The Henson Journals

[34]

Tuesday, November 16th, 1920.

I walked to Westminster after breakfasting in the Club, and attended the meeting of the so–called National Assembly. After the Dean of Westminster had hustled through a bill for reforming the Lower Houses of the Convocations, the debate on the Parish Councils Bill was resumed. I spoke for about 20 minutes criticising the Bill, & indicating a series of amendments which I should desire to move in Committee. The debate continued throughout the day, & then stood adjourned. In the course of the afternoon a telephone message from Lord Henry Bentinck came to me asking me to take the chair at a meeting in the Albert Hall to protest against reprisals in Ireland, & this was followed up by a letter which reached me in the afternoon about 10 pm. I declined at once on the ground that I could not be in London on 4th December, when the meeting was to be held, and added that there was no need for me to point out the reasons which led me to think that I had no sufficient knowledge of the actual situation in Ireland to make it proper for me to preside as requested.

I dined with Bayley in the Club. Budworth was the other guest. It was a pleasant dinner.

My reception by the assembly this morning was less hostile than I had expected, & when I ended my speech there was considerable applause. There is much misgiving as to the range and effect of this Bill.

[35] [symbol]

Was I right to refuse to take the chair at the Albert Hall meeting? The appeal to me was sufficiently earnest:–

"My Committee is very anxious to secure you as chairman, or as one of the speakers. I hope most earnestly that you will consent to come. The Church has a unique opportunity to rescue us from a position into which the Godlessness of our policy has placed us".

But (α) I am not clear as to the censure passed on the Government. The position in Ireland is amazingly difficult. It could not be right to make it more difficult by denunciation of the Executive until one can see another course which the Executive ought clearly to take, & this I certainly cannot do. (β) A meeting to protest against the Irish policy of the Government of Lloyd George, organised by a man who has just "crossed the floor", and addressed by Asquith as principal speaker, could not possibly bear any other character than that of a political demonstration on conventional party lines. I do not wish to do anything which would cause me publicly to be labelled a "Liberal". (γ) As to the suggested duty of "the Church", I can see nothing to indicate that a Bishop has any special fitness for undertaking it. He is no more entitled to pose as "The Church" than any other Christian man, no more & no less.

---