The Henson Journals
Sun 10 October 1926
Volume 41, Page 198
[198]
19th Sunday after Trinity, October 10th, 1926.
After the tempest of yesterday, the morning broke in calm and sunshine. The tops of two trees, a poplar a fir, were broken off by the wind. Most of the wood was brought into the Castle before dark last night.
I celebrated the Holy Communion at 8 a.m. 7 comts. Then I gave a last revision to my sermon, left the Castle with Ella Lionel at 9.45 a.m. We reached the grand old church of St Hilda's Hartlepool; in good time for the service at 11 a.m. After a shortened form of Morning Prayer, we dedicated the Memorial Window, which Colonel Robson unveiled. I preached a short sermon, then Ella I returned to Auckland, leaving Lionel to lunch with the Hartlepool clergy.
After lunch, a fire was kindled in my study. This is the first occasion of a fire there this year. As the "Shortage" continues, I feel qualms about it!
I wrote to William.
The "Spectator" has a mischievous article headed, "Is this the moment?" Its object is to oppose any amendment of Trade Union law, and it credits Baldwin with a desire to escape the necessity of having to do so. The arguments are all both plausible and unsound. 1. Legislation is unnecessary for the collapse of the General Strike shows that society can defend itself against attacks from within. 2. Legislation would be practically futile because the worst kind of intimidation is social boycott which no law can control. 3. The Trade– Unionists would be offended. 4. The interest of the Conservative Party would suffer. "Mr Baldwin will be wise in saying at present to his party, as Lord Melbourne said to his, 'Can't we leave it alone?'" The writer thinks that if the Government enacted the Referendum, it would do all that can be done. What folly this is! The circumstances in which the General Strike was defeated are never likely to be repeated, in other circumstances it would not have been defeated: because social boycott cannot be stops [sic], there is no reason why brutal violence shd be allowed: only the revolutionary section of the Trade Unions wd be offended: it is the Nation that wd gain, who cares about the Party? There is no kind of parallel between Ld Melbourne's situation and Mr Baldwin's.