The Henson Journals

[60]

Thursday, December 1st, 1921.

[symbol]

Baron von Hügel says of Christianity that it has been "the original awakener of the deeper Historic sense, and of our reaching the Superhistoric with it." What does this mean? The answering of this question might serve as the theme of a Christmas Sermon.

Arthur Headlam wrote to inquire how far I should be prepared to support his policy on the Committee on Church Property. I entered a copy of my answer in this Journal.

George Nimmins came to see me, and stayed the night. He is naturally cast down by the failure of his eye–sight, which closes against him the career of a naval officer: but he was cheered by the kind expressions of Mr Holt's letter, and has very sensibly resolved to embrace the offer of employment which it contained.

The Revd Solon Rees, a local Dissenting minister, called on me to ask for a letter recommending him as the "regional officer" of the League of Nations Union. I gave him his desire.

The Rev. W.P.N.J. Wharton, now a curate of Holy Trinity South Shields, lunched here. He had sought an interview with me, and when I asked him what might be the business on which he came, he replied, "That he just wished to be looked at"! He has been "a rolling stone: is 62 years of age: has many disconcerting domestic perplexities, & has indifferent health. Yet he plainly thinks that he has but to be seen in order to be offered preferment! Such are the ways of the clergy.

The existence of the "Central Press Bureau of the Church of England", and its activity under the direction of the Bishop of St Alban's must needs raise "obstinate questionings" in one's minds. Were those leading articles in the "Newcastle Journal" and the "Yorkshire Post", so cordial to the decisions of the National Assembly, uninspired? The policy of having in every large town a local clergyman with a facile pen commissioned to contribute ecclesiastical matter to the local Press would seem equally obvious & practicable. The convenience of editors would be served as well as the interests of the official Party. But it augurs ill for truth, and liberty in the Church of England.

[61]

December 1st, 1921.

My dear Headlam,

I think I am wholly at one with your general position. If there be any point which I should think it necessary, not to dissent from in substance, but to criticize in its formal statement, it would be your suggestion that there is a real division of policy between yourself and the Ecclesiastical Commission.

To me the case presents itself somewhat in this way. The Funds at the disposal of the E.C. are not "central", but all local, and primarily charged with the satisfaction of specific local claims – maintenance of the bishopricks, & Deans & Chapters. The original settlement did secure this until the last few years, & especially since the War. Now the increase of taxes & rates, following in many cases on substantial reductions of the official incomes by the creation of new sees, & the rise in wages and prices, making the due upkeep of the buildings excessively expensive, have rendered the original settlement quite inadequate. The whole question must be reopened, & considered afresh from the point of view dictated by the actual situation which confronts us. Meanwhile, the charges on the surplus revenues have been swollen by the waxing poverty of the clergy, & by the necessity of financing some machinery for pensions & dilapidations. The E.C. finds itself so pressed to satisfy these increased or new demands that it is almost bound to meet every plea for revising the original settlement with opposition, since any revision must involve a reduction of the surplus which provides its revenue.

Therefore, we must have (and this, I apprehend, is the purpose of our Committee) the question of the handling of the endowments considered as a whole. Many of the charges which the E.C. is trying to meet out of its present revenues might possibly (even probably) be met by re–arrangements of the parochial endowments. On this assumption (viz. that we deal with all the property) I do not see why we need assume that the policy of the E.C. differs from ours.

[62]

The worst difficulty arises from the extraordinary failure of the capitular foundations to justify the character we ascribe to them in the general system of the Church. This is partly due to bad appointments, but not wholly. What Milton said about the demonstrated failure of the ecclesiastical endowments to promote learning has more truth than it is pleasant to reflect upon.

However, broadly, I think it is the case that the monotonously parochial aspect of the English clergy has an unfavourable influence on our recruiting for the ministry: and, since the conception of parochial duty has itself become so largely divorced from the notion of intellectual effort, I must needs think that every argument for keeping whatever non–parochial positions we still possess has acquired considerably increased weight.

I think I can subscribe entirely to your general sketch of the right policy: and I should like to know your mind on the more specific proposals which must be made at the right time. The question of the episcopal houses requires much thought: and the handling of the revenues of the Dean & Chapter of Durham demands special treatment. There are other matters but these too are much in my mind.

Yours affectley

Herbert Dunelm:

---