The Henson Journals

[82]

Saturday, August 7th, 1926.

[symbol]

Would it be worth while for me to write to the Times on the general subject of episcopal intervention in economic disputes? I might usefully point out that the bishops who have intervened in the coal dispute are the very bishops who are insisting on what they call "constitutional" episcopacy i.e. the episcopacy which only carries authority when acting in harmony with the clergy. Would the clergy & laity of the dioceses endorse the action of their Bishops? And, if not, what justification is there for the pretence that they represent the Church? At least, it might be required that when bishops intervene on their own responsibility, with no direct authorisation from their dioceses, they should subscribe their public pronouncements with their own names, & not with their official signatures. Then, at least, it would be apparent when their words have no more than a personal authority. Those in whose interest the pronouncements are made, or who find their interest in exploiting them, are certain to emphasize and exaggerate whatever representative character they may happen to possess.

It may also be worth while to direct attention to the curiously limited range of episcopal intervention. When it might fairly be thought that the bishop's [sic] possessed both knowledge, and responsibility (as, for instance, the oppression of individuals by "peaceful picketing", the breaking of contracts by strikers, the vile method of traducing the personal character of political opponents &c.) the bishops are almost totally silent; but in matters of which they must be inadequately equipped with knowledge, & in which their responsibility cannot but be slight and indirect (e.g. Armenian Atrocities, labour conflicts, "temperance" legislation) they are frequently vocal, dogmatic, and persistent.

[83]

I wrote to the Warden of Keble and the Revd T Romans asking for information about Mr John Llewelyn who desires to be ordained in September. Also, I signed three documents for the ecclesiastical Commission, & sent to J. G. Wilson for sealing. My signature was witnessed by the butler. In response to a request from the Editor of the Morning Post, a few lines commending the Clergy Pensions Measure which has now received the Royal Assent. That talkative goose, Bishop Trodsham is "taking up his parable" against it, & the clergy, eager to get more than they give are disposed to follow his leading. I wrote to J. G. Wilson, suggesting that the meeting of the Bedekirk Trustees should be postponed.

In the afternoon we motored to Kidderminster, & visited the parish church in which Baxter preached. It is a fine structure, from which the galleries which accommodated Baxter's hearers have been taken away. We visited also the little church in which the monuments of the Baldwin family, and the Burne–Jones windows are the principal attractions. The churchyard, in which the Prime Minister's parents are buried, is a pleasant place, into which, however, I observed with astonishment several glass globes have been allowed to intrude. We had tea with the Prime Minister, and Mrs Baldwin, in their very attractive home. The garden is charming and commands noble prospects on every hand. I had more than an hour's talk with the P. M., who spoke with frankness & apparent sincerity. He told me much that was interesting, and some things that were rather startling, but these were confidential, & had best, therefore, be omitted even from this journal. He evidently feels strongly about the intervention of the Bishops in the miners' dispute, & thinks that it has done much harm. We discussed some ecclesiastical matters, & I begged him to tell Bridgeman to keep his hands off Hereford! We returned to the Castle about 6.30 pm.

[84]

Mr Baldwin's observations on Lloyd George were very impressive, for he spoke with an earnestness and detachment which seemed to compel belief in his sincerity. He said that L. G. had a thoroughly bad influence on everybody with whom he came into contact: that he had spoiled Charles Masterman, and made Eric Geddes worse than he was: that he had done much injury to Austen Chamberlain & Sir Robert Horne. Auckland Geddes said of him that he looked over a man's character, detected its weak point, & worked on that. He spoke with severity of Ramsay Macdonald as a thoroughly untrustworthy man, and said that he had come to the conclusion that Lansbury was an arrant humbug. These severe judgments contrasted with the general kindness of his judgments on his opponents.

I took occasion to urge the importance of revising Trade Union law, and he agreed, but did not seem very clear as to the nature and extent of the revision. He is, I think, genuinely anxious to pursue the line of sympathetic goodwill towards the aspirations of the artisans, which he has hitherto claimed for himself: & he shrinks naturally from any course which would obscure his true prupose in the eyes of the artisans themselves. An attempt to rrestrain the excessive powers of the Trade Unions, & to bring them under the control of the Law, might easily be misrepresented and misunderstood. Nevertheless, I must needs think that the risk ought to be run. We are "up against" the forces & dispositions of violent Reformation Revolution, and we cannot afford to allow the strategical situation of those who stand for the Constitution to remain so unfavourable.

---