quiet, and that the body should share with the suffering of 
the mind. Ah well, we can all of us write dispassionately 
of another s case, but it is of little avail. I feel sad enough 
at the severance of many ties, the bidding of farewells, the 
attempts to wind up business : yet these come to me on an 
occasion which is to most people one of congratulation. 
How much more must it have been to you, when new duties 
are not prescribed and have to be slowly found, and life 
seems left without direction, and strength and vigour seem to 
have departed. . . . 

Yesterday we kept our silver wedding. I am almost 
ashamed to think how happy my life has been as yet. 
Doubtless, my days of trial are to come. 

Our Peterborough friends took the opportunity of our 
silver wedding to give us many beautiful remembrances of 
the happy time we had spent among them, and all came to 
congratulate us and bid us farewell on the afternoon of the 
day. In the evening the Bishop was much touched by a 
little performance of songs and recitations, composed and 
acted by our children, illustrating the different events of our 


married life. The tears came into his eyes as he sat and 
watched them. 

To Miss Lilian Fitzroy Peterborough : January 8, 1897. 

* On Monday I leave Peterborough never to return as 
Bishop. However, I ought not to repine, as to-day is my 
silver wedding, and I can look back on twenty-five years of 
very happy married life, and have all my children well and 
happy round me. But it is an awful nuisance going away to 
new work ; and I shall become a more important person, 
which is a bore. But you especially must promise that you 
won t cut me in London, and will sometimes come and cheer 
me up : and will believe that I am never too busy to talk to 
you and read and answer your letters. 

The Bishop bade farewell in person to many of his clergy. 
There were gatherings in Leicester, Northampton and 
Peterborough, where he united with them in special celebra 
tions of Holy Communion, and met them and addressed them 
afterwards at breakfast To them all he sent the following 
letter : 

The Palace, Peterborough : January 6, 1897. 

Rev. and dear Brother, Now that I have been elected 
Bishop of London, the time has come when I must bid fare 
well to those with whom I have worked for nearly six years. 
It is a very brief space in the history of a diocese, but it is a 
most important period in the history of a life. To me it has 
been an opportunity of seeing the work of Christ s Church 
within the sphere allotted to my supervision, of knowing the 
power of quiet lives devoted to Christ s service, and of 
learning many lessons from the experience of others. I will 
not speak to you of the work done in the diocese, or of any 
plans or projects which I made. Such things must be judged 
by their results in the eyes of God. I will only thank you 
for the kindness and confidence with which you have treated 
me, for the intimacy which you have permitted me to assume, 
for the readiness with which you have sought my advice, and 
the loyalty which you have always shown towards me. I can 
truly say that I have been conscious of no parties, have met 
with no suspicion, and have always been able to count on 
your hearty co-operation. Doubtless I have made errors in 
judgment in my administration, but you have recognised the 
difficulties of my position and have trusted my fundamental 
desire to be just For all your kindness and for all that you 
have taught me, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. 


1 My sorrow at leaving this diocese is not regret for 
organisation left unfinished, or projects unrealised ; it is the 
pain of severance of personal friendships. I bid farewell to 
tellow-labourers in the highest object of man s endeavour 
fellow-labourers who were dear to me not only for their work s 
sake, but for themselves. You will ever have a place in my 
prayers, and I would commend myself very earnestly to 
yours. I would ask you, as the last kindness you can show 
me as your Bishop, to use the enclosed prayer in your 
church so long as I remain Bishop of this diocese. 

And now I bid you farewell, and commend you to God 
and the word of His Grace, which is able to build you up. 

* Your faithful brother in Christ, 


He was presented with an illuminated address bound in a 
handsome volume, and signed by all the clergy in the diocese 
save one, who wrote to the Bishop to say that he had not 
signed it because he could not believe that anyone would 
wish to be addressed in such fulsome terms. The address 
was as follows : 

My Lord, We cannot permit you to sever your con 
nexion with this diocese without an expression of sincere 
regret at your departure from among us. 

Your tenure of the See has been short, but in these few 
years you have been so constantly moving among us, that we 
have all learned to know you and feel your personal influence ; 
and we gladly seize this opportunity of thanking you for the 
unsparing way in which you have devoted yourself to express 
appreciative sympathy with our efforts. 

* You succeeded a bishop endowed with splendid gifts : 
you have carried on the tradition of greatness. The brilliant 
and versatile talents with which God has enriched you, and 
which have been so constantly and assiduously used in the 
interest of religion and culture, have shed lustre on this 
Diocese ; and we have felt justly proud of our Bishop. Nor 
is it a small thing to say that Peterborough has within six 
years sent one of her prelates to York, and his immediate 
successor to London. 

We would gladly have kept you with us, but we recognise 
that your translation to a larger sphere is for the good of the 
Church. But, while we thus unfeigned ly regret your departure 
from us, we heartily wish you God speed, and pray that His 
guidance may direct, and His blessing prosper, your work in 


that vast diocese, with its almost terrible responsibilities, to 
which His Providence now calls you. 

We are, my Lord, your Lordship s dutiful Sons and 
Servants in Christ. 1 

In some notes in the Diocesan Magazine, on his departure, 
the admiration for his work was expressed with equal warmth. 

1 We smaller men marvel how a man with the burden of 
an English diocese on his shoulders could find the time, to 
say nothing of the brains, to prepare adequately for sermons 
at St. Paul s, before the Court, in the University pulpits, and 
could, in one and the same year l be Rede Lecturer at Cam 
bridge and Romanes Lecturer at Oxford. 

For, be it remembered, his diocese never suffered amid 
all this extraneous effort. He was here and there and every 
where, in our three counties, preaching, confirming, addressing, 
lecturing. If we did complain, it was that he made himself 
too cheap in this respect, and did not draw the line a little 
higher up than at harvest thanksgivings. 

As a lecturer he will long be remembered . . . one hardly 
knew which to admire most, the profound erudition and grasp 
of subject, or the exquisite lucidity with which it was treated. 

1 We shall miss him too at our Diocesan Conference ; 
never interfering with or seeking to influence the freedom of 
debate, his opening addresses were masterly, and in his 
summing up rem acu tetigit. 

4 He has ruled his diocese well and justly ; he has dis 
pensed his patronage carefully and fairly. Many of us have 
much reason to acknowledge the open-handed hospitality and 
unvarying kindliness with which we have been welcomed at 
the Palace ; and all who have been brought in contact with 
him will remember with pleasure the frank and unaffected 
courtesy which has characterised his intercourse with them. 
Perhaps the young folk of the diocese will miss him most of 
all. He will forgive us when we say that he has never quite 
ceased to be a big boy ; and with children he was always at 
his ease, as they were with him ; and all the youngsters, male 
or female, that have had the advantage of a romp with him, 
have found out what a delightful creature a Bishop can be in 
spite of his apron and gaiters. 

I add some remarks by clergy who worked under him : 

Many of all classes have to thank him for having raised 
their whole ideal both of the capabilities of the bishop s office 

1 Really, in two consecutive years, 
VOL. II, p 


and work, and of the ways in which both clergy and laity 
can help their own bishop to make full use of them. Those 
who responded to him felt that they were working under 
a kindly but penetrating and stimulating influence which gave 
them every encouragement and yet tested them, which above 
all would not allow them, if it could be helped, to relapse into 
what was narrow and conventional. l 

One of the most marked results of his short episcopate at 
Peterborough was the advance of church life and activity 
among prominent laymen. He knew them all ; they could 
not help loving him personally. They got to believe he cared 
for them, and they trusted his judgment. This was a great 
factor in smoothing difficulties between the schools of thought. 
All schools felt they had a friend in the Bishop. We had 
almost no ritual controversies in the diocese during his rule. 
We got closer together in our common affection for him, and 
quarrelled very little. " I can forgive a layman who quarrels 
with his vicar," Dr. Creighton said to me once, " but I can 
not forgive a vicar who is foolish enough to quarrel with his 
people." 3 

There were not many troublesome questions for the 
Bishop to hand on to his successor. When he looked through 
the letters which he had kept, he found that all except one 
small packet might be destroyed. He parted from a loyal and 
affectionate clergy, leaving his diocese in perfect peace. 

The Bishop s relations with the city of Peterborough had 
always been of the most happy nature. In replying to the 
resolution of congratulation sent him by the City Council, he 
said : 

I can truly say that during my residence in Peterborough 
I have tried to remember that my official duties as Bishop of 
the diocese did not absolve me from my special duties as 
a citizen of Peterborough, and I am glad to think that my 
relations with the Corporation have been of a cordial 
nature. . . . Perhaps I may be allowed to add, that I have 
been struck as an interested observer, with the way in which 
the business of the City Council has been transacted, with 
a single eye to the public welfare in a uniform spirit of 
courtesy and fairness. 

1 The hope of the future depends on the maintenance and 
development of capacity and zeal in the service of local 

Canon (now Archdeacon) Stocks. * Rev. E. Grose Hodge. 

7,896 LETTERS 211 

government. That these qualities will never be wanting in 
Peterborough is my hope and trust. 

Something of his inmost mind at this time is shown by 
the following letter to an old friend, who wrote saying : 

Will you forgive me if after many years of silence I again 
write to you about myself. ... I have tried for many years 
now to live without religion, but I don t feel I ve made a 
success of it so far. ... If I wanted to know about music or 
about engineering I should ask someone who really knew 
about these things, and the only people who know about faith 
are the people who have felt and do feel it. . . / 

The Palace, Peterborough : December 21, 1896. 

*. . . The mere fact that I could not write till I asked if 
I might write so [with the old frankness] seems to go to the 
very root of the question which I write about. What is life ? 
You may say, It is the development of my capacities, the 
process of finding a self, of becoming all I can be. But how 
is this to be tested ? How do I know what I am ? The 
only answer is, Life is a sum of relationships. There is no 
independent or self-centred existence. I am what I am in 
relation to others : and I know myself by seeing myself 
reflected in my influence on others, my power of touching 
their lives and weaving their life and mine into some con 
nected and satisfactory scheme, which contains them all and 
points to further developments. This process is satisfactory, 
and gives happiness in proportion as it is large, real, and 
gives hopes of permanence. The Christian claim is that my 
life, my capacities, my relationships are part of an eternal 
order running through the universe, beginning and ending 
in God. Nothing short of this conception gives happiness 
or strength or reality. It is a conception which entirely 
corresponds to the needs of human nature, and its great 
proof must always be this correspondency. 

1 You are quite right in saying that religion is a matter 
for the expert in it. It cannot be otherwise. The truth of 
Christianity is apparent in the Christian life : and all the 
conceptions which support the non-Christian at the present 
day are of Christian origin, and owe their power to the vitality 
of the Christian faith. Current morality, philanthropy, high 
aims in politics, ideas of progress, of liberty, of brotherhood 
what you will owe their position to Christianity. Begin 
to discuss and examine them in the pure light of reason : 
there is no reason for the family, for marriage, for any part. 


of the moral law, for any claim of any principle to be domi 
nant over my natural desire to gratify my impulses as they 
arise. The criticism directed against Christianity is equally 
strong, indeed stronger, against any other conception on 
which society can be founded. In fact, pure reason leads 
nowhere. It is not a beginning. We act from the heart 
first, then the head explains. What can be more irrational 
than love ? Yet it is the motive power of the individual life. 
Take the excellent man, who is not a Christian, but has 
noble ideals. It is not the cogency of his intellectual state 
ment which attracts you, but his obvious sincerity, his zeal, 
his fire, his passion. Where do these come from ? Not from 
his intellectual system, which cannot supply them, but from 
the Christian atmosphere which surrounds him. Christ was 
" the light of the world" not only of the Church. Men can 
not escape from Him. He will judge them, not according to 
the utterances of their head, but to the obedience of their 

But this is going on too fast. Let me go back. Life is 
only explicable as part of a general purpose. Every high- 
minded man explains it so. The only question is, How large 
is his purpose ? The Christian purpose is unlimited, infinite. 
Can this be justified ? 

1 Our life is the development of our personality. This 
personality is something more than the sum total of our 
observed qualities. One man with many gifts which can 
be recognised is somehow still unattractive and ineffective. 
Another, less richly endowed, whose qualities cannot be 
separately appraised so highly, is much more influential and 
obviously leads a richer life. Why ? Because he is more of 
a person, is more consistent, has a central source of power. 
We may call this personality. 

* Now the great question about oneself is the formation 
and nurture of this central point of our being, this personality. 
This thought explains and justifies the nature of the revela 
tion of God in Christ. God could be known in nature, in 
conscience, in history ; but if He was to be thoroughly 
known, He must be known in a person. So Christ stands 
the central fount of personality, who explains, not my gifts, 
my attainments, my knowledge, my capacities, but me, that 
which lies beyond these, uses them and gives them meaning 
and coherence. 

So He stands, the Sustainer of all men : and I am led to 
Him by all my experience. What makes me in this world? 
My relations to others. What cheers me ? The belief that 

1896 LETTERS 213 

some at least love me. What gives me any value in my own 
eyes ? The sense of my influence over, and usefulness to, 
one or two of those who love me. Without love and confi 
dence on both sides all this world would be useless. I should 
be nothing, do nothing, enjoy nothing. 

Relationships, founded on a sense of lasting affection, 
are the sole realities of life. 

This is obvious. It is the burden of all literature. It 
leads straight to Christ. Faith is personal trust in a person. 
Christianity does not call upon me to commit myself to some 
thing contrary to my experience. It asks me to discover its 
law already written in the world. In Christ all becomes 
plain. In my relationship towards Him all my other rela 
tionships find their meaning and their security. 

1 I will not go further now. This is an outside view, but 
perhaps you will understand it In such matters conviction 
does not come from outside, but from within. The felt need 
comes first : slowly we find how to supply it. 

1 Let me venture to speak of yourself. As I knew you, 
you had a delicate, fine, perceptive nature ; but it was too 
receptive of things as they offered themselves, and shrank 
from much trouble. You took all that came to you, enjoyed 
them to the full, but did not care to appropriate them more 
than was convenient. Life was made easy to you. . . . You 
had the opportunity of indulging your capacity for receiving 
impressions, and you had further so much natural charm and 
attractiveness that you could get from everybody whatever 
you wished. You won t think me hard if I say that one of 
the great dangers of such as you is that, both to yourself and 
all around you, it seems so natural that you should have and 
do what you wish, that selfishness is hidden and condoned 
by its gracefulness and charm. 

But the enjoyment of this protected life comes to an end. 
Duties gather round one and are imperative. One gets 
wearied of social enjoyments which have no contents, intima 
cies which reveal nothing, admiration which gives no real 
power for any definite purpose. One finds oneself with 
certain relationships thrust upon one, some chosen and very 
dear, yet with a vague discontent and with a sense that there 
is more to be made out of them if one only saw how. I have 
been writing to show you my answer, I cannot do more. 
I know what I have to do and I know how much I fail to do 
it It is not public recognition which cheers me, but the 
love of simple souls, who teach me more than I teach them, 
and give me glimpses of much beyond and above. I can 


truly say that I am happy, not through my public activities, 
or my social powers, but through growing sympathy in little 
matters with children, with the young, with the sorrowful, the 
tempted, the perplexed. Always I see a great purpose, God 
fulfilling Himself in divers ways. 

I did not mean to write about myself. This letter has 
been written with numerous interruptions : and I dare say it 
is incoherent. But you will read it with sympathy. 

The Bishop s first act on coming into his diocese had 
been to consecrate a new church at Leicester, his last act 
before leaving it was to lay, on January 1 1, the foundation 
stones of two new churches at North Evington and Knighton 
Fields, both outlying districts of Leicester. At the public 
lunch afterwards he spoke of the deep interest and growing 
affection which he had felt for Leicester, and how he had 
striven to identify himself as much as possible with the 
municipal life of the town. He said : I am certain that 
the Church has a great work to do in associating itself with 
public life. ... I am absolutely convinced of the necessity 
that all public life and all municipal life should be penetrated 
by the spirit of the Gospel/ 

Leicester thoroughly valued him and his work. One 
who knows the town well says that he is the only Bishop 
who has ever got hold of Leicester. As a mark of friendship, 
the Leicester people collected a considerable cum of money 
which was given to the Bishop with the request that he would 
use it to buy pictures l to adorn his London house. He 
replied : I should like anything which I received from 
Leicester to be a memorial which I could hand down to my 
children : for I shall be very proud of it 

To his niece Ella Creighton 

Fryth,* Berkhamsted : January 24, 1897. 

* Perhaps you think I ought to have written to you before, 
but the difficulties of a houseless wanderer are great. If one 
stays with people one has to talk to them. Since I said good 
bye to you I have been wandering. I went to Leicester, then 
to London, then to Farnham Castle. Then I went to Osborne, 

1 The Bishop was allowed to choose these picture* and bought eight oil 
paintings, which were a very great pleasure to him. 
s The house of Mr. J. R. Thursfieid. 


where the Queen was very well and kind. Then I returned 
to London, and was plunged in business, whence I emerged 
with difficulty on Friday and came here for peace. I arrived 
in the middle of the snowstorm, and Louise, who meant 
to come on Saturday, gave it up for fear she should not get 
here. I am in a house on the verge of a hill, with a huge 
common extending for miles on the top. It is a charming 
place, but not quite adapted to snow, especially when it blows 
into drifts. However, Thursfield provided me with wading 
boots up to my knees and I roam about among the gorse 
and enjoy the wintry landscape. Here I am in peace except 
for letters, which pour. To-morrow I go back to London for 
a hard week s work, ending with my enthronement on 
Saturday. By that time I hope we shall be able to picnic in 

The disturbance raised at his Confirmation in the church 
of St. Mary le Bow by Mr. Kensit, of whom till then he had 
never heard, was a surprise to the Bishop. Mr. Kensit 
objected to him because he had worn a mitre and because he 
had promoted persons considered by Mr. Kensit to be unfit 
Mr. Kensit s attempt to read his protest produced a good deal 
of unseemly disturbance ; the Vicar-General ruled that he 
could not be heard, a decision which was received with 
loud applause. On leaving the church Dr. Creighton saw 
Mr. Kensit at the door, and shook hands with him, saying that 
he was sure they would understand one another as they got 
to know one another. 

By Friday, January 29, we were able to take up our 
abode at Fulham Palace, where all our children joined us for 
the enthronement on Saturday. 

To Dr. G. F. Browne, then Bishop of Stepney and Canon 

of St. Paul s The Palace, Peterborough : January 8, 1897 

1 My dear Bishop, I feel that I ought to leave the 
arrangements for the enthronement in the hands of the Dean 
and Chapter. I will do what you tell me. But I feel that it 
would be better if there were no sermon or address from me. 
It is hardly the time for talking. 

The Bishop always loved his connexion with St. Paul s. 
He had a special appreciation for the genius of Wren, and 
considered St. Paul s Cathedral one of the great buildings of 


the world. The reverence of its services and the beauty of 
its music completely satisfied his aesthetic sense. The 
ceremonial of his enthronement was ordered with all the 
simple dignity usual at St. Paul s on great occasions. There 
for the first time the Bishop met the Lord Mayor, then 
Mr. Faudel Phillips, with whom he was to be so much and 
so pleasantly associated during the busy year which followed. 
Friends gathered from every part of the country for the 
occasion. The ceremony of enthronement was followed by a 
celebration of the Holy Communion at which the Bishop 
was the celebrant. 

The following Sunday he spent quietly at Fulham with 
his family. 

To his niece Winifred <Fulh?m Palace: February I, 1897. 

I have now suffered all that is possible before getting to 
work, and am rejoicing in being settled in my own room, with 
all my papers round me and my secretary to help me. I was 
very nicely enthroned on Saturday, and was welcomed on 
Sunday in Fulham Church with much pomp, and was made 
to preach a sermon. 



THE nature of his new work made some changes in the 
Bishop s manner of life necessary. He had to engage a 
domestic chaplain ; but, in spite of his overwhelming corre 
spondence, his dislike to complicating the machinery of life 
was so great, that he employed no other secretarial help, 
though he would occasionally dictate letters to his daughters. 
He could never be persuaded to use a shorthand secretary. 
Most of his letters he answered himself, writing with great 
rapidity, and at every possible moment of time, though never 
late at night. His regular letters to his nephews and nieces 
were generally written at the meetings of the Ecclesiastical 
Commission or of the Trustees of the British Museum, but 
this never prevented him from attending to the business that 
was going on. 

He engaged as his chaplain the Rev. L. J. Percival, son 
of his old friend the Bishop of Hereford. 

To the Rev. L. J. Percival Peterborough : November 20, 1896. 

My dear Mr. Percival, I write to propose to you that 
you should act as my domestic chaplain when I become 
Bishop of London. I do not know if such a proposal would 
be acceptable to you ; but I should be very much pleased if 
it were so. I think we have met in times past and what 
I have heard of you from Mr. Glyn leads me to think that 
you would be useful to me. I may say that I have written to 
your father, and have his consent for making this proposal. 
I can only promise to give you plenty of work to do, and 
I will do my utmost to make it pleasant for you to do it. If 
you are inclined to consider my proposal, perhaps you could 
manage to come and see me some day next week. 

November 24, 1896. 

I shall be at home on Friday morning. Come by all 
means, and we will have a talk, and you shall see the worst 
of us. 


Mr. Percival writes : I shall never forget the day when 
I went, in fear and trembling, to Peterborough to be inspected, 
but all that he wanted was to know if I thought I should be 
happy at Fulham. His words as I left for London were 
" Well, I hope you will like us." It was an amusing and un 
expected experience to be asked on this visit of inspection to 
join in a game of hockey with the Bishop and his children. 

The tie between Mr. Percival and the Bishop soon 
became one of strong affection and absolute confidence. 
Mr. Percival says that no chaplain was ever treated by 
his bishop with such confidence and consideration ; the 
Bishop regarded him as a fellow-worker rather than as a 
subordinate. This confidence was amply repaid, and no 
bishop was ever served with more loyal and devoted affection. 

Fulham Palace is such a large and rambling house that 
the Bishop never learnt to find his way over it. The chapel 
was rather a grief to him; all he could do to improve it was 
to put up his wooden reredos, which he brought from 
Peterborough. London House, the episcopal residence in 
St James s Square, had never been inhabited by Dr. Temple. 
The Bishop was clear that he ought to live in it for part of 
the year, and as it was in a deplorable condition, Mr. Caroe, 
the diocesan architect, was instructed to put it in order. It 
was transformed internally, and made not only a convenient 
but a beautiful house. Special attention was paid to the 
room used as a chapel. Its walls were adorned with some 
interesting carved panelling which the Bishop discovered in a 
dismantled house at Fulham. The necessary changes in the 
house were so extensive that we were not able to inhabit it 
till 1 898. For the first year the work had to be carried on 
entirely from Fulham. Much time was spent in getting in 
and out of London, but I do not think that it was wasted. 
The Bishop never read in his carriage, but he prepared his 
sermons or speeches. His conversation with his companion 
was often interrupted with Now I must make my sermon, 
and a period of silence followed till he was ready for talk 
again. He used the District Railway a great deal, both to get 
into London and for his longer journeys about the diocese. 
Living in London House in many ways made his work 
easier, and the clergy were delighted to have their Bishop 

1897 INTERVIEWS 219 

more accessible, but in some ways it added to the strain. 
Engagements could follow so quickly one upon another as 
to leave not a moment s respite between, and people could 
drop in to see him at any time. At Fulham he could some 
times feel safe from interruption. 

He tried to make it easy for his clergy to see him by spend 
ing every Monday morning at London House for interviews. 
Then he was visited by a continual stream of persons of all 
kinds. Some when their turn came thought his manner 
almost curt, so quickly did he cut the knot of their difficulty, 
and so little time did he give to further discussion when once 
the real question was settled. But if it was a subject that 
needed deliberation, he was never in a hurry, and in any real 
trouble his sympathy was never wanting. All alike were 
impressed with the quickness with which he pierced to the 
root of the matter and saw the real point at issue, as well as with 
the courtesy and kindness with which he treated them. He 
himself once expressed his ideal of such interviews. No man 
should ever leave our presence with the sense that we have 
not done our best to understand him. 1 His interviews are 
thus described by one of his clergy : * He was never in a hurry, 
but he never wasted a moment I f a question were submitted to 
him which really required discussion, he would talk it over 
as deliberately as though he had nothing else to do that 
morning. But if a question were asked to which a reply 
could be given in a word, the word was spoken, and, with a 
pleasant smile, the interview was immediately ended. If a 
request could not be granted, he would go out of his way to 
show why, and, by thus taking the applicant into his 
confidence, almost as if he were asking his sympathy, he took 
the sting out of the refusal. Whether the interview lasted 
one minute or twenty, whether the application were granted 
or declined, the man went away feeling that he had in the 
Bishop a friend, a strong friend. 

The tiresome and often trivial questions which were 
submitted to him were a severe trial to his patience, but his 
irritation was well disguised, though it was a satisfaction to 
let it out sometimes. A friend met him once at the door 
showing out a deputation of discontented parishioners, and 
as he turned back with him, the Bishop replied to the 


question how he was : * As well as can be expected when 
every ass in the diocese thinks that he has a right to come 
and bray in my study. 

Thursday was always spent at the Ecclesiastical 
Commission. It had long been the custom for the Bishop 
of London to undertake to attend the Commission regularly. 
This Dr. Creighton found a task of living interest, as it 
brought before him many questions of far-reaching impor 
tance, different in kind from his usual routine. The real 
business of the Commission is transacted by a small inner 
body called the Estates Committee. At the close of the 
first meeting which he attended, the Bishop expressed his 
surprise at the great variety of the business, and said that 
he had been deeply interested. The work was all the more 
satisfactory to him because it brought him into close 
connexion with a man whom he delighted to praise, and 
whom he considered one of the ablest public servants in the 
country, Sir Alfred de Bock Porter, the permanent secretary 
of the Commission. At these meetings the Bishop found 
scope for his business capacities. One of his fellow-com 
missioners says that when present he was invariably the 
ruling spirit, and yet never seemed to dominate in a way 
which could offend, for his criticisms, though trenchant, 
were never bitter. Sir Alfred de Bock Porter says : In 
difficult cases his assistance was invaluable, he seemed to 
see instinctively the crucial point at a glance, and with 
great fertility of resource he was always ready to formu 
late in happy phrases an expression of opinion which, while 
fairly meeting the case, would at the same time have the 
effect of discouraging further controversy. 

The Bishop was an ex-officio Trustee of the British 
Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, and was elec 
ted a Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. He attended 
the meetings of these bodies whenever he could, and 
much enjoyed them, both on account of the distinguished 
men with whom he was associated and the interest of the 
business transacted. He often came home enthusiastic over 
the treasures he had seen at the Museum. He writes to a 
friend January 8, 1898 : 

I am writing this at a meeting. I am a Trustee of the 

1 897 LIFE AT FULHAM 221 

British Museum and am now sitting in that capacity. It is 
interesting work : one sees all the new things that come in. 
We are just talking of an old lady who brought a book 
which she offered for sale for I jL It was found to contain 
seven tracts printed by Caxton, and she was paid 2,6oo/. 
Lucky old lady to come to honest persons. 

He had never loved London, and he much missed the 
visits to quiet country villages and the inspection of lovely 
old parish churches, which had brightened his work in his 
former diocese. It was a joy when he sometimes came upon 
a quiet place : 

To his niece Winifred February 18, 1897. 

1 Yesterday I went out to a country parish to consecrate 
a burial-ground. I was quite delighted to find that there 
were one or two country villages left in my diocese. It was 
by the river and was quite quiet and rural. 

On a free afternoon at Fulham he liked to walk on 
Wimbledon Common, and soon discovered all the secrets of 
its varied beauty. When possible he took part in the hockey 
played twice a week in the field at Fulham by his children 
and their friends. From London House he took long walks 
about the parks and on the embankment, or rambled in 
obscure parts of the city. As a rule there was little time for 
recreation or exercise and in letters to his nieces and nephews 
he remarks again and again : I scarcely ever get a walk now. 
* I have not had a walk for ages, and the joys of the spring are 
invisible to me. In odd moments he paced round and round 
the garden at Fulham with any companion he could find. He 
writes : My joy is to see the garden growing green and the 
sun shining upon it. He watched with sympathetic interest 
every effort to improve the garden, and was specially proud 
of the rare trees with which his predecessors, beginning with 
Bishop Compton, had adorned it. He liked to point them 
out to his visitors, and ordered labels with their names to be 
affixed to them. He also assisted in choosing at Kew some 
new varieties to add to the collection. 

It was a real distress to him that circumstances made it 
difficult to have such friendly intercourse with his clergy in 
London as at Peterborough 


To Lady Grey j une r , 1897. 

Alas, the mention of quietness sends a pang through me. 
It has departed for ever from my life. Quietness had de 
parted before, but now unrest has taken its place in the most 
acute form. I shall soon cease to have any intellect at all. 
I never have time to read a serious book, or take in new 
ideas. I am always talking, writing business letters, deciding 
questions, and being interviewed. Then the horror of it is 
that all my business is so inhuman. In my last diocese 
I had to go by train and after any service I had to spend a 
night or wait for a train. Now I drive to a place ten minutes 
before the time : sometimes I ask what I have come to do : 
the moment it is done, I drive off to the next place. I never 
see anyone as a human being, ft is all business. I never see 
any children, which is a great pang to me. I never see young 
people. I have no joys left. 

1 So if you sometimes wrote to me, it would be a real act 
of charity. You cannot think how the sight of a letter which 
is not business cheers me. 

To a friend November 1 6, 1897. 

4 The great nuisance of London is one never sees anybody 
intimately. I am always going from place to place, seeing 
new people, and only seeing them on the outside. One never 
knows anybody till one knows them at home, and I rarely 
see anyone s home. It is a matter of going to a church or a 
meeting, and then driving off again. 

He often lamented that he saw so few children in London, 
and if by any chance he had lunch or tea at a vicarage where 
there were children, it was a real refreshment. 

It was impossible to know the curates in the diocese as 
he would have liked. Writing to some young clergy, who had 
left the diocese of Peterborough for Australia, he said : 

March 17, 1898. 

* I was amused ... to see how the American and Colonial 
bishops were bewildered at the sight of the mass of business 
which falls on the Bishop of London. It is immensely more 
than Peterborough in every way. I have four ordinations in 
the year and the numbers run from thirty to eighty at each. 
I never seem to be free from interviewing candidates. Con 
firmations go on steadily from February to July and are 
almost always in the evening. . . . My time is spent in meet 
ings of every sort It is a very inhuman life. I do not see 

i3 9 7 LONDON LIFE 223 

nearly so much of the clergy individually; and with 1,200 
curates, constantly changing, I can see very little of them. 
But I must not write to you of my own misfortunes. I have 
to do my best and stagger on somehow : but London is a 
very difficult place. 

To his niece Winifred February;, 1897. 

I wish you knew the difficulties I feel in giving decisions 
about matters which I do not know ; that is the nuisance of a 
new beginning. However, I have had a tolerably peaceful 
day to-day and have learned something. 

February 18, 1897. 

1 1 can t tell you yet what I think of London, or how I 
shall get on. I think it is time for me to be a failure for a 
few years and perhaps for ever. Who knows ? My job is 
anyhow very hard. I feel it very gritty. 

He used any opportunities of a talk with the older and 
more experienced clergy to draw from them what they knew 
about the diocese, and missed the close neighbourhood of the 
Cathedral body which at Peterborough had supplied him 
with advisers near at hand. He was glad when business 
took him to St. Paul s and he could have a talk with one of 
the canons or enjoy the hospitable welcome of the deanery. 

At first, at any rate, overwhelming though the work was, 
he was stimulated by its variety and interest. 

To his niece Winifred February 18. 

1 1 feel as if people in London were very attentive and 
take up anything you say. 

4 March 4, 1897. 

1 There is no one I now meet to be kind to me. It is all 
business, and I never see any young folk, only elderly gentle 
men. . . . On Friday I had a good sample day. I left home 
at 10.30, had a Confirmation at n. Then I went to Padding- 
ton, caught a special train, and at went to Windsor with 
the Duke of Devonshire, Lord James of Hereford, and Lord 
Balfour of Burleigh ; had lunch, and then took oaths as a 
member of the Privy Council ; got back to Paddington at 
4.30, went to Liverpool Street, and took train to Lower 
Edmonton ; had a little dinner, and then a service at 7.30 ; got 
home about II. This is the sort of way in which my days 
are spent. Do you think it is interesting? In many ways 
it is. One sees a good deal going on and the business is 
much more important than it was at Peterborough. 


* April 9, 1897. 

1 never see anyone except on business, and that seems 
to be incessant. My head is always full of it. Of course I 
go to all sorts of places, and meet all sorts of people. It is 
amusing in a way : but I think there is too much of it. ... 
Last night I went to dine at Toynbee Hall, and then talked 
to an assembly of Trade Unionists and Socialists about edu 
cation : and then we had a discussion. ... I never scarcely 
have time to read anything and seldom to write. Do not 
think I am grumbling. Everybody is very kind, and I am 
trying to get them all to go my way gently. 

He describes his life as c going from one thing to another, 
looking every morning to see what is the first thing to go to : 
and then setting out with a lot of papers to read by the way, 
and gain some notion what one ought to do or say. Amidst 
all the mass of business he welcomed anything that brought 
him in touch with individual souls. 

To Mrs. Howard Pease April 29, 1897. 

It requires all my efforts to remain human in this in 
human spot, with all the business I have to do business 
which is done in a rush and which depends solely on judg 
ment, and rarely calls for any personal touch. The only 
things that cheer me are the letters that I get from folk in 
my diocese submitting their difficulties, small and personal ; 
sometimes, a young man s trouble how to be honest in busi 
ness, a soldier s love-story and its difficulties ; such things 
I get, and they bring me back to human life. 

To Lady Grey August 12, 1897. 

Sometimes there come things human from unknown 
persons, strange questions of a most personal and intimate 
kind, which give one an awful sense oi responsibility in 

To his niece Winifred October 28, 1897. 

* There is plenty of human nature in London. I seem 
lately to have had all sorts of little troubles referred to me. 
It is very hard to be strictly just in such matters. Yet with 
out strict justice one can do nothing. 

The world which he defined as * the activities of this life 
with God left out seemed to him to invade everything in 
London, even the Church, tempting some of the clergy to 
aim at success and popularity, and become absorbed in efforts 


to gather large congregations around them by competing in 
attractions with neighbouring churches. 

To Mrs. Howard Pease March 17, 1898. 

We have moved to London House till Easter. It makes 
my work easier for me, as I have not so much travelling. 
It also brings me more visitors and makes me feel more in 
the world. But oh ! how much world there is ! The devil 
and the flesh are not nearly so dangerous combined. The 
trial of a bishop is that he is always engaged in outside 
matters. I really rejoice in Confirmations, which bring me 
into contact with the young. I do not find so many human 
beings in London as there were at Peterborough. 

To Miss Constance Barrett March 24, 1898. 

1 1 am perpetually overwhelmed with work. I have to 
express more opinions than I have time to verify. I am in 
the very centre of all that is worldly. I am exposed to all 
the most deteriorating influences. All that I can do is to 
realise these facts, and try to possess my soul as well as I can. 

If the Church was to be strong in London, he felt that the 
Bishop must be known not only by the clergy but by the 
laity, and therefore that he must not only know London, but 
London must know him. His varied gifts opened to him 
many kinds of activity. One of his first public appearances 
in his new diocese was at the Royal Institution on P ebruary 5, 
when he spoke on the Picturesque in History l to a crowded 
and delighted audience. The lecture abounded in charac 
teristic sayings : 

* A man s character is more revealed by what he tries to 
do than by what he succeeds in doing. 

* His most fruitful heritage is, generally speaking, his 
temper, his attitude towards life, his method of facing its 

* A crisis is due to blundering and incapacity. But when 
a crisis occurs it is a revelation of character. 

* One of the great lessons of history is to show the bondage 
as well as the responsibility of power. 

The great object of history is to trace the continuity 
of national life, and to discover and estimate the ideas on 
which that life is founded. 

1 Published in Lectures and Addressee. 
VOL. II. n 


During the first six months of his episcopate, besides 
speaking at innumerable meetings about every kind of church 
work, he addressed the annual gathering of the London 
University Extension Students at the Mansion House on 
The Story of a Country. l He spoke at meetings on Early 
Closing, Vigilance Work and Public Health. He discussed 
educational questions with members of the Toynbee Hall 
working men clubs ; he spoke at the London School of 
Economics, then just getting into working order under the 
able guidance of his friends Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb ; he 
lectured at Salisbury on the Coming of Augustine, and 
spoke to the London Church Reading Union on the 
Advantage of Consecutive * Reading/ 2 He was a guest at 
many public dinners, where he was invariably called upon to 
speak, on occasions so various as the gathering of old Cum 
brians at the dinner of the Cumberland Benevolent Society, 
the farewell dinner to Mr. Bayard, the American Ambassador, 
the dinner of the Architectural Association, of the Artists 
Benevolent Society, of the contributors to the Dictionary of 
National Biography. At the dinner given in commemoration 
of the Jubilee by one hundred distinguished women, who each 
invited one man, he was the chosen guest of Mrs. Sidney 
Webb, and the only speaker except Mrs. Steel, the originator 
of the dinner, and Lady Henry Somerset. He concluded his 
speech by saying : 

Could we distract our minds from our companions and 
look on each other s faces, we should perceive a deep sense of 
unworthiness, each man inly wondering how the other man 
came to be asked. . . . When our best books are mocked at, 
our finest oratory unappreciated, and we are in gloom and 
depression, a vision of this evening will rise before us, and 
we shall be cheered by remembering that once on a time, 
one lady thought us sufficiently distinguished to invite us to 
be her guest. Then we shall repose in peace upon the re 

His after-dinner speaking was much appreciated ; the 
playful irony which often veiled real and suggestive thought, 
the unexpected turns of speech, the invariable anecdote up to 

1 Published in Lectures and Addresses. 
* Published in Thoughts on Education. 

iS 9 7 LONDON LIFE 227 

which he liked to lead, the bantering humour, always kept his 
audience amused and attentive, and undue length never tried 
their patience. It was a delight to sit by Dr. Temple at the 
Mansion House dinner to the Bishops, and watch his face 
whilst Dr. Creighton was speaking, and then hear his delighted 
chuckle He s too clever. 

There were private as well as public dinners ; old and new 
friends joined in welcoming him to London. To quote from 
others : 

1 The stir and movement of his presence made itself felt 
at once and felt everywhere. London, so slow to perceive 
what is happening in the midst of it, could not but be aware 
of this new arrival. He proved that even this huge, unwieldy 
sluggish mass of a diocese could actually feel the impact, 
from end to end, of a vivid personal inspiration. 

What the diocese wanted when Dr. Creighton took it 
over, was a visible chief. London wanted a bishop who 
would speak for it and to it as a whole a leader who would 
surmount details, seize on its imagination, and touch it on 
every side of its multitudinous life. This part the new Bishop 
set himself to play. Hence his incessant appearances in 
public, on platforms, at meetings and banquets ; his plunge 
into the vortex of London society. 2 

1 When he came to London, he mixed freely in various 
sorts of society, for none came amiss to him, and he was just 
the same to them all. He was the reverse of dazzled, and 
used to complain that the average intelligence of Londoners 
was so low. 3 

1 He spiced life for us all was another comment. The 
newspapers were full of him, sometimes reporting his sayings 
with warm approval, at other times indignantly contradicting 
his paradoxes. 

His faculty for remembering names and faces helped him 
to feel at home in his new surroundings, whilst his constant 
public appearances soon made him a familiar figure, and he 
was drawn and caricatured under many circumstances. He 
was indifferent to the criticisms of the press, and was 
amused at the irritation expressed because he was supposed 
to have spoken slightingly of newspapers, and to have said 

1 Sermon at St. Paul s Cathedral, January 20, 1901, by Canon Scott Holland. 

* Article in the Quarterly Review, April 1901. 

8 Article by Herbert Paul, Nineteenth Century^ July 1901. 



that he never read them. This remark was constantly brought 
up against him. As a matter of fact, he gave only the interval 
between prayers and breakfast to reading the Times/ ten 
minutes was as a rule enough, and yet he seemed to know 
everything in the paper and to have grasped the charac 
teristics of all the leading public men. In the evening 
he glanced at the Westminster Gazette, and always read 
4 Punch with great thoroughness. The Guardian was the 
only other weekly paper he looked at. He knew how to pick 
up a great deal of what was going on from others. 

He had been elected member of several well-known 
dining clubs, The Club/ Grijlions, and Nobody s Friends/ 
and much enjoyed attending their dinners and talking with 
the distinguished men whom he met there. For many years 
he had been a member of the Athenaeum, having been elected 
(under rule 2) in 1886 ; he was an original member of the Savile. 

He liked to entertain all manner of men, and it was 
partly in order to be able to give dinners which public men 
could attend, that he resided in London during the early 
part of the season. In the summer we had Saturday to 
Monday parties at Fulham, and he persuaded his London 
friends to look upon a visit there as a visit into the country. 
He might have to go and preach in London, but his guests 
could forget that London was within reach, and spend long 
lazy afternoons of talk under the trees. He tried to be at 
home on Sunday afternoons, and it was then that his more 
intimate friends could enjoy his society, round the tea table 
in the great hall in winter, in the garden in summer, or else 
pacing up and down the lawn in talk, sometimes gay, some 
times serious. 

* To his friends/ writes one of them, * the Bishop was more 
than kind ; he was sympathetic, warm-hearted and affectionate. 
And he was always the same. Whatever worries he might 
have in his diocese, he did not inflict them, or the depression 
they must have caused, upon his guests. He liked to talk 
about something else, and what was there he could not talk 
about? . . . He certainly talked a lot of nonsense with 
children ... he did not grow old, or even middle-aged 
himself. One always thought of him as a young man, and 
put down his occasional freaks to the exuberance of youth/ l 

1 Herbert Paxil in the Nineteenth Century, July 1901. 


In general society he never talked shop, and no one 
found it easy to pick his brains about ecclesiastical politics. 
He would talk about people, always interested in trying to 
understand motive and character ; about books, he was fond 
of discussing the problems raised by the last novel he had 
read ; about politics, but rather about the ideas that lay 
behind them than about the current questions of party 
politics. Even some who knew him well felt it difficult to 
get at his political opinions. He was far more interested in 
ascertaining other people s opinions than in getting them to 
adopt his own. His mind moved in such a different sphere 
of ideas from the minds of those who were engaged in 
practical politics, that they sometimes felt as if their particular 
problems had no interest for him. He was concerned with 
great principles, with the origins and the tendencies of the 
great movements of thought, and he often remarked that it 
was difficult to get people to be interested in ideas. He 
loved either to hear or tell a good story, but above all 
he made people talk to him about themselves. * And how 
have you been getting on? Come and tell me all about 
yourself/ was his common greeting to a friend. 

At Convocation times the house was rilled with bishops 
and other Church dignitaries, and clergy from his old diocese 
were often invited. As far as possible he entertained the 
London clergy, and never liked to have a dinner party 
without some representatives of them. Of course they were 
all invited to the great garden parties which have been the 
rule at Fulham since the days of Bishop Tait. These parties 
reached such huge proportions, numbering on fine days 
over four thousand guests, that it was hardly possible for 
the Bishop to do more than greet each individually. But 
very many of those who passed before him on these occasions 
in never-ending stream were recognised and greeted with 
an appropriate remark. The children, who came in large 
numbers, received a specially warm welcome. 

Hardly a week passed without a gathering of some sort 
at Fulham ; there were garden meetings in summer, 
meetings in the great hall in winter, always followed by 
tea, excursions of many different societies, such as the 
Toynbee Travellers Club and various temperance bodies. 


When in 1897 some Protestant association presided over by 
Mr. Kensit asked to come and see Fulham, they were 
entertained like anyone else. Every summer a certain 
number of mothers meetings from poor parishes were invited 
to enjoy an afternoon in the garden ; his desire was to make 
Fulham of use to the whole diocese. 

He wished to be in close touch with those of his brother 
bishops who shared with him the spiritual care of London, 
and every two months spent an evening with the Bishops 
of Rochester and St. Albans that they might talk over their 
common problems. The Bishop of Rochester (Dr. Talbot) was 
an old friend of far-off Oxford days ; the Bishop of St. Albans 
(Dr. Festing) he had learnt to* love and esteem at the meetings 
of the East Anglian bishops. The Bishop of Rochester 
says that Creighton always seemed in their talks to be 
more occupied with the general bearings of things, with the 
real issues, than with any practical steps to be taken ; his 
utterances were a little " cryptic." It seemed as if he used 
these meetings to help him to think out things, and see how 
they looked in the eyes of others, and that he felt that, if once 
he could see a thing in its proper bearings, the action to be 
taken in any particular case would disclose itself as the need 

Under normal circumstances, the work of the diocese of 
London must be overwhelming, but the Bishop never had to 
do with his diocese under normal circumstances. In his first 
year the Jubilee of Queen Victoria and the meeting of the 
Pan-Anglican Conference added enormously to his work. 
He was hardly settled in London before he was called upon 
to take part in the organisation of the Prince of Wales 
Hospital Fund, and in various arrangements for the Jubilee. 

One of the first public acts with which he was concerned 
was particularly agreeable to him on account of his sense 
of the claims both of historical justice and of international 
courtesy. An application was made to him by the United 
States ambassador that the manuscript known as the Log of 
the Mayflower, which was in the library at Fulham Palace, 
should be restored to the American people, and given to the 
custody of the American ambassador. The manuscript con 
tained not only the diary of W illiam Bradford, afterwards 


governor of New Plymouth, with an account of the fortunes 
of the pilgrim fathers, but also an authentic register of the 
births, deaths, and marriages of the colonists of New England 
from 1620-1650. The Bishop was anxious to find a means 
of acceding to the request of the Ambassador. He wrote to 
Lord Salisbury, sending him the application, and said : 

January 29, 1897. 

I have further had an interview with Mr. Bayard, in 
which I explained to him that I could take no practical step 
without your lordship s sanction. 

I As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I am in 
favour of restoring the MS. to the country whence it came 
In the interests of study, it is well that documents should be 
in the place to which they refer. Their restoration is an 
occasion for international courtesy. I would further add that 
the library at Fulham contains nothing else that is of 
importance. It is not, therefore, in the position of a large 
collection which is being deprived of a cherished possession. 

I 1 have spoken to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he 
is of the same opinion as myself. 

* Before, however, I give any answer to the request, I 
would submit the matter to your lordship to decide if it 
should be done, and how it can be done. 

In reply to some inquiries made by Lord Salisbury, he 
wrote again : 

Fulham Palace : February 13, 1897. 

* My dear Lord Salisbury, In reference to the manuscript 
history of Massachusetts, which it is proposed to restore to 
the United States, I have made further inquiry from the 
Archbishop of Canterbury and have further searched into the 
history of the Fulham Palace library. 

* It consists of books of various kinds left by former 
occupants of the See. The only bishop who seems to have 
made any formal bequest was Bishop Porteus, who died in 
1808, and bequeathed his books by will, together with a sum 
of money for the building of a library. 

What is apparently the catalogue of his books remains 
in the library in manuscript. It contains no mention of the 
manuscript now in question, nor is there any record of the 
manner in which it came into the possession of the Bishop of 

It seems most probable that the manuscript at the time 
of the outbreak of hostilities in Boston, was in the hands of 
someone who brought it to England, and deposited it with 


the Bishop of London, as ordinary of foreign and colonial 

The difficulty was to discover how an individual bishop 
of London could be authorised to give up a valuable 
manuscript in his official library. The Bishop consulted his 
chancellor, who decided first that as the document contained 
a register of marriages, births and deaths, it ought to be 
kept in the registry of the chancellor of the diocese. It 
was therefore given into the chancellor s keeping, who then 
held a consistory court, at which he made a formal order to 
hand over The Log of the Mayflower to Mr. Bayard, to be 
transmitted by him to the Governor of Massachusetts, on 
condition that photographic- fac-similes of the manuscript 
should be given to the chancellor s registry and to the Fulham 

The Bishop handed over the manuscript to Mr. Bayard 
on April 30 ; and the following week attended as a specially 
honoured guest the farewell dinner given by the American 
Society in London to Mr. Bayard, when the Log of the 
Mayflower was exhibited. Mr. Bayard on his return to 
America delivered the precious volume to the Governor of 
Massachusetts in the presence of the two Houses of the 
Legislature of the State, and of a large number of officials 
and notable citizens. He wrote to the Bishop such incidents 
obliterate the memories of ancient feuds and ignorant pre 
judices, and bring the hearts of the kindred nations into 
sympathetic and normal relations/ To commemorate the 
incident both the Archbishop and the Bishop were made 
members of the American Antiquarian Society. 

The other papers at Fulham illustrating the past history 
of the see, and especially the early history of the Church in 
America, which had been under the jurisdiction of the Bishops 
of London, were found by the Bishop to be in a condition of 
great dirt and disorder. Under his direction they were sorted 
and dusted and arranged as conveniently as possible for 
reference in a room set apart for the purpose. But time was 
not allowed for the full cataloguing and ordering of these 
papers which had been desired. 

On March 30 he spoke for the first time in the House of 
Lords, on the second reading of the Voluntary Schools Act 


He urged that those who were always ready to speak of the 
nonconformist conscience should remember that the Church 
of England had also a right to possess a conscience. He said : 

* The advocates of the voluntary system are convinced 
that in maintaining that system they are maintaining 
principles which are essential for the maintenance of educa 
tion itself. ... If religious education is to be genuine it 
must be denominational, and have a definite point of attach 
ment to the life and character of the child who is being 
taught. . . . The suppression of voluntary schools by the brute 
force of financial pressure would leave behind it an inex 
tinguishable sense of wrong, and would produce results most 
dangerous to the well being of society. . . . Neither I nor any 
of my brethren wish for any arrangement that will not 
be satisfactory or just to all concerned. It is a matter of 
deep regret to us that there should be even the appearance 
of injustice towards anybody whatever in our just claim to 
teach those things of which we are profoundly convinced. 

In conclusion, he claimed that those who supported the 
bill were animated by a nobler conception of the nature 
of education, and a higher ideal of civil and religious liberty, 
than was displayed by their opponents. 

His speech was very well received. It was described as 
graceful, full of culture, and excellently delivered, perhaps 
the best and freshest second reading speech made on the bill 
in either House. 

To his niece Ella April i, 1897. 

My principal experience since I wrote last has been that 
of making a speech in the House of Lords. It is about the 
most awful thing you can do. As a rule nobody listens, but 
they all talk to one another. There is no applause except 
that when you sit down one or two people say " Hear, hear." 
However I made my speech late on, and was followed by 
Lord Kimberley, who could not find any hole to pick in me. 
I believe my speech was thought a success ; but it is very 
nervous work making a maiden speech, as you are not sure of 
the sort of tone to adopt, and do not wish to seem cheeky. 

* As a rule I leave home about 10 in the morning, and 
return about 10 or n at night; sometimes in the interval 
I collapse into my club and a novel ; but this is rare. 

