The Henson Journals

108

Monday, July 16th, 1917.

1078th day

We returned to the Deanery after breakfast, finding much difficulty in securing a vehicle at Paddington, & finally crawling into the city in a "growler". We lunched with the Dowager Marchioness of Londonderry, the Marquess & Marchioness were there, the Archbishop of Armagh, Lady Annesley, Lord Farquhar, General Haldane & ourselves made up the party. We had much agreeable conversation about Ireland, which is in a doleful state, another insurrection expected & troops pouring into the country, and about the War. After lunch we parted, Ella going to pay calls, & I to the Athenaeum, where I wrote letters. In the evening I attended the "Life & Liberty" meeting in the Queen's Hall. The building was filled, and there was an overflow meeting somewhere. Temple presided, and was the principal speaker. His speech was well phrased & well delivered, but it was vague and a little pretentious. He made it very clear that he and his friends considered it of vital importance that the present Parliament should establish the autonomy for the Church which they demand. He spoke of the duration of the War as a God–appointed "accepted hour" in wh the Ch. Of England must achieve salvation or for ever perish! Temple was followed by Miss Maud Royden who was confused, stilted, &, where intelligible, mainly irrelevant. Then came "Father" Walter Carey, who was heartily received, but spoke in a jaunty comical way which was unworthy of the occasion, & said nothing of any cogency or importance. A Chaplain from the Front affirmed that the officers and men were eagerly desiring the success of the "Life & Liberty" movement, & then "Dicky" Sheppard wound up everything with an ecstatic appeal for enthusiasm. The resolution ran as follows: "That whereas the present conditions under which the Church lives & works constitute an intolerable hindrance to its spiritual activity, this Meeting instructs the Council, as a first step, to approach the Abps. in order to urge upon them that they shd ascertain without delay, & make known [109] to the Church at large, whether & on what terms Parliament is prepared to give freedom to the Church in the sense of full power to manage its own life, that so it may the better fulfil its duty to God & to the nation and its mission to the World". I of course voted against the motion, but I alone. It was carried with a single vote against it. Far more interesting than the speeches were the audience. Three–fourths of it were women. This was my calculation, & it was confirmed by the gentleman beside me, who, unlike me, was in sympathy with the proceedings. Of the men the great majority were youngish clergymen. Headmasters were well to the front. David of Rugby read prayers, Ford of Harrow & Alington of Eton were on the platform. Scott–Holland was conspicuous in the front of the platform. The prevailing ecclesiastical type was that of the neo–Tractarians. An indication of this was the circumstance that when the Apostles' Creed was recited the crowded platform seemed to cross itself unanimously at the resurrection clause. Socially the audience was mainly of the higher middle class. The Bishop of Oxford's name was received with considerable applause. Indeed the meeting might, perhaps, be shortly described as "Gore's crowd". Academic, feminist, socialistic, – the "Lux mundi" and "Christian Commonwealth" clientele. There were no members of the working classes present so far as I could see. It would be excessive to say that there was any degree of enthusiasm, nor is this surprising, for the meeting was pursuing a curiously un–impressive object. Neither the Catholic, nor the national note was sounded, but only the denominational: and this fact was not obscured by the pompous phrases in which the orators indulged. You cannot arouse enthusiasm by proposing to sectarianize a National Church. I have no doubt that the E.C.U. could get together a far more enthusiastic assembly, and probably, even now, the Church Defence Institution could do as much.

[110]

Mrs Tucker having written to me to ask permission "to have a short private service when ^the cross^ has been put up' on her husband's grave. I replied:

"As to the sermon I do not know any precedent for it, and I am reluctant to make one: especially at the present time, when for the saddest reasons in the world there is such an abnormal & unwholesome concentration of thought on graves & monuments. Of course there can be no objection to you & your friends meeting at the grave, & if the Vicar of St Paul's Hendon says a few collects, no one will hinder him. But I cannot sanction his wearing robes, or conducting anything wh cd be called a service. You must remember that everything done in, or in connection with, the Cathedral, is likely to be initiated elsewhere: & I think you will agree with me that a custom of holding private services at graves ought not lightly to be inaugurated or encouraged."

I met Watkins in the club, and told him about Mrs Tucker's request. He expressed the strongest disapproval of her proposal, and agreed with me that I could not rightly concede it. As I sate at my modest dinner in the Athenaeum, I was addressed by two persons – Baker–Wilbraham and Darroch. The first was on his way to the Queen's Hall meeting, & greatly to my astonishment declared himself heartily in agreement with it. The last said his wife was going to the meeting in obedience to the exhortations of Mr Swayne, the Vicar of S. Peter's, Cranley Gardens, who had urged his congregation to attend. The aspect of the meeting accorded with this method of summons, for it was that of a West End congregation. What conceivable grievance have these people with the Establishment? The creation of new bishopricks & the amalgamation of parishes are sufficiently remote from their lives, yet these appear to be the main objects of their present crusade!

---