The Henson Journals

[59]

Thursday, July 14th, 1921.

[symbol]

The "National Assembly" was busy all day with the Parochial Councils (Additional Powers) Bill. On the subject of the appointment of the clergy, Lord Phillimore was heavily defeated: he mustered only 68 in the division, which may be the extent of his stalwarts. I moved two amendments, and made several speeches. On the whole I found myself in more favour than I had any right to expect, or any clear reason for thinking wholesome. But, on the matter of the clergyman's independence, I feel strongly, and, for quite different reasons, the Fanaticks vote with me! It distressed me to have to oppose both Rashdall and Sir Edward Clarke, but the morbid suspicion of the Bishops which possesses the first, and the old–fashioned Protestantism which governs the last are really too impracticable.

Brigstocke came to see me, & I offered him the living of Horden on Colonel Burdon's behalf. He is to come to Auckland, & see the place.

We dined with Sir John & Lady Struthers. There were present also the Norwegian minister & his wife, Mr Monro, Sir Richard & Lady Butler, and Lady Bradford. I was interested in the conversation of the Norwegian. He says that Bolshevism was "taking on" in Norway & Sweden: that the rougher populations in the northern districts of both countries were particularly prone to it: & that quite recently the Swedish government had discovered a conspiracy there. He says that the Norwegians are still bitterly anti–German. Very obligingly he carried us home in his car.

There were some essays in rain, but nothing serious this afternoon.

[60] [symbol]

Archdeacon Lambert showed me a hand–bill announcing "Great Hyde Park Demonstration on The Social Message of Christianity on Saturday July 16th, 1921". Among the speakers are named such leading Nonconformists as Dr Garvie, Dr Horton, & Dr Orchard. There are also in the list the names of the Bishops of Manchester, St Alban's, Kensington, and Willesden. Among "those who have been hindered from speaking at the Demonstration by previous engagements" are named the Bishops of Barking, Croydon, Guildford, Lichfield, Peterborough, Stepney, & Woolwich: the Labour leaders, Arthur Henderson, Frank Hodges, and George Lansbury, The Revd the Hon. Dr Lyttelton, General Sir Fred. Maurice, Miss Maude Royden, Revd H. R. L. Sheppard, & Miss Pictor Turberville. The Resolution runs thus:

"In face of the complete collapse of our existing economic, industrial and social order & the bankruptcy of statesmanship, this meeting urges all men & women of goodwill to recognize that the solution of the present deadlock can be found only in the practical application of the principles of Christianity to all the departments of human life.

It declares that a persistent refusal to apply these principles of Truth, Justice, & Brotherly Love is a denial of Jesus Christ, who, on Calvary, died in their defence.

It further records its conviction that the existing system, being based largely on unrestricted competition for private & sectional advantage, must be ended, since it fosters the sins of avarice & injustice, lays a yoke of thraldom & poverty upon masses of men [61] [symbol] and women, & makes war practically inevitable. Therefore it calls upon all Christian people to find in the failure of the old society a supreme opportunity for the building up of a new order that shall be founded on brotherly cooperation in service for the common good."

It is hard to believe that the eminent dignitaries who are announced to support this pretentious pronouncement have really considered its terms. In what sense can it be truly said of our existing economic, industrial, and social order that it has reached a state of "complete collapse"? What are the tests which it must stand in order to prove its vitality? If they include the feeding & clothing of a vast population, the provision for health, amusement, instruction, and religion for even the poorest, the progress of art & science, can it be truthfully said that, when applied to our present social order, they certify its "complete collapse"? When we are told that "the existing system must be ended", may we not fairly insist on a clear statement as to the method of "ending it" which is to be adopted, and some reasonable assurance that some better system will replace it? I must needs think, indeed, that the circumstance which the hand–bill discloses, viz: that so many educated, responsible, & important men, who live well enough under the system they denounce, should yet think in this way, & be able to use such language, is a most weighty indication that the social order is in grave peril from within itself.

---