Cuthbert and Walter have amused themselves by offer 
ing their services to the Cambridge settlement during their 


vacation. They spent last night in a boys club at Camber- 
well, playing cards and such like things with some forty little 
ragamuffins. They enjoyed it very much. I do not think 
people know how really amusing the London boys are, and, 
indeed, the people generally. I find my work full of interest 
and always new. You see there is so much more than can 
possibly be done, that I have a choice what I will do. 

On Easter Monday we went to spend a few days with the 
Humphry Wards, who had taken Levens Hall for the spring. 

To Miss Gertrude Ward at Magila 

* Levens Hall : April 22, 1897. 

My dear Gertrude, I have been meaning to write to you 
for a long time, but my work has been so incessant since 
I went to London that the duties of friendship have been for 
gotten. Even to a bishop, Easter brings a certain repose, 
and on Monday with a joyful mind I came off here for a few 
days holiday, which I am using in discharging neglected 
obligations. It is a lovely place, so old and quaint, and with 
such charming surroundings that I forget all my woes and 
ramble as of yore with Dorothy on the hills. There are no 
clergy to interview me ; I asked my chaplain to intercept 
letters, and only send me those which were absolutely 
necessary. So peace prevails. A bishop of London has 
more to do than can be done. I must organise my possible 
activities some day. But this year the Lambeth Conference 
and the Jubilee, and my novelty to the work, make a fearful 

Everybody here is very flourishing. Mary l is particularly 
well and gets on with her new book. . . . Sometimes it rains, 
sometimes the sun shines ; the larches are turning green, and 
all looks bright even when it rains. There is a sense of 
idyllic charm. Humphry is just going back to work in 
London. I have two days more. The world wags on with 
us even as it does with you. The family grow older, and one 
wonders what they are all going to do. But time alone can 

* Of course I find London immensely interesting. Every 
where there is abundant life, which raises the question Where 
is it going ? But there is a great loss of the personal touch 
in everything one does. People are busy, seen only for a few 
moments ; business and business only ; decisions given with 
out full explanations of the grounds. So much time is taken 
up with pure administration that little is left for any other 

1 Mis. T. H. Ward. 

i8 9 7 LONDON LIFE 235 

purpose. Party spirit is strong and antagonisms are hard to 
overcome. I have a general sense that everybody is trying 
to exploit me, and if I do not do just what they want, are 
prepared to abuse me. I feel it necessary to screw my head 
on tight and go my own way gently. These are my first 

I Of course London absorbs Louise as well as myself. 
She is given to meetings and committees. I sometimes 
wonder why we do not each of us improve ourselves, instead 
of holding perpetual meetings to improve one another. But 
I suppose it would be more difficult and less generally 

To his niece Ella April 29, 1897. 

I 1 had an interesting thing to do yesterday, to " profess 
seven novices in a sisterhood. It was in their own chapel 
and was very impressive, and I liked them all very much. 
They nurse and keep a hospital on their premises, and three 
of their patients were presently wheeled into the chapel to be 
confirmed. It had a curious effect, three litters with people 
clad in white suddenly appearing among the black-robed 
sisters. Then I had to dine at a public dinner at Fulham ; 
it was severe, but one must show oneself in one s own 
neighbourhood. This morning I have been settling all about 
the Jubilee with the Prince of Wales, who was very cheery 
and enjoys a granddaughter. 

Now I have more to do than can be done. I am just 
going to interview the American ambassador. Then I have 
a sermon to preach, and then I have some people to dinner 
to talk business. 

May 13, 1897. 

I do not find that I grow less busy. Last week I had a 
Diocesan Conference, and on Friday went to a great dinner in 
honour of Mr. Bayard, the American minister, who was 
departing. Then on Saturday I went to the Crystal Palace 
to a display of Bands of Hope, who marched past the Duke of 
Cambridge, whom I had to take care of. In the evening 
I was in the chair at a dinner, and had to make speeches 
about art. On Sunday I went to Kew to preach, and 
lunched with the Duke of Cambridge ; thence to Islington, 
where I visited the Church Missionary College, and preached 
to the students. But why go on with this catalogue ? It 
represents my ordinary life. This week we have a houseful 
of bishops who are at Convocation, and to-night a dinner 
party of twenty. There is no peace or quietness. 


The Bishop met his diocesan conference for the first 
time on May 6, at King s College. His presidential address, 1 
was devoted chiefly to a consideration of the education 
question. He said that the difficulties in discussing the 
matter arose from the fact that we have constructed an 
education problem which has been concerned with every 
possible topic but education/ and that the settlement of our 
educational difficulties will come just in proportion as we set 
the children before us as the class who are really concerned. 
He expressed his opinion that ( the way by which we shall 
get rid of many of our old controversies and emerge into a 
larger and serener atmosphere is by having a more widely 
spread interest in education as such. He seemed to foresee 
the Education Bills of 1902 and 1903 when he said, It is 
always hazardous to attempt to forecast the future, but 
I certainly conceive that the question of secondary educa 
tion should call into being a central educational authority, 
on which there should be a proper representation of educa 
tional experts . . . under this central council there should be 
local authorities. I am certain that we shall make no 
progress in education unless we have local educational 
authorities. It would be difficult to know how to deal with 
the school boards, because we have got into a position in 
which it seemed to be considered sacrilegious to touch the 
school boards. But his speech was full of hope that the 
whole question might be lifted into a purer air, and that if 
we could only free ourselves from the dust of past contro 
versies, a wiser educational policy might emerge. 

Much time was taken in arranging details in con 
nexion with the thanksgiving service to be held on the 
steps of St. Paul s on the Jubilee day. The idea of this 
service had in the first place been the Bishop s, but it was 
warmly taken up by everyone concerned. Some mistaken 
notions having arisen concerning it, the Bishop departed 
from his invariable custom of never writing to the news 
papers, and wrote to the Times to explain that it was 
misleading to speak as if Her Majesty s purpose on her 
drive on Jubilee day was to attend an open-air service at 
St. Paul s Cathedral. * The singing of the Te Deum is merely 

1 Published in The Church and the Nation^ p. 216^ 

j8 9 7 THE JUBILEE 237 

a beautiful and appropriate incident in the day s proceedings. 
It is a reminiscence of the services held throughout England 
on the previous Sunday, not a substitute for them. It has no 
claim to be a complete or adequate expression of religious 
feeling at such a time. This will have been made before. 

The space on the steps of St. Paul s is limited, and the 
number of people anxious to be present was very large. The 
Prince of Wales was specially desirous that representatives 
of the various religious bodies should be stationed there, and 
the Bishop exerted himself to see that his wishes were carried 
out, and to have invitations issued in such a way as to hurt 
the susceptibilities of as few people as possible. 

Many had desired that a representative of the Russian 
Church should attend the Jubilee, and after some negotiations 
the Bishop was able to announce through the Times that 
Lord Salisbury had received a despatch from Her Majesty s 
ambassador at S. Petersburg, in which his excellency reports 
that * Monseigneur Antonius, Archbishop of Finland, has 
been deputed by the Holy Synod to attend the Jubilee of 
the sixtieth anniversary of the Queen s accession to the 

The Russian Archbishop was invited to stay at Fulham, 
and arrived on Thursday, May 17, accompanied by an 
interpreter and General Kireief, a charming and cultivated 
man, who spoke English perfectly. The Archbishop was a 
distinguished-looking man and a very agreeable guest. He 
spoke only Russian, and all conversation had to be carried on 
by means of an interpreter. But he entered most charmingly 
into our home life our family party had been increased by 
the Bishop s nephews and nieces, who came up to London 
for the Jubilee---and interested himself in all our young 
people. He was a central figure at our garden parties, in his 
long flowing robes with his tall hat and veil falling behind. 
Many Russians came to see him, and Mr. Birkbeck took him 
to visit various English churches and clergy, and to the uni 
versities to receive hon. degrees. 

Sunday, June 20, was the day appointed by the Queen 
for solemn services of thanksgiving for the mercies of her 
reign. The Bishop preached at the service at St. Paul s 

1 Archbishop Antonius has since become Metropolitan of Russia. 


Cathedral, which was attended by the Prince and Princess of 
Wales, and other members of the royal family, by the 
members of the Government, the ambassadors, the colonial 
premiers, and representatives of every class of the nation. 
The Archbishop of Finland came in a splendid purple cope, 
his train borne by two attendants in tunicles of white 
damask silk and cloth of gold, bearing in his hand an ancient 
crozier set with jewels. 

The Bishop s sermon, which could be heard in every part of 
the densely crowded building, lifted the thoughts of all to 
discern the real meaning of the occasion. He spoke of the 
necessity of gathering the lessons brought by a time of 
heightened national consciousness, by a great moment of exul 
tation. He said that nations are strong in proportion as they 
have a clear conception of a national destiny ; that * no nation 
has continued great that has not had a growing consciousness 
of a universal mission, founded on a general belief in justice 
and righteousness, a burning passion to apply them first within 
her own limits, and then to carry them wherever her influence 
could reach. He singled out * as the great characteristic of the 
Victorian era, an awakened conscience about our duties to our 
fellows. In his words about the Queen he expressed his own 
strong personal devotion. * We honour our Queen as ruler was 
never honoured before, because we can look upon her, during 
all the long years of her eventful reign, as the unchanging 
and unwavering representative of this desire to moralise all 
human relationships, which is the flower of our civilisation. . . . 
We feel how much is due to her who, removed from the 
shocks of the conflict of opinions, yet keenly interested in 
everything that affected the country s welfare, has exercised a 
moderating influence with unfailing discretion. . . . She has 
taught Europe how a ruler can command the reverence 
and win the affection of a free people. In conclusion he 
pointed out the lessons which the English people might learn 
from the example of the Queen, and bade them remember 
the steadfast discipline of character required for the duties 
of her high office. * We need more of the spirit of discipline. 
It remains as the great undertaking before us to show how 
free men will bear the yoke of discipline, how they will 
learn the responsibility which attaches to opinions, how they 

1897 THE JUBILEE 239 

will readily contribute their separate wisdom to the common 
store. From the Queen s example we might learn more 
sympathy with the aims and aspirations of other nations. 
Let us offer the fruits of our experience to other countries 
with greater humility and better understanding of their 
present position. . . . The time has come when we must 
labour to extend our influence by greater meekness, and 
must condition our frankness by the sympathy which is in 
culcated by the maxim " Honour all men." 

On the Jubilee day the Bishop stood by the side of the 
Archbishops on the steps of St. Paul s to welcome the Queen. 
His appearance was thus described in the Daily Chronicle : 

* His cope was of a stuff which more than taxes possibility 
of description, 2 and just as he came out the first glimpse of 
sunshine fell upon him, and his keen intellectual, kindly and 
firm face seemed to light up as though he had had in some 
far-away past a dream of pontifical pomp of which this was 
in part a realisation. Upon his head he wore a skull-cap of 
pure cloth of gold, and it pivoted the eyes of all who looked 
on as the sun caught it, and dashed back its reflection in the 
eyes of thousands. 

After the Te Deum had been sung the Bishop said the 
f ubilee Prayer * with that clear musical voice of his which 
seemed to penetrate the great gathering. At the end of the 
brief ceremony the Queen motioned to him to come forward, 
and expressed her satisfaction with the arrangements. 

To Lady Grey 

1 The Jubilee was a tremendous labour in many ways. 
The Queen said to me that it was a beautiful service, and 
she had enjoyed it very much : she asked me to thank all 
concerned. The Prince of Wales wrote me a letter next day 
to say that he had never seen anything better managed or 
more impressive, so that we were covered with glory. 

At the Queen s request he wrote for her an account of his 
impressions on this occasion. 

1 The sermon is published in The Mind of St. Peter and other Sermons. 

1 This cope was presented by the late Mr. Offley Wakeman. It was made of 
the silk that had been woven for the coronation robe of the Empress Frederic, 
and is the only piece of that particular brocade in existence. It now belongs to 
the diocese, and is worn by the present bishop. 


Various functions connected with the Jubilee followed in 
quick succession, ending with a dinner given by Mr. Chamber 
lain to meet the Colonial Premiers, and amidst all these public 
functions time had to be found for confirmations and meet 
ings and the ordinary routine of work. On July i, the Pan- 
Anglican Conference met. It had been fixed for this year, 
partly to enable the colonial bishops to be also present at 
the Jubilee, and partly that the representatives of the Anglican 
communion might meet together on the i3OOth anniversary 
of the coming of St. Augustine. During July, successive 
parties of American and colonial bishops, many of them with 
their wives and daughters, stayed at Fulham. 

To Lady Grey * August 12. 

1 For the entire month of July we were engaged in enter 
taining relays of American and other bishops. It was very 
interesting. It increased one s knowledge of geography and 
of imperial problems. It was also interesting to see how 
religion affects nationality I mean in the case of the Ameri 
can bishops. Anglicanism gave them a way of looking at 
things which went farther than they thought. They were 
very good fellows, full of fun, and with a breezy way of look 
ing at the world which was useful to contemplate. Hopeful 
ness is a characteristic of new countries as of young people, 
and we ought to profit by it* 

Thesessions of the Lambeth Conference continued through 
out July ; the Bishop, though present, took no prominent part 
in them, but he was always ready to work, and allowed him 
self to be put on several committees. At the luncheon which 
marked the close of the conference, he proposed the health 
of the American bishops, and spoke of the intimacy with 
them which had been promoted by the conference, and of 
the sense of unity and brotherhood which had grown up. 
He said * that the conference would have been infinitely poor 
if it had not been for the presence of their brethren from the 
United States . . . not only did they introduce into the dis 
cussions a somewhat different element, but they enlivened 
the private talks afterwards with the humour peculiar to 
themselves. He concluded by dwelling on the permanent 
gain it would be to have felt that * our Church remains 
the same when it takes its existence among a perfectly inde- 


pendent people. We feel in that a guarantee of its reality, of 
the fundamental strength of its position, and we feel sure 
that the great distinctive mark of the Anglican Church 
throughout the world is that it is the Church, and represents 
the ecclesiastical organisation, which is suitable to the life of 
free men. 

The next day he was one of a great number of bishops 
and others who, on the invitation of the Bishop of Bath and 
Wells, made a pilgrimage to Glastonbury Abbey, the spot 
claimed by tradition as the earliest Christian site in England. 
* Never, probably, since the Reformation/ he said, had such a 
procession taken place in England as the long band of 
bishops, clergy, choristers, and civic dignitaries, who, singing, 
and carrying banners, made their way across the sunny lawns 
to the grey ruins of the famous Abbey. 

On August 7 he started for his holiday. Already on 
July 19 he had written to his niece : * I am now looking 
forward eagerly for the beginning of the holidays, I never 
looked forward to anything so much. ... I am slowly 
beginning to end up my work, but this is difficult. I must 
get away and leave things to settle themselves. Part of his 
holidays he wished to spend with his children and nephews 
and nieces, and we went, a large family party, to a house 
on the banks of Ulleswater : 

To Lady Grey Glenridding House : August 12, 1897. 

; You ... are exploring the joys of quiet reading and 
meditation. They have a great charm of their own : per 
haps I look upon them with exaggerated fondness because 
I am never likely to enjoy them. I have the melancholy 
feeling that I am now quite played out. I must go on as I am 
till I fizzle away. There is no change possible. However, 
there is one advantage of London life : it makes the joy of 
country quiet more intense than I should have thought pos 
sible. We came here on Saturday night, the whole family 
of us, and found here four of my nephews and nieces. Think 
of eleven rampant young persons and tremble. Two days 
spent on the hills made me ten years younger. Then came 
rain, which has enabled me to write letters. ... I am now 
trying in peace and quietness to devise some means of 
not being always engaged in London. It requires great 
deliberation to steel one s heart to say no. I am engaged 



in meditating how to increase the class of things I will 
not do. 

He was not content till he had climbed every hill within 
reach. On wet days, and in the lake district they are many, 
he joined in romps and games of the maddest kind with his 
children. Sitting out watching the stars on fine evenings, or on 
long walks on the hill-sides, he would talk to them on every 
conceivable topic and draw them out to talk to him. He 
was playfellow, friend, and companion, as well as father, and 
specially tried in every way to make up to his nephews and 
nieces for the loss of their parents. 

To Lady Grey Glenridding House : August 13, 1897. 

1 1 grow more and more enchanted with this place. 
Rambling uphill just suits me. How much more beautiful 
England is than any other country, on account of its size. 
Here, for instance, in a day s walk you get every kind of 
mountain form and vegetation in two or three hours. In other 
lands you only get one impression a day ; here you get a 
dozen. Size is no element in beauty, but versatility is. I am 
writing an essay on scenery : this must be repressed. 

On August 26, he and I started for North Italy. Letters 
had followed him to Ulleswater, but his chaplain had orders 
if possible to forward nothing to Italy. He gave himself up 
to the impressions of the moment and sought in close com 
panionship with nature, new life for soul and body. We 
stopped first at Faido and then at Lugano. 

To his niece Winifred September 10, 1897. 

What a lovely place Lugano is ! I am afraid it is more 
beautiful than Cumberland. It is grander, severer, more 
picturesque. Its lines are more commanding. The very 
fact that so many villages are dotted about the hills with 
their church towers makes it fuller of human interest. Cum 
berland is more intimate, though it looks wilder ; Italy is 
more suggestive and impressive, because it tells of man and 
nature together. 

To his son Cuthbert Lugano : September 4, 1897. 

Dearest Cuthbert, We are getting on, and I think 
to-night the weather is going to be right. Hitherto it 
has been sultry and cloudy, and things have not looked 

1897 A WALK 243 

their best But yesterday made a contribution towards 
a change. We had our experience of it I think I will 
try to give you a detailed account. The morning looked 
doubtful, but at II we plucked up our courage and went 
to the station, travelled to a neighbouring place, and then 
struck up the hills. Only, the hills here are not at all like 
those of Cumberland, for you make for a village at once, 
generally by a" path through chestnut woods. We found a 
lovely view, and went on to one village and then to another 
still higher, then above that lay a monastery. We made 
for that, and had a lovely view of lakes and mountains. It 
was then half past one, and we felt hungry. I rang the 
monastery bell, and in about five minutes a dirty ragamuffin 
appeared, who looked as if he had just got out of bed. I 
asked for some bread and cheese and wine. He mumbled 
something and retired. I thought he had gone to get it, but 
after waiting a quarter of an hour nothing appeared, and there 
was no sound of anything. So we shook off the dust against 
that monastery and descended to the nearest village : it looked 
hopelessly dirty. So we made for another. Then I caught 
a boy and asked him if I could get some wine. He led me 
through a narrow lane and to a house, and said that was an 
inn. I entered and found an old woman seated among the 
de"bris of innumerable cabbages, cutting them up with one hand 
and with the other nursing a child who was ill with bronchitis. 
The room had a wood fire, with a huge pot in which the 
cabbages were boiling. Cocks and hens were roaming all round, 
and a travelling pedlar was seated, sadly having a drink of 
wine. I preferred a humble request for some food, and the 
good woman said that this was not a luxurious hotel. I re 
plied that it was among the best I had ever visited, and 
murmured bread and cheese. Cheese she thought was im 
possible, but suggested sausage. I assented, and she went 
out to buy one. On her departure the child screamed 
continuously and refused all comfort. Presently she returned 
triumphantly with a sausage, which she proceeded to cut 
into slices. Bread and knives followed. I asked for wine, but 
she insisted that I must have a bottle, not the common wine 
on draught. I agreed, and she descended into her cellar. 
She produced her bottle, and it certainly quenched one s thirst 
admirably. It was sparkling vinegar, so sharp that it took 
your breath away, and led you to wonder if you could ever 
drink again. We satisfied our ravening hunger, while the 
good lady proceeded to cut up apples and add them to the 
boiling pot. What the effect of cabbages and apples boiled 


together might be I cannot say. I inquired what it was, and 
learned that its name was maiale ; but whether it was to be 
eaten by man or beast I was not quite sure. Presently she 
produced a dish of excellent peaches for us. Her charge for 
this repast was one and a half francs, of which one franc 
was for the wine. We parted with expressions of mutual 
gratitude. By this time it was three o clock and we were 
nearly ten miles from Lugano. The clouds had gathered 
and it began to rain. I had a notion of going across the hills, 
but mother objected to forests in the rain. So we tried the 
road, which led by a pretty little lake. At the next village 
I asked for a short cut, and was shown a path which led at 
last through vineyards. Meanwhile the sky had grown very 
black, and it was clear that rain was really coming. In the 
middle of the fields the storm suddenly fell upon us, a mighty 
thunderstorm. The wind rose, the air was black, we were 
enveloped in thick fog, the lightning flashed with splendid 
forks close to me, so that I felt it warm my left cheek ; the 
thunder crashed as I never heard it crash before. In a 
moment we were wet to the skin, and every sign of a 
road had disappeared. The noise was such that we could 
not hear one another speak. There was nothing to do but 
to plunge on. Luckily we soon came to a road, but in the 
darkness took a wrong turning, which slightly lengthened our 
walk. In time we reached a village, where the streets were 
half a foot deep in water. There we found we were an hour 
from Lugano. We got there to the opposite end from our 
hotel and had to trudge on, as no cab or tram had dared 
to face the storm. Mother is bemoaning a ruined dress. 
Even the natives say that they have seldom seen such a storm. 
It was an amusing experience, but it would not do every 

We went next to stay with Count Balzani and his two 
little girls in a villa amongst the vineyards near Ivrea. It 
was a spot of rare beauty, with a view on one side up the 
Val d Aosta into the mysterious depths of the great moun 
tains, and on the other over the sunny plain of Lombardy. 
Here, wandering day after day amongst the lower slopes of 
the Alps, we watched the vintage and the ingathering of 
many kinds of fruit and grain. 

A few days after his return to England, he visited Leicester 
to open the new Technical and Art Schools built by the Cor 
poration. The memory of his mountain walks must have been 


lingering in his mind when he said, in his speech at the public 
luncheon, Industry does not in itself immediately add to the 
beauty or the grace of the neighbourhood in which it is 
domiciled . . . We see in all the surroundings of our life the 
distinct loss of the element of beauty. The object of art 
teaching is ... that we may have a great sense of beauty 
influencing the life of everyone. 

The same day he was presented with the oil paintings, 
which the citizens of Leicester had allowed him to choose for 
himself as a farewell present. In thanking for them he said : 

If as one grows older one measures one s life by the 
thought of the kindnesses one has received and the response 
one has met with from others, then these five years have been 
the most fruitful of my life. During the time I lived amongst 
you, I met with nothing but unfailing kindness on all hands ; 
and the longer I live, the more deeply I am convinced that 
the true and abiding qualities are not the intellectual qualities 
but the qualities of absolute simplicity and straightforward 
ness and the desire for the right. . . . The task that I set 
before myself no, it was not really a task because it was the 
easiest and the most obvious thing to do was to go about 
amongst you saying, as simply and frankly as I could, what I 
thought upon any subject which was brought before me. If 
in so doing you feel I have been of any use, I can only 
express my sincere thankfulness, and thank you in return for 
the many kindnesses which you have shown me. 

It was the custom in London for the Bishop to attend and 
address a chapter and a conference of each of his rural 
deaneries in the autumn. This custom the Bishop kept up, 
but he did not follow his predecessor s plan of allowing the 
deaneries to elect their own rural deans. He preferred to 
choose them himself, as he regarded the rural dean as his 
representative in the deanery, not as the representative of the 

This year the subject of his twenty-two addresses to the 
clergy was Undenominationalism. These addresses were 
extempore, and no doubt varied a good deal on the different 
occasions. The following notes have been supplied by one of 
those who heard him : 

Undenominationalism may be a clumsy word, but it 
expresses the very common idea that it is possible to get hold 


of the spirit of Christianity without being troubled by forms 
and dogma, and that it is a noble thing to rise above forms 
and dogma. . . . The causes leading to this attitude may be 
classified under three main heads. 

*(i) Political causes. In these days of fully developed 
democracy every man is a politician. The chief result of 
democracy has not been, as many imagine, a change of method 
in the management of national business, but an extension of 
interest in the conduct of national business throughout the 
whole nation. This has made the work of the politician 
harder. He knows that no one can have things arranged 
exactly as he would desire. To him the question always is 
" How can this particular matter be most conveniently 
settled ? He is constantly ^occupied in settling incon 
venient questions, and he naturally wishes to do this in the 
easiest possible way. Any view which stands upon a principle 
is a hindrance to him. Religious principles in particular 
stiffen the human will so much, that the politician finds that 
the human stuff on which he has to work does not yield to 
him as easily as he would wish. The very existence of the 
Church is a trouble and annoyance to practical statesmen. 
We are a nuisance to them. We are as grit in the wheels 
of the machine which they are trying to turn. Still the 
politician wants the assistance of religion as far as it can help 
his purposes. But from that point of view he approaches it 
on its undogmatic side. He likes to appeal to those large 
principles of religion which assert the Fatherhood of God and 
the dignity of man. He wants from religion just as much as 
is needed for his purposes and no more. 

(2) Moral causes. The awakened conscience of the 
present day has been directed towards great philanthropic 
aims .... and philanthropy wants a simple straightforward 
sort of religion which will give it the force needed to carry 
out obvious improvements. Its sphere is limited. It may 
aim at doing good in a large way, but it often ends merely 
in such things as the provision of better water and drainage. 
But, as religiously minded men work to improve the conditions 
of their fellow-creatures, they are naturally led to feel a great 
horror of the many evils which result from the dissensions 
among Christian people. They express their sense of the 
unnaturalness of these evils by a desire for unity, which often 
shows itself in a way which does more credit to their general 
moral feelings than to their intellectual capacity to appreciate 
the issues involved in the differences between organised 
religious bodies. 


1 Their desire for unity rests on a moral not on an intel 
lectual basis, and they impatiently ask " Why do you not all 
agree to pick out what you have in common and to let all the 
rest go ? 

* (3) Intellectual causes. It has been a permanent feature 
of the English people to show themselves incapable of theo 
logy. . . . We have had contentions enough, but we have 
contended not about ideas, but about external things. 
Englishmen cannot grasp an idea, they have a natural hatred 
for intellectual speculation. The whole method of the growth 
of scientific thought with which this age is permeated is 
averse to the conception of the truth having been once for 
all revealed. . . . Theology cannot be a developing science in 
the same sense as other sciences are, because truth does not 
change, though there is a variety in the truths which at 
different times most prominently occupy the thoughts of 
religious people ; at the beginning of this century the doctrine 
of the Atonement was emphasised, to-day the doctrine of the 

All these various tendencies combine to produce a 
nebulous form of religion. The desire to get at the spirit of 
a thing without going through the process necessary to under 
stand it is very hazardous. People demand that theology 
should be immediately obvious to them without their having 
taken any trouble to get hold of it. This is partly due to the 
insolence so common at present, which leads a man to think 
that he can dispense with any discipline of character or of 
intelligence. ... It leads to the destruction of Christianity as 
a religion, and converts it into a sort of moral philosophy, 
which rests upon the notion that the "spiritual man" is 
merely " the natural man at his best, and does not realise 
that the " spiritual man " is a " new creature." 

* Religion is always decaying in the hands of the multitude ; 
it has to be revived by individuals, and we who are engaged 
in teaching Christianity as a religion, as the means of estab 
lishing a relation between the soul and God, must never allow 
it to fall into the sphere of the world s activities. 

At the evening meetings of the ruri-decanal conferences, 
at which the lay members were present, the Bishop spoke 
this year on * Purity. He maintained that it was an even 
more important question than that of temperance, but that 
very little had been done by the Christian Church to bring it 
forward. There had been a conspiracy of silence. He urged 


that men should begin with their children, and try to warn 
and instruct their sons. He said that the existing confused 
thought on the matter arose from a heresy which had caused 
much difficulty by the confusion which it had made between 
the terms flesh and body. The body is God s gift to man ; 
when not under due control it becomes the flesh, and is a source 
of evil. Let us try to restore the body to its proper dignity. 
All great literature, and especially that of the New Testament, 
recognises the dignity of the body. How many of its images, 
how much of its poetry, are drawn from child-bearing. This 
is one of the greatest and most obvious facts of life, and 
fathers ought to teach their sons concerning it 

In February of this year, he opened a three days mission 
on the same subject at St. James s, Piccadilly, and preached 
at a midnight service to a large congregation of men who had 
been gathered in from the streets outside by a band of lay- 
workers. One who mingled with the crowd as they dispersed, 
heard a man say, If we heard more talk from Bishops like 
this one down here, the condition of society would soon be 

The question of the religious teaching in Board schools 
was once more attracting attention in view of the School- 
board election. The Bishop did not think it well to make 
any public utterance in connexion with the election. To one 
of the moderate party he wrote, My own view would be to 
enforce the legal and full observance of all that the Board 
system rendered possible. After the election he tried to get 
the different religious parties to work together. 

To the Hon. Evelyn Cecil * October 9, 1897. 

* Yesterday I agreed to be present at a conference 
with some nonconformist leaders to discuss the Orpington 
scheme. . . . 

4 1 think we need not be unduly discouraged. The matter 
is so complicated that it is difficult to get any issue which is 
definite and does not seem to claim advantage for one party 
or another. We are labouring under the refuse of past 
controversy. Any proposal which contains the principle 
that we have a right to teach our children what we believe 
is to me valuable. At the same time I have not much 
hope of any result from the conference. 


To the Rev. W. F. Dawson, Congregational pastor, Lichfield 

November 2, 1897. 

* My dear Sir, I am obliged for your communication 
about religious teaching. I sincerely hope that all Christians 
will agree in asserting its primary importance, and will sink 
all minor differences before the maintenance of this great 

Preaching on October 30 at the opening of the schools of 
St Stephen s, Westbourne Park, he said, * The true patriot will 
strive to maintain in full force all those spiritual influences 
which play around the young soul and frame the character in 
youth. We may talk about environments and conditions of 
living ; it is well to attend to these too ; but it is to the opera 
tion of these spiritual influences, brought to bear upon the 
young mind by the teaching of Christian principles, that we 
must look for the formation of character and the power to 
sustain it in after years ; and again : To belittle religious 
education is to drop out the one thing which answers the 
child s question " Why should I learn at all ? " 

Christmas brought a brief respite to his incessant work. 

To Miss Margaret Goddard January 8, 1898. 

W T e both of us celebrated our festivities under altered 
circumstances this year. But it is odd how soon one feels 
about a house as if one had always lived there. I wish you 
would come and see Fulham : it is quite a nice place. We 
had a huge party : all the family at home, and six nephews 
and nieces. We made ourselves merry, played hockey, 
danced in the evenings, had a Christmas tree, and finally went 
to Barnum s circus. This was very frivolous. 

During these and other holidays, he enjoyed going with 
his children to some museum or picture gallery, or having a 
ramble amongst the City churches. He was a delightful 
cicerone, for he never tried to impose his views, and allowed 
everyone to go his own way, but was such a keen sightseer 
that others were kindled by his enthusiasm, and stimulated 
to try to understand and appreciate what they saw. 

He notes that during 1897 he delivered 294 sermons and 
addresses of different kinds. 


To M. PobiedonostzefF, Procurator of the Holy Synod in 

Russia -Fulham Palace, S.W. : February 13, 1897. 

1 My dear M. Pobiedonostzeff,- -Thank you very much for 
your most interesting book, 1 which I have been reading as far 
as I have leisure. I agree with you about the strength of 
national sentiment, as expressed in the actual form assumed 
by religion, and the prominence consequently given to 
certain ideas. But I do not think that the attitude of the 
English Church is fairly expressed by Carlyle, Froude and 
Stephen. Carlyle was a Scottish Calvinist, Froude left the 
Church, and was avowedly a Christian at large : Stephen was 
an agnostic lawyer and judge, who never professed Christian 
ity, but was a cultivated materialist . . . All these men 
express tendencies of the English character, which are real, 
and have done much to make England what it is which also 
exist in some forms of popular religion. But they have 
never had their home in the English Church. I freely admit 
that the English Church has not found room for them, and 
therefore does not contain all the English people. Noncon 
formity seems to many minds more practical, and less 
imaginative. The English Church retains older conceptions, 
largely in accordance with yours, which in some respects do 
[not] accord with the lines of natural development. 

I think that allowance must be made, in a survey of 
history, for the Teutonic conscience. I cannot say how it came 
about ; but the fact is clear that conscience has a larger hold 
of the Teuton than of the Latin or the Slav. This was the real 
strength of the Reformation. Conscience was appealed to as 
the supreme judge, and the intellectual controversy was only 
an expression of this in the region of theology. I admit that 
this setting of morality in the foremost place narrowed the 
scope of religion, and put much Christian truth in a secondary 
place. I admit that it set up a standard of morality which 
was mainly dictated by social needs rather than spiritual 
truth. But I think that the conscience created the form of 
religion, not that the theology of the sixteenth century 
formed a morality. 

In your general view I agreed with you : but I think that 
the English Church, instead of being the chief instance of 
this Teutonic tendency, has witnessed against it, and has 

1 Reflections of a Russian Statesman. The Bishop refers especially to the essay 
on The English Church. 

1897 LETTERS 251 

maintained, as far as it could, a larger and more spiritual 
view of truth. 

* But I did not mean to inflict my opinions upon you. I 
have come to a very large work, which will never leave me 
time to write again, and little time even to think. I can only 
say that I learned much from my visit to Moscow, and that 
my sympathy will always be with you. 

To his niece Winifred February 18, 1897. 

I feel tempted to say something about your remark 
that living in Naworth would not be commonplace but 
dreamlike. I am afraid that life is and must be commonplace. 
Dreams are only possible occasionally, and we always want to 
make what is exceptional become ordinary. This cannot be. 
We love things because of their unlikeness to what we have 
or do. Relief comes from change, but we cannot discover 
anything from which no relief is needed. Life always 
consists of humdrum duties, and difficulties are the same 
whatever are the surroundings . . . Everybody s life is his 
own, and depends on training oneself to see the limits of our 
possibilities and how all happiness comes from within. 

To the Rev. Canon Benham <Fulham Palace : March 31, 1897. 

* My dear Dr. Benham, Your subject [for his proposed 
Boyle lectures] is interesting, and ought to be profitable. 
May I make a remark about * the awakening of conscience ? 

It is only a question of words : but do you think that 
conscience was the first religious faculty ? I think conscience 
is a term which ought to be rather carefully guarded for a 
special sense. Even Socrates had a rudimentary notion of it, 
which he could only express in a theological and mystic 
sense. Aristotle is vague about it. St. Paul in Romans i. 
first specifies the function of o-vvsiS^crts. It was left for 
Butler to analyse conscience : and the results of his analysis 
are now constantly blurred by a loose use of the word. 

I advise you to put " religious consciousness " for 
1 conscience." But you may not agree with me. You mean, 
I take it, the power of perceiving God and thinking of Him. 

To the Bishop of Rochester 

(on the death of Rev. R. Wilson, Warden of Keble College) 

Fulham Palace: May 16, 1897. 

1 My dear Bishop, Alas, I knew that there was but one 
end possible, and that speedy. But we have lost a friend who 
was not like anybody else. Perhaps I knew him before you 


did and then he was another Wilson, yet the same. He 
always went his own way, and was more free from self- 
seeking than most men. Fastidious almost to a fault, he 
was the soul of honour and loyalty. His great quality was 
that he thought out things for himself, and had a singularly 
clear insight into the important tendencies of movements. 
His judgment was singularly sound. 

To the Rev. H. Rowsell Fulham Palace, S.W. : June 4, 1897. 

Dear Mr. Rowsell, ... { It is a plain fact that 
Augustine s coming was the beginning of Christianity. The 
sees of Canterbury, London, and Rochester date from him. 
He sent Paulinus to Northumbria, but his work was undone. 
Still there is great reason to ,point the analogy between 
mission work now and then. When Central Africa is civilised 
and has its Church, I hope that its people will recall the first 
missionaries, be they Roman, Anglican, Scottish, or English 
whether their form of Christianity was permanent or not. 
The wisdom and love of Pope Gregory, the zeal of Augustine, 
are facts which as Christians we ought to be proud to recall ; 
and I think we ought to claim them as achievements of a 
common Christianity which lies beyond all controversy, and 
proves nothing but the desire of Christians to make the Gospel 

To G. H. jui y i, 1897. 

* About your brothers, I do not think you will do much 
good by arguing, or by letting them talk about things wildly. 
They will only say things more strongly than they think for 
the purpose of annoying you. Your position might well be 
this : " You know my opinions ; and you know I do not 
agree with yours ; when you want my help, I will give it to 
you as much as I can, but no good is done to either of us by 
talking about these things on which we differ. . . ." But I 
think generally you will find that the good you do will come 
from your own character and example. This does more than 
talk. People are rarely convinced by argument, but are 
moved by the sight of another kind of life. It is not our 
wisdom that helps, but our goodness. The power of simple 
goodness is the greatest in the world, and you may have that 
if you pursue it. 

The following letter was written to a man unknown to the 
Bishop, who wrote to say that he was dying of an incurable, 
painful complaint, and was without faith, that he could not 

1897 LETTERS 253 

accept the Christian Faith. He implored to be told what 
book he should study to guide him in the right path. 

Fulham Palace : July 15, 1897. 

My dear Sir, You have my deepest sympathy. Last 
year I had to stand by and see my only brother die of the 
same disease as you describe. He was suddenly informed 
that he had no more than three months to live, and it was so. 

1 I would that I could help you. I know the sincerity 
that comes from the imperative demand for a clear and steady 
outlook on life and its end. Let me make a few suggestions. 

1 There can be no convincing proof of anything that affects 
our inner character. What " convincing proof" have you that 
your wife loves you or your child ? Yet you believe it, and 
that belief is more real to you than anything that you know 
or can prove. Religion must be a matter of belief, not of 
proof. It depends on a consciousness of the relation between 
our soul and God. Immortality depends on the knowledge 
of the meaning of our soul s life which we obtain from looking 
at it in the light of God. The more we find our soul, the 
more readily do we see God in the person of Jesus Christ. 
Look back upon your own life, your growth, the traces of 
Providence, the presence of God s love. Do you think that 
all this wonderful process can come to an abrupt end ? 

These are general considerations. I can only commend 
them to you. There is nothing that can be said in proof 
of this to you. Look into your own heart ; pray, and ask 
God to enlighten you. Reading will not help you ; argument 
on either side is barren. The only thing I can recommend to. 
you is the Gospel of St. John. Read it and weigh it. Con 
sider the view of life which it contains. May God bless you. 
for He alone can do so. 

* I am your sympathising brother in Christ, 


His correspondent answered thanking him earnestly, and 
saying that he would follow his advice, and later his wife 
wrote that he died three months afterwards in perfect peace 
and faith. 

To a friend who had been left a widow 

* Glenridding House, Penrith : August 17, 1897. 

* ... You must feel all the weariness and desolation you 
can before you can emerge. Think that no life which leaves 
ennobling memories has disappeared. It is there still, active 
and operative ; changed in form, working another way, but 


equally near. The limits of time and space belong only to 
our imperfection. We can transcend them even here. The 
task before you is to live into a larger and less personal world ; 
I mean a world in which sight and touch go for less, and 
feeling and impulse go for more. It is a process which we all 
have to go through. Even if there be not separation, the 
advance of years demands it equally. All whom we know 
and love have to fade from forms into influences, but become 
stronger by so doing. 

To G. H. Glenridding House: August 10, 1897. 

* It is dreadful when a man does not respect and love his 
wife ; but it is hard for anyone else to put it right. The only 
advice you or anyone can give, to a wife is to hold to her 
husband and try to improve him. Let her learn to keep her 
own temper, and in time she may succeed in turning him to a 
better way. But it is necessary that she should make him 
respect her ; she may not be able to do this by her wisdom or 
cleverness, but she can always move him by her goodness in 
the long run. To be patient, not to answer back, to do her 
best quietly these are hard things to do, but they can be 
done. . . . No good can come from leaving him. She would 
be equally unhappy, and he would grow worse. If a woman 
marries a man, it must be because she saw something in him 
once ; she must remember that and try to make it real. 

Ivrea : September 14, 1897. 

It is hard to learn how little we can do for another. It 
seems so easy to put them right ; such a little change is 
necessary ; the matter seems so easy to explain. But they 
will not listen to one s explanation, nor do what one advises. 
You have to learn that the only thing you can really do for 
another is to pray for him. You see people do not do wrong 
because they do not know what is right, but because they 
have no proper motive to do it This is the real point about 
religion. It gives a motive to do the vill of God. We all of 
us know the strength of the motive of doing the will of some 
one wiser and better than ourselves. This finds its true 
expression in doing God s will. You seem to think that if 
you were wiser, you might help others more. I doubt if this 
is really so. It is a belief in their own wisdom which leads 
them astray. They say, " Other people are foolish ; I will 
think and act for myself." It is of little use to argue with 
them. They think you are bound by vulgar prejudices. All 
you can do is to hold up the simple truth, that happiness does 
not lie in self-assertion and self-seeking, but in humble 

1897 LETTERS 255 

submission and teachableness to a higher law. You see the 
two points of view are so different that you cannot meet by 
talking. It is the little child who enters into the kingdom of 
heaven ; the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God. 
Those who will not learn cannot learn. It is not your 
wisdom but your simplicity which will help others. Yet there 
is a wisdom which we all need greater knowledge of God s 
will. Read the first chapter of the Epistle of St James, and 
you will find the use of trial (there called temptation) and the 
use of wisdom set forth. You must do what you can and 
never lose hope, and leave yourself and others to God. 

To his niece Winifred Lugano : September 10. 

Don t make efforts to write to me, but brabble on as if 
you were talking, and tell me all that you are thinking about 
You know that I want to get you to unpack yourself. We 
all begin by being vague and dreamy, and the process of life 
is to get us to see things clearly. We can never do this 
except by writing. Even talking is nothing compared to 
writing. Icfeas when put into shape stay with us, and we 
can recall them and correct them. So please write to me very 
fully about yourself. . . . Success in life means making one s 
life large. We all live in the same world, but each of us lives 
in that part of the world which we choose to make our own. 
Your danger is to live in a small world because you cannot 
take the trouble to explore. I want you to feel, and think, 
and struggle into more and more ideas. I am glad you 
enjoy Stevenson : he is a perfectly wholesome-minded writer, 
which many are not. His world is a nice world, and this 
makes all the difference. 

To C. D. Fulham Palace : April 29, 1897. 

1 1 just have time to jot down a few remarks on the 
matter of Christianity and progress. What is progress^ 
\ suppose man s adaptation of himself to his surroundings, 
growth of knowledge, industry, &c. But does that give 
happiness ? Obviously not : it makes life harder to all, to 
governors and governed alike. We find, as a matter of fact, 
that former civilisations perished because it was too trouble 
some to carry them on. The work exceeded the capacity. 
Look at Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, &c. Then Rome made a 
longer stand, but went at last Why ? Because it could not 
produce strong enough characters to do its work any longer. 

What makes progress possible ? The existence of 
resolute characters to do a nation s work. 


* What creates and maintains such characters ? Nothing: 


in the long run, but a strong ideal of the nation s destiny. 
And this ideal must be religious. There is no other form 
possible. Rome flourished so long as a simple religion made 
simple patriotism possible. It fell when its people became 
agnostics. Now any form of religion tends to degenerate in 
the multitude. The point about Christianity is that it is 
capable of infinite revivals. The Christian religion has been 
made the covering of many political projects which were not 
wise. It has never been permanently associated with them, 
but has supplied the means of overthrowing them. You say 
that only now-a-days are we beginning to know the meaning 
of justice and mercy. Men have always known : they have 
not always acted up to their knowledge. We do not do so 
yet. We talk more sentiment on these points : do we act 
up to it ? Some time ago a friend of mine said " Modern 
philanthropy is merely a refinement of selfishness : We are 
so desirous of being comfortable, that we want to make every 
body else comfortable because it diminishes our own comfort 
to think they are not so." There is much truth in this jibe. 
Look deeper, and you will see that, though moral aims are 
common to all good men, Christianity alone supplies motive 
to pursue them, which is capable of universal extension. 

* The Athenaeum : May 26, 1897. 

Every science exists to its experts as a body of truth : 
outsiders go and pick up what they want from it, as interest 
ing to them, and know that they are not experts and are not 
fit to criticise the system. 

4 But in theological matters every outsider asserts that 
what fits him is the whole system, and denounces any 
scientific system at all i.e. he does not admit that theology 
is concerned with truth, but with the satisfaction of his 
particular needs. 

The orthodox theologian is really the same as the expert 
in any other science. No other science so directly touches 
human life ; therefore the truth has a greater risk of being 
dissolved to suit fashion. 

If Jesus was not God, Christianity is not a religion, but 
a contribution to moral philosophy. It is in this latter way 
that it appeals to you. But mankind want a religion : and 
it is as a religion that Christianity works in the world. 

Moral philosophy bids us make the best of ourself, prefer 
the higher to the lower, love virtue, c. Religion tells how 
we can see God, be helped by Him, resign our life to Him, 

1897 LETTERS 257 

trust in Him because we believe in an eternal life with Him. 
This life with God is made certain to a Christian because 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unveiled on earth the human 
life of God. 

* You tend to draw a vast distinction between the divine 
and the human. The Incarnation declares that the distinc 
tion is not insuperable. And this is the most important 
practical point. Think it out, consider the difference between 
saying " I wish to be a very good man," and " I wish to be 
like God." The Unitarian says the first, the Christian says 
the last. But the motives appealed to are worlds apart. 

Faido, Italy: August 30, 1897. 

4 I cannot answer your arguments. I can rarely under 
take to answer anyone. It is quite natural for us to approach 
any subject for the purpose of receiving individual satis 
faction, and to reject with scorn everything that does not fit 
ourselves. Christianity is a series of principles. I cannot 
defend entirely any form of organisation which has endea 
voured to set them forth. I notice failures serious and 
damaging. But then, liberty is a principle, and I notice far 
more grievous failures in every system which has claimed to 
set forth liberty. The Christian Church may have been 
inadequate, but it has always maintained Christianity : insti 
tutions established to maintain liberty generally in fifty 
years time have maintained the opposite. There is always 
a charm in the critic who points out inconsistencies. But if 
he remains there, he is merely a parasite. Parasites have 
their use no doubt, but they have no separate existence. 
The sceptic has his use, but it all springs from the system 
which he criticises. So long as he is a critic, he is bound to 
show that he can do as well as those whom he criticises. 
But if he were to succeed in criticising them out of existence, 
where would he be ? 

* Our individual life consists in the consciousness of a pur 
pose : this consciousness cannot go far unless it reaches to a 
divine purpose, which runs through the universe. Those who 
proclaim such a purpose, and hold to it, are miles above those 
who have it not : even though the first fail to appreciate the 
responsibility of their knowledge, while the second supply 
their defects. The reason is that the first uphold an abso 
lutely necessary truth, on which individual happiness and 
human progress alike depend : the second do useful work, of 
a mechanical kind, in their day and generation, but have no 
outlook and produce no abiding results. The history of the 
Christian Church is a singular instance of this. Its strength 

VOL. n. s 


in early days lay in the fact that there was a body of men 
who had a conception of life and character, which conception 
was a bond of unity between them. The Church grew into 
power because there was no other basis which could bind 
men together. Yet Marcus Aurelius, Marcus Antoninus and 
Julian were probably much more admirable men than the 
mass of contemporary bishops. They uttered nobler senti 
ments, they behaved in an exemplary manner : but there was 
no motive which they could communicate to others ; no 
power which they could infuse into society. At the present 
day there are numbers of men like them ; but " the least in 
the kingdom of heaven are greater than they." You say truly 
that they are not happy. They are working for results which 
they know they cannot obtain. More and more they grimly 
do their duty both the sense of duty and the definition of 
its contents coming to them from Christianity. They have 
a horrible feeling of insecurity ; for if they turned their 
scepticism against this sense of duty, as they have done 
against Christianity, duty would go at once. 

Religion consists in a knowledge of a divine purpose in 
the world : Christianity is a grasp of this purpose applied to 
our own life. Will you read with an open mind Psalm 100, 
Psalm 146, and the Te Deum in this order, and I think you 
will see, if you meditate, how absolutely they set forth the 
secret of happiness and of effort in a progressive way. 

I feel that if I were to demand individual satisfaction in 
life, there would be an end of all things. I was born into 
certain surroundings, I begin from them, I strive to under 
stand them and realise their full meaning. I do not yet feel 
capable of using all that men before me have acquired : my 
own contribution to their labours is infinitely small. If, in 
stead of this mental attitude, I took myself as I was thirty 
years ago, and made that self the measure by which every 
thing was to be tested, I quail to think of the results. It is 
quite true that all men are fools, but then I am a man my 
self, and as such a fool. I cannot exempt myself from the 
universal experience of my predecessors. I cannot waive 
away all the teaching of history : I cannot undertake to re 
construct human society, human knowledge, and human 

There has always been this " Sturm und Drang " : it is 
in many cases a phase. But in England of the present day, 
indeed in the world at large, it is a positive malady. There 
is too much liberty of thought and speech and action. By 
" too much I mean more than people know how to use. 
There is no sense of discipline and little sense of responsi- 

1897 LETTERS 259 

bility. If a man says"! think so-and-so," sometimes I am 
inclined to say, " Friend, what right have you to think at all 
about such matters ? You seem to hold that the statement 
that you have gone through a process, which you are pleased 
to call thinking, gives an inherent value to the results which 
you are good enough to state." 

Frankly, we have gained a notion of liberty which has 
no contents. We live in a perfect bacchanalia of nonsense. 
The great question of the future is the discipline of liberty. 
But remember that to live for God is to live for man. But 
what is meant by living for man in that formula ? Most 
people seem to mean the provision of armchairs for the 
intelligent artisan. I distinctly mean the setting forth of the 
truth about man s life, man s character, and man s destiny. 
Armchairs will bring no lasting happiness either to him who 
receives or him who provides them. But to quicken any 
human being into a sense of the meaning of his life and 
destiny this is the one source of real happiness for us all. 

* There, I have written you a useless letter. You will say 
it is clever, but unsatisfactory. God forgive me for not being 
a better man, and so more able to speak out His truth. God 
bless you, my dear. If you only ask Him, He will teach 

Fulham Palace : October 13, 1897. 

1 Your frame of mind is right. The question is how to 
get hold for oneself of the principles and motives of the 
spiritual life. General considerations about how everyone 
else ought to do so, do not do much towards helping oneself. 
It is part of the modern craze to set society right, instead of 
setting oneself right. So long as one bears one s own life in 
one s hands, the burden grows intolerable. It is only by 
seeing that life as part of a universal life that peace is found. 
And the life of man is set forth in the Life of Jesus, who gives 
His Spirit and His Life to those who seek it. He gives 
little by little as we are able to receive. We must make 
room for Him : all lies in that. We do not so much want 
opinions about life there are plenty of them but an object 
and a motive. If once you grasp this truth, the answer 
comes of itself. It is not we who find out God : He finds us 
out. ... I am at the grindstone again, but I am trying not 
to be so close to it. 

To the Bishop of Colombo (Dr. Copleston) 

1 Fulham : November 3, 1897. 

My dear Bishop, ... I quite agree with you about 
the distinction between visible unity and structural unity. 



