The Henson Journals

[11]

Friday, March 17th, 1922.

I had some talk with Gouldsmith about diocesan business, and went through my correspondence. After an early lunch, I started for Whickham and Newcastle, dropping G. at Durham on the way. Clayton and I went on to Whickham, where I discussed with Little, the Rural Dean of Chester–le–Street, the woeful tangle in Birtley. Then we went on to Benwell Tower where I had an interview with the Bishop, who had that morning returned from London. He read through my draft of a statement on the doctrinal business, & approved, but suggested a few amendments, & thought it should, if possible, be shortened. He read, & heartily approved my letter (copy over–leaf) to Begg: & went through various papers on the Durham Cathedral Scheme. He is rather doubtful on the point of my surrendering the patronage of the canonries to the Crown, but generally is warmly favourable to the scheme. After tea, we went to S. Oswald's, Hebburn, a poor little church hard to find in a wilderness of mean streets. Here I confirmed 82 candidates, but the service was heartless, & the atmosphere unfriendly. This is apparently an "Anglo–Catholic" centre, and no doubt the clergy regard the Bishop with abhorrence. They may, perhaps, convey the same feeling to their flocks. After service we returned at once to Auckland, but the roads over much of the way are very bad, and we did not reach the Castle much before 10 p.m. I was tired, chagrined, and disappointed!

[12]

March 17th, 1922.

Dear Mr Begg,

I have considered very carefully your reply to my enquiry, and I regret to find it both in tone and in substance profoundly unsatisfactory.

Whatever decisions the Church may finally reach as to the limits within which women may be permitted to officiate & preach in consecrated buildings, I suppose no one doubts that the sanction of the Bishop will be required. So grave & far–reaching a departure from the explicit teaching of Scripture and the continuous tradition of the Church could not be suffered on no better authority than that of an individual clergyman, & for no better reason than his own conscience.

I might fairly have expected that an experienced parish priest would at best have acted with due deliberation, & not have taken so grave a step as you took "practically on the spur of the moment", and for no better reason than you had "promised to preach for an old friend", and "found it impossible" to get your own duty provided for.

Grave as your own breach of discipline has been, it is not the whole extent of your offence. You persuaded Deaconess Relton to break the rules under which she is licensed to work in this diocese, & you brought her into a situation of considerable difficulty and humiliation. I might have expected [13] that a senior Incumbent would not have directly incited a Deaconess to commit a grave offence against discipline. It is of no use for you to tell me that you "took full responsibility" for her error. That was beyond your power. You could lead her into difficulty: you could not lift her out of it.

You will therefore understand that you have incurred my severe censure, and at the same time you will receive by this letter my direction that no woman is to read the service or preach in Usworth Parish Church in future without my written permission.

Believe me,

Yours v. faithfully,

Herbert Dunelm:

The Revd Alexander Begg.

---