THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY

HL Deb 15 July 1952 vol 177 cc1116-64

6.5 p.m.

LORD AMMON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any legal action that can be taken against Dr. Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, for his alleged statements reflecting on the conduct of British troops liable to create ill-feeling between Her Majesty's subjects and those of other nations; and to bring the Established Church into contempt and disrepute. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitated for a considerable time before I placed on the Order Paper the Question which stands in my name. My hesitation was clue to the fact that I did not want to give colour to any thought that I wished in any way to limit liberty and freedom of expression, either civil or religious. But there comes a time when one inquires whether there is not a point at which liberty can develop into licence, and whether it can then do great harm to the body politic That is why I have put down the Question which is now before the House.

The whole country has been stirred on this matter, as is evidenced by what has appeared in the Press, and a great deal of attention has been directed to the remarks made recently by the Dean of Canterbury. Those remarks have reflected very much on the conduct of troops of the United Nations Forces, and therefore our own troops must be more or less concerned. Dr. Hewlett Johnson has also stated that a certain amount of germ warfare is being carried on. Normally, it would not matter a row of two pins if it were only Dr. Hewlett Johnson who, in a private capacity, said these things: but the fact that he is the Dean of Car terbury makes a great deal of difference. It is very difficult for people—and especially people overseas—having regard to the particular connection of the Church of England and the State, to believe that such statements are without Government responsibility, and that there is no real foundation of fact for them. Not only is there that ignorance abroad, but my correspondence—and my post-bag has been very heavy lately—has told me that it also obtains to a very large extent in this country. Your Lordships know the character of the Bill which we have just been discussing, and I hope that nothing will be said in this debate which will bring any of us within the ambit of that measure. Were it a question only of individuals, then, as that Bill has indicated, there is a remedy. But when the whole libel is against the nation, when people who are near and dear to us may be connected therewith. it is another matter.

What I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the House is the position occupied by the gentleman whose conduct we are considering. His political professions are no concern of mine: they are a matter for his intelligence and his conscience. But I am bound to say that I marvel at the insensitiveness of one whose duty it is to preach the Christian faith that he should be able to extol a materialistic doctrine cm philosophy based on hate bitterness and all uncharitableness. It is that. I venture to suggest, that makes it worth while that we should give some consideration to this matter. It is now four years since I was in China. I traveled, it would seem, further than did the Dean of Canterbury. I had the privilege of addressing a good number of universities, and I met numbers of missionaries and others engaged in that very arduous and self-sacrificing work. Incidentally, several of my own relatives are in the mission field. I am wondering what is going to be the position of the Chinese Christians, in view of the statements made by a high dignitary of the Church, from what they might, to a certain extent, consider the centre of Christianity.

Here is a man who is in charge of one of our greatest historic and sacred shrines saying, in effect, that the Christian people with whom he is associating are guilty of conduct outside the range of even ordinary humanity, apart from anything else, and saying this to those who have always looked to us for religious instruction and guidance. What hope will there be of re-starting our work in the Far East in future? This sort of thing brings us into conflict with other nations and brings the Church into disrepute and bad odour. I sometimes wonder whether it is not a question of mental instability, for it is difficult to believe that one who has been abroad and slandered his own country and who then comes back to walk about quite freely and meet with the tolerance of public opinion, can have given a thought to what might happen if he had gone the other way. Would he have dared to go back to that country which he holds up to us as a pattern and example after behaving in such a way?

I do not know the Dean, and I am not concerned about him as an individual. But I am very much concerned that, at a time when the world, is sitting on a gunpowder barrel, when we are trying to do everything we can to bring the nations of the world into closer harmony, things should be said which are likely to cause suspicion and unreason. I have put down this Question in order to give an opportunity, not for us to wreak vengeance on anybody but for an authoritative statement to be made on the position which such a person as the Dean occupies in relation to the affairs of both Church and nation. I hope that it will also give the authorities concerned an opportunity to make clear, if they are able to do so, their abhorrence of such conduct being used in connection with warfare. All the questions I have raised need an answer, and there can be no place where such a Question will be treated with greater respect than in your Lordships' House. For these reasons, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

6.14 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY

My Lords, I know a great deal more about the law of defamation than I did earlier this afternoon. As the discussion of that Bill went on, I became more and more frightened about what might happen to some of us, until I remembered that anything said here is privileged. The matter we are discussing now is to me, and to all of us, a most unwelcome matter; but in view of the publicity that it has received, I think it is as well that it should be debated in this House. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, who has asked this Question, and I appreciate very much the way in which he has put it. By asking it, he enables me to repeat what I have frequently said during the last few years. I have published statements making clear the precise position of the Dean of Canterbury and my own attitude to him. But such statements are very quickly forgotten, and I welcome this opportunity to make the position as I see it both better known and, if possible, better understood.

I welcome this debate for another reason. The Dean is a citizen as well as a churchman, and it is valuable that the Lords Temporal, as well as the Lords Spiritual, should discuss his position, and if, as a result, a common mind is reached as to the right attitude to adopt towards him, it would be a strength and comfort to me and to the Church. Your Lordships will understand that I am particularly affected in many ways by the Dean's activities, not least in this way. Many people on the Continent, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, unaccustomed to the liberty which we enjoy, in Church and State, are convinced that no Dean of Canterbury could possibly speak in public except as the mouthpiece of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Accordingly, in all innocence, they attribute to me all the opinions expressed by the Dean. Indeed, there are many people on the Continent who believe, oddly enough, that the Archbishop and the Dean are one and the same person. Herein lies the chief damage wrought by the Dean. Everyone here, and in the Dominions and in the United States, realises that the Dean speaks for nobody but himself, and that his words carry no weight, except such weight as he is able to give them. But on the Continent and in Eastern countries nothing can convince people that one who bears the name of Canterbury in his official title does not speak for the Archbishop, for the Church, and in some sense for the generality of Christian people in this land.

What is the complaint against the Dean? It is important that we should ask that question and be sure that we get the right answer to it. I think it is important for ourselves that we may be sure we are judging him rightly and justly, and not giving way to prejudice and passion. It is important also for other people, for there are some who, in revulsion from the Dean's utterances, become—dare I say?—as blind, as unreasonable and as stupid about the Dean as the Dean is himself. We should try to help them to escape from that kind of fanatical disease. And dare I say that I think it is important for the Dean himself that we should define the complaint against him as fairly as we can, so that even now, if possible, he may be brought to see where his gravest errors lie?

There is no charge against the Dean because he holds certain political and sociological views. As a citizen, he is fully entitled to hold these, however mistaken they may be. As a churchman, he is fully entitled to hold them, since (as I shall explain later) in the form in which he holds them, he does not deny any Christian doctrine. He is therefore within his rights; and he has broken no law, civil or ecclesiastical. But he holds a prominent and responsible ecclesiastical office. He bears in the title of his office the name of Canterbury, which holds a venerated place in our national and ecclesiastical history and which has a deep significance all over the world, both for the Anglican Communion and for all English-speaking people. The Dean's first and final duty, therefore, is to the ecclesiastical office which he holds; and he must do nothing to misuse or compromise that office. The complaint is that over a long period of time he has seriously misused and compromised his office, and that he did this in two ways—first, by a degree of unreason and self-delusion, obvious to everybody but himself, which robs his judgment of the respect which is required of a holder of his office. He is sincere, passionately sincere; but he really can no longer see himself, his views or political affairs objectively. He has lost all sense of the right proportion of things, and all the general controls of common sense.

I need not refer in detail to his utterances about germ warfare. I find that he has circulated a document to all of your Lordships, and you can read it and judge for yourselves. If he had said that, in his view, in the light of what he had heard in China, there was a case which called. for investigation, nobody would have complained—though it is relevant to add that Soviet Russia has vetoed every suggestion of an impartial inquiry. But what he has done is to ignore the moral obligation which binds all men, and especially a man in his position, tint in any matter, great or small, both sides must be heard before a judgment is made—and particularly so when on each side there is a great family of nations, and when the issue at stake is the future peace and welfare of the world. But the Dean has chosen to regard himself as a sufficient and competent judge in a matter of the utmost importance and of obvious difficulty arid complexity. I would say that by this obvious failure to seek a fair judgment after hearing both sides, by his clear incompetence, which I and your Lordships would share with him, to judge such an issue in such a matter, he brings resentment and ridicule upon himself and upon his office.

The Dean brings back with him, and has circulated to your Lordships, a document signed by 400 Chinese Christians, of all ranks and denominations. He proclaims that in China religion is free, and he believes it. My Lords, there are many people in England who know far more about the state of religious affairs in China than the Dean does. Many of us have had words and messages passed to us from Chinese Christians by strange and devious ways which count for more than anything that the Dean has heard. We have knowledge which he lacks, or ignores, as to what it means to be a Christian in China at the present time; what it means to be a deviationist from the appointed policy; what it means to decline to sign a document such as that which he has brought back with him; and what it means not to respond sufficiently to "ideological remouldings." One absent name amongst those 400 names may be far more significant to anybody who knows than the whole 400 who put their names to that document.

All that we know we cannot say, because to do so would only make things worse for so many of our Christian brethren. The Dean does not know what a pain and sorrow it is to many of us to hold silence, because that is what we are asked to do, for fear that if we spoke we should bring worse things upon our Christian brethren. It is lamentable that he should show himself so ignorant of the fact that there is another and more sombre side to the picture of the Church in China than that which he so happily observed. The existence of that other sombre side, well known to us, discounts the Dean's assertion of religious liberty; it robs his documents and his words of almost all of their significance—except this: that many of our Christian brethren in China do, in fact, believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe; and even if they do not believe it, they must still profess to do so.