I hold that nations with their diversities of temperament, 
institutions and customs are part of that divine order which 
is revealed in the facts of human history. But, then, the 
English mind is as yet under the bondage of the iron system 
of the Western Church, and still hankers after uniformity. 
We shall get on gradually, but we need your help with your 
Imperial ideas. I stick them in whenever I have a chance, 
but I cannot say that they are yet popular. We must get 
on slowly. 

To Mr. J. Terry Fulham Palace: December 31, 1897. 

Dear Sir, The question of the authorship of Shakspere s 
plays cannot well be discussed by itself. It is part of another 
question. Can we at the present day hope to go behind the 
belief of persons who were contemporary? If so, on what 
evidence ? 

* The theory that Bacon wrote Shakspere s plays depends 
on the following prejudice : 

Shakspere s plays are the greatest works in the English 
language. Therefore they must have been written by a very 
distinguished man : but Shakspere was a common man with 
out great learning, therefore they were not written by him. 
Bacon was the most distinguished man of that time ; there 
fore they were written by Bacon. 

Starting from this theory, it only needs a little ingenuity 
to discover anagrams ; but Donnelly s theory of anagrams has 
been refuted by a clergyman near Stratford, whose name 
I forget. A little more ingenuity on the other side is always 

But we have some positive evidence, which is in anyone s 
power to appreciate. Read Bacon s essay on " Love " and 
then read " Romeo and Juliet." It is a question of common 
sense if a man who could be so frigid when he wrote under 
his own name, could be so impassioned when he wrote under 
another name. 

* Really the question is one of the nature of poetic imagi 
nation. The poet does not need learning, but quick percep 
tion. The knowledge shown in Shakspere s plays is that of 
the artist, not of the man of science. The poet reproduces 
what he sees ; the man of science analyses what he observes. 
The poet could not write science, nor the man of science 

I do not see any reason for trying to explain away 
Shakspere s authorship 



THE spirit in which the Bishop approached his work is shown 
by a letter to a former Leicester incumbent. 

To the Rev. E. Grose Hodge Fulham Place : February 3, 1897. 

My dear Hodge. You are the only one of my parochial 
clergy whom I really know, and you know something at least 
of the spirit in which I try to do the difficult work of a Bishop 
in the Church of England as it is at this day. Those difficu- 
ties are at their height in London, and you know that I have 
no belief in my exclusive possession of wisdom. But you 
also know that my sympathies are genuinely with every form 
of opinion, and that my object is to bring them all into close 
union, without asking them to compromise, but only to be 
large-hearted. Differences do not matter, but the way in 
which we express them. 

From the first he saw that his path would be beset with 
difficulties. The conditions of London, which is always the 
home of free lances, had fostered the growth of every kind 
of eccentricity and exuberant individualism, whilst the sense 
of the unity of the Church had been largely lost sight of. 

Dr. Creighton s position is best defined by his own words 
in a letter to one of his clergy : You know that my wish is 
to maintain the widest possible liberty compatible with the 
existence of the Church of England as a distinct branch of 
the Catholic Church. Its position is defined in the Prayer 
Book : and the services there contained must not be resolved 
into other services even of a similar type ; and again : I 
have a very strong opinion of the magnificent position of the 
Church of England, which we never realise and refuse to 
understand and make imperative through our littleness of 
mind : I would rejoice if I could do anything to bring us 
into such a line and order as would enable us to do the work 
which God has entrusted to us. 


He explained to his diocesan conference in 1898 his 
conception of his relation to his clergy. 

* There is one thing which I should like to say as regards 
my conception of the Episcopal office. It is that all the 
clergy of this Diocese are alike the objects of my personal 
concern and my personal care, however mistaken I may think 
them to be in some points, and whether I personally agree 
with them or not. Those are not the questions which, in the 
first instance, it is for me to ask myself. 

He thus expressed what he felt about the position of a 
bishop : The root of episcopal authority is the need of 
preserving unity between various congregations. This was 
its original purpose. Each clergyman may have his own 
view about what is good for his own people. The bishop 
has to consider what is good for the whole Church. He told 
his first diocesan conference that, though new as a bishop of 
London, he was not new as a bishop, and that he did not mind 
telling them a line of policy he had found wise to adopt 
never to give orders that you believe will not be obeyed. 

* My chief duty, he said, * at present is, I feel, one of quiet 
observation. But I must withdraw that epithet and substitute 
another for it it is one of unquiet observation ; for quietness 
is not an attribute which is possible for a bishop of London. 
I can only assure you that I try to think, when I have a few 
minutes to spare for that purpose ; and that what time is 
over from answering questions in the course of the day I try 
to devote to asking questions for my own information . . . 
not being by nature or training a believer in government by 
means of happy thoughts, I prefer not to construct policies, 
nor to give utterance to my intentions, until I have had ample 
means of studying the details of various questions. However, 
one thing at least I should like to say, which is, that in 
nothing whatever am I wedded to my own ways of doing 
anything ; and that my one desire is that the course which is 
pursued may be the largest, the wisest and the best. 

What the Bishop did ask of his clergy as troubles and 
perplexities increased, was that they should trust him, and be 
ready to be guided by him, because his position enabled him 
to see the wisest course to take, in a way impossible to those 
whose outlook was not so extensive. 

His purpose to deal quietly with the irregularities in his 


diocese was, of course, not understood. He was accused of 
contemptuous indifference, of masterly inactivity tempered 
by epigram, when clear and outspoken guidance was ex 
pected. But he knew the nature of the task before him, he 
could see the pitfalls on every side, and had sufficient strength, 
to use his own words, to screw his head on tight/ and pur 
sue his object untroubled by hostile criticism. But he much 
disliked the publicity which attached itself to his smallest act, 
and the way in which his letters were printed without his 
permission. He writes, I mark my letters private, because 
everything which I write seems to be published, in a way 
which almost destroys confidential communication ; and 
again, It is worth while noting that the difficulty of a bishop 
of London in dealing in a friendly way with his clergy is 
enormous. If he writes a letter, it is at once forwarded to the 
E.C.U. office, is filed for everyone to see, and he is said to 
have sanctioned universally something which in a particular 
case he is prepared to overlook. If he has a friendly talk, it 
is at once misrepresented in any form from which most capital 
may be made. 

The temper 1 with which church difficulties were met 
often called out his severest censure. 

The perpetual difficulty of all things in England is that 
each individual Englishman is profoundly convinced that he 
alone is right ; and consequently he is determined to have 
his own way. Having arrived at this conclusion, he picks up 
any statement which enables him to express himself forcibly, 
and I believe he calls this an argument I am never sure 
that I am intelligent enough to understand a man s intel 
lectual position ; but I think it possible to appreciate his 
temper and the moral qualities which lie beneath his utter 

It is the curse of this diocese, and of this present time, 
that everyone is labelled and thrust into the terms of some 
party ... I know no shibboleths, and my one desire is to get 
all things into proportion and judge them by inevitable 
principles of thought, religious, intellectual, social. I always 
have before my eyes the advice of Gamaliel, and I am 
convinced that the purposes of God are not to be wrought by 
the wrath of man. 

He was convinced that many difficulties would disappear, 


if only the right temper were shown by the clergy. Speak 
ing to a ruri-decanal conference in 1897, he said : 

The clergy are often to blame, because in practice they 
fail to set forth the spiritual side of the Christian life. They 
too often adopt the world s way of looking at things. Let 
the clergy give up looking for outward signs of success, and 
competing one with another. To the laity they often appear 
to be " running a church as a man runs a business 
concern. . . . Again there is a popular opinion, not ill founded, 
that the clergy wish to lord it over their people, and a feeling 
that the " ecclesiastical temper " is incompatible with modern 
ideas of liberty. " The unworthy clergy " are not only the 
immoral and drunken, but also % the insolent, arrogant and 
self-asserting men, who will have their own way in 

He was always careful not to raise unnecessary ques 
tions, or to give an opening for criticism ; and at the same 
time most anxious to understand the point of view of those 
who differed from him, and to talk over things with his clergy. 
He never forgot a principle of his own, * You have to deal 
with a person as he is, not as you would like him to be. 
Very many of his clergy, many even from whom he most 
differed in opinion, quickly learnt to love and trust him as 
a friend. He was ever ready to give an encouraging word, 
and to show that he had noticed and appreciated devoted 

When the Bishop first went to London his suffragans were 
Dr. Earle, Bishop of Marlborough, and Dr. G. F. Browne, 
Bishop of Stepney, whilst Bishop Barry, then vicar of St. 
James , Piccadilly, acted as assistant bishop. When at the 
end of 1897 Dr. G. F. Browne became Bishop of Bristol, the 
Rev. A. F. Winnington Ingram succeeded him as Bishop of 
Stepney. In 1898 Dr. Creighton was able to present the Rev. 
C. H. Turner to the living of St. Andrew Undershaft, and at 
the same time make him a new suffragan, with the title of 
Bishop of Islington; and when in 1900 the Bishop of Marl- 
borough became Dean of Exeter, the Bishop chose Dr. 
F. E. Ridgeway to succeed him, with the more suitable title 
of Bishop of Kensington. Each of his suffragans worked in 
a special district, but the Bishop did not in any definite way 
make over to them the charge of their district. He tried 


himself to go as much as possible to every part of his diocese 
and be in touch with all his clergy. He saw his suffragans 
and archdeacons frequently. I wish/ he wrote, for the 
fullest and most intimate relations with all my officials. He 
asked their advice on all matters connected with appointments, 
which in a diocese like London have special difficulties. 
The principles which guided him in such matters are shown 
in the following letters : 

To Archdeacon Sinclair March 22, 1899. 

Some of the prebendaries of the Cathedral ought to be 
taken from men who have leisure to attend its services and 
love it, and are interested in it. I like the thought of the 
Cathedral being the bond which binds the aged to the 

May 23, 1900. 

Dear Canon McCormick, The patronage of the bishop 
of London is made very difficult by the circumstances of the 
diocese. There are twice as many curates as incumbents . . . 
Generally speaking a man is not considered eligible for 
preferment till he has been sixteen years in Orders, and has 
worked at least nine or ten years in the diocese. 

I have to look to private patrons, the Crown and trustees 
to bring in new blood. But I feel that the curates are left to 
my care. 

Brief and to the point were his judgments on the men 
brought under his notice for possible preferment by his 
archdeacons and others. * A. is never quiet, he only wishes to 
have a chance of telling you and me what a great man he 
is. I have a great regard for B., he is a very sensible 
and nice-minded man, thoroughly zealous, but not showy. 
It has always seemed to me that C. is so much occupied 
in maintaining his own dignity that he had no time for much 
else. A man who can rejoice heartily at the success of a 
subordinate has greater qualities than if he succeeded 
himself. D. is a difficult man to work with, and is lazy and 
slovenly in some things. But his utterances are pathetic. 
E. is not a bad fellow, but conceited and feather-headed. A 
period of retreat would be good for him. 

He regretted that the size of his Ordinations made it 
difficult for him to see much of the candidates individually, 


but he always managed to know something about them all. 
How he struck them is shown by the following extract out of 
a letter from one whom he had ordained, to his father : 

* During my days at Fulham I was deeply impressed and 
delighted with the splendid agility and keenness of his intellect, 
as manifested, for instance, by the way he summed up two 
debates, piercing unerringly, and with the joy of the true 
logician, down to the roots of the subject. But far deeper 
than that is my impression of his qualities of heart and spirit, 
as evidenced first at the closing address in chapel, and then 
at the ordination itself. At both of them it struck me that 
he was the most moved man present. He spoke from his 
heart sitting in his chair in the almost dark chapel, and I 
for one will always remember his words. And yet this 
was his ordinary routine work ! But, in fact, his ideal of the 
life of a clergyman was boundlessly high, and when he spoke 
of it to those who were just assuming it, his voice had in it 
the sternness and the tenderness of a prophet I believe him 
to have been one of the kingliest of men. I had two personal 
interviews with him ; he took one s hand in both of his, and 
his voice grew kind and tender. He knelt down with me in 
his room, and committed me to God, a prayer from his heart, 
not a book. 

The days before the Ordination were arranged in the 
same way as at Peterborough. But the candidates had to be 
dismissed on the Saturday evening, otherwise it would have 
been difficult for them all to get to St. Paul s Cathedral in 
time for the Ordination Service. The custom had been for 
them to scatter directly after the service, but the Bishop 
arranged a lunch for them at the Chapter House, where he 
could meet them once more and say good-bye to them. 

His chaplains were the two archdeacons, the Rev. H. E. 
Bevan, and the Rev. VV. Murdoch Johuston, who had filled the 
same office under his predecessor, and the Rev. C. Bigg, D.D. 
and the Rev. A. T. Lyttelton, who had been his chaplains at 
Peterborough. When Mr. Lyttelton resigned on becoming 
Bishop of Southampton, Prebendary Covington succeeded 
him. The Bishop supported his chaplains in trying to keep 
up a high standard, in spite of the murmurs of incumbents, 
* It must be understood that the examination is a reality, he 
wrote ; * I agree with you that congregations cannot fail to 
consider it discreditable that those who undertake to teach 


them will not undertake to learn. To some criticisms on the 
preparation of candidates he replied : 

January 7, 1900. 

* I think Mr. does not know the facts about other 

bodies ; they are infinitely more shocking. In the Greek 
Church the majority of the priests are quite ignorant of 
theology. In the Roman Church the results of the seminary 
system [are] that a large proportion are really agnostics or 
unbelievers, but cannot practically escape, as they have been 
paid for, and have no other opening in life, and dare not go 
home to poor parents. 

No system can be perfect : but ours is at least as good 
as any other : better in that it throws all the responsibility 
on the individual. Can we do more ? 

People make an ideal of the Roman system. I wish 
they knew its real working. 

A curate in any difficulties with his incumbent might be 
sure of having his case carefully considered by the Bishop : 

4 He deemed it his own proper province to adjust the diffi 
culty, grudging neither time nor trouble to the work of pacifi 
cation. He generally insisted upon drastic measures, avoiding 
the compromises by which a weaker man would be tempted 
to heal the wound slightly. He made the bishop s part in a 
curate s licence a much greater reality than it had been before. 
He distinctly discouraged a hasty licence. But when once 
the curate was licensed, both incumbent and curate were 
made to feel that the Bishop was party to their engagement, 
and must be consulted before it could be dissolved. This, of 
course, has always been the legal position, but the bishops 
have been very reluctant to exercise their powers, and it 
needed the courage of Bishop Creighton to refuse permission 
to an incumbent to give his curate six months notice. But 
while ready to uphold the rights of the curate, the Bishop 
was equally decided in not allowing him to invade the 
province in which the incumbent was responsible. He said 
emphatically to the incumbent, " You are responsible for the 
manner in which the services are to be conducted. The 
congregation ought not to be distracted by various uses. It 
is your duty to give directions and to insist upon their being 

In the opinion of the public it might seem that the chief 
question before the Church in these years was the dispute 

1 From an article by Canon Whitworth in the Church Quarterly. 


about ritual. But though this naturally occupied the 
serious attention of the Bishop, the regular work and interests 
of the diocese were never neglected. Above all, he felt the 
need for strengthening the spiritual agencies in London, and 
for this the great means was the Bishop of London s Fund, 
started in 1863 by Dr. Tait He said, I do not think we 
sufficiently understand what an absolutely unique problem 
London presents. . . . We are facing conditions and circum 
stances which have never before existed in the history of the 
world. At one of the annual meetings for the Fund he said 
that he would like to organise expeditions in brakes to show 
dwellers in the West End something of the London which 
surrounded them. London means a great many different 
things to different people, but to the Fund I apprehend 
London very much means those endless rows of little houses, 
all exactly alike, which go on growing like mushrooms, so 
that when you go to a place where you have not been for a 
few months, you see an entire change in the whole district 
For the people who came up to London from the country, or 
who moved from the centre to the suburbs, there could be 
nothing worse than to find themselves in a " No-Man s land." 
The constant growth of a ring round London of spiritually 
desolate and deserted places would be a great menace; to 
prevent this is the work of the Bishop of London s Fund. . . . 
All who live in London must recognise their responsibility 
to help in the work. He wanted to prevail upon the laity 
to relieve the clergy from the toil of constant begging 
needed to plant a church in a new district. It is rather hard 
for a young clergyman who is filled with the zeal for saving 
souls that he should be required to have in addition the 
qualifications of a commercial traveller. He has to have a 
brazen face when asking for money, a talent for writing 
begging letters, and determination enough never to meet any 
body in the street without preferring an appeal. This is not 
the sort of thing which should be expected of a clergyman. 

He always tried to win interest for that outer ring of new 
suburbs which sprang up with such alarming rapidity on the 
west and north. The need of the East End had been realised 
but few were aware of the desolation of the far west and of 
the north. 


Like others he felt the attraction of the East End. 
Speaking for the East London Church Fund, in 1897, he said : 

* What strikes me is that there is so much more life in 
the East End than in the West End, there is none of the re 
spectable dulness which characterises other parts of London. 
Eastenders are to a great extent children of nature, they are 
frank, free, open, above all responsive. Their interests are 
keen, they are animated by a genuine joy in life, and by the 
desire to get the most out of it they can. ... I am also 
struck by the extreme geniality and cheerfulness of the East- 
End clergy. . . . Nobody can achieve anything by going 
about with a long face. There is all the difference in the 
world between the man whom you feel you could slap on 
the back if you felt so disposed and the man whom you 
could not slap on the back in any circumstances whatever ; 
and the clergy in the East End are all men whom you can 
slap on the back. The work must go on slowly, we cannot 
quickly make up arrears in spiritual things. There are many 
who say that spiritual agencies are ceasing to influence the 
people as much as they did in past times. I do not believe 
it in the least. I do not believe that there ever was a time 
in the history of England when the general principles of 
religion had a stronger hold on the people as a mass ... to 
my mind the Church is the chief power which will mould the 
England of the future. 

He delighted in an East End meeting, with its alive 
and responsive audience, and loved the crowds of children 
who waited for him round his carriage when he came out 
from preaching or speaking, and would speak to them and 
shake as many little eager outstretched hands as possible. 

Very different opinions were held about his preaching. 
There were those who would rather hear him than anyone 
else, others who thought that it was as a preacher he shone 
least He was not what would be called a popular preacher, 
But, as was said of him, he compelled men s attention by 
making them see that he had something to tell them. Busi 
ness men especially liked to hear him. His own belief in the 
mission of the nation and its intimate connexion with the 
religion of the nation never failed to show itself. In these 
later years he dwelt much on the prophetic books of the 
Bible ; many of the texts of his sermons were taken from them, 
and he deeply felt their bearing upon modern life. Preaching 


at the consecration of St Gabriel s Church, Willesden, in 
1 897, he said : 

A nation must have a duty and a responsibility. Yet 
the prophets show us a nation who are constantly setting 
aside the higher forms of life, and making a great rejection 
of what they know to be their eternal destiny. . . . There is 
an appalling similarity between life then and the life of the 
English people. We, too, feel the force of the prophet s 
reproof, and we ask " What can I do in my day and genera 
tion for this people from whom I spring, for this nation 
founded on a sense of liberty which it is its mission to pass 
on to the world ? We, too, are on our trial. Isaiah pictures 
a civilisation tottering to decay. We must not think that life 
was different then from what it is at present Everything 
went on then pretty much as now. There was to be a down 
fall, but it would not be complete ; there was to be a restora 
tion, but it could only be found in the right way. There was 
God, and God was not to be known except by those who 
walked in the right way, distinct and clear through the world. 
But from that great broad highway people are always wan 
dering and they have to come back to it. 

He enjoyed preaching at Lincoln s Inn or the Temple. 

To the Master of the Temple < London House : March 1 8, 1898. 

Dear Ainger, Wearied as I am of preaching, I enjoyed 
the opportunity of speaking once in a way to an educated 
congregation where I could use the words that came into 
my head, and had not to translate them into simple forms. 
How beautiful the Temple Church is ! I enjoyed hearing a 
fine anthem of Pergolesi. Elsewhere I am persecuted with 
Stainer, &c. 

The fact that so many religious communities have their 
centre in London brought him into close contact with Sisters 
and their work ; and his relations with them were most 
friendly. He was a member of the Committee on Communi 
ties appointed by the Lambeth Conference. 

The results of his experience are shown by the following 
criticisms on the constitution of a new sisterhood : 

* Generally I think you have given too great power to the 
warden, whose office ought not to contain anything that 
affects initiative of new work or interference with the execu 
tive, which I would advise you to reserve to the superior. 


The community should be self-governing. You invite 
a warden to help you on the lines which you have laid down : 
there is no need that he should have any power to alter or 
direct them. He is your spiritual officer, let him have in 
fluence, not power, within your constitution. 

But I feel strongly that the office of visitor ought to be 
in accordance with ancient precedent. I see some of the 
suggestions indicate a jealousy of the visitor. This is the 
bad point about sisterhoods. They want to be absolutely 
independent, obedient only to their own will. Such a claim 
is entirely unworthy. We must all work in obedience and 
cannot afford to do without it. But observe, the obedience 
is only to your constitution. The office of visitor is merely 
that of guardian and interpreter of the statutes. He has no 
power of interference. He has merely to pronounce if you 
are keeping your own laws. The proposal to depose him if 
you do not like him is subversive of all rule. He is your 
judge chosen by yourselves : he must be for life, and must 
be independent of your will. He must have a veto on change 
of the constitution in important matters : for by undertaking 
the post he gives a guarantee to the general public of your 
object and your methods. You must not use him and then 
throw him away when you are started. A bishop is already 
visitor of many institutions, he is not likely to interfere unless 
there is strong cause. The fear is of too little rather than too 
much. 5 

July 17, 1900. 

1 1 think that great ignorance prevails about the office of 
visitor. No office is more strictly defined and formal. He is 
merely the person to whom recourse is to be made for a 
judicial decision as to the meaning of the statutes in case of 
difference. His sole duty is to see that the statutes are 
observed. No society can exist without such an officer. It 
otherwise ends in anarchy. 

* I may say of myself that I have had an increasing 
amount of work to do in reference to communities. It is not 
too much to say that I stand in intimate connexion with 
them all in the diocese. The superiors frequently consult me 
about all sorts of matters. This arises from the way in 
which I am known to exercise my visitorial office. I think 
that I have now established a series of precedents which have 
put this point on a regular basis. What communities suffer 
from is unauthorised intervention from outside. This can 
only be met by immediate reference to the visitor. Commu 
nities now find this a real advantage. My letters this morning 
contain two grateful acknowledgments from two superiors 


of the settlement by me of two awkward disputes. I have 
always found it easy to settle matters by accurate reference 
to the rule. Without such an authority existing there is no 
possibility of orderly government 

With the St. Andrew s Deaconess House, which trained 
deaconesses for work in the London Diocese, his relations 
were naturally specially close. The deaconesses dwell on his 
fatherly tenderness, and look back to the five visits which he 
paid their house as sacred memories. They write, To see 
him seated, with our little sanctuary as a background, vested 
in cope and mitre, and to hear him speak then, suggested a 
vision out of the Apocalypse. It was a glory of spiritual and 
mental and physical richness of colour that filled the heart 
with a sense of completeness, seldom experienced in life as 
we know it. Who would have thought (though we knew it) 
that he had come in out of the midst of an almost incessant 
round of turmoil, and was just going out into the midst of it 
again ? . . . When he appeared among us in the community 
room, after his duties were over, we were very apt to forget the 
bishop, and think of \htfather whom we loved and feared not. 

In 1900 he was much consulted by Mrs. Ruspini with 
regard to the rules of a new order of rescue workers, which he 
named * The Order of Divine Compassion, and its members 
venerate his memory as their founder. His views about a 
community life are shown in the following letter : 

* Fulham Palace : January 26, 1899. 

4 Dear Sir,- -The object of the Christian endeavour is to 
lead a life devoted to God s service. How the individual can 
best do this is a matter which he has to settle with God s 
help. Community life is one mode of settling the question 
by the acceptance of a definite rule. But anyone who 
accepts it must accept it without the smallest doubt that it is 
the best thing for him. 

1 It cannot be said that obedience to another is in itself 
desirable. But it is obvious that it is necessary for a 

The object of entering a community is to simplify life by 
accepting limitations. But you must be sure that these 
limitations are such as will enable you to work better i.e. 
more freely, more at your ease, because you have others to 
settle many things for you. 


* If you think that you would find this irksome, that it is 
not the way in which you could work best, then you ought 
not to decide to undertake the obligation. 

A specially troublesome part of his work was connected 
with the supervision of the Continental chaplaincies ; all those 
in Northern Europe are under the bishop of London as 
diocesan. He was assisted in this work by Bishop Wilkinson 
as suffragan, but difficulties of all kinds were constantly 
referred to him, and caused much correspondence. 

He was always a peacemaker, and much of his time and 
thought was given to composing differences and settling 
questions which, except for his intervention, might have had 
to come before a court of law. His legal secretary, Mr. Harry 
Lee, writes : 

His singularly lucid grasp of all business matters, and 
the ease with which he mastered legal details, often of 
a most complex kind, was, in one who had not in the 
strict sense of the word had a legal training, most striking. 
He established a kind of tribunal in the diocese in which he 
sat as judge, assisted sometimes by his chancellor, for the 
purpose of deciding disputes on all kinds of matters between 
the clergy and others of the diocese. These hearings were 
conducted on the strict lines of the law courts, the parties 
represented by solicitor and counsel, witnesses called, and 
evidence taken in the most formal fashion, and there is not 
the least doubt that in many cases disputes of a painful 
character were in this way judicially and satisfactorily 
settled without the scandal of publication in the law courts or 
newspapers, where they must otherwise have drifted ; of 
course the hearing was in each case preceded by a formal 
submission of both parties to the Bishop s decision, and an 
undertaking given that the matter should not be re-opened in 
the law courts. Apart from cases where legal forms were 
involved, one could not fail to be struck by the enormous 
fund of common sense and world-wisdom which the Bishop 
brought to bear upon the ordinary daily matters that were 
referred to him for decision/ 

In 1899 he was called upon to judge a long-standing dis 
pute between the pastor and the consistory of the French 
Reformed Church in London. This church had been founded 
in 155) an d the Bishop of London had certain powers over 
it as visitor. The points in question involved careful 



consideration of the past history of the church, into the details 
of which the Bishop entered with the greatest care and patience. 
Probably nothing was so exhausting both to mind and 
heart as the number of decisions which he had to give every 
day, sometimes on trivial matters, often on subjects of far- 
reaching importance to individuals and to the Church. His 
daily letters would bring before him the complaints of 
discontented parishioners, quarrels between clergy, between 
incumbents and curates, questions concerning promotions, the 
exchange of livings, the boundaries of parishes, criticisms 
from members of congregations on the sermons heard or the 
hymns sung in the service, marriage questions, matters 
concerning education, sisterhoods, fees ; then there would 
come a letter from a working-man asking him to explain the 
first chapter of Genesis. It seemed often as if his work were 
concerned with the infinitely little, as if he came in contact 
only with the troublesome and the busybodies, so that 
neither time nor energy was left to consider really great ques 
tions, or to hearten those who were doing the real work of 
the diocese. Many of the best of his clergy felt that 
they could help him most by keeping out of his way, and 
avoiding writing to him or coming to see him. The follow 
ing letters show how he dealt with some of the questions 
which were brought before him ; but most difficulties were 
settled at interviews : 

Memorandum on a complaint sent him that persons had been refused Com 
munion in a certain church, because they would not make their confession 


Fulham: March 2, 1897. 

* I enclose a rescript which you may send Mr. for 

transmission to the proper source. 

c The grounds on which a clergyman may refuse Holy 
Communion to a parishioner are laid down in the rubric 
before the Communion Office. These grounds in each case 
require public notoriety of the offence for which the refusal 
is made. 

4 It is not in a clergyman s power to use his duty of ad 
ministering the Holy Communion as a means of enforcing 
his own ideas of ecclesiastical discipline. He may advise 
such form of preparation as he thinks best ; he can enforce 
none ; the exact method of preparation is left by the Church 
of England to the individual conscience. 


* Refusal of Holy Communion is a judicial decision pro 
nounced on the character of the person to whom it is refused. 
In each case the clergyman is bound to inform the Ordinary, 
who is the real judge. The power of the individual clergy 
man is merely suspensory, pending a proper decision. 

* Any form of excommunication is a charge that the 
person excommunicated is a " notorious evil-liver." Such a 
charge can be brought before the cognisance of a civil court : 
if it cannot be fully proved, it is a libel. 

In answer to a question about the re-marriage of divorced persons. 

Fulham Palace : November 23, 1897. 

The advice which I always give in the case of re-marriage 
of a divorced person is this. Inasmuch as it is legal, in the 
case of the innocent person the Church leaves it to his or her 
conscience to decide. But the Church Service is drawn up 
for normal and not for abnormal cases. It is undesirable to 
use it in abnormal cases, to which it does not strictly apply. 
The civil contract should suffice. 

* I admit that in this case the re-marriage of the guilty 
husband leaves the wife practically a widow. You might 
hold this view and regard her as such. But this would not 
be known generally, and all such marriages in church create 

* I can only lay down certain general principles and leave 
the decision to your discretion with a fuller knowledge of 
the circumstances. 

To Dr. Wilkinson (Assistant Bishop in Northern and Central Europe), 
about the relations of Anglicans with other Christian communities on the 
Continent. ) 

January 23, 1897. 

1 My dear Bishop, I will tell you briefly my views on the 
question you ask, which I admit is difficult without definite 
principles of interpretation. 

The Prayer Book and its services represent they could 
not do otherwise the normal procedure of the Church to 
wards its own children. They set forth the ecclesiastical 
course of the Christian life. They do not contemplate the 
existence of nonconformists at home, or of other religious 
bodies abroad. 

The application of them in these cases is difficult. There 
are two main classes to be considered : 

(i) Those brought up as nonconformists, who wish to 
join the Church, but do not see the necessity for Confirma 

T 2 


(2) Those who for a time wish to use the Church 
Services without any present intention of joining her. 

Your question, I take it, concerns this latter class. 

The decision will depend on the place we make in 
ecclesiastical organisation for Christian courtesy. How 
ought we to recognise this undoubted virtue ? Is it not the 
point from which we ought to start in working for union ? 
It seems to me that our relations to the Eastern and the 
Western Church are different owing to their different atti 
tudes on this point. The Roman Church is discourteous : 
the Greek Church is courteous. We are freer and broader 
than either, and can go further. An Anglican wishes to 
communicate, without ceasing to be an Anglican, with either 
East or West. He sees no insuperable difficulties in the way. 
He practically asks that the settlement of his own ecclesiasti 
cal position be left to himself, but that it be courteously 
recognised by other bodies, without any departure on their 
side from their own basis. This is the first step towards 
reunion. Now are we to ask and not give? We have 
never declared against Lutherans and Presbyterians. Their 
system differs from ours, and we do not agree with it. But if 
a Lutheran or a Presbyterian is in a position where he can 
only attend our services, where he does so and where he 
wishes to be a communicant, I am in favour of admitting 
him as a matter of courtesy. We are not responsible for him, 
but we may allow him to use our services on his own 
responsibility. This does not affect our discipline to our own 
people and does not come under the Rubric at all. It 
is an exceptional case which altered circumstances have 

* I may say that this was the opinion of the late Arch 
bishop, 1 with whom I talked on this subject. I should be 
very glad if you could take the same view, as I believe that 
the establishment of this principle would be a real help in 
our dealings with other Communions. 

On the same subject 

May 20, 1899. 

* It is a question of Christian courtesy, and has to be 
decided by consideration of the position of the Church of 
England. We are not a proselytising body : we do not 
claim that salvation is only possible within our system. We 
have our system and our discipline for our own people. The 
question is, Do we stand aloof from all others ? This cannot 

1 Dr. Benson, 


be settled by individual priests. It is a matter for the 
bishops. It has been frequently discussed by them. I have 
heard the opinion of Archbishop Benson and of the present 
Archbishop. They agreed and so do I that the Church of 
England may allow its services to be used by members of 
other communions at their own responsibility, as a matter of 
Christian courtesy, not of right There is no principle in 
volved in this, except the principle of Christian charity. Let 
the Church of Rome disregard this in the supposed interest 
of its own organisation ; but we will not be so foolish or so 
narrow as to follow their example. The clergy have no 
responsibility in the matter. Members of other Communions 
ask if they may use their ministrations, and use their altars ; 
my answer is yes, they may do so at their own responsibility : 
you simply lend them your services. I take the responsibility 
of admitting them. This is a matter outside your discretion : 
it is my business, not yours. I give the same directions in 
England and outside England. It is not the function of the 
individual priest to define the position of the Church of 
England ; it is the function of the Bishop. 

In answer to a request for permission to communicate a chronic sick person 
from the Altar on Sundays. 

Fulham Palace: June 3, 1897. 

1 If it is the case that the lady you mention desires it, and 
if you undertake to carry the elements to her, regarding her 
house as a portion of the church for that purpose, I think 
you might meet her wishes without any impropriety. 

I personally dislike these exceptional demands, but there 
is very early authority for this particular proceeding. 

To the Rev. T. Field, Warden of Radley College (in answer to a 

letter asking how boys from public schools who went up to London to work in 
the hospitals or in the Civil Service could be brought into closer touch with 
the clergy.) 

Fulham Palace: January 28, 1898. 

Dear Mr. Field, I feel the importance of the subject on 
which you write. It has come before me in a way which will 
strike schoolmasters as curious a complaint, or rather an 
expression of a difficulty felt by many at the West End, at 
the impossibility of getting into touch with the boys of parents 
living in their parish. They tell me that school makes a 
hopeless break ; they get the girls at Confirmation, but the 
increased importance given to Confirmations at schools has 
cut the boys more completely from them. I only mention 
this fact because I think schoolmasters should know how they 
have increased their responsibilities. 


* As regards boys coming from school direct to London, 
I scarcely know what are their chief pursuits. You mean 
those who do not live at home but follow some profession. 
In the medical schools there is a good deal going on, directed 
by chaplains and managed by the men themselves. A short 
time ago I addressed a guild at St. Mary s Hospital, which 
numbered some eighty members, and was supported by the 
doctors. There is a Guild among the doctors themselves, 
the guild of St. Luke, which holds an annual service at 
St. Paul s Cathedral. 

Quite recently the Inns of Court have established a 
mission in Soho which is a healthy sign of another pro 
fession. The men connected with the Eton Mission, the 
Marlborough Mission and others are natural people to whom 
to refer young men. They can go to look up their old school 
institutions quite naturally. The Oxford House and the 
Cambridge Mission, in Southwark, have many men connected 
with them who would be sympathetic. Such men as Gore, 
and the Bishop of Stepney, Scott Holland, and others are in 
touch with young men. 

About evening Communions 

Fulham Palace: February 14, 1898. 

* I am not responsible for several opinions which have 
been put into my mouth in an unauthorised way. But if you 
will take " deplorable " in the sense of " to be deplored," it 
would represent my opinion about evening Communions. 

The history of Holy Communion in the Early Church is 
rather obscure, as it is connected with the Agape, or an 
appointed evening meal. The Epistle to the Corinthians 
shows the disorders which arose in consequence. At the end 
of the first century, the Agape was separated from the Com 
munion, which was then transferred to the early morning. 
This prevailed universally all over Christendom till about 
fifty years ago, when evening Communion was introduced by 
Dr. Hook. 

I think this is to be deplored, because it made another 
question on which Christians can differ ; and I for one regard 
the introduction of a point of difference as the saddest thing 
of all. 1 

In answer to a question as to his motives in giving a licence to the Rev. Stewart 


Fulham Palace : February 16, 1898. 

* My dear Sir, In giving a licence to the Rev. Stewart 
Headlam I had nothing before me except his present suit- 


ability. It did not seem to me that his opinions on matters 
social and political were a bar to his preaching. 

As to the question which you ask me, the drama is a very 
ancient form of art. Like other forms of art, it has changed 
at different times. There are two points to be considered at 
present : (i) the nature of the plays ; (2) the conditions of the 
theatrical profession. There is a further point. If people 
wish to see popular amusements put on a right basis, ought 
they not to sympathise with, and help, efforts to amend the 

stage ? 

I think that on these points everyone is responsible for 
forming his own opinion, and acting wisely and rightly upon 
the sense of his responsibilities. 

I might refer you to a sermon of Bishop Lightfoot in 
a volume called The Use and Abuse of the World 

To the Rev. J. F. Stern, minister of the East London Synagogue, 

who had written to him to ask him to use his influence to prevent the 
introduction of the new certificate of the Order of Foresters, because its 
Christian character was opposed to the undenominational character of the 
Order, and not agreeable to the Jewish members. 

* London House : April 30, 1898. 

My dear Sir, I agree with you in thinking that any 
form of certificate issued by the Foresters should be, if 
possible, free from any objection on sectarian grounds. But, 
while admitting the principle, it is hard to carry it into effect, 
if all reference to the religious forms in which ideas have been 
expressed in art is to be excluded. Art must have certain 
forms ; and the forms must be dictated by general intelligi 
bility. It is difficult to invent allegories which are intelligible 
in themselves. If they are invented, they are open to 
criticism at once. Yet no one can prescribe for another what 
conscientious scruples he may entertain. For my own part, 
my opinion would be this. Any artistic representation which 
rested on the claims of Christ would be distinctly Christian, 
and therefore to be avoided for general purposes. But 
references to particular forms in which moral truths, common 
to all, were expressed in Christ s teaching, simply adopt 
allegorical modes of expression which are familiar to Christians 
and non-Christians alike. Christians may take them with any 
additional sanction which they choose to attach to them ; 
non-Christians may take them as current expressions of truths 
which they themselves hold for their own merits. 

The alternatives are : (i) allegories, which I have 
already said are difficult to make intelligible ; (2) historical 


representations, which are still more difficult ; (3) references 
to literature, e.g. scenes from Shakespeare, which would go still 
further afield. 

You will see that I am discussing the matter from the 
point of possibility for artistic expression. I think that those 
who do not accept Christianity might still fairly take it as the 
only possible vehicle for the artistic representation of simple 
moral truths, without thereby having any strain on their 

1 London House : May 5, 1898. 

Dear Sir, In my letter to you I merely considered the 
new card of the Foresters in itself. The question of the sub 
stitution of it for one which is already in existence and raises 
no objections is another. It is always better in such a 
matter to make no change unless it is generally acceptable. 

To a clergyman who had asked his advice about attending a gathering to welcome 
a nonconformist minister to his new work. 

1 Fulham Palace : June 19, 1898. 

* You have asked me a question which it is hard to answer 
satisfactorily. For one s own guidance, one has to consider- 
not what one s action means to oneself, but how it will be 
interpreted by others ; one has to strike a balance of the 
possible good and harm it may do ; and further one has to 
remember that it is impossible to distinguish oneself personally 
from oneself officially. 

The answer which I would give would be that, if the 
welcome given to the new minister was social in its nature, and 
was held in a public hall, you would gladly attend to greet a 
neighbour ; but if it was of the nature of a religious service 
held in the chapel, your presence would be liable to miscon 

4 There is a common ground on which we can all meet ; 
but it must be neutral. Well-meant attempts to jumble us 
all up only lead to remonstrances, which do more to create 
ill-feeling than the premature displa\ of a conciliatory temper 
creates good-feeling. If you went to a Presbyterian chapel, 
think of the letters which would be written in the newspapers. 

About the use of unfermented wine in the Holy Communion. 

< Fulham Palace: July 16, 1898. 

1 The only point on which I feel it necessary to make any 
remark is on the administration of the Holy Communion in 
unfermented wine to some tee-totalers. I know the demand 
and I respect their scruples. But you will observe that the 
whole history of the Roman Church has been that of accom- 


modation to popular demand leading to an obscuring of 
truth in the long run. To change the elements which our 
Lord used is a very serious matter. It is an attempt to be 
better and wiser than He was. If once we depart from the 
plain words of Scripture, where are we ? 

I need not go on to point out that two chalices destroy 
the unity symbolised by the Sacrament. It is the excessive 
demand of the scruples of good men which have always been 

Fulham Palace : July 21, 1898. 

* I have the greatest admiration for the ingenuity of the 
human mind. It is perfectly possible to prove anything we 
wish to prove. That is why it is necessary not only to 
specify the words of Scripture, but the method of their inter 
pretation, which is the custom of the Church. 

Now the rubric says " Bread and Wine are to be 
placed on the "Table." It cannot be seriously urged that 
these words mean "unfermented wine." That is a phrase 
which has been invented recently for this purpose. The pro 
ducts of the vine are wine and vinegar. You say, " I have 
satisfied myself that the unfermented wine was the real juice 
of the grape." I should be interested to know if you had 
submitted it to chemical analysis by an impartial expert. 
The only case I ever heard of yielded on analysis no grape 
juice, a good deal of gooseberry, some other elements which 
I have forgotten, and a good deal of alcohol. 

But the important point involved is the danger of 
making two kinds of communicants, of recognising first and 
second class Christians, of destroying the Sacrament of unity, 
of destroying also the meaning of the symbolism of the 
Sacrament itself. For Bread and Wine together represent 
man s nature ; the bread is his physical ordinary nature ; the 
wine his emotional and passionate nature. The latter can 
never be free from an element of danger : and the wine ex 
presses that most necessary truth. 

I could add many considerations of the same kind. The 
Church is desirous of keeping to the facts of the institution, 
of doing what our Lord did. It cannot do otherwise than 
recognise bread and wine as the material of the Sacrament. 
The wine may be diluted with water, for it was used diluted ; 
and " the cup " differed from the bottle or jar because its 
contents were diluted. This dilution may be to any degree 
compatible with the preservation of wine as the material. 

You will see that all our present difficulties arise from 
the pressure of excellent people to have their own views 


satisfied. The result of everybody straining every point to 
gratify everyone else is to produce confusion. I can say no 
else. 1 

To Mr. W. G. Finch, who wrote asking whether in the cause of reunion, 
the Bishop would allow an interchange of pulpits in his diocese. 

September 30, 1898. 

My dear Sir, - -The proposal for an interchange of pulpits 
seems to me to be a step towards greater confusion. It is as 
if we proposed to be " At Home " in one another s houses, as 
a sign of neighbourly feeling.* 

About the use of the wafer in Holy Communion. 

* Fulham Palace : December 6, 1898. 

I make no order ; but my personal opinion is that the 
wafer destroys the symbolism of the Sacrament, which is 
that we are all members of one body, portions of one loaf; 
ELS apros, as St. Paul puts it This is put prominently 
forward by the Eastern Church, where the cutting of the loaf 
is an initial ceremony, and each slice commemorates soma 
part of the Church. To obliterate this poetry by a substitu 
tion of the mechanical and outward conception of the 
Western Church, founded on mere convenience, seems to me 
a very great mistake. 

In answer to a request from a clergyman for advice how to deal with some non 
conformists who had attached themselves to his congregation. 

Fulham Palace : January 24, 1899. 

* The question that you ask presents difficulties, and 
I have always tried to meet them on as broad a line as pos 
sible. We must recognise that the rubric at the end of the 
Confirmation Service deals with the normal case of a baptized 
member of the Church of England. When members of other 
bodies attend our services and are gradually drawn towards 
them, they are not unnaturally unwilling to be confirmed, 
because they have already passed through a similar service, 
and shrink from anything which might seem to cast a slur 
upon their spiritual past, and to separate them from their 

4 1 think that in such cases they may be regarded as fit 
for Confirmation in spiritual knowledge, and may therefore be 
admitted to Communion. But I think you should from time 
to time point out to them that their position is irregular and 
yours also, and you should ask them to remove this irregu 
larity by recognising the advantages to be obtained by a full 
acceptance of the system of the Church, and by a loyal 


membership of it. I have always found that this advice 
prevails in a little time/ 

The clergyman to whom this letter was sent writes, Its 
contents have won several nonconformists for Confirmation. 

In answer to a proposal to discuss preaching at the Diocesan Conference. 

To the Rev. Canon Ainger (Master of the Temple) 

London House: March 15, 1899. 

Dear Ainger, Nash has sent me your letter. I think the 
subject of sermons is a very desirable one to bring before the 
attention of the clergy. Procedure by resolution doubtless 
seems absurd, but it is our rule. 

A resolution framed " That more attention ought to be 
paid to preaching, especially in the direction of, &c." would 
not be merely a truism. It would indicate that a revival of 
interest was a necessary step, and would be a practical 
recommendation. You might treat it as lightly as possible ; 
but the decay of preaching and the need of its reinstalment 
as a conscious object of pursuit seems to me to raise a ques 

Many hold that parochial activity and slipshod sermons is 
the right thing. 

To a clergyman who asked whether there was any objection to his speaking at 
a temperance meeting to be held in a nonconformist chapel 

Fulham Palace : December 16, 1899. 

It always seems to me that a temperance meeting is a 
temperance meeting wherever it is held. If a noncon 
formist chapel is lent for the purpose, I do not see that that 
affects the matter. But a great many people seem to think 
that it does. I am often in receipt of letters protesting that 
some London clergyman has been in a nonconformist 
chapel. I inquire, and find that it was at some general meet 
ing, frequently for temperance, and I answer that he may 
go to any meeting that he likes. 

You will be able to decide for yourself if your presence 
is likely to give offence to your own people, 



WHEN Dr. Creighton first came to London there was some 
uncertainty about his views on ritual questions. It was 
known that he wore a cope and mitre, and in January 1897, 
five Evangelical clergy had signed a petition to him, asking 
him not to introduce the use of the mitre in London. But, 
in London as in Peterborough, he wore cope and mitre in his 
Cathedral on great occasions, though he was careful not to 
do so elsewhere in places where it might give offence. At 
one of his first Confirmations, the parish priest wrote to his 
chaplain asking whether he would confirm in cope and mitre. 
The chaplain was instructed to answer that the Bishop never 
brought a mitre to a Confirmation, but would wear one if 
it were provided, and this remained his practice. 

To a correspondent who had asked him certain questions 
as to the use of a cope he wrote : 

Fulham Palace: October 18, 1898. 

* A cope is not a distinctly episcopal dress ; it is not even 
clerical, but may be worn by choirmen. The position of the 
matter in the Church of England is this : the Rubric of the 
First Prayer Book of Edward VI. prescribed a cope for Holy 
Communion and for a bishop at all times. The advertise 
ments of Queen Elizabeth and the canon of 1603 prescribed 
it for cathedral and collegiate churches. The question is, 
did they exclude it from other places ? And what was the 
effect of re-enacting the Rubric of the First Prayer Book of 
Edward VI. at the revision in 1662 ? I prefer to deal with 
such matters on the ground of common sense/ 

Fulham Palace: October 22, 1898. 

* ... A cope is simply an ornamental dress ; its original 
name w&sfluviaU i.e. a mackintosh. It is simply an eccle 
siastical cloak. It is not a distinctly eucharistic vestment 

/<// 54. 


It has no significance in itself. At present my work is to 
cut down ceremonies which go beyond the doctrines of the 
Church of England, and tend to put a meaning in her ser 
vices which they have not. To do this wisely I must draw 
a line of distinction between things which cannot be, and 
things which are, matters of opinion. A cope is a matter of 
indifference, and I do not wish to disturb a congregation on 
this point. 

His taste led him to like a dignified service, but he could 
not bear anything fussy or elaborate. On first coming to 
London, he was twice unexpectedly censed at a service. 
When a member of Parliament wrote to remonstrate with 
him for submitting to such a thing, he answered : 


I visit a great number of churches in the course of the 
year, and I do not undertake to regulate the details of the 
service beforehand. It has been my habit to take it as 
arranged by the incumbent I did not expect when I went 

to that the ceremonial would be what it was. But 

I could not well interfere with the conduct of the service 
when it had begun. I perceive from your letter and inquiry 
that I must guard in the future against the possibility of my 
presence at such ceremonial being construed into my sanction 
of it 

Again on the same subject he wrote : Frankly I disliked 
it, and thought that it would never do in England on aesthetic 
grounds. The Italian waves his censer in a nice slovenly 
way which is all right ; but the pomp and self-consciousness 
of the English acolyte seemed to me artistically offensive. 
The Englishman is no good for that purpose. He takes 
himself too seriously whatever he does. 

It is probable that he was expected to be more in sym 
pathy with the extreme High Church party than proved to 
be the case. The real point at issue between him and them 
was that he thought that in their zeal for what they called 
the Catholic Church, they lost sight of the real meaning of 
the Church of England. He believed that the Catholic 
Church must consist of national churches each with their 
different characteristics, but that these external differences 
need not stand in the way of spiritual union. The way 
in which the Catholic Church had become a sort of catch 
word was distasteful to him, and he said, half in irony, half 


in chaff, one day to an ardent High Church friend, { The 
Catholic Church must go into the waste-paper basket. 
To some it seemed that he overdid the appeal which 
he felt so deeply to the great English tradition/ and a remark 
once made by him when speaking at a public meeting 
about disestablishment, that he was an Englishman first 
and a Churchman afterwards, x was misunderstood and gave 
some offence. The religious life of the nation, the belief 
of England in its mission : these were of paramount impor 
tance to him. Preaching at Willesden in October 1897, he 
said : The knowledge of God and of God s way has to lie at 
the very foundation of our national life. In walking in God s 
way lies not only the safety of the individual soul, but the 
very existence of a nation. All our efforts must rest upon 
that foundation. He was conscious of the difference between 
his point of view and that of the extreme High Church party. 
1 They do not care for the Church of England, he would say. 
To him the great note of the Church of England was to 
teach the people of this country the Catholic faith with the 
directness and simplicity with which the faith was taught in 
primitive times. * It was c a Church fitted for free men, 
training them in knowledge and reverence alike : 3 a Church 
resting on an appeal to sound learning. His great object 
was to get men to see its meaning and its possibilities. 

He knew enough about London to be prepared to find 
there the widest possible divergence in the method of con 
ducting the services of the Church. One who knows London 
well says : He found the diocese in chaos. Temple worked 
like a horse himself and he let everyone else work in the way 
they liked. Every church had its own type of service ; and 
another says, Dr. Temple knew that there were extreme men 
in the diocese who would not accept his ruling in matters of 
ritual, and he probably thought it better not to accentuate 
their resistance by the promulgation of precise rules. Some 
of these clergy were doing on lines of their own a great work, 
and Dr. Temple was unwilling to hamper that work by con 
troversy about non-essentials. Dr. Creighton felt that the 

1 Cf. pp. 82-3 as to what he meant by this. 

* London Visitation Charge, The Church and the Nat ion % 316. 

Presidential Address, London Church Congress. 


let-alone policy had gone on too long, and every day he 
became more convinced that the difficulties of the situa 
tion largely came because extreme practices had been allowed 
to grow up and take root unchecked. He felt that these 
excessive divergencies must be restrained, but he had no 
wish to narrow the Church of England. Speaking in 1897 
to his first diocesan conference, he said : 

I must tell you frankly that I rejoice in the breadth and 
width of the Church of England as it is ; I recognise the 
enormous advantages which every different school of thought 
contributes towards the general spread of those eternal prin 
ciples of truth in which we are all interested ... it is quite 
clear that no one set of opinions, no one form of divine 
service, no one particular way of presenting religious ideas, 
will universally prevail. ... I think it my duty, as Bishop 
of this diocese to show my sympathy with all forms of 
service and all forms of religious zeal, which are loyally in 
accordance with the principles of the Church of England. 

