When it met on 28 January 1954 the parent Council at first seemed almost as shocked as Sir Lynden. It minuted that the letters were 'not only ill-advised but improper', while a senior member, the Bishop of Birmingham, regarded them as 'vitiating the whole work of the sub-committee'. In the end, however, the Council agreed that the Working Party should not be dismissed, but that the Council itself should write the Oxford Group and invite two or three representatives to meet with it.31 Next day its Secretary sent this invitation - the first communication received by the Oxford Group from either the Council or the Working Party.

In spite of all that had passed the Oxford Group decided that they should still be prepared to meet the Council. In accepting the invitation they made two conditions, common in such cases: first, that the Council should supply them with a list of matters on which information was required so that they could have it available, and second, that they might bring a competent shorthand writer so that a verbatim note of the discussions could be made.32 The council replied that if the Group felt discussions had to be 'invested with so much formality', it would be better to 'defer any meeting for the time being'.33 The Oxford Group twice officially repeated their willingness to meet the Council. On both occasions the Council refused.34

So on 28 January 1955 the report was given to the press, before it had been seen by the Church Assembly and without any meeting having taken place between the Council or its Working Party and anyone responsible for the work on which they were reporting. Prominent stories were carried next day in all British newspapers and many abroad. Typical headlines were 'Utopian and Escapist' (The Times), 'Psychologically dangerous: Two Dissentients' (Daily Telegraph), and 'Buchmanites should use more thought: Church lacks vigour' (News Chronicle).

It is not known on what grounds Dr Fisher had given assurances to Alderman Moncrieff - and also, it appears, to Lord Hardinge of Penshurst - that 'no kind of report will... be made public', for it is clear from their minutes that the Council and the Working Party had long had publication in mind. On 9 November, however, in what looks like an undignified scramble, the Archbishop wrote to the Council's Secretary insisting that any report must be issued by the Council 'on its own authority as its own report' and not, as the Council intended, by the Working Party. 'Providing that is done,' he said, 'my answer (to Lord Hardinge) holds good.' The Council thereupon obligingly reversed its decision.35

438