Project Canterbury

Philip Usher: His Life and His Memorial.

Leighton Buzzard: The Faith Press, [1952].


THE Philip Usher Memorial Fund was established in July, 1947, on the generous initiative of Miss Constance Irene Usher in memory of her brother, the Rev. Philip C. A Usher, formerly Hon. Assistant Secretary of the Church of England Council on Foreign Relations, Warden of Liddon House and a Chaplain in the Royal Air Force, who died on active service in the Middle East in 1941. The Fund is in the hands of the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England as holding Trustees, and all details of its administration are settled by an Executive Committee. The Committee consists of four ex officio members, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Gibraltar and the Bishop in Jerusalem, and not less than five and not more than eight other members. The remaining first members of the Committee were Miss Irene Usher, Dr. A. C. Don (Dean of Westminster), Canon J. A. Douglas, Canon A. F. Hood, Major-General Alec Lee, Rev. O. Chadwick and Rev. H. M. Waddams (Hon. Secretary). The income of the Trust property is applied in establishing and maintaining a scholarship to be called the Usher Scholarship, the regulations of which are to be found at the end of this brochure.

The Scholarship must be awarded to a candidate under 30 years of age who is either an ordinand or an ordained minister of the Anglican Communion in the Church of England, the Church of Wales, the Church of Ireland, the Episcopal Church in Scotland, or under the jurisdiction of one of the following Anglican bishops, the Bishop of Gibraltar, the Bishop of Fulham, and the Bishops in Jerusalem, Egypt, the Sudan and Iran.

The object of the Scholarship is to enable a student to spend not less than six months nor more than eighteen months in a country in which a substantial part of the population practises the Christian religion according to the doctrine and ritual of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The holder of the Scholarship is to study the outlook and [5/6] mode of life of the Orthodox in the country which he visits. Provision is made in certain circumstances for the application of certain monies by the Executive Committee for such charitable purposes for the promotion of the work of the Church of England abroad as the Committee shall at their discretion from time to time think fit.



PHILIP CHARLES ALEXANDER USHER was born at Trowbridge on March 18, 1899. When he was 6 years old he was seriously ill with diphtheria, which affected his heart. From a very early age he knew he was destined for the priesthood. He also evinced a remarkable interest in Balkan affairs. He was educated at Hamilton House, Bath, and Westminster School. In 19l7 he won a scholarship at Christ Church, Oxford; but, as the war was still in progress, he did not immediately take it up. In September, 1917, he went to a Royal Garrison Artillery Cadet School, and was commissioned the following March. In May, 1918, he was sent to Salonika. He was in hospital for a week on the way out, and again for six weeks on arrival. He was drafted to an Anti-Aircraft Battery, finishing up in Bulgaria. He returned to England early in 1919, and went up to Christ Church that year. In 1920 he spent three weeks in Italy, including Easter at Rome. At Oxford he read the shortened course for ex-service men in History and graduated with distinction in 1921. In October that year he entered St. Stephen's House, where he is remembered among the most able students of his time.

He was ordained deacon in Gloucester Cathedral on Trinity Sunday, 1923, to a title at All Saints', Gloucester, and to act as Assistant Chaplain to the Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Headlam), to whom he became in due course almost as a son. He was ordained priest in Cirencester Parish Church on Advent Sunday, 1923.

For eighteen months in 1924 and 1925 he was in Jerusalem, acting as Liaison Officer for the Bishop with Orthodox and other Eastern Churches in Palestine, but in August, 1925, he was sent home owing to ill health. After this he became for a time curate of the University Church at Oxford, making his home at Pusey House. In the course of 1926 he paid another visit to Palestine as a lecturer on an Anglo-Catholic Pilgrimage.