When he learnt more of the confusion which prevailed, 
he tried as usual to go to the root of the matter to discover 
what were the definite principles which must be accepted by 
all who claimed to belong to the Church of England. He 
said : It is necessary that there should be a recognised 
type of the Anglican services, so that worshippers may not 
be confused by the multiplicity of variations. We must have 
a clear understanding about the limits of permissible varia 
tion. * 

But the task which he had before him was from the first 
complicated by interference from outside. The Bishop s hope 
was to deal with his clergy individually by fatherly advice 
and persuasion, to gain their confidence and to convince 
them of the necessity of some sacrifices being made for the 
good of the whole Church. The noisy and offensive agitation 
organised by Mr. Kensit and his allies, and the ultra-Protes 
tant and Erastian attack led by Sir William Harcourt in 
the newspapers, disconcerted his efforts. The clergy who 
might have yielded to their Bishop s exhortations felt it 
difficult, if not impossible, to do so when their submission 

1 Address to the Ruridecanal Conferences, 1898. The Church and the 
Nation^ 268. 


might be interpreted to mean obedience to agitation. Every 
thing tended to complicate the problem. The Bishop was 
not allowed much time to study it quietly, or to get 
to know his diocese, before the attention of the public was 
attracted by Mr. Kensit s interference with the services at 
St. Ethelburga s, Bishopsgate. The incumbent of this church 
had been allowed by Dr. Temple to be non-resident for 
many years, and the curate in charge, Mr. Phillips, had 
introduced services of an extreme type, much appreciated by 
the congregation. Towards the end of 1897 tne Bishop had 
had communications with Mr. Phillips, and in obedience to 
his desire, the practice of reservation of the Blessed Sacra 
ment was discontinued. The other services remained as 
before, and Mr. Kensit chose this church for a special attack. 
He qualified as a parishioner by taking rooms in the neigh 
bourhood, and, after interrupting the services with irreverent 
expressions and unseemly behaviour, he sent an account of 
them to the Bishop, calling upon him for immediate inter 
ference, and saying that he and his party intended to com 
municate there on the following Sunday, January 16, 1898, 
when he hoped that the Communion would be duly ad 
ministered by either the Bishop or the Archdeacon of 
London. He received the following reply : 

Dear Sir, I have no reason for supposing that you will 
find any hindrance to receiving the Holy Communion at 
St. Ethelburga s. But my advice to you is to attend a church 
in which the services suit you rather than a church in which 
they do not suit you. 

This letter, which Mr. Kensit immediately sent to the 
press, was much criticised, but it expressed a serious conviction. 
The Bishop had no wish to enforce rigid conformity to one 
type of service, and in a large town where there are many 
churches, it seemed to him but common sense for a man to 
refrain from deliberately seeking out a church where the 
services were conducted in a way of which he disapproved. 
Meanwhile Mr. Phillips said that he could not in conscience 
communicate Mr. Kensit. After an interview at which the 
Bishop pointed out to him that the rubrics gave him no 
legitimate ground for such a refusal, he said that he would 
obey a distinct command from the Bishop. This command 

1898 ST. ETHELBURGA S 289 

was given, but afterwards Mr. Phillips wrote saying that 
he could not bring himself to obey it. The Bishop then 
sent his chaplain to conduct the services at St. Ethelburga s 
on the following Sunday. Letters from clergy and laity in 
the diocese of London and elsewhere poured in upon him, 
remonstrating" with him for the line that he had taken. Mr. 


Phillips resigned, and Dr. Cobb, then secretary of the English 
Church Union, undertook the care of St. Ethelburga s. 

Dr. Cobb writes of the situation : 

Where both sides had put themselves in the wrong, it 
was not easy for the Bishop to hold the scales evenly. What 
struck me most about him in the many interviews I was 
privileged to have, was the extraordinary solidity of his 
judgment, and his indifference to criticisms. His own mind 
was perfectly clear as to what the mind of the Church of 
England was, and what the then distress required. He 
corrected both parties with something of the serene strength 
of an impersonal fate, and of course incurred the hostility of 
both. Yet no man was less open to the charge of being a 
Gallic. His famous piece of advice to the protesters to go 
to some church where they could feel more at home was the 
advice of the statesman and received a prophet s reward. 
What rendered him a sphinx to zealots was the perfect 
balance of his mind, reflecting as it did the studied moderation 
of the Church of England. Not understanding this, the one 
party accused him of ignorance of what Catholicism involved, 
his only fault really being that he knew only too well ; while 
the other party insisted, in language more forcible than 
proper, that he was playing into the hands of Rome. In the 
midst of the turmoil he was the still, strong man who went 
his own way because he knew it to be the right way, no man 
making him afraid. 

I can never be too grateful for the fatherly kindness he 
showed me all through the weary months of struggle. At 
first he seemed doubtful whether I might not emulate the 
prowess of those who had by their rashness brought the 
Protestant hornet nest about their ears. But once satisfied 
on that point, he gave me his complete trust. He approved 
the general lines of conduct of what was a sort of war, and 
for the rest gave me a perfectly free hand. When advice was 
wanted he gave it freely, and it was always advice which 
allowed for all the pertinent facts. The swiftness, too, with 
which he saw all the salient points, and then came to a 


decision, was remarkable. The reason was that he had a 
clear view of what was to be aimed at, viz. a fundamental 
union of all Christians on the basis of allegiance to their Lord, 
with the greatest possible latitude in the expression of 
spiritual life. 1 

Mr. Kensit, of course, was not satisfied with Dr. Cobb, and 
continued his exhortations to the Bishop to do his duty, and 
his threats of interference. The parishioners of St. Ethel 
burga s wrote deploring the loss of the curate, whose ministra 
tions they had much valued. There were loud expressions 
of indignation in the press, angry remonstrances in private 
at Mr. Kensit s methods, and threats of a large secession to 
Rome if he were not suppressed, accompanied by the usual 
outcry that something must be done. The Bishop continued 
his efforts to take a calm view of the situation, and to act 
with a view to future peace, rather than with an eye only to 
the present emergency. He wrote We are all agreed in 
regretting that there should be such a person as Mr. Kensit ; 
but the question how best to deal with him is a purely 
practical one. 

His difficulty in dealing severely with Mr. Kensit s conduct 
at St Ethelburga s had been that he was not clear whether 
the law against brawling in church applied to interruption 
of services not recognised by the religious body concerned. 
1 It is not a question of the mode in which the Communion 
Service is performed which will raise any difficulty, but of 
unauthorised additions and of other services which have been 
introduced without authority. Much as I desire to keep the 
peace, it is difficult to avoid this issue ; and again : Mr. 
Kensit on examination would accept the phraseology of the 
Prayer Book respecting the Sacraments, and would say that 
his objection was to adjuncts to the service not prescribed in 
the Prayer Book. . . . The wise thing to do is to put him 
steadily in the wrong. When Dr. Cobb took charge, and dis 
continued such practices as the Bishop judged decidedly illegal 
at St. Ethelburga s, the Bishop could support him in a way in 
which he had not felt able to support Mr. Phillips. Still 
Mr. Kensit continued to pelt him with representations against 
Dr. Cobb s method of celebrating. He had begun by trying 
to treat Mr. Kensit as a reasonable man, but early in 1898 


was obliged to tell his chaplain to say that, as Mr. Kensit 
published his private letters to him, he could hold no further 
communication with him. Finally he answered the continued 
complaints of Mr. Kensit and his two allies : 

March 2, 1898. 

Gentlemen, In answer to your communication of the 
25th ult, I have to say that it is impossible for me to regulate 
the minute details of public worship in all the churches in 
this diocese ; and it would be undesirable for me to attempt 
to do so. Something must always be left to the discretion of 
the officiating minister and to the wishes of the congregation. 

I The services as now conducted at St. Ethelburga s are 
those prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. If in some 
points of detail they are not entirely in accordance with your 
personal preference, I can only repeat the advice which I 
originally gave, that you should seek some neighbouring 
church where you may be better satisfied. 

I 1 would remind you that there is a congregation at 
St. Ethelburga s whose wishes deserve my consideration as 
much as yours. I am not prepared to interfere with Dr. 
Cobb s discretion in the conduct of the services. 

Another violent interruption of a service, this time at 
St. Cuthbert s, Philbeach Gardens, by Mr. Kensit and his 
friends, on Good Friday, increased the irritation on both sides, 
especially as the service disturbed was an unauthorised one. 
The Bishop was besieged with letters in which persons of the 
most opposite opinions in turn wrote to tell him, that they 
knew that thousands felt as they did, and that the Church was 
on the verge of ruin, and could only be saved by their par 
ticular advice being followed. There were not only remon 
strances from the foolish and the fanatics, but from thoughtful 
lawyers and other serious men, scandalised at the open de 
fiance of order and decency. 

To one who wished to take steps to vindicate him from 
the attacks made on him, the Bishop answered : 

February 4, 1898. 

My dear Sir, I am obliged to you for your letter and 
its offer. But I never wish to defend myself and I prefer 
not to be defended. Very few people can see the justice of 
any cause, they can only judge from their own prejudices. I 
have another very strong reason. I am a father to all my 

u 2 


clergy. It is my duty to bear the burden of their mistakes. 
I never make public what passed between them and me. 

To one of his clergy who wrote to assure him of his loyalty 
and devotion he answered London House : May 25, 1898. 

* Thank you for your letter. It does one good to be 
cheered up sometimes. Please do not suppose that I have 
any grievance against the clergy : I only recognise their foible 
of excessive individualism. The difficulties of the clergy in 
this diocese are enormous : isolation, Congregationalism, little 
intercourse with one another or the Bishop, little sense of the 
largeness of the Church as a whole, or of the end of its 
working. We must face pur dangers by recognising their 

Speaking to his diocesan conference on April 28, he 
explained what he was trying to do. 

1 My duty is to deal with my clergy straightforwardly and 
frankly, to deal with them in the spirit of kindliness and in 
the spirit of Christian love, to deal with them by means of 
arguments, and not by attempting to coerce them or to bring 
pressure upon them to go in directions which are contrary 
to their own consciences. It is my duty to try to bring them 
all together equally into agreement upon the great funda 
mental points of our Christian practice, because in matters of 
Christian faith, of course, we are not divided. We are divided 
simply and solely upon matters whose importance and 
I admit they are of importance is very frequently overstated 
and over-estimated. It is my duty, a duty which I have 
constantly before me, and at no time more than at present, to 
try by personal persuasion and personal influence, by talking 
and conference with those who seem to be divided, to bring 
all together into an understanding at least of one another s 
position, that we may discover exactly what are the points 
upon which we differ ; for until we have discovered those, any 
attempt at agreement is obviously quite impossible. 

To his conference he said no more about ritual troubles, 
but a few days afterwards he received at London House 
a deputation from the Church Association in support of 
Mr Kensit s action at St. Ethelburga s, which they described 
as a manly and constitutional protest meriting the 
Bishop s approval ; they called upon him to drive out all 
false and erroneous doctrines and illegal practices. The 


Bishop s answer was, in the main, a plea for toleration within 
the Church. He said : 

* People in England are agreed as they never were before 
about the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith. True 
religion prevails in England to-day as an actual power on the 
individual and society, and it should be recognised that it is 
desirable in minor matters, such as the mode of public wor 
ship for I consider that those are minor matters which are 
not concerned with the fundamental truths of the Christian 
faith, but with the manner in which it is thought desirable to 
put forth those truths in public worship toleration should 
be practised. ... I think that some things are done which 
are contrary to the large liberty allowed in the Church. 
There are certain lines to be maintained, but the drawing of 
these lines is always a very difficult thing. On that point the 
minds of the bishops are frequently exercised, and they 
struggle as much as they can to bring their influence to bear 
upon those who make use of illegal practices. 

* Englishmen never like to see people dealt with in a legal 
manner in consequence of their opinions. The bishops have 
come to the conclusion that a prosecution does more harm 
than good ; that, so far from putting down practices, it only 
gives them increased vitality . . . The most deplorable 
periods in the history of the Church of England have been 
when attempts were made to enforce uniformity of worship. 
The belief in the possibility of enforcing upon a free people 
uniform forms and ideas has been a great evil to the Church. 
... It would be well for us now to try and understand 
one another, so that we may see the points upon which we 
disagree, and, when we have discovered them, bring them 
into the quiet and calm region where they may be dealt with 
in the manner of Christian liberty and charity. My own 
desire and my intention is to go on reasoning with those 
whom I think to be behaving foolishly, trying to understand 
their position, and to discover how they can be brought to 
greater union and, what is more desirable, to the principle of 
law and order. Speaking for myself, I can only say that 
Mr. Kensit s action has thrown very great hindrances in my 
course. I was going on quietly and gently, struggling to 
bring about a greater agreement between the different parties 
in the Church. Mr. Kensit has precipitated hostilities, and is 
marshalling people into hostile camps I must pursue the 
course upon which I have entered, and I hope to have the 
co-operation of the Church Association. . . . You must re 
member that round these trifling matters of ritual there 


gathers a mass of sentiment and feeling which is intimately 
associated with the facts of human life. ... In early times 
great difficulties beset the Church of England because the 
bishops were regarded as policemen. A bishop has two 
jurisdictions the paternal and the judicial, but his judicial 
functions are distinctly second to his paternal. 

The deputation expressed themselves as somewhat disap 
pointed at the Bishop s remarks, and the press spoke of the 
4 airy way in which he spoke about the matter and the con 
temptuous indifference with which he treated these storms. 
But these criticisms could not deter him from his quiet and 
steady policy. He had also at this time an interview with 
some of the more extreme ritualists in order to talk over the 
situation with them. Amongst other things he appears to 
have tried to persuade them to abstain from the use of words 
which must necessarily irritate. He wrote to one of them 
after the interview : 

* I do not know that I succeeded in getting you and your 
friends to see my point about the use of Roman terminology. 
Perhaps you will understand the larger bearing of my opinion 
by reading the enclosed, which has just been sent me by a 
Roman friend. It is written by the ablest of the English 
Romans (Dr. Barry) and is a plea to all the members of that 
Church to abandon the terminology of a belated philosophy, 
and to speak in accordance with the thought of the present 
day. Now if a Roman feels this, what must he think of us 
who are plunging into rubbish which he is trying to get rid 

He was increasingly convinced that nothing could be 
done to promote permanent peace until the irritation had sub 
sided. When Mr. Kensit wrote asking him to present a peti 
tion to the Upper House of Convocation, he answered : 

May 10, 1898. 

Dear Sir, I shall have much pleasure in presenting your 
petition to the Upper House of Convocation to-morrow. 

1 1 notice with satisfaction your assurance that public 
protests are painful to yourself. They are painful to very 
many others, and tend to create in their minds feelings which 
are contrary to a peaceful settlement. 

1 It would greatly strengthen my hands in dealing with 
this very important matter if you would discontinue your 
protests at divine service, and would submit to me a memorial 


stating objectionable practices and your reasons for object 
ing to them. 

In reply Mr. Kensit wrote undertaking that for the next 
two calendar months he would make no public protest in 
any church in the London diocese, and also promised that 
the arrangements made for protests in thirteen other dioceses 
would be suspended. 

After the presentation of Mr. Kensit s petition the Arch 
bishop first spoke, and testified to the increasing willingness 
shown by the clergy during the last few years to submit to 
the authority of the bishops. He felt some doubt how far a 
bishop ought to inquire for himself when he suspected illegal 
practices in a parish, or how far he should wait till they were 
brought before his notice, and said : 

* Hitherto, I confess, that I have never interfered that is, 
since the time when there was the general agreement not to 
prosecute unless the matter has been regularly brought 
before me. I avoided making any distinct inquiry into 
separate cases. Sometimes, as you know, those who in this 
way step outside the proper limits of the Church are, never 
theless, such spiritual men, are so devoted to their work, are 
such examples of the deepest piety, and, in fact, do so much 
for the religious life of their people, that it is very difficult for 
a bishop to say " You ought not to do this "... to interfere, 
and by interfering to stop what is really religious work, and 
religious work sometimes of the very best kind. 

Dr. Creighton followed the Archbishop, and said that he 
was glad to have an opportunity of speaking on the general 
issue. Two movements were going on to remedy what had 
been discovered to be wrong, one a movement of reform 
from within, the other of violent protest from without, and 
his difficulty had been to prevent these movements from get 
ting hopelessly into the way of one another. 

I discovered, he continued, * soon after coming to the 
diocese of London that there were certainly one or two 
features in the conduct of services in some churches which 
awakened natural anxiety . . . the introduction of unauthorised 
services and ceremonies in addition to those contained in the 
Book of Common Prayer . . . and, secondly, the additions to, 
or omissions from, the Communion Office contained in the Book 


of Common Prayer, which seem to me to be made with a view 
of reading that service into the terms of the services of the 
Church of Rome. There is, thirdly, the needless use of 
Roman terminology in church notices, in parochial maga 
zines, and also in the teaching given in some churches. Those 
three things seem to me to be opposed to the principles of 
the Church of England, and to need, if possible, some 
restriction. They are founded upon individual preference in 
a great many cases, and at the bottom of them lies a 
disregard of all authority, or, at all events, a curious mode of 
explaining what is the nature of authority. . . . I, found, further, 
that there was great uneasiness about these things existing in 
a very large body of the clergy themselves ; in fact, existing 
almost universally among ^them. There was also a very 
considerable amount of anxiety and uneasiness among 
those whom, with perfect respect and entire sympathy with 
them, I would still call, simply for convenience, the offenders 
in these matters. For they frequently found that, though 
they started from what they supposed to be common 
principles, they came to different conclusions, and they 
were by no means at harmony amongst themselves. ... I 
may say that, much as the matter has been brought before 
the public lately, the number of churches in which these 
things are done is comparatively small. ... I found that 
there was a desire on the part of many clergy that some steps 
should be taken to consider more definitely what was the 
nature of authority in the Church of England, and how it 
could be most profitably exercised. Your lordships may 
have seen resolutions passed at a tolerably large, and in 
many ways a very representative, conference 1 which was 
held a few days ago. . . . The first resolution is " That this 
conference recognises the full authority of the bishop to 
prohibit any service not contained in the Book of Common 
Prayer." The second is "That this conference recognises 
the full authority of the bishop to prohibit any omissions 
from or any additions to the services contained in the Book 
of Common Prayer." The arrangements for the holding of 
that conference were begun last October, and I know of 
similar movements which were begun long before this public 
protest took any shape at all. Movements that are of great 
importance, and furthermore conferences which I have held 
myself with many of the clergy who might be called extreme, 
were going on. It was exceedingly inconvenient in all ways 

1 A conference convened by Canon Carter of Clewer and held in Osnaburgh 
Street on May 5. 


that a peaceable solution of these questions should be 
hampered by any ill-advised utterances that were made with 
reference to public protests which had taken place, and I 
considered it my duty to abstain very carefully from saying 
anything which could in the least degree add to the exasper 
ation of people s minds. . . . The laity are perplexed and dis 
turbed . . . when any body of people disregard lawful authority 
altogether, and undertake to become a law to themselves, 
they certainly are shocking the Christian conscience in a way 
which far exceeds, in the gravity of the mischief which it is 
doing, any good that they can possibly do by attending, as 
they may think best, to the needs of the small flock which 
they have gathered around them. This feeling of the laity is 
also, if I interpret it aright, founded upon a very sane and 
wholesome dread of exotic usages, and the introduction 
of emotional appeals in divine services, which they feel to be 
a serious menace to the stability, the seriousness, and the 
straightforwardness of the English character. ... I believe 
it is possible that by putting before the minds of the clergy 
broad considerations of the character and of the destiny 
of the English Church, it may be quite within our power 
to create, perhaps for the first time in the history of that 
Church, a unanimity of opinion and an understanding of 
the great work to which the providence of God has called 
us, which may make us strong for a fresh beginning in the 
annals of that Church which we all love so well. 

The Bishop discussed the situation with men of every 
variety of opinion, both singly and in conference, always 
trying to see with their eyes and to understand their 
point of view. Those who differed most from him were 
compelled to recognise his desire to act with fairness and 
sympathy. Their letters to him abound with remarks about 
his exceeding kindness, they speak of being * deeply touched 
by the fatherly and sympathetic tone of your letter, of the 
gentle kindness of your letter. One about whose extreme 
practices there had been many complaints, and with whom 
the Bishop had in consequence constant correspondence and 
interviews, writes, * In past times we have been perhaps driven 
into an undesirable attitude towards our bishops by having it 
forced upon us that our point of view was not understood 
and not appreciated. Now, thank God, that is in a great 
measure changed ... I do feel that when one can come to a 


Bishop of London and freely and fearlessly speak on such a 
matter as exposition, one may indeed be thankful for the 
change one has lived to see/ 

The Bishop s consideration of the problem led him to decide 
that the first thing to do was to try to check the deviations 
from the services prescribed in the Prayer Book. He wrote : 

Some of these introduce doctrines not contained in the 
Prayer Book, e.g. Benediction, Rosary of the Virgin, Litany 
of the Saints, Services for the Dead, which incorporate the 
Romish view of Purgatory. This is serious the most serious 
thing which is at the bottom of the present discontent. It 
upsets the type of service altogether ; it disregards all the 
principles of the Church of England ; it ostentatiously de 
clares that the Church of England is an imperfect system, to 
be supplemented at each man s option from any source he 
thinks fit ... with this the bishops can and ought to deal 
directly ; it is a matter of doctrine. 

In June he issued the following letter to his clergy : 

Fulham Palace : June 14, 1898. 

Rev. and dear Sir,- -There are some points relating to 
the performance of divine service to which I think it is well 
to direct the attention of the clergy. 

In a diocese such as this, where there is so much work to 
be done of a missionary character, and where the circum 
stances of parishes vary so greatly, it is natural that there 
should be a tendency to make new experiments in various 
ways. This natural tendency has affected the conduct of 
public worship, and must, in some degree, always do so. But 
it is a tendency which must be subject to certain obvious 
limitations, to which I would call your attention. It is 
absolutely necessary that nothing should be done which 
affects the due performance of the services of the Church as 
laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, and that any 
additional services which are used should conform entirely to 
the spirit and intention of the Prayer Book. There must be 
no confusion in the minds of the people as to the standard of 
worship in the Church of England, and there must be no 
opportunity for personal eccentricities to invade the system 
of the Church. No seeming advantage to the methods of 
teaching pursued by an individual teacher, as suited to a 
particular congregation, can compensate for the harm which 
is done to ecclesiastical order by any infringement of these 


For the guidance of the clergy I think it well to give 
a few directions on points which I know to have caused some 
perplexity and dissatisfaction. 

(i) Morning and Evening Prayer should be said, and the 
Holy Communion be celebrated, on Sundays at such hours as 
are most convenient to the congregation. There should be 
no appearance of disregard of any one of these services in 
favour of another. 

(2) The service for Holy Communion should be said as 
it is appointed in the Book of Common Prayer, without 
additions or omissions. It should be said in an audible voice 

(3) Additional services, where used, should be separated 
by a distinct interval from the services appointed in the 
Prayer Book, and should be announced as additional. 

(4) These additional services are, I am aware, for the 
most part of a very simple kind, consisting of Psalms, Lessons, 
and Prayers taken from the Prayer Book. They are adapted 
to special classes, such as services for children, or for men or 
women, or members of parochial guilds or organisations ; or 
they are intercessions for special purposes, such as missions, 
or temperance, and the like. I need not say that I have no 
wish to restrict the use of the church for such purposes of 
devotion ; but I think it right that in all cases such services 
should be submitted for my sanction. 

In making known to you my wishes in these matters, 
I would express my deepest sympathy with the arduous work 
in which you are engaged, and with the difficulties which 
beset you in dealing with the many problems which it must 
needs raise in your minds. But it is my duty to see that per 
missible liberty be not unduly extended, so as to impair the 
distinctive characteristics of the services of our Church. 

* Commending you and your labours to the blessing of 

1 1 am, your faithful servant in Christ Jesus, 


To this letter eighty-nine of the clergy, including amongst 

them many of the most extreme, answered : 

June 30, 1898. 

1 My Lord, We desire to assure your Lordship of our 
dutiful and loyal compliance with the directions contained in 
your Lordship s circular, and at the same time, having regard 
to the nature of those directions, to thank your Lordship for 
having vindicated the character of your clergy as priests and 


gentlemen from the aspersions cast upon them by some 
members of Parliament 

He received besides many letters promising obedience. 
I shall cany out your wishes in every particular. If there 
is anything in my services not approved of, I will alter it. 

During the next months he received and revised the lists 
of occasional services. It was, as he said, a gigantic labour, 
but he found practically no opposition to the directions he 
gave with regard to these services. His views on some points 
connected with them are given in the following letters : 

To the Rev. Canon Melville (of Worcester) 

Fulkam Palace, S.W. : June 28, 1898. 

* Dear Melville, I was delighted to get your letter and 
find that we are in complete agreement. A number of trivial 
matters have raised a great question, which must be faced. . . . 
A number of devout persons have gone on borrowing from 
other sources till they have obscured what has never been 
definitely settled since the Tractarian upheaval. The point 
is to get this clear. You will see that I am struggling on 
quietly in this direction. 

To the Rev. H. E. Hall j u l y If ^98. 

. . . I have nothing to say about the private prayers of 
the priest, except that they should not be so long as to 
interfere with the convenience of the congregation. Further, 
they ought to be said privately, i.e. not audibly. There 
is great resentment felt at what many people consider to be 
an attempt to read the English Communion Service into the 
Roman Mass by omissions and supplements. This, it is 
said, is done by muttering the whole service, so that the 
congregation does not know what is taken from the Prayer 
Book, and what from other sources. The service as pre 
scribed in the Prayer Book should be said quite audibly, and 
the priest s prayers quite inaudibly. It is necessary that the 
same service should be said in all churches, and that 
members of the Church of England should not be at the 
mercy of an indiscriminate eclecticism. . . . 

You know that my wish is to maintain the widest 
possible liberty compatible with the existence of the Church 
of England as a distinct branch of the Catholic Church. Its 
position is defined in the Prayer Book : and the services 
there contained must not be resolved into other services even 
of a similar type. 


To the Rev. Canon McCormick 

Bettws-y-Coed : August 6, 1898. 

Dear Canon McCormick, I am much obliged to you 
for your letter. I feel that very much for the future of 
religion in England depends on the present crisis, and how 
it is settled. Of course, no crisis in England is ever settled 
by any definite action : but all depends on the ideas which 
spring from it and win their way to acceptance by their 
inherent power and truth. It is my duty to try to get 
behind the immediate forms of questions to their real 
meaning. This is an arduous task, and it continually 
occupies me. 

4 First of all, the English Church must be the religious 
organ of the English people. The people need not all agree 
about details, but the general trend of the Church must be 
regulated by their wishes. The Church cannot go too far 
from the main ideas of the people. The present question is, 
Has it done so? or rather, have some of the clergy done so? 
They clearly have. Then how ? I think on two points. 

*(i) They have disturbed a general type of service. No 
Church can exist without some universal type. Varieties 
may be considerable, but they must not disturb the type. 
The mischief is that the objectors do not know what to 
object to. They confuse things that are important with 
things that do not matter. They do not know enough to 
make good their position. 

1 (2) The nation exists by virtue of a particular type of 
character. Character is largely founded on religion. There 
is in some quarters an attempt to bring back religious 
observances of an exotic kind which do menace English 
character. This is a very serious matter, but it is hard 
to discuss when minds are heated, and requires grave 

I am trying steadily to bring these two points to the 
fore. In the shape in which I have stated them they are 
capable of discussion in terms which are not terms of party. 
They must be settled, and they can only be settled in one 
way. But the method is all-important. If the Church of 
England cannot keep together and discuss differences with 
charity, seeking only for truth then a grave blow has been 
struck against the organisation of Christianity on a broad 
basis in a free land. We must remember that we are models 
for the future. 

There is one point on which I would like to make a 
suggestion. You have a great influence, and I would like 


you to think the matter over. The function of the Church of 
England is to be the Church of free men. Its misfortune is 
that it does not succeed in rising above historical accidents, 
so as to realise its own great heritage. Its enemy is the 
Church of Rome : but it ought not to treat its foe with fear, 
but with kindly regard. The Church of Rome is the Church 
of decadent peoples : it lives only on its past, and has no 
future. Borrowing from it may be silly, but it is not 
dangerous, and will pass. The Church of England has before 
it the conquest of the world. We can only succeed if we 
gird up our loins with the assurance that the future is ours. 

1 The question of the future of the world is the existence 
of Anglo-Saxon civilisation on a religious basis. The Church 
of England means a great and* growing power in America 
and in the Colonies. We cannot settle our own difficulties 
without an eye to all that they involve. On what we say 
and do, on our wisdom and charity at the present, depends a 
great issue. Let us see that the points for which we contend 
are fruitful for the future. I see a chance of much good 


emerging if we behave with wisdom. 

I have written more than I intended : but you will 
forgive me. I only wish you to know how seriously I view 
toy responsibility and how large I feel it to be. 

To Mr. W. J. Birkbeck Bettws-y-Coed ; August 6, 1898. 

Dear Birkbeck, It has always seemed to me that the 
Church of England recognises as strongly as possible the fact 
of the presence in the elements at Communion, but has 
declined to express any opinion on the method. . . . The 
expressions in the Greek Liturgy 1 would be quite in accord 
with the spirit of the Prayer Book. The theology of the 
English Church was best expressed by Queen Elizabeth 

Christ was the Word, and spake it : 
He took the bread and brake it, 
And what His Word did make it 
That I believe and take it 

I think the only point to make is that we abstain from 
definition on points where Scripture does not lay down a 

To the Rev. E. H. Hall Fulham Palace : October 12, 1898. 

* Dear Mr. Hall,- -Thank you very much for your letter. 
I will try to answer it as plainly as possible. 

1 I.e. changing (/j.Ta&a\uv) them by the Holy Spirit and further I believe 
that this is Thy very Body, and this Thy very Blood. 


*(i) Supplementary Epistles and Gospels. I found that 
the last Bishop had sanctioned them, and at first I rather 
reluctantly did likewise. At last I asked him about it, and 
he said, " I wish you to make known that I feel on consider 
ation I was wrong in doing so. Archbishop Benson was of 
this opinion, and latterly I refused any additional sanction." 
The reason simply is that an individual bishop cannot claim 
to permanently add to the Prayer Book for the stated 
services of the Church. 

(2) Corpus Christi and All Souls Day. In the same 
way a bishop cannot add to the calendar on his individual 
authority, especially by re-introducing festivals which were 
abolished. They were removed because their titles implied 
doctrines which were unscriptural. . . . 

(3) The term "Requiem Mass" implies a conception 
of the relation of the departed to God which is a pious 
opinion not revealed in Scripture. That there should be a 
special intention in the minds of the congregation is quite 
reasonable. But there is a further question, Ought this to 
be announced on notices ? Is not that assuming a power of 
directing the congregation which is a hindrance to some? 
Would it not be better to use a form resembling that of 
asking the prayers of the congregation as for the sick ? 
There is a difference between a suggestion and a notice 
which seems to exclude those who do not take it 

(4) I recognise the distinction between additional 
services and services for special organisations. In consider 
ing them I have to be careful about phraseology in the first, 
and about general intention in the second. But all services 
in church are public services, and must not contravene the 
principles of the Church. What these are I propose to 
discuss in my R. D. conferences. But I will now say 
briefly that one of them is to preserve the distinction between 
the faith and pious opinions. Pious opinions, however 
probable, and however reasonable, are reserved for private 
use. They are not condemned ; they are only not incorpo 
rated into the system of the Faith. 

I (5) You will feel that we need not now discuss limits 
of concession. But I would point out that Beveridge speaks 
of rites which are different from ceremonies. 

I 1 mark my letter private because everything which I 
write seems to be published, in a way which almost destroys 
confidential communication. , October 2I> l898 

* I very much wish to have ecclesiastical matters raised 
above trivialities to a conception of the mind and intention 


of the English Church the noblest exhibition of Christianity, 
and therefore the most difficult to maintain. The present 
disquiet is due to an uneasy feeling that this is being frittered 
away into the forms of a mechanical system which, if it were 
to spread, would exercise a pernicious effect on the national 

* This is the large issue to be faced. 

Some of the clergy wrote to the Bishop asking him 
whether they could do anything to strengthen his hands in 
dealing with unauthorised services ; he answered : 

Fulham Palace : November 22, 1898. 

Dear Mr. Hassard, I am obliged to you for your letter. 
I know that I can count on the cordial support of the great 
body of the clergy in the diocese. I do not, however, think 
that any expression of their opinion would be of any real 
service at present. The point is that we must all of us fall 
back on the Prayer Book, and try to understand it better. 
The more this can be urged the better. I think that the best 
thing which you and those who think with you can do is to 
urge the necessity of compliance with the necessary demand. 
It is a demand which I must steadily make, allowing as large 
liberty of interpretation as is consistent with the clear 
meaning of the services themselves. 

Mr. Suckling, of St. Alban s, Holborn, had said in the 
spring that he could not enter into the consideration of the 
modification of his services * until the intimidation of mob- 
law was at an end. When the Bishop wrote to him on 
November 10, while sympathising with your unwillingness 
to seem to act under threats of disturbance from outside, 
I think that such threats are now abandoned, the list of 
St. Alban s services was at once sent 

To the Rev. R. A. J. Suckling 

Fulham Palace: November 22, 1898. 

My dear Mr. Suckling, I have been looking through the 
occasional services which you sent me as being in use at 
St. Alban s, Holborn. They are for the most part of a widely 
different character from those which have been submitted to 
me from other churches in the diocese. They are not mere 
adaptations of Prayer Book services to special purposes, 
recognised in the Prayer Book, which may be emphasised in 
a brief form on special occasions for special classes of the 

ST. ALBAN S 305 

congregation. They are of the nature of a permanent supple 
ment to the Book of Common Prayer, in many cases for 
purposes which are not there recognised at all. They include 
a series of antiphons in the Evening Psalms and Canticles ; 
additions to the Communion Service by special collects, 
epistles, and gospels on Saints Days, which are not pro 
vided for in the Prayer Book ; a system of graduals and 
prayers on all holy days, and suchlike things which are not 
provided for in the Prayer Book, on the ground " that there 
was many times more business to find out what should be 
read than to read it when found out." ... I am unable to 
sanction any of these things. And I think it best to tell you 
at once that, in my opinion, your occasional services are 
framed in a spirit of disregard of the intention of the Prayer 
Book, so as to suggest that they should be entirely recast, 
and that many of them should be discontinued. 

In reply Mr. Suckling wrote reminding the Bishop of the 
extraordinary circumstances under which he had been 
instituted to his benefice at the request of Mr. Maconochie 
acting under the suggestion of Archbishop Tait and Bishop 
Jackson. He said that he was of course prepared to render 
canonical obedience to his Bishop, but that the reconstruction 
of services so widely appreciated would be an upheaval and 
a cause of much distress. The Bishop answered : 

* Fulham Palace: November 25, 1898. 

1 My dear Mr. Suckling, I know that your present 
position was not of your seeking, and that your difficulties 
were not of your making you will recognise that the same 
considerations apply also to myself. 

* There are in the history of all institutions times when 
experiments are made, and times when the nature of those 
experiments has to be estimated. 

4 1 am quite willing to accept your assurance that the 
services of St. Alban s are appreciated by the congregation. 
But the adoption of this appreciation as the sole criterion 
would rob the Church of any positive system and reduce it to 

1 It is now obvious that deviations from the services of the 
Prayer Book are tending to add private opinions to the 
system of the Church. It is equally obvious that such 
additions cannot be made by private judgment, or by the 
preferences of special congregations. 

4 It is with reference to this principle that I must review 

VOL. II. x 


your additional services. I sincerely hope that you and your 
people alike will be willing to make some sacrifice of their 
own desires to the good of the whole Church. I venture to 
think that this is a great opportunity. 

* If you are willing to talk over with me your services, 
I should be glad to see you and any members of your staff. 

The proposed interview was held. The services were 
discussed, and the Bishop pointed out the changes which he 
felt to be necessary. A few days afterwards Mr. Suckling 

wrote to him: December 14, 1898. 

* I have to thank your Lordship for your great kindness 
to me at our interview on November 29 at Fulham Palace. 
It did its most blessed work, for which I am deeply grateful 
to you. Yet even now, I cannot hide the fact from myself 
that you have laid upon me a difficult task, though I shall try 
D. V. to do what I believe to be my duty. 

A circular was issued by the clergy of St. Alban s to the 
congregation stating the changes which had to be made. It 
said that, of course as Ordinary, it was entirely within the 
Bishop s rights to make these changes ; and whatever it may 
cost us, it is entirely within our duty loyally to obey. l There 
was naturally a good deal of indignation expressed publicly 
and privately. But one leading member of the congregation 
wrote to the Bishop : I should like to express the deep 
gratitude that one feels for the kind and generous manner in 
which your Lordship has dealt with the church and the 
services that we love. I am afraid that some of us laymen, 
in our zeal, scarcely appreciate as we ought the difficulties of 
the position in which our Bishop is placed. It would be well 
if those who were loud in rebuking the lawlessness of the 
clergy * had tried to understand the real sacrifices made in 
this and other cases at the bidding of the Bishop, and in 
deference to what he urged to be for the good of the whole 
Church. This submission at St. Alban s was a very real help 
and comfort to him in the midst of all his difficulties. 

1 The services most criticised were the Requiem Masses, at which in future, in 
addition to the Prayer Book Communion Service, only a Collect from the Burial 
Service might be added. Asperges were done away with, graduals and antiphons 
cut out of Mattins and Evensong. The legend of Veronica was not to figure in 
the stations of the Cross. There were to be no proper services for Black-letter 
Saints days. 


But though his ruling was almost universally accepted, 
it cannot be said that all who obeyed were convinced, nor 
that the irritation caused by the changes quickly subsided. 
It was not only the High Church party who were affected. 
Some Low Churchmen had been accustomed to make 
omissions which the Bishop equally refused to authorise. He 
did his best to explain his policy. 

To the Rev. W. E. Oliver, D.D. 

Fulham Palace, S.W. : December 9, 1898. 

Dear Dr. Oliver,- -The difficulty of the present state of 
things is that there is great unrest, but great inability to state 
clearly what it is about. The general formula that " the 
Church is being Romanised " is vague ; it may mean (i) that 
Roman doctrines, disavowed at the Reformation, are being 
taught : 

(2) That Roman practices are being introduced into the 
services of the Church. 

(3) That all ritual and ornaments are dangerous lest they 
should be Roman. 

* You will observe that (i) and (2) apply to a very small 
number of cases. As regards (i) no evidence is ever produced 
of a tangible kind. I have never had any information of 
a sermon which preached Roman doctrine laid before me. 

1 As regards (2) it is invariably mixed with (3), and 
discussed with it. Everybody draws his own line, and no one 
regards principles. Yet till we have some agreement about 
principles, what are we to do ? 

. . . You must remember that it would be quite easy 
for me at the present time to produce by an unguarded 
utterance (i) a considerable rebellion ; (2) a schism ; (3) a 
large secession to Rome. Would any of these help us ? 

The proposals for a conference fall flat, because no one 
on the attacking side knows what he wishes to talk about. 
The fear is lest the extreme men be recognised by the great 
body of the High Church party as attacked for things which 
they hold to be vital. If that were done there would be 
disruption. To avoid that they must be isolated on distinct 
points. I have taken additional services as the important 
point ; I am steadily bringing them into order. They are the 
real source of danger under (i); and that is the point to 
guard against. 

But it is necessary for us all to think out things more 



To the Rev. Canon Fleming Fulham Palace: December 24, 1898. 

Dear Canon Fleming, One of your parishioners writes 
to me that at the 8.30 Celebration on Sundays the service 
begins with the Offertory sentences. A wish is expressed for 
the whole service to be read. 

I have had to rule that the service of Holy Communion 
is intended to be said in its entirety that it does not come 
under the provisions of the Act of Uniformity Amendment 
Act, and that I have no power to sanction any curtailment 
of it 

* I know that a mere desire for brevity is your only motive, 
but in the case of this service it is the service for each who 
attends, and cannot be modified to suit the convenience of 
the clergy. * 

In answer Canon Fleming wrote to ask what the Bishop 
meant by entirety. 

* Fulham Palace : January 10, 1899. 

My dear Canon Fleming,- I quite agree with you that 
I owe you an explanation of the principles on which I am 
acting. You will admit that, in a time of excitement, when 
many questions are raised in a confused manner, it is the 
first duty of an administrator to see that he acts with reference 
to principles. I did my best to define what I had before me 
and to pursue my object steadily. 

1 In my circular letter of June last I made several requests 
with a view of asserting the fundamental points of the system 
of the Church of England against all tendencies of our time 
which might in any way obscure them. One request was 
that the service for Holy Communion should be said " with 
out additions or omissions." I was aware that this apparently 
simple request presented practical difficulties. Increased 
number of services, the needs of different classes of popula 
tion, the variety of hours of service, the combination of ser 
vices which congregations wish all these lead to methods 
of abbreviation. It seemed to me that in dealing with these 
cases I must possess a principle. The only principle I could 
find was the clear conception of the nature of the structure 
of the service its logical method. 

1 In another letter, in answer to a question whether when there was a Com 
munion at 7 and another at 8, the Commandments might not be omitted at the 
earlier service, he said : I think that the Commandments ought to be said at 
every celebration of the Holy Communion. Such a service can never be regarded 
as " additional." It is the service for each communicant, and he ought to have it 


Now, exhortations are not part of the structure of the 
service itself. They are instructions to the people, they are 
homilies or addresses, valuable as models of teaching, set 
forth for that purpose in a time when teaching was rarer 
than it is now. Their contents are now expressed in ser 
mons. Their omission does not take from the meaning of the 

4 But the service itself proceeds on a system which all 
hangs together. The Lord s Prayer and the Prayer for 
Purity strike a keynote of preparedness of heart. The com 
mandments insist on the duty of self-examination according 
to the moral law in its fulness. The Collect, Epistle and 
Gospel turn to the special lesson of the day. The Creed sets 
before the worshipper the fulness of the Christian faith. Then 
we turn to the special purpose of the service. 

Can [any part of] this be omitted without serious loss ? 
It is natural for the clergy who have many services to think 
so sometimes. But the service of Holy Communion in my 
opinion must be regarded from the point of view of the 
individual communicant. The method of his training is the 
one thing to be regarded. The rubric " Then shall this 
general confession be made in the name of all those who are 
minded to receive the Holy Communion," assumes this pre 
vious preparation to have been made and ratified by each 
individual in the presence of the Church. 

* You will see the bearing of this on the subject of private 
confession. The first part of the Communion service seems 
to me to have been purposely framed for the end of setting 
forth the true means of self-examination and of quieting the 
conscience. To omit it seems to me to obscure or set aside 
an important part of the systematic teaching of the Church. 
This is the view on which I have acted. It is not beyond 
criticism, I am well aware. But the point on which a Bishop 
has to be even excessively careful is to see that the system 
of the Church be maintained in its great principles. In doing 
so he has many difficulties in dealing with the equity of each 
case : and in every instance he knows that he is regarded as 
needlessly pedantic. But I am of opinion that a careful 
consideration of the structure of our services and of their 
essential meaning will lead to a better understanding of the 
whole position. We must agree about the meaning of the 
services themselves before we can discuss the possible varieties 
of the modes of rendering them. 

It was inevitable that, in connexion with the revision of 


occasional services, the question of the reservation of the 
Blessed Sacrament should come up. In the Bishop s opinion 
it was by far the most serious of the questions at issue. 

To the Bishop of Stepney (Dr. Winnington-Ingram) 

* London House : May 20, 1898. 

Dear Bishop, It is clear that the Prayer Book contem 
plates the good of the sick person, and provides that he 
should have the satisfaction of a complete service, including 
Consecration, in his presence. Reservation in any form up 
sets this, and substitutes the convenience of the priest as the 
determining element in the case. This is the main point to 
be considered. The priest must not consider his own con 
venience till he is driven by absolute stress to do so. Of 
course population has vastly increased, and also the desire 
of sick persons for frequent Communion. If the demand 
is beyond the power of the staff to supply, then it may be 
permissible to carry the Sacrament to sick people after a 
Celebration in Church, if they request it, and have a complete 
Celebration at home when possible. But I think it should 
be remembered (i) that great Festivals have Octaves, and 
that the sick may be provided for during the Octave; (2) If 
this is not enough, the administration to the sick should be 
as far as possible a continuation of the service in church, 
and should follow upon it. My opinion is that the whole 
matter should be as rare as possible ; that it should be 
regarded as an inevitable necessity, not part of a system ; 
that there should be no definite reservation in church, but 
that it be a supplement outside to a service performed inside. 

This is my own opinion on a reasonable survey of the 
case. The difficulty in applying it is that men are rarely 
reasonable, and if recognised as such hasten to become un 

1 Ixmdon House : May 25, 1898. 

Dear Bishop, We have just been discussing the question 
of reservation for the sick even within such limits as I laid 
down in my letter to you. I find that the Archbishop s 
opinion is strongly against any recognition of reservation on 
the ground, which I strongly feel, that the separation of the 
recipient from the act of Consecration is opposed to the spirit 
of the Prayer Book. I never feel that the case of necessity is 
made out : but if we sanction it in case of necessity, people 
are sure to go on. Therefore we will not sanction it in any 


To the Rev. R. Linklater july 19. 1898. 

* The exhortation in the Communion Service is of the 
nature of a homily, and is at your discretion always. . . . 
The question of reservation for the sick is of great import 
ance I know. But I can only ask you to consider the plain 
facts. The Prayer Book of 1549 allowed the Communion to 
be carried directly from church on days when there was a 
Celebration, to sick persons who gave notice. Otherwise the 
Consecration was to take place in their room as at present. 
There was no question of any general reservation in church 
for an emergency. This restricted form of reservation was 
struck out in 1552 and has never been restored. Moreover 
a rubric was added : " it shall never be carried out of the 
church." I know the attempts to explain that away, but we 
must not try to explain away plain words, which have to be 
read in the light of the previous concession. It is impossible 
to avoid the conclusion that the intention was : 

*(i) That the recipient should be solely considered, and 
that the Consecration in his presence was thought a desirable 
part of the service ; 

* (2) That provision for exceptional cases was made by 
the rubric about spiritual Communion ; 

(3) That the strong intention was to prevent the growth 
of a mechanical conception of the efficacy of the Sacraments. 

I very seriously think that we must all accept these con 
clusions : and I am sure that our ministrations will be helped 
by so doing. 

< July 26, 1898. 

* I cannot disguise from myself the real importance of the 
question of reservation. I admit the practical convenience 
of your custom : but I am certain that it was meant to be 
prohibited by the present rubrics. Of course those rubrics 
might be amended, and an effort for the purpose might be 
made in Convocation. But you know that no proposal to 
change them would pass any body representative of the 
Church of England, however elected. 

The intention of our Church is : 

*(l) To seek the advantage of the sick person rather than 
the convenience of the priest. Many innovations have been 
made lately avowedly in the interest of the latter. This can 
not stand. 

4 (2) The sight of the Consecration is therefore regarded 
as an integral part of the service for the recipient s good. 
Where this is not possible the recipient is referred to spiritual 


(3) This was clearly regarded as a necessary bulwark 
against the mechanical view of the Sacrament which prevailed, 
and which is always a danger. 

Now, of course, we may any of us criticise the wisdom 
of this. I confess that the more I have thought carefully 
about the matter lately, the wiser does the Prayer Book 
position seem to me. Deviations from it rapidly lead to 
excesses. Reservation for the sick has in several cases passed 
into reservation for adoration and so to Benediction. We 
have the proof that the line was wisely drawn. 

* It will take reflection to see all this in its various bear 
ings. But if we chafe under the restrictions of our forefathers, 
let us remember the many blessings we have received. 

To the Hon. and Rev. James Adderley 

Fulham Palace : December 24, 1898. 

The chief principle regulating worship is the balance 
between the various elements of human nature. It is the 
very essence of zeal and enthusiasm that they destroy this 
balance through a certain impatience of God s way. They 
tend to assume that man is what he is not to forget his 
inevitable limitations to assume that God s purpose for our 
sanctification can be hurried on by assumptions of our own 
The danger of this process is to assume that our emotions 
which are temporary can be made permanent by elevating 
their dictates above those of our intelligence, which is the 
most permanent part of our being. This is the root of the 
failure of all great religious movements. 

* Now reservation as a help to worship raises the question 
in a most acute form. Hence its importance. The reception of 
the Holy Communion is a moment of spiritual uplifting to the 
recipient. Reservation is an attempt, by outward appeal, to 
extend this over a longer time ; as carried out by the Church 
of Rome, it aims at making this moment permanent or re 
newable at pleasure. Is this possible ? Does it work ? Does 
it not impair the Sacrament itself, and those ordinary means 
of communion with our Lord which the Sacrament itself was 
meant to impress and strengthen ? This is a great question 
to be faced as a whole in its general bearing on Christian 
life. It cannot be settled by individual feeling or option. 

To the Rev. H. E. Hall Fulham Palace: December 29, 1898. 

1 My dear Mr. Hall, The two points of reservation and 
incense raise widely different questions, and rest on different 
grounds, (i) Reservation raises theological questions which 
go very far. If practised for the purpose of adoration, it 


is clearly against the mind of the Church of England. To 
prevent that possibility, the Church went to very early times 
for a mode of communicating the sick without reserving at 
all. It might have been possible to raise the question of 
altering this mode, on the ground that the danger which it 
proposed to guard against was past But the misfortune is 
that that plea cannot be sustained. The plain fact is that 
the wisdom of the framers of the Prayer Book is amply 
justified. This has to be faced. No Bishop could say 
publicly that he believed reservation for the sick to be abso 
lutely free from danger of any ulterior results. This being 
so, how can he claim to exercise any power of dispensing 
from the mode prescribed by the Prayer Book ? 

* (2) Incense raises only the question of the interpretation 
of the Ornaments Rubric. I cannot see how any reasonable 
interpretation, which has the least chance of adoption, can 
go beyond the contention that the old ornaments were to be 
used so far as they could for the revised services, but the 
services must interpret the rubric, not vice versa. Incense 
might be used to dignify the service, as an accompaniment, 
not to emphasise particular parts of the service. This is the 
meaning of "censing persons and things." It introduces an 
element not otherwise recognised and so is in itself an addi 
tion to the service. These are considerations of principle : 
you will see that they are important The point of the 
present crisis is that experiments have been made, and they 
are now challenged to show their meaning and their tendency. 
I know that it is hard to face the abstract question : but it 
must be considered quite in the abstract 

In October Mr. Kensit wrote to say that if the Bishop did 
not interfere he would, and that there were hundreds ready to 
take the law into their own hands. He asked for a statement 
from the Bishop to be read at a great demonstration which 
he purposed to hold in Exeter Hall on October 25. 

The following letter was sent him : 

To Mr. John Kensit Fulham Palace: October 20, 1898. 

