The Henson Journals

[181]

Monday, October 18th, 1920.

The "Times" reports some talk about intervention to stop the Strike; and its own leader discloses a disposition to effect a compromise, which wd in effect be a surrender to the miners. The desire to make a point against the Prime Minister is quite apparent. There is a base spirit which wd gamble in the risks of economic strife on the chance of winning advantage in the woeful game of party politics. My excellent friend Rashdall, writes to me in terms which suggest that the miners have a case &c. But in no circumstances can I imagine so sound a partisan admitting that "Labour" can be mistaken! The "Church Congress" at Southend begins tomorrow. Last year the Congress was shadowed by the Railway Strike: this year it is shadowed by the Miners' Strike, to which, before the week is ended may be added strikes of the allied Unions. Every responsible and well–informed person assures us that the trade of the country is in a most precarious position, that important orders are daily being diverted from England to our rivals, that we are within a little of economic collapse. The "Labour" leaders themselves profess to believe all this, yet they do not display the smallest disposition to alter or mitigate their ruinous policy. They assume that the nation must acquiesce in their demands, and turn a deaf ear to every proposal of compromise. This insolent attitude may be bluff, but it is obstinately maintained. The Metting of Parliament may perhaps introduce a new development!

[182]

Marion and I walked across the fields to S. Nicholas, where we visited the parish church, a very fine building conspicous in the landscape by its noble tower. We walked home in the teeth of a violent wind. The winter certainly is coming on quickly. I received a letter from a curate in my diocese, expressed with an odd mingling of servility and familiarity, in which he reminded me that he was a Free–mason, and hinted that the fact had some relevance which I would recognize on his claim to preferment! There is an unpleasant disillusionment in store for him. The belief in the power of "interest" is so deeply rooted in the middle–class Englishman's mind, and the solidarity of Freemasons is so confidently assumed, that I cannot doubt that this person has built much on the fact that he and I are both members of the Masonic Body. Yet nothing could well be more remote from any bearing on the considerations which would, or could, indicate fitness for preferement. I observe also that there are many clergy who appear to take for granted that I shall acknowledge their "liberalism" as a sufficient title to preferment. They write to me on that supposition begging for his livings, and I am not merely disgusted with their profane notion of Divine vocation – for who could really believe that he had received a call from God to a position into which he had jobbed himself? – but also led to suspect the religious quality of their vaunted "Liberalism"!

---