I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, but only an hour ago there was put into my hand this document which has been circulated to your Lordships. Part II says at the beginning: The Archbishop of Canterbury has impressed upon me the duty of making contact with Christian leaders in countries I visit on my vacations, and of ministering to our people. I fulfilled both to the letter in China. In his Press conference the Dean spoke of his journey as a mission to the churches, and in the very next sentence he said that he was fulfilling the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, almost implying, although he did not actually state it, that I had sent him to China. My Lords, he never even told me that he was going to China. I feel it incumbent upon me to refer to his statement that I have impressed upon him the duty to make contact with Christian leaders, and so forth. I wrote to the Dean after the Press conference and asked him to what he referred. He referred me to correspondence we had over three years ago, in 1948, and I looked up the letter which he had in mind. In that letter I said that it had been reported to me that in his visits to the Continent he did not visit the leaders of Churches, and that he did not minister to the British community in those places. I then said: Perhaps as things are it is better that you should do neither. I went on to say: There is a dilemma. You cannot go at one and the same time as both a minister of religion and as an ambassador of particular political views. My letter ended—and this is most remarkable, in view of what he says in this document: There is only one way in which this dilemma can be solved. Either you must cease your political partisan activities, or you must resign the office of Dean so as to be free to pursue them without compromising your office. That was three years ago, and that is the letter to which the Dean referred me. He says in this document that I had impressed upon him the duty of making these contacts. But I merely impressed upon him the duty of resigning if he went on doing what he was doing. I say that as, perhaps, contributing to your Lordships' judgment of how far the Dean's judgment can be relied upon.

Secondly, even if the Dean had shown better judgment in testing and trying his views, there remains the further charge that in the way in which he has conducted himself he has misused and compromised his office. He is free to hold what views he likes. But he has made it his chief concern to advocate them with all the fervour of a fanatic. He has become an active agent for their propagation. He has (although probably he does not realise it) allowed himself to be exploited by the managers of the political system which he supports for their own ends. So he has, if I may borrow a word used recently by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, allowed himself to "blur" the clear Christian witness of his office and of Canterbury.

The Dean is no atheist. He is not an official member of the Communist Party, and has never signed "on the dotted line." He denies no Christian doctrine. He sincerely believes that Christian principles of peace-making and social justice are better applied in Communist countries than they are here. That is not in itself heresy. It is drawing a conclusion, from which I completely dissociate myself, from the same Christian doctrine that I hold. It may be wildly wrong, but we all have a right to be wrong—and it is most useful to a great number of us. But by thus throwing himself into what is a partisanship, and what must be regarded as a blind partisanship—as he once confessed to me, in a moment of candour, he is not very good at seeing both sides of a question—he is inevitably regarded by many people as sharing the atheism on which Communism is based, and as condoning the grave consequences of an atheistic conception of man and of truth. By that inevitable influence, he blurs the Christian witness against atheism and shocks those who know the sufferings and persecutions which Christians have had to bear at the hands of Communists. The Dean cannot complain if people fail to understand, or find it difficult to believe, that it is on what he regards as Christian principles that he persuades himself to accept, applaud and propagate a Communist system which is openly and declaredly atheist.

So we are confronted with this melancholy spectacle. What is to be done? Let it be said, firmly and frankly, first, that the Church has no power to proceed against him. He is not guilty of any heresy in any legal sense. If he is guilty of unreason and self delusion to a remarkable degree, these faults do not, short of the stage of certifiable lunacy, expose anyone to legal consequences—and it is fortunate for us all that they do not. There is one charge that could suggest itself, with which the Church has machinery to deal, and that is the charge of unbecoming conduct—for by his actions he has exposed himself to a charge of conduct unbecoming his office. There is a Measure in force called the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, 1948, under which there can be a trial for unbecoming conduct and, in the end, if there is a conviction, there may be a petition by which a dignitary can be removed from his office. But it is expressly provided that: No proceedings shall be instituted if and so far as the allegations relate to (b) any question … of the social or political opinions or activities of a dignitary. Now that is explicit and conclusive.

I would go a little further than this. In the parallel Measure relating to incumbents, which came first, the exclusion was of any charge in respect of … the social or political opinions of an incumbent—opinions alone, without any reference to activities. It was to meet objections from Members of Parliament that, in the Measures relating to dignitaries and bishops, we inserted this extra safeguard which included activities as well as opinions. Indeed, the first Measure ran a real risk of not getting through the House of Commons because it was supposed that the position was not sufficiently safeguarded. There you are. There will very shortly be a Measure before your Lordships amending the Incumbents Measure, to bring it into line with the Dignitaries Measure, and to secure that activities as well as opinions are excluded.

May I say that the Church was very willing to put in those words? They were designed to secure that every clergyman should enjoy the full rights of every other citizen to freedom of speech and action in social and political matters. Church and Parliament were in agreement on this point. For myself, I hope that they will remain so. It is not for the Church to try to change the law in order to extrude the Dean. We could not if we wanted to, because we cannot introduce a Measure directed against a single individual. That becomes private legislation, and the Church Assembly have no power of private legislation. Even if we could, we would not remove that clause and bring him possibly within the ambit of the Measure. There is no limit to the powers of Parliament: but, for the same reason which binds the Church. I personally hope that Parliament would riot be so ill-advised as to try to remove the Dean from his office or to restrict his freedom of utterance. This right of freedom of speech is a very precious thing. It is a vital part of our tradition—civil and ecclesiastical, both. Every freedom can be abused. If it is abused often enough and severely enough, steps have to be taken to prevent the possibility of abuse, and thereby every man's freedom is limited. It is a tragedy that abusers of freedom thereby jeopardise other men's freedoms. But it is wisdom to bear with folly and unreason and delusions, short of real danger to the body politic, as a price well worth paying to preserve this precious freedom of speech.

The Dean, I would say, is not yet a danger to the public safety. He may be a public nuisance. He is certainly a thorn in the flesh to all of us, and he causes indignation and real sorrow to many people. But the Church of England and this country have stood up to a great many other victims of unreason and self delusion and blind partisanship, and have come through it successfully. I think we can put up with the Dean. If the Press could only lose interest in him, everyone else would soon do likewise. Even if the price we have to pay for freedom is rising, as a letter in The Times said, it is still worth paying. May I say that on the Continent and in the Far East, where the Dean does his worst damage, he would be no less mischievous but, I would say, more mischievous, as the extruded Dean, than as the Dean in office? At least, we can say that he is a signal example of the fact that we have a conception of freedom utterly different from that of those countries which he adopts as his own.

May I say one word more? In the Question of the noble Lord there are only one or two words to which I take exception. The noble Lord ends by saying that the Dean brings the Established Church into contempt and disrepute. Well, it may seem so, and many feel acutely, as I do myself, the harm that he does. But, on a more considered view, I do not think that it is true that the existence of the Dean brings the Church into contempt or disrepute. For, as of this country, so of this Church, it is to be said that one of our greatest glories which serve to keep us in the way of living truth is this right of members, short of heresy, to speak the truth as each sees it. Like every other great possession of the spirit, it is open to error; and yet we gain by the possession more than we can ever lose by limiting our possession of it. So, I conclude. For the reasons I have given, the Dean is a public nuisance to the Church and to the State—to the State as a citizen, doubly so to the Church, both as a citizen and as a churchman. I believe firmly that he is to be endured with such patience as we can command unless and until either he breaks some law, ecclesiastical or civil, or becomes a real danger to the public safety, when it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take action. I trust that the Church and State may agree in this conclusion, and that we may help each other by sharing this liability between us, believing it is still a small price to pay in order to keep supreme and unblurred our belief in freedom of speech as of vital concern to Church and land.

6.40 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has put on the Paper a Question which, as it is on its face a legal question, it falls to me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to answer. But I am indeed glad that the most reverend Primate spoke before me, for this question raises a moral issue and a question of church discipline upon which he speaks with an authority which far transcends mine: and, so speaking, he has surely made clear to your Lordships and, I hope, to the whole world, how the conduct of this vain and foolish man is regarded by all men of good will.

I have said that it falls to me to answer the Question—and so I will, so far as I properly can. I use those guarded words, for the question is really how far the Dean of Canterbury has rendered himself amenable to the criminal law of this country. That is a question which it is not for me or for any member of Her Majesty's Government to answer but for the Attorney-General to decide; and he has said in another place explicitly, I think yesterday, that in his opinion the evidence available against the Dean of Canterbury: … does not disclose a prima facie case of treason. He dealt with no other evidence; but he permits me to say that he still has under consideration whether in any other respect the Dean has rendered himself amenable to criminal law. I can obviously say no more upon that question: it would not be right for me to do so. But perhaps I may be permitted to add one sentence. It is this. It surely would not alter one jot our view of the wickedness and folly of the Dean's conduct, even if it is proved that the common law, which embodies the wisdom of our ancestors, or the statutory law, which from time to time Parliament in its wisdom has thought fit to enact, have alike failed to foresee and to provide for such wickedness and folly as this. That is all I can say upon this subject to-night.