Sir, It is my duty to see that the principles of the 
Church of England are duly maintained and expressed in the 
services held in her churches. This duty I steadily perform. 
When differences of opinion disturb the peace of the Church, 
it is the duty of those in authority to behave with strict re 
gard to justice, and to remember that they are dealing with 
matters which are connected with the deepest sentiments 


of the human heart and the most profound convictions of the 
human mind. Human wisdom as well as Christian charity 
prescribes tenderness and patience in dealing with conscien 
tious convictions. 

I regret that the tone of your letter implies that neither 
wisdom nor charity has any place in your consideration. 
You rejoice that you have people " under your command," 
" who are prepared to take the law into their own hands." 
Such a method of proceeding is doomed to failure, and 
I would ask you very seriously to consider the heavy re 
sponsibility which you take upon yourself by uttering such a 
threat. Excited feelings and disorderly proceedings cannot 
be the methods for establishing Christian truth. God s 
message is brought to every soul by persuasion and not by 
force. Irregular and unwise action on the part of some of 
the clergy cannot be amended by more irregular and un 
wise action on the part of some of the laity. 

* As you ask me what steps I am taking, I would inform 
you that I am endeavouring by my private exhortations to 
deal with such irregularities or indiscreet action as are 
brought before my notice in such a shape that I can deal 
with them. It is only by steady perseverance in this course 
that the principles of the Church of England can be vindi 
cated and maintained. 

I would be obliged if you would read this letter to the 
meeting of which you enclose me a notice. It is my appeal 
to the good sense and love of justice which characterise 
Englishmen and to the brotherly love of justice which ought 
to characterise the relations of all Christians towards one 
another, especially when slight differences arise between them. 

Yours faithfully, < M. LONDON : 

This letter was read at the excited meeting in Exeter 
Hall over which Mr. Kensit presided, and was the only 
thing to which the audience listened. Mr. Kensit s oppo 
nents copied his methods, and attended in large numbers 
to prevent his champions from being heard. 

The Bishop chose as the subject of his addresses to the 
ruridecanal conferences in the autumn * the Position of the 
Church of England. By his words he lifted his audience, as 
one of them said, into the serene atmosphere of great 
principles, expounded with perfect lucidity. 

He did not allude to recent controversies, but stated that 
his object was to set forth the principles of the Church of 


England. He showed how the English Church had been 
reformed in the sixteenth century by returning to the 
principles of sound learning which England had the unique 
opportunity of applying calmly and dispassionately because 
there the Reformation movement was not inextricably 
mingled as in foreign countries with grave political distur 
bances ; that the work which this learning had to do was to 
remove from the system of the Church a mass of accretions 
which had grown round it ; man, to meet his own require 
ments, had expanded the Truth which God had made known. 
The problem set before the leaders of our Church in the 
sixteenth century was to disentangle essential truth from the 
mass of opinion that had gathered round it. The fact that 
our Church had avoided * the method of continually attacking 
error by negative assertions without any adequate affirmations 
to take their place but aimed * at setting forth the Truth in 
a simple and dignified system had led to the groundless 
assertion that it expresses a compromise : Sound learning 
must always wear the appearance of a compromise between 
ignorance and plausible hypothesis. All things cannot be 
explained ; where God has not spoken, man must keep 
silence. It is one duty of the Church to maintain the Divine 
reserve, and to uphold the Divine wisdom, against the 
specious demands of even the noblest forms of purely human 
emotion. He concluded by saying that he thought * that 
the system of the Church affords the best means for adding 
still more to our national character those qualities which it 
has ever striven to impart . . . the Church is a great witness 
to the continuity of national life, and the method of the 
Divine training of our race. It raises a constant protest 
against excessive self-assertion, against unbridled indi 
vidualism. It forges no fetters ; it knows no mechanical 
system ; it does not impair the responsibility of the individual 
soul. . . . The great danger of the present day is lest the 
aspirations of the highest minds, profoundly Christian and 
profoundly moral, should desert all ecclesiastical systems . . . 
This gradual alienation . . . has occurred in other countries 
... we of the Church of England are still in close touch 
ivith the vigorous life of a great people. 1 

1 Reprinted in Tht Church and the Nation, p. 266. 




F MUST return to consider some of the many other things 
besides the ritual difficulties with which the Bishop was 
occupied in 1898. He showed his interest in the work of the 
County Council by presenting in February the certificates 
to the 700 scholars selected by their Technical Education 
Board. The children were immensely pleased when he told 
them that, if he had his own way, he would abolish the teach 
ing of grammar in schools. He was much amused at a letter 
from a schoolboy thanking him for what he had said about 
grammar, and saying that it had been the bane of his life. 

To a schoolmaster who wrote to ask him if his words had 
been correctly reported, he answered : 

1 Fulham Palace : February 28, 1898. 

Dear Sir, I have before me the words which I used 
concerning grammar. "If I had my own way, I should 
abolish the teaching of grammar, not because I do not like it, 
but because I think it is the subject which is furthest off 
from life." 

You will see that I was speaking from a general concep 
tion of the nature of education. Doubtless I am quite wrong : 
but I should like to see a radical change in our notion of 
elementary education. 

1 The mere point which you mention that boys come 
from board schools knowing nothing of grammar which 
they have been carefully taught makes for my argument. 

* You will not teach them to speak and write correctly by 
teaching grammar but by making them talk and write and 
then correcting them. 

Moreover grammar cannot be taught from the English 
language. You may teach Greek grammar or Latin grammar, 
but not English. Even Greek and Latin grammar is not 
understood till the age of sixteen or seventeen. 

1898 LETTERS 3*/ 

1 It is possible to teach Logic, i.e. the analysis of ideas, 
but not grammar, which professes to be the analysis of 
sentences. In the study of every subject you have to allow 
for the length of time for which the course can be carried on. 
If a boy is going to be educated till eighteen, it does not 
matter that his knowledge should be in a very confused state 
at fourteen. But if his education ends at thirteen or four 
teen, it is necessary that he should understand then why and 
what he was taught. 

* The conception of a " ladder " in education is quite wrong : 
it does not correspond to facts. If an education is to stop 
at twelve, it will be on one line ab initio : if it stop at 
fifteen on another. Anyone who determines to continue 
must go through a preparatory stage for his new work. 

1 For elementary education the whole idea of a subject 
seems to me wrong. 

In March we went for the first time to live in London 

To his nephew Basil March 17, 1898. 

* Now that we are settled in London House I find that I 
quite like it. I get back in the evenings much sooner than I 
used to do, and I get out in the mornings without so much 
trouble. Also it is easier for people to come and see me. 
Of course we have no garden, but the children go to Fulham 
and play hockey as usual. I hope to get off this afternoon and 
have a game for a change. I am very busy with confirmations 
and see hosts of boys and girls every day. They all look 
very nice and good. I wonder if they will remain so, poor 

To C. D. London House: March 17, 1898. 

You have been often in my mind lately, I do not 
exactly know why ; but you are a very pleasant inmate. 
Every year as I grow older I feel more strongly the charm of 
old friends, and their special place in my life. . . , The more 
people I see, the more I look back on those whom I knew 
before. There is such a difference between knowing anyone 
in themselves, and as they appear in society of course the 
last is interesting : but then to be interested is not entirely 
satisfying. However, I was interested the other day by 
being asked to meet Lord DufTerin at lunch. He and I 
were the only gentlemen, and we had a long talk. , . It is 
interesting to see how conversance with great affairs affects a 


He was a good deal vexed about this time by the publica 
tion of a supposed * Interview with him in * Goodwill. It 
was written by a young man in whom he had been affec 
tionately interested for many years, and was intended as 
warm praise, but it was not submitted to the Bishop before 
publication, and its tone gave offence to some. What hurt 
the Bishop was the breach of confidence. 

To the editor of Goodwill. London House: March 15, 1898. 

* I am very sorry that there should be any misunder 
standing. I had put the whole matter out of my mind, and 
would not have referred to it if you had not done so. But 
there seems to have been a complete divergence of opinion. 

When R said he was going to write an interview, I 

supposed that he meant an account of me, with a description 
of Fulham, and a few remarks about things in general. 
When he came I referred him to a book of newspaper 
cuttings which one of my daughters keeps. He asked me a 
question about Leicester strikes, which I negatived. Then he 
laid aside his pencil, and I supposed he had all the materials 
he needed. What followed was a conversation, which I 
considered to be private. I do not recognise it in the printed 
account, which seems to me to contain all the obiter dicta 
which I may conceivably have made during the last six 
years. But I never supposed it possible that anything which 
purported to express my opinions in words should be 
published without being sent me in proof ... I am afraid 
that I know so little of modern journalism, and am so utterly 
out of sympathy with it, that I cannot even understand its 
methods, or suppose that any man with a serious purpose 
can use them. The appearance of the interview in " Goodwill >: 
hopelessly bewildered me, and I am still unable to under 
stand how it was possible. This is due to my ignorance of 
the world. 

* I am really a very simple person. I like to trust people, 
and take them as they seem to be, The proposal for an 

interview came to me after I had professed Sister G , while 

I was hastily eating my breakfast in your simple reiectory. 
The idea that I was dealing with a journalist wno wanted 
clever copy, and did not care how he got it, wa/s miles from 

my thoughts. In talking with R I was thinking only of 

himself, of his dangers, of his tendency to exaggerate trifles, 
of the need of discipline. I was trying to give him warnings 
against worldly tendencies, which I see on all sides in this 


1 I say this to explain why I spoke to you in what 
doubtless you considered a harsh manner. I had not 
personal feeling, I trust. But you have come out of the 
world ; you are trying to heighten its standard ; you are 
working for a nobler future. Beware, I affectionately im 
plore you, of the ways of the world. We are always righting 
God s battle with the weapons of the flesh, and they break 
in our hands. 

* St. Francis did not regenerate the world by smart 
journalism. We all trust to our own cleverness : we all deal 
with modern problems. It is for you especially to rise above 
this to deal with eternal problems, and show, not how well 
old forms can accord with modern ideas, but how spiritual 
power can create a purer atmosphere, in which there is 
neither new nor old, but all things become beautiful and 

This was what I wanted to imply I am nothing, and 
this matter is forgotten. But you have a future : will you 
rise to it ? The world will be moved by seeing a spirit not 
like its own ; and this spirit must never work in the world s 
way. * Yours with real concern, 

1 M. LONDON : 

This year he took the Holy Week services in St. Paul s 
Cathedral. He preached at mid-day on the characters of 
those who combined to condemn the Lord, to a large con 
gregation chiefly of business men, and on Good Friday he 
took the Three Hours Service. 1 

During the last few months he had suffered frequent 
pain, the cause of which could not be determined. So at 
Easter, by his doctor s advice, we went to Glion for a 
fortnight. It was the only holiday that he did not thoroughly 
enjoy. He never cared much for Switzerland ; the life in 
a big hotel bored him, and he was often suffering. But 
he returned decidedly better, for another month s residence 
in London House. 

One of his first engagements was to preach at the festival 
connected with the opening of the new buildings of St. Hilda s, 
the ladies settlement started by Cheltenham College in East 
London. He spoke of the feeling that must lie at the 
bottom of all work for others. Only in the sense of spiritual 
equality, of sharing the same gifts, can men meet on terms 
1 These addresses have been published under the title Lessons from the Cross. 

320 LONDON LIFE 1898 

of frankness and cordiality . . . Work done with the 
smallest sense of condescension in the heart is worthless. 
There must be reciprocity, the frank and full recognition 
that they who would teach others are also ready to be 
taught by them . . . What is the idea at the bottom of a 
settlement? Surely what each one seeks in coming and 
labouring there is simply an opportunity of crying to their 
brothers and sisters, " I beseech you be as I am, for I am as 
ye are. Is my life better than yours? If it be so in one 
sense, in other ways yours is better than mine . . . Let us 
bring all that we have together, and look at it with common 
eyes ; let us not regard one another as separate and apart." 

In the * Westminster Gazette about this time there was 
the following description of the Bishop s life : In the last 
eight days he has been at four public dinners, attended eight 
public meetings, consecrated a church, laid the stone of 
another, besides preaching, confirming, giving personal inter 
views to clergy, and writing endless letters. Well may 
Lord Salisbury say that he is the hardest-worked man in the 
country. It was at one of these public dinners that he was 
given the freedom of the Clothworkers. 

A Sunday spent at Cambridge in order to preach before 
the University came as a welcome break. He chose as the 
subject of his sermon Liberty. Some years before at 
breakfast at Lambeth Palace, he had propounded the question 
what was the most important object of pursuit, and had 
maintained amidst the friendly and animated contradiction 
which never failed in that circle, that liberty was the most 
precious possession of man. This conviction only deepened 
as the years passed. But he felt also increasingly the tre 
mendous responsibility of liberty, ?nd said that, instead of 
snatching at it as a prize, it would be more true to speak 
of the burden of liberty. In this sermon at Cambridge he 
said : If we try to grasp the meaning of progress as it is 
shown in the history of the past, it is to be found only in the 
growing recognition of the dignity of man, which is another 
form of expressing human freedom, and is the ground of its 
claim. He showed in his concluding words how that 
recrudescence of the spirit of persecution, which was such a 
constant cause of concern to him, could alone be met by a 


true understanding of liberty. * We have still to trust to the 
good sense of the community to restrain individual extra 
vagances. But this good sense must rest upon principles ; it 
cannot be picked up from the expediency of the moment 
Justice and fairness of mind must rest on firm foundations, 
which are not moved by temporary storms. There are 
signs enough in all that is occurring around us of the duty 
which is incumbent on us to strengthen the foundations of 
our national life. We rest upon a precious heritage of liberty. 
God grant that we may understand its value and may use it 
well. But we shall not do so unless we recognise it as an 
eternal principle, capable of indefinite expansion, but re 
quiring a recognition of individual limitations a possession 
involving grave responsibilities, not to be enjoyed for personal 
gratification, or claimed for the gratification of personal 
interests. It is God s gift to those who grasp its meaning, 
and seek His help to use it rightly. L 

On May 28 he was present at Mr. Gladstone s funeral, 
following immediately behind the coffin. At the last moment 
a wish was expressed for a prayer to be said before the coffin 
was taken from its resting place in Westminster Hall. The 
Bishop composed a prayer, which he said standing at the 
head of the coffin, just before the procession started. 2 That 
evening he went to Peterborough, for one of the very few 
visits he was able to pay to his old diocese. Always a 
warm friend of the co-operative movement, he had agreed 
to be President of the Co-operative Congress which met that 
year at Peterborough, and gave his presidential address on 
Whit Monday. He spoke about the educational value of 
co-operation. * Co-operation teaches that no economic ad 
vantages are to be obtained, except by a corresponding 
responsibility being undertaken by him who hopes to obtain 
them. It shows that greater freedom is only to be won by 
subordination to a higher law, which takes into consideration 
larger elements of social welfare. He pointed out in charac 
teristic words the value of a conference : 

4 After all, the highest thing in which we can co-operate is 
in ideas. They luckily cost nothing, and do not even add to 

1 Published in The Mind oj St. Peter and other Sermons. 
1 See Appendix I. 

VOL. II. v 

322 LONDON LIFE 1898 

the weight of our luggage when we go away. Ideas are 
useful in proportion to the amount of our experience. ... It 
is easy to improve society on paper, it is more difficult to 
improve ourselves in practice. Therefore I say to you cherish 
your ideal, keep before you your original principle, remember 
what your efforts have taught you, use what you have learnt 
for the good of others, do not try short cuts to prosperity. 1 

We went back to Fulham for the Trinity Ordination. In 
June he wrote to his niece : I am looking forward to August. 
I count the weeks with impatience. I always think that each 
week as it comes is going to be easier ; but it never is. 

He had been for some time occupied with a committee 
of Convocation on Divorce, and on July 7 he presented its 
report with the following speech : 

. . . It is extraordinary how complicated and difficult 
the consideration of this question is. It is a point upon which, 
perhaps more than any other, we feel the difference between 
the mediaeval and modern mind. It would be almost true to 
say that all through the middle ages the tendency of men was 
to wish to have things clearly and logically put upon paper ; 
that they were more concerned in expressing lofty principles 
as such than they were concerned in carrying out those 
principles in action. At all events they were great idealists, 
and idealists in a different sense from that in which idealism 
exists at the present day. Nowadays we are all practical 
certainly to this extent, that our desire is that the laws should 
be carried out, and that they should represent what is the 
popular conscience at the time at which they are passed . . . 
attempts to take the letter of the mediaeval law, and to infer 
from it that there was a corresponding practice, are very often 
exceedingly misleading. ... It is not that the Church at any 
period whatever had any doubt that marriage was indis 
soluble . . . but it seems to me that there is no point upon 
which the Western Church displayed such incompetence, for 
I can call it by no other name, than in its dealing with the 
question of marriage. Marriage was a matter which was left 
entirely in the hands of the Church. Ultimately, as a matter 
of fact, the State had to interpose, because the Church had 
reduced matters to such extraordinary confusion ... it is a 
matter of fact that the Church found exceeding difficulty, and 
showed exceeding reluctance, in defining what marriage was. 
Therefore, while it is perfectly true to say that a valid 

fc Published in Thoughts on Education. 

1898 DIVORCE 323 

marriage properly contracted was indissoluble, yet during the 
greater part of the middle ages it was almost impossible to 
say what a valid marriage was and how a valid marriage 
could be contracted. . . . This extraordinary complication 
of the marriage relation led to violent means for reforming 
and simplifying matters, but the complications were so 
great that it was impossible to simplify them in the way 
of putting them on a basis which was absolutely intel 
ligible. The sixteenth century in England saw very great 
changes in the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and 
as the result of these changes, the mode by which matrimony 
was contracted which had never been regulated before, 
was now regulated by law. . . . With the disappearance of 
the uncertainty, the whole question of the possibility of the 
dissolution of marriage in the minds of everybody entered 
upon an entirely new phase, and has to be judged to a certain 
degree by an entirely different standard. With the existing 
position of the law your committee was not concerned. How 
ever much we may regret it, it is not in the power of members 
of this House to alter it ... all we could do was to consider 
what advice was to be given to the conscience of Christian 
men and women as regards this important point. . . . We 
were distinctly of opinion that the marriage tie was such that, 
if it seemed to be severed in its outward appearance by the 
act of one of the parties, still the other ought conscientiously 
to regard himself as bound by it just in the same degree 
as if his partner had through a mental malady, been put 
under restraint. There would be still the possibility of 
recovery ; there would be still the possibility of return ; and 
considering the sacredness of the estate of holy matrimony, 
whatever might be possible from a technical or legal point of 
view, still there was the higher claim of the nature of the tie 
in itself. . . . But the Church of England does not undertake 
to impose upon the conscience of anybody a burden which 
is greater than he can bear, and your committee could only 
go on to say that : " If any Christian, conscientiously believ 
ing himself or herself permitted by our Lord s words to 
remarry, determine to do so, we recommend that then 
endeavour should be made to dissuade such person from 
seeking marriage with the rites of the Church, legal provision 
having been made for marriage by civil process. . . ." The 
marriage service is exceedingly unsuitable to be said a second 
time when there is a person still alive to whom the same 
pledges were made ... no one contemplating the marriage 
service could conceive that it was composed with a view to 


324 LONDON LIFE 1898 

such a case. So far as that goes, we were speaking with 
reference to the conscience of the individual, and it seemed to 
us that that was all that we could deal with . . . our advice 
could only be given in our capacity as bishops speaking to 
the conscience of the faithful who are committed to our 

Writing of this speech Dr. Randall Davidson (now Arch 
bishop of Canterbury) says, he gave an almost new aspect 
to a familiar subject by the light he threw upon it from his 
wide and vivid knowledge of mediaeval usages and rules. 

Previous letters show that the Bishop did not definitely 
forbid his clergy to use the marriage service in the case of 
the innocent party in a divorce case, but left it to their 

On August 3 he was able to get off for the holiday to 
which he had been counting the days more eagerly than any 
schoolboy. He often said that the great advantage of living 
in London was that it made the delight of getting into the 
country so intense ; certainly no man ever enjoyed his 
holidays more than he did. We went first with our children, 
his sister and his nephews and nieces to a house in the woods 
near Bettws-y-coed. Wales was almost entirely new ground 
to him, but he had soon thoroughly explored all the district 
within reach. After three weeks he and I went off to Italy, 
pausing first at Brieg, and then crossing the Simplon. 

To his daughter Beatrice < Domo d Ossola : August 29, 1898. 

*. . . On Saturday we boldly went for a long walk to the 
Bel Alp . . . we rose 4,900 feet, which is twice as much as 
Moel Siabod. . . . The walk was very fine and the glacier 
and snow peaks were what people like, but I think them 
rather ugly. Of course it is very bracing, and the air is very 
good, and so on, but it does not please me. ... It is quite 
splendidly Italian to-day. I hope it may remain so/ 

To his son Cuthbert Bognanco : September i, 1898. 

4 We are very comfortable. There are no English people, 
only middle-class Italians. . . . We prowl about the mountains, 
and there could be no better place for studying them. It is 
a short and a narrow valley, and the road stops where we are, 
at a height of 2,200 feet ; beyond that mule tracks lead straight 
up the hills. There are any number of steep lateral valleys, 

1898 WALKS 325 

and we wander round them. But the point of these mountains 
is that you never get to the top of anything. You go on 
mounting higher and higher, but there is always beyond you the 
main range of the Alps. Yesterday we took quite a mighty 
walk, and mother walks splendidly, if she is not hurried. 
We left at 8.45 A.M. and got back at 9.15 P.M. . . . The 
object of our walk was a series of little mountain lakes. First 
we climbed steep up to a little village, then to another. Then 
we struck the hillside . . . till we crossed the head of another 
valley. Then we had a steep zigzag to another village. Then 
in front of us was a sheer steep of rock up the sides of which 
we climbed, till suddenly we came upon a little lake lying in 
a pocket of the rock, which had three of them in different 
stages ; it was very odd, and waterfalls dashed down from one 
to the other. Up here the cattle feed in the summer time on 
such grass as they can find, and I found a lonely cowboy 
watching them. They were quite tame ; two cows made friends 
with me and followed me down to show me the easiest way. 
Sometimes they came and rubbed their heads on my shoulders 
and lowed with delight as they licked my hands. It was 
very nice ; but oh, the paths are steep and one pants along. 
I do not think young folks would like it. There is no chance 
of tea and one carries one s food in one s pocket. There is 
no hope for you if you wander from a path, and you can lose 
yourself hopelessly/ 

It was interesting to watch how without any guide he 
soon got to understand a new mountain district. We often 
lost ourselves, but he was very cautious, and though some 
times we got into difficult places, he never did anything 
risky, and our walks never took us higher than to the 
edges of the glaciers. Even that was higher than he liked : 
he said that he did not care for the rubbish heaps of nature s 
workshops. He missed nothing on the walks ; every flower 
was noticed ; every child, every dog was spoken to ; his 
enthusiasm was expressed in unmeasured language, and it 
was a family joke that every walk was the nicest he had ever 
taken and every view the most beautiful he had ever seen. 
And the exaggeration was almost a truth, for his feeling for 
nature grew stronger every day he lived. When we returned 
from the walk described in the last letter he exclaimed, 
Well, whatever happens nothing can ever rob us of this day. 1 
On this journey, he started a new habit, and took to 

326 LONDON LIFE 1808 

composing verses as he walked. The following little poem 
was finished at Bognanco : 

The merchant to his office wends, 

The peasant drives his plough, 
Yet here we sit and talk as friends, 

Unbusy I and you. 

The ploughman s muscles heave and strain. 

The merchant knits his brow ; 
All thought of care, all sense of pain, 

Is far from me and you. 

The peasant toils, the trader schemes, 

Both human wants supply ; 
But what avail our smiles and dreams, 

Poor foolish you and I. 

Ah, dear, the present needs we know, 

But things are yet to be, 
And who can say what fruit may grow 

From love twixt you and me ? 

The journey begun so delightfully was one of the happiest 
we ever had. For five weeks we wandered chiefly in high 
Italian valleys, spending three days on the top of Monte 
Motterone ; though he did not care much for the close neigh 
bourhood of snow peaks, he never wearied of such a view as 
Motterone offers. 

To C. D. Hotel Belvedere, Lanzo d Intelvi : September 18, 1898. 

* There are two things about the artist s life : first, the 
exercise of his craft stimulates his perceptive powers to a 
degree beyond his capacity for dealing with the results of 
his perceptions : hence he is constantly bubbling over in 
incomprehensible words. Secondly, artists of all sorts have 
an imperfect general education ; hence they do not know how 
to deal with their impressions. Everything one gets is ulti 
mately dealt with in the terms of ordered thought, which 
gives a sense of relationship between one impression and 
another and an end which keeps them all together. Mere 
perception produces a tremendous fizz which dies away and 
leaves no result. Each new perception causes equal rapture 
for the time, and then disappears. This is exhausting to the 
perceiver. I believe that much of the malady of the present 
day comes from people not knowing how to deal with their 
impressions. There must be a scheme of things somewhere 
if we are to have any impressions at all we cannot have 

1898 ITALY 327 

minds like lumber rooms. There must be some order. Yet 
the modern mind regards order as another form of tyranny. 

But Mr. has led me into great questions. Let me 

return to my own perceptions of travel. 

It is always well to have objects to pursue. I am now 
engaged in an intimate search into Italian valleys. As my 
holiday must be in September I am restricted to North Italy 
and tolerably high places but I find that the valleys on the 
south side of the Alps will last my lifetime. They are quite 
lovely and are all different and all repay ample investigation. 
The charm is to stay in some place and go exploring without 
any particular object. You see a little place on the hill-side 
and say, " I will go there." You start on a likely path, it 
curls round the hill-side and strikes inland and crosses the 
head of streams, and leads you far from where you meant to 
go: but it discloses all the hidden folds of the valley: the 
high meadow lands, the little villages, the places where the 
cows are browsing, all sorts of mysteries and you walk 
amid chestnut woods, by brawling streams and precipices and 
waterfalls, and see all sorts of things that the casual tourist 
knows not. We are now in one of them such a lovely place. 
I dare say you have gone on a steamer down the Lake of 
Lugano and thought how splendid are the hills descending 
steep to the lake. We are on the top of one of them. On 
the terrace below the hotel we seem suspended above the 
lake. But inland is a lovelv valley : there are meadows and 

* j 

towns on every side. We can climb a hill and look over all 
the country between Lugano and Como. On all sides you 
can wander in every diversity of country. It is this wonderful 
diversity which gives Italy its charm. I won t bore you with 
an account of the places I have been to ; but if ever you want 
to explore Italian country life, apply to me, and I will tell you 
how to do it at any season of the year. I have not seen an 
English person, except one yesterday on a Como steamer. I 
go to places which the English know not. Even on the Lago 
Maggiore I stayed at an old-fashioned inn where we had a 
palatial room and were treated with all possible care, and for 
four days stay I paid the mighty bill of sixty-eight francs. 
Every night I sat in the Cortile, and talked with my landlady 
and her friends, and was quite happy. I am convinced that 
as one grows older it is necessary for success in life to find 
pleasure in simpler things. This is my experience, and I am 
glad to find that it is so. 

On our way home we stopped at Rheims, Laon and Amiens, 
that he might have a feast of architecture. He got home for 

328 LONDON LIFE 1898 

his ordination, and then went to Carlisle to be present at the 
unveiling of a memorial put up by the town to his brother. 

The monument was unveiled by the Speaker (Mr. Gully), 
who spoke of the work done by Mr. Creighton for his city, 
and said that, remarkable though that was, his chief claim to 
the goodwill of his fellow-citizens was the spirit of ardent, 
intelligent, indefatigable, civic patriotism which he brought 
into his work, and with which he inspired all who worked 
with him. The Bishop, when asked to say a few words, 
spoke of the gratitude felt by his family at the recognition 
of his brother s services, and said * Happy is the city that can 
inspire strong sentiments of local patriotism in its inhabitants ; 
happy is the city which by its recognition of their labours 
can make that sentiment an imperishable possession. On 
the base of the monument, a tall shaft surmounted by a figure 
of St. George, is engraved the message which James Creighton 
sent through his brother from his deathbed to his fellow- 
citizens. 1 

This year our two eldest sons left Cambridge. The elder 
to go and study in France in preparation for a schoolmaster s 
life, the younger to study music in Frankfort. The Bishop 
had from their earliest days impressed upon his sons that 
they must choose a career for themselves. * What do you 
mean to be ? was a question he constantly asked. When his 
second son, after beginning to study to be a doctor, because 
he knew how much that would please his father, decided that 
he could not go on, but must make singing his profession, his 
father first put before him very strongly what he considered 
the disadvantages of his choice, and then left him perfectly 
free to do as he liked. 

To his son Walter February 10, 1898. 

Dearest Walter, My only wish can be for your happi 
ness. Your life is your own life, and you must decide about 
it. You may rest assured that I shall not be distressed by 
your decision. I was bound to put my opinions before you : 
and I know that you gave them your serious consideration ; 
that is all that I have a right to ask. You have thought and 
you have decided. 1 can only accept your decision and help 
you to do what you want to do. But I want you to under- 

1 See p. 169. 


stand that when I have accepted your decision, I do so 
entirely, and will never go back on the subject. Whatever 
you do, do it hard and well, and I shall be satisfied. You 
are a dear good boy, and I entirely trust you. Don t think 
any more of my objections. I should be very sorry to get into 
your way, or to add to your burdens. May you be happy. 

I suppose you had better pass as many examinations 
as you can. You might want to take your degree some day. 
Get on as far as you can. I suppose you had better get to 
singing as soon as possible. We will make all plans in the 
vacation. God bless you, my dear boy. 

Something of his relations with his sons will be seen from 
the following words of his eldest son : 

* My earliest recollections of my father are naturally of 
him as a playfellow, and children have seldom found in their 
father so ideal a playfellow as we did. Throughout his life 
he always loved and thoroughly understood children, and all 
children, especially his own of course, were always com 
pletely at their ease with him. There was in him none of 
that condescension to their level which children are so 
quick to notice, and which immediately arouses their sus 
picion. We felt that he played and romped with us because 
he himself enjoyed it, and not merely to amuse us. He 
seldom joined in regular games, and if we were engaged in 
any such, his entrance was the signal for us immediately to cease 
and clamour for a romp. And then there followed a romp such 
as children love, a melee of weird noises, unexpected 
activities, and a general appearance of violence that would 
have terrified a nervous mother. Description is impossible, 
but any child who has enjoyed a romp in which he partici 
pated knows what a romp is at its best. 

4 So it was that from the very first he won our confidence 
and affection, by making us feel that he understood us so 
completely. He would take us with him on his walks, at 
Embleton, when he went to visit fishermen at Newton and 
Craster ; at Worcester and Peterborough on those delightful 
excursions into the country, which were his favourite 
recreation. In my case nothing fostered the sense of com 
panionship so much as these walks and expeditions. As a 
child, his fun, his grotesque stones, his jokes, delighted me, 
and enlivened what otherwise my indolence would have 
prompted me to consider a dull constitutional. And when I 
grew old enough to accompany him on his longer expe 
ditions, I was perhaps his most frequent companion. He 

330 LONDON LIFE 1898 

would say at breakfast, " It s a fine morning, Cuthbert ; we ll 
take a walk. Where shall we go ? And then we would go 
off to the study to consult maps and time-tables, and 
" concoct a plan." As a rule the plan did not go further than 
a train out to one station in some unexplored locality, and a 
few trains back in the evening from various other stations. 
Other details were left to be decided by circumstances, the 
look of the country, or information extracted from the guide 
book, over which he would pore during the journey out. 
From these excursions I acquired an interest in ancient 
buildings, architecture, and history, an eye for a short cut, an 
instinct as to which cottage the church key was kept in (for 
I was always sent to fetch it), an appreciation of the country, 
and an enjoyment of a walk, which were simply the result of 
association with one full of interest and delight in everything 
he saw, and whose enjoyment was increased by sharing it 
with another. The way in which he took one into his 
confidence invited, almost compelled, one to share his interests, 
and made one feel that one s society really added to his 
enjoyment. All this caused a delightful feeling of companion 
ship to grow up between us, and made me feel in a peculiar 
and personal way that he knew me and understood me, and 
even that I knew and understood him, that it was no effort 
to him to put himself in our place and become as one of us. 
Throughout his life I felt that he understood me as no one 
else did, that to impose upon him was impossible, that he 
knew alike the good and the bad in me, and that his estimate 
of my character and actions was invariably true and just 
There may have been times when as a child I wished that 
his affection had in it more of the element of condoning 
forbearance which I noticed in other parents who tended to 
spoil their children. But it is impossible for me to express 
what I now feel that I owe to the fact that his love was 
based on absolute justice and unerring insight. A trivial 
reminiscence will illustrate what I mean. I remember once, 
as a child, being shut up in a room for some misconduct, 
and sitting there in a condition of rebellious obstinacy, trying 
to foster my sense of injury in spite of the reproaches of 
conscience. There was in the room a photograph of my 
father, and when this caught my eyes I seemed to see him 
looking at me with a stern reproachful look that penetrated 
into my heart, and, sweeping aside all the excuses I had been 
constructing for myself, made me realise my fault at once. 
And so it always was ; the futility of excuses became 
obvious in his presence. With an almost merciless scorn and 


sternness he would point out the folly and meanness of 
one s misdeeds, and the contrast they presented to the high 
aims and lofty ideal which he never failed to demand of those 
dear to him. 

This by itself would convey a false idea of him as a 
father. The exacting sternness which he showed on these 
occasions lay hidden at other times beneath his fund of 
tender sympathy and the affectionate interest with which he 
would enter into and talk to me about my boyish occupa 
tions and amusements, a sympathy which made it only the 
more bitter to have incurred his displeasure. 

* Our religious education he chiefly entrusted to our 
mother ; but in all our intercourse with him he made us feel 
the high standard which he demanded of us, and the high 
ideal at which our Christian profession required us to aim. 
There was none of that conventional talk about religion 
which is apt to seem so unreal to children, but an unquestion 
ing assumption of its acceptance, and a persistent demand 
for the fulfilment of its obligations. The chief characteristic 
of his relationship with his children was the combination of 
sympathy and sternness which made us regard him both as 
our most delighful playfellow and companion, and also as 
our most exacting critic and our sternest judge. 

The other characteristic which strikes me especially, as I 
look back on my relations with him, and which marked, I 
think, his treatment of all those who came under his influence, 
is his respect for individual liberty, which showed itself in an 
aversion to exercise what is known as personal influence, and 
which made it his chief object to inculcate and encourage 
in others a realisation of their individuality and personal 
responsibility. " It s a free country." " Do as you please." 
" Don t if you would rather not." " That s a point which you 
must decide for yourself." All these phrases we recall as 
characteristic of him, and they indicate his deliberate 
attitude towards others, and a policy of treatment which 
I believe he consciously carried out towards us. He was 
convinced that each must learn from his own experience the 
folly of his ways, and that he had a certain right to be 
allowed to do so, and consequently he showed himself 
averse to interfering with our liberty of choice and action. 
He made it his object to develop the individuality of each 
one of us ; he did not try to impress his views upon us, but 
to induce us to think for ourselves, and form our own 
opinions. He would talk with me when I was still a 
boy on questions that interested him, and problems which 

332 LONDON LIFE 1898 

puzzled him, as if I were one whose opinions were worth 

But, in spite of this characteristic respect for the right of 
the individual to control his own actions and opinions and 
to buy his own experience, he did not in the least degree 
hold himself aloof or fail to make his authority felt when 
necessary. On certain small points, such as punctuality at 
prayers and meals, he was sternly insistent. Yet here again 
his method was characteristic of what I have tried to point 
out He would say, " This house is a hotel, there are certain 
regulations which must be observed, and if you don t wish 
to observe them you had better go somewhere else." Simi 
larly with regard to opinions : you were free to hold what 
opinions you liked, but so was he, and if you were more 
interested in trying to evade conclusions unpleasant to your 
self which followed from the opinions he expressed, than in 
trying to understand them, and exerted yourself more to 
controvert his views blusteringly than to learn the truth of 
them, you brought upon yourself a scathing discomfiture. 
Yet his object was not repressive but educational. " A mus 
tard plaster is the best educational instrument I know," he 
more than once said to me. " It sets up irritation, and that 
impresses what you have to say, and then when the irritation 
has passed away, what you have said is thought over, and it 
is seen that there is something in it." I realise now how 
much I learnt from him in this way, though at the time the 
unpleasantness of the process blinded me to its educational 
beneficence. Again, though you were free to choose your 
own course, he was also free to criticise. I think his criticism 
was often more effective than the most decided prohibition. 

I have tried to indicate a relationship between us which 
continued to grow in intimacy from the time when as a child 
I regarded him as my most delightful playfellow, all through 
the time when as a boy I felt him to be both in the fullest 
sense my companion and also my severest critic, to the time 
when as a man I was beginning to find in him a friend such 
as none other could be, whose advice and help would be my 
guide in all difficulties, whose society was the most stimulating 
influence of my life, and whose sympathy and affection were 
my greatest blessing. I cannot recall that I was ever con 
scious of any necessity for a readjustment of our relations to 
one another ; rather I seem to see marks of the tactful 
insight which enabled him to adapt his attitude towards me 
to my gradual development. There was never any break in 
the sense of companionship with him and in the complete 


confidence which he knew how to inspire. His influence 
only increased as I grew more capable of appreciating its 
value and character. 

During the summer of this year the Bishop had given 
much thought to the question of religious education in 
elementary schools, and finally, with the Bishop of Roches 
ter, had drawn up a letter to be circulated amongst the 
clergy and laity of the Church of England within the 
school-board district of London. This letter he hoped might 
form a basis for a common policy on the part of Church 
people. In it he said : * Undenominational teaching rests upon 
an attempt, which cannot be ultimately satisfactory, to teach 
such religious truths as no Christian objects to. It is obvious 
that a fairer and juster plan would be to teach such religious 
truths as any body of Christians desired for their own 
children. He tried to lift the matter out of the old contro 
versies. * Our desire is that the question should be regarded 
as an educational question apart from controversies which 
place other considerations before the welfare of the child, 
which is to us the sole object to be pursued. His practical 
proposal was that the wishes of parents be consulted about 
the education of their children, and that every child in Eng 
land should receive instruction in the religious beliefs of the 
denomination to which its parents belong/ He wished that 
the first steps in this direction should be taken by way of 
supplement to the existing system in the board schools, so 
that experiment might show how the practical difficulties 
could best be overcome, and * the religious instruction at pre 
sent given in board schools be disturbed as little as possible. l 

He wanted church people to consider seriously the ques 
tion of granting facilities for other religious teaching in their 
schools, and hoped that they would accept the principles 
he had laid down. But he wished discussion to be free, 
and would not be present at the meeting of the Voluntary 
Schools Union, where the Bishops letter was to be considered. 

To Mr. John J. Taylor (Secretary of the Voluntary Schools Union) 

Fulham Palace : October 4, 1898. 

* I think that your meeting will have to consider how far 
it is satisfied with the letter of the Bishop of Rochester and 

1 The whole letter is given in Appendix II. 

334 LONDON LIFE 1898 

myself. For this purpose it is not well that we should be 
present. Nor do I think that we should for some time say 
anything more on the subject. If you can organise church 
men on that basis, well and good : something may be done. 
But I venture to think that the policy there indicated should 
be accepted altogether i.e. not only the practical conclusion, 
but the recognition of the existing state of things on which 
it is founded. 

* Fulham Palace : November 28, 1898. 

1 Dear Mr. Taylor, The letter was addressed to church 
men in the London School Board district, and primarily con 
cerns them. But many people feel that their action would 
affect the rest of England, and doubt about taking a step in 
advance which would at once be quoted as generally applic 
able. This is a question which I cannot settle for them. 
They must think it out. Can they hope to advance denomi 
national education by trying to limit it to the Church ? This 
is a matter of common sense. 

1 The letter, however, dealt with a policy for London. In 
London we may demand denominational facilities, without 
giving them, on the ground that we wish all to demand them 
in the board schools, and that these are accessible to all. 
We need not offer facilities at first till we know that they 
will be needed in our schools. If they are, we are prepared 
to grant them. 

Fulham Palace : December 3, 1898. 

Dear Mr. Taylor,- -When it comes to the point of action 
the policy of Churchmen always breaks down before the 
charge that they want to get everything and give nothing. 

* I never concealed from myself the difficulty that a pos 
sible policy for London involved concessions all over the 
country. But I am sure that in country districts facilities 
would only be used very rarely, and then it would be the 
clergyman s fault. 

But it is inevitable that many will shrink from any step 
which might seem to give away the exclusive possession for 
religious purposes of country schools. 

* I think that the question is most likely to be solved by 
rate aid universally. 

The following letters also bear on the education question : 

To Mr. T. E. Horsfall Fulham Palace: Januarys, 1898. 

Dear Mr. Horsfall, I substantially agree with your 
views. They put the religious question as the basis of the 
educational question. This has always seemed to me the one 


point to make I believe that the Church, throughout this 
wearisome dispute, has been maintaining a true ideal of the 
nature of education. My great hope has been in the possi 
bility of inducing right-minded nonconformists to see this. 
If the advocates of religious education would agree, we could 
do what we liked. The basis of agreement must be the 
right of the parent to have his child taught the religion which 
he wishes. I have always been in favour of this solution. 
I further think that an elastic curriculum adapted to local 
needs is necessary. I grieved over the wreckage of the 
Education Bill of 95, because it contained the outlines of a 
Local Authority. Without such an Authority we shall not 

To the Rev. J. D. Carnegie (Congregational minister, Leicester) 

London House : April 5, 1898. 

1 My dear Mr. Carnegie, You ask me a question which 
is perpetually before the mind of all workers for Christ. The 
fact is that we have the boys in hand during the school 
period, then we lose them, and have to pick them up again 
with difficulty. 

* I do not want to go into controversial matters ; but I 
increasingly feel that, if the aim of secular education is to 
hand on a boy to continuation or technical classes, the aim 
of religious education ought to be to attach him definitely to 
some Christian organisation, which should care for him. 
This method of care should be better adapted to its purpose. 
We need boys clubs attached to every church, into which 
boys leaving school and going to work should be naturally 
drafted. These clubs ought to be organised with a view to 
the actual facts of a boy s life : and ought not to make at 
first too great demands on their spiritual powers, which 
require special training during the period of transition from 
the discipline of school to almost complete freedom. We 
have not yet thought this out sufficiently with reference to 
human nature. Dr. Paton of Nottingham is working at this 
subject with much success ; I would advise you to refer to 

On October 9 the Bishop unveiled a window erected in 
Gray s Inn Chapel in memory of Archbishop Laud. He 
said of him : 

1 Laud was a man of great ideas, and a man who was 
unflinching and unwavering in his pursuit of truth . . . his 
ideal of the Church of England was probably higher and 

336 LONDON LIFE 1898 

truer than that of any other man, certainly of his time. . . . 
Personally, he was large-minded and tolerant, but he was 
prepared to use intolerance as a means of establishing a 
system of tolerance. . . . He upheld great principles of 
spiritual freedom, which were as yet imperfectly understood ; 
but he upheld them by methods which threatened the very 
foundations of English liberty. . . . Spiritual truth must 
make its way by conviction. l 

On October 19 he preached at the service held in St. 
Paul s Cathedral by the medical guild of St. Luke, and 
dined two days afterwards at the festival dinner of the guild. 
In response to Sir Dyce Duckworth s remark that such a 
magnificent service as that in St Paul s could not have been 
held in any other country, he said : 

* It is indeed characteristic of England that people of all 
sorts can combine round the Church of England without any 
feeling of hostility. When I have talked with men of science 
in other countries, I have found that they considered it 
impossible for a man who is a thinker to be in any sense 
whatever in friendship with the Church ; that this is not the 
case in this country makes me most hopeful for England and 
for the mission which she has in the world. 

He had not been one of those who received with a sneer 
the proposal made by the Emperor of Russia in the course of 
this year, that the great powers of Europe should consider the 
possibility of a gradual disarmament ; and on October 26, he 
took the chair at a peace meeting in Exeter Hall. He said 
that we ought to be proud of the growth of beneficent ideas, 
and that, though there must be many discouragements in the 
effort to bridge over the gulf between the ideal and the real, 
yet an enormous stride is taken when this process is begun. 

Such a stride has been taken in the great question of 
promoting peace, by the proposals of the Russian Emperor. . . . 
Let me ask you for a moment to consider what the proposal 
for disarmament implies. Put shortly it is this :- -The exis 
tence of huge military establishments, and the prominence 
naturally given to them in the ordinary life of a country 
create in the popular mind a conception that the world is 
regulated by force only. Now in our internal affairs we in 
England have been foremost in striving to assert that the 
world ought to be regulated by justice. The Russian 

1 The sermon is published in The Mind of St. Peter and other Sermons. 

i8 9 3 PEACE MEETING 337 

Emperor pleads that a better chance should be given for 
applying this principle to international affairs also. 

He left the Emperor s proposals to be treated of by other 
speakers, and concluded : 

1 I will say no more on the subject of our meeting. But 
I must confess to you a peculiarity of my own. ... I never 
like to tender advice about large subjects without carefully 
considering what I am doing in my own sphere to carry out 
the principles which I recommend. If we labour for peace, 
we must remember that like other good things it cannot be 
given us from the top, but requires our own efforts at the 
bottom. The first step towards peace is that we should each 
of us try to acquire a pacific temper. I sometimes wonder if 
the English people are quite successful in impressing other 
countries with the pacific disposition which we know they 
possess. There is a certain danger in thinking that our 
character as good-hearted, well-meaning fellows is so generally 
obvious that we need not pay much attention to the way 
we express it. News travels fast nowadays. It is not 
always quite accurate. Opinions are immediately formed, 
and next day are spread throughout the civilised world. . . . 
I should like to plead that true wisdom lies in stating opinions 
moderately, with due reserve and strict attention to courtesy. 
Let other and less powerful nations bluster. We are great 
enough and strong enough to show them a more excellent 
way. We are too established a firm to be perpetually greedy 
of small gains. We need not be anxious to carry fresh 
acquisitions to our imperial account. We can afford to trust 
to the capacity of the British race to hold a foremost place in 
the business of the world. I think we might cultivate a 
little more sympathy with other people, and show a little 
more generosity in our criticism of them. 

On November 2, he spoke at Peterborough in aid of the 
Cathedral Restoration Fund, and dwelt on the immense 
influence the Cathedral had exercised upon his mind. Never 
did I go into the Cathedral and look about, but that I learnt 
something new, received some new idea, discovered some new 
act of deftness, some application of means to ends which 
tells the story so ennobling to us of the perpetual, the con 
tinuous activity of mankind. To him it had indeed been a 
living building. 

VOL. U. 

338 LONDON LIFE 1808 

* The more I meditated about it/ he said, the more I used 
to see in it not only of the better but also of the more common 
and ordinary motives which combine to make up the English 
character, and the building itself constantly grew before my 
mind in its significance as being an epitome of all that 
England was in the past, and all that England was aspiring 
to be in the present. 

On November 4, he lectured on Heroes l at the request 
of the Social and Political Education League, and pointed 
out the dangers and the limitations of hero worship. This 
lecture was largely the result of his reflections on Lord 
Acton s view that great men are almost always bad men. 2 
Some of the things he Said sound like the result of his 
own experience : 4 The life of a ruler or a statesman is always 
complicated, and he cannot simplify problems at his pleasure. 
4 It is seldom in the conduct of affairs that a man can do his 
best ; he is generally driven to pursue the second best as 
being the only practicable course. * There are great dangers 
attaching to the possession of power. Those who are en 
trusted with it soon discover how far-reaching those dangers 
are. It is a real support to them to feel that they will be 
judged by a higher standard than that of their immediate 

On November 21, he presided at a conference on economic 
training ; on December 5, he was at the opening of the new 
buildings of the London Library, and on the ipth he went up 
to Liverpool to give an address at the centenary celebration 
of the Liverpool Athenaeum." He had been persuaded to 
do this because Mr. Alfred Booth, instead of trusting to a 
letter, had travelled all the way from Liverpool to ask him to 
come, and he felt that such zeal deserved to succeed. 

These are examples of the things he did outside the 
regular course of his episcopal work. During these three 
months before Christmas he was also giving his addresses 
on the Position of the Church of England to the ruri- 
decanal conferences. He was present at many public 
dinners, amongst others the Guildhall and the Royal Society 
dinners, and was entertained by the Vagabonds Club. He 

1 Published in Lectures and Addresses. 2 See vol. i. p. 372. 

8 This address is published in 7 AougAfs on Education. 


spoke at meetings of the Church Historical Society, of the 
Police Court Mission, and of many other organisations. 

The * Westminster Gazette said of him, though in one 
way or another he speaks about six times a day, he is never 
at a loss, not only for words, but for interesting words, and he 
always speaks as if the subject of the hour was the only one 
he had on his mind. But, can his heart beat with his tongue 
on all these varied occasions ? The secret of his power was 
probably not only his genuine interest in the subject which 
claimed him for the moment, but even more his strong 
sympathy with those to whom he was speaking, which made 
him able to bring up out of the store of his knowledge and 
thought something that fitted each occasion. 

This autumn had brought a new task, for he had been 
appointed a member of the London University Commission. 

Lord Davey, chairman of the commission, says of his 
work there : 

On the rare occasions on which I differed from him, I did 
so with great misgiving and in one case at least was con 
vinced that his view was the right one to take. His sugges 
tions were most valuable in solving a difficulty or subject of 
difference amongst our colleagues by some middle course. 
Even in the matter of draftsmanship, he was ready with an 
apt phrase to express our meaning. What I was most 
struck with was his intimate aquaintance with the various 
centres of London teaching and the large way in which 
he looked at things. In settling the list of recognised schools 
and teachers in the new faculty of theology, I was very 
much impressed by his attitude towards the Jewish and 
nonconformist theology. He was as anxious as any of us 
that the new faculty should be comprehensive and tend to 
the promotion of learning and research and not merely ortho 
doxy. He was always on the side of comprehensiveness, of 
making the reorganised university as wide and modern as 
possible, and fitting it to meet the demands both of practical 
needs and business. 

