MALTA.

HC Deb 01 August 1930 vol 242 cc994-1013

Mr. FOOT

I wish to draw the attention of the House to another subject, namely, that of Malta. A number of Members of this House are anxious that this question should be discussed before we separate. I had the honour of handing to the Prime Minister this week a declaration on this subject which has been carefully prepared by a number of public men and it is signed by a number of very distinguished men in the State as well as by Members of all parties in this House. Perhaps the House will permit me to read that memorandum. It states:

1. "We, whose names appear hereunder, desire to place on record our support of His Majesty's advisers in the stand they have taken in the dispute which has arisen between the British Government and the Vatican in relation to Malta.

2. Whilst deploring the necessity for the temporary suspension of representative institutions in Malta, we support the Government in their decision, which was made inevitable by the action of the Roman Catholic authorities.

3. We support the action of the Government in repudiating acceptance of a condition as to the personality of the Head of the Maltese Administration, which constitutes nothing less than a claim to interfere in the domestic politics of a British Colony.'

4. We welcome the declaration of the Government, that, during the interregnum, the existing Ministry will be retained in office, and we attach the utmost importance to the statement of Lord Passfield, H.M. Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the House of Lords on 25th June, 1930, viz.: 'We have retained the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, and his colleagues in office; we have saved their position. We have not allowed them to be eliminated. … We are not in any sense giving way to the demand of the Vatican that Lord Strickland and his colleagues should be removed, and we have no intention of doing so.'

5. We ask that the claim recently made by the Archbishop of Malta, that clerics cannot be summoned before a lay tribunal (except with ecclesiastical assent), shall be formally and definitely repudiated.

6. We declare our opinion that the pastoral letter of the Bishops of Malta (issued on 1st May, 1930, and since approved and endorsed by the Pope), threatening severe spiritual penalties against electors, exercising their elementary right of free choice of their parliamentary representatives, is a violation of the privilege of British citizens, and is an abuse of ecclesiastical power.

7. We ask that there shall be such amendment of the Constitution of Malta as will give to the electors in that Colony legal protection in the exercise of their franchise not less than that secured by law to the electors of Great Britain."

I am hopeful that that very plain declaration will receive the support of many Members of this House, and that men of all classes of thought will be willing to attach their signature to that document. One reason why this subject is being raised, following the debate which took place on 26th June, is, that certain events have arisen upon which I think the opinion of this House should be taken. One particular event has been the publication of the Vatican White Book. Up to that time we were not in possession of full information, but that book has now been published and it is being very widely read by the people of this country. The Vatican White Book gives us certain new information on this question and a very strong complaint has been made by Roman Catholics that before the publication of that book the Government had only put before the country a prejudiced and one-sided view of the position, and the White Book has been published in order to present both sides of the question.

There is certain information in this White Book which I would like the House to consider. Early in that document there is a reference to what took place in Malta early last year when three English Bishops went to Malta—not a very remarkable thing to do. They were three eminent Bishops. The Bishop of Gibraltar, the Bishop of Blackburn, and the Bishop of Winchester. They went with two laymen, distinguished men in the Anglican Church. When they arrived at Malta, they were allowed to hold their conference in the Governor's House, which is his private residence, and the Governor is a Protestant. They went there, not for the purpose of proselytisation, but in order to deal with the interests of the non-Roman Catholics in that Colony, who at times number 40,000 people. No Roman Catholics were invited to the conference. One would have thought that no objection would have been taken, because, after all, there is no territory in the world that is historically more hospitable than Malta. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that very many years ago there came to Malta a shipwrecked man, who was a prisoner on his way to Rome, and he said that he was received by the chief man of the island and treated courteously for three days, and that the barbarians showed him and his company no little kindness. That is what happened nearly two thousand years ago.

Mr. EDE

But he got bitten all the same.

