§ 47. Mr. Blackburnasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation enabling the Church of England to acquire greater disciplinary authority over its members, particularly when such members actively associate themselves with the propagation of anti-Christian creeds.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. BlackburnWhile personally believing in the greatest freedom and independence for the citizens of this country, may I, nevertheless, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that this profession, the greatest of all professions, has practically no code of professional conduct? Is it really right for the Dean of Canterbury to be permitted to go all over the world black-guarding the Government and the Prime Minister and preaching anti-Christianity and Communism?
§ The Prime MinisterI think the hon. Member has forgotten that, by the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, powers regarding legislation concerning the Church of England were given to the National Assembly, and that the procedure is for them to produce a Measure and for it to be laid before the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House and then for Motions to be moved in each House. I think it would be a great mistake if the House were to cut in on that organisation, and particularly I think it would be always found dangerous if this House were charged with interfering with religious liberty.
§ Sir Richard AclandIs the Prime Minister aware that measures of discipline have been introduced for all clergy below the rank of bishop, and that a measure dealing with bishops will shortly be before 1740 this House and the House of Peers; but that in all cases up to now this House and the Church Assembly have thought it right to exclude matters of political and doctrinal opinion?
§ The Prime MinisterI think my hon. Friend is right in that.
§ Mr. Emrys RobertsDoes not the Prime Minister agree that at this time it would be very dangerous for the Government to take any measures to curtail freedom of expression by ministers of religion, however odious those expressions may be?
§ Mr. Eric FletcherCan we take it from what the Prime Minister has said that there have been no representations from the Church that they have insufficient powers to deal with matters concerning their own domestic discipline? Is it not better to leave these matters to the Church of England?
§ The Prime MinisterNo representations have been made to me.
§ Sir W. SmithersIf the Government thought it necessary to take away the privilege of being a British subject from Dr. Fuchs, why cannot they do the same thing in the case of the Dean of Canterbury, who is just as great a traitor?
§ The Prime MinisterThe short answer is that Dr. Fuchs was naturalised whereas, as far as I know, the Dean of Canterbury is a British-born subject.
§ Mr. James HudsonCan the Prime Minister simplify his answer to meet the point of view expressed in the first supplementary question, namely, that there is a lack of a professional code of conduct? Is not that code of conduct to be found in the New Testament?