Mr. Bailey Saunders, the secretary of the commission, 
says : 

Of the practical qualities he displayed, none seemed to 
me more remarkable or more conducive to the dispatch of 
business than his talent for furthering the progress of debate. 
This was most conspicuous when, in the chairman s absencej 

L 2 

340 LONDON LIFE 1898 

he was called to preside. He possessed a singular capacity 
for giving the discussion a fresh and invigorating turn ; he had 
many a shrewd and humorous comment to make as argu 
ments were raised, and he could listen with patience ; but he 
knew when a point had been sufficiently laboured, and more 
especially where rival interests were strongly or persistently 
asserted, his was often the suggestion that most rapidly 
cleared the way. If by common consent he was adroit in 
overcoming difficulties, I should say that his success sprang 
not so much from any affection for weak or hasty compromises, 
still less from a cynical indifference to the issue, as from a 
real desire to be comprehensive and tolerant. In this respect 
neither his connexion with the older universities nor his 
ecclesiastical position inspired him with any prejudice against 
certain tendencies in the University of London. On the 
contrary, they made him more eager to consider and satisfy 
its special needs. In the settlement of all the important 
questions, in the drafting of the new constitution, in the 
admission of the first schools, and in the recognition of the 
first teachers of the university he took an important part. . . . 
Where theology was concerned, he frankly recognised the 
principle that the university was to be free from any dog 
matic or sectarian restrictions. With one exception the 
schools admitted for theology alone were nonconformist, and 
took their place in accordance with the recommendations of 
a previous commission. Both in the recognition of the 
teachers, however, and in the formation of a faculty the 
Bishop showed every desire to keep to the spirit of those 
recommendations, and I shall not easily forget a pleasant 
hour which I spent with him at Fulham settling the list of 
names, and how readily he sanctioned any suggestion that 
tended to make them broadly representative of every denomi 
nation, every college, and every subject of study. Whether 
the teachers were churchmen, dissenters or Jews did not 
matter, if only their position or the instruction which they 
gave was of a kind to be recognised. A remark which 
he made to me was, I felt, in his opinion particularly 
applicable to the study of theology namely that there was 
a great difference between theology and religion. 

The Bishop describes how another unexpected labour came 
upon him this year : 

Just as I had returned from a holiday, and my mind 
was in that generally amiable and confiding condition which 
a holiday is intended to create, I received a telegram, de- 


manding an immediate answer, which asked if I would 
welcome the Church Congress in London. I had no time to 
consult any of my advisers, whose duty, as you know, is to 
curb my excessive benevolence, and I felt that I might be 
causing inconvenience if I sent a selfish refusal. So I left 
myself in the hands of the committee, though I reflected 
with a sigh that I was weakly parting with one of the 
traditional immunities of the see of London. Indeed when 
I was appointed to that office, and was searching for some 
compensations, one of the thoughts which crossed my mind 
was, " Well, at least, I am safe from the labours of a Church 

He used to say that the Church Congress had been sprung 
upon him. From December onwards Church Congress com 
mittees were added to his other engagements. 

During all this time he was constantly struggling with 
the ritual difficulties, and was being abused and attacked in 
public and in private. Once he was even mobbed on coming 
out of a church in Bethnal Green by a body of roughs, who 
raised the * no popery cry. He wrote to his niece, * I have to 
go my way and be abused by people who want to stamp on 
someone else, or rather want me to stamp for them. 

Two Sundays with friends in the country, where he 
enjoyed long walks in the glowing autumn woods, were his 
sole relaxation during these anxious months. 

To Professor Collins (now Bishop of Gibraltar) 

Fulham : January 15, 1898. 

Dear Collins, I have not yet seen Vaughan s document. 1 
I do not know if that controversy is worth carrying on. I 
certainly think, if it is, that the whole theological position 
must be faced. Of course the Archbishops answered the Pope 
because we were attacked. But the English episcopate will 
not begin a controversy with Vaughan. It must come from 
some other source, if at all. 

* Fulham Talace : February 9, 1898. 

My dear Collins, Your paper seems admirable. 
Vaughan has written for the Roman-minded Anglicans, who 
hanker after a logical system founded on authority. His 

1 A Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Cutae. 

34* LONDON LIFE 1898 

arguments, as you show, begin and end with the assumption 
of the existence of such authority as necessary to produce a 
desired result. He amends the Pope by dragging in every 
thing which is irrelevant to the exact issue, and trying to 
assume the correctness of the whole body of Roman theology 
as it now exists, as though it had existed always. I wonder 
if Romans really believe that, or if it is only a convenient 
assumption. While they posit development as necessary to 
produce what is, they never admit the operation of the 
process. The Marian bishops must have taken the same 
view that they do : and so on universally. This makes their 
history impossible. 

To Lady Grey ^ Fulham Palace : January 2O, 1898. 

Your letter gave me great delight. I rejoice to think oi 
you as restored to a great degree. But I think there is only 
one stage between youth and age it is when one feels if the 
grass is wet before sitting down upon it. The bore is having 
to think about one s physical and material self at all. The 
question of degree does not matter much. 

* I am not going to be busy ; it is a bad habit, and must 
be suppressed. I purpose to find time to come and drop in 
upon you when you don t want me. I can utter no more 
ferocious threat. It is awful to think of the number of 
persons who come to see me whom I don t want to see. I 
have contracted a rapid way of getting rid of them by bring 
ing them to the point, and giving an answer at once. Of 
course this is not what people wish : their desire is to use 
you as an anvil on which they beat out themselves. But 
then, as a rule, there is wonderfully little to beat out, and it is 
so thin that it hurts the anvil. . . . 

* Edward must take in hand the reorganisation of the 
Liberal party. Really things can never go on unless the 
game is properly played. The whole of our system of politics 
is founded on the supposition that alternative policies are 
before the public, and that it can choose. But you can t 
make a policy out of other people s mistakes. It must be a 
policy of your own, and must have contents. 

1 There is a question which occupies my mind, so far as I 
have a mind left It is, what do we mean by liberty? We 
shall only make a new start in politics when we decide that 
question. The political history of England during this 
century is briefly this : Englishmen have carried out their 
conception of liberty into all their institutions without 
deciding what that conception was. Now we are all free, and 

1898 LETTERS 343 

we don t know where we are. We won t find out till we have 
decided what liberty is. There is no idea on which to 
construct an ideal. Think for a moment. Socialism can 
only rest on a vigorous system of discipline, which can only 
be tyranny, if it is not accepted on moral grounds from 
within. Yet the socialists dare not say so ; they dare not 
even hint at the necessity of discipline. Everything is 
pursued and recommended on the grounds that liberty means 
doing what one likes. We are living on political habits 
formed in the past. They are fast passing away because 
they rest on little in the present How are we to get some 
thing ? That is my present problem. 

To Dr. Gamett Fulham Palaoe : March 7, 1898. 

Thank you very much for your book. 1 It is not a " com 
pendium such as I was contemplating, but a collection of 
criticism. Literary history stands on a basis of its own. It 
has to supply enough information to bridge over the gulf 
between the point of view of the past and that of the present. 
It is curious how little that process is needed in English 
literature. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, need no explan 
ation of that kind. It is only when you reach Dryden and 
Pope that cause has to be shown why they should be read. 

I was interested in talking this over in reference to 
Italian literature with an Italian friend. He said that 
instruction in the history of Italian literature was the most 
important part of an Italian s education. Their literature 
at every point was connected with mental and social life 
which were different from those of the present. It had not 
struck me so forcibly before, but it is true that Italian history 
and literature are more intelligible to an Englishman than to 
an Italian of to-day. 

To C. D. London House : March 24, 1 898. 

You have raised a question about the religion of the 
Mahommedans which always interests me. My own ex 
perience of them has been disappointing. I did not see 
much religion in Algeria. It seems to me that they get 
credit for two things : Oriental fatalism and disregard of life 
(in themselves signs of low civilisation), which are counted 
to them as faith : and strong race hatred (again a sign of low 
civilisation), which is counted to them as religious zeal. I 
mean the question is : How far are religions clothing of 
natural qualities ? How far are they motives and powers 

1 A History of Italian Literature, 

344 LONDON LIFE 1898 

which transform these natural qualities ? I think Mahom- 
medanism is a mere clothing ; it is an expression of the best 
that can be made of Orientals, leaving their life as it is. Now 
Christianity has no reference to special modes of thought or 
life : and moreover puts a most tremendous strain on human 
nature, presenting no definite end of worship or of life. 

To G. H. Fulham Palace : June 17, 1898. 

. . . It seems to me that your health is like mine: we 
have too much to think about. Only I never worry. When 
a thing is done I have done with it. It is useless to take 
more responsibility than human shoulders can bear. We 
can only do our best as occasion offers. We are never 
entirely wise or entirely rights The only thing to do is to 
try and be wiser. People like to avoid that by disclaiming 
their own responsibility, and voting themselves exceptional 
persons. We all have different natural gifts, different 
temperaments, and different temptations. But our business 
is to make the most of ourself : and to take care of our weak 
points. A man with a weak chest would be foolish if he did 
not wrap up properly. So we have to do with our character. 
It may be a nuisance : but it is not such a nuisance as 
catching a fearful cold and being ill for a month. But 
people s characters have more severe illnesses than their 
bodies, only they do not feel it in the same way. Take 
care of yourself and -, and cheer up. Remember that 
cheerfulness is a virtue. 

Fulham Palace: October 13, 1898. 

. . . You must always expect to be misunderstood in 
life. One has to make up one s mind on one s own re 
sponsibility, and trust to time to show that one was right. I 
dare say one will find out that one was not so right as one 
thought, but one can only do one s best, and be ready to do 
better if one sees how. So cheer yourself up with that 
reflection. There is nothing but "patient perseverance in 
well-doing " to put the foolishness of others to rebuke. 

To Mrs. T. H. Ward Bettws-y-Coed : Augusts, 1898. 

* My dear Mary, The month of August enables one to 
discharge duties long neglected because impossible. I have 
just had time to read through " Helbeck " with the attention 
which it deserved. Everybody else has done so ages ago, 
and my remarks will be flat and stale. The book interested 
me greatly. I think you have got hold of a very real tragedy, 
and have worked it out with admirable precision. The war 

1898 LETTERS 345 

of the intellect and the feelings is perhaps the deepest form 
which the tragic motive takes in our time. You have 
displayed the conflict in itself Romanism and indifference 
are not to you things in themselves, but are merely two 
modes of looking at life, each to some degree accidental, but 
embodying positions from which it is hard to move merely 
on receiving notice from the feelings. Moreover you have 
raised another question, the need of discipline for character, 
and the source whence such discipline is to be obtained. It 
is not so much that Helbeck is a Roman, and Laura is in 
different : but Helbeck is a character formed by a system 
which especially aims at forming character. Laura has never 
been formed at all. The excellent impulses of the free spirit 
dash and are broken against the power of character even 
when formed upon an exaggerated and unintelligent basis. 
Of course if Laura had possessed any system of her own, 
she could have dealt with another system : she could have 
measured distances and determined points of agreement. 
But no system will not do. 

1 1 think this is a great truth for our generation to learn. 
There must be some system for everybody. The attitude of 
superior critical capacity for valuing the defects of all systems 
will not do. Every life has to be built upon something. If 
not, the clash against a life that has a foundation is fatal. 

4 But I am wandering into a sermon of my own a propos 
of your book, which is not fair. . . . It is a wet day : there 
is a row on every side of me. I am beginning to be a new 
creature. I think it is worth while to live in London for the 
joy of going out into the country. Things are only under 
stood by being felt, and are felt in the way of comparison. 
We are all engaged in that process. 

Bettws-y-Coed : August 10, 1898. 

* Dear Mary, It is a rainy day ; one enjoys a rainy day, 
because it curbs one s external energies and gives space for 
letters. I said nothing about the love story in " Helbeck," 
which I thought was admirably done, and with very delicate 
touches. But then its beauty and grace were overshadowed by 
the main situation I see no way out of that difficulty. One 
feels that they had to fall in love, and this interferes with the 
sense of inevitableness which is necessary for the full enjoy 
ment of a love story. I know you will say that it need not : 
but every branch of art rests on preconceptions, and the 
perception of an end takes off from the spontaneity of the 
process. But all the same the development of the love-story 
was excellent, and you had obviously gone with it. ... 

346 LONDON LIFE 1898 

1 I am interested in your question. You know that I have 
almost a craze for liberty. But liberty must be claimed and 
used by the individual amid the systems by which he is 
surrounded. His claim is that the systems of the majority 
should be also adapted to the small minority. But that 
minority rests upon culture and intelligence. These are not 
the possessions of the multitude. It always seems to me 
that the intelligent person must frame his own life, and use 
what he finds outside for his own purposes. He listens 
unmoved to all sorts of opinions because he has his own. 
He cannot be more than an influence, a spirit which rises 
above the inevitable differences of one-sided expressions of 
opinions. But he trangresses his rdle if he wishes to make 
everything new to fit himself. Knowledge silently transforms 
systems. I do not know that it can wisely create its own. 
If it does so, it only creates an ideal for which it is useless to 
strive by actual conflict. It is powerful within, as expanding 
and deepening, comprehending. Its own creations are un 
satisfying, for it neglects the broad foundations to emphasise 
points of detail. 

* The tendency in England has been for all systems to 
grow more definite lately. This is due to the greater interest 
in the lower classes. All elementary teaching has to be 
definite. Simple minds do not appreciate fine shades. 
Systems are useful in proportion to their strength. 

Religious bodies are now striving to hold the working 
classes. The consequence is a general recrudescence of 
unintelligence, an interest in externals. Intelligence will 
revive doubtless ; it always does. But it must make its own 
way and bring its influence to bear by using what it can and 
teaching external systems to recognise their inward meaning. 

To Professor H. Sidgwick Bettwys-y-Coed : August 13, 1898. 

Dear Sidgwick, Holiday has given me time to read the 
" Essays," 1 which you were good enough to send me. They 
have interested me very much. Your analysis of " Public 
Morality" clears up several matters. I think that Acton 
does not face the difference you have pointed out between 
the principles on which a statesman may act and those on 
which a historian ought to judge him. But this raises the 
further question of the relation between these standards. It 
seems to me that the critic should first do his best to enter 
into the position of his subject and see things as he saw them. 
But he has the advantage of seeing how these things turned 

1 Practical Etkics, a collection of essays and addresses by H. Sidgwick. 

iS 9 S LETTERS 347 

out, and what was the result of the action taken. Here, how 
ever, he must be rather careful and not introduce his own pre 
suppositions. But there is a point which you have not touched 
on the moral influence on his generation of a public man. 
Take Bismarck for instance : he lowered the tone of European 
diplomacy. How is this to be set against his positive achieve 
ments ? The sort of moral judgment I am frequently led to is 
of this sort : " His aims were for the good of his country as it 
was then understood, its territorial extension &c. &c., but in 
pursuing these aims he told so many lies, and did so many 
brutal actions, and showed such an example of personal 
selfishness, that I do not know whether he did more good to 
the material interests of his country or harm to its spiritual 

4 The educational effect of the doings of a prominent man 
is enormous : how are we to appraise it with other qualities 
and achievements ? 

* I quite agree with you about clerical veracity. It is 
curious how the moral sense of the community has practically 
ruled out Rashdall s view. 

4 1 am enjoying this place very much, and feel a different 
person. It is worth while being in London, from an epicurean 
point of view, to enjoy a holiday. 

To the Hon. and Rev. A. T. Lyttelton ( O n his appointment as 

Bishop of Southampton) * Rheims : September 23, 1898. 

* Dear Lyttelton, I am glad of your news, though not so 
glad as I would like to be because it is rather a disappoint 
ment to myself personally. I sorely wanted you to help me 
in West London, where the Bishop of Marlborough must 
soon cease his labours, and where you would have been ideal 
but that must pass with other things. So I will congratu 
late you heartily, and can only say I think it much nicer to 
be a suffragan bishop than a diocesan bishop. You have all 
the sweets and escape the bitters of the episcopal office. . . . 
Therefore make the best of it while you may. Of course you 
will cease to be my examining chaplain I can only express 
my deep gratitude for what you have done for me in that 

; We are just returning from a lovely holiday. We have 
not had a drop of rain since we left England ; and we have 
been in places where there were no English. If ever you want 
information about holidays south of the Alps, please apply to 
me. I am gathering a large amount of knowledge on that 
subject. I hope to return home vigorous, but before Christ- 


mas I shall be sorely reduced again. Let me recommend 
you to take holidays of a week from time to time : change is 
absolutely necessary. Also once a week have a good long 
sleep. These are practical suggestions which experience has 
taught me. 

To his niece Winifred October 14, 1898. 

1 Somebody sent me a book from which I copy a sentence 
which has much truth : " What a man is constantly imagin 
ing to himself, that he becomes. The prevalent habit of his 
will is the distinctive character of every man." 

I Does not that explain what I try to say about your 
dreaming vaguely ? Nothing is really vague : or rather vague 
dreaming tends to produce vague action. Character is ex 
pressed in will , and will is the thing to be aimed at. 

(Written at a meeting of the British Museum Trustees) October 22. 

You speak of the difficulty of developing one s will. It 
is hard, and I always think that the Epistle of to-morrow is 
so stirring on that point : " See that ye walk circumspectly 
(i.e. carefully, accurately), not as fools, but as wise." It is this 
accuracy which is so difficult : to do the thing one wants to 
do and not something else. For this purpose one must know 
what one wants and make up one s mind. Of course you by 
nature belong to the class of those who wait for an impulse 
from without ; this is useful if it stirs one up to do what one 
has determined from within. But an impulse, a pleasure, an 
enjoyment, must have a direction beforehand along which 
they can carry us. Otherwise we merely stagger a little, and 
then stand where we were before. The object of life is to get 
on, not to stand. 

* The Prince is talking loud about Bismarck, which is not 
part of the meeting, and I dare not listen, as it is not ad 
dressed to me. 

November n, 1898. 

Ruskin s main idea is that beauty is goodness, and 
that art is morality ; and that you will make men good 
through teaching them to admire beauty. I am afraid that 
this is is not entirely true. There is even a moral danger in 
the love of beauty for itself alone. The feeling may uplift or 
it may debase, according to previous habit of mind. 

To his nephew Basil British Museum: December 10, 1898. 

I 1 have been very busy for a long time, and am looking 
forward to a holiday at Christmas time. ... I do not know 
that anything of great interest has been happening to me 

1898 LETTERS 349 

lately, except that I sat next to the Sirdar (Lord Kitchener) 
one night at dinner, and found him very nice. He is a very 
straightforward soldier, very much bored at having to endure 
so many dinners, and very glad that he was going back to 
Egypt. He said that he would rather fight many battles 
than make speeches. I quite sympathised with him. 

To Mr. H. S. Harrison Fulham Palace : December 10, 1898. 

* Dear Sir, The English people generally are given to 
speak out their opinions wise and foolish alike. The most 
foolish are the loudest. We have also a habit of regarding 
our differences as of vital importance when they really are 
not. The points in dispute are the best way of teaching 
the one faith to the English people. Rites and ceremonies 
are merely the means of teaching the truth : they are not 
the truth itself. 

1 The English people are committed to the care of the 
English Church. From time to time they express their 
opinion about the mode of teaching which is applied to them. 
The Church of Rome is a small body in England, which 
stands in no relation to the religious life of the nation. It is 
quite impossible that any considerable number of Englishmen 
should be Roman Catholics. To join yourself to that Church 
is simply to stand on one side and cut yourself off from your 
part in striving to do your duty for the religious future of 
your country. That duty may be at times difficult and 
unpleasant. Duty generally is so. But we must not shirk 
it on that account, or try to find peace for ourselves by stand 
ing on one side. 

To Mr. F. Statham Fulham Palace : December 14, 1898. 

My dear Sir,- -You are right in thinking that pressure on 
my time has prevented me from reading your book l before 
now. I can thank you very sincerely for sending it to me. 
It is the result of much experience, personal experience, of 
the difficulties of thinking straight on religious matters. It 
is an impossible claim to take up a detached, impartial out 
side attitude to any subject which is intimately connected 
with individual life. But you insist on the obligation to think 
as fairly and impartially about religion as one can. It has 
always seemed to me that the preconceptions of the critical 
mind need examination just as much as the preconceptions 
of the credulous mind Human morality would disappear 
before the treatment which is sometimes dealt to revealed 


Free Thought and True Thought. 

350 LONDON LIFE 1898 

* Your final conclusion is that that reflection, fairly 
carried out, produces an attitude towards life on the part of 
the earnest inquirer which he can recognise as similar to that 
which Christianity aims at producing. After all the impor 
tant thing is a man s attitude towards life. Some may attain 
it after severe struggles ; others by a gradual development on 
a system. It always seemed to me that Robert Elsmere 
supposed that he had gained a new point of view ; but as a 
matter of fact he only set to work to do what he did before, 
single-handed, bereft of his former helps, and a weaker man. 

1 I draw no moral from this : Every man must be the 
guardian of his own sincerity. But a process of thinking, 
steadily pursued, often brings a man to his starting point, 
f-hongh he may not recognise tife fact 1 



ON August 23, 1898, Dr. Creighton had written to the Bishop 
of Rochester : 

1 1 see little prospect of peace in our work after the 
holidays. Our lot has fallen in evil times ; but we must 
hope to get some good out of it. The process, however, is 
painful, and our temper and attitude matter much. May 
God give us wisdom and patience. 

His attempts to regulate occasional services had met with 
encouraging results ; still the new year began with a general 
sense of unrest. The ordinary man could not know what 
the bishops had been doing to enforce discipline ; and there 
was a good deal of soreness on the part of those who had 
been obliged to give up cherished customs. 

The Bishop s views are shown in the following letters : 

To the Rev. E. H. Hall Fulham Palace: January 11, 1899. 

* The position is : there has been a period of rather 
arbitrary experiments. These are now challenged : it is no 
good considering why or how : a system must always have 
an answer to give. These experiments rest upon a basis 
which is outside the limits of the Anglican system. 

* This cannot stand investigation. We may have a 
Catholic spirit, but we cannot use the spirit to over-ride the 

The English people are very conservative : they cannot 
understand ingenious experiments to explain things away. 

The Anglican system rests upon a logical basis. Upset 
its principles, and you are in a sphere of arbitrary private 

It is this assertion of arbitrary private judgment on the 
part of clergy or congregation which causes disquiet. 

We must fall into line on a liberal interpretation of the 


Anglican system ; this must be by reference to its principles^ 
not its letter. 

* This is the object which I am steadily pursuing, without, 
I trust, undue haste, or pedantry, or pressure. 

Apply this to the particular question you raised. 

* Reservation must obviously cease. 

It is unwise under this head to raise the question of 
communicating sick persons from the open Communion in 

4 It is unwise to raise that question at all now : because 

*(i) It is regarded with suspicion from its undue exten 

4 (2) If raised now, it would receive a general answer, 
which would be of great weight in the future. 

(3) It is inevitable that at present rigorist views of inter 
pretation might prevail. 

(4) It is undesirable that a crisis like this should lead to 
any combined expression on the part of the episcopate. 

(5) It is unwise to strengthen the hands of those who 
demand new legislation. 

To the Rev. N. Loraine Fulham Palace, S.W. : January 13, 1899. 

* It is an age of great unrest. . . . We must remember 
that we are not dealing only with outward manifestations, 
but with tendencies of thought. We must try and discover 
on what these tendencies rest and must make room for all 
that is admissible in them. This is a difficult process and 
requires a gradual education of the public mind. I think 
that the first danger of a considerable schism has been 
averted. The extremists have abandoned some of their 
extreme principles. 

* My address to the Ruridecanal conferences will appear 
in a day or two, with an appendix which carries further the 
principles there laid down. It is only by a general accept 
ance of such principles that we can be drawn into line. If 
the Church of England does not know what it means, or how 
to express its meaning, it is in a sorry plight. We must dis 
cover its real strength and patiently make it manifest. 

Four days after writing this he received a letter con 
taining some resolutions passed at a private meeting of 
220 incumbents of the ritualist party held in the Holborn 
Town Hall. The original intention had been that these 
resolutions should not be published, but should be sent to 
the bishops with a covering letter. However, somehow the 


Daily News got hold of them, and they became public 
property. They stated 

*(i) That by canonical obedience is meant obedience to 
the Canons, and to the bishop of the diocese calling on any 
individual to conform to the law, usages, customs and rites of 
the Church which have canonical authority. 

(2) That the clergy owe it to the whole Catholic Church 
to refuse to obey any demands which conflict with the law, 
usages, &c., of the Church, whether oecumenical or provincial, 
which have canonical authority. 

(3) That the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in 
parish churches and for the bona-fide purpose of communicat 
ing the sick and dying, and the ceremonial use of incense 
being " laudable practices of the whole Catholic Church," and 
both being included in the directions contained in the 
Ornaments Rubric, the right to such reservation and cere 
monial use of incense cannot and must not be abandoned. 

The Bishop saw at once that these resolutions would 
raise a new storm. He wrote to Prebendary Villiers, who 
had signed the covering letter : 

Private f London House : January 17, 1899. 

Dear Prebendary Villiers, I was surprised to see your 
name on a circular which I have received enclosing resolu 
tions which I find it hard to interpret. I wish I knew what 
people meant by " canonical " as applied to the law, usages, 
&c. of the Church. 

Of course the only meaning which the outside public 
can put upon it is that there are clergy who are going to 
defy the bishops. I need not say that the bishops can do 
no more than declare the law of the Church of England. 
They have no power to make it or to explain it away. They 
can only declare it. When they are called upon, as at present, 
they must declare it, 

If you say that you are going to pay no heed to that 
declaration, where are you ? There is a clamour for new 
legislation to make the law of the Church more clear and to 
enforce it. I do not see how this can be prevented if notice 
is given that a large body of the clergy rest upon some 
principles of " the doctrine and discipline of Christ " which 
pays no heed to the definition " as this Church and realm 
have received the same." 

What do you expect the bishops to do ? That is the 
practical question, and you do not supply an answer/ 


* Fulham Palace : January 20, 1899. 

My dear Prebendary Villiers, My letter to you was, as 
you say, private : I wanted to understand what was in the 
mind of those present at the meeting. 

* Let me put before you the position as it appears to me. 
There have been a number of experiments made in the 
Church : many of them have outstripped the limits which 
the English people are prepared to accept. 

1 You must admit that any method of teaching must have 
reference to those who are taught. The faith can be taught 
in many ways ; none is absolutely essential. Former usages 
were framed with reference to their utility, which depended 
on their acceptability. The resolutions passed at the meet 
ing seemed to ignore this primary truth. Ceremonies are 
made for man, not man for ceremonies. It is just this point 
which the bishop has to decide. Individual priests may say, 
I think this or that is good for my people." A bishop 
represents the unity of the Church as a whole. This was 
the original function of his office. 

The resolutions practically assume that out of the vast 
museum of ecclesiastical antiquities of the past, every priest 
has a right to choose what he likes, and to carry it into 
practice provided he can find an adequate body of people 
who agree with him. This is subversive of all principles of 
unity and of government. 

We all must recognise the true nature of our task, which 
is to teach the Gospel to the English people in a way which 
that people understands. It is worth while to take a great 
deal of trouble to find out what this is. 

I agree with you that this ought to be done deliberately 
after full discussion. I am quite ready, nay, I am anxious 
to have certain points argued in full before the Archbishop. 
I hope that this may be done. 

To the Rev. W. B. Trevelyan, who wrote that, as one of 
the conveners of the Holborn meeting he did not wish to 
appear rebellious, the Bishop answered : 

* Fulham Palace : January 24, 1899. 

My dear Mr. Trevelyan,- -Thank you for your letter. 
I very much wish that it were possible to get things straight 
in any way. In a fortnight Parliament meets, and the House 
of Commons will ring with denunciations of lawless clergy 
men and cowardly bishops. What answer is to be made ? 
I have been asked by many M.P. s, but what can I say ? 

If I give commands they will be disobeyed, or rather, 


not obeyed. And no intelligible statement is made of the 
nature of [the] authority which commands obedience. 

The Holborn resolutions were most disastrous. I dare 
say they had a meaning, but it was not obvious. They only 
stated what you would not do ; they were silent about what 
you were willing to do. 

4 This is really doing harm to the public conscience. 
Instead of being a pattern to the State, the Church is a 
shocking example of what to avoid. It ought to be possible 
to state a case which shall be intelligible to the people at 
large. The present excitement arises because they are in 
the presence of action which they do not understand, founded 
on principles which are not declared, and subversive of that 
good understanding and willingness to make the best of 
other people on which English life is based. 

1 I think this issue ought to be faced in a clear manner. 

Mr. Trevelyan answered that the resolutions had not 
been intended to be as defiant as they were supposed to be, 
and that he thought the faithful laity had as much a right to 
be heard as the man in the street 

Fulham Palace : January 28, 1899. 

My dear Mr. Trevelyan, Of course you are quite right 
from your own point of view : but so is everybody else. The 
resolutions of the Holborn meeting were not understood 
by me in the sense you give them. In fact procedure by 
means of resolutions, published without any explanation, is 
a very dangerous method. 

* I quite admit the ground for your " rights," but these 
rights are to particular modes of teaching. Now teaching 
must have reference to the persons to be taught, and to the 
institution which contains them. 

I think you underestimate " the man in the street." 
After all our duty is to make religion prevail in every sphere 
of life. It is rather a temptation to educate fully a select 
circle, and let go our general influence. Surely we should 
aim at combining the two. It seems to me that the present 
commotion raises the question " What is the best form in 
which the Christian faith can be put before the English 
people as a whole ? " You see that the necessity of a bishop s 
position puts that question prominently before him. Indeed, 
that was the object of episcopacy, to secure the unity of the 
Church, to form a link between the several congregations. 
It is this large question which I should like to see faced. 

1 Doubtless you will agree with me, as I do with you. 

A A 2 


There is danger in doing anything ; there is danger in doing 
nothing. But I think that it ought to be possible to devise 
something. 1 

To Mr. W. J. Birkbeck 

Private Fulham Palace: January 19, 1899. 

1 My dear Birkbeck, The position at present is this : 
For some time a series of experiments have been made ; they 
are now challenged, and appeal is made to the bishops to 
declare and enforce the existing condition of the usages and 
customs of the Church of England. They cannot suggest a 
compromise. Things have passed beyond that, owing to the 
foolishness of a few who have flaunted red rags. 

The question is by what authority they do these things. 
They do not give any intelligible answer. 

Now the question of incense, applied ceremonially to 
persons and things, has been decided, not on the unhistorical 
view of the Ornaments Rubric, but with reference to prin 
ciples. The question of interpretation is, does the O.R. mean : 
Ornaments shall be used for the services contained in this 
book, taken in their relation to the nature of those services 
or : Ornaments shall be used as they were in the old ser 
vices, according to the intention of those services ? 

This is a question of interpretation, on which the bishops 
cannot now claim to make an advance on previous decisions. 
The use of incense as an accompaniment to the Prayer Book 
services is one thing : its use as carrying a number of cere 
monies, not otherwise alluded to, is another thing. 

1 The case must be stated and argued on its merits. But 
meanwhile the bishops cannot do anything but stand on the 
view that has been recognised. I think you must admit the 
inevitableness of their position. 

To Mr. T. Cheney Garfit Fulham Palace: January 20, 1899. 

* My dear Sir, Every Englishman wants to get his own 
way, and thinks that it is obviously right and quite easy to 
get. But he often forgets that every other Englishman 
thinks the same. However, when he feels that he is in a 
strong majority, he considers it very easy to wipe out the 

* Unfortunately an administrator feels that this is not the 
case. Minorities are very troublesome, especially when they 
are driven into a corner. 

1 May I ask you to consider a few general truths of 
history ? 


The suppression of opinions has never succeeded in 

(2) The history of the English Church is a history of 
vain attempts to obtain peace by exclusion. 

4 (3) When we look back upon the past we sympathise 
with those who were excluded, forgetting the points at issue, 
and remembering only the value of liberty as a principle of 
our national life. 

(4) There is no real force in England except the force 
of public opinion. This operates on the minds of those 
against whom it is directed by argument and not by coercion. 

(5) The bishops can do something if they are supported 
by public opinion. But that opinion does not strengthen 
their hands by abusing them for not acting when they had no 
opinion behind them/ 

For some time it had been said, that what the extreme 
party desired was an opportunity for stating their case to the 
bishops in such a way that full consideration might be given 
to all the points involved in their contention. In the Preface 
to the Prayer Book it is stated that * for the resolution of all 
doubts, concerning the manner how to understand, do, and 
execute, the things contained in this Book ; the parties that 
so doubt . . . shall always resort to the Bishop of the 
diocese who by his discretion shall take order for the quiet 
ing and appeasing of the same, but that if he * be in doubt, 
then may he send for the resolution thereof unto the arch 
bishop. It seemed to Archbishop Temple that these words 
suggested a means of giving the opportunity desired for 
discussing the legality of the disputed practices. After 
consulting with the Archbishop of York and the Bishops 
of London and Winchester in December about the de 
sirability of this course, he proposed in January that he 
should announce that he would be ready to hear the defence 
of those who might be brought before him by their bishop 
for ritual practices of doubtful legality. The other bishops 
approved, the Bishop of London considered it was desirable 
that men should be obliged to show what grounds they had 
for the esoteric practices which they claimed to be rightful 
within the Church of England. 

On January 21 the following statement appeared in the 
newspapers. * The Archbishops have agreed that, in order 


to give more confidence to the clergy and laity that their 
views and opinions shall be fully considered before any 
decision is given by either Archbishop on any question sub 
mitted to him in accordance with the directions of the Prayer 
Book, he will allow those who are concerned in the case to 
argue the matter openly before him, either personally or by 
counsel. And to guard against contradictory decisions in 
the two provinces, neither Archbishop will pronounce his de 
cision without first consulting the other Archbishop. It was 
decided that the points to be first submitted to the Arch 
bishops should be the use of portable lights and the cere 
monial use of incense, and that reservation should be dis 
cussed at a further hearing. After some friendly consulta 
tion it was agreed, that the Bishop of London should 
present the case of the Rev. Henry Westall and the Bishop 
of Norwich that of the Rev. Edward Ram before the Arch 
bishops. The hearing was fixed to take place early in 
May. The Bishop of London engaged Mr. (now Sir Lewis) 
Dibdin and Mr. Errington as counsel. He also wrote to 
Professor Collins as follows : 

* London House : March 22, 1899. 

My dear Collins, I want your help in an important 
matter. The Archbishop is, as you know, to hold a Court 
for the decision of some points which practically involve the 
interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, and the relation 
between Ornaments and Ceremonies. There has been some 
delay in settling the exact procedure. But I have at last 
instructed Dibdin to represent me in the pleading. He 
would like to have some expert to whom he might turn for 
historical reference on points which may be raised by the 
other side. You know your way about the books and 
authorities, and I hope you will be good enough to look up 
questions if it should be necessary. 

In answer to a private inquiry the Bishop explained what 
he had so far been able to do to remedy the existing disorder. 

London House : February 4, 1899. 

1 The present crisis has led to a marshalling of forces each 
of which states their extreme demands. The Evangelical 
formula, that "The Holy Communion is turned into the 
Roman Mass" requires definition at every turn. All that 
the bishops can do is to see that the principles of the Church 


of England are not contravened. In doubtful matters they 
must act according to the principles of English justice and 
give the accused the benefit of the doubt. 

* This is not what Sir W. Harcourt and his friends want. 
They clamour that the clergy should be dragooned by the 
bishops to uniformity with the customs which prevailed fifty 
years ago. 

* With this preamble I will tell you what I have succeeded 
in doing. 

*(i) I have revised the occasional services in more than 
two hundred churches, a gigantic task, involving great labour. 
There has been practically no opposition. The St. Alban s case 
settled that. All services that went beyond the Prayer Book 
have practically ceased. This is, in my opinion, of supreme 
importance, and goes to the root of the matter. It was in 
these developments that " Romanising tendencies " really lay. 

(2) I have stopped the ceremony of " Asperges." I do 
not think that it is now practised in the diocese. 

(3) I have enforced that the Communion Service should 
be said without additions or omissions. It seems to me that 
if the Prayer Book service be used as appointed, no cere 
monies can affect its meaning for the worshipper. It was 
addition or omission which altered its tenor. 

* (4) I have induced several churches which were con 
templating the introduction of incense to abstain. It is 
noticeable that I had to deal with churchwardens and church 
councils more than with clergy. 

c (5) Several churches have abandoned perpetual reserva 
tion, while not pledging themselves to discontinue it for 
known cases of sickness. This of course abandons " reserva 
tion " properly so called, and means the carrying of the 
Communion from church after the service a very different 
thing theologically speaking. 

1 (6) I have stopped the carrying of lighted candles in 
procession, and their introduction during the service, in 
several cases. 

* (7) I have stopped the use of manuals of devotion 
which did not seem to me to be in accordance with Anglican 

* Speaking generally, I have found a reasonable readiness 
to obey except on these points (i) carrying the Communion 
to sick persons, (2) the ceremonial use of incense, (3) the 
introduction of lights at the Gospel. Of these I have 
remitted (2) and (3) to the Archbishop, who will soon hear 
the pleadings and pronounce decision. 


4 1 may say further (i) that I have never had a case of 
erroneous teaching submitted to me save once, when it ap 
peared that the sermon was preached three years ago by a 
curate who no longer holds my licence, (2) that I have never 
used my veto, and have never had a case presented to me. 

* All institutions in England undergo development. Part 
of it is necessary, part of it is foolish. Those whose duty it 
is to watch the process can have no standard but that of the 
utility of the process for the ends of society, civil and religious 
alike. In so watching they are guided by public opinion, 
which is often obscure. When it states itself clearly, they 
have to disentangle what is permanent from its temporary 
form of expression, and have to make good by such wisdom 
as they possess what they see to be just and right. This is 
what the bishops are trying to do. But the clergy are 
naturally wrapped up in their own schemes and their own 
congregations. The bishops can only put before them the 
good of the Church as a whole. It must take a little time 
before this can sink in. Good sense will ultimately teach that 
the general system of the Church must be maintained against 
individualism. This is what the bishops have to express, and 
they do not expect to be thanked by either side in the 

Again he wrote : 

Some clergymen are pursuing an ideal of their own, 
which may be justified on various technical or archaeological 
grounds : but meanwhile they are irritating the great mass of 
the English people whom they are commissioned to teach. 
This is exactly a matter on which the bishop ought to 
pronounce an opinion, as trusted by all. His decision need 
not settle abstract questions, or take a legal form. It is un 
wise to challenge such a solution. 

January 13, 1899. 

* It is absolutely necessary at present to fall in on 
Anglican lines, widely interpreted , but the lines must be 
clear before the interpretation can be satisfactory. I do not 
like asking for confidence, but it is of vital importance to the 
Church at present that the clergy should trust my knowledge 
of what is necessary. 

If the clamour for new legislation were successful, he was 
convinced that such legislation would follow much more 
drastic lines than the old and would be very dangerous. 
During the winter Sir William Harcourt had written to the 


* Times a series of letters denouncing the bishops for their 
negligence in regard to ritual irregularities, and especially for 
what he described as their indiscriminate and unscrupulous 
use of their power of veto, to throttle the course of justice 
and to paralyse the law. When Parliament met, the Bishop 
of Winchester (Dr. Randall Davidson) called attention to 
these allegations in the House of Lords, and showed that, 
with three exceptions, one of which had occurred twenty- 
three years ago, no living bishop had ever exercised the veto 
at all. He was answered by Lord Kinnaird, and then Dr. 
Creighton spoke, saying how gladly he would have remained 
silent ; but, as he was the person who had been most attacked, 
his silence might have been misinterpreted. He thought the 
crisis serious because 

* It is vital in English life that men of different opinions, 
however widely they may differ, should appreciate and 
habitually understand one another, and treat one another 
with respect We have lately, I think, been perilously near 
forgetting that very primary principle on which our national 
life is founded. It is a serious matter for the public welfare 
when any body of the community can be accused of lawless 
ness, and it is a particularly serious matter when that body 
is the clergy . . . that they should even lend a shadow to 
the supposition that they are lacking in that obedience to the 
law which is the foundation of our social system. . . . My 
right Rev. Brother . . . referred to those exceedingly in 
teresting letters wherewith a great statesman l has from time 
to time thought fit to enlighten us. Interesting they certainly 
were, but I think they were more amusing than instructive. 
The picture that he drew was that of a Church riddled by 
the insidious treachery of a traitorous crew under the mis 
management of a body of craven and feeble-minded bishops, 
and in the middle of this universal disaster there steps forth 
the colossal figure of a new Elijah denouncing judgment the 
only wise and good man but denouncing judgment and at 
the same time clamouring that somebody else (of course the 
bishops) should take off his hands the trouble of slaying 
prophets of Baal. It was a picture drawn with all the 
dexterity of a practised hand, but still the misfortune of it 
was, that it was impossible to identify it with the actual world 
in which we live. . . . The mantle of Elijah, if I may say 
so, does not seem to have fallen upon the shoulders of the 

1 Sir William Harcourt. 


noble Lord who has just addressed us, but I presume that 
the prophet himself has carried it away with him across the 
seas, probably for use on a future occasion. 

Sir William Harcourt himself had found out in managing 
the affairs of the country that 

coercion was no remedy ; but apparently what you learn 
in civil matters does not necessarily apply to matters 
ecclesiastical ... if it is only a handful of clergy with 
whom you are dealing, then the more coercion you use the 
better. . . . That is not the conclusion to which you would 
expect the bishops to come. What really is the state of 
things to which Sir \Villiam Harcourt wishes us to go back ? 
... Is it the old days of Elizabeth and the old Tudor con 
ception of what a bishop s function is, that he should be a 
prosecuting officer on the part of the police ? . . . The 
bishops if they have been to blame have been to blame for 
this : that they have acted as Englishmen, and not as 
ecclesiastics, and have trusted themselves to the common 
sense of the people. . . . Prosecution and persecution are 
very closely connected in the mind of the ordinary English 
man : and those who have to administer the affairs of the 
Church will always remember, that that public opinion which 
goads them to persecute their clergy would be the very first 
to desert them and hold them up to derision, when they had 
undertaken the task forced upon them. . . . Prosecutions 
were abandoned because they absolutely failed. It is a 
matter of fact that after each period in which prosecution for 
ecclesiastical offences has been inaugurated, instead of there 
being a going back of ritualism, there has been a distinct 
advance of it. ... It is assumed that when prosecution 
ceased the bishops were doing nothing/ 

He explained how in the country dioceses disputed 
questions had been settled by episcopal intervention and the 
good sense and good feeling of the parishioners ; but London 
presented peculiar conditions, owing to the want of strong 
parochial feeling, and to the fact that any stray visitor to 
a church felt that he had a right to complain to the Bishop 
of London if he saw something that he did not like. The 
good sense of the community had now declared strongly 
against certain extravagances, and it is that declaration which 
constitutes a crisis. . . . The bishops are very glad to have 
their hands strengthened by the declaration of the good sense 


of the community. With that behind them they can do 
much. Unfortunately the popular mind is more interested in 
the regulation of small points of ceremonial than in the 
direction of tendencies which lie much deeper. He told what 
he had been able to do with regard to the regulation of 
additional services. It was solely in the subsidiary question 
of the mode in which services should be conducted that his 
ruling had been disputed. These cases were now to be sub 
mitted to the Archbishop. 

In that way I believe that a great deal of obscurity may 
be cleared up. ... It is always difficult to meddle with the 
tendencies of human thought. The whole history of the 
past is against the idea that tendencies of human thought can 
be regulated at our will by appeals to judicial tribunals. 
Nothing should be dealt with so tenderly as a man s con 
scientious convictions, misguided though they may be. There 
is no way of bringing back unity and good understanding 
except by setting forth great principles of truth, and setting 
them forth so clearly that they cannot be misunderstood, 
misapplied, or misconstrued. 

In the House of Commons the question was raised by Mr. 
Samuel Smith, in an amendment to the Address. The nature 
of the discussion and the comments in the Press showed how 
deeply the Protestant feeling in the country was stirred. 
The Bishop knew that as a moderator he was bound to be 
attacked by both sides. His one endeavour was to keep his 
head clear, and undisturbed by criticism to go on quietly with 
his efforts to induce a more reasonable temper. Above all 
he knew how to keep silence. Neither speeches nor declara 
tions at E.C. U. meetings, nor Sir W. Harcourt s letters in the 
* Times, drew any answer from him. He believed that harm 
would be done by saying almost anything on the disputed 
points, and always regretted when he was forced to speak. 
In his opinion the seriousness of the crisis did not lie so much 
in itself, but in the fact that the prevalent temper as exhibited 
in Sir W. Harcourt s letters, and in the nature of the outcry 
against the extreme men, showed how little the principles 
of true liberalism had penetrated into the common life, 
since people were so anxious to withhold from others the 
liberty which they claimed for themselves. He was grieved 


in his dealings with individuals to find how little pre 
pared they often were to give up their own way for the 
general good. He realised painfully how character deterio 
rates in those who persuade themselves that their own way 
is the only right way. As he wrote : the worst of religious 
or political fanaticism is that people talk so much about trifles 
and grow so heated that they do not know the depths to 
which they descend. It will be readily understood what it 
meant to one whose position made him keenly alive to the 
great and pressing needs of the Church, to be constantly 
turned aside from the great work which he wanted to do by 
difficulties which seemed infinitely small, even though their 
effect might be far-reaching. But he never lost courage. 
Those who could understand always felt that his strong 
hand was on the helm and that his clear eye studied the 
prospect. His patience never wore out, he always kept a 
firm hold on the main issues, his clear common sense might 
be irritating to angry controversialists, but most were con 
strained to recognise his desire to be just, and encouraged by 
his confidence in the future of the Church. 

A new incident added fuel to the flame. A certain foolish 
young man had taken to confession against the wishes of his 
parents. Neither the parents nor the curate to whom the 
young man had gone had behaved with wisdom. The result 
was a correspondence published in the newspapers, and another 
attack in the House of Lords on indifferent bishops and law 
less clergy. The Bishop refused to be drawn into a discussion 
of the whole policy of the Church, and whilst stating clearly 
that anything like the introduction of the system of con 
fession into the Church of England must be very carefully 
guarded against, he asserted that in his opinion there was no 
need whatever for any really serious anxiety upon that point 
He must have wished to show the Lords that it was perhaps 
beneath their dignity to concern themselves so particularly 
about the nature of a book given by a curate to a boy, when, 
after telling how he had remonstrated with the curate for giving 
away a book written by a member of another communion, he 
added : What should we say supposing a clergyman had 
picked up a book written by an eminent nonconformist 
minister and given it to the boy ? He concluded by saying 

1899 CONFESSION 365 

that the father of the boy had thanked him for the 
promptness and kindness with which he had dealt with the 
matter, and that the curate had accepted his admonitions and 
promised in the future not to receive persons under age to 

The following letter shows his views about confession : 

March 7, 1899. 

* The practice of confession can only become habitual if it 
is required as a necessary preliminary for the reception of the 
Holy Communion. This it can never be in the Church of 
England, and I do not think that the temper of the English 
people is such that they are ever likely to accept it voluntarily 
to any large extent. I consider that its general adoption 
would show a weakening of the moral fibre of the English 

After an interview with one of his clergy, he wrote : 

February 27, 1899. 

Let me put on record my requests to you this morning, 
(i) That you should not give to candidates for Confirma 
tion any literature concerning Confession. 

* (2) That you should not urge upon them Confession as a 
preliminary for Confirmation. 

(3) That you should not give them any teaching on the 
subject beyond what is contained in the book of Common 

When the difficulty of carrying out these injunctions 
literally was expressed, he wrote again : 

March 8, 1899. 

The teaching of the Church of England about preparation 
for Holy Communion is clear. It prescribes 

(i) Self-examination. 

(2) Confession to God. 

(3) Restitution and satisfaction to man. 

This is universal, but if anyone cannot quiet his own 
conscience, he may come for advice and absolution. 

* The important point is that the last course should be 
left to the individual who chooses to use it. 

1 No clergyman in preparing candidates for Confirmation 
ma}- teach that the exceptional method is normal. It is one 
thing to awaken the conscience, it is another thing to under 
take to quiet it for someone else. 


Early in March he sent this memorandum to all the 
churches in the diocese which it might concern : 

Services in Holy Week. 

I am not prepared to sanction, 

(i) The washing of the altars. 

4 (2) The Adoration of the Cross. 

(3) The benediction of the paschal candle. 

I do not forbid the distribution of palms, provided it be 
not part of any other service ; and the prayers used are for a 
blessing of the people, not of the palms, which are to be used 
as memorials. The palms are not to be sprinkled or censed. 

When asked by a friend not to press these directions too 
closely on a particular priest, he answered : 

London House : March 13, 1899. 

* I am glad to see J s letters. I quite sympathise with 

him. But all these people make one mistake. They believe 
that it is their excrescences which make them succeed, whereas 
it is themselves. The people like - - and would take any 
thing he did, because he does it. If he were to say, " I have 
been doing things which I liked, and which I thought you 
would like. The Bishop tells me that it is not good for the 
general welfare of the Church that these things should be 
done. Let us drop them quietly for the good of our brethren. 
We can do just as well without them " then he would be 
setting an example which would be of great value. But un 
fortunately the English mind has no grasp of ideas, and no 
sense of proportion. Indeed the Englishman has no mind at 
all, he only has an hereditary obstinacy. 

* About your question, I wish to give as few directions as 
possible. My memorandum was a circular to whom it might 
concern. I had before me a number of services for the 
" Blessing of Palms." Their childishness and absence of 
intelligibility was portentous. Scarcely any two were the 
same. Doubtless they all came from ancient sources, which 
were not applicable, and were not properly translated. Many 
of them maundered about a " creature of palms," which is 
ridiculous. Of course it was a translation of " creatura pal- 
marum >: which means " palms the work of Thy Hands " or 
some such phrase. 

* Then many were exorcisms of the " creature of palms," 
which involved unspeakable nonsense. Others prayed that 
the palms so blessed might exorcise the houses to which they 
were carried. They all pointed in one direction that an 


archaeological revival was being carried out in the most stupid 
way without any regard to circumstances, or ideas, or any con 
ception of truth. 

I thought it best to give a general direction, and take no 
further step about details. I do not think that the form you 
send me is open to the criticisms expressed above. I 
remember Palm Sunday observed in the country by people 
as you say. But we have before us a general question as 
to the latitude for imaginative services, and this must be 
judged with reference to their simplicity and directness. The 
rule must be : Take the idea and apply it sensibly to the 
people with whom you are dealing. Appeal to the imagina 
tion must not degrade knowledge. 

* I still see no light on the situation generally. No one 
cares to define it accurately, or prescribe limits. The identi 
fication of what you have been in the habit of doing with the 
" Catholic Faith " is a conspicuously English way of talking 

To the Bishop of Bombay (Dr. McArthur, now Bishop of 

Southampton) Brunnen, Switzerland : April 10, 1899. 

My dear Bishop, I have been long in answering your 
letter, but that is not the test of my gladness at receiving it 
In the daily accumulation of my correspondence that which 
presses is dealt with first, and what can wait, waits. I 
remember the Archbishop saying to me, " You will find it a 
good maxim, Never do to-day what you can put off till to 
morrow : but then you must be sure what can be put off." 
I find it necessary to act on that principle. Now, however, 
. I am taking a holiday for a few days at Easter. I find that I 
can go for three months, and then I must have a little rest. 
It is well to learn one s possibilities. The advantage of getting 
away and lifting one s head out of the eternal sound of 
machinery is really most beneficial. I can go back to work 
again with kindly feelings towards everyone ; which is an 
absolutely essential part of a bishop s work, to my thinking. 
If a man, or a parish or a question, gets on your nerves, you 
are useless for that purpose. . . . Church matters generally 
are as bad as can be. I do not see the way out of the present 
mess. The E.C.U. people have no common sense : and the 
other people are so violent that the moderates do not like to 
throw over the E.C.U. The only hope is that the argu 
ments before the Archbishops may clear up some points, 
and that the decision may be generally received. I am not 
sure that there will not be a secession. I rather think it 


inevitable. We must do all we can to minimise it and make 
it unreasonable. But a very little matter would precipitate a 
vast mass of popular opinion into wrathful determination to 
deal vigorously, and then there would be a general mess. It 
is not an easy matter for me to keep the peace. 

