MALTA (LETTERS PATENT) BILL [Lords].

HC Deb 01 July 1936 vol 314 cc487-539

7.28 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill comes from another place, where it passed through all its stages without a Division, and it is now my duty to explain its provisions to the House as briefly as possible, to listen to the views expressed in different parts of the House, and to reply to them as far as I can. The Bill has two main objects. The first is to restore the powers which the Crown possessed relating to the Constitution of Malta, from the time when Malta became of its own wish and volition a British Colony more than 130 years ago until the year 1921—to restore to the Crown its powers to change the Constitution of Malta from time to time, if circumstances seemed to dictate that it would be wise to do so, by Letters Patent. The second object is to validate all Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of Malta, with the approval of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, since the second suspension of the 1921 Constitution, which suspension took place in the autumn of 1933. In the Colonial Office we take the view that there is no doubt that these Ordinances are constitutionally and legally valid; but, as they have been and are being challenged in the courts, we want to avoid wasteful and expensive litigation. I wish to make it clear that, if some court could be found to declare them invalid, the Government would be compelled to come to Parliament the very next day to validate them by special emergency legislation. The Maltese Courts, both of first instance and appeal, have already decided that they are valid, but we do not want an endless stream of cases ending in appeals to the Privy Council, such as the one now being brought by Lord Strickland about his advertisements which disfigure the beauty, the amenity and the historic dignity of that wonderful Island. The validating Clause of this Bill, however important, will, no doubt, be considered by the House as much less significant than the first operative Clause, which restores the power of the Crown to alter the constitution of the Island from the form as it was before 1921.

The Constitution of 1921 was set up, like most Colonial Constitutions, by Letters Patent. How, then, is it that it requires an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses to restore the power of the Crown? It arises out of facts which are part of our legal history, and there are two quite celebrated cases where judges have decided at Common Law that this procedure of a new Act of Parliament is required in certain cases. The first case goes back many years. It was one of the many celebrated judgments of Lord Mansfield who, in the case of Campbell v. Hall, arising out of changes made on the advice of one of my predecessors in regard to the Constitution of the Island of Grenada in the West Indies, gave the judgment that, once the Crown by Letters Patent had created a legislative assembly with power to make laws, it had parted with its prerogative right to legislate and could not resume the right unless and in so far as that right had been expressly reserved in the Letters Patent. A similar case was that in re the Bishop of Natal, where it was decided by our courts that the Crown lost its prerogative rights when it had granted representative institutions. In most recent Colonial Constitutions this right has been expressly reserved, but in the Letters Patent setting up the new Constitution of Malta in 1921 they were not so reserved and, consequently, that Constitution cannot be altered in any way except by an Act of Parliament re-empowering the Crown to do so.

The 1921 Constitution of Malta was admittedly experimental and was a form of Constitution then fashionable as the result of the famous Montagu-Chelmsford Report in regard to India known as dyarchy, and it was one of the first of several experiments in, dyarchy. In order to adapt the principles of dyarchy to the peculiar conditions of Malta, the 1921 Constitution provided for the creation in Malta, a small island, with her smaller neighbour, Gozo, approximately of the area of the Isle of Wight, of not fewer than five councils, an Executive Council, a nominated Council, a Privy Council, a Legislative Assembly and a Senate. That was a very highly complex machinery of government. The idea behind it was to give the Maltese electorate responsible self-government in what were to be regarded as purely local internal affairs, and to reserve to the Governor full control of the affairs which concerned Malta as an Imperial fortress and naval base—the star and key of the whole of the Mediterranean—involving of course, all external affairs.

Those who have followed the history of the evolution of Dominion status and the like know, while it sounds very easy to divide internal from external affairs in theory and on paper, how difficult it sometimes is in practice. In Malta, it was found, as the result of the experience of this complex Constitution in 1921, extremely difficult to draw a clear line between the two sides of the dyarchy and to maintain them distinct, but for some time the experiment continued, until in 1931 the then Government, for which hon. Members opposite were mainly responsible, suspended that Constitution in consequence of the acute clash which had arisen between the Maltese Government, under the leadership of Lord Strickland, and the Ecclesiastical authorities. I well remember the discussions in this House when the Government of that day, to which I was opposed, suspended the Constitution, and the issues that were raised were reminiscent to my historical mind of the Constitutions of Clarendon and the reign of Henry II in this country.

However, after two years' suspension of the Constitution the National Government in the summer of 1932 restored the 1921 Constitution, but restored it with certain clear understandings given in this House and in another place, and with a clear understanding given to the Maltese people and to the Governor of Malta. That clear understanding, which was one of the fundamental conditions under which the Constitution of 1921 was restored, was a clear understanding in regard to the language question. There is no subject of more acute controversy in Malta than this language question, and the understanding was that the teaching of Maltese and English should continue and be developed in the elementary schools. That was a principle to which we and very large sections of the Maltese people, who are very proud indeed of their ancient language, attached the greatest importance. The other party, the party opposed to Lord Strickland, tended to depreciate the value of both the ancient Maltese language and of the English language, and preferred the development of the Italian language. As a result of the election when the Constitution was restored, the party opposed to Lord Strickland was returned by a majority at the polls, and from the very start, the new Ministry of that party set themselves, we say deliberately, to evade the very express conditions under which the Constitution was restored in regard to this all-important question of language.

