The Henson Journals

[24]

Friday, July 2nd, 1926.

[symbol]

["]Religious Societies, although begun with excellent intention, and by persons of true piety, are said, I know not whether truly or no, to have dwindled into factious Clubs, and grown a trade to enrich little knavish informers of the meanest rank, such as common constables and broken shopkeepers.["]

Swift. "A Project for the Advancement, &c."

Mutatis mutandis, for the abrogation of the penal laws against papists and sectaries makes a difference, this statement is obviously true today. Religious Societies are the bane of the Church and the precise negation of Religion. Indeed, the proposition may be extended to include all associations, secular hardly, if at all, less than religious. Recently two acquittals at the local assizes have startled, and I think shocked public opinion. In the one, a motorist was acquitted on a charge of manslaughter though he had run over a child, and travelled for some miles with the poor little corpse twisted into his car, and though he had given no heed to the onlookers who had witnessed the disaster, and cried to him to stop. In the other, a motorist was acquitted of manslaughter though he drove his car on to a side–path where a party of pedestrians was walking, & killed two of them. In both cases, the accused man had been drinking, and was probably drunk. And both are said to be Freemasons. Mr Proud, the Coroner, expressed himself very strongly this afternoon about the last case. The man's own counsel expected a sentence of penal servitude. But the jury had been "got at"! That is at least the popular explanation.

[25]

[symbol]

I begin to suspect that eminent Churchmen who are welcomed as Freemasons may be no more than the whitewash on a moral sepulchre! Of course, the line between the praise–worthy assistance of brethren to a brother, and the indefensible effort to deflect the course of justice is not in practice easy to draw. The ineradicable belief of our common people in the power and general exercise of what they call "influence" – a belief which has its roots in the abuse–laden past – facilitates the mischief: but its gravity is evident and extreme. The difficulty in finding a remedy, and even of ascertaining the facts with sufficient certitude to justify a formal accusation, is immense. No man is more odious and more contemptible than an "accuser of the brethren", who has no more to go on than common gossip or his own vague suspicions. Ashton, who is a very keen Freemason, repudiates the suggestion that the two motorists above–mentioned were Freemasons, but he knows nothing to the contrary beyond the a priori improbability of men of that type belonging to the Order. He undertook to make enquiries, & to let me know the result. But certainly the suspicion that Freemasonry is pushing itself into appointments & into the administration of justice is disastrously common, & I cannot avoid a fear that it may have foundation in fact.

[26]

[symbol]

The papers report that the Bishop of Liverpool has permitted that pushfull prophetess, Miss Maud Royden, to preach in his cathedral, and he is of course rebuked, more in sorrow than in anger by the Church Times. David was the original author of the now notorious label "Life and Liberty"; and he is perhaps the best exponent of the ecclesiastical policy which it was designed to cover. A general dislike & contempt for whatsoever is established, customary, or conventional, and a general prejudice in favour of whatever is novel, surprising, and risky are perhaps insufficient guarantees of statesmanship, and suggest rather a lax & unreasoning opportunism than any definite and coherent conception of religious policy. His temperamental impulsiveness and kindness of heart expose him but too freely to the attacks of sentimental cranks of every kind, and he utters his "mind" in response to every request! Feminism, psycho–analysis, spiritual healing, "Copec", "Houses of Youth", the female ministry – the Bishop of Liverpool has a Blessing for every one of them. And, of course, he becomes a magnet of kindred temperaments. About him there gathers an entourage of adoring sentimentalists, who "voice" his facile pronouncements, and add glosses of their own. I watch with curious interest the working out of David's multiplying "stunts". So low is the mentality of the religious public, and so potent the "corporate" feeling of the denomination which masquerades as the Church of England, that there is no great risk run by any Bishop, who is content to be an "echo"!

---