The Henson Journals

[82]

Wednesday, June 18th, 1930, Individualist Luncheon.

[symbol]

The heat was so overpowering that I remained in the Athenaeum until it was time for me to walk to the Victoria Hotel, Northumberland Avenue, for the Individualist Luncheon. Lord Lamington who was to be chairman, and I received the guests. They were the oddest company to look at imaginable. Many were deformed, & some were on crutches: all looked preternaturally wise and knowing! They were all strangers to me except Sir Hugh Bell, Harold Cox, and Lady Bryce. They filled the tables in the Edward VII's Room comfortably. I sat between the chairman & Sir Hugh Bell. The old man was amazingly cheerful and talkative, in spite of his recent bereavement. After lunch I read my address on "The British Lazzaroni: a post–war phenomenon". It took (as Sir Hugh informed me) 26 1/2 minutes in delivery, & was apparently well received. Lady Ernest Benn proposed a vote of thanks in flattering terms, & this was seconded by Sir Hugh Bell. After this the company disperse, & I betook myself to the Church Assembly.

[83]

[symbol]

Thunder & heavy rain were intermittent throughout the day, but the evening was fine, and I was able to get to the Mansion House without discomfort. The English Bishops came without their wives to leave more room for the Over Seas ladies. I sat between the Archbishop of Perth, (who said that he once contemplated being my curate a Barking,) and Mrs Gailer, the wife of the Bishop of Tennessee. We got on to Prohibition, on which the Bishop's comments were not lacking in severity. He said that, on one occasion, when dining with the local judge, he was offered excellent whiskey: & on his asking how this illegal liquor had been obtained, was informed that it had been provided by the sheriff from the whiskey confiscated by the Prohibition agents! I inquired whether he had felt himself free to accept the liquor which had been thus grossly obtained by his host: and he replied that he had felt no scruple in doing so, since the law was in his judgement irrational & unjust! It is not, perhaps, surprising that the American churches are destitute of more authority, since the thus ally themselves with wickedness.

[84]

[symbol]

Temple, in the absence of Cantuar, replied for the Bishops, and was commendably brief. Ingram, who proposed the toast of the Overseas bishops was heard with difficulty. "That was the difficulty when he came to us on his world–tour" was the comment of the Australian prelate. Carter, the Archbishop of Cape Town, whom I knew well when he was in charge of the Eton Mission in Hackney Wick, failed to recognize me! I found everything very tiresome, and made my escape on the first opportunity. I walked a short distance with Inge, before finding a taxi. He was moderately civil, & spoke of the Lambeth treatment of the uncomfortable subject of contraceptives. He said that Archbishop Davidson had expressed the hope that the Conference would take a "liberal" view of the question. I always feel a certain hesitation about accepting the testimony of a man so deaf as Inge. He is but too apt to hear what he wishes to hear. I got back to Park Lane about 10.15pm, and wrote up my diary.

[85]

[symbol]

Sir Hugh Bell told me that the great bridge at Sydney, which his firm is building, represented 27 times greater mass of metal than the bridge at Newcastle: that the contract with his firm was for £4,000,000: that they had had much trouble with labour: that they expected the divergency when the vast steel arms met, would not exceed a fraction of an inch: & that the widest possible divergence was five inches. There, indeed, is Science in Industry.

Bishop Gailer said that unemployment in America was most serious, the latest statistics showed that there were more than 3,000,000 men now unemployed: that over–production stimulated by the vicious American system of part–payment was the principal cause: that there were numberless workmen who had mortgaged their wages for five years ahead in order to obtain luxuries which they did not need and could neither afford nor pay for. Is it possible to imagine an economic system more irrational, more socially unwholesome, more morally degrading? And this is the system which is being eagerly introduced into Great Britain. The more I reflect on the actual situation, the more plainly I read the handwriting on the wall.

---