Mr. FOOT

Malta is not merely a hospitable island, but there is a section in its Constitution which lays down that all persons in Malta shall have full liberty of conscience and the free exercise of their respective modes of worship. What happened? One of the Bishops of Malta, the same man who has now threatened the electors with the pains of hell if they fail to vote for his nominee, raised objection to the presence of three English Bishops in Malta and to the conference which they were holding in the Governor's House. He took his objection to Rome, and, if hon. Members will turn to the Vatican White Book, they will find that the diplomatic machinery of Rome itself—the Vatican—was brought to bear in order to express the heinousness of the crime that had been done in Malta, that three spiritual Peers of this Realm, three Bishops of the Church of England, should have been allowed to hold a conference in the Governor's private residence, the residence of a Protestant Governor. I quote that incident to show that is the atmosphere in that island, and what is the spirit of ecclesiastical domination there.

There is another point. We have heard a great deal about the enormities of Lord Strickland. One of the capital charges against Lord Strickland is that he allowed this thing to happen. The answer that Lord Strickland makes is virtually this: I was asked upon the matter, and I said it did not concern me at all. I said that this was a matter which concerned the Governor himself. I ask Members of this House to consider the fact that one of the capital charges brought by the Vatican in the White Book against the Prime Minister of an English Colony was that this should have happened in a Colony where he was the Prime Minister. There is a second event that has happened, and that is the declaration of the Archbishop of Malta that what we have done here has been done simply to spite the Pope, and that we are robbing the people of that island of their Constitution; that the Pastoral Letter will still stand; that we in this country do not understand what mortal sin really is; and that to vote on the lines that he reprobated would have been not merely wrong, but a sin equal to both robbery and murder?

Mr. THURTLE

Robbery or murder?

Mr. FOOT

Robbery or murder. To vote for a nominee whom he reprobated would have been a crime, a mortal sin equal to robbery or murder. The third event that has happened has been the allocution of the Pope on the 30th June, when he virtually endorsed and approved the action of the Bishops. On the 16th July there was published in the Vatican newspaper an article dealing with what has been said in this House of Commons, and the writer deplored the fact that in this House of Commons we had referred to the Vatican as a foreign Power. That is a phrase which has not only been used in this House, but has been used by controversialists elsewhere. If the Vatican is not a foreign Power, what is the meaning of the arrangement that was made not long ago between Mussolini and the Pope? If it is not a foreign Power, what is the meaning of the Blue Book? The Blue Book sets out the correspondence conducted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under the Maltese Constitution all foreign affairs are reserved to the British Government, and the correspondence has been carried on by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for one reason only, that the Vatican is a foreign Power. One hardly knows why that criticism should be made. In addition there have been criticisms made in this country. Only yesterday every Member of the House was supplied with a copy of a paper containing a letter or a sermon of a Roman Catholic priest in London who, taking advantage of the toleration that is allowed in this country but is denied in Malta, accused the British Government of having delivered a series of foul blows. That is the present position.

I want to bring home to hon. Members the importance of that question contained in the declaration I read just now, the question of the privilegium fori. May I narrate what happened only a few months ago, in the latter part of last year? The Maltese Government decided that they would take criminal proceedings against a priest. Thereupon the Archbishop of the island said he would refuse his permission to those proceedings being taken. The Maltese Government said, "We do not need your permission." If this man has committed an offence, he is amenable to the laws of the land. The ecclesiastics said, "But we have the canon law." The canon law threatens with excommunication anyone who will bring before the Law Courts any priest without the consent of the superior ecclesiastics. The Maltese Government replied that that condition of things was wiped out a century ago. "Yes," replied the ecclesiastics, "but it was never wiped out with our consent." We are faced with this claim in a British colony, which would never be tolerated in any part of the world, in an island where there are more priests in proportion to the population than in any other community in the world, where the Church owns a third of the irremovable wealth of the island. If this claim were tolerated you would have one section of the community superior to the law, outside the law and above the law and you would have a condition of things which could not be tolerated by any self-respecting Government in the world. That was resisted by the Maltese Ministers. It was an invidious thing for them to do. They were all members of the Roman Catholic Church. They took their stand against the ecclesiastical authorities of their own Church and, on taking that stand, they were fighting our battle as well as their own and they deserve the gratitude of this country and not its criticism. Furthermore, we are left in the position that that claim has been asserted and never withdrawn and we are asking that it shall be finally, definitely and formally repudiated by the British Government.