However, an effort was made to come to compromises, understandings and the like, but it was quite clear in the course of a few months, after the extreme clash of opposing political parties rallying round opposing cries on this language question, that extreme political vindictiveness and bitterness on both sides was being introduced, and in the autumn of 1933, after 15 months' retrial of the 1921 Constitution, the Governor, on the authorisation of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, again suspended the Constitution, and for the last two-and-a-half years it has remained suspended, and the whole functions of government have been exercised by the Governor alone, the Governor, of course, being responsible to this House through whoever occupies my position. His Majesty's present Government have decided that they cannot in present circumstances contemplate the restoration of the 1921 Constitution, and they take the view that indefinite continuation of the rule of the Governor, without either a Legislative or Executive Council, is equally undesirable, and they desire to have a new Constitution. The only way in which they can have a Constitution capable of development and change in the future, as experience shows desirable, is by resuming the power which the Crown possessed up to 1921 to amend the Constitution by Letters Patent.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

The right hon. Gentleman used the words, "The Government cannot in present circumstances restore the 1921 Constitution." Do I understand that that means that the Government would, in other circumstances, restore the Constitution?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

No, I want to make that clear. We regard the dyarchic Constitution of 1921 in the light of our experience of the two suspensions. We do regard that as absolute, and believe that the Constitution of Malta in future must be upon unified lines rather than upon dyarchic lines. I want to make that clear. We do not contemplate restoring the 1921 Constitution, but we do contemplate the evolution of new Constitutions in Malta from time to time as circumstances permit. We want this Bill in order to resume the power to do what we can do by Orders in Council—vary the composition of the Legislative Council and the Executive Council from time to time as circumstances permit, and as this House expresses, through the control of the Secretary of State and its usual representations, the wisdom of so doing.

We desire to give Malta a new Constitution, but we cannot do so. We can only continue this formula which we have to-day, namely, ordinances issued by the Governor under the emergency and suspended powers, or restore the 1921 Constitution, and we do not want to do either. Indefinite continuation of the rule of the Governor without either a Legislative or Executive Council is, in the view of His Majesty's Government, undesirable and incompatible with the admittedly high level and culture of the Maltese people. We hope to be able to frame a new Constitution—and this time a Constitution which can be amended and evolved from time to time as circumstances become opportune, instead of as at present being tied to the rigid Constitution of 1921, and all the defects that that Constitution has been shown by experience to possess.

We say, at first, that the unofficial element in the new council will be nominated, and as and when circumstances permit it is our hope that some elements of representative government can be introduced. Let me make it clear that whatever the exact form of Constitution we decide, in consultation with the new Governor of Malta, to adopt, I have no intention of allowing the Crown Colony type of Constitution which throws on me in Malta as elsewhere the major ultimate responsibility, to become stagnant. In public health, scientific agriculture, cultural development and financial stability, and all that will develop the national life of Malta, I am confident that the Maltese can be assured that the new Constitution, as during the last two-and-a-half years, will enable great strides forward to be made in their welfare. Malta and England are rightly proud of their mutual and intimate association for over a century. Malta down the centuries has had a stirring and gallant history. It is full of magnificent monuments and buildings of this great past. Firm, good and progressive government must be maintained in a colony which is of immense importance to this country in the scheme of Imperial Defence, and in the interests of a loyal and proud people with its special traditions and culture. I hope that it goes without saying that England in the future will respect, as she always has in the past, the religious liberties of the people of Malta and the special position of the Roman Catholic Church as the religion of the island, as established by law.

I ask the House, therefore, to pass the Second Reading of this Bill not in any spirit or desire to restrict the free expression of opinion in Malta or anything of that kind, but in a true spirit of good will to the people of Malta, and with the assurance that this House will ever be mindful of their welfare and concerned with their progress and with the future development of the Maltese Constitution.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."

The right hon. Gentleman has commended this Bill in terms which are wholly inadequate. Clause 3 has not even been honoured with a reference, and this Clause deals with the abrogation of Sections 1 to 4 of the Malta Constitution Act, 1932, Section 4 of which is of particular interest to hon. Members on this side of the House inasmuch as it has relation to the Trades Union Council. The right hon. Gentleman did not deign to say one word about it. The right hon. Gentleman must not assume that pleasant platitudes addressed to the people of Malta can be deemed in any way as an adequate justification for the very grave step which the House is asked to take to-night. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear, and his colleague in another place has made it more clear, how grave is the step which the Government are taking to-night. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that, before this step is formally endorsed by this House, it ought to be justified by the Government right up to the hilt. If I lay down that test, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the testimony he offers is wholly inadequate. That this is a grave step is beyond doubt. It has been suggested in another place that this Bill is intended to place Maltese affairs upon a regular and permanent basis. I invite the House to note that "permanent" was the word that was actually used. "Regular and permanent basis" were the exact words which appeared in the speech of his colleague in another place. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he is surprised at the use of that language. Very well, which of the two spokesmen of the Government is the House to accept as being authentic? One can behold one voice in this House, and another voice in another place, and apparently there is no agreement or understanding between the two voices.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I think that my Noble Friend in another place used the word "permanent" in the sense that permanently Malta should have a unified constitution and not a dyarchic one, and that is the understanding in which the word "permanent" is now correct. To say that we are now proposing for all time to lay down an unchangeable constitution for Malta is not correct, and I hope I made it quite clear in my speech that it is not the case.

