ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL CHAPLAINCY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20625, 15 August 1932, Page 7

ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL CHAPLAINCY.

TO THE EDITOH 0 J THE FBESS. Sir,—"The .Dragon" has not had that vision yet, and so it is little use to talk to him. May I say with St Paul that concerning him "I have great heaviness and continual sorrow of my heart." He has a zeal but not according to knowlodge. His eyes are darkened that he cannot Bee that the party spirit so much ill evidence in his letter is altogether absent from St. George's. Your readers will see that "The Dragon" has changed Ms ground again. How shall we say itf He has put his cards upon the table. He does not really like the Hospital. I say it kindly: No more does the devil. Yes, there is nothing for us to do but to wait for that vision. Were it to come quickly enough he might even now help 113 with our Purses. We have still some'way to go. We are going to get those Purses filled. We must work till we do. Before I came to NewZealand I used to play cricket. The first nine or ten runs at times came quickly enough, and then one used to stick round thirteen. We are always full of hope. What is going to stop us getting our thirteenth Purse this week? But we must not lose our wicket then. So I want to hurry with the Purses and. to ask again that those of your readers who can fill a Pilgrim's Purse for a chaplain at the pilgrims' Hospital will do so as quickly as they can.—Yours, etc.,

J. RUSSELL WILFOED, College House, August 13th, 1932.

TO THE EDITOB O* TUB IJIESS Sir, —I did not intend to write again ; but it is the Hydra-hea<Jed dragon whom we wish we had a Hercules to slay, with whom we are dealing. Ascribing to the Community at St. George's, the narrow intolerance which crimps himself, "The Dragon" further shows, in hir, references to the head of the Community, his deplorable taste, if possible enhanced by his cloak of aLonymity. I. therefore challenge him to disclose himself. If he will do so, 1 will also sign my own name, and further will undertako to have filled a purse for St. George's chaplain. I do not believe, I know, that no pressure of any sort is brought to bear to alter the religious beliefs of any worker or inmate in tho Hospital. "Hie Dragon" says he can give instances; but wo all know that sort of propaganda. Hence my offer. The existence of the Hospital is due to Canon Wilford's efforts. It is to be deplored that a man of such outstanding personality and energy and of such excelling scholarship must leave the diocese. He will be hard to replace. But if he must go, then we shall let him go in the best possible way and secure the best chaplain possible to maintain hw work, at least. We shall not leave his work to peripatetic efforts and casual aid. I would point out that the lay inmates of the Hospital are always changing. Their sojourn is very limited. Are we to provide a sort of chameleon, so that the services at the Hospital may be altered weekly or monthly to suit the prevalent demand P No, this work so well initiated by Canon Wilford, needs something better. —Yours, etc., CHURCHMAN. August 14th, 1932. TO THB EDITOB OJT THB MESS Sir, —Mr Chester Cresswell states: "It would seem that St. George's Hospital ... has issued a challenge to 'The Dragon' and 'Churchman Also.' Not content with denying their aid, they circulate confusing statements." I have supported St. George's both directly, by sending one of my family there, and indirectly by sending other patients, and if their opportunities had been fully grasped by those in charge of the hospital, it would to-day be an unqualified financial success. Mr Cresswell then gives us the following specimen of lucidity: With regard to the statement of "Churchman Also," I would ask him if he attended church last Good Friday, and if so, how he was impressed with the sympathy the Crucified One received at the Cross. He will not easily reconcile that scene with his suggestion that, as the community of Sisters lack the sympathy of church people, they should be replaced by lay-workers.

"What does he mean? I referred the statement to a clergyman of the Church of England, and he, like myself, could only suggest that Mr Cresswell was comparing the sisters of St. George's in their relationship to the laity to Christ on the Cross and those present on Calvary. The comparison would be extremely ridiculous if it were not so highly revolting. The trouble with St. George's is that we understood that it was tq be a Church of England hospital ; but we now find it to be a Church of England convent with a hospital attached. I was not responsible for the statement that lack of sympathy existed between the Sisters and the laity. This was "Churchman's" statement. I still think that those in charge of a hospital for the people of any denomination should be in sympathy with the laity of that denomination. I can see no other legitimate object in founding such a hospital.—Yours, etc., CHURCHMAN ALSO. Oxford, August 12th, 1932.