There is another question that I have to raise as to the position of the Maltese Ministers. The Prime Minister of this country made a declaration in answer to a question that I put to him. He said: The existing Ministers will be retained in office and will be available in a consultative capacity in so far as the Governor chooses to make use of their services. Another declaration was made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the same time. I will not repeat it—some part of it was contained in the Memorandum I read just now—but Lord Passfield put the greatest possible emphasis upon the fact that the Ministers were to be retained in office and that we would resist the claim of the Vatican that they could at their will drive out of any British Colony Ministers who had been elected by the votes of the people. It is a matter of the greatest possible consequence that no steps shall be taken for the elimination of these Ministers. There has been published in the course of the last two days an ordinance by the Governor-General—Ordinance No. 5. It is upon that Ordinance that I want to ask one or two questions of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Colonies in this House. The Ordinance is one which has most serious implications; it has raised grave apprehension in the minds of those who have studied it. These Ministers have made great sacrifices, and, as I said just now, they deserve the consideration and not the penalisation of this House. I beg of the Government, who up to this time have had the very loyal support of all parties in this House as well as of the opinion in this country, not to take any step which is going to lay them open to criticism by a disappointed community. I believe it to be a matter of the utmost consequence that the position of these men shall not be imperilled and that they shall not be stripped of their authority and power so that the retention of their offices will be made impossible. We are on the eve of the Recess, and I ask that during the time of the Recess no such step as that will be taken. I trust that that assurance can be given by the hon. Member the Under-Secretary.

I also wish to ask him if the Government can now give us any information about the publication of further documents. Some consideration was given to that matter in another place when the debate arose, and it was also raised in this House. I am going to ask the hon. Member in particular, if in the publication of further documents he will set out the correspondence in which the Church in Malta made a claim to the immunity of priests and the replies that were made by the Maltese Government. I ask whether in that further publication of documents he will give the answers of the Maltese Government to the charges that were made against Lord Strickland by the Vatican. In the British Blue Book—and I ask hon. Members of the House to note it—there is a long list of the Vatican's charges against Lord Strickland. The formal replies were made by the Maltese Government to those charges. We think that in Government documents made available in this country there should be the answers as well as the charges. That was the claim which was made by Lord Cushenden, and greater importance is attached to that claim because the Vatican has repeated and re-published its list of charges, and the Vatican White Paper has gone out to all the world. Is not Lord Strickland entitled to ask, if in Government documents there is a long indictment with many counts against him, that at least in the same documents there shall be the reply he made to those charges.

