The Henson Journals

[160]

Thursday, October 27th, 1927.

The Archbishop spoke last night about the projected publication of the proceedings at Malines. I gather that there has been the usual ''diamond cut diamond'' diplomacy. There are the two versions in Anglican & Roman. Shall one, or the other, or both, or neither, be issued to the world? The aged fanatick, Halifax, is eager for publication, and threatens to force everybody's hand by publishing everything himself, and only the Pope can restrain him. It seems likely that his Holiness will do this, for publication might suggest a larger complaisance on the side of 'Semper Eadem' than is quite judicious. Frere & Kidd appear to have given the Archbishop less support than he conceived himself entitled to expect. In the mean time, a Swedish bishop has been asked to join in consecrating the new Bishop of Dover, and some missionary bishops in Canterbury Cathedral, and this formal recognition of a Lutheran Church may be set against the proceedings at Malines. Whether this policy of hunting with the Protestant hounds and running with the Papist hare is honourable, or judicious, or promising may well be doubted. I continue to think that Malines was a considerable blunder.

[161]

Barnes's reply to the Archbishops appears in all the morning papers. It is, of course, an able, though rather truculent production, and ought to do him much harm in the religious world. For he expresses no regret at all at the pain which he has caused to the 'pauperes Christi', and the anxiety & labour which he has inflicted on the aged Primate, and the scandal to Religion which he has caused. He adopts a tone of moral superiority throughout, and assumes a monopoly of truth. The 'Evening Standard' has a well–written leader headed 'What is truth?', and the 'Morning Post' is definitely hostile: the 'Westminster Gazette' applauds his attitude. Meanwhile he carries himself as one who has done something really estimable!

We sate in conference from 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., and then dispersed. I walked to the United Services Club, and wrote to Ella.

The Archbishop suggested that the two Archbishops and the Bishop of Durham for, and the Bishops of Norwich and Worcester against, the Resolution would provide as much episcopal oratory as the House of Lords would stomach! I offered to abstain, but the general sense was in favour of my speaking.

[162]

The Archbishop was plainly tired, but he talked interestingly enough. He is evidently annoyed at Barnes's second letter which, he thinks justly, ought not to have been written. He could not but have known that the Archbishop was precluded by his position & fitness of things from entering on a controversy with one of his own suffragens.

[I said that I thought Bismarck's alleged commentary on the late Marquis of Salisbury that 'he was a lathe painted to look like iron' was properly applied to Archbishop Temple''. ''I have made it a rule', said his Grace, 'never to criticize my predecessors or possible successors: but I do not dissent''. He compared Temple to Lightfoot greatly to the disadvantage of the former.]

I think the result of the Archbishop's letter to Barnes cannot but be greatly to increase the Archbishop's prestige, and thus to facilitate the passage of the Revised Prayer Book through Parliament. His Grace said that the Prime Minister would certainly vote for the Resolution but probably would not speak.