6.44 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I had intended to make a speech; but I can relieve your minds: I do not intend any more to do so. I do not intend to do so because, after the noble words of the most reverend Primate, there is really nothing more to be said. If he will allow me to say so, I thought that his speech, so full of tolerance, so full of wisdom, has set us all an example of the line we ought to take. I feel with him that this sort of excess is the price we have to pay for our own liberty, and that, if we were to try to get rid of this "turbulent priest" as in years past they tried to get rid of a turbulent priest, we might have even greater trouble. For the rest, I can well understand that this man must be a thorn in the flesh to the Archbishop—indeed, I confess he has been a thorn in the flesh to me. But I hope that after this debate the Press, and every other organ of publicity, may leave this man severely and entirely alone.

6.45 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I hope I shall not be one of the "stupid people" to whom the most reverend Primate referred at the beginning of his speech. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in regard to the speech of the most reverend Primate. I feel that the Archbishop demonstrated in his speech that every effort has been made by him to deter the Dean from continuing to behave as he has done in the past—but to no avail. It does not appear that anything will stop this man from carrying on as he has been doing during the last two years. If he is dangerous in the Church—and I consider him to be—I do not think he would be more dangerous, in fact I feel it would be very unlikely that he would be more dangerous, out of the Church. It seems to me, from what has fallen front the Archbishop, that the Dean is quite unfitted to occupy the great position he does within our Church. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for having raised this question. There is no doubt, I think, that all of us realise that there is great and genuine public concern and distress about the actions of the Dean.

I should like to ask the Government a question. How did the Dean finance these long trips of his throughout the world? They must have been very expensive, and I should like to know where he obtained the money from. None of us can get the money to go abroad for more than a very short time. Who is responsible for putting this money at his disposal? I understand that the Dean has a salary of £2,000 a year. That seems to me to involve a full-time job, yet he absents himself for very considerable periods in order to go about the world.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY

He is governed by the Statutes of Canterbury Cathedral, which require him to be present for so many days a year. So far as I know, he has fulfilled that quota. The rest of the time is at his own disposal.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Can he not he dispensed from that quota in the future?

LORD TEVIOT

I wish it to be understood that what I am going to say does not mean that I depart one iota from my desire to see that free speech and the liberty of the subject are not interfered with in any way. The Dean, acting as he has done, as the Dean, has in my opinion and I think in the view of the general public done a very great deal of harm. As a private individual he is of no importance: let him go about as other people do. There are some in our country who agree with him and speak: as he does. But I come now to what is a most serious thing, particularly in a high dignitary of the Church. He has borne false witness not only against his neighbour but against his country and his country's friends. Many people still take notice of what is laid down in the Commandments of the Bible, and that is what, in my view, with great respect to the Church, he has done. I feel strongly that we have tolerated the Dean too long. As has already been said, he has lowered the prestige and the status of our Church, not only in this country but throughout the world.

It is said, and the most reverend Primate has said, that there is no power existing to-day to deal with him, to remove him, to "unfrock" him, or whatever is the proper phrase. The word "impossible" should not be in our vocabulary at all. I would draw your Lordships' attention to this. It is said: if ye have faith and doubt not, it shall be done"; And again: All things are possible. I cannot believe that the removal of this man from his office is an impossibility. The Communism which he supports is the curse of the world, causing misery to millions, as we well know. Undoubtedly, there are millions, and the majority of the millions in the world who are longing for those who are against Communism—and I believe that this applies even in Russia—to stand up and destroy this pernicious creed. That must happen unless civilisation based on the teachings of Christ is completely to be destroyed. The most reverend Primate has referred to atheism. We know that atheism is a brother to Communism.

I urge the Government to go into this question of powers for the removal of this Dean. Is it impossible so to increase the powers of the hierarchy of the Church, or to give them new powers, to enable them to remove not only the Dean but also others throughout the country whom I would not mind seeing unfrocked? There are certain places in the country where your Lordships and I go to stay, where we say: "What is the parson like here?" And sometimes the answer is: "Oh, a poor creature who has no influence whatever with the people." I think it should be within the powers of the hierarchy of the Church to get rid of people who are not fit for their calling. If this sort of thing goes on and the Dean continues his campaign, what will it lead to? It will lead to hate and brutality, and that, in the end, means war. He must know perfectly well of the appalling suffering and misery, of the rule of fear, murder and kidnapping—it was admitted yesterday in another place that kidnapping was going, on now in Berlin. It is all very well for noble Lords to laugh about this. It is no laughing matter at all. It is a most serious thing about which the public are deeply concerned, as I am, and I do not see that I am making a joke of this question at all. My remarks are perfectly genuine and it is with deep feeling that I make them.

The Dean must know, as we all know, that these people, whose activities he appears to support, are endangering the peace of the world. I say that it is time that a stop was put to his activities. We have all been circularised with a document. It must have cost a pretty penny, judging by its size and the expensive paper on which it is printed. The Dean makes an appeal to the Archbishop of York, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the British people, to all Christian leaders and so on. The Powers he supports, as has already been stated, refuse an impartial inquiry into the terrible indictment he has brought against not only the United States but, incidentally, ourselves. I hope that the Government will not take this matter lightly and that they will do something, so that, when this sort of thing happens or if it continues, the hierarchy of the Church may be able adequately to deal with it.

6.56 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am sure that, when the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was making his interesting speech, the most reverend Primate, the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition must have been echoing the cry: Save me from my friends, because the noble Lord made just the kind of speech which, if your Lordships were swayed by it, would undo the good of the judicial and, if I may say so, fair-minded arguments that we have heard from the previous three speakers.

During the Second World War, at a very critical period, the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, who, I believe, is to intervene later this evening, rose in his place in your Lordships' House and, if I may use the expression, made an extremely violent pacifist speech. Nobody agreed with him, so far as I know—least of all myself. But so enraged were certain noble peers that, strangely enough from the Liberal Benches, two noble Lords rose and tried to move "that the noble Duke be no longer heard." Much as I disagreed with every word that had fallen from him, I resisted that Motion. I am glad to say that I had some support, and it was not carried. For exactly the same reason this evening I oppose the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, his proposal, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The arguments were put even better than I can put them by the most reverend Primate himself. I noticed that, after the most reverend Primate had abused his Dean to loud cheers from the Benches opposite, when he proceeded to stand up for the right of expression and freedom of conscience and speech, the Benches opposite were strangely silent.

LORD TEVIOT

No.

LORD STRABOLGI

Yes, they were silent, and my noble friends on these Benches can bear me out.

LORD TEVIOT

I must interrupt the noble Lord. I was sitting here and, though I am a little deaf, I was almost deafened by the "Hear, hears!" on this side.

LORD STRABOLGI

I shall go to my doctor to-morrow in that case, because I certainly did not hear them. However, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to another episode in this venerable House. I remember vividly with great pride the late Marquess of Crewe, whom I like to think of as the last of the grand seigneurs, rising from the Liberal Benches and protesting with great force and great eloquence against the continued suppression of the Daily Worker by the Coalition Government—with, incidentally, a Labour Home Secretary. On the ground that the Press should be free and not unduly interfered with, the noble Marquess, speaking with the authentic voice of historic Liberalism, made his protest—in vain for the time being. But eventually it was listened to.

I have one or two things to say on this subject, which I do not propose to modify in any way. I do not accept the charges about germ warfare in Korea or North China, or wherever it was. I accept the disclaimers by the Foreign Office and the American Government. Nevertheless, I should like to see an impartial inquiry on this matter. I agree with the most reverend Primate and with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on that, because this story has now gone round the world; and though I accept what my Foreign Office say, and even what the American Government say in this matter, there are a great many people who will not do so. They include people who are well-disposed towards us and to our cause, not Communists at all but they will be thinking that there may be something in this story. Therefore, I should like to see an impartial inquiry. But again, if I may quote the most reverend Primate—this is one of the things I cheered almost alone—both sides must be heard at that impartial inquiry. There should be a representative or spokesman from both the accusers and the accused. I must say that I am surprised that the Russians should have vetoed the International Red Cross; in their place I should certainly have accepted that organisation. But I think some means ought to be found to get sonic other body which carries respect, which certainly should be impartial and which would, as the most reverend Primate says, hear both sides. But, having said that, I accept the Foreign Office denial of this charge.

I rise in your Lordships' House and, with the greatest emphasis I can command, I say that it is an unworthy action of my noble friend to attack the right of the very reverend Dean of Canterbury to express his opinion. His opinion happens to differ from mine, but he has every right to express it. My noble friend Lord Ammon has fought, all his life for certain principles, one of the most important of which was liberty of conscience, liberty of expression and freedom of speech. I, too, have fought for those principles for a good deal of my life, and I consider that his action to-night is a betrayal of what he has set out to achieve during his life that is why I wish to protest.

EARL WINTERTON

If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene to ask one question I may be able to shorten my remarks later on. Does the statement which he has just made, that neither your Lordships' House nor anyone else should do any thing to affect freedom of speech, apply to a criminal offence? Assuming that the Government find that this man has been guilty of such an offence, would the noble Lord attack his noble friend behind him in the same terms?

LORD STRABOLGI

Of course not. I should have thought that question was entirely irrelevant and unnecessary. Anyone guilty of a criminal act can be proceeded against. That has nothing to do with freedom of conscience and of speech, which the most reverend Primate defended and which, in one sentence, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, also defended. The opinions expressed by the very reverend Dean of Canterbury are opinions to which he is entitled, and to suppress them would be a crime against liberty. For that reason, I, and I believe many of your Lordships, would be prepared, if it came to the point, to resist such suppression.