Mr. JONES

I think that I shall have to refer to that point in detail presently, because I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the speech of his colleague in another place. When this Bill was first submitted it was acknowledged by the Government spokesman—and indeed the right hon. Gentleman has done the same here to-night—that in the Constitution of 1921 there was set up not representative government, but responsible government with certain reservations. I gather that the contention of the Government to-night is that the Constitution of 1921 was vitiated by two flaws, first that there was no power of reserve to the Legislature, and, secondly, that there was no power to revoke the Constitution as a whole. It is because of the so-called flaws in the Government point of view that the Bill has been introduced to remove those limitations.

The statement was made when the Bill was introduced in another place that as soon as the Bill is passed the Government intend to submit to His Majesty a proposal that the new powers derived from it shall be utilised to effect some modification in the existing constitutional position. The question therefore that arises for us to-night is, what do these modifications signify in form and in fact? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that, anyway, the Government do not contemplate Crown Colony government in the strictest and narrowest interpretation of that phrase. I am glad to have that assurance, though I confess that I do not feel too reassured even now upon the matter. The country was told that as soon as possible, at a later date not specified, a more liberal system of government would be introduced, and this more liberal system is defined and implied by the right hon. Gentleman to-night as a government under a Governor with an executive council. The Executive Council, of course, is to be composed of an official element and an unofficial element. It was made abundantly clear by the right hon. Gentleman that the Executive Council is only to be an advisory body. The country was informed a little more fully through the medium of the speech of the Under-Secretary than we have been informed here to-night as to what seems to be in the mind of the Government concerning the future direction of affairs.

We were told in the speech in another place that the Government propose to associate a number of Maltese of standing and experience. What does "a Maltese of standing and experience" imply? I do not know how you are to measure his standing, whether he is to be one who will get up when told to get up, and sit down when told to sit down. He is clearly a person who is to represent nobody but himself, and he is to be called up higher by the Governor if the Governor thinks fit. He is to be a nominated person. We were told in the speech to which I have referred that this council was to be a proper and regular channel through which unofficial opinion might be expressed. That was the view expressed in the other place as to the appropriateness of this form of government. It is true that the Under-Secretary said that it was to be of no more than an interim and provisional character. The right hon. Gentleman opposite underlined that point, in order no doubt to encourage our hopes as to the future. When one read those words naturally one was less disconcerted than one might otherwise be, but our hopes were speedily dashed, for all that the Members in the other place were told was that the Government looked forward at some unspecified time to establishing some form of representative government. But we had a little more precise idea given to us as to what this form of government implied to the mind of the Under-Secretary. Let me quote his words: By responsible government I mean not responsible government with Ministers, but a Legislative Council comprising, in addition to official members, a number of unofficial representatives chosen by popular election. That is the form of legislative council which was accepted by the Government spokesman in the other place as a proper and regular vehicle for the expression of Maltese opinion. After he had indicated the terms of the forthcoming proposals, all that the Under-Secretary could hope for was that the proposal would find a measure of local acceptance.

It is quite clear that the step we are taking to-night is a complete departure from the situation as it existed in 1921. The question, therefore, arises, why is it that the Government are taking this step? What are the grave reasons which must be present to their minds before they take a big step such as this? Surely in this matter we have some experience to guide us, even in respect of Malta. The Under-Secretary said that we must proceed step by step and learn from the lessons of the past. What are the lessons of the past There was an Advisory Council set up in Malta over 100 years ago, in 1835, and I believe I am well within the truth when I say that that Advisory Council proved unsatisfactory and unacceptable to Maltese opinion. It was removed. Parliament took steps to change it. It must have been conclusively proved to the mind of the Government of the day, if not to the minds of the Maltese people, that a change from that form of government was necessary. Representative government was introduced over 50 years ago, in 1885, and that representative government proved not a complete success. I am putting it mildly by saying that. Experience, therefore, gives us guidance, first, upon the question of an Advisory Council, which is now proposed, and, secondly, upon the effectiveness or otherwise of representative government.

