The Henson Journals

[38]

Saturday, December 9th, 1922.

[symbol]

Visitation (informal) of the Rural Deanery of South Shields:

I celebrated the Holy Communion in St Hilda's at 8 a.m. There were 16 clergy who communicated. After breakfasting together in the Rectory, we returned to the church at 10.15 a.m. where, after the Litany had been read, I addressed the clergy. The number present was 19 or 20. Then followed the conference in the 'Song Room'. I introduced the subject of "Marriage & Divorce", and then the clergy in order spoke & asked questions. It interested me to notice that four clergy took up an attitude of bigoted and almost insolent opposition. They were the following:

Leake, the Vicar of Boldon, an advanced Anglo–Catholic, whose curate, Jubb, recently seceded to Rome.

Jackson, the Vicar of S. Jude, S. Shields, whose only degree is the pitiable 'L.Th.' of Durham. He was ordained in 1902, and served as a private during the War.

Richardson, a Curate of the Parish Church, a Mirfield man, whom I myself ordained to the priesthood in 1921.

Wright, Curate of S. Francis, S. Shields, whom I ordained to the Diaconate last year, & who is not yet in priest's Orders.

The older men were by no means so fanatical. Several of them expressed gratitude to me, & admitted that they had never really faced the questions at issue.

[39]

At 3 p.m. I addressed about 150 parish councillors on the subject of Prayer–Book Revision. They were very attentive, and, I think, interested, but they refrained from asking questions. They gave me the impression of having been 'worked upon' by the 'Anglo–Catholic' movement which has been 'running strongly' in Newcastle. No doubt my letters in the 'Times' – subtly twisted by the 'Church Times' – have been much used. After tea at the Rectory, William and I returned to Auckland.

The papers announce that Headlam has been appointed to the Bishoprick of Gloucester. This, I think, is satisfactory. He is a hard man, and fundamentally a 'High' churchman, but he is learned, courageous, and independent. He can hardly give a whole–hearted support to the "Anglo–Catholics", who regard his ' Bampton Lectures ' as a very dangerous book! He has cultivated friendly relations with Non–conformists, though he has never, so far as I know, given any encouragement to any religious association with them. He has strong personal antipathies, but is capable of personal loyalty. His 'feuds' with Dibdin, Gore, and Inge are well–known. But as he has grown older, he has certainly mellowed: & he is so masterful & energetic a personality, that I anticipate for him a very distinguished career on the Bench. His orthodoxy is unimpeachable, but he is no bigot.

---