The Henson Journals

[114]

Tuesday, March 30th, 1920.

A damp morning but a rising glass. As I wrote in my study before breakfast a wild rabbit looked in at the window! His presence had been suspected in the garden for some while. Cornish Watkins told me yesterday that he did not think the owls would affect the thrushes, & that both coexisted in his own garden. He added that many young thrushes perished last year by reason of the drought.

I left the Palace at 9 a.m., and arrived at Ditton Priors about 11 a.m. Here I confirmed 46 candidates. The parish church is interesting. There are Carline communion rails, and a medieval screen. Much oak has come into the church from the old parish church of Burwarton, which was pulled down, & replaced by the poor tasteless fabric which now serves the parish. The old Rector of Aston Botterell, more than 90 years of age, (Lipscomb) brought candidates whom he had himself prepared. I lunched pleasantly at Burwarton, & then, accompanied by Parker & his sister, motored to Farlow, & confirmed 34 candidates. The parish church of St Giles – a very mean modern structure – is placed on the top of a hill so steep that the car could not get up it. I had tea in the Vicarage with the Vicar (Adams), and then returned to Hereford, which I reached about 7 p.m. The weather became very warm during the afternoon, and about 8 p.m. there was a violent thunderstorm.

Lord Justice Coleridge gives his verdict for the Bishop of Manchester in the patronage suit, & decides that reservation, lights, & incense are illegal, but probably not vestments. There will, of course, be an appeal.

[115]

The really important issue raised by the Bishop of Manchester's action is the right of a Bishop to go behind a clergyman's subscription, and to impose other requirements designed to assure sincerity or right understanding in the legally–imposed subscription. The Judge did not apparently perceive the formidable character of the Bishop's claim, nor its possible extensions: –

"It was also urged that because the clerk undertook to give an undertaking in the terms of the Clerical Subscription Act 1865 … no further undertaking cd be required of him. This is to trifle with common sense. The Bishop knew that the clerk construed the declaration as not inconsistent with the practices. The Bp considered them illegal, the clerk did not, and the declaration wd therefore, be an idle form. If they were illegal, the Bishop was entitled to security against their repetition".

How would this reasoning bear on the question of doctrinal subscription? Some years ago the late Bp of Bristol (Browne) was wont to catechise his Ordination Candidates on the Creed with a view to assuring himself that they were "sound" on the Virgin Birth, but there is no doubt that a Bishop has a free hand with Ordination Candidates. The case is surely different with his right to refuse institution. An action wd be against him in the latter case, but not in the former.

In the matter of wearing vestments Mr Justice Coleridge thinks it sufficient to quote the rubric of the 1st P.B. of Edward VI and the Rubric of 1662 ('which is now in use, & is of statutory authority') in order to conclude that it is legal. Surely this is precipitate & presumptuous.

---