Perhaps I may put this point to the most reverend Primate, who I can see is going to be in some difficulty in the months ahead. Some of his brethren in God have from time to time expressed extreme Conservative opinion. At some stage we in this country might have a Left Wing Government and certain members of the Bench of Bishops might protest in public, in this House and in their pulpits against what they thought were measures or legislation injurious to the public. They would be perfectly entitled to do so, and if any attempts were made to suppress or silence them I should in the same way resist that attempt; and I believe many of your Lordships would do the same. I will quote an actual case which I believe the noble Earl who was good enough to intervene just now, to my great pleasure, will remember. The late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Hensley Henson, a very eminent Churchman, was a very high Tory in politics, and he vented his resentment bitterly against the miners of the North of England during a particularly critical and difficult period of industrial strife, and the resentment felt against the then Bishop of Durham on the part of the miners, their families and friends, was equally bitter. There were demands that he should be dealt with, or should be proceeded against, for the harm he was doing to the country in increasing industrial strife. Of course, no action was taken, and, indeed. I should have resisted such action.

LORD LAWSON

They were going to pitch him and one of his pals into the river.

LORD STRABOLGI

I have heard a miners' leader, a highly respected man and a follower of the Church, declare—and he meant it—that it was a good day for the devil when Hensley Henson was elevated to the See of Durham. No doubt in your Lordships' House and in another place, there is similar feeling in some quarters against the very reverend Dean of Canterbury—

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY

May I intervene, not to correct in any great detail what has been said, but to say I am not sure that the noble Lord is not confusing the Bishop of Durham and the then Dean of Durham. It was the Dean of Durham who was nearly put into the river. But I really wanted to intervene to say that when Bishop Hensley Henson resigned the bishopric, there was no man in the world to whom the miners of Durham were so devoted.

LORD STRABOLGI

Then the miners showed a Christian charitableness for which we must all admire them. I sympathise with the most reverend Primate, but I do not think that on this occasion I did confuse the Dean and his Bishop. In a case of that kind, if there were any movement against a right reverend Prelate for political activities against a Left Wing Government, or in time of great industrial tension, it would be the duty of your Lordships to stand in defence of the same principle as I am standing now, and I believe your Lordships would do it in the event.

Now I am going to call to my aid against my noble friend—and it is far more dangerous when a noble Lord on these Benches takes his line than when a noble Lord opposite does so—what a great figure in the Labour Party (I refer to my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede) has written in the Hansard Society's publication on Parliament and the Liberty of the Subject. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two, I will venture to quote these words written by a man who, as Home Secretary, made very few enemies: The community must be prepared to face the fact that if we claim freedom for the propagation of ideas with which we agree, we must grant others freedom to advocate ideas which we detest; and it must accept this proposition not merely as a matter of logic and fair play but as a fundamental principle. The suppression of an opinion whether by Government or by public pressure is, in the words of John Stuart Mill"— I have been quoting Mr. Chuter Ede, who now goes on to refer to the writings of John Stuart Mill, whose writings in certain countries, and in certain circumstances, the most reverend Primate will know have been described as subversive, just as I have heard the Sermon on the Mount also described as subversive— 'robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion still more those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception, and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error'. Now, if I may, I quote again from Mr. Chuter Ede. He states: if civil liberty is to exist in more than name it must be founded on toleration; not the toleration which is a euphemism for indifference, but an active toleration which not merely permits but encourages the expression of diverse opinions, believing that only so can an understanding of the truth be attained and preserved. I prefer the views of my right honourable friend to those of my noble friend Lord Ammon. Since 1914 the lamps have been going out all over Europe. They are flickering now in France, and the lamps are not burning any too brightly in the United States. I refer to the lamps of liberty and freedom. Do not let us put any more out here.

7.11 p.m.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I would make only this comment on the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Throughout his speech, which, if I may say so, seemed to me at times to be slightly irrelevant to the subject, he tended to confuse the issue and so also, to some extent, if I may say so with great respect, did His Grace the Archbishop, to whose speech all of your Lordships listened with the greatest interest—it was on the highest level of statesmanship. What is at issue here is not the question of liberty of speech. What is at issue is whether or not this man has so behaved that he is unfit to be a member of any Christian church; whether, as a subject of Her Majesty, he has committed an offence which is punishable by law. Those are the two matters which are at issue in this debate, and I rather regretted that the noble Lord opposite, to whom, despite political differences, I have been bound for many years by ties of friendship, should have made the charge against noble Lords on this side of the House that we are not interested in liberty of speech. We are just as much interested as is the noble Lord.

I should like in the speech which I wish to make to your Lordships—and it will be brief, for I know that all your Lordships are waiting to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House speak on this most difficult matter—to present very shortly a slightly different point of view from any that has yet been put forward in the debate. The Dean of Canterbury is an avowed, acknowledged, and orthodox Communist. He is not, as the most reverend Primate has pointed out, actually a member of the Communist Party; but one would need to be very jejeune or very naive—and I am sure the Archbishop is neither—if one supposed that the fact that he has not signed on the dotted line makes him any less a Communist.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY

If I may, I should like just to explain. To the best of my belief, in Russia you cannot be a member of the Communist Party unless you are avowedly an atheist. The point. I tried to make is that communism now does mean atheistic communism. The Dean is not an atheist and therefore is not a subscriber to atheistic communism.

EARL WINTERTON

I am very much obliged to the most reverend Primate. I appreciate his point. The point I was making was that it was obviously not to the advantage of the Communist Internationale that this man should be acknowledged as one of its members; but that he is one of the most active Communists in the world outside the Iron Curtain must be clear to anyone. He believes with fanatical ferocity in Communism, and he equates this religion of Beelzebub with the Christian religion. He has persuaded himself that Christianity and Communism are one and the same thing. It may be—as is sometimes suggested—that he is mentally deranged. I have been told by a churchman whom I greatly esteem that that is so. But it is quite certain that he is sincere in his convictions. Now what are the tenets of this horrible code which the Dean supports? You must lie, you must slander, you must bear false witness, you must tolerate cruelties as horrible as those of the Nazis when you are told to do so by the hierarchy of the Party. As to his going to Communist China—where, as the Archbishop in his most eloquent speech has said, Christian people are being subjected to horrible tortures—the moral offence of this man was in going there and being on terms of friendship with those torturers, quite apart from anything which he has said since he got back. The moral offence is that he has gone to be a colleague of torturers and apparently to approve of that torture. That shows that his moral turpitude in that respect is as great as in other things which he has done.

Now, of course, he is very valuable to the Communists. I deprecate the idea which has been apparent in some of your Lordships' speeches this afternoon which might be expressed as, "Poor old man, no one takes any notice of him; he is old and decrepit and he does not matter." My Lords, he matters a great deal to the Communists. They have no more valuable adherent in this country than the Dean of Canterbury, for the very reasons which have been mentioned by the Archbishop in his speech. I am going to say a few words about Joyce afterwards—the Mr. Joyce who was executed for treason. Doctor Hewlett Johnson is more valuable in many ways to the Communists than Joyce ever was to the Nazis. The Nazis did not take Joyce very seriously in the latter stages of his career. But the Communists take the Dean of Canterbury very seriously because, as the Archbishop has pointed out, he is connected in many peoples' minds with the Church of England and with Canterbury Cathedral, and is even confused with the Archbishop himself.

The point seems to me a very simple one. The code in which he believes, the code of Communism, tells him that he must utter foul slanders against the United Nations and the troops, living and dead; that he must lacerate the feelings of millions of people—because that is what he has done—the relations and friends of those who are fighting or who have died in Korea, and, incidentally, that he must do the greatest mischief he can to Anglo-American amity. It is not for him to inquire into the truth of the matter that would be contrary to the code. I doubt whether he knows that he is doing wrong by spreading this lie, because he has been morally anæsthetised by the companionship which he has kept for so many years. We are told that nothing can be done about it officially by the Church. I, of course, accept what the most reverend Primate has said in this connection. It would be very wrong, especially for a new recruit to your Lordships' House such as myself, to attempt to controvert anything which the Archbishop has said. I accept it. I notice, however, that the Archbishop did say that Doctor Hewlett Johnson had misused and compromised his office. I should have thought that in any other organisation except the Church of England a man who misused and compromised his office would be brought under some sort of disciplinary action. "Misused and compromised" is a very strong phrase for the Archbishop to use, but I accept it. But it seems that owing to the peculiar constitution of the Church of England—which, as a loyal Churchman, I do not quarrel with—nothing can be done about it.

I would venture to demur from one statement made by the Archbishop, that the Dean had never denied any Christian doctrine. I seem to remember that there is a Christian doctrine which says: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This man has borne palpable false witness against his neighbour.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY

My Lords, I take that to mean: "Thou shalt not wittingly bear false witness against thy neighbour." The noble Lord has not proved that the Dean has "wittingly" published false witness, although in fact he has published false witness. That is really the issue. Does one deal with a man by his acts or by his intentions in a matter?

EARL WINTERTON

I do not wish to make a frivolous joke which will be resented by your Lordships' House, but the next time I go to church I shall remember to say "wittingly." I am very much obliged to the most reverend Primate and accept the point which he has made. To be serious I did not imagine that that was the meaning of the Commandment. We have been told by the Government—and the Chancellor put his case very clearly, as one would expect from him—that for the moment nothing can be done, but I am very glad that the matter is under consideration by the Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, but it is not a matter for the Government: it is a matter for the Attorney-General. I should like the House to be clear about that, because it is a very important constitutional point.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I should have said that it was under the cognisance of the Attorney-General. I do not want to be sarcastic, but I cannot help remarking that this puissant nation to whom millions of tortured beings behind the Iron Curtain look for aid, this great land so fertile of new ideas and inventions, like the Comet, has no means or machinery for dealing with this enemy of Western civilisation, whom all Parties are prepared to support in this House even when he has grossly slandered Allied troops.

