The press
Antiestablishmentarianism
Paul Johnson
The London diocese is an unruly one which has always given anxiety to bishops charged with its governance. In the days of Bloody Mary it was no accident that Bishop Bonner of London carried the brunt of the persecution and considered himself lenient in substituting whipping for the stake. Rebuked for scourging an old man, he replied: 'If thou hadst been in his case, thou wouldst have thought it a good commutation of penance to have thy bum beaten to save thy body from burning.' Since the mid-19th century London has swarmed with extreme High Church and Anglo-Catholic vicars. Commenting on their taste for incense, Bishop Mandell Creighton sniffed: 'They think souls should be cured with smoke, like herrings', and his successor, WinningtonIngram, was provoked by their antics into pounding the table and shouting: 'I am the 108th Catholic Bishop of London and I WILL BE OBEYED!'
Appointing a new Bishop of London is therefore never easy, and the authorities, who had to do so last week, could have done without the blundering attentions of Fleet Street. Under the headline 'Politicians' choice named Bishop of London', The Times announced that the choice of Dr Graham Leonard to be the new bishop was 'a victory for Mrs Thatcher'. Its Religious Affairs Correspondent, Clifford Langley, reported: 'It appears that the Crown Appointments Commission, which has the right to submit two names in order of preference, did not include Dr Leonard in its official advice'. Describing 'an extraordinary tug-of-war between the Prime Minister aided by the Leader of the Opposition on the one hand, and the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the other', he added: 'this is thought to be the first time the occupant of 10 Downing Street has gone against the will of the Church as expressed by the appointments commission'.
Unfortunately for The Times, Longley was thoroughly misinformed, and the next day the paper's competitors were eager to publicise the angry denials. 'The church joined with the state yesterday', reported the Daily Telegraph gleefully, 'in rejecting suggestions that agreed procedures for the appointment of bishops were not strictly followed in the nomination of Dr Graham Leonard'. It quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury as stating that they 'were followed in every detail on this occasion'. Downing Street, it added, 'went a step further' and insisted the procedures were 'meticulously followed at all stages. . . Any suggestion to the contrary is wholly without foundation'.
The Guardian under the headline: 'Bishop's appointment scrupulous Runcie', knocked down any lingering suspicions that Mrs Thatcher's choice went 'against the will of the church'. Of the two names submitted to Mrs Thatcher; it said, Dr Leonard got five votes of the Appointments Commissioners against seven for Dr Hapgood, Bishop of Durham; but the London Diocesan Vacancy in See Committee, also part of the new appointments procedure, found that of London's 500 parishes which voiced an opinion, 70 per cent backed Leonard. 'Dr Leonard,' it editorialised on Friday, 'was recommended for London by the diocese itself, through its vacancy committee, and he represents the AngloCatholic tendency which is enjoying, after some bleak years, an unaccustomed spring . . .Dr Leonard, though not every churchgoer's first choice, will have most churchgoers' support'. The Daily Telegraph, in a leader entitled 'Mrs 'Thatcher's "Coup", sneered at 'romantic yarns of Church and State' and what it called 'wild tales' of struggle! involving the Monarch, the Archbishop ol Canterbury and 'a sinister axis' of Thatcher and Foot 'bent on frustrating the church's wishes'. It thought the choice of Leonard 'an excellent one' The Times had to accept punishment from readers, too. The Bishop of Norwich thought Mr Longley 'worthy of censure' for his 'mischievous article' which had set 'Crown, Church and Parliament at loggerheads'. The appointment of Leonard was both 'expected' and 'very proper' and Longley's story was 'sheer conjecture'; hut, 'because of the high standing andintegritY of The Times it carries unjustifiable weight'' The final blow was struck by The Tirnes's own leader-writer on Saturday, who thought Mrs Thatcher's choice illustrates one of the virtues of Establishment, which is to correct a tendency of the funiversan Church to play into the hands of its owb apparatus'. It praised the Prime Minister for plumping for 'a prelate of distinction' possessed of intellectual, moral and doe' trinal force . . Unfortunately the Longley tale had already automatically set in motion some bits of progressive machinery, including Canon Paul Oestreicher. In a long letter to The Times the Canon who seems to be unaware that Mrs Thatcher is a practising,: indeed enthusiastic, member of the Church of England denounced the 'absolute right of veto' which the present arrangements conferred on her. 'What a gift', he thuni dered, `to any totalitarian government the future! It all might seem `so much theory to the average Englishmen' but let themn°` think 'it cannot happen here'. If fact the average Englishmen, unlike Canon Oestreicher, is well aware that it has always happened here. Perhaps the Call ought to read the opening chapter Barehester Towers. When Renn Dicks° Hampden was nominated Bishop of Hereford in 1847, and the Dean of Hereford4 wrote to the Prime Minister saying he vvoil vote against Hampden's election, Lord John Russell not exactly a totalitarian replied briefly: 'Sir, I have had the hos°. t to receive your letter of the 23rd instant ifts which you intimate to me your intention °' violating the law'. Nor was this suprernae„l Y of the state, in the matter of episcopal appointments, a novelty introduced at th', Reformation, as Clifford Longley solve' to suppose. Last Friday, Canon Nichols°n' writing fittingly enough from the Atherr naeum, reminded readers of The Tirne f of Henry II's letter to the Chapter Winchester, where the see was vacant: order you a free election but nevertheless., forbid you to elect anyone other thac;f Richard my clerk, the Archdeacon ,,,he Poitiers'. One of the nice things about " s Times is that, if its journalists get °lc) wrong, its readers can always be relied on put the record straight.
Previous page
