'meant to exclude all variations.' But to apply these words to the use of incense was, in the eyes of the users, to overlook the Ornaments Rubric altogether. That rubric is an excellent illustration of the inconveniences of legislation by reference. It orders the retention of certain things, not by name, but by a reference to what was in use by the authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI. This reference is open to at least three interpretations, one of which would certainly have covered incense-and a good deal more while another might possibly have covered it. But the Archbishop passed them all over. From his copy of the Prayer Book the Ornaments Rubric seemed to have been left out. The irritation of the clergy concerned was great. Their arguments, they said, had been heard, but they had neither been considered, nor disposed of.

The calming process which Creighton had been applying to ritual difficulties in London was thus abruptly arrested. He had sought to check various ceremonies, not so much on the ground of illegality as in the interests of order, of goodwill, of avoidance of needless causes of offence, of consideration of peace in the Church rather than of giving satisfaction to particular congregations. On these grounds any clergyman might yield without sacrifice of principle. But now Creighton was met by a different plea. To do what you ask, it was said, is not merely to follow the directions of our own bishop-directions not professing to determine any question of law, but intended simply to further the peace of the diocese. It is to accept a judgement which passes over our arguments without so much as notice, while it comes from a source the jurisdiction of which, as exercised on this occasion, is more than doubtful. Undismayed by this change in the position, Creighton set to work to apply his old method to the new circumstances. He instructed his Rural Deans to convey to the clergy concerned his request that they would abandon the usages in question and explain to their people that they did so at his special desire. Of the fifty-eight clergy whom this letter concerned, all but three consented to abandon the ceremonial use of incense, in compliance with the Bishop's wish, and in 'dutiful regard for his person and office, and for the good of 'the Church.'

The last aspect of the controversy which was to come before him seems to have given Creighton more anxiety than any other. other. In September, 1900, he was informed that a certain Colonel Porcelli intended to proceed against five

London clergymen under the Church Discipline Act of 1840. Was this a case for the use of the episcopal veto? Creighton was under no illusion as to what the effect of a prosecution would be. 'Of course,' he wrote to the present Archbishop of Canterbury, 'everybody disapproves of a prosecution 6. the moment it is started. It means a certain loss to 'the Protestant party of their present popularity. It means 'that incense and reservation will in five years' time be in 'the same class as vestments.' In a second letter he described the attitude of one of the clergy against whom the suit was directed. It was, ""I would meet you if I "“could, but I am not going to be bullied by a handful of ""Prots." In fact, "Catholic principles" are now in the back'ground, and we are going to have British pluck instead. 'He will not appear before the Arches Court and will pay no 'attention to the sentence. Doubtless he will be ejected by 'the police ultimately amidst universal sympathy, and no one 'will be able to work his parish. Two parishes in the slums ' of East London will be devastated, and then the Protestant 'fervour will disappear for our lifetime. Incense will come 'back and reservation for the sick will become general.' Still, for some time Creighton did not see his way to using his veto. The episcopal discretion, he argued, must be a legal discretion, and being so it could only bar suits on the ground that they were either frivolous or unnecessary. Neither of these pleas could be sustained in the present case, and on what other plea could he justify a refusal to let the suit go on? Probably his very eagerness to discover such a plea made the interval of hesitation longer. He hated the idea of a prosecution. It went against the convictions that he had held and preached throughout his life. But the more he hated it the more scrupulous he became. The veto must be used for the precise ends for which Parliament had meant it to be used and for no other. In the end help came from an unexpected source. The Church Discipline Act allows a prosecution to be instituted by any one, the Public Worship Regulation Act limits the right to parishioners. The Public Worship Regulation Act had ritual offences specially in view, and it enacted that the prosecutor should have a personal interest in the matter. Consequently, to allow proceedings to be taken by a nonparishioner under the Act of 1840 would be to defeat the intention of the Act of 1874. The reasoning was more ingenious than conclusive, but it answered the purpose. Colonel Porcelli did not live in any of the five parishes to

which his complaints related; his only address was a London club. Accordingly, the Bishop vetoed the prosecution on that ground.