[8] In 1927 he was offered the Legation Chaplaincy at Athens. In this connexion he was examined at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and was found to be suffering from severe dysentery as a result of his time in Salonika. After a period in hospital for a cure he was able to go to Athens, where an important part of his life's work was done for four years. He was in fact Chaplain not only to the Legation but to the British community in general. In 1931 he came home and was for a long period Chaplain to the Bishop of Gloucester. During this time he became Honorary Assistant Secretary to the Church of England Council on Foreign Relations, and attended important conferences at Belgrade, Bucharest, Upsala, Utrecht, Edinburgh and other places. He received decorations in both Belgrade and Bucharest. One year he had a long holiday in Greece. At other times he travelled widely in Europe. In 1931 he became Editor of the Church Quarterly Review. In 1937 he was appointed Warden of Liddon House and Priest-in-Charge of the Grosvenor Chapel: and the following year he made a tour of Greece with Dr. Headlam. Just before the war he travelled in Scandinavia and Russia. Even after the outbreak of war he attended several conferences in Europe--one of them in Holland in November, 1939, and in 1940 another in the Balkans including Greece. He returned from the latter just before the fall of France. During that year he did valuable work for the Ministry of Information: and in November he joined the R.A.F.V.R. as a chaplain. His knowledge of languages, etc. led him to believe that his mast useful place was the Middle East: and in spite of medical warnings he sailed thither in a convoy in February, 1941. He arrived in Egypt early in May. After a week in hospital he went up to Ramleh, where he died on June 6. Thus the Church on earth lost the services of a unique personality, who during his short life had already exercised a powerful influence on many sides and in unusual ways-and who seemed clearly to be destined to enter more and more deeply into the counsels of those in authority.

June, 1951


PROEM: This note is neither a biographical sketch of Philip Usher nor an appraisement of his personality and his activities. Its aim is to show why his sister, Miss Irene Usher, set up this Bursary and to indicate the one needful objective without which no one should apply for it or be bidden accept it.


A folly of our age is to identify and so to confuse a religion with its theology, its system of worship, its moral code, its charitable or other social machinery and so on. Religion has aptly been described as the supreme ars vivendi, that elusive science which defies definition and analysis but which, shaping and affecting the outlook and the way of life--or to use a newfangled term, the "ideology"--of particular races and nationalities, eo ipso shapes the outlook and affects the way of life of every individual born and bred a member of them, whether or not he endeavour consciously to practise it, and even if intellectually and practically he be indifferent to it or, becoming hostile to it, works by persuasion or violence to replace it by another ars vivendi.

Of themselves books, however fine and exhaustive, dealing with the theology, history, worship, asceticism and so on, and with the ecclesiastical or secular system of a religio-nationality, be it Christian, Moslem or what not, can never give a real insight into the outlook and the way of life, which constitute its particular ars vivendi. Nor can such an insight be gained by a foreigner merely by frequent visits or long residence in its lands--even if he be a theological or other student. Such an insight can be the fruit only of first-hand knowledge of the way of life, the outlook, the habits of the ordinary people, including the roughest and, for intellect, probity or morals, the less creditable among them. In other words and above all in regard to that great supra-religio-nationality of the Eastern Orthodox world which embraces not only the Greeks, the Slavs, the Georgians and many Arabophones and Rumanians, but in fact also the [9/10] Assyrians, the Armenians, the Copts, the Jacobites and the other ancient religio-nationalities which do not belong to it, an insight into their ars vivendi can be won only by living among them as one of themselves and so by understanding the way and outlook of life not only of the monks and the clergy or the educated classes but of the peasantry and the labouring folk of the towns.

It was my happy fortune first to have been attracted by Philip Usher when he was an undergraduate, then to have known him closely in the fashion boys term as "at home" and finally for over ten years to have been linked with him in comradeship and fellowship as a worker in the field of Pan-Christian solidarity in general and of Anglican-Orthodox solidarity in particular. Over and above all the personal gifts of vision, brain, humour and charm with which he was endowed by nature, and the fact that he was the only son of a man of no small means and position, the characteristic which made him outstanding and unique among those who were engaged in that field was that being drawn neither by the allure of classical Hellenism nor of Byzantine history, archaeology or the like but simply and solely by the allure of the modem Orthodox Greek world as it is, while still an Oxford undergraduate he conceived an intense desire for its own sake and not to equip himself as an expert, by living in the Greek lands to share the lives of their simple, ordinary townsfolk and peasantry. To realize that desire, he threw away, as some told him, the prospects of speedy advancement in England which his gifts, his means and his influential friendships opened for him--if modesty and lack of ambition be defects he possessed them--and soon after his ordination, went off to the Near East and began that first-hand study of the ars vivendi of the Orthodox which so long as he lived never ceased to enthral and attract him whatever else he was doing. It was so that, as looking back over the past twenty-five years I judge in all sobriety, he became the finest expert and the best liaison worker among all those with whom I have been privileged to work for the furthering of Anglican-Orthodox solidarity.