LORD STRABOLGI

Will the noble Earl permit me to interrupt in my turn? Is he suggesting that we should bring in retrospective legislation? How otherwise can we deal with this?

EARL WINTERTON

I said I accepted the situation, that we have no means of dealing with the Dean. The noble Lord could not have heard what I said. I must give him the same advice as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, recently gave me in another debate—he must adjust his hearing aid. No doubt the noble Viscount who is going to reply to the debate will consider this point. I understand that the difference between the case of the Dean of Canterbury and that of Mr. Joyce is this—I am using a non legal phrase, but one which I think will make clear my point to your Lordships. The difference is that Joyce, in the slanders which he broadcast, gave succour and comfort to an enemy with whom we were at war, while in this case I understand we are, from a technical point of view, not at war with Northern Korea, because it is a United Nations war, and we are not at war with Communist China; therefore it is open to the Dean, or any other person of malevolent intention like the Dean, to say things in these various undeclared wars we are fighting in different parts of the world, such as Malaya, which are highly detrimental to the course of the campaign, and we cannot proceed against him, as we did against others in the last war.

So far as I know, no one in your Lordships' House, certainly no one in another place, raised any objection when Joyce was brought to trial or when another person, whom I do not want to name because of long-standing affection and friendship with his relations, was brought to trial. No one then said, "Do not make a martyr of this man." No one then said, "He is not worth the trouble." No one then said, "Do not give him an advertisement." No one then said, "This is merely a Press stunt." Joyce was brought to trial and hanged by his neck until he died, because he had committed treason. Morally but, of course, not legally, the case of the Dean of Canterbury is no better than that of Mr. Joyce—no better at all. He has made charges against the Allied troops as slanderous as anything that Joyce said about Allied troops during the war.

I know we are an illogical nation, and may I say that your Lordships share occasionally in that illogicality, but illogicality can go too far. I have consulted more than one constitutional authority as to whether the law as it stands at present is sufficiently strong to deal with actions that would be legally treasonable if we were fighting a declared war instead of an undeclared one. It may be that there is nothing in this. It may be necessary to continue to put up with the Dean. While accepting fully what the most reverend Primate and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have said, I do not think your Lordships will be able to go away this afternoon and say that the whole thing is disposed of, and that it does not really matter. Your Lordships have shown yourselves in accord with the leading articles in The Times and other papers in thinking that this had better be forgotten, but I do not think that it is going to be forgotten. Throughout Western civilisation there is going to be continual protest against what the most reverend Primate called the misuse and compromise by this man of a great and distinguished office. I think that unless some solution can be found in future, both the Church and the Government will be subjected to considerable criticism from many quarters, including those across the Atlantic.

7.29 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

My Lords, I am afraid that history is about to repeat itself: the Duke of Bedford is going to say things which will cause many in this audience to desire that he "be no longer heard." I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, may be under some kind of misapprehension on perhaps a minor point. I read through the Dean's speeches, but I could not find in them any reflection on British troops, although he certainly gave it to be understood that he considered the Americans had been employing bacteriological warfare. It was suggested by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the Dean should not reach conclusions without first hearing both sides. That is very wise and excellent advice, always assuming that he is allowed full facilities for hearing both sides. But do not the majority of your Lordships and other ordinary people constantly come to pretty strong conclusions, especially over Communist countries, when you have heard only one side?

The Dean was not speaking primarily because of his own convictions and the results of his personal investigations. He was conveying to the Churches of this country a message of protest given to him by a very large body of Christian Churches and organisations of China. Anybody who knows anything about Churches in far-off lands is aware that there is no more honourable and respected body than the Christian Churches of China. It was suggested that these Churches are being persecuted. Locally, I do not doubt, that is true. But what one has to remember, and what people continually forget, is that in a country as large as China anything can be locally true. I am convinced, from information given me by reliable people, that to-day in China there is both persecution and freedom, side by side, no doubt depending largely on the character of the local Communist officials.

No person who is not mentally perverse can read the list of the signatories to that protest, and see the positions which they occupy, without realising that here the Dean has something of considerable weight. The signatories include members of the Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist and Congregational Churches of the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A. and many other religious organisations. Several hundred people have signed, including Bishops, the General Secretary of the Y.W.C.A., the Chairman of the National Christian Council of China, the Chairman of the China Baptist Council, the Secretary of the National Committee of the Y.M.C.A., the General Secretary of the Central Office of the Anglican Church, the Chairman of the Pekin Church Federation and the Pastor of the American Board Mission: also a Professor of the National Nankai University, together with some prominent medical men and members of hospital staffs.

Moreover, this protest was not given to the Dean under the instructions of the Chinese Communist Government. It was quite a spontaneous affair, got up during the course of his visit within the space of a few days: and when he had a personal interview with Mao Tse-tung the latter was unaware that this protest had been made, and was rather interested. Moreover, these representatives of the Christian Churches did not rely on official information, but sent their own representatives. They state that the Reverend Wang Tzu-chung of the Peking Congregational Church went to Korea and North-East China as a representative of the Chinese religious bodies, and saw the various germ-laden insects dropped by the U.S. armed forces, as well as the shells of the containers carrying the insects. Many Christian Chinese doctors have seen the germ-disseminating insects and other carriers spread by the American forces. The Dean records that at a conference the Reverend Sun Peng-shi, a minister of the Church of Christ in China, told him that he had found in his own garden, on the snow, after an American raid, strange insects unknown in the locality, at a season when it is unusual for insects to appear. I need hardly tell your Lordships that any naturalist is aware that you do not find normal insects walking about on the snow in the middle of the winter. Moreover, one of the investigators was Madame Tsi Teh-chuen, the widow of the well-known Chinese Christian General Feng.

I have also read the reports, or alleged reports, of the admissions of captured American airmen. Normally, one would regard such statements with the most profound suspicion. We all know how easily they can be faked, or obtained by torture and similar means. But, making every allowance—and it has to be a very generous allowance for this—parts of those statements are quite impressive. It would have been perfectly easy for the Communist authorities to get intimidated airmen to say that they had dropped bombs carrying germ-laden insects and other things on different places. But it would not have been so easy for them to invent and forge the immense amount of technical detail, given in an extraordinarily natural way, which those airmen are claimed to have given when they described "hush-hush" lectures which they attended on germ warfare. If they are fakes, they are uncommonly clever ones. Moreover, there are certain interesting features about them. They contain irrelevant details, which are usually the hallmark of genuineness. Those who drew up these reports also point out that some of the statements made must be mistakes, due to the lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the airmen. Certain insects which, they claim, carried certain germs could not, in fact, have carried such germs, though perhaps other insects could have done so.

The end of these documents is also rather interesting. It contains an alleged expression of regret by the airmen for having acted as the tools of capitalist Wall Street in injuring citizens of the People's Government of China. Here the style is entirely different, and we drop into familiar Communist propaganda. It looks very much to me as if the Communist authorities, having got some really weighty evidence, could not resist the temptation to "paint the lily" by adding some of the usual Communist stuff. Certainly, anybody clever enough to fake the impressive first part would also have been clever enough not to spoil his work by this very crude ending.

A very natural question which has rather been hinted at this afternoon is: Why did the Communist Government refuse an impartial inspection? With regard to the Swiss Red Cross, as soon as the Communist refusal to allow inspection was known, a very anti-Communist friend of mine said: "There you are. What have you to say to that?" I replied: "On the face of it, it looks bad for the Communists, as though they fear a fair inquiry; but I want to hear both sides." Having heard both sides, I think that here, at any rate, the Communist Government have some reason. They point out, to begin with, that the Swiss Red Cross, though it operates internationally, is not an international body. They also point out that during the last war the Red Cross reported on Nazi concentration camps and said that it could not find much wrong with them. Personally, I think it is possible that in this matter the organisation may not have been inaccurate in regard to those camps which it visited at the time when it visited them—which, of course, is not to say that it would have been accurate in respect of all camps at all times. But if your Lordships, in your zeal for German rearmament have not already forgotten what you used to say and think about Nazi concentration camps, you may, I think, have some sympathy with the Communist Government in feeling that an organisation which could report so favourably upon them was not likely to make a very competent research elsewhere.

They also object to the Swiss Red Cross because it reported favourably on the screening operations on Koje Island at a period when, as has now become obvious, owing to conditions there no efficient screening could possibly have taken place. They also object to the fact that the officials of the Swiss Red Cross, working in Korea, wear the United States uniform and submit to United States military law, conditions which the Quakers have been unable to accept. When Monica Felton made her complaint of the treatment of civilians by American troops, the Swiss Red Cross said that it was not within their competence to examine the ill-treatment of civilians. When Mr. Dean Acheson later told them to investigate they were, however, willing to do so. Whether the Communist authorities are willing to accept other really neutral investigation appears to be somewhat in dispute. It has been claimed that they have asserted their willingness, and have even invited certain British scientists to make an inspection, although possibly because they have been connected with the Government they have not felt at liberty to do so. On the other hand it has also been stated that they have refused offers of impartial inquiry by investigators other than the Swiss Red Cross. Their reasons for refusal, however, I do not know. I do agree with the noble Lord that it is most important that, whether the American Government altogether agree or not, we should press and do everything possible to promote a really impartial inquiry. Some of your Lordships may have read in The Times a few days ago what I thought was an extremely fair and reasonable letter on this question by Professor Levy. He suggested that perhaps India might be entrusted with an impartial investigation.

