A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK
THERE was never much doubt that after Dr. Lang's resignation the two Archbishops would be Dr. Temple and Dr. Garbett. The question was which of them would be at Canterbury and
which at York. That has now been answered, and., the almost universal judgement is that it has been answered wisely. As
the Dean. of Lichfield said in his quite admirable broadcast on Monday evening, if the Church happened to be severed from the State, and the choice of a Primate fell to Churchmen as a whole. the predominant vote would quite certainly be for Dr. Temple. Under him the Church is sure of firm and clear leadership and of fearless pronouncements on the duty of Christians in social and international life. The new Primate's association with the Collegium in the last war and C.O.P.E.C. and the Malvern Conferences since is guarantee enough of that—so much so, Indeed, that there may be some danger of uoder-rating those qualities both of spirituality and of scholarship which have long combined to make William Ebor the outstanding figure among the prelates of today. Since Dr. Temple provides the first example of a son following a father in the see of Canterbury it may be of some interest to note the parallelism in the two ecclesiastical careers. They are briefly as follows:
DR. FREDERICK TEMPLE DR. WILLIAM TEMPLE
Blundell's and Balliol Rugby and Balliol Lecturer at Balliol Lecturer at Queen's Headmaster of Rugby Headmaster' of Repton Bishop of Exeter Bishop of Manchester Bishop of London • Archbishop of York Abp. of Canterbury (at 75) Abp. of Canterbury (at 6o) In only one respect is the comparison to the son's disadvantage. Not inheriting his father's brusque manners, he has been the subject of fewer entertaining anecdotes. On the other hand, he has had to face no such storm as Essays and Reviews raised. * * * *
Previous page
