The Henson Journals

[14]

Saturday, March 18th, 1922.

Davison, Vicar of Christ Church, Gateshead, replying to my inquiries about the Deaconess, writes: "I have a faint recollection that speaking to her or to one of the other deaconesses, on the subject of the Ministry of Women, she gave me the impression that it was now understood that the members of their Community had the Bishop's permission to take the daily services. Has she acted upon this assumption?" She did not suggest any such plea in her interview with me: nor did the peccant parson allude to it.

Clayton and I motored into Durham, and there I went to the Chapter House, where the Dean & Chapter were awaiting my arrival. I went through the memorandum which had been sent to them: and made notes of their opinions. The Dean was unfriendly, but could not make much open opposition as I quoted his own words of approval. The Archdeacon professed total ignorance of everything, & was plainly hostile. Of the canons all except Lillingston were perhaps accordant: but they are not really awake yet to all that is intended and involved. We lunched with the Bishop of Jarrow, and then I returned to Auckland,

I wrote several disagreeable letters, & copied two of them into this journal. A Bishop is by no means always complimenting and being complimented!

[15]

March 18th, 1922.

Dear Mr Warden,

I enclose a copy of the letter which I have addressed to the Vicar of Usworth, at whose invitation Deaconess Relton committed what I must needs regard as a grave breach of discipline.My first inclination was to revoke her license, and I have only laid that procedure aside because I am unable adequately to punish the Vicar of Usworth whom I regard as the principal offender.

Therefore I content myself with requesting you to communicate to her the censure which I cannot but pass on her, and at the same time I beg you as Warden to make sure that the Deaconesses understand that that they may not read prayers or preach in consecrated churches within my diocese without my written permission. In the event of their doing so without such permission, their license to work in my diocese will be immediately revoked.

Believe me,

Yours v. faithfully,

Herbert Dunelm:

The Revd John E. Murray.

Warden of the Deaconesses' Community, Durham.

[16]

March 18th, 1922.

Gentlemen,

I have to acknowledge your letter of the 13th March, which has been forwarded to me by the Vicar of Eldon.

It could not be the case that the late Bishop promised to ordain Mr Gittens without reference to his intellectual qualifications: and, certainly, if such a promise had been given, I should not allow it any validity whatever. I have gone as far as I can rightly go in his case by accepting him for examination although he has no degree, and is (if my memory does not mislead me) more than 30 years old.

It is not right in itself, and it is not really kind, to ordain a man whose education is not sufficient for the work of the Ministry. No responsibility of the Bishop is more important than that which he, and he alone, must accept with respect to ordaining men to the ministry of the Church. Nothing can be more unhappy than the situation of a clergyman who is not really fit for his work: & when it is remembered that the clergyman's work consists largely of teaching and expounding the Scriptures, I think you must see how great is the importance of a sound education. I regret, therefore that I cannot undertake to alter my decision in the case of Mr Gittens.

Herbert Dunelm:

---