my conversation,
had himself become Archbishop of Canterbury, and in that capacity
Primate of all England. His successor, Rev. Dr. Creighton,
had been the delegate of Emanuel, John Harvard's College,
to the great celebration at Harvard University in 1886, on
the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of its foundation.
He had received the degree of Doctor of Laws from the University,
had been a guest of President Eliot, and had received President
Eliot as his guest in England.
The full story of the recovery of the manuscript, in which
the influence of Ambassador Bayard and the kindness of Bishop
Temple, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, had so large a
part, is too long to tell here. Before the question was decided
Archbishop Temple consulted Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, who
took a deep interest in the matter, and gave the plan her
cordial approval. I think, as I had occasion to say to the
British Ambassador afterward, that the restoration of this
priceless manuscript did more to cement the bonds of friendship
between the people of the two countries than forty Canal Treaties.
In settling Imperial questions both nations are thinking,
properly and naturally, of great interests. But his restoration
was an act of purest kindness. The American people, in the
midst of all their material activities, their desire for wealth
and empire, are a sentimental people, easily and deeply stirred
by anything that touches their finer feelings, especially
anything that relates to their history.
The Bishop was authorized to return the manuscript by a decree
rendered in his own Court, by his Chancellor. The Chancellor
is regarded as the servant of the Bishop, and holds office,
I believe, at his will. But so does the King's Chancellor
at the King's will. I suppose the arrangement by which the
Chancellor determines suits in which his superior is affected
may be explained on the same ground as the authority of the
Lord Chancellor to determine suits in which the Crown is a
party.
I was quite curious to know on what ground, legal or equitable,
the decree for the restoration of the manuscript was made.
I wrote, after the thing was over, to the gentleman who had
acted as Mr. Bayard's counsel in the case, asking him to enlighten
me on this subject. I got a very courteous letter from him
in reply, in which he said he was then absent from home, but
would answer my inquiry on his return. After he got back,
however, I got a formal an
|