I hope the Government will also consider the necessity of the publishing to this House the Ordinances which have been adopted in Malta since the representative institutions were suspended. There is only one other aspect of the question to which I ask the intelligent attention of the House and that is with regard to the request which I am going to make, after consultation with those interested in this matter, that there shall be set up a Royal Commission to deal with this Maltese difficulty. I know that the House may be reluctant to have another Royal Commission, but I believe that there are some questions facing us here which cannot be answered unless there is an inquiry by those who are not concerned with the local controversy. In particular, I ask that there shall be an inquiry into the charge made against the Maltese Government in respect to the administration of that Colony. I hope that the House will allow me to tell the facts of the case. On the 2nd of June in last year, Mgr. Robinson, the Apostolic Delegate, having conducted an inquiry into the affairs of Malta lasting five or six weeks, left Malta for Rome. While he was in Malta he was courteously and hospitably received. He was on friendly and courteous terms with the Governor and with the Ministry. On the day that he left, the Governor wrote him a letter thanking him for the courtesy that had been shown. On the 16th June, 1929, that is, fourteen days later, Mgr. Robinson put his name to a document containing this paragraph: It is no exaggeration to say that Malta at present is subjected to a regime of terror and of inquisitorial despotism, in which the Opposition in Parliament is disarmed, its newspapers deceived, the courts threatened, justice suspended, the Constitution in danger, the country in tumult and the Church and Religion openly attacked. That was 14 days after his reception in Malta by the Governor and the Ministers. He describes a condition of things in regard to which the British Government, not knowing that the document had been signed by Mgr. Robinson, sent to the Cardinal Secretary of State the comment that the allegations imply a regrettable readiness on its (the Holy See's) part to believe His Majesty's Government to have been conniving at tyranny and persecution in British territory. When these words, which no one knew had been written by Mgr. Robinson, came to the notice of the Maltese Government they replied that they were a string of malicious and infamous misstatements. If there was a suspension of the Constitution and everyone was in a state of terror, what can be said about the British Governor for tolerating a condition of things that would be a disgrace to any Imperial Government? If the words are true, what can be said of the Maltese Government. If they are not true, then the Maltese Ministers who have been maligned are entitled to their vindication. It was upon the document containing that amazing declaration that the Pope decided that the head of the Maltese Government was persona non grata, and asked for his removal.

I recovered from the waste paper basket of another hon. Member of this House yesterday a book entitled "Malta, the Island of Sunshine," written by the Maltese Government Tourist Bureau setting out the immense advantages of a very beautiful country, and saying that it is a most desirable and restful place to which holiday visitors could go and where residents might make their homes. What would be the effect upon the reader of that book if, having seen the beautiful illustrations and having read the invitation to visit Malta, he saw that there was printed on it, on the authority of Mgr. Paschal Robinson, Apostolic Delegate and now Papal Nuncio to the Irish Free State these words: It is no exaggeration to say that Malta at present is subjected to a regime of terror and inquisitorial despotism in which the Opposition is disarmed, and its newspapers deceived, the courts threatened, justice suspended, the Constitution in danger, the country in tumult and the Church and religion openly attacked. I can quite understand Mgr. Robinson taking the position of Papal Nuncio at Rome, and being anxious to get as far away from Malta as he could. I hope that an inquiry will be set up and that the charge against Maltese Ministers will be proved to be true or untrue. Another question to be raised before the Royal Commission would be the language problem in that country. Let Members of the Labour party remember that 80 per cent. of the people in Malta know nothing but the Maltese language, and that the normal language of the Law Courts is Italian, which is to them a foreign language. Consequently, a man there may be tried on a most serious indictment in a language not a word of which he understands. It is the language question which, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said, is at the root of this difficulty. That language monopoly is maintained principally by the ecclesiastics and the lawyers in that island, and it is a monopoly which, in the interests of Imperial government and of the people themselves, should be broken down.

There is another gap to be filled up in the Maltese Constitution. That Constitution was set up in 1921 and we have now had experience of its working for many years. In this country we have safeguards to secure to any voter full freedom in the exercise of its choice. That protection has been given as the result of generations of struggle. Is it not fair to ask that we should secure to the humblest elector in Malta what we would secure to the humblest elector in this country? I ask that the inquiry should be set up so that when the interregnum ends that protection shall be secured.

That is all I have to say, and I ask the pardon of the House for keeping it so long on a matter on which I feel deeply, because I know that what is happening in Malta does not affect this country only. It is, of course, going to raise questions in this country. I have put this question and I can get no answer. If it is mortal sin to vote for the supporters of the Strickland ministry because of its opposition to ecclesiastical rule in Malta, is it not mortal sin also here to vote in support of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary at Burnley at the next Election? I suggest to the House it will affect not merely Malta and this country, but the issues raised there are going to cause reverberations lasting a long time and affect- ing every country in the world. Because, in the course of years, other communities will be ready for constitutional government and it will have to be decided on what terms a constitution will be granted. I only hope that this Royal Commission can be set up so that when we arrive at our decision it will be with a knowledge of the facts, so that our decisions may not be wrong but consistent with our traditions and history. We should remember what was once said by John Milton: Let not England forget her precedence in teaching the nations how to live.