My personal acquaintance with Philip Usher began in 1920 when he was a young undergraduate of Christ Church, Oxford, whither he had gone from Westminster School. I owed that [10/11] happiness to having been attached by Archbishop Lord Davidson to look after the Professor of Dogmatics at Halki, Professor Komnenos, who was Secretary of the Oecumenical Patriarchate's Commission to consider the possibility of Anglican and Orthodox relations being developed by economy and who had come to England as a member of the Orthodox Delegation to the Lambeth Conference of 1920. In that humble capacity I was privileged to accompany him to Oxford for conferences with its leading theologians and to be with him as the guest of the Dean of Christ Church, Dr. Julian White. Among those who showed Professor Komnenos marked attention was Arthur Cayley Headlam, who was then Canon of Christ Church and Regius Professor of Divinity, and who on most occasions acted as chairman of the little conferences held with him, among the members of which were outstanding Anglican theologians of all schools of thought. Inasmuch as he never showed favour to any student, Dr. Cayley Headlam was an ideal teacher; and among his students at King's College, London, had been several who were later in the front rank of the academic and ecclesiastical worlds. Doubtless as personalities there were some to whom, though he did not show it, he was privately attracted more than to others. None, however, so far as I could observe had ever won his heart so much as Philip Usher.

On Professor Komnenos' arrival with me at Christ Church, Dr. Headlam at once introduced Philip to me, suggesting that he should act as a sort of secretary to our conferences. Though a bit shy of this proposal, I agreed and the Dean invited Philip to do so. To be frank I should probably not even have remembered Philip's name, for at that time I was continually meeting fresh people, if I had not at once been struck and won by his peraonality, his unobtrusiveness, his devotion to Dr. Headlam and, above all, which I think had helped to make Dr. Headlam love him, his passionate eagerness to know the Greek religio-nationality and the magnetic attraction which the Orthodox "Romaic" world--those were the days when Constantinople and not Athens was still the capital of the non-westernized Greek who still called himself Romaikos--had for him. That attraction was not of the classical order: it was not of the theological order: it was not of the ecclesiastical order. For him the Greek Christendom of our day was as it were a second native land which [11/12] called him. Above everything he was eager to get to the Greek lands, to live among the people and to assimilate himself to their life.

In passing, I may note here that it was largely in result of his visit to Oxford that Komnenos compiled his Report on the History of the Church of England which, being adopted by the Oecumenical Patriarchate, resulted in the Oecumenical Patriarch Meletios' historic encyclical of 1922 and his letter of that year to Archbishop Davidson declaring Anglican ordinations to be capable of Orthodox economic acceptance.

I saw Philip Usher a few times in the years that followed and he was always very good to me. It was obvious that his keenness to get to the Orthodox lands remained. He was ordained in 1923. His dream in a sense materialized in 1924, thanks to an invitation that at his own cost he should go out to Palestine and help on the staff of our then Bishop in Jerusalem, Dr. MacInnes. I well remember how in April, 1925, on arriving at Alexandria with the Anglo-Catholic pilgrimage we found Philip waiting for us on the Scala. He had only been a few months in Jerusalem but had come in order to act as our liaison officer during our tour. The way in which he at once, as a blood brother almost, got into the closest touch of friendship with the then already old Patriarch of Alexandria, Photios, and the theologians and other ecclesiastics we met was remarkable. It had been the same in Palestine. The Orthodox had taken to him at once wherever he went. He had already begun to learn to speak the Greek of the people as they speak it themselves. His delight was to go away and stay in a village where there were a few Orthodox and spend his Sundays with them. Coming home in 1926 after a further visit to Palestine following a period of service at home, which had started in 1925, he had to go to hospital with a nasty attack of malaria after which I was fortunate enough to be able to introduce him to one of the principal Secretaries of the Foreign Office and to Bishop John Gregg of Gibraltar, afterwards of Guildford. In result his longing to get to know the Greeks at home was realized. The Greeks had been extirpated from their home lands in Asia Minor and the Turks were back in Constantinople. But he was appointed British Legation Chaplain in Athens. There, as all diplomatists who knew him would agree, he was the ideal chaplain for a legation. He was most popular with outstanding Greek laity who were not at all interested in [12/13] religion for its own sake. His quiet humour and personal charm helped to make the Legation drawing-room delightful and he never talked politics. The British Minister treated him as of his inner circle and he had the high regard of notable Greek statesmen such as M. Venizelos, the present Greek Ambassador in London, M. Melas, and the present Greek Minister in London, M. Pallis. He spent much time visiting villages and towns throughout all Greece, staying in their pandocheia (inns) and hobnobbing with their local clergy and simpler folk.

