The Henson Journals

Thu 15 July 1920

Volume 28, Pages 46 to 47

[46]

Thursday, July 15th, 1920.

Shakespeare, the Baptist leader, attended the Committee, & made a most favourable impression. He declared himself opposed to separate treatment of the Presbyterians, as likely to create a split among the other non–episcopalians. He pleaded earnestly for "two small steps". These were (α) interchange of pulpits on lines such as those indicated by the Bishop of Norwich: (β) admission to communion at Anglican altars of devout nonconformists, where their own churches were inaccessible. The Bishops of St Alban's & Zanzibar disclosed their hard, unyielding temper, & seemed to threaten schism if these points were conceded! It becomes more evident every day that the bishops are absolutely divided in their conception of the Church, of Christianity, of moral obligation. "Can the two walk together except they be agreed?".

[47]

The bishop of Bombay (Palmer) is plainly hostile to any approach to non–episcopalians. He has a bullying, obstinate manner, emphasised by his stutter. In the afternoon, when we discussed the South Indian project for an united Church, the Bishop's hostility was very obvious. The subject was introduced by the Indian bishop of Dornakal (Azariah), & he spoke well. But there is a bad spirit among many members of the Committee.

[I joined Ella on the Terrace of the Houses of Parliament, where Mrs Lowther was giving tea to the American Bishops. Lady Gainford was there, &, of course, "gushed" freely over my going to Durham. The Archbishop of Canterbury was at hand, & she turned to him. I was interested to observe the discomfiture of his Grace. He could not conceal his dislike of the subject, & though he made a non–commital speech, his chagrin was evident. Ella was standing by, and so was I. The situation called for some kind expressions, but they did not come. It is quite evident that the Archbishop resents my preferment. He must have exerted himself for some other appointment, & been defeated. Anyway, it is literally the fact that neither from him, nor from Mrs Davidson, have I received a word of congratulation. He has not said a single word of recognition of the fact, which everybody else thinks worth noting, that the goodwill of Hereford was as marked as that of Durham. It is certainly a procedure which is equally unkind, undignified, and undeserved. However, it brings me a step nearer actuality.]