The Henson Journals

Wed 17 November 1926

Volume 41, Pages 246 to 248

[246]

Wednesday, November 17th, 1926.

[symbol]

Oman exhibited last night a silver thaler with the effigy of Charles V, but bearing the date 1664. It had been minted in Besançon, more than a century after the emperor's death. Its value was 3/–, and Oman purchased it for 20/–.

I asked Trevelyan what was his deliberate judgment on his eminent relative Lord Macaulay's work, and he replied in terms of the highest eulogy. He admitted that the Essays contained many deplorable things, notably his vilifying of Cranmer, but urged that Macaulay knew nothing of the Tudor period, & was himself opposed to the publication of the essays.

Baldwin told me that he read many detective stories, & found them a valuable instrument of recreation. The week–ends at Chequers were, he found, almost indispensable. He said that he thought no man could stand the strain of Cabinet office for more than five years on end.

I received the Holy Communion in the Chapel that has been fitted up in the south west corner of the nave. When I was canon, the place was used as a vestry. Then, after breakfast, I walked to the Athenaeum, & then attended the Church Assembly. The proceedings were again futile and tiresome. A party came in to lunch, including Sir Thomas Inskip. He said that the mineowners had informed the Government that they did not expect to find work for more than 780,000 men. This would leave at least 300,000 permanently unemployed.

[247]

[symbol]

In the afternoon session the Assembly discussed the Report on Education. Nothing could have been more remote from actuality than most of the speeches. I got so bored that I came away. The Ordination candidate, A. J. Langton Heaver, came to see me at the Athenaeum, and pleased me by his frank answers to my questions.

I dined at Grillions. There was a pleasant party viz: – Lords Balfour, Darling, Fitz Alan, Sumner, Hanworth, & Finlay, the Archbishop of York, Lord Eustace Percy, Lord Hartington, & myself. We discussed – after Ld Fitz–Alan, who is a strong Papist, had retired – the scandalous nullifying of the marriage of the Duke of Marlborough, and Miss Consuelo Vanderbilt, by the Curia. I was interested in the talk, but more interested in the company. Balfour certainly does not look his age: it is with an effort that one remembers that he is nearly eighty. His vivacity and urbaneness of manner are delightful: he talks brilliantly, and (a rare gift) he listens sympathetically. I find it difficult to believe that he can be au fond as heartless & selfish as "the man with a duster" asserted. Darling says many clever & amusing things, but he talks too much, & wakes a certain resentment by his persistence. Fitz Alan is good–humoured, dull, & a trifle sychophantic, as the Roman laity are apt to be. Hartington is amiable, intelligent, but weak. He hardly looks equal to his prospective dukedom. Lord Eustace Percy has a feeble, and rather feretty aspect, curiously unworthy of the President [248] of the Board of Education. The Master of the Rolls is a much stronger version of his brother, the Bishop of Norwich. Sumner is sardonic but amiable. The Archbishop of York [is] demurely pompous even in his jests: and old Finlay palpably senile. Darling talked most; Balfour talked best. The rest of us cut in when opportunity offered. I enjoyed the dinner, but realized that frequency in dining is really the condition of getting the most out of Grillions. If I were living sufficiently near, I should make a point of dining regularly. As it is, I am but an observer.

I returned to the Deanery shortly after 10 p.m: & found the party just setting out for the Royal reception. A judge stayed behind, and talked with me for a short space. He said that his father had been an hon. canon of Christ Church, Oxford: and he told me a story about Lord Darling, which illustrated both his (Darling's) extreme unpopularity with the bar, and the bar's resentment at his promotion to the Bench. It illustrated also Darling's readiness of speech. I suppose few judicial appointments were more severely criticised than that which made Darling a judge: & yet few have justified themselves more completely. There is unanimity of eulogy on his judicial conduct, saving always the habit of jesting from the Bench which is generally condemned and enjoyed.