In 1921 Parliament took the very big step of carrying a Constitution, through the medium of which not representative but responsible government, with certain reservations, was given. We are asked to-night not to hark back even to the 1885 provision but to the 1835 position, 100 years ago, without the right hon. Gentleman taking the trouble of explaining adequately why the Government ask the House to take such a, step. Let me confine my argument to what has taken place from 1921 up to the present time. From 1921 to 1930 responsible government was in operation in Malta. Can anyone say that responsible government in Malta from 1921 to 1930 was a complete failure The right hon. Gentleman will, quite properly, retort that in 1930 the Government of which I was a very humble member suspended the Constitution, but with the exception of the crisis which grew up in 1930 I maintain that in the preceding years it could not be contended that responsible government was a failure. In support of my contention I will quote a speech, not from anyone on my own side but from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). On 26th June, 1930, he said: While I entirely support the action of the Government, I do most sincerely hope they may find a way out of this difficulty which will enable the Constitution of Malta to come into operation again at the earliest possible moment. It would be a great misfortune if this wide measure of self-government—this really very daring experiment in self-government which was conceded to Malta less than ten years ago, and with the concession of which I was privileged to be closely associated—should be treated as having failed. Apart from the intervention of this issue, I do not think anybody can suggest that the Maltese have shown themselves unfitted for self-government. They have had plenty of liveliness in political contests; so have we. But there has never been a liveliness directed against the Empire or this country, and in spite of that liveliness the Island of Malta, has, under self-government, made very satisfactory progress indeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1930; col. 1477, Vol. 240.] On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman was speaking officially on behalf of the Tory party from this side of the House. The Constitution was suspended in 1930. I am not exaggerating when I say that in 1930 the controversy was mainly between the Church on the one side and some individuals on the other, important individuals, and the Maltese people as a whole had probably nothing to do with it. The Constitution was restored in 1932. Then came the language difficulty and the Constitution was suspended again in 1933. I took a pretty lively interest in the controversy in this House in 1934 on the Colonial Office Vote. I said then what I repeat now, that the Colonial Secretary of that day took a step in regard to the language question in complete contravention of the recommendations of the Askwith Commission. On page 166 of their report the Askwith Commission recommended: That if and when the Secretary of State for the Colonies is satisfied that sufficient expression of opinion is given in support of an alteration in the elementary schools and that there is a desire on the part of the people in the Island for an alteration we consider that the alteration should take place. I do not know whether he took trouble to find out what the views of the people of Malta were. At any rate, the Constitution was suspended in 1933 and it has been suspended ever since. When the people of Malta exercised the rights of self-government it can be fairly contended that they conducted themselves with some credit. It was argued in support of the suspension of the Constitution in 1933, and it has been argued on this occasion, that these changes came about partly because of the failure of the Maltese people to govern their financial affairs properly. My reading of the situation does not justify that observation. I think I am well within the truth when I say that when the National Government went out in Malta and its functions were taken from it, that Government left a surplus in the Treasury of revenue over expenditure of £150,000. There was not a single penny of public debt outstanding. Therefore, it is not fair to say that these people have brought about a state of financial chaos in Malta, as was positively stated when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor spoke in 1934.

It cannot, therefore, be the truth that this situation has come about through any financial obliquity on the part of the Maltese people. It was said in the other place that it was time the poor Maltese had a change, a little rest from electoral controversy; that they should have a rest from elections and political dissension. Is that a. good reason for suspending the Constitution? I shall have been a Member of this House 15 years next month, and I have fought seven elections. That may be an argument for a rest, but I do not think that it is an argument for suspending the Constitution? Is that not a. flippant reason to advance for these proposals? It gives you the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that there is some reason behind all this which the Government have not given; that they have not given us the real truth of the matter.

It is suggested that the position of affairs in the Mediterranean justifies this step. Let us look at that contention for a moment. The Maltese people, as a matter of fact, under the Constitution of 1921, have nothing at all to do with defence. It never was a part of their task, it was specifically reserved to the Governor, and through the Governor to the Imperial Government, and if you restore the Constitution as it was in 1921, it will not give to the Maltese people a single iota of power in regard to defence. Clearly that cannot be justified as an argument in favour of abrogating the Constitution. If this proposal cannot be justified on financial grounds, if the electoral argument is flimsy and if the argument of defence does not apply, can it be that the loyalty of the Maltese people is in question? I have quoted from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and when he referred to the loyalty of the Maltese people his remarks were applauded by the Colonial Secretary. In addition, there was a specific acknowledgment in another place of the loyalty of the Maltese people by the Under-Secretary of State, in these words: His Majesty's Government not only believe they know that the vast majority of the people in Malta are absolutely loyal to the Crown and Empire to whatever party they belong. Clearly then this step is not being taken on the ground of any alleged disloyalty on the part of the Maltese. If it is not taken on the ground of finance or because the Maltese have failed to do their job, on what ground is this step taken? I fail to understand why the Government are taking this step. It has been suggested that the Maltese Constitution is a little too complicated. In that case the obvious remedy is to make it less complicated, not to be like petulent children—if you do not understand a thing, smash it. That is what the Government are doing. There are five instruments of Government in Malta. Let me see if I can remember them. There is the Senate, the Legislative Assembly, the Privy Council, the Governor, and organisations connected with the Governor. Malta is not a very big place. Suppose you got rid of the Senate, would the Maltese lose a lot? It would be a terrible thing if it should lose its Senate. There is the Privy Council, which I think does very little. If it went no one would shed any tears. If the machinery is too complicated simplify it, not smash it, as you are doing.

