As I move about I find some perplexity and a
good deal of regret at the rarity of any word of counsel or admonition from the Arch- bishop of Canterbury on great public issues. Respect for Dr. Fisher is universal, particularly among those who know him per- sonally, and as a chairman of educational or other bodies, or as an after-dinner speaker on almost any occasion, he is admirable. It would be hardly fair, moreover, to compare him with his almost unique predecessor, Dr. Temple. But to go one farther back, the country heard the voice of Dr. Cosmo Lang on such public questions four or five times as often as it hears the voice of Dr. Fisher. On what are known more particularly as social questions it is indeed from York rather than Lambeth that the country is coming to expect the Church's voice to issue. There is very real loss here. If Dr. Fisher's views were not worth hearing it would be waste of time to appeal to him to voice them more often. But they unques- tionably are. And this is not a moment when the Church's position should go unasserted. Dr. Fisher as Bishop of London was an admirable diocesan, but he did little to impress himself on the Metropolis as a city. He is, I am quite sure, an admirable Arch- bishop of Canterbury, but every Archbishop of Canterbury should have a message for the country as well as for the Church of England. * * * *
Previous page