In regard to this whole matter, I would remind your Lordships—as I did not very long ago—of the very great need for avoiding unconscious hypocrisy and an "ostrich" policy. Already we and the Americans have given our blessing to the use of atomic and napalm bombs, instruments of war every hit as devilish as, and in my opinion more devilish than, germ warfare. Moreover, we and they have departments investigating germ warfare, and presumably they do not work for fun.

LORD STRABOLGI

Would the noble Duke forgive me? I do not want to spoil his case, but if he will allow me to say so, all nations must keep up an anti-germ warfare department just as they keep up an anti-gas department. That does not mean to say that they are going to use it. They must know what can be clone in order that defences may be prepared.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

I appreciate the noble Lord's point. But I have certainly gained the impression that more than purely defensive measures are being investigated. However, this is all very "hush-hush" and we may have to keep an open mind on that question. I should also add that those who on the plea of military necessity, use these very diabolical instruments of war, may also—I do not say they will—under the stress of military necessity make inaccurate statements about them. I would remind your Lordships that when the crime of dropping an atom bomb on a Japanese city was committed, the excuse was given that it was necessary to save the lives of American soldiers. Subsequently, however, it was established that the Japanese had been making inquiries as to the surrender terms which the Allies would accept. The statement, therefore, that the bomb had to be dropped to save the lives of American troops was a false statement. More than that, some years ago I attended a Conference at Oxford addressed by some very distinguished atomic scientists. They told us, among other things, that when the dropping of the bomb was under contemplation certain persons in America suggested that before this was done Japanese representatives should be invited to witness the destructive effects of the dropping of the bomb on an uninhabited place. This humane and reasonable suggestion was, however, turned down by the American Government who, we were told, seemed to feel that the dropping of a bomb on the city would so terrify the world that in future no one would dare to embark on war. Subsequent history has indeed given its terrible comment on this supreme example of doing evil that good may come.

I should like now to say a word or two about the Dean himself. I happen to know him, not very intimately, but I do know him personally, and he is one of those people whom it is eminently desirable to know personally before you pass severe judgment upon them. All who know him personally do not doubt his sincerity. Moreover, most of them—at least, those that I know personally—while they may think that he is quite partial in some of his judgments, do not consider him in the ordinary sense a fool or as one who speaks inadvisedly. He has been attacked severely in this House for his partiality to Communism. But your Lordships have to remember that it is folly to pretend, after all the reliable, impartial evidence we have now had from the Quaker delegation and other people, that everything in Communist countries is evil. In Communist countries there is good and evil, and in democratic countries there is good and evil. There can be no peace in the world until one-sided fools on both sides realise the good, as well as the evil, on the other side, and the evil as well as the good on their side. When a person like the Dean tries to draw the attention of his fellow-countrymen to the good on the other side and to the shortcomings on his own side, he is performing a Christian service of reconciliation, no matter how unpopular the task may be, because the essence of Christianity is to see good, in so far as you can reasonably see it, and make the best of your enemies and potential enemies, as well as your friends. I must confess that for quite a long period, though I never doubted the Dean's sincerity, I too felt that he had been badly led "up the garden path" by Communist propaganda and by Communists. Some months ago, however, rather unexpectedly, I met him again. I sat next to him at dinner and later heard him address a large and representative London audience, almost exclusively composed of non-Communists, and later deal very ably with many searching questions. After that experience I found that I had to modify some of my views very considerably.

The question has been discussed of the Dean's loyalty and duties. The Dean's first loyalty is to God and to what he believes to be the truth, and his duty is to tell it in the service of Christ in the ministry of reconciliation. His duty to the State, and even his duty to the Church of England, is merely a secondary matter. I realise that there are complications here. I sympathise with the most reverent Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Ammon. But the problem of a State Church is something apart from the Dean's personal duty to God. I myself some time ago left the Church, partly because it was a State Church and partly because, in my opinion, it was a warmongering Church. I felt that in either capacity it was being disloyal to Christ. But there are some people who feel that, even if they disagree very strongly with the body of which they are a member, they should stay within it and try to reveal to it what they believe to be the truth. Certainly the Church—that is to say, the true Church of Jesus Christ—can be brought into disrepute only if it does things which are disloyal to Christ and unworthy in the sight of God. The duty of the true Church, like the Dean's duty, is to God. It is not to agree with the State in all its political views on any occasion when it may choose very strongly to express them.

7.51 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, after listening to the speech of the noble Duke I was reminded, I must say, of the remark attributed to the late Mr. Balfour, as he then was, in addressing in another place an opponent after his opponent had sat down. He said: Much of what the right honourable gentleman has just said is true, and much of what the right honourable gentleman has just said is trite. Unfortunately, what was true was also trite, and what was not trite was not true. I am left in much the same position by the speech of the noble Duke.

In this matter we are, I think, dealing with two cognate and distinct problems. There is the political problem, fundamentally ridiculous, that people are in danger of treating seriously; and there is the religious problem, fundamentally serious, which people are in danger of treating with levity. The political problem is a ridiculous one. I frankly cannot agree with my noble friend, Lord Winterton, in thinking that the Dean is a gift to Communist propaganda; I think that that is the greatest possible mistake. The Dean with his ridiculous vanity, his fantastic Press conferences and his grotesque rolls of papers is a gift to the comedian. He has succeeded in doing what more serious investigation would certainly have failed to do: he has succeeded in impressing upon the common man the fundamental improbability of the charges which have been made and the total absence of evidence with which they are supported. If he had been in the pay of the United Nations he could hardly have done that job more thoroughly.

EARL WINTERTON

Perhaps I may be allowed to amend my point and to say that the Dean is a joke—but he is not regarded as a joke behind the Iron Curtain or on the Continent.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I agree with my noble friend. Behind the Iron Curtain the Dean is sometimes mistaken for the Archbishop, and in any event he is associated with Canterbury. That is true and it is lamentable. But in answer to the argument I am bound to say this. I do not so far despair of the intelligence of our Christian brethren behind the Iron Curtain as to suppose that they do not know full well that Judas Iscariot was not the last Christian to betray his Master. I think they will know how to assess the Dean according to the coin with which, unfortunately, they are more familiar than we are.

The plea that we should invoke the power of the State to dismiss the Dean, promulgated most forcibly in another place, is not so much misguided as it is impossible. Deans are appointed by letters patent, and I think it has been from time almost immemorial considered, from the terms in which such letters patent have been couched, that they cannot be reversed. The appointment is not accompanied, like that of Ministers of the Crown, with a proviso that it shall be during Her Majesty's pleasure. Nor is it accompanied with a proviso which exists in the case of the appointment of judges, that they hold office so long as they behave themselves properly. The Deans are appointed by irrevocable letters patent, and they cannot be got rid of by any action of the State. It is wrong to invoke the power of the State; the Church of England is far too Erastian already and it should not be made more so by demands that it should dismiss from office an ecclesiastical dignitary for his activities. Indeed, much harm can be done by these frequent appeals to the State to dismiss the Dean of Canterbury. It leads to the impression that there is something that the State can do about it. Only this morning I read in my paper that seventy innocent American clergymen had sent a telegram to Her Majesty asking her to dismiss the Dean of Canterbury. I am sure they would not have done that if they bad not read on the Order Paper of another place a request asking for the same thing. I think that these attempts to invoke temporal power in these matters are a mistake.

But I think the religious problem cannot be so easily ridden off. I cannot agree with the most reverend Primate that the Dean does not cause scandal to the Church of England: I think he does; not so much because he is a Communist but because he is a clown, and we cannot afford to have clowns in gaiters in the Church of England. Things are far too serious with religion for us to be able to afford to have people whose idiotic conduct causes them to be laughed at. Let us face the facts. For the great mass of the people the Dean is the biggest laugh since the Rector of Stiffkey in his barrel, and it is intolerable that the Church should be made a mockery by the antics of an egocentric dotard.

This matter of dealing with high dignitaries of the Church is not one that can be ridden off easily by pleas for free speech, or even by the noble sentiments expressed by the most reverend Primate. The fact is that it was not the Church who appointed the Dean of Canterbury: it was the late Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; and he was appointed not because he was a Christian but because he was a Socialist. That is known to everybody who is willing to talk about the realities of the patronage of the Church. I am a Churchman myself—perhaps not a very good one—but I do find it intolerable that those whom I was taught in my Catechism to regard as my "pastors and masters" should be appointed in this way. What is worse is that, having got them there, the Church cannot even get rid of them—nor can those who appointed them—however remote from the realities of Christian life they are. The Houses of Parliament are the real criminals. Lord Winterton quoted the phrase used by the most reverend Primate to the effect that the Dean had "misused and compromised his office." Despite this he cannot be got rid of by the Church—as he could if he were the President of the Methodist Conference. This is primarily the fault of Parliament.

