The Henson Journals

[48]

Saturday, July 17th, 1920.

[symbol]

The outlook in the Committee seems to be improving. We had some more experts. Tissington–Tatlow explained the general attitude of the students movement. They have little respect for "the churches", & are particularly alienated by the exclusiveness of the High Church Anglicans. This fact is an impressive commentary on the actual measure of success which has been achieved by the Tractarian movements. Temple, Lacey, & Oliver Quick gave evidence, mainly on the 2nd Mansfield Conference which they had attended. I cross–examined Lacey, who cut a poor figure. His super–subtlety and lack of straightforwardness made a considerable impression. [When the excellent Bishop of Uganda started to expound his scheme for "Alliance" I became so bored that I gave it up, & went to the Athenaeum for tea. There I wrote to Dicey, from whom I have received two long & kind letters.]

The Archbishop of Armagh (d'Arcy), the Bishops of Norwich, Bristol, Durham, Down, & Warrington had conference together on Friday night, & agreed to a procedure in the matter of the South Indian scheme of a United Church.

Lacey stated that it was his custom to receive the Holy Communion in the Roman Church, & that a high Canonist in that church had assured him that he was right in doing so.

We transferred ourselves to the Deanery at Westminster. There was a pleasant dinner party ‒ Lord Haldane, Godfrey & Dorothea Charnwood, Lady Burghclere, Archbishop of Armagh & Mrs D'Arcy, & ourselves. The conversation was more sprightly than interesting. Dorothea never ranges far outside personalia, & these tend to bore me. Unlike the great Dizzy, I do not find female society indispensable! Haldane spoke about Buckle's Life, & told some anecdotes about the Berlin conference, which, however, I had heard before. He was severe on the Queen, & rather unfair. The burden she inflicted on the Prime Minister was, he thought, excessive: &, of course, her behaviour was grossly unconstitutional. But I pointed out how easy it is to carry back our present standards for the judgment of an earlier generation which had standards of its own, different from ours. The British Constitution in 1874‒1880 was far other than in 1920: and, perhaps, nowhere so different as in the part played by the Sovereign in the process of Government.

---