Philip would, I think, have wished to remain in Athens all his life. Only in 1931 Dr. Headlam begged him to come home and be his Chaplain, urging also that Philip was obviously called to play a part in his own circle and in that of Lambeth in promoting solidarity between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches and religio-nationalities. Of his great work in those fields I will only mention here his service behind the scenes during the Lambeth Conference of l 930, during our conferences alike with the Old Catholics then and in the Bonn Conference of 1931, during the Anglican Orthodox theological Joint Doctrinal Commission of 1931, during the preparation for the visit to Bucharest of the official Anglican delegation of l935, of which he was a secretary, and in reaching the agreements there made which were in due course ratified by the Convocations of Canterbury and York and implemented by the Holy Synod of Rumania, in the Church of England Council on Foreign Relations from the time of its setting up in 1933, in preparing for and carrying through the Anglican delegation to Finland in 1934 and the background work for the delegation which met with representatives of the Churches of Estonia and Latvia in 1936 and 1938, and in the "at homes" and more formal receptions of the Nikaean Club which provided meeting grounds for diplomatists and statesmen as well as for ecclesiastics and outstanding lay folk of every Christian religio-nationality, British and foreign, Catholic and Protestant. His fine work in these and other fields is a matter of history, but all the time, as I have said in the preface to this note, his heart and soul were among the Greek Orthodox. The longing to be back with them was always upon him.

That longing in bed-rock fact was inseparable from his deep love for his own nation and its Church, his will and potentiality [13/14] to serve which came to be recognised by the many outstanding clergy and laity with whom his work not only as Bishop Headlam's aide-de-camp in the Faith and Order field of the Oecumenical Movement but also at Liddon House, of which he became Warden in 1937, brought him into contact. In particular both Archbishops Lang and Temple learnt to value him as one of the secretaries of their Council on Foreign Relations. By general consent he came to be regarded as certain to be called by the authorities to a position of dignity and importance at home here in England. But though built as he was he would have found it hard to say No to those whom he loved to serve, he himself had no whit of doubt but that, as soon as Bishop Headlam ceased to need him as his A.D.C., his vocation would take him back to the Greek lands to resume, in however humble a capacity, his liaison activities and to help forward Anglican and Orthodox solidarity.

To write of his years at Liddon House would be outside my present purpose. Nevertheless, if only to illustrate the manner of man he was, I cannot refrain from recording here that he made it a centre for young men of the intellectual type upon whom perhaps, and especially upon those of the more difficult sort, his general equipment and personal charm, coupled with the quiet sense of humour which in him was a salient characteristic, enabled him to exert influence.

On the outbreak of the World War in 1939, against his own instinct which was at once to go to Greece, he fell in with the wishes of Archbishop Lang and Bishop Headlam and accepted office in the Ministry of Information which had been set up under Lord Macmillan in the Senate House of the University of London. There, as in charge of its propaganda to the Orthodox religio-nationalities, he did better work than might have been thought possible or than of which he was conscious. But he was profoundly unhappy. In March, 1940, under the auspices of the Ministry of Information he organized and acted as secretary of a delegation from the Church of England which under the leadership of Bishop Headlam and including Bishop Parsons of Hereford, the Bishop of Gibraltar and myself, visited Belgrade, Sofia and Athens, in each of which cities it held official conferences, the protocols of which are of permanent value, with theologians specifically appointed by [14/15] the respective authorities of the autokephalous Churches of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and the Kingdom of Greece. Of the nature of the case, however, and indeed as perhaps mistakenly it was designed to be, the objective of the delegation was interpreted everywhere as being to rouse resistance among the rank and file of the Orthodox religio-national Churches of the Balkans to their countries becoming pawns in the Nazi campaign for the conquest of Europe. That its real objective in a measure was achieved is the more remarkable because it left London just before Hitler, having reached agreement with Stalin, launched his drive through Holland and Belgium to the English Channel. Wherever it was, throughout its stay in the Balkans, the radio and coffee shops hummed daily with news of a fresh disaster to the Allies; and the Nazi subsidized press proclaiming the collapse of French armies and the retreat of the British Expeditionary Force dinned it into the earn of the Balkan peasantry that if their governments did not adhere to the pact which Hitler had made with Stalin and open his way to the Mediterranean, the Germans would certainly do in their countries what they were doing in Holland and in Belgium.