What is going to be the effect of all this on the Maltese people? To us it may not appear very impressive—Malta is only the size of the Isle of Wight, a glorified county council—but to the Maltese people it means very much. It cannot fail to be a great affront to them if they are put back not to the position of 1921 but to the position of 1835, with a very plain indication that not for a very long time, if at all, will the Constitution of 1921 be restored. I am getting very disturbed about these indications of a growing tendency in the Colonial Office in regard to various parts of our Dominions. We have first of all Newfoundland—first not in order of time, but in order of magnitude. The conditions there, I know, were very grave, but we argued then that the abrogation of the Constitution even in those conditions was too big a step to take. There has been a much smaller one at the other extreme. There has been a successful attempt to abrogate the Constitution in the municipality of Suva in the Fijis. Little straws show which way the wind blows. There have been attempts to express hostility to the functioning of self-government if it operates in a way which the Government do not like. When it operates in a way which does not serve the purposes of the Government, then it is necessary to change the government.

Here we have a third instance—Malta. I admit that the Colonial Secretary's point is quite fair. Malta is an important strategical position, but so far as safeguarding of actual strategic matters are concerned that is not in the hands, and never has been, of the Maltese Government. If you do this and withdraw from them completely, formally, and by law any chance of a restoration of the 1921 position, you will not only take a very big constitutional step but you will, in my judgment, alienate people who might easily become very valuable friends. I do not think that you can afford to alienate these people, and even if you could I should still argue that you ought not to do this. These people attach great importance to the powers they possessed in 1921. For nine years they did their job without any complaints. There have been complaints since 1930, but in the intervening years from 1930 to the present time they have had no chance of proving that they have learnt by bitter experience.

We take the strongest possible objection to this proposal and, speaking for my friends and myself, we should like the Colonial Secretary to explain in a little more detail the real reasons for this step on the part of the Government. If the Colonial Secretary when he comes to reply will give us the reasons why the Government are suspending these four Sections of the 1921 Act, we shall be glad indeed. We take our stand once again in this matter on the ground of firm principles. These people have the right to be consulted as to the conditions under which they are called upon to live. The Governor may choose admirable people, he may choose excellent advisers, but what authority will those advisers have unless the people have had some voice in choosing them? Therefore, it is on the broad ground of democratic principles, as well as in the conviction that no adequate case has been presented for this step, that I submit my Amendment to the House.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

It is now, as the Minister said, two and a-half years since the Constitution of Malta was suspended for the second time, the Maltese Ministry dismissed and a state of emergency declared by the Colonial Secretary. Since then Crown Colony administration has been set up and Crown Colony administration of the most severe type. This state of emergency has been stretched to cover as much as two and a-half years, and I want to submit that this is really a standing reproach to the Imperial Government and to successive Colonial Ministers. A years ago, the Colonial Secretary, who is to-day Dominions Secretary, said in this House that a state of emergency could not continue indefinitely. They why has this state of emergency been allowed to continue for so long? It is, I believe, because Ministers could not decide what permanent measures to adopt for the future government of Malta, and the emergency lasted as long as the indecision in the Ministers' minds. In fact, it has taken a succession of four Colonial Secretaries to consider this problem, and meanwhile Malta has been subjected to a one-man rule. It has been governed by ordinances, and many of these have been of doubtful validity.

To-day, the Colonial Office comes to the House and asks us to declare all these ordinances as being valid, and to validate every one of them. Clause 2 of the Bill clearly shows that the Minister doubts the validity of many of these ordinances, and what he asks for is a retrospective declaration of validity. I do not pretend to say that this is altogether a precedent. I believe that it happened before, in 1932, on the subject of the Island of Malta also, but surely that ought to have been a lesson to the Colonial Office at that time and they ought to have given their instruction to the officers in Malta to enact only such ordinances as they knew would be valid and could be validated without the authority of this House. In any case, the Government certainly had no excuse for continuing to exercise such doubtful powers for so long. After all, we know they have had a large and docile majority, and it would have been easy for them to have introduced proper legislation which would have given the Governor of Malta any powers they saw fit. So much for Clause 2 of the Bill.

The main object of this Measure, as the Minister has said, is contained in Clause 1. It is the policy of the future, and it is with that policy that we on these benches are mainly concerned. Let me say at the outset that we are in no way prepared to accept a Measure which merely validates what has been done and continues the present system of government. What is essential in Colonial affairs is continuity of policy. I venture to submit that in Imperial and Colonial affairs continuity of policy is even more important than in foreign affairs. During the last 100 years the British Government have shown that sense of continuity, and it is that enlightened policy, carried out by the Imperial Government, which has endeared this country and the rule of this country to so many of our Dependencies which encircle the world. As a result of that policy British Colonies and Dependencies have kept their attachment to the Mother Country and to the Crown.

