The Henson Journals

[185]

Thursday, June 29th, 1922.

[symbol]

There is a certain value in the debates of the National Assembly as disclosing tendencies within the Church, & revealing individuals. Riley's speech did undoubtedly surprise the assembly. He said that the Roman Missal is being used in thousands of the parish churches either wholly or in conjunction with the Prayer–book service. He scoffed at the proposals of the Report for amending the latter. It was in his view "twenty years too late". The "Catholick party" had "gone forward believing the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament was at stake". There were 2 churches in the Church of England, and this situation was "the bequest of Queen Elizabeth". I had noted the last statement for criticism, but forgot to criticize it when speaking. It is a sufficiently absurd statement. Which of the Elizabethan divines can be pointed to as the ecclesiastical ancestor of the modern clergy who prefer the Roman Missal to the English Communion Service? The Revd Gordon Selwyn, sometime Warden of Radley, declared that "Anglo–Catholicks don't share Mr Riley's opinions", and entreated the Assembly to "Trust the Anglo–Catholicks to look after the hotheads". The Evangelical orators – Wace, Aitkin, & Beresford Pite – fulminated threats, & presented a ludicrous exhibition of blundering futility. That party is wretchedly led & worse organized. It has a case but can't state it. The Bishop of Ripon defended the position of the laity with much astuteness, for in doing so he re-affirmed the sacerdotalist claim while praising certain distinguished lay divines.

[186] [symbol]

Lord Hugh Cecil's remarks on the comprehensiveness "of the Church were not particularly illuminating. He thought the "difference of opinion about the Holy Communion had been exaggerated". This made little impression on the Assembly which had but just heard Athelstan Ridley's declaration that the Roman Missal was being freely used in thousands of Churches. The Bishops of Exeter and Newcastle opposed the motion on the ground that, not the National Assembly, but the Convocations should handle Prayer book Revision: but they misconceived the situation, & pursued 'a mare's nest'. Besides themselves, I think there were but 2 who voted against accepting the Report. Old Dr Eugene Stock made an amiable speech, "ingeminating peace", but it was more amiable that relevant. I observed amiably that his 'blessed word' elasticity hardly provided a sufficiently firm foundation for a lasting harmony. The old man thanked me warmly for my speech, which in the circumstanced was magnanimous. Cody, the Canadian Archdeacon, was very warm in his praises, but all these transatlanticks are given to superlatives. Brillioth was at Lambeth: he appears to have been in St Mary's on Sunday: & he had told me that an undergraduate in the gallery had described my appeal to the youth as 'd—d affecting'!! I fear this generation is hopelessly remote from any genuine sense of duty or religion. The Archbishop and I are consciously in strained relations with one another. He knows that I think policy mistaken: and he suspects that I might be right.

[187] [symbol]

I spent the day at the National Assembly. The proceedings were deadly dull, but pensions & dilapidations do not lend themselves to anything but the flattest prose! The dullest speakers handle with infinite dullness the dullest of subjects! I spent 3 hours in the House of Lords where the latest nominations to the peerage were debated with much frankness and some acerbity. Lord Birkenhead spoke at great length, but not even his cleverness could make so bad a case presentable. Old Lord Lansdowne spoke with surprising vigour. Not a voice was heard in defence of the Government. Sir Joseph Robinson had taken the prudent course of declining the peerage, & his letter was so decently expressed that it went some way towards disarming criticks. Ella and I dined with Sir John & Lady Struthers. The company consisted of the American Ambassador & Mrs Harvey, ex–President Taft & Mrs Taft, Sir George Younger, Lord & Lady Askwith, Lady Roxburgh, & ourselves. I had much talk with Taft. He said that Prohibition, against which he himself had voted, was carried by 3 considerations.

1. the supposed example of Great Britain, which was described in the States as having "gone dry". 2. the necessity of "speeding up" production for the purpose of the war, and 3. the desire to put an end to the poisonous political interest of the "saloons". He did not suppose that the amendment to the Constitution wd be cancelled, but something might be done in mitigation by defining alcoholic beverages so as to include beer and light wines.

---