The Henson Journals

[25]

Tuesday, December 20th, 1927.

[symbol]

I spent the day at Lambeth in conference with my fellow bishops. All the four rebels were present, and all spoke. Exeter excelled himself in muddle–headed irrelevance. Worcester was meticulously didactic. Birmingham plaintively egotistical. Norwich 'The sparrow that sittest alone upon the housetop'. There were, I thought, ominous signs that the Evangelical bishops were 'weakening'. St Edmondsbury and Ipswich almost hung out the white flag. Coventry all but expressed satisfaction at the loss of the Prayer Book. Even Chelmsford pleaded for conciliation. There is not much substance in the vaunted unity of the episcopate. But the most part of the bishops stood firm, and some, notably Chester, St Alban's, and Southwark, were almost bellicose. Manchester's attitude interested me most. I carried on a conversation in writing with him and retained the manuscript. It runs thus:–

Durham Should we carry the Revised Book through Church Assembly and Convocations again?

Manchester Certainly through Convocations, not so certainly through Assembly, but I think so.

Durham The real scandal of the situation is that such a decision could be reached by such an assembly after such a debate.

[26] [symbol]

Manchester Yes; and we shall have to consider how far we can in future put such matters before Parliament. But we have put this forward to Parliament, and to go round some corner now would be (in justice) to flout the State, not merely to declare independence in action.

Durham But isn't this (perhaps) a God–given opportunity for stating the aforesaid principle at stake without party or personal complications such as would inevitably exist when the issue is next raised? Hadn't we better seize it?

I can see a real wisdom in this, but the ramifications of Disestablishment are so great that I feel (at present) unable to embark on this course until I know that the Church cannot have freedom of worship under the existing system.

As I was leaving, the Archbishop called me back and begged me to dine & discuss the wording of the Archiepiscopal letter which we decided to put out.

[27] [symbol]

So rather ruefully I wrote a note to Lady Londonderry cancelling my appointment to dine with her, promising to get away from Lambeth as soon as I decently could. After dinner the two archbishops and I laboured for an hour on the letter which should be sent to the peers. Then I got back to Londonderry House, and found beside mine host & hostess, Lord Salisbury & Chaplin, and Lady Carlisle. We talked briskly for an hour, & then I went to bed being sufficiently tired.

Sir Vincent Baddely told me that he had heard my speech throughout, & congratulated me on it warmly.

The Times publishes a vigorous letter from Lord Birkenhead criticising severely the action of the House of Commons, exhorting the clergy to proceed forthwith to use the Revised Prayer Book as if it had been legalized, and plainly castigating "Jix". This letter, expressed with much humour, is bound to have a considerable effect, but it is less helpful than embarrassing to the Bishops. Birkenhead's [notorious laxity of morals] disqualifies him for any considerable rôle in the ecclesiastical sphere, whereas Inskip and "Jix", dour fanaticks as they are, do command respect as evidently governed by real religious conviction.