The Henson Journals

[220]

Monday, November 6th, 1922.

I left Oxford after breakfast, and travelled to London, where I dropped my bags at 21 Park Lane, and went to the hair–dresser. Then I lunched in the Club, and (as the rain was falling briskly) continued there, reading & writing.

General Booth writes to me enclosing a letter which he had received from Sir James Marchant. In this letter it is suggested that such an inquiry into the marriage Laws as had been indicated in the General's recent letter to the "Times" might possibly be arranged as a development of the work of the Birth–Rate Commission, which now approaches completion. The salient passage is the following:–

"Supposing you felt that the Birth Rate Commission – reconstructed & reconstituted of course as it wd have to be for the object you have in view, you might be disposed yourself to write to me officially, as it were, so that I cd bring it before my colleagues for their consideration."

I don't think much of Sir James Marchant, and I dislike his canting crusades for what he calls "purity". The General's suggestion was originally mine, & had rather the clearing up of the Christian mind on the subject of divorce than any more general inquiry. There is no need to do all over again what the Divorce Commission has done very completely.

[221] [symbol]

November 6th, 1922.

Dear General Booth,

If I understood rightly the object of your letter in the Times, it was concerned solely with clearing up the confusion which now surrounds the duty of a Christian man as such in this sad difficult matter of Divorce. On the practical issues at stake, there is no need to do over again what was excellently done by the Royal Commission. Great numbers of Christian citizens at present feel themselves required, either by the letter of the Gospels or by the authority of the Church, to offer an unarguing opposition to every proposal to give legal sanction to divorce for any other cause than adultery. They recognise the grave mischiefs of the present situation: they sympathize deeply with the cruel hardships which the present law inflicts in many cases, but they do not feel themselves free to depart from what seems an explicit command of Christ.

Are they understanding rightly the Mind of Christ as disclosed in the Scripture? Are they really for all time bound by the decisions of the Church?

It has long seemed to me that the whole question of Christian obligation needs to be reconsidered in the light of modern knowledge and experience. [222] If a Commission adequately representative of the Christian Church, and adequately equipped with the requisite knowledge, could be brought together to consider how Christian principle should express itself in the Marriage Law, I think much good would result, and many consciences would be relieved.

It is obvious that the unreformed churches, Roman and Eastern, could not join in such a Commission. Protestant Christianity would have to take its own way. Even so, the effort might be worth making. I am sorry that the Church of England is unlikely to cooperate in such an effort in any formal or official way, but of course there could be no reason why Anglicans, as individuals should not assist.

I do not think that Sir James Marchant's Commission would naturally attempt to deal with a specifically Christian question, albeit concerned with subjects nearly related to its own.

With all good wishes for your work for Christ,

I am,

Sincerely yours,

Herbert Dunelm:

General Booth

[223] [symbol]

I dined with the Brotherhood at 86 Gloucester Place, where Percival acted as host. There were present:– Percival, White, Hine Haycock, Gilbertson, Barnes, Vernon Storr, De Candole, and myself. It was a pleasant party. The 3 canons of Westminster are in a state of considerable perturbation over the rapid 'Catholicisation' of the aspect and ceremonial of the Abbey. They complain that the Dean, who still affects to describe himself as a "Liberal Evangelical", is dominated ^by^ the minor canons, who themselves are all ardent "Anglo–Catholics". He appears also to shrink from taking any action which might endanger his popularity in the Lower House of the Canterbury Convocation, of which he is Prolocutor. The latest provocation is a Banner, presented by the Girls' Friendly Society, on which is worked a figure of the Blessed Virgin, crowned after the Roman fashion. Also, an American multi–millionaire has presented a great crucifix to the Abbey, which is to cost thousands of pounds, & to commemorate the association of Englishmen and Americans in the Great War. The Crucifix is probably an illegal ornament. So things are steadily moving in the "Anglo–Catholic" direction even at Westminster.

---