Mr. OLDFIELD

It is not a pleasant or easy task which I set myself to follow the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). I could very much have wished that the hon. Member had not brought up this question at all now. I cannot see how the bringing of it up, and particularly in the treatment of it, can be very helpful in Malta at present. The position in Malta is of course that of a deadlock, and, with the exception of the suggestion—a suggestion I consider quite interesting—that there shall be a Royal Commission into Maltese affairs—the hon. Gentleman has put forward no kind of constructive suggestion at all as to what shall be done in that island. My difficulties are great. To begin with, I have not in my mind such a simplification as the hon. Member. To him everything seems black or white, and it is very black at the moment in Malta. I do not look at it with so many preconceptions as the hon. Member. Among the profound doubts and difficulties to be met in going through this highly complicated correspondence there is this one, that the Maltese quarrel is a family quarrel among Catholics, and it is extremely difficult to put before the House of Commons in any way intelligible to them a quarrel which is all the time carried on within the boundaries and limits of Catholic morality. The conception of a universal moral law to which we are all subject is a strong one held by the majority of people in Malta. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate the limitation of the argument as it is an argument among Catholics.

Mr. FOOT

If that is so, will the hon. Member explain why so many members of his own Church in Malta bitterly protest that they have been denied the rights of their Church.

Mr. OLDFIELD

That just bears out my point, that it is a quarrel among Catholics. To be denied the Roman Catholic Sacrament would mean very little to the hon. Member, but it means a great deal to the people in Malta—[Interruption]—who are at present at variance with the Church, and if there are so many Roman Catholics who take the view of the hon. Member it is a great pity, for the sake of a peaceful approach to this problem, that the hon. Member did not ask one of them to put the case. He has mixed it up with so much general denunciation of Roman Catholicism and with so much No Popery cry—[Interruption.] Unfortunately he will create that impression amongst the Catholic community in this country, in Ireland, in the Dominions and in Malta, and it is a pity, since it is a quarrel among Catholic people about Catholic matters, that the hon. Member could not have got one of that religion to have put the case instead of himself.

After all, this is a quarrel of considerable standing, and it is also one in which personalities enter to a most extraordinary degree. The hon. Member has treated it as though it was wholly based on great matters of principle. I doubt whether he is quite right. The population of the whole island of Malta is about the size of an average Metropolitan Borough in London, and when you are dealing with an island with a population as small as that personalities are far more important and undoubtedly have much greater weight than in a large and thickly populated country like our own. There is no doubt that even in the early clays, when he was Sir Gerald Strickland, that Lord Strickland created a very unfortunate impression in Malta. It was the unanimous wish of the elected members of the Council under the constitution as it was in 1901 that Lord Strickland, or Sir Gerald Strickland as he then was, should be promoted elsewhere, and he was promoted elsewhere to the Leeward Islands from where lie went to Australia. His Governorship in Australia was not a fortunate one. Let me quote from an article in the "Times" of 13th September, 1907, which says: Unfailing tact, a keen sense of proportion, and the power of adapting means to ends, are qualities that are necessary in the government of the self-governing Dominions. It cannot be said that Sir Gerald Strickland exhibited these qualities in the necessary degree. Wherever he has been there has always been friction, and I say that because in my opinion the quarrel is very largely a personal quarrel centring around the personality of Lord Strickland. When he went there as Leader of the Opposition from 1921 to 1927 there was a whole series of events, small in themselves, almost petty, but which nevertheless are just those things which are designed to irritate people to the maximum, just the kind of things which, taken together, do create a sort of atmosphere. Things got very bad, and when in 1927 Lord Strickland became Prime Minister there quickly arose incidents which made the friction more acute. The hon. Member has referred to the case of the three Anglican Bishops. There is, I think, a great deal to be said for the hon. Member's view, and I myself would not hesitate to suggest that Anglican Bishops should come together and meet anywhere that they choose. But we are not thinking of England or of English ideas; we are considering Malta, with the atmosphere of Malta behind it. All I can say is that had the Governor wished to do a tactless thing he could not have done a more foolish thing than have invited to meet him three Anglican Bishops in what was, it is true, the private house of the Governor, but which, just because it was the private house of the Governor, was to a certain extent a public building of Malta, with associations that may be very dear to the Maltese—long association with the Order of the Knights of Malta and so on.