Therefore, I suggest that it would be most regrettable if there were now a reversal of this policy with regard to the Island of Malta. For Malta our ultimate aim should be the same as for all the other Colonies, and that is to establish in due course representative and responsible government. In my view the restoration of responsible government in the immediate future is inexpedient, and here I may say that I differ from the official Opposition. After all, the official Opposition have agreed that they suspended the 1921 Constitution, and to-day, as far as I can gather from their speeches, it is to that same 1921 Constitution, which was twice suspended, that they wish to return.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

It was not twice suspended by us.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

It was twice suspended by this House. I subscribe on this question to the advice and the opinion of Lord Askwith, who, while Chairman of the Royal Commission which reported on the 1921 Constitution, urged the Government to restore the 1921 Constitution with small alterations in regard to the judiciary; but only the other day in another place he supported the view of the Government of to-day and urged that responsible and representative government should be given to Malta again by stages, and he did not wish that the 1921 Constitution, the return to which he had advocated after the suspension of 1930, should be returned to at the present time. His view is indeed not surprising when one thinks that there were two successive attempts to carry out the behests of the Constitution of 1921, and that both of them failed. The factors which caused those breakdowns are still very powerful to-day.

The clerical influence will always be very strong in Malta. We all remember the effect of the Bishop's Pastoral in 1930. It prevented the working of representative institutions, and although Lord Askwith in 1931 thought that no such pastoral would be issued again, there is no certainty that another pastoral may not again interfere with the working of representative institutions. Another point is that the clerical element and the Italian movement are to a great extent identical, and in the present international and European situation we cannot ignore that fact. We cannot forget that one of the greatest achievements in the masterful policy of Signor Mussolini has been to gather the policy of the Vatican into the orbit of his own Italian policy. The Vatican has not shown itself out of sympathy with the Italian conquest of Abyssinia.

Mr. LOGAN

What grounds has the hon. Member for saying that?

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

I assure the hon. Member that I am only stating the historical facts. I do not wish to make any accusation or any criticism. I merely say that the Vatican has shown that it was not out of sympathy with the policy of Signor Mussolini. I am not saying that in any derogatory manner. I simply put it forward now that when Signor Mussolini talks about "Malta Nostra," as he has done, he has the sympathy of the Vatican and the active support of its instrument in Malta. There is another important consideration which has always influenced the form of government in Malta, namely, the importance of Malta as a strategic point, not only as a factor in Imperial defence but as a factor in world peace. As far back as 1901 Joseph Chamberlain pointed out that this was a great Imperial fortress. We say that a system of government ought to be devised which will reconcile two factors—the necessities of Imperial defence and free representative institutions for the Maltese people. It is the duty of the Imperial Government to devise such a system and I trust, although it may be inexpedient at the present time to restore responsible government to Malta, the Imperial Government will make that restoration its ultimate aim. I sincerely hope that that is the Government's ultimate intention, in spite of the disheartening utterances made in another place by the Noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office.

The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition has referred to those speeches, and I would like, with the permission of the House, to refer to them in another aspect. The Under-Secretary spoke of the eventual establishment of some form of representative but not responsible government. He said that on two occasions. I trust that he was speaking only of the immediate future. Malta has known and has worked representative government for centuries. The Letters Patent of 1887 gave Malta a council of government in which six members were nominated and 14 were elected. Are the Maltese to remain at that point for ever? We cannot deny to them the hope of responsible government because of two unhappy failures. Such a policy would, I submit, have the most serious reactions. The first effect would be to encourage the pro-Italian movement and discourage the great body of the Maltese people. These are, practically all, loyal to the British Crown, but they are strongly patriotic and proud of their national possessions and traditions.

Therefore I sincerely trust that the Government's ultimate aim is still responsible government for Malta. recognise that it may be necessary to proceed by stages, and I should like the Government to be more definite with regard to the stages by which it is intended to advance. I understand that the first stage is to be the setting up of a council of nominated members to assist the Governor in an advisory capacity. I hope that this stage will be short-lived, and also that this council will soon consist mainly of elected members. That would be no more than a restoration of the constitution of 1887. I turn to the more immediate future. Whatever machinery of government is set up, I trust it will be liberal—liberal with a small "1." I trust that it will be more liberal in operation than the machinery of the past 2½ years. Even if it is a despotism, I hope it will be an enlightened and benevolent despotism. Above all I hope that more freedom will be given to the expression of opinion. I wish to see freedom of opinion throughout the island. In another place Lord Strickland revealed that there were restrictions on free speech.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member of the rule concerning references to proceedings in another place.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

I was not quoting from a speech but was merely stating generally what had been said there, and I think I am entitled to do so, but I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand, however, that public meetings both inside and outside the fortress have been suppressed for two years, and that political meetings are not permitted by the police inside private premises. I learn also that last December there were protests against the drastic muzzling of the Press. That is a state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue. Apparently, only one person has freedom of speech in Malta and that is Signor Mussolini, who nightly broadcasts Italian propaganda through the thousand wireless sets recently installed in Malta. The Under-Secretary in another place congratulated the Govern- ment on installing those sets. What have they been used for chiefly? For the unrestricted dissemination of Italian news and the distortion of news. Are the Government to be congratulated on that achievement? Yet although Signor Mussolini is free to broadcast his views and to inflame the population of Malta at his wish, the Maltese themselves are not free to protest against it.

