ΟΝ

CHAPTER IV.

Difficulties with the Primate.

N Saturday, August 1, I told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Howley, what Dr. Routh (for whom he expressed the greatest respect) had done for me, and he said that he would willingly countersign Dr. Routh's letter. On Wednesday, the 5th, having received it from Dr. Routh that morning, I took it to Lambeth to the Archbishop's chaplain for the Archbishop's signature, leaving with him at the same time a copy of my Latin Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles, not to be given then to the Archbishop, but that it might be at hand in case of any question arising in Russia out of my application to be admitted to communion, which might make it proper to refer to the living authorities of our Church-as supposing, for instance, it was objected that I was putting on our Articles a sense which did not properly belong to them.

This was on the 5th. Next day the chaplain wrote

to me from Lambeth that the Archbishop, after reading Dr. Routh's letter, did not feel able to put his name to any such document. He would not indeed refuse to give me letters commendatory as to a person going on a visit of inquiry, such as both his Grace and the Bishop of London had given recently to Mr. Tomlinson (and such indeed as they gave a year or two later to the Anglo-Prussian Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem), but the Archbishop would altogether object to a clergyman of our Church offering himself for that kind of examination to the Bishops and Clergy of the Russian Church, with a view of joining, if permitted, their communion.

This letter took me to Lambeth again. In a conversation with the Archbishop's chaplain I assured him that I proposed to offer myself to no other kind of examination in Russia than such as every stranger who offers himself at all to communion must necessarily undergo even in England; that according to the Rubric, even parishioners are required to give notice before communion to the curate, which implies an opportunity of his questioning them; that it was far from my intention to ask the Archbishop to endorse my anonymous Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles, or to commit himself to any special approval of the opinions or acts of an individual traveller. All that I desired was, in truth, a certificate that Dr.

Routh and the bearer of Dr. Routh's letters are in communion with the Church of England and with its Primate.

All this I wished to be reported to the Archbishop, expecting to receive from him such certificate as he might be willing to give; but hearing nothing further for several days, I left London for Petersburg on the night between the 11th and 12th instant, by the route of Hamburg, Lubeck, and Cronstadt.

However, the Archbishop did not eventually leave my letter without an answer. It was gained in the following way. Immediately before leaving London I wrote to my father an account of what had taken place about my journey. I told him of the President's formal letter and of the College's leave of foreign travel, and then of the Archbishop's disliking to countersign Dr. Routh's document, or even to certify that the President and myself were in communion with the Church of England, thinking that such an act might be understood in Russia to make him a party to all my proceedings; an anticipation, which was doubtless increased by my having drawn up a Latin statement of the sense in which I understood our Articles. I went on to say that the Archbishop, as his chaplain assured me, did not mean to express any disapproval of the step I was about to take, but only was disinclined to become in any way responsible for

it himself. As it is, my Letters of Orders, signed by the Bishop of Oxford, and the two letters of the College and of the President, would, I supposed, be proof enough that I belong to the Church of England, and that I have the approbation of my immediate superiors in what I do. Of course I must take care to make it understood that my statement of doctrine expresses merely my own personal interpretation of our Articles, and that if in anything it seems to misrepresent their sense, or the doctrine of our Church, I submit it to the judgment of her living authorities.

In this

On receipt of this letter, my father put it into the hands of Mrs. Howley, who was a connexion of his, and she read it to the Archbishop. way I learnt that his Grace was much pleased with it, and wished my father to know that "he considered my success as standing a much better chance without his signature, as no suspicion could attach to an individual acting independently, but if authorized by his Grace, it might excite alarm. His declining, therefore, to sign the paper, she said, was a matter of caution equally beneficial to both parties." My father added that I had created an interest and left a favourable impression behind me at Lambeth. wrote on September 12th, and I Petersburg.

This letter he

received it at

A

CHAPTER V.

Mr. Palmer on his way to Petersburg.

UGUST 6, O.S. [N.S. 18.].-On board the Alex

andra steamer in the Gulf of Finland, passing along the coast of Livonia and Esthonia, conquered by Peter the Great from the Swedes; passing Revel and Narva, and approaching Cronstadt.

It was before Narva, at the commencement of the Swedish war in 1700, that Peter's army had been utterly destroyed by Charles XII.; but four years later, on August 9th, 1704, Narva was taken by Peter. "On the 9th," says a letter dated the 17th, and written from Narva after its capture, "Rongodiev, a separately fortified part of Narva, was taken by assault in three quarters of an hour-two stone fortified precincts, and a third of earth, extremely strong and rich, and admirably well-built. In the two stone towns there is no wooden building whatever. The streets, too, are all paved with stone. In Russia there is nothing like it, except at Moscow." This was a year and three months after the first occupation of the site