I think one can quite safely say that that action, though not a wrongful action. was exceedingly tactless. It was exactly the kind of thing that in a small community of 200,000 people would be likely to arouse feelings and make things worse than they were. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the other charge relating to the Franciscan monk, Micallef. I should think that the hon. Member did not mention that because, in fact, one thing comes out quite clearly, and that is that the ecclesiastical authorities in that case were right and were admitted to be right by the British Government. This Franciscan monk, for reasons of discipline, mainly because the religious house, was, it was thought, not being conducted in a fitting and edifying way, was visited by Monsignor Carta, who ordered and recommended that the monk should go away.

Dr. DAVIES

Why?

Mr. OLDFIELD

Because it was considered that things were not going well. But that monk was ordered, not out of the British Empire, but, in the first place, was offered a post in India. It was only when he objected to going to India that he was sent outside the Empire to Sicily. It was the first point on which there was friction and trouble, and it was the point on which the Maltese Government was subsequently proved wrong and the ecclesiastic authorities were proved to be within their rights. This trouble led the Government of Malta to ask for an Apostolic visitor. There may be reasons for another independent investigation, but undoubtedly this investigation was as independent as an investigation could possibly be. At the request of the British Government the Vatican was asked to send this Apostolic visitor, and the Vatican having previously ascertained that the man they chose was thoroughly acceptable to the British Government, they sent him, and he had a perfectly free hand to make the investigation in Malta. The curious thing is that it is not until Lord Strickland and the Ministry find out how adverse Mgr. Robinson's report is that we hear any kind of complaint about Mgr. Robinson at all. All the time that they thought he was going to produce a favourable report, there was nothing too good for him, everything was placed at his disposal, and it was even suggested that special laws should be made to facilitate him in his work. It was only afterwards when it was found out how thoroughly hostile that report was—and incidentally it was so hostile, that the Vatican at first did not wish to publish it—that Mgr. Robinson's credentials, so to speak, were criticised in any adverse way.

Mr. FOOT

The whole statement as put by the hon. Member in relation to Mgr. Robinson and his visit is in many respects inaccurate. This was not a general inquiry into Malta. Mgr. Robinson was asked by the British Government to deal with difficulties which had arisen through the intense participation of the priests in local politics.

Mr. OLDFIELD

No, that was one of the suggestions made, but when the Apostolic visitor was sent, the Vatican expressly said that they could not accept the statement that the troubles in Malta were due to the political interference of the priests. The Apostolic visitor was sent there with very wide terms of reference to investigate the whole of the causes of the trouble. But I wish to come now as time is short, to the main part of the trouble and that is the fact that on 1st May the Archbishops and Bishops of Malta issued their Apostolic letter in which they said that it was mortal sin to vote for Lord Strickland or support his party in any way. I agree that that Is a very extreme step. I also agree that it was probably a very inopportune step. I think had the Bishops not published that Pastoral letter, the elections would have taken place in the natural course of events, and Lord Strickland would have been peacefully eliminated by popular vote which would have been a very much more sensible way of doing it than the present way. Frankly, for political reasons, I am very sorry indeed, and I think it was a political blunder that the Bishops should have published their Apostolic letter. But I could not admit for one moment that there are not cases where it would be the clear duty of an Archbishop or a Bishop to give moral guidance to his flock, even to the extent of saying that in certain circumstances it was a mortal sin to vote for certain candidates.