Last December such a protest was attempted. A public meeting was held, and the loyal Maltese cried "Long live England." They were arrested by the police, and the Union Jack was torn from their hands. The police, no doubt, were acting legally, but what a state of affairs in a British Dependency. What justification can there be for such a suppression of free opinion, both on the platform and in the Press? Why suppress both loyal and disloyal opinion? I am fully of opinion that the Administration should real drastically with Italian propaganda. It is the duty of the Imperial Government to protect the people of Malta from any outside interference such as that, but, after all, what we must think of is that we must also free loyal Maltese from illiberal restrictions which prevent them from giving expression to their just grievances and aspirations and hamper attempts to combat the propaganda from Italy.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurances for which we ask. We are not prepared to embarrass him to-night, and we are prepared to support him in this Bill, provided he gives us these very necessary assurances. But in all legislation affecting Malta let us bear in mind these two essential factors: Malta is a fortress, which has for over 100 years guarded the safety of the maritime highway of the Mediterranean in the interests of peace, and this should continue to be so, but do not let us forget that we are also responsible for the political well-being and contentment of a loyal, civil population.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER

It is a remarkable and interesting fact that so many of the islands in the Mediterranean have been, at one time or other, under the control of the British Government. The Balearic Islands—Majorca, Minorca, and Iviza—which now belong to Spain, were once British; Corsica, which now belongs to France, was once British, and if Napoleon had been born a few months earlier, he would have been born a British subject; the Ionian Islands, which now belong to Greece, were once under the British Crown. A year or two ago, when I was in Corfu, the leading Ionian island, I was interested to see that the principal ornament of the Governor's palace was a very fine portrait of our King George IV. Having parted with these islands, we still have two very important islands, the Island of Malta, of which we have been talking to-night, and the Island of Cyprus. These two islands, which are on the way to India, are vital to our control of the route to India and for the purposes of defence. The Island of Malta is a small island, but it has created an amount of attention in the world during its history far in excess of its natural importance. As the Minister said, the Island of Malta is about the size of the Isle of Wight, and the population of Malta is equal to the population of Portsmouth and Southsea.

The Bill which we are now discussing is going to give to the Crown the full and undoubted right to legislate for Malta by virtue of the Royal prerogative. To that I take strong exception, and with most of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) I agree. The result of passing that provision will be that the Government of Malta will become practically Crown Colony Government. The Governor has complete control of Malta. He is a dictator, and the people of Malta have no control over his decisions or his actions. As the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary who dealt with this Bill in the House of Lords said, the Government is a somewhat drastic form of government. Another Noble Lord, who is very well known as having occupied a prominent position in Malta and who has been for many years past devoting his life to the welfare of Malta, said, quite truly—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that the only exception to the rule against discussing speeches in another place on the same subject is when they are in the nature of official pronouncements by Members of the Government. We must not discuss debates in the other House.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER

I will continue on the line which I was following, without, I hope, breaking the Rules of this House. I have the strongest possible objection to the Governor having this complete and despotic power. It has been said that it is the intention of the Government gradually to introduce a period of reform which will increase the power of the people of Malta to deal with their own affairs. An Executive Council is going to be appointed, comprising officials and nominated non-officials. That will be, if carried out, the only mitigation of the despotic rule of the Governor which will be permitted, at all events for some time to come. It is very important that we should keep right with the people of Malta. It would be of vital importance to us, if we were engaged in war, that we should have, in the Island of Malta, situated as it is in that part of the Mediterranean, a friendly people. It is, as has been said, a fortress on the way to India. One of Napoleon's great mistakes was to disregard and ignore the feelings of the people of Malta, which led them to turn against him and, in conjunction with the British, to expel him from Malta.

The Maltese are a very proud people; they are proud of their history and of their race, and we have to remember that Malta is not a ceded territory but a sister nation in the great Commonwealth of nations under the Crown of England. We are not entitled to treat Malta as a possession that we have conquered. Malta is in very much the same position as Scotland, and we must remember, too, that we are dealing with a nation, which joined England of her own accord after we had driven Napoleon out of Malta and taken the City of Valetta. The people of Malta linked themselves with us deliberately, and accepted the brotherhood and kingdom of England. We should do what we can to make a loyal population in Malta. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) referred to the Italian propaganda. That is very serious. It is being carried on deliberately, steadily, and very cleverly. Mussolini referred to Malta as "Malta nostra"—"our Malta." Although I have no personal knowledge of the fact, I am assured by friends that in that part of Italy which was formerly Austrian, in the new towns and cities which are growing up, the squares and streets are given the names of places in Malta.

