The Henson Journals

[90]

Monday, March 15th, 1920.

It was snowing at breakfast time, and the glass had fallen to 'stormy'. Cox went off after breakfast. He talked up to the last, and as interestingly as ever. He seems to be very whole–hearted in his support of Birth–restriction, & was somewhat perturbed at my dislike of it. Sir Robert Morant's death is announced. He was just my age, that is, he was born on April 7th, and I on November 8th of the same year, 1863. He was a tremendous worker, & he lacked personal graciousness: but I liked him, and found it rather difficult to understand why he provoked so much dislike in some people. The "Times" has a very laudatory account of his character and work. To read it is to be abashed at one's own sorry record.

Dr Herbert Jones came to see me about "Health Week", which is projected for May 2–9th. I suggested that he shd contribute a short article on the part which the parish clergy could play, & that this should be published in the "Diocesan Messenger" for May 1st. I undertook to write something in commendation. The fewness of villages in Herefordshire is a very difficult factor. Scattered in isolated cottages the people cannot develop a civic consciousness. The origin of this phenomenon is much disputed. Some authorities ascribe it to the proximity of the Welsh, whose frequent raids made life in villages perilous: others say that it expresses the tribal habitats of the Welsh who did not dwell in 'hams' and 'tons' and 'burys' after the fashion of the English & Scandinavians. The isolated churches were built beside sacred springs &c, & were the trysting places of the tribesmen. Whatever its origin the fact is very inconvenient.

[91]

I presided at a meeting in aid of S' Francesca's Maternity Home held in the cathedral library. Miss Higson was the principal speaker. I hate the subject, which is none the more pleasing for being both important and insistent.

Miss Higson came to dinner, and afterwards had some talk with me. She is extremely anxious that the Lambeth Conference should make some emphatic pronouncement against the prophylactic crusade against venereal disease. She argues that that crusade proceeds on the assumption that sexual vice is indispensible for men: that it offends against the principle that there is one law of purity for both sexes: that it greatly stimulates the practice of fornication by the promise, often fallacious, that venereal disease is effectively prevented. She is entirely hostile to the use of contra–conceptives, and alleges of her own knowledge that they are being extensively used by unmarried girls of all classes. She recognizes the necessity of limiting families in many cases, but holds that this may be done by taking advantage of "nature's pauses", & limiting intercourse to these. I pointed out that she had abandoned the position that prevention or avoidance of conception as a consequence of intercourse was itself immoral, & had brought the issue on the lower plane of methods. It seemed to me on that plane impossible to maintain a conflict for morality, but only a discussion of expediency. I was much impressed by her simplicity & intelligence, but I suspect that her mind is perplexed, & her conscience troubled on the ethics of the whole horrible problem.

---