Had Creighton consulted merely his own feelings, the controversies which played so large a part in his London life would not have greatly troubled him. He had his own opinions, but he was not at all anxious to impose, or even to impress, them upon others. 'I have no belief,' he wrote, "in my exclusive possession of wisdom. . . . My sympathies 'are genuinely with every form of opinion. . . . 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.' On the other hand, he did not wish to see one set of opinions merged in another. He laid great emphasis on the distinctness of the Anglican position as defined in the Prayer Book. 'The services there contained must not be resolved into 'other services even of a similar type.' The great English 'tradition,' the 'belief of England in its mission,' were of paramount importance to him. His objection to the extreme High Church party was that they do not care for the 'Church of England.' They think only of what they call 'the Catholic Church.' He was not in the least indifferent to doctrine, but very anxious not to make doctrines of what are only matters of opinion. Thus about the Real Presence he writes: The Church of England recognises as strongly as possible the fact, but has declined to express any opinion on the method.' So long as this was excluded he thought the strongest expressions in the Greek Liturgy 'quite in 'accord with the spirit of the Prayer Book.' About particular points he wrote and spoke to his clergy with great freedom, never keeping back his own views or concealing his divergence from theirs. But all this was coloured and interpreted by his excessive dislike to anything like an appeal to force. When differences of opinion disturb the peace of the Church,' he wrote to Mr. Kensit, it is the 'duty of those in authority to behave with strict regard 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.' Underneath all his frankness and all his plainness of speech lay the conviction that persuasion and argument were the only weapons a bishop could command on

points which involved real differences of opinion. There is a letter of his to Mr. T. Cheney Garfit which puts this with special clearness. Every Englishman,' he says, 'when he feels that he is in a strong majority, considers it very easy 'to wipe out the minority. Unfortunately . . . minorities are very troublesome, especially when they are driven into a corner.' And then he asks his correspondent to 'consider 'a few general truths of history.' Two of these are: The 'history of the English Church is a history of vain attempts 'to obtain peace by exclusion.' '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.'

We take leave of this singularly interesting book with a feeling of regret that in reviewing it we have been compelled to leave so many aspects of Creighton's character unnoticed. We have hardly touched, for example, on the strength and sincerity of his religious convictions, on the wide range of his affections and tastes, on his keen enjoyment whether of work or of holidays, on his generous sympathy alike with the pleasures and the griefs of others, on his passionate love of liberty and his corresponding dislike of anything like dictation how liberty should be used. We must not, however, bring this Review to a close without one word of praise for the admirable way in which Mrs. Creighton has performed a most difficult duty. She has known on the one hand how to keep her own personality in the background, and on the other how now and again to give the principal figure the advantage of an appropriate background. We may instance as one striking example of this latter characteristic the vivid sketch of a North-country village and of North-country villagers which serves as a preface to the chapter on Creighton's life at Embleton. They are pages which it would be hard to beat in descriptive literature.

ART. VI.-SWEDEN.

Sweden: its People and its Industry. Published by order of the Government. Edited by GUSTAV SUNDBÄRG. Stockholm Government Printing Office. P. A. Norstedt & Söner. 1904.

The

As s a resort of the multitudes, now generally classed as tourists, who spend their periodical holidays in visiting foreign countries, Sweden has been practically thrown into the background by its near neighbour Norway. splendours of the Norwegian coast scenery are heightened by the comparative rarity of its distinguishing feature, the fiord-formation--which is found on anything like a similar scale only in New Zealand and Western Patagonia-and they can be viewed at ease from the luxuriously-appointed steamers which visit the country at the best season of the year. A great deal of the internal scenery of Norway also is highly picturesque. It is no wonder, therefore, that the country is visited by tens of thousands of tourists.* By the side of such figures those which Sweden could show would, no doubt, look small. Yet, even as regards scenery alone, a visit to Sweden will well repay the traveller. Railways have now made the northern part of the country easily accessible and views in the forest region and the so-called 'Alpine districts' will bear comparison with much to be found in the adjoining kingdom. Though not imposing, the aspect of great part of Southern Sweden is very attractive. The immense number of lakes, alternating with low tree-clad hills and tracts of cultivated land, forms a picture hardly to be met with elsewhere, and the view is often agreeably diversified by the presence of stately castles and manor-houses or venerable churches. The Baltic coast scenery of Sweden is all but unique. Nowhere else, except in Finland, is the peculiar skärgård (pronounced "share'gord') met with. This extraordinary archipelago of islets and rocks-for which our word 'skerries' is the linguistic, but imperfect topographical equivalent-fringing the Swedish coast for hundreds of miles and running across by the Åland group to Finland, is an almost ideal cruising-ground. The guidance of experienced local pilots is, however, just as

:

* In 1895 the number of 'travellers for pleasure' visiting Norway was given as 27,138. It now probably equals, if it does not surpass, 40,000.