The Henson Journals

[323]

3rd Sunday after Easter, April 13th, 1913.

In the Anti–Vivisection case which has been filling the Law Report columns of the 'Times', Professor Starling, while giving evidence as to the practical value of vivisection, said with reference to the sudden drop in the mortality from diphtheria after the introduction of tracheotomy, "It is that sort of thing which makes one angry with these sort of people who wish to stop –". Here the Judge (Justice Bucknill) interrupted: "That is just what I don't understand. Why can't you people agree to differ without getting angry?" Surely the question admits of easy & sufficient answer. The anger is caused by the assumption of the anti–vivisectionists that to advocate or practice vivisection implies personal cruelty. Hence the insulting suggestion on the one side, & the natural resentment on the other. 'If your conscience were really awake, & your sympathies rightly sensitive, you would not oppose our righteous crusade. Your error is the witness of your badness' – that is the unexpressed opinion, & it wakes exasperation. This is the explanation of the bitterness which has made the odium theologicum proverbial. Here also the assumption is generally made on one side, or on both sides, that error implies moral turpitude. Hence the extraordinary bitterness provoked by differences which in themselves appear even trivial.

[324]

Another example is provided by this lamentable controversy about female suffrage. It is assumed by the Suffragists that a low standard of sexual purity & intrinsic injustice must underlie the opposition to their claim. Hence the extreme &, at first view, excessive exasperation which they display at every expression of dissent from their vehement propaganda.

I celebrated in the Cathedral at 8 a.m. Watkins was the only canon present. At Mattins I read both Lessons by way of relieving Tucker who was both preacher & celebrant. The sermon was of an obsolete type, expressing quite baldly the substitution–theory of the Atonement. There were but 6 comts.

Mr Chancellor Scott Fox lunched here, & later attended service in the Cathedral in gown & wig. We walked him in procession to a stall, & played the National Anthem after service.

Bishop Nickson & I walked together after Evensong.

[325]

The Suffragettes & the Cathedral.

On Monday afternoon (April 14th 1913) the Chief Constable of the city called on me, & said that he had just received a telephone message from Mr McKenna's secretary stating that anonymous information had been received to the effect that an attack on Durham Cathedral was in contemplation. I asked him to return with Freeman, & I went over to Bishop Nickson, & asked him to join in our conference. After conferring together we decided to make a careful inspection of the Cathedral in order to satisfy ourselves that no Suffragette had secreted herself there before the usual closing of the church. I myself with Bp. Nickson, the Chief Constable, & Freeman carried out this search forthwith. We went through the Triforium & Crypts, but found nothing.

The next day (Tuesday April 15th) the Chief Constable called again, & shewed me a telegram which he had received from the Home Office, confirming the telephoned message of Monday. He also stated that he had arranged with Freeman that two men shd be on duty in the Cathedral during the night. But this turned out to be a misunderstanding for Freeman, after searching the Church, had closed it, & gone off to Newcastle. The Treasurer & I accompanied by Hardy made another search thro' the cathedral at 11 p.m.

[326]

The Law Reports of the 'Times' have been abnormally though sadly interesting. Three libel actions have been continuing from day to day, & throwing into strong relief the folly of enthusiasm, the grotesque extravagance of superstition, & the debasement of vicious luxury. These might fairly state the dominant impression made severally by the actions of Miss Lind–of–Hageby, Bishop Matthew, & Lord Alfred Douglas. The last save as a study in diseased psychology has no wholesome interest for anybody: the two others have no slight educative value. The case for Vivisection has never to my knowledge been placed before the public so effectively, & the absurdities into which the treasured doctrine of 'Apostolic Succession' can lead men could not be more clearly exhibited. In all these cases one must needs wonder what reasons could have induced the plaintiffs to bring them. Genuine enthusiasm might have blinded the Anti–vivisectionist to the weakness of her case: but no such respectable explanation can be suggested in the case of the others. Complete & fatal exposure was certain. It is a question whether these extraordinary trials will influence public opinion. Will the anti–vivisection movement have a set back [sic]? Will the zealots for Apostolic Succession moderate their language?

The Parliamentary Committees which are investigating the Marconi Mystery, & the Putumayo Horrors, have been full of interest, especially the latter. The encounter of Arana & Hardenberg was one of the most dramatick occurrences conceivable.

---

Issues and controversies: female suffrage; Putumayo