I do not think any Catholic could admit that there are not circumstances in which, according to our beliefs, it is perfectly justifiable for an archbishop or a bishop or a responsible ecclesiastic to interfere. Whether this is a justifiable case or not is a matter for discussion, but that such cases exist is absolutely undoubted from our point of view. We are at a deadlock for this reason. Quite clearly, you cannot expect the archbishops to withdraw their statement. The archbishops did not manufacture a sin. They merely called attention to a state of facts which was existent and they said "it is the fact that if you vote for this man, you will be committing a sin." But no archbishop can create a sin and no archbishop can make a thing right which is actually wrong. Therefore, hon. Members will see that it is impossible for these archbishops to withdraw their considered statements that to vote in such a way, in certain circumstances, was mortal sin. I hope they may be able to modify that statement a little, so as to get out of the deadlock which exists. To expect a withdrawal of the statement, as I think some hon. Members do, is altogether impossible.

I am not at all averse to the hon. Member's suggestion that there should be another inquiry, and another inquiry from outside, for it seems to me that there is quite enough explosive matter just at present to justify a very careful inquiry. Malta may be a small island, but considerations like this are just those things which cause real trouble and make for real disturbance, and I think the best course which the hon. Member for Bodmin can adopt is to say as little himself in public as possible on the subject. It may be that the hon. Member gets a response and will get a very quick response from many Members in this House, but the attitude of the hon. Member and the speech which he made are really going to be of very little use in helping matters in Malta at all. If hon. Members are going to raise the question of what are the proper occasions upon which the Church may make a pronouncement upon politics, and if hon. Members are going to deny that there are any such occasions—of course, many would—if those views were to be practised, it would make a most awkward situation in many different parts of the Empire. We might, for instance, be suspending the Constitution of the Irish Free State very easily, and we might be suspending the Canadian Constitution as well, possibly for some clerical interference, so-called, in Quebec.

If we start considering this Maltese question on the very broad and basic lines of principle which the hon. Member has brought forward, we shall get ourselves into very great difficulties indeed. I think that, on the lines of considering it a practical difficulty, something may perhaps be done to ease the situation and bridge the difficulty, but I ask the hon. Member, if he can, to realise that this quarrel is a quarrel between one Catholic set of people and another, and not to judge it from a point of view which is outside the whole conception of Catholic feeling as to be meaningless altogether to the Catholic population of Malta. He had better accept the limitations imposed upon this problem, and within those limitations, especially if there is an easing away of the actual personalities, who, it seems to me, are causing so much of the trouble, I am not hopeless that some way out can be found. I hope that before very long we shall have a General Election in Malta, which will show quite clearly what the people of Malta wish to do. After all, if the people of Malta wish to be advised by their Bishop in that way, it is a very difficult thing for an outside country like ourselves to interfere, and I think that by far the wisest thing would be to have a General Election. Accepting the limitations of the position, accepting the moral power of the clergy, which the hon. Member cannot get over, I would welcome, first of all, that there should be a free General Election in Malta—

Mr. FOOT

What does the hon. Member mean by "free"?

Mr. OLDFIELD

An election allowing free play for the internal forces in Malta.

Mr. FRANK OWEN

Without interference from Rome !

4.0 p.m.

Mr. OLDFIELD

With interference if you will, with the strongly expressed opinion if you will, of the local bishops and the clergy in Malta. You will never get freedom at all by imposing a lot of very unacceptable propositions such as perhaps the hon. Member for Bodmin would impose. I think there should be an election, and that there should be a referendum and that the referendum should be something to this effect: "Do you or do you not resent the attitude of your bishops and archbishops in publishing their Pastoral, and do you or do you not want an election?" I think if these questions were answered, and I think the one about the election would probably be in the affirmative—

Mr. THURTLE

Suppose that such a question as that were put, would it be a mortal sin if they were answered in the negative?

