The Henson Journals

[160]

4th Sunday after Easter, May 2nd, 1920.

I celebrated in the Cathedral at 8 a.m. Then I went to Mattins & heard a sermon from old Prebendary Prosser. After service I took my guests for a walk along the river bank. Dr Maples came to lunch, & then I prepared myself for an interview with Dr Crees, the Headmaster, with respect to an aggrieved parent who has appealed to me as Visitor of the Cathedral School against the expulsion of his boy. Punctually at 4 p.m. the Headmaster appeared according to appointment, & gave me a frank & sufficient account of what had happened. I showed him the letter which I proposed to send to the aggrieved parent, & he declared himself satisfied with it. This letter was sent off by the evening post.

I went to the cathedral for Evensong, and heard an interesting sermon from Lilley, but I doubt his being heard by the congregation. To the boys of the Cathedral School his discourse must have been altogether unintelligible. Lilley and his wife came in to supper.

The trouble at the school is serious, and may have formidable developments, for parents are apt to be intractable in such matters, and there is an aspect of severity about the whole proceedings which creates an unpleasant impression. To expel at one stroke no less than 11 boys, some of them under 12, is a very drastic exercise of discipline. Yet none can deny that the matter lay wholly within the sphere of the Headmaster's duty, &, if he were called upon to recall his decision, I do not see how he could retain his position. In any event, the Governing Body ought to act before the Visitor.

[161]

May 2nd, 1920.

My dear Mr Knapp,

I am obliged to you for your letter, and note with satisfaction that you resent the suggestion that any failure to secure the regular performance of Divine Service in Pixley Parish Church could be intentional.

I note also that on more than one occasion Divine Service has not been provided through some mischance. I must ask you to make sure that the Church Key is kept in responsible hands, and that such gross carelessness as is implied in its being mislaid & inaccessible when required will not happen again.

Nor do I think that you should feel injured if your parishioners complain when Divine Service fails, even though the cause of the failure be no more than unintentional carelessness.

In these anxious & difficult times we must all be more than ever vigilant against what our Saviour calls "causing His little ones to stumble."

I am, sincerely yours,

H. H. Hereford

The Rev. A. H. Knapp

[162] [symbol]

May 3rd, 1920.

My dear Lord Archbishop,

I think the course you name is simple, and, perhaps, in the circumstances the best available. It is an interim arrangement midway between the two logical positions, that which imposes the Christian law on the State, and that which imposes the Civil law on the Church. The first has been now abandoned: the last is refused by the Church. We move, therefore, to a total separation between Church & State, & this proposal takes that position with respect to the new set of legal divorces.

The plan is defensible on two grounds. (1) Equity to the clergy & the general body of religious laity who ought not to be required to tolerate so sharp & sudden departure from precedent. Parliament in giving an option to the clergy as to celebrating marriage in the case of guilty parties has affirmed the equitable principle. This is but an extension of it, plainly required by the new circumstances. (2) Expediency. It is inevitable that the new legislation shd inflict some disturbance & hardship: but it shd be the object of statesmen to minimize these. The grievance on the side of the church wd be intolerable: that on the side of those who contract the newly legitimated marriages wd be in practice infinitesimal. On the balance, it is obvious enough that the new legislation will have the least weight of public resentment against it if it excludes these newly–legalized marriages from churches altogether.

As to the thorny question of Communion, I agree with your [163] Grace that it had best be left over to the future: but if (as is not improbable) it be raised, then, I apprehend, that we shd stand stiffly on two main positions. 1. That the individual incumbent cannot be recognized as competent to determine a matter which all reason & precedent together with the present Rubrick refer to the Bishop. 2. That none could possibly claim for Parliament alone the right to decide such an issue for the Church. By the Enabling Act Parlt has formally recognized the separate existence of the Church, & created an instrument of which its mind, lay & clerical, can be expressed. In these circumstances the question of revising terms of communion must be left out of the Bill for the Church's determination in view of the very important new factor: that the State has altered its marriage law.

All this will, of course, have occurred to your Grace, but since you thought it worth while to write, it seemed proper to say it.

I am,

My dear Lord Archbishop,

Always sincerely & dutifully

H. H. Hereford.

The Archbishop of Canterbury.

---