The Henson Journals

[111]

Thursday, February 6th, 1930.

Yesterday morning as I entered Dean's Yard I fell in with the Lord Chancellor (Sankey), and we stopped to talk. He began by expressing his agreement with my letter in the Times. 'The only way out of our difficulties is Disestablishment.' It occurred to me that I might seize the opportunity of speaking about the present habit of the Prime Minister in the matter of administering the Crown patronage in my diocese. I complained that, for the first time, no communications were made to me before appointments to benefices were made. The first notice I had was the statement of fait accomplis [sic] in the newspapers. He assured me that this negligent and disrespectful procedure was the result of nothing more malignant than sheer ignorance, that he was even then on his way to visit the Prime Minister, and that he would certainly 'have it put right'. This morning I met him again, as I entered Dean's Yard, and he told me that he had carried out his promise, that the Prime Minister was all that could be desired, and that I should probably be asked to call in Downing Street, & discuss the vacancies in my diocese. So far, so good.

[112]

The day was mostly occupied with the discussion of the Education Report, and finally the Majority Report was adopted by a large majority.

I came away to lunch at the Athenaeum, (where I had some talk with Peers who expressed his agreement with me on the subject of Disestablishment) and then went to S. Margaret's, where I officiated at the marriage of Peggy Parker, whom I myself baptized. There was a numerous and well–behaved congregation, which listened attentively to my address. I was assisted by Mr Adams, the Vicar of Silchester, a relative of the bride. He was a very fat man, and appeared, as fat men often are, to be amiable.

The morning's papers give considerable space to yesterday's proceedings in the Assembly: & the Daily Telegraph adorns its report with pictures of Temple and me.

I received from Lord Shaftesbury a civilly–expressed note asking me to give consideration to a letter (enclosed) from the Secretary of the E. C. U. (Rev: Arnold Pinchard). and This letter ran as follows:–

[113]

"I am writing on behalf of the President and Council of the English Church Union. We shall hold our Anniversary Meeting this year on Thursday July 3rd in the Albert Hall at 2.30 p.m. and I am to ask you if you will be willing on that occasion to address the Union on the very important question of Disestablishment.

We shall be able to offer your Lordship a somewhat unique opportunity because our meeting falls in the middle of the week of the Anglo–Catholic Congress, & you would therefore have the Albert Hall practically filled, not only by members of the E. C. U., but by crowds of other interested & devoted Church people from all parts of the country. On the one hand it will present a unique opportunity for the presentation of your Lordship's views on this most important matter, and on the other hand, we should be greatly honoured if you cared to use the opportunity which our Annual Meeting offers."

[114]

This invitation raises some difficult questions. After my speech and vote yesterday, might it not be fairly supposed that, having acquiesced in the policy of seeking to "mend" the Establishment, I was honourably bound to do nothing which could tend towards the alternative policy of "ending" it? It may, perhaps, be fairly answered that I could not be thought to have accepted the belittling interpretation of the Commission which, for tactical reasons, the Abp of Canterbury allowed himself to suggest. Temple's speech must be taken as indicating the gravity of his own proposal: & my own may be the key to my own understanding of the proposal which I supported. Both speeches insisted on the present situation as being so difficult & dishonourable as to compel some action to change it. The Establishment, as it stands, cannot honestly be acquiesced in: we must condition our acquiescence by an honest effort to bring it to an end. I cannot but be free to state why I think thus of the Establishment.

[115]

Harris, the new Editor of the Nineteenth Century & After, asked me to write something on the Disestablishment issue. I said I would consider, & send him my decision.

I dined with Lady Struthers, where Ella joined me. The party consisted of Ld Charnwood, Sir Arthur and Lady Street–Maitland, the Danish Ambassador, Sir Philip Gibb, Sir C. Smith, and a lady whose name I forget. We talked much, and ate more than enough, & so went on until 11 p.m. when we dispersed.

Sir Philip Gibb, who, Lady Mowbray informed me, is a Papist, had some talk with me about the disgusting novel 'Retreat', which is a violent attack on the Anglican Chaplains. He told me that the situation of the "hero" was altogether impossible: no chaplain would have been permitted to be there. He added that he had seen a good deal of the chaplains at the Front, and that his experience of them was eminently creditable to their character & efficiency: that they were generally very popular with the troops: that their influence was thoroughly good: & that he himself had been astonished by the success with which they had handled very difficult situations.

---