On April 1 8, the diocesan conference opened. His 
presidential address 1 was a lucid statement of the difficulties 
of the moment, and was felt to be a real help to clear 
thought, where clear thought was so much needed. 

He first spoke sadly of the offence that a 
time of controversy was to the great body of humble 
and pious souls * who are inexpressibly pained at violent 
speech about holy things, at quarrels among professing 
Christians, at the suspension of good works for barren dis 
putation, at the exhibition of self-will, by those whom they 
wish to reverence. He said that little had been done to 
make the issue clear, and * that almost everything had been 
neglected which practical wisdom could dictate. In the 
late controversy the Christian religion had been apparently 
identified with certain adjuncts to the mode of performing 
divine service ; and it is the extraordinary want of propor 
tion in defining the questions at issue a want equally dis 
cernible on both sides which prevents any real progress 
being made in discussion. It is natural that when a Church 
is moved with evangelistic zeal so strongly as is the Church 
of England at the present day, various experiments should be 
made. Such experiments require regulation, but inquiry 
must be made patiently without heat and without prejudice. 

He maintained that to call such things in any sense a 
religion is an unpardonable exaggeration. . . . They have 
their place and their importance, but it is within the sphere 
of ecclesiastical order, not of religious truth. There was 
advantage in diversity, but there must be a recognisable 
type of services. Diversity must have its limits. He did 
not deny the seriousness of the anxiety roused by the 
appearance of clerical insubordination, but he said that this 
insubordinate spirit was not deep-seated. I must say for 
my part that I have found a very real desire to meet my 
wishes, and to obey my directions. He showed how diffi- 

1 Published in The Church and the Nation. 


cult anything like a rigid adherence to the rubrics was, and 
that it is not so easy to give directions about services which 
are fair and just which rest on principles, and not on mere 
arbitrary preference. . . . It is only by a recognition of prin 
ciples that we can reach peace. Ceremonies are nothing in 
themselves, and differences of opinion cannot be composed 
by attacking ceremonies. It is useless to deal with them as 
subjects for legal decision. Legal procedure narrows the point 
at issue, and pronounces an abstract decision concerning that 
point alone. If men s minds are not satisfied about principles, 
the special points which can be raised about ceremonies are 
innumerable. In conclusion, he said that it was to the pro 
motion of zeal and energy in practical work for saving souls 
that he would have liked to devote himself. 

* But we cannot always choose for ourselves the sphere 
of our activities. If I have to interfere in small matters, if 
I seem to check zeal and curb enthusiasm, if I have to ask 
my clergy to pause, and think about the relation of their own 
particular position to the whole Church, it is because such 
things are necessary, not because I take pleasure in doing 

But I would say this. I do not wish to command so 
much as to persuade. I wish to induce people to see them 
selves as others see them, to regard what they are doing in 
reference to its far-off effects on the consciences of others, to 
cultivate a truer sense of the proportion of things, to deal 
more with ideas than with the clothing of ideas ; to pay more 
attention to the reason of a thing than to its antiquity ; to 
remember that the chief danger which besets those who are 
pursuing a high object is to confuse means with ends ; to 
examine themselves very fully, lest they confuse Christian 
zeal with the desire to have their own way, which is the 
characteristic of the natural man. 

I do not like to speak about myself. But we have reached 
a point where someone must be responsible for leading, and 
a leader must be trusted. There is no leader possible save 
the bishop. So I ask you all, clergy and laity alike, to trust 
me, and to follow me as far as you possibly can. 

His challenge was taken up. The Earl of Stamford con 
cluded a proposal for a vote of thanks to him with the words 
We have been told that there must be a leader, and the 
leader must be trusted. My Lord, in the name of those 



within, and the multitude outside, these walls, I accept the 
challenge. You are in this matter our rightful leader. We 
are content. We trust you. We will follow you/ 

On May I, an address expressing confidence in the arch 
bishops and bishops and signed by ten thousand laymen was 
presented to the Archbishop. Shortly afterwards the hearing 
began at Lambeth. The Bishop s engagements did not 
permit of his continuous presence at Lambeth during the 
days given up to hearing the arguments on either side, but he 
was in constant consultation with those who were arguing 
for him. 

To the Rev. W. E. Collins - Ascension Day, 1899 

As regards Barbaro, 1 his evidence is valuable, as it is that 
of the outside observer who was giving information, not of a 
technical but of an obvious kind, to intelligent outsiders. 
When you consider the rarity of any account of religious 
services from that point of view, the document becomes very 
valuable. Barbaro begins by describing the differences 
which would strike anyone who went into an English church. 
There were bells and organs, it is true, but not other things. 
These are things the absence of which would at once be 
noted : " non acqua, non fuoco ; the language is popular ; 
and must be explained from the motive of the writer. There 
was no holy water ; there was no fire. What is fire ? not 
lights, for he would have said " lumi." What then ? There 
can be nothing but incense, which is a fire composed not of 
sticks but of spices. I do not know that any Italian dictionary 
would help. Italian dialects at that time were multitudinous. 
The Venetian was not the literary dialect, nor was its speech 
accurate. I have read pages of Venetian papers. They are 
not literary in any sense. But there is nothing in the ordinary 
services to which " fuoco " could apply except incense. 

Convocation was occupied this spring with the considera 
tion of a bill framed ten years before by Archbishop Benson 
for amending the constitution of the ecclesiastical Courts. 
This bill Archbishop Temple took as a basis for discussion 
in both Houses of Convocation. Dr. Creighton did not take 
much part in these discussions. I think he felt the creation 
of any new ecclesiastical Courts so unlikely that he did not 

1 Barbaro was a Venetian Ambassador. In the true text of his letter, written 
in May 1551, it is non acque non fuochi. 


care to give time and thought to the discussion of ideal 
schemes. The following is his only written utterance on the 
matter : 

To the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Temple) 

June i, 1899. 

* My dear Archbishop, I incline to think that the best 
course would be for the Upper House to consider the bill and 
send it to the Lower House. If the Lower House propose 
amendments which we are unable to accept, then we may 
have a conference. If we still do not agree, the joint 
session may take up the question. After all is done, we will 
have to decide whether or no it is worth while to bring in the 

* I must confess that the Lambeth hearing convinced me 
of a point to which I had been otherwise tending. The bill 
refers to the whole episcopate the decision of questions of 
doctrine and ritual. Now questions of ritual are not concerned 
with any principle, but merely with interpretation. I do not 
see how a meeting of bishops would have acted if the question 
of incense had been referred to them. Nor do I see anything 
in the arguments before you which requires anything but 
legal intelligence. 

Now a bishops meeting could at most appoint a com 
mittee, who would consult experts, and make a report 
according to their knowledge. If the advocates before the 
Privy Council had any additional knowledge, they would 
bring it forward ; and the bishops might be convicted of 

. * At all events we would give our decision without all the 
means of knowing which would be at the disposal of the 
Court to which we reported. 

This does not apply to doctrine in which we are experts, 
and where our decision ought to be authoritative. I do not 
like putting doctrine and ritual on the same footing. 

The Archbishops decision about incense and lights was 
not issued till August. It was received with dismay by the 
ritualists, chiefly on account of the grounds on which it was 
based. It might probably have been generally accepted 
had it not been based on a rigid interpretation of the Act 
of Uniformity. 1 The irritation was increased by a letter 

In his decision the Archbishop said Nothing can be clearer than the words 
used in the Act of 1559 (the second Act of Uniformity) prohibiting the use of 
;uy ceremony not ordered in the book. He quoted the passages in the Act 

8 B 2 


from Sir William Harcourt to the * Times welcoming the 
decision especially because of the grounds on which it 
was made. It was said that he did his utmost to make 
disobedience general. Beforehand the very clergy who 
were known for their extreme practices had expressed their 
weariness of the agitation and their willingness to obey, but 
now it became to many a matter of principle to disobey. 

The following letters show the Bishop s opinion about 
some of the points raised in the discussion : 

Llanfairfechan : August 4, 1899 

c My dear Dr. Cobb, I have been reading your communi 
cation to the " Westminster." May I make a remark on one 
point ? You say that the Archbishops decision must neces 
sarily turn many people s minds to a reconsideration of the 
relations between Church and State. I know that this is the 
right thing to say but I also know that you are not the man 
to say it for that reason. I think that there is something 
rather discreditable to English common sense in the tendency 
for everyone who is displeased about matters ecclesiastical to 
exclaim " Better disestablishment than this ! Everyone 
seems to think that in a disestablished church his own parti 
cular views would undoubtedly prevail. I should like people 
to think out a little more clearly what would be the state of 
affairs in a disestablished church. It would be pretty much 
what it is at present, only rather more so. 

A synod, construct it as you will, would have a stricter 
conception of uniformity than have the bishops. You would 
get no changes in the Prayer Book, and no different principles 
of interpreting rubrics. . . . The fact is that the conser 
vatism of the English people is insuperable. ... If the 
Anglican system were put into the melting-pot to-morrow, 
it would come out after five years heating precisely the same. 
If you think otherwise, I should be very glad to be enlightened 

prescribing the order of services in the Church and said that they were clearly 
meant to exclude all variations. He allowed that at first the Act was 
imperfectly obeyed, but said * in spite of all this, the precise and clear state 
ments of the Act gradually prevailed, and forbidden ceremonies gradually dis 
appeared. He went on : We are obliged to come to the conclusion that the use 
of incense in the public worship, and as a part of that worship, is not at present 
enjoined nor permitted by the law of the Church of England, and it is our duty to 
request the clergy who do use it to discontinue that use. If used at all, it must 
be used (in George Herbert s language) to sweeten the church and outside the 
worship altogether. The same line of reasoning was applied to the case of 
processions carrying lights. 


but this is a matter on which we must all try and think 

Straight. < Llanfairfechan : August 9, 1899. 

Dear Dr. Cobb, . . . I remember that I was once try 
ing to find a title for a book about English Church history 
from 1534-1662. I was talking about it to Dr. Hort, who 
said, " the true title would be Experiments in Anglicanism ; but 
that would not do." This is quite true, and the experiments 
are not yet finished. There was a lull from 1662 to 1832; 
now we are in the thick of a period of revision of them. Pre 
vious experiments ended in nonconformity of various sorts. 
Can this be averted now ? You propose to try and avert it 
by disestablishment. Would that succeed ? It is a large step 
to take, fraught with many issues, unless its success is certain. 
You refuse to regard the Church as " the religious consciousness 
of the nation." So would all if that involved any tampering 
with the faith. But the faith is secure : it is only certain 
modes of expressing some portions of it which are in question. 
Ceremonies, exact methods of services, even discipline, are 
questions which may be settled by the national consciousness. 
That consciousness is very insular. A statesman may try to 
think in larger terms, but he has to express himself in forms 
which that consciousness will accept. A churchman has to 
do the same. Englishmen have no notion of a form, made 
elsewhere, into which they must fit themselves. But this is a 
digression from my point Suppose the Church was a volun 
tary society with a synod of three houses. The dominant house 
would be the laymen. Disestablishment forced on from within 
would not be popular with the laity. The party which had 
produced this result would not be strong. It would not meet 
with much sympathy when the stern facts of finance and or 
ganisation had to be faced. Englishmen always act very 
legally ; they would make a broad system, with very little dis 
cretion beyond. The ritualists would have to recognise thrit 
they must fall in, or go ; this would be much more apparent 
then than now. There would be much stricter subordination 
required. Everything would be much more definite. I am 
tolerably certain that this would rapidly end in disruption. 
If this were confined to England, it would be bad enough : 
but the Anglican communion in the empire would follow in 
some degree. 

The fact is that the present state of things is due to a 
systematic attempt to organise the Church beyond the limits 
of organisation which Englishmen will endure. The Roman 
Church has gone on so long that no one understands its 
system : everybody takes what he likes, and those who do net 


like it pay no attention to it. Englishmen are religious ; 
they have consciences, which the Latin peoples have not in 
the same degree. The Englishman will only have a system 
which he understands, and which he purposes to follow. He 
will have nothing of first-class, second-class, and third-class 
religion which the Roman Church amply provides for various 
stages of development. 

I am rambling on away from my point, which is, that I 
think disestablishment would inevitably lead to disruption. 
It would only alter disadvantageously the present position : 
and those who had pressed for it in hopes of amending things 
in their direction could not afford to wait then, as they can 
without undue loss of dignity afford to wait now. 

* Llanfairfechan : August 12, 1899. 

Dear Dr. Cobb, . . . I have long felt that there were 
serious difficulties ahead. The position was that the services 
of the Church of England as they had existed for three cen 
turies and a half were being changed without any authority, 
on the ground of development. 

But development essentially means " making explicit what 
was implicit " and the criterion was the consciousness of the 
whole body of the Church. The test of development is 
unanimity, or at all events general acceptance. It means a 
gradual growth of the common consciousness of the religious 
community. But the ritualists claimed a right to develop 
by congregations. Further, they claimed to carry the whole 
Church with them ; and they developed not according to any 
principle of inward growth, but up to an external standard of 
the practice of the Western Church. 

This is an impossible position. 

4 If we look at facts they have produced a natural de 
velopment of more frequent communions, better and more 
reverent services, greater hold on definite principles and the 
like. They have altered the whole type of service. But this 
has been done by making explicit what was implicit in the 
Prayer Book system. 

On these lines progress is possible. But wreckage comes 
from insisting on developing up to an external standard, 
which is alien to English ideas. They will not abandon this : 
they have produced a reaction, which makes things more 
difficult. Their loss would, as you say, be a disaster to the 
attempt to educate the English character to finer feeling. 
It is the duty of everybody who can think, and detach him 
self from personal feeling, to strive to avert this result. The 
thing at stake is English Christianity. We can none of us 


give it the form which we personally wish. How can we dc 

the best for it ? 

* Llanfairfechan : August 15, 1899. 

Dear Dr. Cobb, I quite agree with you the question 
is, How are we to get at the Christian communions [com 
munity] of the Church ? 1 I remember a terrible saying of a 
wise man : " There has been no Church since the end of the 
third century. There have been two bodies, one offering, the 
other accepting, Christian privileges." 

1 I will accept your view entirely if you will take it as 
a dream of the future. Since the triumph of the Church, 
the ecclesiastical organisation has everywhere gone astray. 
The Roman Church is the most complete expression of 
Erastianism, for it is not a church at all, but a state in its 
organisation, and the worst form of a state an autocracy. 

1 But anyone who has tried knows the difficulty of getting 
a working representation of the laity for any except a practical 
purpose. They will work to build or restore a church, to 
manage its finances, &c. ; but beyond that ? You will say 
this shows the need of their education. It is going on, I 
admit, and we may hope for something from it. But the 
consciousness of the Christian body works quietly, and is to 
be gathered by other means than by count of heads. It is 
that consciousness which I try to catch : and I am sure that 
it is at present perturbed by things which it does not under 
stand in the conduct of the ritualist party. I believe that 
if they would frankly say, " We think that we have outsped 
the general wish of the Church ; we are willing to withdraw 
simply on that ground. Hear us, and give us all you can. 
We will try to win what we want by argument and teaching, 
then we will ask again -I believe that this attitude would 
produce a reaction in their favour, and would appeal to the 
sympathy of the English people generally. You will say that 
it is superhuman. So it is. That is why it would be so 

Llanfairfechan : August 22, 1899. 

* Dear Dr. Cobb, In two days I leave England and 
abandon correspondence. . . . The practical question is one 
of tolerance, as you say. But tolerance is not only a moral 
virtue, it must have an intellectual basis. The question is, 
How much can be comprehended in the system of the Church 
of England ? I remember a remark of a Frenchman, talking 
about modern Liberalism : "Us confondent le droit de 

1 Dr. Cobb had written We want the Christian community as a whole to say 
what it wants/ 


I individu d etre libre avec la ne cessite de I institution 
d etre quelque chose." The Church of England may be 
tolerant, but it must be something. I think that the present 
crisis is more serious than previous ones because it raises that 
point. The cry, " Why should not congregations do as they 
like ? " really resolves the Church into a loose covering of the 
religious consciousness, not of the nation, but of small bodies 
of Christian people, held together by no principle of cohesion 
but convenience. The tolerance which the extreme people 
ask for is the right to do whatever they like, irrespective of 
the organisation to which they belong. They will not try to 
get what they want by persuading others of its harmlessness, 
by agitating, by explaining, by moving in Convocation. They 
take the right to do what they like, and are aggrieved at the 
narrow-mindedness of those who distrust them. The Bishop 
of Stepney told me of one to whom he gave the advice to 
move through Convocation. " Oh," was the answer, " that 
would be no good : we should get nothing." It is all there ; 
and this attitude is very opposed to the English conceptions of 

* Did you read a book by a man called Whittuck, 1 which 
came out some few years ago ? Its point was that the High 
Church party behaved as though they had annexed the 
Church of England, and that they had not. The book was 
little read at the time, but it is worth looking at. 

1 I hope that matters will enter on a phase of reasonable 
discussion, and a capacity for facing the real problems. 
Your position is that disestablishment will help this. I am 
doubtful. It would raise many other questions first, but it 
would leave the position of present difficulties just as they are 
now i.e. the voice of authority would be as it is. 

The Bishop recognised that obedience had been made 
difficult, still he had to try to secure it, and at the end of 
August he issued a circular letter to his rural deans : 

* Rev. and dear Sir, You are aware that I referred to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury the solution of some doubts which 
were felt by a clergyman in the diocese relative to the cere 
monial use of incense, and to the use of lights carried about 
during the service. The Archbishop, after hearing all that 
was urged on the subject, has concluded that there is no 
authority for these usages according to the existing regula 
tions which apply to the conduct of divine worship in the 
Church of England. 

1 The Church of England and Recent Kcligious Thought, 1893. 


This being so, it becomes a universal duty to abandon 
these usages ; they are matters which are in no way essential 
to Christian teaching, and they give offence to many. 

I know that habit counts for much in all things apper 
taining to divine worship. But I feel sure that clergy and 
congregations alike will recognise the duty of obedience to 
authority, and also the equal duty of not offending their 

* I should be obliged to you if you would convey to those 
clergy in your deanery who may have introduced those 
usages into their services, my request that they will quietly 
abandon them, and will explain to their people that they do 
so at my desire. It is the duty of a bishop to consider what 
is best for the whole body of the Church, and before this 
general consideration personal preferences must give way. 

* At this season many are away from home, and com 
munications are uncertain, I would ask you to inform me in 
the first week of October of the results of your action. 

It was generally felt that this letter made submission 
as easy as possible, and gratitude was expressed for the 
absence of any allusion to Acts of Parliament, and for the 
considerate tone of his letter. When he returned to 
Fulham in the autumn, he found that the great majority of 
the 58 clergy in the diocese who had used incense or proces 
sional lights were willing at his request to give them up. 
Some of these only gave up the ceremonial use of incense, 
and continued its use before the services. Many stated that 
they only obeyed under protest, and that they refused to 
recognise the grounds on which the Archbishop s decision 
was based, or to consider it binding. Some spoke of the 
trouble and distress caused to their congregations, and in 
many cases resolutions of protest, passed at meetings of 
the congregations affected, were forwarded to the Bishop, as 
well as largely signed petitions. On the whole, there was 
willingness to recognise the duty to lay aside individual 
preferences and follow the Bishop in what he ordered for 
the good of the whole Church. 

To one of those who obeyed the Bishop wrote : 

1 Fulham Palace : October 3, 1899. 

*(l) I am thankful to you for your readiness to comply 
with my request about incense. I would do anything I can 


to make it easy to you and your people. But my own position 
in the matter is prescribed by what has occurred. I asked 
the Archbishop to decide if its ceremonial use was covered 
by the regulations which govern the services of the Church of 
England, and he has answered No. 

(2) My own view is that the ceremonial use, for censing 
persons and things, is open to objection as giving an un 
warranted emphasis to certain portions of the service, and so 
giving it a meaning which is not strictly its own. If this were 
clearly avoided, I do not see any ground of objection. But 
you must remember that people s minds are very suspicious 
just now. 

1 (3) You ask me the very pertinent question " How far ? " 
The answer depends very much on your side. The real 
question now raised is the maintenance of the Church of 
England as it has been accepted by the English people, in 
relation to their national life, during three centuries and a 
half. Nobody feels any interest in ceremonies, as such, or 
in doctrines, as such ; but they feel that a powerful and useful 
institution must not be turned into something which it never 
has been, and which they do not want Roman ways are 
suspected because they lead up to the Roman conception of 
the Church as an organisation created and ruled by the clergy, 
existing independently of its members, conferring or with 
holding salvation according as its rules are observed. Now 
you and others would repudiate this ; but we have to con 
sider the furthest consequences of our actions. 

Priesthood, Sacraments, Confession, all are explicable by 
themselves. They can be placed in a system which finds 
room for individual liberty, or in a system which excludes it. 
But it makes a great difference how the system shapes itself. 
Do not let us make a mistake. The question to be decided 
is, How much of the results of the Oxford movement are to 
be permanently incorporated into the Anglican system ? The 
answer is, from my point of view : As much as is compatible 
with the maintenance of that system as founded on a view 
of the Church which safeguards liberty. 

You speak of your people and their wishes. Of course 
they are attached to what is, and few of them would think of 
the general issue. Let me give you a quotation from a letter 
of a High Churchman : " The Eucharist is simply weighed 
down to the earth with the most tedious, unmeaning, and 
paltry symbolism ; indeed it is not the Church of England 
service at all, but utterly changed. I and scores of others 
put up with it because we are not grumblers, but think the 
nonsense we have to tolerate is beyond all reason." 


* It is opinions such as these that weigh with bishops. It 
is unfortunate that you cannot deal with a temper except by 
dealing with externals of small moment in themselves. If 
the temper were laid aside, the externals would not matter. 

I already note a growing change of temper ; if this goes 
on, peace will come. But it must be through the acceptance 
of the Anglican and not the Roman view of the Church. 

He replied as follows to some criticisms on the Arch 
bishop s decision : 

To Mr. Robert Bickersteth 

Fulham Palace, S.W. : October 3, 1899. 

* ... You say " the Archbishop s decision surrenders the 
principle of continuity in our worship." I should not like 
continuity to depend on the same external ceremonies. If 
the dropping of a ceremony breaks continuity, surely its 
introduction does so equally. You can only get continuity 
of development, and development may be up or down to 
more or less. 

4 ... Then do you think that the regulations concerning 
the conduct of divine worship ought to be altered by each 
congregation at will ? I must own that I think the scorn 
heaped on the interpretation of an Act of Parliament is mis 
placed, and is empty of meaning. All regulations about every 
thing are binding till they are altered. They can be altered by 
the same authority that made them. They are altered when 
people are agreed to wish to have them altered. All inter 
pretation of anything is rigid as soon as circumstances de 
mand strict interpretation ; and this becomes necessary so 
soon as their meaning is challenged. 

4 We may wish that the evidence had allowed the Arch 
bishop to decide otherwise, but I think it rather unfair that 
a movement which has been carried on for forty years on the 
plea of a particular interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric 
which argued its case at length on that ground should, 
when its interpretation was proved untenable, denounce rigid 
interpretation of particular points and wish to substitute 
general principles. 

1 It is quite obvious that incense could never have been 
introduced into the English Church except on the plea that 
it was covered by the Ornaments Rubric. Is it fair to sneer 
at the care taken to try this particular issue ? 

* Forgive me if I write thus to you : but I think that at 
present we must all try to be scrupulously fair. 


Fulham Palace, S.W. : October 9, 1899. 

* You will forgive me for troubling you with one reflection 
which I have for a long had before me. The conception of 
" continuity which has been very prominent of late years 
needs definition more than it has received 

There is continuity 
(i) of faith, 

1 (2) of ecclesiastical organisation, 
(3) of the Sacraments as ordained by Christ 

* This is the framework of the Church. 

But all else springs from the Church s conception of its 
office as teacher. Ceremonies are modes of teaching. They 
have reference to the work to be done, and the best way of 
doing it. In the sixteenth century the system of the Church 
had grown so complicated that it had ceased to act as a 
teacher. The Reformation in England was an attempt to bring 
that system back to its early simplicity and connexion with 
the life of men. That attempt dealt only with what was 
avowedly experimental and not essential. " Continuity 
was not affected by local "uses." These uses may be 
changed by consent of the Church, but not by individual 

Personally I think that the English people are insular 
in their opinion about politics, society and religion alike. 
But I cannot change them by running counter to their views 
all at once. I am born an Englishman, and have to make 
the best of it 

Three London incumbents wrote to the Bishop to say 
decidedly that they were unable to obey his injunctions. 
Eighteen others asked for an interview with him, in order 
that they might, if possible, bring the accustomed use of 
incense in their churches into accord with his wishes. 

He met them at London House on October 16. One of 
them read a statement that they could not accept the 
Archbishop s opinion on the use of incense, nor the argument 
upon which it was based, as having any authority over them, 
but that they desired to know the Bishop s wishes, so that 
they might if possible conform to them. After hearing 
their views the Bishop said that his wish was that they should 
give up the ceremonial use of incense between the Lord s 
Prayer and the Benediction. He explained the ceremonial 
use of incense to mean the censing of persons and things. 

i8 9 9 THE USE OF INCENSE 381 

He said that whilst unable to sanction the use of incense in 
processions before and after the service, he would not object 
to it. After conference together these eighteen clergy wrote 
to the Bishop : 

We the undersigned desire to express our sincere grati 
tude for the kindness and sympathy shown to us by your 
lordship on the occasion of our interview on the i6th instant 
and for the liberty granted us to state freely our conscientious 
difficulties caused by our interpretation of your letter to the 
rural deans. 

* Having heard from your lordship that such a measure 
of acquiescence as includes the use of the censer before the 
service of Holy Communion in the Prayer Book, together 
with the use of incense in processions before or after the 
service, is agreeable to you, we are accordingly prepared to 
modify our practice by suspending for the present in our 
several churches the customary ceremonial use of incense 
(by which we understand the censing of persons and things) 
during the service as set out in the Prayer Book. But we 
beg to remind your lordship that such a modification of the 
accustomed use is made without any reference on our part 
to the Archbishop s opinion, the binding authority of which 
we have felt it our duty respectfully to deny, and the reasons 
of which as stated we have ventured in our letter of the i6th 
instant definitely to repudiate. 

We would explain that we make this alteration solely in 
compliance with the wish of our diocesan, and in dutiful 
regard for his person and office, and for the good of the 
Church. Neither would we hide from your lordship that 
such an alteration, however temporary, can only be made at 
what will be felt by our congregations to be a great loss, and 
at the risk of causing considerable misunderstanding, and 
irritation, after, as in some cases, so many years of undisturbed 
enjoyment of what we believe to be our rightful liberty, not 
forbidden by the Prayer Book. 

In his interview with these eighteen priests, the Bishop 
had asked them to try to persuade the three who had declined 
to consider any concession, to come into line with them. 
This they undertook to do, but without success. 

The Bishop then asked these three priests to meet him, 
and they talked over the matter in a frank and friendly spirit 
It was a cause of serious annoyance to him that incorrect 
statements as to what was said during this conversation 


got into the newspapers. In answer to an inquiry as to the 
truth of these reports, he wrote : 

Fulham Palace : November n, 1899. 

I had a private and perfectly friendly talk last Monday 
with Wainwright, Harry Wilson and Middleton Evans, in 
the course of which we talked quite freely of possibilities. 
Amongst other things we discussed what would happen in 
case a prosecution was instituted by me, and I explained 
what I conceived to be the course which such procedure 
might assume. 

This is now represented as a threat on my part that I 
would do so. It is worth while noting that the difficulty of a 
Bishop of London in dealing i % n a friendly way with his clergy 
is enormous. If he writes a letter, it is at once forwarded 
to the E.C.U. office, is filed for everyone to see, and he is said 
to have " sanctioned " universally something which in a parti 
cular case he is prepared to overlook. 

If he has a friendly talk, it is at once misrepresented in 
any form from which most capital may be made. 

There is no doubt that the Bishop s behaviour during this 
particular interview was quite informal ; he even allowed 
himself to make a joke. He was urging his hearers to 
give up what seemed to him a matter of personal preference 
for the sake of peace, when one of them said, * But, my Lord, 
you must remember that we have a cure of souls. To which 
came the quick reply, And you think that souls, like herrings, 
cannot be cured without smoke. This remark no doubt gave 
offence. When he told me of it, and I said, * You ought 
not to have said that, he answered, * Yes, I know I ought 
not, but it was irresistible. 

This first interview led to nothing, but though he had 
little hope, he determined to try again. He suggested that 
this first attempt at an understanding should be treated as if 
it had not taken place, and that they should begin again. In 
reply to a request to state on what basis the discussion should 
take place, he wrote : 

Fulham Palace, S.W. : November 22, 1899. 

* My dear Mr. Wilson, As matters stand it is not in my 
power to sanction in any form the continued use of incense 
during divine service. It would be useless to discuss that 
point with a view to concessions. I frankly admit that I do 
not understand the importance which you attach to a cere- 


mony which may be regarded as edifying by some, but is 
disliked by many more. 

* My difficulty is to know why, for the sake of such a 
matter, you should lay aside all considerations of the duty 
of obedience to ecclesiastical authority, and of the welfare of 
the general body of the Church of which you are an officer. 

* The words which you quote from my letter " My object 
was to obtain from you something other than that " meant 
that I could not conceive that clergymen could be satisfied 
by answering a request from their Bishop by the simple 
statement that they did not propose to pay any attention to 
it. I still do not think that you want the matter merely to 
rest there/ 

Unfortunately the second interview suggested no way out 
of the difficulty, and the Bishop sadly realised that for the 
time there was nothing to be done but to leave these priests 
alone, and refrain from visiting their churches whilst they 
persisted in disobedience. 

The beliefs upon which his whole life was built made him 
shrink from prosecution ; and besides his abhorrence of any 
thing which could look like persecution, he felt that 
prosecution could not help to permanent peace. He was sure 
that bishops could not prosecute their clergy without losing 
their influence, and that heroic measures would never lead to 

Some of the thoughts raised by the agitating questions of 
this year were expressed to a meeting of the Committee 
for Church Defence and Church Instruction in November : 

* The Church needs no defence, it only needs to be under 
stood its only foe is ignorance. ... In ecclesiastical matters 
we have two definite and strongly marked parties and I do 
not think that these two parties ever grasp, with any exact 
ness, the great line of distinction between them. That dis 
tinction is this : There is one party which maintains the 
ancient organisation of the Church as necessary, and there is 
another which maintains that all forms of organisation are 
equally good, and are to be chosen simply on motives of con 
venience. . . . This is the one point which differentiates 
nonconformists from members of the Church. ... It is 
obvious that those who take the nonconformist point of view 
should have an altogether different conception of the relation 
of the Church to the State, of the Church to society, and 


of the Church to the individual, than we have. ... It is quite 
natural that the nonconformists should wish to separate the 
Church from the State, that they should wish, that is to say, 
that there should be no religious body which is supposed in 
any way to express the sentiments of the English more than 
any other. That is the real point at issue. ... A national 
church means a national recognition of the supreme law of 
God. Without a national church there cannot be that. In 
this ancient Christian land, in this country where the State 
has been educated by the Church, where civilisation was 
begun by the Church, where to understand any institution 
whatever one has to go to ecclesiastical history to find its 
origins, such a breach with the past would be irreparable, 
though it would not damage the Church as much as it would 
the State, and it is the State I am thinking of. I am not 
ashamed to own that I am an Englishman first and a Church 
man afterwards ; . . . but to my mind Church and State are not 
contradictory things. Church and State are the nation looked 
at from different points of view. The nation looked at from 
the secular side is the State, looked at from the religious side 
it is the Church, and separation between the two is impossible. 
The great danger which besets the modern State is that it 
should be so engrossed in the details of the vast business 
which it has to carry on as to lose sight of leading principles. 
... If the State were to cut itself adrift from the Church, it 
would drop into the position of a committee which had only 
to do with business and did not concern itself with principles. 
I do not want to see the State belittled in this manner. . . . 
I am quite clear that there is no chance of disestablishment 
being carried in England in any time that I can foresee by 
attacks from without ; unless these attacks are welcomed 
from within. A feature of the English character is the 
determination of the Englishman to have his own way, simply 
because it is his own way, and to declare that the institutions 
by which he is governed must be changed to enable him to 
have his own way. . . . There is a danger at present lest 
disestablishment should be regarded as a panacea for all 
grievances, and lest everybody who is aggrieved at not get 
ting his own way should go in for disestablishment because 
by it he feels sure he will get his own way .... People speak 
as if they wished to purge the Church of England by turning 
out everybody who does not think as they do ; but then 
comes the question where are those who are turned out to 
go ? ... Do we want any more small bodies outside the 
Church all flying at one another s throats ? Is that the ideal 
of Christianity ? 



HAVING followed the course of the ritual controversy to the 
end of 1899, we must now consider the other events of 
that year. In January the Bishop lectured at the Midland 
Institute in Birmingham on the History of Universities. In 
the course of his lecture he spoke of the future development 
of the new universities, pointing out how important it was 
that they should respond to local needs. But he added, 

1 it is also important that a university should be independent, 
that it should be self-governing, in the hands mainly of its 
own teachers. A locality may create a university, but once 
created it must commit its guidance to experts, for it cannot 
possibly hope to control it from outside, and it must not 
make it absolutely subservient to mere local demands. A 
university, however local it may be, must be in some degree 
the home of research, and not merely a training place for 
particular employments. It must be a place where the 
highest knowledge is pursued for the sake of knowledge. 
The object of a university is that it should be the testing 
place of all ideas as they are framed, and that it should 
appraise them and put its stamp upon them, before they filter 
through to the public mind. . . . The influence of ideas, the 
value of ideas, depend on the power of accurate thinking 
possessed by those men who submit ideas to others. 

To his nephew Basil February 14, 1899. 

* On Saturday night I went to Eton and lectured to the 
boys. This was rather a naughty thing of me to do, for I 
had many other things : but some time ago the head of the 
school wrote and asked me. As the request came from the 
boys, and not from the Master, I tried to find a day. The 
boys manage their own lectures there in an amusing fashion. 

He found the Eton boys a delightful audience, and 
talked to them for an hour about Russia. During this year 
VOL. II. c C 


he had what he described as evil days, difficult business 
and many bores. But he did not allow himself to be 
absorbed by ritual difficulties. The moral condition of 
London was much in his thoughts, and he readily joined in 
a scheme first suggested by Mr. Compton Ricketts, M.P., 
to create a Council for the Promotion of Public Morality in 
London. The object of this council is to secure the co 
operation of all those who desire to do something to 
promote purer morals in London, whatever their religious or 
political opinions may be, or even whatever opinions they 
may hold about the methods to be pursued to attain their 
object. The Bishop regularly attended the committee 
meetings which were held to start this new society, and 
on February I, 1900, he presided at its first public 
meeting in St. Martin s Town Hall. He said that, though 
unable to refuse the request that he should act as president 
of the council for a time, it was his hope that it would be 
only for a time, and that the work in the future would be 
organised on a lay basis ; the less the clergy had to do 
with it the better. He described the aims of the council as 
plain, practical and businesslike. Their hope was to cope 
with organised temptations to immorality: The organised 
co-operation of public opinion in such a country as ours is 
the most potent means of redressing wrongs. It is for 
the purpose of organising and calling forth public opinion, 
and applying it to this particular problem, that our new 
society has been formed. The first resolution in support of 
the council was moved by the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
Southwark and seconded by the Chief Rabbi. All speakers 
alike testified to their willingness to work under the Bishop s 
leadership to bring about a purer London. 

He had long believed that Homes and Refuges of all 
kinds ought to be regularly inspected, and until some general 
method of inspection should be arranged, he appointed a 
committee of his own, consisting of men and women of 
experience, to visit such Homes in his diocese as would 
receive them, and to report to him. The Bishop s Visiting 
Committee, as it was called, was universally welcomed and 
supplied with every information. It inspected the different 
institutions in accordance with detailed regulations drawn 


up under the Bishop s supervision, and submitted a careful 
report to him. He treated the whole matter as confidential ; 
the report was for him alone. On the whole, he was satis 
fied with the result of the inspection, and besides writing 
specially to some institutions he issued a general letter of 
recommendations based on the reports received, which shows 
how carefully he had gone into the matter. 

It was announced early this year that two of the leading 
London daily papers contemplated bringing out a Sunday 
issue. The Bishop was readily persuaded to use his influence 
to prevent this. He felt that the position of seven- days 
newspapers was altogether different from that of the regular 
Sunday papers which were mainly prepared during the last 
three days of the week, and sold by the tobacconists and 
others, who anyhow kept their shops open on Sundays. It 
was chiefly in the interests of the larger newsagents who prefer 
to close on Sundays and who would lose regular customers 
if they refused to supply the Sunday issue of a seven-days 
paper, that he took up the matter. He spoke of it at his 
diocesan conference, and attended a deputation to the Home 
Secretary about it. But it was probably the influence which 
he exerted privately that was the strongest. On May 24 he 

wrote to his niece, * I had to console , proprietor of 

the , who has given up his Sunday issue. I wrote and 

implored him to do so, and he came to explain his motives, 
and said that he had reluctantly agreed. 

In June he spoke in the House of Lords in favour of the 
Lord Chief Justice s Prevention of Corruption Bill. He 
said that had the bill dealt only with commercial morality, he 
would not have ventured to speak on it, but it concerns all 
pecuniary dealings between man and man. It deals with a 
practice which taints almost everything men are able to do 
one with another. It deals with a mischief the principle of 
which is that no money is to be passed from one person to 
another without some of it sticking to the fingers of everyone 
who touches it. He showed how easily the system of 
gratuities led to blackmailing. But he fully recognised the 
difficulty of putting it down by legislation. 

1 It is quite true that a man cannot be made virtuous by 
Acts of Parliament, but at least evils can be removed from 

c c 2 


his path, and it can be made more possible for him to be 
virtuous than vicious. One function of the law at all events 
is that it should express the public conscience, and so break 
down corrupt conventions. . . . These conventions cannot 
be attacked by legislation until they have reached a point at 
which they are ready to fall, and I venture to think that 
these conventions of trade have reached a point when they 
are ready to fall if a sufficient impulse is given. . . . Trade 
custom in itself is very hard to contend against. It is not 
so much a regulation or a habit as an atmosphere in which 
ordinary morality has often to be abandoned, frequently with 
a sigh on the part of those who abandon it. ... When a 
man is in a position to say, " You are asking me to commit 
a misdemeanour for which you and I can be imprisoned," the 
position becomes entirely different 

After the Lent confirmations we went for a fortnight to 
the Lake of Lucerne with our two eldest sons. 

* I am feeling happy at the prospect of a holiday, he 
wrote on March 26. I want to get my mind at rest a little 
from the worries of controversy, which are always with 
me. ... It is very difficult for me to keep the peace, and I 
have to act very warily, which is a tiresome process. 

To his niece Winifred Brunnen : March 30, 1899. 

* I think that this lake is the most beautiful I know for 
hill slopes. The Swiss lakes do not equal the Italian lakes 
in colouring ; but the architecture of the mountains is finer. 
I wonder if you have yet learned to judge form and colour 
separately. The great difference of judgment lies in this. 
People like different things and do not know why : the 
reason is that one is thinking of form and another of colour. 
I always take in the lines of anything first : that is the really 
intellectual part of any impression because it appeals to the 
mind : the colour only appeals tc, the senses and is a matter 
of feeling. Of course I feel the colour also, and like to feel it : 
but that is another matter. 

April 7. 

I go on thinking about the Easter Collect, that " as by 
Thy special grace preventing us Thou hast put into our 
minds good desires, so by Thy continual help we may bring 
the same to good effect." It seems to me such a beautiful 
way of making the Resurrection a reality to us : we too 
must rise, and there is in each of us a life which is struggling 
to rise, if we would only ask God to give us grace to let it 


rise. . . . My holiday is really nice, but I am writing an 
address which I have to give when I go back, to my diocesan 
conference. . . . 

Everyone wishes to be understood : that ought to be the 
bottom of our prayers : " I go to talk to God because He 
understands me." 

I suppose that the book of Renan which you are read 
ing is K Mes Me"moires." It is beautifully written . . . but 
Frenchmen are very curious people, hard for us to under 
stand. They are always rather vain and self-conscious. They 
claim for their individual self more than we can allow. An 
Englishman always thinks of himself as a member of society, 
the Frenchman thinks of himself as a detached person. He 
tells how he thought and felt, and how he tried to 
realise his thoughts and feelings. We always try to tell how 
we discovered what was our duty and how we tried to do it. 

On his way home, he paused at Lucerne to dedicate the 
new English church there, and also went to Zurich to hold a 
Confirmation. After reaching London he wrote, I do not 
find myself that taking a holiday makes it any nicer to come 
back to work. There seems to be such an enormous amount ; 
and after being free from worries I think one feels them more 
just at first. 

The diocesan conference was held for the first time this 
year in the great hall of the Church House, an innovation 
which proved a great improvement. I have already spoken 
of the Bishop s opening address, in so far as it dealt with the 
ritual controversy. He did not consider this a subject fitted 
for general discussion. Christian life still runs its usual 
course. . . . Many a clergyman has said to me, " I read in 
the newspapers of a crisis in the Church ; but it does not 
affect me or my parish. . . ." While great questions are 
being discussed we still have to live our daily life : and some 
times we find in it greater refreshment because of the con 
fused shouting which fills our ears outside. 

In closing a discussion on the need of paying more at 
tention to preaching, he said : 

There is a real danger at the present day that sermons 
may be neglected. That arises very much from the greater 
amount of parochial energy that is displayed ; but I think 
that every clergyman ought to remember that, besides being 


an organiser and being fertile in good works, he is, after all, 
primarily a teacher, and no substitution of other things can 
make up for a deficiency in that which must always be his 
main object. would only quote one criticism about 

sermons, which I remember sunk deeply into my mind, by 
a layman, which was, " That sermon was more clever than 
it did me good." That contains a good deal that is worth 
meditating on. The main object of our sermons ought to be 
to do some soul good, and no substitution of cleverness, no 
capacity for talking about current affairs, nothing in the wide 
world can make up for the absence of a direct simplicity of 
aim in giving gospel teaching to those who require it. 

The usual succession of meetings, dinners, public func 
tions, sermons, lectures, confirmations, filled these early 
summer months. Time had to be found for some society 
engagements. So you see I am very gay/ he wrote. * But 
it is hard work, and there is not much to be got out of it. 
People who are not in it want to be in, and those who are 
in are slightly bored with the trouble. I seem to be always 

To G. H. < May 13, 1899. 

* Would you like a record of my doings yesterday ? I 
wrote letters till 11.10. Then I had a Confirmation at 11.30, 
at one I went on a deputation to the Home Secretary and 
addressed him about Sunday newspapers. Then I hastened 
to lunch with the American Ambassador, where I sat between 
the Marquess of Lansdowne and Mr. Goschen. Then I went 
to a meeting of Waifs and Strays, where I was in the chair. 
Then to a meeting of the London University Commission, 
which lasted till 6.30. Then I went to dinner with Mr. 
Asquith, and met the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Balfour. 
That was pretty violent. 

At Whitsuntide we spent a few days with the Howard 
Peases in Northumberland 

To his son Cuthbert Arcot Hall : May 22, 1899. 

Dearest Cuthbert,- -We are in Northumberland taking a 
holiday. It is cold and wet, and Northumberland looks very 
grim. . . . However, I have had a good deal of sleep and no 
letters, and that is all I want. The world has lately been 
particularly busy for me : indeed I never have had so much 
to do as since my return from Switzerland. 

1899 TEACHING 391 

I am very much interested in your letters, and am so 
glad that you like it 1 There is nothing in life except to 
enjoy what one is doing. It is the only secret of happiness. 
But at starting anything it is well to keep a clear eye on 
one s experience, and separate what is due to one s own 
feelings from what is in the nature of the thing. This pre 
vents disappointment and keeps one s head cool. Boys are 
queer creatures. They look one thing from inside and an 
other from outside. Try and keep before yourself as much 
as possible the sense of your own feelings as a boy. It is 
odd that there is nothing which one forgets so soon as the 
experience which one has just passed through. One seems 
to resent the memories of one s former state. The butterfly 
hates to be reminded of the grub and the chrysalis. The one 
secret of teaching is to give an impulse which may induce 
the taught to be willing to learn. It is no good dragging 
boys through a process the meaning of which they do not 
understand. All depends on getting them to lend them 
selves to the process. The only way to this is to show them 
knowledge as a living, operative thing, by bringing it into con 
nexion with something which they see and feel. This you 
discover by casting about : the same point of attachment 
does not fit everybody. . . . Gemma is with us : and the 
children are clamouring that I should tell them a story. To 
morrow we go back to Fulham, and I have to spend Wednes 
day in commemorating the Queen s Birthday. Then there 
comes Ordination. So wags the world. 

To G. H. June 21, 1899. 

I am so busy that I never heard of your visit to Fulham. 
It is very nice now, but I have little time to see it Yester 
day I left at 7.45 A.M. and returned at 11.30 P.M. This 
morning I left at 9.30 and shall not return at all, but sleep 
in London House, where I have a dinner to all the bishops/ 

No wonder he wrote on July 18 * How I long for the peace 
of Wales ! . . . Everything seems flat and unprofitable. . . . 
I am trying to wind up things, which is weary work. 

We spent the three first weeks of August with children 
and nephews and nieces at Llanfairfechan. Then we went 
to the Alps, staying first at Pralognan and crossing the 
Little St. Bernard to Courmayeur. He enjoyed the moun 
tain walks more than ever and studied the architecture of 

1 He had just begun work as a schoolmaster. 


the mountains and the lie of the valleys, and planned many 
future excursions to remote spots. 

He was anxious to study the castles in the Val d Aosta 
and wrote to Count Balzani : * I have been seeing several 
castles in Wales, which you remember was occupied by 
Edward I. in the great period of castle-building. I rather 
have castles on the brain. At Aosta we were joined by 
Count Balzani and his daughters. 

After driving through the Val d Aosta and visiting some 
of its splendid castles, we settled down with the Balzanis in 
their little villa near Ivrea. This second visit only increased 
his sense of the rare beauty and charm of the district. 

To his daughter Beatrice Ivrea : September 21, 1899. 

Dearest B., I have had ups and downs as regards health, 
but am now much better. I have written my Church Con 
gress paper, and am peacefully awaiting that ordeal. You 
have been having a good time in visits. I think that it is very 
good for all of you to have a time that sets you each on your 
own feet for a little time. It is good for everybody to try 
and find themselves. Of course we are always busy with 
that process, but a change of surroundings makes one doubt 
about one s old views, and reveals possibilities of error. I am 
sorry that - - thinks that he does not understand me. I 
always think that I am too much of a child of nature and say 
and do just what suggests itself to me. When he says that 
he does not understand me, I suppose he means by me, me in 
relation to himself. Well, relationships have to be made or 
changed from both sides. I may not be good enough in 
inviting confidence of that I cannot judge, it is a matter in 
which one never knows oneself but I am always receptive, 
I think, and responsive, and anybody who likes can take me 
in such form as they want. I think that I have for my 
motto " Barkis is willing." The objection to me might be 
taken that I too habitually did the job which came in the 
way, instead of seeking for the best job to do. But I dare say 
all this only shows my ignorance of myself. As life goes on 
my conclusion is that in one sense everybody is quite easy to 
understand, and in another sense everybody is very difficult 
to understand easy to understand as a member of the out 
ward order of things, having a place and functions in the 
world very impossible even to think of as a member of the 
eternal order of things. But any human being who becomes 
visible to one in that latter aspect is of enormous interest. 


And there is no account to be given of the reason why any 
particular person becomes so visible. And there is no rela 
tion whatever between the aspect of a person in the second 
and in the first of these classes. This is wandering into large 
subjects. ... I agree with you in finding the " great " 
American writers rather thin : Hawthorne seems to me the 
one man of genius they have in literature. The rest are care 
ful studies of the right thing. Only you must not say so in 
America. They are a young people, and have all the defects 
of youth ; but their thought seems to me raw ; they substi 
tute gush for real perception ; they have not yet an adequate 
amount of national experience behind them. 

We are outside all the popular opinion in England. . . . 
It is well sometimes to consider the value of public opinion 
as applied to a particular subject. I don t like war with the 
Transvaal. It may be a short cut to great schemes, but we 
are great enough to wait. 

The Ordination on October 8 was followed by the open 
ing of the Church Congress on the roth. 

The work of preparing for the congress had been got 
through by the Bishop with his usual rapidity. The Editor 
of the congress Report wrote : From the earliest stages of 
preparation, criticism was disarmed by the prompt and ener 
getic way with which the work was done. The initial steps, 
often deferred until the new year, were passed before Christmas. 
Subjects were fixed, and invited speakers secured by the end 
of January ; and the programme was issued months before the 
usual time. The Albert Hall had been taken for the con 
gress, and an American sounding board in the shape of a 
shell was procured which added greatly to the carrying power 
of the voice. It was decided to have no sectional meetings, 
except during the mass meeting for working-men in the 
Albert Hall. An unprecedented number of tickets was sold, 
and a fortnight before the congress opened all further ap 
plications had to be refused, as 8,000 tickets had been issued, 
and all the seats were numbered and appropriated. 

On Monday, October 9, there was a mass meeting for 
women in the afternoon and for girls in the evening. The 
Bishop presided at both. To the women he spoke about 
their husbands and the need of studying their tempers so as 
to avoid the quarrels which do so much to degrade and 


debase the whole of life. The great cement of family life is 
cheerfulness, contentedness and good humour ; it is a quiet 
peaceful disposition which makes you useful to husband 
and children. . . . Your husband has to be taken care of, just 
as much as your youngest baby. . . . Hand in hand together 
you and he have to go through life. This can only be done 
by remembering that all other relationships take their mean 
ing from the relationship of your own soul to God. 

To the girls who crowded the vast hall in the evening, he 
said The charm of young people is eternal, because it is 
the source of our hopes for the future, it expresses in the 
clearest form what we ourselves look forward to, what we 
labour for, and what we strive for ; he urged them to be 
willing to learn at least a little from their elders. Your 
father and mother have much to tell you, and although you 
have much to tell them, yet remember that you are not so 
wise that you can entirely sit in the seat of the teacher, and 
simply distribute wisdom without getting some in return. 
. . . You have a great deal to learn in your home, and should 
never be in too great a hurry to emancipate yourself from the 
discipline of home. . . . Your parents know the difference 
between immediate pleasure and lasting happiness, and what 
they wish for you is that the cheerfulness and brightness 
which come naturally to the young life should go with you 

To his niece Winifred October 12, 1899. 

I told them [the girls at the Congress] how much they 
could do for older people by taking them into their confidence. 
I made a quotation, which I pass on to you, 

For it fills the old man s heart with joy 

And makes his pulst.s fly 
To catch the thrill of a happy voice 

And the light of a merry eye. 

