The Henson Journals

[202]

Thursday, November 17th, 1927.

""Babbitt" is a true picture of American life: "Elmer Gantry" is a false one" – that is Lord Percy's judgement on these two books by the same American writer, Sinclair Lewis: and he claimed to speak with the knowledge of America gained by 5 years residence there.

He impresses me as an intelligent man, who could hardly have any prejudice in favour of the emotional Protestantism, which is satirised so brutally in "Elmer Gantry": but he is completely inclines to be Philo–American, &, as such, he may resent so odious a picture of American religion. Sinclair Lewis himself is not an unprejudiced judge of anything connected either with 'capitalism' or with Christianity. He is now said to be a 'Bolshevist', and as such includes in the same condemnation both the faith & the economic system of Christendom. But he writes for the American public: & the reputation he has made is that of a keen and observant critic of American society. His books have been loudly acclaimed in America as almost photographically accurate pictures of the facts, and among them none more loudly than 'Elmer Gantry'. I judge the book to be rather exaggerated than untrue. It is a caricature of American Protestantism, but it has the amount of fidelity to the facts which makes the caricature successful.

[203]

After breakfast I walked to 5 Old Palace yard, where the Committee on Strict Disorders was to meet. From 10.30 a.m. till 4.30 p.m. we sate, and had as witness an excellent old lawyer from the Home Office, Sir Ernley Pollock, who expounded to us the laws & regulations under which the police act in the matter of prostitution. Of my colleagues on the Committee I am most impressed by a keen–looking K. C. named Jowitt. The two police–magistrates, Sir Chartres Biron & Wilberforce, are useful, as they understand how the law is actually administered. Hugh Macmillan makes an admirable Chairman. We lunched at the House of Lords. While we were lunching, Lords Haldane & Phillimore came in. I had some speech with the latter, who gave me an exact account of what happened at the Ecclesiastical Committee. Out of 28 members who were present, only 5 voted against approving the measure: and 2 abstained from voting. No less than 21 voted in the affirmative. If, as there seems no real reason for doubting, the Ecclesiastical Committee is fairly representative of the Houses of Parliament, the Resolution sending on the Measure for the Royal Approval ought to pass by large majorities. And, indeed, I think it will.

[204] [symbol]

The evening papers announce the death from pneumonia of Charles Masterman. He was 54 years old. The obituary notices emphasize the ill–fortune which pursued him throughout his political career. His association with Lloyd–George was probably bad both for his fortune and for his character. He was a man whom I knew very slightly, and yet disliked very thoroughly. Does the time–honoured maxim, De mortuis nil nisi bonum, require me now to conceal my dislike? I thought his attitude towards Disestablishment was base, but the probability is taking shape that I shall myself be compelled to acquiesce in that hateful policy. [symbol] I could almost wish that Parliament would reject the Prayer Book Measure, & thus give a fair & ample plea for advocating Disestablishment: for the prospect of the Crown Patronage in the hands of a Labour prime Minister is terrible indeed. That contingency must certainly be faced before long, say ( on the most favourable hypothesis) four years. Even the most cheerful prophets dare not postpone the Triumph of Labour to a much later date: and it may come next year!

[205] [symbol]

It is, perhaps, not undeserving of notice that of the four recalcitrant bishops, two – Norwich and Birmingham – have never in the whole course of their lives had experience of pastoral ministry, one, Worcester, has only had such experience in a City–living, and only the Bishop of Exeter, who has retired from the conflict, has had charge of a normal parish. Nor is it inconsiderable that no one of the four is known to be in any special degree familiar with history, or theology, nor has any of them had experience of training the clergy, whether at the University or at a theological College. All four are unsupported by their own dioceses in their opposition to the Revised Book, and such approval as their conduct has gained has come mainly from those sections of the public which lie outside the membership of the Church of England.

These are circumstances which may, perhaps, without unfairness be brought under the notice of the House of Lords, when the Revised Book is under discussion in that Assembly. I shall press the point that what the Opponents of the Revised Book must be fairly required to offer is not a better–revised Book, but a Book so revised as to be more effective as an instrument for restoring discipline. Their proposal merely to omit the Holy Communion from the revision, is to beg the main question altogether.