Yet wherever the delegation went, not only the ecclesiastical but the civic authorities went out of their way to arrange ceremonies in its honour and the townsfolk as well as the peasantry packed the roads to welcome it. The very fact that in spite of the fierce barrage of Nazi denunciation which was directed against them, its members not only refrained from counter propaganda but even from self-defence, served probably to strengthen the effectivity of its silent appeal to the vast majority of Bulgars no less than of Serbs and Greeks. Thus in defiance of the Yugoslav Government which had refused it contact with the boy king Peter, the Patriarch Gavrilo and Bishop Nikolai Velimirovic arranged that it should come on from Kragujevac where it had been feted, to Oplenatz the home village of the Karageorgevic dynasty while he was there for his slava on Holy Cross Day. In result though its being there at the same time as King Peter was supposed to have been accidental, it was enabled to report in strict confidence to its home authorities that the Patriarch Gavrilo had bidden it assure them that if the Yugoslav Government agreed to accord the Nazi armies passage through Yugoslavia the Serb Orthodox Nation would be faithful to its traditional [15/16] bond with Great Britain: a pledge which, as ought never to be forgotten, was fulfilled a year later when the Patriarch and Bishop Nikolai with Bishop Iriney of Dalmatia arranged King Peter's escape from his guards and, crowning him, roused the people of Belgrade to revolt. As Mr. Churchill put it the next day in the House of Commons, Yugoslavia was enabled to save its soul. At a Nikaean reception in his honour during his visit in 1945 to England to baptize King Peter's son in Westminster Abbey the Patriarch Gavrilo, as did also Bishop Nikolai who was with him, assured their hearers that they doubted whether except for the effects of the delegation's visit the people of Belgrade would have responded; and I must record that, in saying that, they referred warmly to the work done as its secretary by Philip Usher. In Sofia, though the quarrel of the Bulgarian Church and Nation with the Oecumenical Patriarch and the totality of the Hellenic Orthodox religio-nationality was at its height, the delegation was received with no less popular warmth and with an unparalleled official distinction. Thus in particular King Boris himself with Queen Joanna and his brother Cyril, to mark the delegation's visit as representing a "sister" Church, attended ceremonially the Liturgy celebrated in the Cathedral of Alexander Nevsky, which was built to be the symbol of Panslavism. In that Liturgy the four archbishops of Bulgaria, who then as a collegium exercised quasi-patriarchal functions, concelebrated and at its conclusion King Boris personally invited Bishops Headlam and Parsons to leave the Sanctuary with himself through the Royal Doors of its eikonostasis and passing with them down the crowded nave led them to a platform in the centre of the Great Square outside the cathedral. There in the presence of at least 50,000 people he presented each member of the delegation to Queen Joanna and bade them tell those who had sent them of the warm fraternal affection  which he and his people bore to the English Church and Nation. Also in private conversation and at his country house where he entertained him, he bade Philip Usher tell Archbishops Lang and Temple, for whom he had warm regard, that, whatever he might be constrained in the difficult time ahead of him to do, he would always be anglophil at heart.

Though both by his inclination and his duty as secretary he kept always in the background, we were all agreed that the [16/17] surprising reclamé of our delegation was in no small degree due to Philip Usher. Like our Royal Navy, our old Foreign Office was a Silent Service by the tradition of which personal self-assertion is among the most capital of offences. Added to his personal charm, his humour, his upbringing and wide experience, Philip Usher's innate unobtrusiveness and dislike of being in the limelight had made him precisely the type of man, whom our Foreign Office desired but did not often find, to serve as Chaplain of its legations. And his time at Athens had taught him the finer type of diplomatist's wisdom and the true diplomat's simplicity and frankness of approach. It was so that in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria where every one with whom he had contact was attracted by him, he was at pains quietly to avow his love of the Orthodox Hellenic religio-nationality. But, as for example did King Boris, every Yugoslav or Bulgar with whom he came in contact realized also that he loved the Yugoslav and Bulgar religio-nationalities and was devoted to furthering Pan-Orthodox solidarity.

In Athens, to which in his eagerness to be there again he went on by air some days ahead of the rest of us, his work as the delegation's secretary was equally fine and effective; and in his quiet humorous way he never lost a chance of making it patent that his love of Greece did not hinder his being both a Serbophil and a Bulgarophil, but rather the contrary.

That, as he had planned, he did not stay on in Athens for a month or so after the rest of us had gone home was because, owing to the incredible swiftness with which during the fortnight after our arrival in Athens the Nazis had overrun the north of France and the consequent certainty that Mussolini would declare war against Great Britain, it became plain that unless Bishop Headlam, whom he could not leave stranded, went home at once he might be unable to travel across Italy.

