The Henson Journals

[35]

Wednesday, 28th January, 1931.

[symbol]

Macdonald & Mr Claxton Turner went off after breakfast, and after finishing the letters with Charles, I essayed to do some work, but I had so heavy a chill that I could do nothing, being both voiceless & "all–overish". I sent Charles into Durham, to do what was possible in transforming my engagements for the afternoon & evening. He was successful, & I had so much relief.

I promised Macdonald that I would send him a letter on the whole project of the Book on Bishop Lightfoot. He reigned at Auckland when rates were low, when income tax was stated in pence, when neither surtax nor death duties had been invented. On the lowest estimate I have had to pay every year in rates & taxes £ 1500 more than he paid: & if he maintained a larger household, wages were so low, & the price of important commodities like coal were so small, that the gross expenditure in the establishment was probably not much greater than now. No "Labour Party" existed: the last three Franchise Bills had not been passed: and the great local industries, mining & shipbuilding were extremely prosperous. There was no difficulty about raising money, & there was no shortage of excellent Ordination candidates.

[36]

[symbol]

"Anglo–Catholicism" was not as yet an organised force, coming between the Bishop and the young men, whom he ordained: nor was there that ravenous pursuit of young men by the Missionary Societies which has now added a considerable perplexity to diocesan life. Social life was stable, & regular. There were no motors, cinemas, or wireless to distract & divert the attention of the people. Lightfoot was one of a small set of very able Cambridge men – Benson, Westcott, Hort, Farrar – who "boosted" one another with extraordinary pertinacity: and his policy of surrounding himself with young men, who 'saw light in his light' ensured in every part of the kingdom an ardent & unfailing advertisement. His merits & his achievements were very great, &, on any showing, he must take rank of as one of the most eminent of Anglican Scholars & Ecclesiastics, but I do not think believe that he was quite so amazing a phenomenon as is generally affirmed, nor do I think that his administrative policy was o sound or so successful as is commonly assumed. In all the circumstances, he had a comparatively easy course, & a posthumous reputation which was artificial.

[37]

[symbol]

I had so heavy a cold, and felt so infirm, that I decided to "cry off" my engagements, to the injury of my reputation, but in the circumstances unavoidable. So I betook myself to bed soon after dinner, & composed myself for the comfortless experience of a restless night.

My mind returned continually to the subject of Bishop Lightfoot. How far am I swayed by a certain prejudice against a great predecessor, who is continually being paraded as the model Bishop of Durham, and placed in contrast, suggested rather than stated, with his degenerate successor? How far am I applying to Lightfoot's episcopal administration, a standard which it is impossible that he could have accepted then? He came to Durham in total ignorance of the working system of the Church: & very naturally, he accepted & urged forward with characteristic single–mindedness, the policies which were urged pressed on him. He did not originate the disastrous project for dividing the historic see: but surrendered himself to what was then the fashion in clerical circles. I find it difficult to acquit him of all responsibility for the "cheap & nasty" parish churches, which were built during his episcopate. He seems to me to have had little imagination, and less originality: but he inspired affection & admiration in all with whom he personally associated.

---