I remember that in 1947, in another place, when the first of two Measures (to which the most reverend Primate referred) was introduced, a handful of Members was assiduously lobbied by a small ecclesiastical minority in an attempt to get the House to reject the Measure, on the spurious ground that in some fantastic way it could be used as a means of depriving aged clergymen with violent political opinions of their livings. And they very nearly succeeded. The result was that when the next Measure came up for consideration by the Houses of Parliament, an appeasing clause was introduced, excepting the political and social activities, however extravagant, of its dignitaries, from control by the Church. Now, whereas I am wholeheartedly opposed to the suggestion that the State should punish or dismiss high dignitaries of the Church for political or social activities, I think it is the least measure of freedom that the Church can claim, that if it is not allowed to appoint its own dignitaries it should at least be allowed to get rid of them if it does not want to keep them. But that it is not allowed to do. The people who have prevented it are the two Houses of Parliament, and in the present case we have an example of the results of a system which could be tolerated only if it worked no harm in practice: and that the Dean's case shows is not the case.

LORD STRABOLGI

I think the noble Viscount is a little wrong there. The Church can get rid of its dignitaries on certain grounds—for instance, heresy and unbecoming conduct, et cetera.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am perfectly well aware of that. I only said that it could not get rid of them if it wanted to. That is what I am complaining of. You can have it one way or the other. You can make the Church a sort of Civil Service, in which case the civil servants can be got rid of by the State, but the thing has no spiritual reality at all. Or, the Church is a free, spiritual community—and then, if you must appoint its high dignitaries, you might allow the Church to get rid of them if it does not want them. That can be done in every other religious community in the land, but not in the Church of England. It is precisely the situation to which the noble Lord opposite drew attention that I was complaining of.

There are a few questions which remain to be asked about the Dean which, I think, are worthy of an answer. What has he really done for Christianity in the lands which he has visited? That is not a political question; it is a religious question. Has he visited the Christians in prison? Has he made provision for their necessities out of his ample stipend or out of the funds with which he is provided by his Communist hosts? Has he protested to the Communists about their atheism? Has he himself in foreign lands offered an unmistakable and sincere Christian witness? Those are questions which Churchmen are entitled to ask of their high dignitaries and, though I agree with the Archbishop that in many respects one wishes the Dean would not pretend he is a Christian at any time, we are saddled with the fact that he is a high dignitary of the Church. We are entitled to an answer.

I accept it from the most reverend Primate that the Dean has never denied the existence of God or any other Christian doctrine. Nevertheless I can remember nothing which he has said at any time in the last twenty years which implies that he believes in God or any Christian doctrine. I myself am not impressed by arguments that Deans of Canterbury must necessarily not be atheists unless they expressly deny the existence of God. It is, moreover, for consideration whether and how far the Dean has observed the Canons of 1603. If he has not observed them, he is guilty of an ecclesiastical offence, and even under the mutilated law as it exists at the moment we can get rid of him by appropriate ecclesiastical proceedings. The Canons of 1603 are very onerous.

I should be happy to dispense with his attendance in Canterbury Cathedral altogether, but I do not see that we should necessarily overlook any peccadilloes which he may have committed against the strict letter of the ecclesiastical law. After all, we got rid of Mrs. Monica Felton, not because she was a Communist but because she did not attend to her duties in one of the new towns. She thought that her Communism was more important. I do not see how, if, as we are led to believe, the Dean of Canterbury occupies an important position, he should be allowed to spend so much of his time abroad instead of attending to the duties of his office. These things should surely be within the discretion of the Church. They are not so, in accordance with the present law, except within the very limited measure given by the two Acts of 1840 and 1892. That, surely, only illustrates the evil which we are discussing this evening, which is a serious one—namely, the plight to which the Church of England has been reduced by Parliament. I must say that if we are in danger of taking the Dean too seriously from the political angle, we should also be making a mistake if we allowed the mockery which this vain and ridiculous old man must excite to blind our eyes to the dangerous plight to which the Church of England has fallen.

8.5 p.m.

LORD CALVERLEY

My Lords, I should like us to get back to the Question which is on the Order Paper. It is: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any legal action that can be taken against Dr. Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, for his alleged statements reflecting on the conduct of British troops liable to create ill-feeling between Her Majesty's subjects and those of other nations; and to bring the Established Church into contempt and disrepute. I have been impelled to intervene in this debate because there are two sections of opinion. There is one section which is of the opinion that the Dean of Canterbury can "get away with it" because he is a high dignitary of the Church. On the other hand, I have come across two or three people, highly placed, in Yorkshire who are inclined to believe that there is something in the germ warfare allegation because the Dean of Canterbury as a dignitary of the Church has made the accusation. When my noble friend put into his Question "British troops," I wondered whether any legal action could have been taken in Korea, if "Lance-Corporal Hewlett Johnson" (if there had been such a person) had made himself a nuisance in the barracks by spreading gloom and despondency and performing actions prejudicial to good discipline. I came to the conclusion that the men in the canteen would have said that he was "crackers," and they would have made allowances for him because, on the face of it, he seemed to be a very nice sort of chap.

LORD STRABOLGI

If I may interrupt, I should like to ask a question.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

LORD STRABOLGI

I beg your Lordships' pardon? This is a debate. This is the House of Lords.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

We are well aware of that.

LORD STRABOLGI

I should like to ask a question on something which has been puzzling me throughout the debate. I have since been looking at the document issued by the Dean of Canterbury. What are the attacks on the British troops which are complained of?

LORD CALVERLEY

There have been 3,000 casualties since we started this armistice business. There are 3,000 British casualties, and also they are part of twenty nations who have made a great contribution, unexampled in the history of this world, to try to fight against what was called "aggression."

LORD STRABOLGI

We all agree with that.

LORD CALVERLEY

My noble friend says that we all agree with that. The reason I bring in the British troops is because for nine and a half years I had the experience of listening to 2,000 complaints. Let us suppose that those fellows are "grousing" at this apocryphal Lance-Corporal Hewlett Johnson, and the company commander has got to know about it. The lance-corporal has been arrested and tried and given six months in the "glasshouse" because he was guilty of bringing contempt upon Her Majesty's uniform and being absent without leave. That is what has happened, and that is what has been happening. He would have been dismissed from the Forces on coming out of the detention barracks because he brought contempt on the Queen's uniform. My point is this. In going about, in his symbolic garments, abroad, all over Europe, in Moscow and in Pekin, the Dean has brought contempt upon the Church to which he belongs. That is another reason why we should try to investigate what he has been trying to do, to see what can be done with this man who has brought Christ's Church at Canterbury into disrepute. That is the serious issue, and I wonder if anything can be done.

I am scrapping the few notes I have made because I do not want to detain your Lordships too long. I believe that when Mr. Vyshinsky saw the Dean in what he would call "those funny garments"—I refer to the knee breeches, the gaiters and the rest of it—and when they were explained to him, he thought that they had high propaganda value. I do not know whether the Church has any power in this respect, but when the Dean goes overseas again I wonder whether he might be made to go in flannel "bags" and a tweed coat, thereby puncturing his propaganda value. What can we do? We cannot stop this man from talking, because we believe in freedom of speech. I wish only that he would go to Hyde Park Corner, either in his "glad rags" or in his flannel "bags," and expound his doctrines there, because I am sure he would need police protection; or he might kick up such a "shindy" that he could be charged before a magistrates' court—this, is a bit of knowledge of the law which I have gained simply through a little experience in magistrates' courts—with being a public mischief and causing a breach of the peace. I spent a couple of days thinking what penalty could be imposed. This being a first offence, the only thing a magistrate could do would be to bind him over for six months, in the sum of £5, to be of good behaviour. That is about all we could do with him, and he would want to put on his martyr's crown.

My Lords, I think there ought to be a restatement of the matter. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, himself I believe a former Dean of Canterbury, speaking the other day in Canterbury, said that this business has been "blurred" somewhat. We have gone on now for two years. There is a lot of misrepresentation in regard to what we are trying to do in Korea, and I think there should be a restatement, not so much by politicians but by men of the calibre of Dr. George Bell, stating, on behalf of the Council of the Christian Churches, that we are not in Korea simply for the fun of being there but because we have been driven there by China and Russia. I think that is necessary because of the amount of criticism from people who suppose that the Dean is right. Only yesterday I said to one such person, "You want to get hold of the White Paper and see what is happening. Then you will see what the United Nations have been trying to do."

In 1948, when the most reverend Primate introduced from the Church Assembly a Measure which related to Church discipline, I intervened to ask him to be patient with what I called his "thorn in the flesh." He has used that expression this afternoon. He has shown infinite patience, and great Christian tolerance. It has been worth while having a debate like this to-day. I personally am grateful to my noble friend for asking his Question. We have had an opportunity of hearing not only speeches from laymen but also a most valuable contribution from the most reverend Primate. For that reason, I am glad the Question has been asked. I hope that some remedy may be found. It may be that he can be tried by his peers—that is, by the Canons of Canterbury Cathedral. Let the senior Canon take the chair. Let the Dean be asked to come along—I see an incredulous smile upon the most reverend Primate's face. I should like to be present to see what really would happen.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

He would be "fired" by the Canons, would he not?

LORD CALVERLEY

He could be fired from a cannon, but I think that is too drastic. I do not wish to go as far as that. But I think the Chapter might meet, and might be able to hold an impartial inquiry. Of course, if the decision of that inquiry went against the Dean he would say that it was not impartial, but otherwise. I have spoken long enough—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD CALVERLEY

I am sorry the noble Earl should say "Hear, hear!" I have been here since half-past two waiting for this debate. However, I will not go on. I merely express my gratitude to my noble friend for bringing this Question before us, and to the most reverend Primate. I shall sit down now in order that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, may speak.