Among my priceless happiest recollections of him is the care with which he looked after Bishop Headlam, to whom travelling by air was an adventure in itself, during our flight home in the plane in which the British Minister in Athens commandeered places for us: factually, if Mussolini's order to detain us had not come too late, we should have been stopped at the airport near Rome. Moreover as we passed over Normandy the Dunkirk evacuation was beginning and we could see the flash of German [17/18] gunfire on the horizon. Philip Usher's last look at Athens as we took off from the Piraeus for that rough journey was typical of him.

If I have written at such length about the delegation of 1940 it is because Philip Usher's part in planning and carrying it through successfully show the purpose for which his sister has endowed and founded this bursary.

Of his life at Liddon House after his return from the delegation, there is no need to say anything here. As the tragedy of the Nazi occupation of Greece developed in its horror he grew more evidently restless, unhappy and impatient at being powerless to serve his friends. In the end he could not resist the urge to be with the Greeks in their desperate extremity and to share their hardships. It was so that in 1941, having accepted a padre's commission, he went to Palestine where he died while serving with the R.A.F.


How we who knew him have missed Philip Usher! We have missed him for himself as a friend; and we have missed him for the inspiration of his vision and for the devoted pertinacity with which he tried to achieve it. What might he not have done if he had been with us in these post-war yearn! Omar Khayyam has taught us that the woof and warp of history which are woven in the looms of God are never of the pattern dreamed by those who are called to the work. Philip was "snipt with his shuttle full." I, who am now very old, pray that in God's good way his work will be carried on by those who take up the call of this bursary.

I will end by quoting the Chorus Dimissory with which Euripides ends his Medea:

polla d’aelptos krainousi theoi
kai ta dokethent’ ouk etelesthe,
ton d’adoketon poron heure theos.
toiond’ apebe tode pragma.

of which the following free rendering is apposite for my present purpose:

With wonder are His counsels fraught
To hidden issues tending.
God worketh not as man hath thought,
And what man thinks not God hath wrought,
So hath this tale an ending.



1. These regulations are made by the Executive Committee, which is the body empowered by the Trust Deed to administer the Philip Usher Memorial Fund.

2. The Fund is to be used to award a scholarship (normally at the rate of £120 per annum) to enable the holder of it to devote his time to studying in a country approved by the Executive Committee, where the majority of the inhabitants is Orthodox, or where there are Orthodox traditions.

3. Every candidate for the scholarship must be under thirty years of age at the date of application, and must be an ordained minister of or an accepted candidate for ordination in one of the specified dioceses. "The specified dioceses" shall mean:

(a) the dioceses of each of the Provinces following, namely Canterbury, York, Armagh, Dublin and Wales;

(b) the dioceses of the Episcopal Church in Scotland; and

(c) the diocese of Gibraltar and the respective dioceses of the Bishop in Jerusalem, the Bishop in Egypt, the Bishop in the Sudan and the Bishop in Iran, and for the purpose of this definition the diocese of London shall be deemed to include that area of North and Central Europe which is under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of London.

4. The candidate must provide for the Executive Committee the following documents:

(a) The consent in writing of his Diocesan Bishop if an ordained minister, or that of a Bishop or other responsible authority in the case of an ordinand.

(b) A statement in writing signed by the candidate and containing particulars of his education, academic record and previous career, and indicating the method of study he would propose to follow, and which countries and what places therein he would propose to visit if awarded the scholarship.

(c) His birth certificate or other evidence of age.

[19] 5. Unless otherwise directed by the Executive Committee, every holder of the scholarship shall spend not less than six months and not more than eighteen months in one or more of the countries aforesaid, and shall devote his time and attention to the study of the outlook and mode of life of such of the inhabitants as practise the Christian religion according to the doctrine and ritual of the Orthodox Church, together with the study of the history, theology or archaeology of that Church.

6. Each holder of the scholarship in the course of his studies shall, when it is available, take part in the Anglican Church life of the locality where he is residing.

7. Every holder of the scholarship shall send to the Executive Committee such reports on his work at such intervals as the Committee shall require, and shall obey the directions of the Executive Committee so long as he remains the holder of the scholarship.

8. The Executive Committee has power to withdraw the scholarship from the holder if it thinks fit, provided that the holder may appeal against such withdrawal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose decision shall be binding on both parties.

9. The Executive Committee is not bound to award the scholarship unless it considers that there is a candidate of sufficient merit to justify such award.

10. The Executive Committee will deliver to each successful candidate a short biographical sketch of the life and work of the Reverend Philip C. A. Usher.

Project Canterbury