The Henson Journals

[2]

Monday, June 2nd, 1919.

[symbol]

My dear Godfrey,

I am really very glad that you will oppose the Bill, and I think you base your opposition on what is the essential gravamen (as we say in Convocation) which the Bill creates. It is not consistent with Establishment, for the suggested method of securing Parliamentary control is quite illusory & ineffective: & it dwarfs the National Church into a sect.

I do not disagree with what you say about the necessity of dealing with practical reforms which are pressing. It is unquestionably the case that the desire to secure such reforms is the motive which has influenced a large number of the supporters of the Bill. This perfectly legitimate motive has been "exploited" by the well–organized, eager, and very unscrupulous faction which is "out for" what Cavour, with direct reference to the Roman Catholic church, described as a "free church in a free state". The Archbishops' Committee which drew up the constitution did essentially represent the latter. There were a few nonentities of another description on the Committee but they had little or no influence on its proceedings.

A Royal Commission is, no doubt, often a decent method of putting aside an inconvenient issue, but it is also the ordinary method of effecting ecclesiastical legislation: & where the subject in hand is so large, complicated, & important, [3] [symbol] there are strong reasons for exploring the ground thoroughly, & grounding legislation on a firm foundation of accurate knowledge. There is a strong case for revising the arrangements which were made by the reforming Parliaments of the early XIXth century. The change in social conditions, in the values of money, in the type of clergy, in the character of parochial work, in the public attitude towards patronage &c does constitute a good case for a thorough review of the working system. This continuing plaint about Bishops' "Palaces" is an indication of the position. It would have an excellent educative effect, if we had a Commission which would let people "talk large" like the Coal Commission does: and a report might suggest some practical reforms which Parliament would adopt with general approval. Of course, it might break down, or disclose so anarchic a condition of opinion within the Church as to suggest Disestablishment as the only way out. Even so, it would only have posited to the country the question which must be presenting itself to every considering citizen.

I am not wedded to the notion of a Royal Commission, & only proposed it because it seemed important to suggest some alternative to the Enabling Bill. The latter must be defeated in any case unless the two Houses of Parliament are so lost to duty & so lacking in self–respect as to abandon [4] [symbol] the process of legislation, & consent to endorse, undiscussed and unamended, the elaborate & revolutionary constitution which the Bill mentions.

The Archbishop's Committee repudiate the right of Parliament to draw up a constitution for the Church. Any amendment of the constitution as drawn up by the purely ecclesiastical bodies would stamp it with a disqualifying character of "Erastianiam". To amend the constitution is to wreck the Bill: to accept it en bloc is to surrender the powers of Parliament to the Convocation. I need not point out to you that law, history, reason, & common sense are violated by this contention, but, as I read the Report of the Abps' Committee, nothing less is implied in the extraordinary procedure which has been adopted. The Enabling Bill will validate a constitution which Parliament is not to be suffered to discuss, or to amend.

If, as may well be the case out of respect to the Archbishop, the 2nd reading is carried, I suggest that the following are indispensable amendments:–

1. The Constitution must be incorporated in the text of the Bill, and debated.
2. The Franchise must be amended (α) by raising the age from 18 to 21: (β) by omitting the negative part [5] [symbol] of the declaration.
3. The Convocations must be frankly incorporated into the "National Assembly".
4. The powers of the Bishops must be defined.
5. The functions of the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council must be defined.
6. The "National Assembly" must have its range of action limited by reserving to the regular procedure of Parliament the following points:–

(α) the franchise (β) the supreme appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council (γ) the Crown Patronage of the Bpks, Deaneries, etc.

1. A more effective method of securing Parliamentary control over the measures passed by the National Assembly must be prescribed e.g. procedure by draft Orders in Council which Parliament could discuss & amend.

These amendments would at least make it possible to maintain that the Enabling Bill is consistent with the maintenance of the Establishment. As the Bill stands it really amounts to a Bill for disestablishment without disendowment: & that Parliament ought not to accept.

I would gladly cooperate with Burge or with others [6] [symbol] in promoting some practical reforms: but the proposal to re–create the medieval dualism by setting up a rival to Parliament is sooner or later bound to destroy the Establishment. It may be the case – I sometimes think it is – that nothing can now save the Establishment: if that be so, I am still content to fight for it to the last. In any event, the issue should be stated clearly, & faced frankly.

Always Affectly

Herbert

The Right Hon: Lord Charnwood.

After lunch I attended meeting of the church Defence Institution, at which that egregious jackass de Winton had been invited to discuss the enabling Bill. He spoke with something less than his usual fluency, and with all his usual confusion. Wynne–Willson, James, & Riddell spoke against: Col. Middleton, Probyn, Archdeacon Winnington–Ingram, & Moore for the Bill. In the end there was no vote: & I took occasion to say a few searching things, which were torture to de Winton. On the whole, perhaps, the meeting did no great harm. I was interested to hear Probyn say that Warde–Jackson the member for North Hereford, had withdrawn his promise to support the Bill.

---