8.17 p.m.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I wish to say only comparatively few words in winding up this debate, for there is, I think, very little that I can add to what has already been so well said this afternoon. I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, put down his Question on the recent antics of the Dean of Canterbury. In answer to Lord Teviot I might say in passing that I am afraid I cannot tell him who financed the Dean's trip. I even doubt whether I could get that information, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should himself approach the Dean, who I am sure would be delighted to satisfy his curiosity. But there is one thing at any rate on which I am certain. The vagaries of that dignitary have caused the strongest indignation among all sections of opinion in this country. That is evident from the remarks of noble Lords in every part of this House. Indeed, it is certainly not an edifying spectacle to see one of the great dignitaries of the Church of England crossing the world to pay a visit to the enemies of Christianity and then, apparently without any real effort to verify the facts, lending the authority of his great position to completely baseless charges against our allies. So far as one can see he seems to have swallowed the Chinese allegations whole. He seems not only to have no doubt at all, but never to have been prepared to have doubts.

In the document which has been circulated to your Lordships, to which reference has been made to-day—and I thought the circulation of that document was a somewhat unusual procedure—he quotes evidence from Chinese doctors and Divines, who under a Communist régime can hardly be regarded as being entirely impartial. I would say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, who I am afraid has left us, out who seemed to take very much the same view as the Dean, that such evidence as that in a country such as China is to-day, can hardly have been expressed entirely through free will.

There must have been, inevitably, a measure of duress about it, and that we all of us know perfectly well. The same applies to the "confessions" of the two young American airmen to which he referred. One wonders how those "confessions" were extorted. The Dean quoted all that evidence provided by his hosts, but he made no reference at all, as was pointed out by the most reverend Primate, to the American offer to agree to a full inquiry on the spot under the International Red Cross, which is an authority whose integrity is absolutely unquestioned throughout the world He made no attempt to explain why the Chinese Government so curtly rejected that offer. And yet, to any objective mind, that refusal to accept the Red Cross is really conclusive; proof that this elaborately fabricated case would be unable to stand up to impartial scrutiny. Yet the Dean never mentioned it. To him, it appears, the Communists must always be right.

I will say for the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, that he did not shirk that issue. He said that the International Red Cross was not an international body. No doubt, the International Red Cross is situated in Switzerland; it must be situated somewhere; but it is, I should have thought, universally recognised in every civilised country to be absolutely above suspicion. It is one of the most distinguished of all international bodies, and I could not help thinking, as I listened to the noble Duke—I am sorry that he is not here now—that he appeared to me to be just a gramophone repeating the ordinary propaganda that comes out to us day after day from Moscow. We can hear it any night sitting by our own firesides—not coming to your Lordships' House at all, but merely turning a knob. We, here, know the noble Duke. We are used to him. He dearly loves to be in a minority of one. That is really his spiritual home. But if on this occasion he is able to take so tolerant a view of the Dean of Canterbury, I am afraid that many of us cannot. We cannot believe that the régime which the Dean seems quite happy in supporting is compatible with the teaching of Christ. In such circumstances, it is evidently right and proper that we in this House should make it clear at the earliest possible moment that we entirely repudiate his irresponsible and most reprehensible statements. That we have done this afternoon, and I am sure we are all immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for giving us the opportunity.

But the noble Lord's Question, of course, goes a good deal further than that. He asks whether there is any legal action that can be taken about the Dean in view of his obvious unsuitability to occupy his present high position in the Church. He thinks that some steps should be taken to prevent his continuing to be in a position where—to use the noble Lord's own words—he can "bring the Established Church into contempt and disrepute." That view has been supported, and very naturally supported, by other speakers this afternoon, and I must confess that in the first flush of my indignation I tended to share that view myself. But further consideration, I say frankly, has led me to modify that opinion It is not for me, as a humble member of the laity, to enter into these specifically ecclesiastical matters which were spoken of with great force, and I thought in an extremely interesting manner, by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, this afternoon. They are a matter, I should have thought, for the Church rather than for me.

Returning to the actual subject of the Question, I think it is evident that in any case, whatever we may think about his suitability or unsuitability for his present position, there is no legal action that the Church, at any rate, can take as things are at present. The Dean has committed no offence such as heresy which would make him amenable to Church discipline. He has not been drunk in the pulpit, he has not pawned the church vessels, he has not been guilty of flagrant immorality. He has not committed any offence of that type. He has, indeed, I should have thought, been guilty of "unbecoming conduct" in another sense, which one might have imagined, if one had not heard the Archbishop's speech this afternoon, would have brought him within the provisions of the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure of 1948. But it seems—if I understood the most reverend Primate rightly—that we in Parliament, in our wisdom, decided that the term "unbecoming conduct" should not embrace opinions and activities of a political character. Of course, that excludes the Dean entirely from the scope of the measure.

And if the Church cannot deal with him it is extremely doubtful whether the State can do so either under the existing law. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already told the House, inquiries are being made and one is quite certain that we must await the result of those inquiries and make whatever decision may be necessary when the time comes. I am bound to say—and I am here speaking personally—that I remain, frankly, doubtful whether a prosecution in a case of this kind would not do more harm than good. That is my personal view. At any rate, we must await the results of the inquiries and see what they are. But if the proposal is, or should be, that special legislation should be brought in to deal with this particular case, I want to make it absolutely clear now that the Government could not contemplate that.

Of course, the Dean's conduct has been deplorable. It has profoundly shocked not only Churchmen but, I think, the whole broad mass of public opinion throughout this country. For, after all, extreme vanity and boundless gullibility are always an unattractive combination. But I should have thought that it was the Dean's own reputation which had mainly suffered—and here I agree with the Archbishop—not that of the Church of England. I really cannot believe, if I may say so with deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that any objective observer could seriously attempt to tar the Church with the Dean's brush. And if, indeed, there had been any doubt on that point, I should have thought that it would be entirely removed by the speech of the most reverend Primate this afternoon.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Marquess unnecessarily, but I think he has attributed to me a view which I did not actually express, and I should therefore like to say so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understood the noble Viscount to say that what the Dean had done had inflicted considerable injury upon the Church.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I said that it had caused scandal in the Church, but that was because he was a clown, not because he was a Communist. We cannot afford to have clowns in gaiters.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The fact remains that the suggestion was that he was doing harm to the Church. That is what I said. I do not care whether it was said that he was doing it as a Communist or as a clown. But I do not think it has done harm to the Church. I think the speech of the most reverend Primate, if there was any feeling of that kind, should have removed it. He could not have made it clearer that he repudiated in most explicit terms the actions and opinions of the Dean. In such circumstances as that, surely, to regard the Dean as a serious menace is to lose our sense of proportion. He is not a menace. If I may use rather frank words, he is merely a foolish old man, puffed up with conceit, hankering after publicity—not an attractive sight, but certainly not a threat to our institutions.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, may I, with the greatest deference, ask the noble Marquess a question? Is it not rather a dangerous argument to say of a man who has committed such an offence that because he is foolish we shall not deal with him?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I thought that up to now we were putting the argument on the basis that he has not committed an offence. At the same time, I think in a case of this kind, where it is a question of political statement, the question of how far he constitutes a danger does enter into the matter. At least, I should have thought so: I do not know. I am only expressing my view. I feel that to alter the law of the land to take action against a matter of this calibre is rather like taking a steam-hammer to crack a nut. Indeed, it might have a bad effect. It might give ammunition to Communist propaganda by lending colour to the suggestion that he was being; persecuted for his beliefs. I am quite certain that, if it became common currency in other countries, it would do more harm than anything the Dean is likely to say, and I should have thought it was the very thing which the Communists would prefer.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Marquess but I think he mis-states the case. It would be trying the Dean for his beliefs. What else could we be trying him for? The noble Marquess said we might give the impression of trying the Dean for his beliefs, but that is what we should be trying him for.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know: we have no; had our report yet. But: if it turned out that he had spread absolutely false statements to the detriment of his country and that there was no foundation for the allegations he made, I should not have thought that that was purely a matter of expressing a political opinion. However, I am not going to pontificate on that subject.

There is another point which I think I ought to put to your Lordships. If we brought in legislation of this character, I should have thought it would be difficult so to frame it that it would be, as it were, sui generis. I should have thought that almost inevitably such legislation would create a precedent which might be used for far less justifiable interferences with individual liberties. Indeed, it might encourage that type of witch-hunt which to our great regret we have seen in other countries increasingly. That is what the broad common sense of this country has always avoided, at any rate within recent centuries—if I may say so, with all deference, to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton.

EARL WINTERTON

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess at this late hour, but I was talking purely of the future. I think it is the duty of the Government to consider whether, in the case of what might be described as undeclared war, the law of treason and sedition is as strong as it was.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I assure the noble Earl that we will take into account everything that he has said: he speaks with great experience. All I would say is that I should regret anything which was likely to facilitate a witch-hunt. I think that is a thing which we in this country have always loathed. As I have said, we cannot regard the Dean as a danger. That is my view. He is not guilty of treason—at least, we hear from the Attorney-General that there is no prima facie case of treason in the inquiries which we have made. I would point out that this is no case of a rather obscure legal point. It is a very simple point. There is no evidence—and that is a point we can all understand.

Although I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, and by other noble Lords, as to the Dean's conduct, and although I find it just as exasperating as it has seemed to them that he should have behaved, and is behaving, in this way, I feel bound to advise the House not to allow itself to be carried away by its very natural resentment, or to take steps which might well create a most undesirable precedent for the future. As I have said, the real truth is that the Dean is not dangerous: he is merely contemptible. And the course most consistent with the dignity of this House and of this country is to treat him with the contempt he most surely deserves.