Mr. OLDFIELD

Far be it from me to judge what would and what would not be a mortal sin. If this expedient and the expedient of an election proved useless, then we might have the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bodmin and have an outside inquiry. It is a most difficult thing to make a speech in this atmosphere on a very delicate question. I am only too well aware that there are two sides, and in this matter the whole issue is confused and complicated beyond imagination. I do not wish to criticise in a hostile way the manner in which the Government have tackled the question. I think the Government have been very restrained. If I have said anything of a provocative character, I think it may possibly have been on account of the approach of the hon. Member for Bodmin, which, of course, is not my approach.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels)

We are already due in another place and the eloquence of my two hon. Friends has left very little time for me to comment on their observations. I make no complaint about the raising of this subject. I know the keen interest which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) takes in it, and I am not surprised at his desire to speak on it. This has, however, naturally led to the reply that we have had from the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Old-field), about whose sincerity I am equally convinced. I think we all agree he made a very temperate and restrained speech. It is fortunate—in view of the shortness of the time that I have—that, as far as the view of the Government is concerned, there is no material change in the position since the subject was last raised in this House. There is, therefore, no occasion for me to make any new statement. As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government only took the decision they did in this matter with very great reluctance, and it was only after very careful consideration that they found themselves forced to the conclusion that no other course was open to them. The constitution of Malta has as its fundamental basis the right of free choice by a democratic electorate, and when conditions arose which appeared seriously to affect this fundamental basis His Majesty's Government felt they had no option but to suspend the operation of that constitution. It is gratifying to know that the Government's action has had the approval not only of the important section of public opinion in this country for which the hon. Member for Bodmin spoke, but also of a large body of opinion, both here and in Malta, which most certainly cannot be described as having any anti-Catholic bias. I am very glad—in this connection—that the hon. Member for South-East Essex reminded us again that this is a dispute between different sections of Catholics, and therefore has nothing of the Protestant and Catholic controversy in it.

The hon. Member for Bodmin said he did not like Ordinance V. I have simply to say, in reply, that there has been no change in the policy which was previously announced by the Prime Minister and by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State. It must, of course, be recognised that the position in Malta at the present time is an abnormal one, and that the position of all concerned must to some extent be abnormal. Adjustments of various kinds may require to be made from time to time as circumstances require.

On the question of the publication of additional documents, I have already explained the reasons which convinced His Majesty's Government that this course is not at present advisable. The occasion may arise, but there seems no need at present for further publication. The position is the same in regard to a Royal Commission. There may be grounds for having one, but this is certainly not the time for it.

We are anxious to see a calm consideration of these controversial matters by those who can bring them to an end. His Majesty's Government themselves cannot depart from the principles they have laid down as those upon which the functioning of the Malta constitution must depend. We hope that wise counsels will soon prevail and so enable the Maltese people to enjoy again those democratic privileges which we and they so highly value.

There are a number of other matters with which, had time permitted. I would have dealt, but I think I have said enough to show that—broadly—the position is not changed. His Majesty's Government are pursuing the course which they had regretfully to take up, and they will pursue it so long as circumstances require. I would deprecate heat and passion about this controversy. It is truly a case where we can say, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I hope that some means will be found by which the people of Malta will again, before long, be able to have their full constitution restored, and I hope that all of us in this House and outside will work towards that end.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

We all sympathise with the point of view of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), but in reference to what he said in regard to the interference of a foreign Power in the concerns of the British Empire, I recall to the memory of the House that only a few weeks ago, in a matter in which the United States was concerned, he was introducing a Bill to subject British seamen to the loss of their daily bread because he feared that they might be doing something that would annoy a foreign Power. I think he should apply the same reasoning to this case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.