* What one longs for is, that the happiness of youth should 
stay and last. Advancing age seems to rob one of it. The joy 
of life, the longings, the desires for pleasure, for enjoyment, 
soon pass away unless they have an abiding centre in God, 
Who is the source of true joy, and Who ever renews our life 
and gives us new pleasure in doing His will. This is abso 
lutely true : the life of self never satisfies ; one has to live in 
God as seen in other lives. 


Every seat in the Albert Hall was filled on the afternoon 
of Tuesday, October 10, to hear the presidential address. It 
took about an hour to deliver, and the Bishop s clear voice 
reached to every part of the building. His subject was the 
work of the Church in the modern State. He showed how 
much of the work formerly left to the Church was now done 
by the State ; still, the Church has created Christian civilisa 
tion and must be the chief agent in spreading that civilisation 
in other lands. ... on the Church falls directly the main 
tenance of the basis of national life. . . . The quiet work of 
creating character is the continuous contribution which the 
Church makes to the life of the nation. 1 

He concluded with these words : 

For myself shall I venture to confess it? I have an ideal 
of the Church of England which has steadily grown with my 
growth. I see in it a Church not existing in indefinite space, 
and founding claims to universality on the ground that it has 
no particular home, but a Church rooted in the minds and 
hearts of the English people. I am not ashamed to say that, 
as I look round the world, I see no other home so well suited 
for a divine institution. From that home it can go forth 
courageously and face the world as it is, believing that God s 
revelation of Himself once made in the person of Christ Jesus, 
is being continually explained to man by that progressive 
revelation of God s purpose, which is continually being made 
by the divine government of the world. Steadfast in its hold on 
the faith and on the Sacraments by its unbroken link with 
the past, it exists for the maintenance of God s truth and its 
application to the needs of man, not for the purpose of 
upholding its own power. A Church fitted for free men, 
training them in knowledge and in reverence alike ; disen 
tangling the spirit from the form, because of its close contact 
with sons who love their mother and frankly speak out 
their minds ; not wandering among formulae, however 
beautiful, which have lost their meaning ; finding room 
increasingly for every form of devotional life, but training its 
graces into close connexion with men s endeavours and 
aspirations ; having no objects of its own which it cannot 
explain and make manifest as being for the highest good of 
all ; afraid of nothing, receptive of new impulses ; quick, 
watchful, alert ; proving all things and ever ready to give a 
reason for its principles and for their application ; exhorting 
persuading, convincing ; so rooted in the past, that it is strong 


in the present, and evermore hopeful of the future. For the 
great work of the Church of Christ is to mould the future, 
and so hasten the coming of the kingdom. Its eyes are turned 
to the past for instruction and warning, not for imitation. 
Steadfast in the faith built upon the foundation which its 
Master laid, it can speak the truth in love, using such words 
and methods as men can best understand ; so penetrated by 
the importance of its message that it can speak it in mani 
fold ways, to men of varying tempers and knowledge and feel 
ings, but striving to speak it in such a way that the method of 
its teaching ever elevates and invigorates the taught. 

* Is this only a dream, to be realised for realised 
assuredly it must be at some future time, and under some 
other name ? Or shall we enter upon the possession which is 
really ours did we but know it? Our difficulties and dif 
ferences arise because we have not a sufficiently lofty concep 
tion of the destiny of the English Church. If any disaster 
befalls it, the record that will be written hereafter will be that 
English Churchmen of this our day were not sufficiently large- 
hearted and high-minded to recognise the greatness of the 
heritage which was theirs. 

The Bishop presided at every meeting in the Albert Hall, 
and in most cases himself concluded the debate. After the 
discussion on the Church and the laity he said : 

I am quite sure that if the laity of the Church of Eng 
land really wish to have the power, they can have it at very 
short notice by asking for it. They certainly would not be 
opposed by the clergy in making that request. It must have 
struck you as rather odd to-night that the laity should be 
listening to impassioned harangues by two of the clergy asking 
them to take upon themselves their own bounden duty. 

Speaking about missions he said : 

* Every time I am privileged to hear the subject of missions 
discussed I am struck by the obvious signs which go to prove 
that missionary interest is making its way to the hearts of the 
people . . . speakers appeal to the feelings of those who 
have now placed missionary work in its true position as re 
gards the whole proportion of things, and who have learnt to 
compare the missionary work of the present with the mis 
sionary work of the early centuries of the Church. 

In speaking of the divisions of English Christianity he said : 

* Unity is not by any means necessarily a unity of 
structure. . . . But by unity we do always mean a unity 

1 899 UNITY 397 

of structure. That inevitably raises the question " What struc 
ture ? Then every intellectual conception a man possesses 
arises at once. We begin our efforts in the sphere of moral 
and religious exaltation, but the moment we raise the question 
" What structure ? " we drop down out of that into a region 
where moral enthusiasm does not penetrate, and where it can 
do nothing into a region where simple logic and intellect 
prevail. There is the difficulty. In the moral sphere we can 
rise to far greater heights than we can in the intellectual 
sphere. . . . Again we are and can be as individuals on very 
good terms, and we can agree generally on nearly every point 
which influences practice. But the moment the separate 
interests of separate organisations rise up, people act to one 
another very differently. Let me speak quite frankly. We 
of the Church of England, I think, do wish to be on as friendly 
terms as we possibly can with all nonconformist ministers 
Certainly, speaking for myself, I do most heartily. But 
there is this practical difficulty which I always feel. It may 
be that I am thin-skinned, but I do not like, after I have been 
talking intimately and frankly with a man one day as a 
brother in Christ, to find that a week after, upon a public 
platform, he has found it necessary to talk about "purse- 
proud prelates," and to denounce the Bishop of London. 
Now, I am not finding fault with him remember, I quite see 
what he means by it. I only make this remark because I am 
trying my best to illustrate the actual difficulty which we 
have to face. It lies in the difference between the actual 
world in which a man lives, the things he has got to do day by 
day, and his higher aspirations. A certain unreality comes 
from trying to mix up the two, and we do not get any further 
by being unreal. I think that this attitude of which I have 
been speaking arises very greatly from our modes of political 
action. . . . We are accustomed to such a mode of procedure 
in politics, we are not accustomed to it in religion, and I do 
not want to get accustomed to it. If a good understanding 
is to go on, it must be by constantly keeping before us in all 
our intercourse and in all that we have to do with one 
another . . . not the system of the world at all, but the spirit 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

The meeting of the congress which attracted most 
interest was that on the Church and her Services. In the 
excited state of men s feelings it was just at this time that 
the Bishop was trying to procure submission to the Arch 
bishop s decision it was fully expected that there would 


be a disturbance. The hall was filled with an eager and 
excited crowd ; there seemed to be all the elements of a 
row. At the opening of the meeting the Bishop said : 

* I am told that the subject of discussion this afternoon is 
one on which there exists difference of opinion. It is upon 
such subjects that discussion is especially useful. Hence 
points of view differing from your own will probably be put 
before you freely and frankly. Now I would ask you to 
listen attentively to what is said, and not to attempt to turn 
a discussion into a demonstration. The truest way of show 
ing that you hold your opinion strongly is to be able to listen 
quietly to all that can be said against it. You will never 
succeed in establishing your own opinion by trying to silence 
those who differ from you. Listen to their arguments ; 
weigh them carefully ; and then refute them temperately. 
We have just sung : 

The world without may rage, but we 
Will only cling more close to Thee. 

* Let us not give the world an opportunity of saying that 
we only too faithfully reproduce its methods and walk in its 
ways. You will appreciate the importance of the example 
which we will give to-day. You may say that my remarks 
are needless ; but you will forgive me for a strong desire not 
to have any need to interpose these remarks in the course of 
the debate. 

A sigh, partly of relief, partly of disappointment, seemed 
to go through the vast gathering. Splendid ! said one man 
to his neighbour, * but it spoils all the fun. On the whole, 
the President s wishes were observed ; once or twice the 
interruptions grew noisy, but were immediately checked by 
a sign from him. At the only serious attempt at interrup 
tion he rose and said, * I must remind you that you have 
broken my rule more than once, and I must ask you not to 
do it again. At the end he said, * We have reached the time 
appointed for the conclusion of this meeting, and I would 
only say that you have behaved so well that I cannot help 
wishing that you had behaved just a little better. I am 
quite sure that you have all of you profited by the discussion 
which you have heard to-day, and I will not attempt to sum 
it up further than by saying that we have heard many opinions, 
and that some, in my view, were a little wiser than others. 


The way in which the meeting went off was said to be a 
striking testimony of the Bishop s wise and firm conduct ; 
but for him it might very easily have got out of hand, and 
had a disastrous issue. 

To the working-men the Bishop spoke of the impres 
sion of force given by such a gathering, and said that the 
great force in the world was no longer physical force, or even 
intellectual force, but was the force of opinion ; hence the 
necessity that opinions should rest upon principles. 

If we can make our opinions higher and better, I think 
they will grow wiser of their own accord. ... It is not 
always easy to know what is wisest, there is a continual 
conflict of opinion about that ; but there is not so much conflict 
of opinion about what is best. . . . Do not go about constantly 
making yourselves out to be superior persons, and thinking 
that your opinions are of enormous importance, simply 
because they are your own . . . Nothing is so contagious 
as opinion, and how easy it is in any given sphere for 
opinions to settle down upon a low level, instead of rising to 
a high level. I do not ask you to go about always preaching. 
It is not your business. I do not think that superior persons 
are, as a rule, very popular, and my advice to you is that, 
in pursuing good objects, you should never do it like a 
superior person. Do it as a sympathetic man who knows 
human weakness, talking as a brother to a brother and not 
trying to make yourself out either much wiser or much 
better than anyone else. Recognise how far your opinions 
carry. Remember that they are the secret of your force. 
Remember that it is your opinions that make for progress. 

To the children who filled the hall on Saturday afternoon, 
the Bishop spoke of the delight in cruelty shown by the 
child of a heathen chief, and then told them the following 
essay written by an English child on the cat "The 
cat is a square quadruped, and as is customary with square 
quadrupeds, has its legs at the four corners. If you want 
to please this animal you must stroke it on the back. If 
it is very much pleased, it sets up its tail quite stiff like a 
ruler, so that your hand cannot get any further" this, 
the Bishop said, is a very truthful observation; the child 
tried to put down what he had noticed about the cat ; 
but his next sentence was what particularly impressed 


me : " the cat is said to have nine lives, but in this country 
it seldom needs them all because of Christianity ; " this last 
sentence has a good deal packed away in it ... the child 
knew that general kindness and love was the first principle of 
Christianity ... it is this that you too ought to have, a sense 
of what it is that Christianity really does. 

The last meeting was for church choirs on Saturday 
evening. The Bishop spoke to them on a point about which 
he always felt strongly, the duty not to neglect English 
church music. I hope you will not think me exceedingly 
insular, he went on, if I say that I regret to see a tendency 
to drop back on all occasions to foreign music. I should like 
to point my moral exactly. In connexion with this Church 
Congress there have been two services in St. Paul s Cathedral. 
The anthem on one occasion was by Brahms, on the other by 
Spohr. They were very beautiful anthems, most appropriate ; 
only I think we English people when assembled together on 
such an occasion should have a little English music. 

He preached at the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul s 
Cathedral at the close of the congress, and took as his subject 
1 the Spiritual Understanding. 1 He described it as the 
capacity most needed by the Christian, the necessary qualifi 
cation of the Christian teacher. The congress, with its varied 
opinions expressed in varied ways, should tend to quicken 
sympathy and spiritual understanding and mutual forbearance. 
He summed it all up by affirming, as so often, the supreme 
value of liberty : Liberty is the most precious gift that man 
can have we know that it is so and we praise it ; but do 
we sufficiently consider what any sense of liberty must really 
rest upon? It rests upon the recognition of God s divers 
ways in dealing with His children/ 

It was said at the time that the congress as a whole was 
nothing but the expression of the mind of the President, 
his personality was stamped on every meeting ... his tact 
and force ruled throughout. Another remarked, The con 
gress was a success, the President a revelation. 

The week after the congress we went to stay with the 
Humphry Wards in the country. 

1 Published in The Mind of St. Peter and other Sermom 


To his daughter Beatrice (then in America) 

Stocks: October 18, 1899. 

Dearest B. We are here taking rest for a short space 
after the labours of the congress. The sun shines by day 
and the moon by night : it is quite warm : the woods look 
lovely and it is a joy to walk on the common. There is no 
body here . . . only Mary and Janet are at home, and Mr. 
Ward sometimes. It is very peaceful and nice. The 
congress was a success beyond my hopes. I got through my 
work without being too much tired ; and on the whole I 
think that people approved of me. Here the war has decided 
itself : the Boers left no hope : everybody accepts the situation. 

. . I got a letter from saying that her husband will have to 

go soon. It is rather hard to part after ten weeks of matrimony 
with a chance of never meeting again. She is very good and 
brave about it, and tries to be quite cheerful. But it is small 
things like that which bring most vividly before one s mind 
the meaning of war. ... I cut the opening of Parliament 
yesterday, which was naughty, and roamed in the woods in 
stead. It is nice to be at peace once more ; but a holiday hardly 
seems earned just yet. However, people have been very good 
in not writing me many letters : and that is why I find myself 
with time to write to you, which, however, I hope to do from 
time to time. Of course it is horrid being without you : but 
I hope you are having a good time, and I wish to put on 
record my hope that you will stay as long as you like. Don t 
grow weary too soon. Of course one goes through phases : at 
first everything is new and exciting : then you feel as if you 
had got to the bottom of it, and it is dull. You must wait 
a bit to see nice points of difference apart from general 
impressions : then interest revives in them. 

To Lad} Grey Fulham Palace : October 23, 1899. 

I was delighted to get your letter. You cannot think 
how it rejoices me to find something human among my 
correspondence, which rolls along in the shape of official 
communications, varied only by quarrelsome recriminations. 
Even these latter are amusing sometimes : and it is a source 
of satisfaction if one gets sense into somebody s head. What 
a queer people we English are ! How we scream and clamour 
for somebody s head on a charger, and would be horrified if 
anyone were to bring it to us. We talk any amount of 
nonsense before action is necessary ; when the time for action 
comes we are quite reasonable. I am glad that you liked my 
views about the Church. I always think that I could put 



people on right lines if only they would abandon prejudice 
and face facts. But then human nature is made up of in 
herited prejudices, and men would fall to pieces without them. 
Very few can be expected to think things out. One has to 
make the best of them, and has to remember to make some 
thing better of oneself. . . . 

* I heard a good account of you from Miss Freeman, whom 
I met at Stocks, where I went to sleep for three days after 
the congress. I sat in a chair for a week, and made sixteen 
speeches. It was horrible. Some people are always anxious 
to edify mankind : I never have any particular [belief] in my 
own opinions because they are my own : but I can never give 
any opinions except my own, and they have to be dragged 
out of me by force. I never like the process, and am never 
anxious to know what becomes of them afterwards, except a 
long time afterwards. Then it is sometimes astonishing to 
find them alive in somebody. Dear me, what an egotistical 
letter I am writing : but then you understand. . . . 

* Your quotation from Carlyle is excellent. Years ago I 
came across a passage in a letter of Fitz James Stephen to 
FitzGerald, " The truth must be told about Carlyle. He is a 
man of one idea, but what that idea is no one is able to dis 
cover." That always remained in my mind as an adequate 
criticism. I remember someone once saying to me : "If 
you take away the Scotch accent and the insolence from 
Carlyle, there is very little left" That also is true. 

Early in October the Boer war began. At one of the 
congress meetings, the Bishop said, I have received to-day 
many letters asking me to commend to the prayers of the 
many clergymen who meet at this congress our brothers in 
South Africa, and those who are on their way thither. 

To a young friend whose husband was ordered to South Africa 

Stocks: October n, 1899. 

* I was very anxious to know if was to be ordered to 

Africa. I thought it impossible that he could escape. Every 
body I know is going. Of course they like it in a way : but 
there is always another way in all things. Of course also 
your letter was just like you, as good as anyone could be : 
only it is hard to have one s husband taken away after barely 
three months : there is no getting over that. But you faced 
all these things before, and I won t even pity either of you, 
because it is no good. We all have to do our duty. It is 
a mixture of joy and pain to face it : only when it is over 

1899 THE WAR 43 

does the joy remain. ... Of course you and are 
happier every day : good people always are. It is amazing 
how happiness entirely depends on goodness. ... I should 

like to send all sorts of messages to . He will understand 

them, for they are hard to speak out. Don t you think that 
all real messages are understood ? They depend on a look 
or a handshake, not on what is said. If one tries to say it, 
one spoils it. But you will know that I am thinking much 
of both of you. God bless and keep you both. 

The Athenreum : November 6, 1899. 

1 1 must scribble a line to tell you how much I feel for 
you. I am always thinking of your trial, which is a very 
real one, and comes home to many. But you know how 
hard it is for anyone outside to say the right thing. Those 
who are about you do not know how to say what they feel ; 
they only feel their own incompetence. It is hard to know 
that one has to look on and cannot help. 

There is nothing for it but such courage as you can 
summon, and to go about other things as much as you can. 
There are hardships on every side ; alas ! we have to learn 
what war means. 

To his niece Winifred November 3, 1899. 

* The war is horrible in some ways. But we will never 
get rid of war, and we have to learn its lessons. A nation s 
life, after all, depends on its belief in itself : and we have to 
settle whether South Africa is to be brought under our ideas 
or under those of the Boers. I do not know whether or no 
it was necessary to raise the question now. Mr. Chamberlain 
thought so decidedly. But if the question is raised, it must 
be settled. We are having some of our conceit and self-con 
fidence abated that is good for us. We have much to learn 
after a long period of having our own way. 

On November 8, he lectured for the London Reform 
Union to a large audience in the Queen s Hall. He writes on 
October 26 : * I have also a lecture to write on " London in 
the Days of Elizabeth," ! which I began on Monday, and must 
finish soon. It rather amuses me to have a definite thing to 
read about. It is only this that drives me back again to 
consult old books. 

On the last Sunday in November he was engaged to preach 
before the Queen, and was disappointed at having to refuse 

1 Printed in Historical Lectures and Addresses. 

D D 2 


an invitation to Sandringham for the same Sunday to meet 
the Emperor of Germany. But the Queen heard of the 
invitation, and fixed another Sunday for his visit to Windsor. 

To his niece Winifred Fulham Palace : November 17, 1899. 

4 1 am going to Sandringham to meet the German 
Emperor. Emperors are a class with whom it is difficult to 
have a large acquaintance, but mine is extending, you see. 

To his niece Ella Sandringham : November 29, 1899. 

* I am here, and have been making the acquaintance of 
the German Emperor. It seems ridiculous that I should do 
such things ; who would have thought it ten years ago ? 
Yet I have been having a long talk with him about Germany 
and England, and the politics of Europe. Such is life. He 
is a very nice and attractive man. The Empress also is quiet 
and intelligent. We have all been taking a long walk, 
Emperor and Empress, Prince and Princess of Wales, and all 
their children, and even a grandchild, Prince Edward of York. 
The old Duke of Cambridge was there, with a vast multitude 
of others. 

In the course of his sermon l at Sandringham he said : 

* A nation, like an individual, has much to learn, and must 
learn it, as the individual learns, mainly by sympathetic inter 
course with like-minded nations. On this gradual education 
of nations, more than anything else, the hope of the world s 
future depends. Nations with like ideas of righteousness go 
forth on their separate ways, not that they may emphasise the 
differences which arise from differing experience, but that they 
may bring the results of their experience to a common stock. 
The Teutonic race has the same fundamental ideas. It has 
the same sense of duty, the same conception of conscience, 
the same aspiration after justice as the highest expression of 
national righteousness. We caanot shut our eyes to the 
responsibility which God s Providence has placed upon the 
nations of the Teutonic race. . . . It is not enough that each 
nation should recognise and glorify these ideas as it knows 
them. It must learn from the experience of other nations to 
understand them better and apply them more thoroughly. 
Is not this the task which lies before the great nations of the 
Teutonic stock ? Shall we not combine in a spirit of com 
radeship to help one another to perform a work which we 
have in common ? 

1 Published in The Mind of St. Peter and other Sermons. 


To his niece Winifred Fulham: December I, 1899. 

I have been in the usual struggle after my time at 
Sandringham, which I enjoyed. The Emperor asked to have 
my sermon printed, so I have been busy in writing it out . . . 
I see you want to know how one behaves to an emperor just 
as I do to the Queen : I bow and take his hand if he gives it 
On Sunday night at Sandringham, after dinner, I was stand 
ing talking to Lord Acton, when the Emperor came up and 
began a conversation. Presently he said, " Shall we sit 
down ? So we sat by ourselves and continued our talk till 
the Prince came and said : " The Princess wishes to say 
good-night before she goes to bed." What do you think we 
talked about ? Ghosts and second-sight and apparitions : the 

evidence for it and its meaning. 

1 December 16. 

* I went to Windsor on Saturday, and preached to the 
Queen on Sunday, and then took a walk. After lunch I sat 
and read and felt a crick in my leg, which I thought would go 
away. So I went to St. George s Chapel for service, and could 
scarcely hobble back. I hobbled to dinner, where the Duke 
of Cambridge spotted me hobbling, and called the Queen s 
attention, who was very perturbed, and sent to me to sit 
down after dinner. Then she sent her doctor before I went 
to bed, and next morning, at half-past 8, sent to inquire 
how I was, and to say that I was not to go away if I was 
suffering. However, I had to go at 9.30, and the Queen 
telegraphed the next day to ask how I was. You see what 
an old dear she is. ... The war news is terrible. Never 
have we been so low. No one can foresee the future. We 
have been for a long time much too arrogant and insolent, 
and we must repent and learn humility. It is too dreadful. 
This will be a quiet Christmas for everybody. No one 
knows what personal disasters may be befalling relatives and 
friends from day to day. We must think and pray and 
humble ourselves. Life is becoming a very serious matter to 
us all, and we must learn to face its seriousness. But the 
joys of quiet affection still remain, and nothing can affect love 
which abides when all else goes. 

After getting home from Windsor he was obliged to stay 
in bed for several days, and on one day had a sudden and most 
alarming attack of violent internal pain, the cause of which 
was never really discovered. He spent in bed the terrible 
week when the news of one crushing disaster after another 
reached England from South Africa, 



He was just able to hold his Christmas Ordination, 
and on December 29 preached at a service of intercession 
for the war held in St. Paul s Cathedral. He said that we 
must use rightly the sharp reminder which God had given 
us to save us from the spirit of self-satisfied presumption ; 
we could only venture to stand before God if we could 
plead that in a blind and fitful way we had still been 
true to the high purpose with which He had entrusted us. 
War was only a revealer of principles always at work, and 
showed the powers which were there already ; in praying for 
the soldiers we prayed also for ourselves, that we might bear 
with patience whatever God sent us. War filled us with a 
sense of our individual powerlessness, but it was the wisdom 
of the people as a whole that was shown in its statesmen and 
generals, and none must forget their responsibility for their 
opinions. 1 

When asked by one of the daily papers for a motto for 
the New Year, he sent these lines : 

Oh, earlier shall the rosebuds blow 
In after years, those happier years, 

And children weep when we lie low 
Far fewer tears, far softer tears. 

Oh, true shall boyish laughter ring 
Like tinkling chimes in kinder times, 

And merrier shall the maidens sing, 
And I not there, and I not there. 8 

To his niece Ella Fulham Palace: January n, 1900. 

I need cheering up, as I do not feel very vigorous yet, 
and my holidays are coming to an end, as I have to work 
hard again. I have felt that pottering about and taking 
holiday was necessary ; and have shown Winnie all the 
museums m London. . . . Lately the weather has been quite 
nice. We had a lovely day at Hampton Court on Tuesday. 
It looked quite charming ; perhaps winter lights agree with 
old red brick buildings. 


To Miss Mary Bateson Fulham Palace : February 3, 1899. 

* My dear Mary, Only yesterday my chaplain unearthed 
your catalogue of Sion Coll. library from a mass of docu- 

1 Published in The Mind of St. Peter and other Sermons. * lonica, p. 59- 

T 8 9 9 LETTERS 47 

ments in his room, by which it had been covered. Some 
times it happens that parcels are overlooked when we are 
very busy, and then confusion arises. 

Thank you very much for it. It represents an enormous 
amount of labour, and is done with a thoroughness that ought 
to satisfy even Lord Acton. It is a great thing to keep up 
a high standard of editing. It is not a point on which we in 
England excel ; but I hope that the art is spreading. 

* Of course your work will meet with little recognition at 
first ; but it will be very useful to students, and in future 
generations men will praise your name. This is all we can 
hope for. Happy is the being who can look forward quietly 
to the future, instead of being exposed to the jibes of the 
present. Compare yourself with me and rejoice. 

* I hope that Leicester 1 is progressing. Nothing progresses 
that I do. 

To his son Walter (in Frankfort) February 14, 1899. 

Dearest Walter, I have just grasped the terrible fact that 
you will be twenty-one on Friday. I call it " terrible " because 
the thought of all the family growing up makes me meditate 
on the past and on the future. The past is very nice to 
think of : and I suppose it is no good attempting to forecast 
the future. So I will withdraw the epithet, and accept the 
fact I do not know that there is anything very sad in the 
thought that you come of age without entering into a large 
possession. It is better, after all, to make one s own way in 
the world, and consider what one wants to do and be. 
People are not very happy in my experience who find life 
made ready for them. They do not get much out of it. All 
that is worth having comes from one s own effort These 
are painfully moral remarks : you will think them very dull. 
But I mean that I wish you very much happiness in the 
future, with plenty of energy, a clear purpose in life, a cheer 
ful and contented spirit, a love of things high and holy, which 
never fails to give satisfaction and peace of mind. 

1 1 have been very busy lately, but I do not wish to 
grumble. I have had tolerably peaceful evenings, except for 
dinner parties, of which we have been having a series. . . . 
On Thursday I had to make a speech in the House of Lords. 
It is a dreadful thing to do, as no one cheers or looks at you, 
or seems to listen. You have to stagger on blindly, and do 
not know if you are making an ass of yourself or not How- 

Th* Municipal Records of Leicester t which Miss Bateson was engaged in 


ever it does not matter. I think, however, that our speeches 
did good, and stopped the nonsense talked about church 
matters. . . . Probably you find that your life gives you time 
to think. The general life of a family hides the necessity of 
individual thought There is always someone to talk to, or 
a book to pick up, or something trifling to do. Sometimes 
you may find it dull to be thrown on yourself so much : but 
it is a useful thing. We have all of us to find ourselves ; 
some people take a long time in making the discovery/ 

To C. D. Windsor Castle : February 19, 1899. 

We English are very curious people ; we are so shy and 
reserved ; it is hard for us to talk to one another about what 
is deepest in our being. Of course I wanted to talk to you 
about all sorts of things, but did not like to begin. I suppose 
that is due to my own feebleness. 

* How various is human character : how little do we know 
of all that happens in another s soul, even of the outlines of 
the process that is going on and is the greatest reality of 
their life ! How dull and stupid and short-sighted we are ! 

* Dear, the certainty of faith comes from believing. It is 
like any great hypothesis of science, it proves itself by 
accounting for what we see. Or rather, science accounts for 
what we see : religion for what we feel. 

I understand that it is a trial to you to have agnostic 
friends whom you love and respect, who are higher-minded 
and better than most Christians whom you know. It is also 
the case with me. I have many friends of that kind, with 
whom I feel more at ease, with whom on many points I feel 
in more real agreement, than with the vast multitude of those 
who symbolise with me. But I do not presume to judge 
them : nor do I understand them. I can only look into myself, 
and try to understand what I see there. I know my own 
needs, I must do my best for them. I must be true to the 
best I know. I cannot know how or what others know. 
But this much I see that opinions can be precise and 
clear as the field which they cover is small. If we try to 
grasp the world as it is, language fails us in our attempts to 
explain we must feel, we must sympathise^ we must break 
out into parable. Life can only be explained by a Life : and 
I see in Jesus that life of which all other life is but a partial 
reflex. I always find that scepticism narrows the real 
problem, refuses to face the actual facts, substitutes energy 
in reforming the world for power to deal with it as it is. 
I can sympathise with all that it has to say and all that it 

1899 LETTERS 409 

tries to do : but there is so much beyond. The world is 
a pathless wilderness : it purposes to turn it into a watered 
garden. This is an attractive prospect but now [how] ? 

1 All purely intellectual positions break down. They go 
so far and no further. They are beset by limitations. 
How striking is the epistle for to-day, 1 in which St. Paul, 
burning with anxiety to explain his own real self, what he 
was and what he did, can only do so by a series of contra 
dictory propositions. It is so true to life. We are clear by 
missing out half the elements involved. It is not vague 
emotion when we grapple with immensity : and there is 
immensity in every human soul. Its progress is marvellous, 
inexplicable. The simplest soul is full of amazing problems. 
Try to explain yourself as you can, there is a vast residuum 
which you cannot turn into shape. How is all this to be 
dealt with ? 1 answer, only by conscious communion with 
a Person who is Life and Truth. 

Forgive this. Write to me again. 1 have been preach 
ing to the Queen, who is marvellously well and cheery, and 
as clever as can be. 1 had a long talk with her last night to 
my real comfort/ * 

About the dedication ot a book which he had accepted without being 
sufficiently acquainted with the authors views on church questions, which 
were pointed out to him by one of his clergy. , February 27, 1899. 

1 When I have made a mistake I try to learn its lesson for 
future purposes of guidance. But one lesson is that it is very 
difficult to undo the original mistake, i accepted the dedi 
cation of a book in ignorance of its contents. That was a 
great error, and I will not be guilty of it again. 

1 But if I try to mend it, I shall only succeed in calling atten 
tion to a worthless book, and giving it notoriety, which at pre 
sent it does not possess. If I send " I withdraw the dedication," 
I should be referred to the publisher, who would only be too 
glad of such an advertisement. I should call attention to the 
objectionable passages which are now known only to a few. 
An explanation only makes things worse. Silence is the 
wisest course. The book will find its way rapidly to oblivion 
if it be left alone. 

To G. H. May I3> : g 99> 

4 1 am very much interested by your lessons of illness, 
They are really very valuable, and teach one very much about 

Epistle for the first Sunday in Lent, 2 Cor. vi. I. 

He is reported to have said of the Queen that she was the best Liberal he 


oneself. Above all they teach one that one s self is purely 
one s own, and that no one can help one. All the help is a 
sense of love and sympathy that someone cares for one, for 
one s own sake. That shows how important one s self is. I 
think we are always clamouring for love, without considering 
if we are really worth it. It has to be won like all other 
things. These are things worth learning : and they help one 
to see how one stands in the eyes of God, who gives us credit 
for what man cannot see. 

Fulham Palace : June 21, 1899. 

Yes, we all claim too much in life. We think that we 
have a right to anything we claim : but we have to win it. 
It is quite true that love cannot be explained, that is its 
charm. But you will see that people who are loved are open, 
simple, straightforward, sympathetic, who invite your confi 
dence. I think it is not quite true that some people cannot 
earn love simply by being nice. All nice-minded people are 
attractive. The people who are not attractive are those who 
are selfish, self-asserting, insolent, conceited, wanting their 
own way and so on. Such people make their own choice ; 
they prefer to force their way through the world. You do 
not see any reason for helping them, and stand aside. You 
will see that people get help just as they invite help. The 
proud, stubborn, independent choose to stand alone, and 
then ask to be loved also. But one loves the quiet, simple, 
appealing nature. In fact, everybody responds to a reasonable 
demand, and if we want anything we must make a reasonable 
demand for it Instead of this, everybody claims it as a right, 
and grumbles when they do not get it. But the cause of love 
in any particular case cannot be stated ; it arises because two 
people understand one another and have found it out and 
enjoy it. 

Courmayeur: September 2, 1899. 

I am sorry that you are gloomy. Of course the world is 
always going wrong : that is to say, it goes its way and not your 
way. But you cannot help that, and must make the best 
of it. If you look long enough at things there is a great deal 
more good than evil, and evil is always tending to be wiped 
out if it does not improve. Good and evil are curiously mixed, 
and on the whole it is better to think people better than they 
are than worse than they are ; one can only hope that ex 
perience will teach them. . . . Anyhow it is of no use for you 
to feel that the weight of the world rests on your shoulders. 
Stand yourself: look at the things in which you can help. 
Cheer up and make the best of things, and hope for a good 
end. That is my advice. 

1899 LETTERS 411 

To the Rev. Canon Cruttwell Fulham Palace: October 3, 1899. 

My dear Cruttwell, Thank you very much for your 
book. 1 I have looked through it, and think it excellent in every 
way. Its temper is admirable, and above all it goes to real 
points at issue. We shall never get on till we recognise what 
they really are. I have been laying down lately that we 
have really reached a point at which we have to take stock of 
all that has been happening during the last fifty years : and 
we must set to work patiently to determine how much of it can 
be received into the system of the Church of England. 

To the Rev. A. W. Hutton Fulham Palace, S.W. : October 4, 1899. 

My dear Mr. Hutton, I am very much obliged to you 
for sending me your edition of Maitland s " Essays " I quite 
agree with you that it is now time for us to try and get nearer 
the actual facts of the Reformation. It seems that prejudices 
have to be removed one by one, and that what is done to re 
move one prejudice tends to create another. The " continuity 
theory has been overdone. In the sense of continuity of or 
ganisation it is true ; but this has been made to carry a vast 
amount, which must be disentangled. The changes made in 
England were changes in spirit, temper, appeal to learning, 
and assertion of liberty. This must be more adequately 

To one in great trouble Fulham Palace, S.W. : October 9, 1899. 

I am very sor-ry for the sad story which you tell me of 
the many sorrows which have beset you and yours. I full} 
sympathise with your feelings and with the difficulties which 
you experience. They are natural, and it is very hard 
for another who does not feel them himself to speak any 
thing which does not seem cold and remote. It is not a 
question for reason, but for feeling. It is a question as old 
as humanity. It is the question of the book of Job. I 
advise you to read that carefully in Dean Bradley s " Lec 
tures on Job." Also do you know James Hinton s " The 
Mystery of Pain"? That is the best book on the whole 

But let me say a few things. Our view of life depends on 
our claims : and we tend to take our claims on a reasonable 
average. But the fact of the existence of an average means 
that some fall below. 

After all, life is an individual thing. It is quite true that 
our lives are largely dependent on other lives. But what are 

1 Six Lectures on the Oxford Movement. 


we in our very self? Sorrow, loss, bereavement, only raise 
that question. Can we answer " I am nothing but my relations 
to this or that person " ? We would feel that this is unworthy. 
It omits our permanent relation to God, which is really that 
from which all other relations derive their force. / have a 
place in the world, a life to live, a work to do, independent of 
all outward things and of all other persons. It is a hard 
strain for me to have to realise this sometimes. But it is the 
fact. Perhaps no modern writer has expressed this so forcibly 
as Browning. Read him. 

1 1 would tell you of a friend of mine, who had an unhappy 
childhood, overshadowed by the misconduct of his two 
brothers, who brought their father to his grave. On the 
father s death one of these dfsreputable brothers succeeded to 
the property ; then the other. They had to be watched that 
they did not fabricate an heir. At last my friend succeeded, 
and purposed to enter public life, for which he had been care 
fully preparing himself. Just then his wife died . . . and 
grief made him so far deaf as to overthrow all his projects. 
He had to face life alone, afresh at the age of forty. Talking to 
me about it all, he said, with emphasis at the end, " Yet I would 
not have it different after all. It has thrown me back upon 
my very self." 

* I tell you this because an example is better than precept. 
Your life has been dislocated ; you feel the pain and numb 
ness. Take courage : make it afresh. That is your task. It is 
useless to murmur that there are many who have not that work 
to do. Remember that the use of prayer is to bring our will 
into accord with God s will. Remember how God blessed the 
latter years of Job. Remember that there must be examples 
of heroism of various kinds. Your brother set an example in 
one kind. Shall not his example weigh with you in another 
and equally real sphere of heroism ? 

From his letters to his nieces 

February. It is very "north country to feel so much 
concerned about giving trouble to other people. It is part of 
the northern pride. We were made to give people trouble ; 
and it is a very good thing for them in moderation. 

There is always so much to learn and so much to feel. 
And one has to learn how to feel rightly : that is the 
nuisance. One begins by thinking that one s feelings at least 
are all right, or do not matter, or that one is not responsible 
for them. But alas one is responsible for all that comes out 
of them, and has to accept that position. 

1899 LETTERS 413 

1 You want your intelligence developed to the level of 
your feelings. Feel, but understand what and why you feel, 
and what you make other people feel ; and what follows from 
the indulgence of one s feelings by themselves. 

One may take any amount of kindness from other 
people ; but one must never let them pay money out of 
pocket for anything. I think this is rather an important rule 
to keep in going about with people, for instance, only an 
elderly man or woman may pay one s fares : a young man 
must not be permitted to do so. Obligations may be incurred 
generally, but not specially. You stay with a person as long 
as they and you like : the house is there and the food, and 
you are only one more, and that does not matter. But any 
thing else is particular and attaches to oneself 

* March. Yes, it is a difficult thing to learn as life goes 
on, how grim it is. One sees that sometimes in the case of 
others, and then forgets it, and thinks it will never come to 

* About the difficulty of finding new thoughts in one s 
surroundings, remember that there are always two sources 
from which everyone can draw, nature and books. There 
are also people ; and humble folk are just as amusing as any 
others. They often say shrewd things, and always have a 
large experience behind them. Remember Wordsworth s 
" Leech-gatherer." He puts in that poem his sense of de 
pression, his joy in nature, and what he learned from a simple 
man. You are finding out, in the case of your sick man, how 
valuable is the result of life s experience, and how one can find 
it in simple folk in a clear form, seeing its results, and its 
power to give contentment. Right principles work out right 
conclusions, whatever the circumstances of life may be ; wrong 
principles never lead to anything, however nice the surround 
ings may seem. We have the root of our happiness within 
us. It all consists in the power of seeing God and His work 
ings in the souls of others. Then life is full of interest 

Love is founded on a perception of the finer side of 
character, invisible and inexplainable to the ordinary person. 
1 was at a concert last night listening to some words of 
Shelley set to music. They spoke of a woman : 

Who when my being overflowed 

Was like a chalice to bright wine, 

Which else had sunk into the thirsty earth. 

It is all there. One s being overflows : there are thoughts 
which it is hard to express ; one does not know their value ; 
if there is no one to receive them, they sink into the earth and 


leave no trace. But love is there with a golden chalice to 
catch them, and show their brightness another beauty, and 
make them a perpetual possession. 

April.- -Yes, it is a very extraordinary thing how hard it 
is to say one s prayers rightly. Everybody always feels it 
It is a sign how bad we naturally are. Do you remember 
that the disciples came to Jesus and asked Him, " Lord, teach 
us to pray." It is a thing we cannot do by ourselves. I always 
think the Collect so wise which claims for us no more than to 
be " those to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray." 
It does not say that we can pray, but that God has given us 
a wish to pray. It is a thing which does not come naturally, 
but has to be practised and improved. I believe that every 
body supposes that everybody else prays more easily than 
they do, but it is difficult for us all. 

I do not think that it is a mistake to have feelings, 
but they have to be kept under control. I know people 
who have schooled themselves into an unnatural coldness for 
fear of being too impulsive. But, after all, our feelings 
are our opportunities ; they give a signal. . . . Feelings 
are beckonings and discoveries, not simply passing ex 
pressions of delight. The desire to do things for others 
comes from a greater knowledge of others lives and characters. 
Feelings ought to be constantly broadening our sympathies, 
and showing how much there is in other people s lives. It is 
possible to do one s duty in a cold outside way which does 
not touch others : we have to try and do it with sympathy, 
founded on the respect which comes from knowledge. But 
we must regard our feelings as giving us knowledge rather 
than mere enjoyment. 5 

* May. You see that girls are very curious beings. They 
are always at your age oppressed by a sense of activities 
within them for which they find no scope. This is a natural 
restlessness they are being impelled to find out how much 
they can do. It is a painful process, and it has to be faced. 
The worst of it is that there are few indications to help one. 
One has to find out the answer for oneself. . . . The object 
of life is to pull oneself together : to equate one s energies 
with one s opportunities, and to make opportunities to fit 
one s energies. It is a hard job anyhow. But then, if life 
could be made easy we should be lazy and dull. 

i June--V^Q have our fights to fight of different kinds. 
Life would be very dull if we had not. But remember that 
mistakes are serious : and it is worth many a fight not to 
make a mistake. It sometimes seems hard that everyone 

1 8Q9 LETTERS 415 

should have to fight so constantly : but one learns a great 
deal in the process, and it is only by one s own efforts that 
one s life becomes richer and fuller. The object of all life s 
discipline is to have oneself in hand, and be able to act freely 
up to the best one knows. Misery comes from having com 
mitted oneself to less than the best. 

4 September. One really begins to be a human being 
when one can face the question " After all what am / and 
what are my immediate impressions worth ? " I am but part 
of a great whole which I am bound to serve and by regarding 
which I really live. If I am to be myself, it must be because 
I keep in order my immediate impressions, my first desires, 
my imperfect thoughts. . . . Then there grows a true self, 
which is strong because it is founded on law and is part of an 
order of things which cannot fail because it is eternal. Some 
thing of this kind in some shape or another must be the 
foundation of every real life. 

4 Ivrea : September 21, 1899. 

* It is well to have a good grumble sometimes, because it 
clears things up. You see people are of different kinds. Let 
me try to describe some of them from one point of view 
(i) There is the person who frankly throws herself on the 
world and says " Please take care of me. I will do what you 
want me to do and amuse you, if only you will amuse me." (2) 
There is the person who goes her own way and quietly take 
what she wants for herself. (3) There is the person who is 
ready to put everybody else right, and goes along shouting 
out directions to others so fast that she is constantly 
stumbling herself. (4) There is the person who quietly does 
all she can for others without making any fuss about it. 
Now each of these classes of people have their reward. 
There is profound wisdom in our Lord s words when He 
said about people who were not satisfactory, " Verily, I 
say unto you they have their reward." The world is a good- 
natured place and pays, everybody quite fairly for service 
rendered. But the mistake is that nobody is content with 
her due wages, but wants somebody else s wages. We act, 
say, in a way to inspire esteem, and we say, " Oh, but I 
want affection." We act so as to inspire affection, and we 
say, " What is that worth ? I want respect." So it goes on. 
Further, we always suppose that all affection is of the same 
kind : but it is not : it is of very divers kinds and answers to 
divers kinds of characters. We all of us want another kind 
than we work for. Look at the matter on a large scale. It 
is curious how life is full of compensations. A favourite 


singer or actor is applauded to the skies, is overwhelmed 
with bouquets, is an object of universal admiration, is spoiled 
and petted in every way. Why ? Because the pleasure 
which she gives is immediate, is intense for the moment, 
passes away, and leaves little behind. It is paid for on the 
spot, because it is consumed on the spot. A great poet, a 
great statesman, is neglected for years, has to fight his way 
to the front, is then sharply criticised, is always liable to 
violent abuse. He goes on his way knowing that what he 
does and says will bear its fruit, not in the immediate 
pleasure which it gives, but in the good it does in the long 
run. He will be judged not now, but by posterity. It is 
curious to see how this law of compensation works out. 

So you see life consists in knowing what we are doing and 
what reward we are working for (I mean here and now) and 
taking what is our due. 

October. It is curious to see people who have done 
things. It is impossible to say why they did them of all 
people. It is not so much special gifts, or any exceptional 
zeal or earnestness. There may be many zealous people, but 
they do not succeed. All depends on a certain force, insight, 
and adaptability which cannot be taught. 

To F. S. Stevenson, Esq. Fulham Palace: November 3, 1899. 

My dear Sir. I am very much obliged to you for your 
Life of Grosseteste. I sincerely rejoice that a scholarly life 
of so great a man should have been undertaken so success 
fully. I have long thought that Grosseteste deserved a good 
monograph, and I congratulate you on having filled up the 
want so admirably. 

I do not notice that you have referred to a little pamphlet 
of Dr. Luard, " England and the Holy See." Perhaps you 
did not come across it. It was a sort of Vorgeschichte to 
Grosseteste, dealing with the period of the Legatine Govern 
ment I only mention it because I think that Luard is a 
man whose excellent work is sometimes overlooked. 

One side of Grosseteste interested me. England, as in 
many things, showed an example in this that reform in the 
Church was impossible within the limits of the curial system. 
One feels that Grosseteste, strong as he was, was continually 
being pulled up short, and felt that his action became incon 
clusive. It is no wonder that his successors found a difficulty 
in going on, and composed themselves to make the best of 
what they could not mend. England had little belief in the 
conciliar movement. It had turned its attention to making 
the best terms for itself. 

1899 LET1MRS 

To his daughter Beatrice (then in America) 

Fulham Palace : November 20, 1899. 

Dearest B. f I have been following your adventures with 
great interest. You have been going over the places where 
1 went, and have been seeing them in the same sort of way. 
I dare say that you have discovered that America is very like 
England, though the Americans persist in thinking that it is 
not I suppose that individuals and nations alike have a craze 
for thinking themselves original not seeing that originality 
is only possible in very small limits, and must certainly be 
left to other people to discover in us, not to be made known 
by ourselves. 

* The general tenor of my life is as usual ; many things to 
do and not much apparent result I was just saying to 
mother to-day that the Archbishop was 78 to-day was his 
birthday and that I perfectly quailed at the thought of going 
on for twenty years more. She consoled me by the remark, 
which may be true, that the period which I had reached in 
my work in London was perhaps the most try ing-- when 
novelty had worn off, when I had said what I had to say, 
when people had first listened and then criticised ; and that 
I must wait a bit for the habit of going on. I must hope so, 
but all through life I have had the same difficulty and have 
never made up my mind what I ought to do. I can produce 
most effect by frankness, by being myself, by being willing to 
be misunderstood ; but while I do something for individuals 
in this way, I never know if repression of self and decorous 
dulness would not better fit an official position. If you are 
going to be yourself, you must pay for it : but ought a bishop 
to have anything to pay ? Of course he must have some 
thing ; but can I struggle on in the effort to educate people 
at large ? This frequently comes into my mind. Ought I 
to get rid of myself more and become dull and solemn ? 

This sounds like a moan. I did not sit down to moan, 
but to tell you of a visit to Sandringham to meet the Emperor 
and Empress of Germany. I went to preach, and the Prince 
of Wales asked me to say something about friendly relations 
between England, Germany, ard America. This was rather 
awful, and I preached a sermon with some dismay. But the 
Emperor liked it very much. It was quite possible that he 
should have resented an appearance of lecturing him. But he 
said " That was excellent : it is just what I am trying to 
teach my people." . . . The Emperor s vigour is tremendous : 
he is always all there : and it is impossible not to look with 
awe on the man whose first act was to dismiss Bismarck. 



Altogether his visit seemed to please him, and all his suite 
and his Prime Minister Btilow, who accompanied him, went 
out of their way to say so. It was impossible not to feel that 
there was great political importance attaching to it. It was 
a very funny feeling for me that I was called to play a little 
part in determining the future of European politics. What I 
said, and how the Emperor took it, will go to all the persons 
who have to determine those great matters. You can 
imagine my thankfulness that I succeeded. I was aghast at 
the Prince s message, which came to me two days before. 
But I have learned that the Prince of Wales is always right 
about practical matters, and knows what he is about. Lord 
Acton was there also, and I enjoyed a talk with him. I did 
gymnastics of a terrific kind with my future King, to the 
Emperor s great amusement. By my future King I mean 
Prince Edward of York. 

Fulham Palace: December 14, 1899. 

Dearest B., I feel that I must write you a few words of 
greeting for Christmas. ... I am more and more amused by 
the account of your meeting exactly the same persons as we 
met, and rinding them just the same as we did. But it is the 
same I believe in every country. There is a certain cosmo 
politan set whose duty it is to represent their country to 
foreigners, and foreigners accept the representation for truth. 
... I think that this war and all that is befalling us is rather 
opening the eyes of the British public. I hope that it is 
teaching them a little humility. I am afraid that I have so 
long been convinced that we need the lesson that I cannot 
decline to pay the necessary price. We are being taught 
better behaviour in a very decided manner. Well, we must 
learn gladly and willingly. I am bound to admit that 
we are behaving very well under it, but we are feeling it 
deeply ; and I think that we are conscious that everybody is 
glad to see some of the conceit taken out of us. Well, well : 
we must learn our lessons and take our reverses. 

To C. D. Fulham Palace : December 22, 1899. 

1 ... As life goes on we all of us learn to trust less in 
ourselves. That is a great lesson to learn, as the fault of the 
present day, perhaps of all days, is excessive individualism 
and self-confidence. It seems to me that the war is giving 
us food for reflection on that point. But I was very 
much struck a little time ago by the report which an agnos 
tic lady gave me of her experience of a visit to the 
Australian colonies. She said : " One thing I have learned- 

1899 LETTERS 419 

the necessity of voluntary schools and religious teaching. 
I may not agree with its results, but then I must have some 
basis for my difference. It does not do for people to have 
no basis for their life except the desire for material well-being. 
This only produces arrogance, and what I can only de 
scribe as blatancyT 

* Man cannot really live without some sense of awe, some 
relationship of his own life to a bigger set of conditions. We 
learn this as we grow older, and happiness is only to be found 
in " committing our way unto the Lord." What are my 
ways ? I find other people with different ways. Why should 
my ways be better than theirs ? There is no test except the 
end to which they lead. And the end becomes more and 
more important till it absorbs the ways. 

Is not this the answer to our dread of responsibility ? 
Who is sufficient for these things ? we often ask. Our life 
supplies innumerable problems which we cannot answer 
and when we have an answer, no one will listen to it. There 
is only one answer, " Go on : do your best." The life of our 
affections is given us to show how much we can do for some : 
it always seems to me that we ought by increasing sympathy 
to extend that power to more. Our affections are founded 
simply on a power of vision in a limited sphere. To see more, 
that is what we need. 

I am sending you a sermon of mine, not that it is of any 
merit, but it pleased the German Emperor, who asked for it 
to be printed. He with his responsibility felt something of 
the process which I tried to describe. It is a process applicable 
to all things. 

K i. J. 



THE new year opened gloomily. The whole nation was 
weighed down by the deep anxiety of the war. A peaceful 
settlement of the differences within the Church seemed as 
remote as ever. The Bishop wrote in the autumn of 1899 : 

1 I think that the recalcitrant clergy are falling in, but this 
is merely a trifle, and does not touch the real position. There 
is no hope of people agreeing : they must learn to agree to 
differ and live in peace. But the public mind is now taken 
up with the war. Luckily it cannot keep two things at once. 
This is a mercy. It will pitch into the Boers instead of the 
bishops. All the same I would much rather bear the brunt 
of all things than have this horrid war going on. 

His tone of mind at the beginning of 1900 is shown in his 
message to his diocese : 

I am asked to write a few words by way of a New 
Year s message to the diocese. I do so with great reluctance, 
for my words must be words of warning, not of encourage 

* We can