The idea of ultimately securing this island, situated as it is, is one of the aims of that propaganda. The way to neutralise it is to treat the Maltese in such a way as to secure their loyalty to the Throne. A very proud people, they have a splendid and interesting history. They were originally under the Saracens; from them they passed to the Normans, and for centuries they were governed by the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, until, finally, they came under the British Crown. From 1090, when they were taken over by the Normans, they had a consilio popolare, a popular council. At intervals during their history they have had this popular council, and one can understand a nation that has enjoyed control of its own affairs in the way that Malta has resenting this Bill. I should like to see the Bill modified in the direction, of giving greater power to the people of Malta. We want them to have more control immediately in their own affairs instead of the proposed system of government by a form of dictatorship.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

I agree with a good deal of what was said by the last speaker, particularly as to the historical aspect of the Maltese question. It is true to say that the Maltese were never conquered by this country. The French forces in 1800 were driven out of the island by the joint efforts of the British and the Maltese troops. I hope that the Government realise the fundamental change which they seek to bring about in this Bill. When I first took it up it seemed to me to be of little importance. It is a short Bill of two Clauses and, on the face of it, very innocuous. When I looked at the 1921 Constitution, however, and compared it with the proposals of this Bill, it became clear that this is a Measure of a very revolutionary character. That may seem a strange thing to say about the Government, because so far they have not done anything of a particularly startling nature, except perhaps in the international sphere. When the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill he did not do his case justice with the explanation he gave. May I remind him that he is endeavouring to do something for which, so far as my limited knowledge goes, there is no pre- cedent? Not only is he trying to put the clock back, but he is seeking permanently to deprive a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations of constitutional powers almost equivalent to those of Dominion status which it has enjoyed since 1921. I know of no case in the history of this country where an attempt has been made to deprive a Dominion permanently of the constitution conferred upon it by the Imperial Parliament. That is what this Bill seeks to do in the case of Malta. I should have thought that no Government would have attempted to do any such thing except in the most exceptional circumstances.

I listened to the Minister carefully in order to learn whether any very exceptional circumstances exist to justify this very revolutionary proposal, but I listened in vain. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is in the same position as his leader of having his lips sealed I do not know. Whether there are, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, various questions of international policy behind the proposals, I do not know; but even if questions of the balance of power and of Imperial welfare were at stake in the Mediterranean, I have yet to learn that to deprive a proud nation like the Maltese of the right of responsible government and to replace it by what is equivalent to a benevolent form of despotism or dictatorship, is likely to increase their loyalty to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I was disappointed in listening to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, to hear him suggest that he had not much objection to this constitutional change.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

Why did the Labour party deprive Malta of its constitution?

Mr. HENDERSON

I have yet to learn that they ever did. What happened in 1930 was that the Constitution was suspended, and it remained suspended for two years. It is one thing to suspend the Constitution and another thing to kill it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not suggest that the action of the Labour Government in 1930 in suspending the Constitution deprived Malta of a Constitution permanently. The Minister was inclined to argue that the 1921 Constitution was not sufficiently flexible. That statement must, I think, have been due to a misunderstanding. Is it not a fact that under Section 41 (6) of the 1921 Constitution the Maltese Legislature were given full power to alter the Constitution, except so far as the reserved points were concerned? It was originally provided that a two-thirds vote was required, and I believe that in 1928 that was altered so as to require merely a bare majority. So far as the non-reserved points were concerned, therefore, there was ample power in the Maltese Legislature to amend the Constitution. So far as the reserved points were concerned, ample power is given by Section 60 to His Majesty in Council to amend, alter or revoke any of them. Taking the two Sections together, it is not correct to say that the Constitution was not flexible and not susceptible to change.

Therefore, I hope that is not the real reason for the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman put forward. Clause 1 of the Bill does seek to carry out a fundamental change, seeks to revert back to government by Order in Council instead of government by an elected legislature. Objection, I think, can also be taken to Clause 2, which follows the procedure embodied in the Act of 1932, and, in effect, seeks to indemnify the Governor and his advisers in respect of acts which have been carried out since 1932. In the Act of 1932 there was a similar indemnity Clause in respect of executive acts carried out between the years 1928 and 1932, and I should have thought that was definitely undesirable from a constitutional point of view. Are the Government coming periodically to this House to seek approval of executive acts the validity of which are in question? Why did not they learn from their experience in 1932? In the Preamble to the Act of 1932 it is expressly stated: Whereas it is expedient to remove doubts which have arisen as to the validity of certain of the amending Letters Patent and as to the validity of the Order in Council, Acts and Ordinances hereinafter mentioned and on looking at the First Schedule to that Act I find that indemnity is to be given in respect of a number of ordinances which were put into force during those years. After that experience in 1932 the Government come back to the House in 1936 and ask for further indemnity in respect of ordinances put into operation during the last four years. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite who follow the profession of the law would at any rate have agreed with us on this side of the House that that is not a very strong case for asking the House to repeat what took place in 1932. To my mind it affords a strong argument against this method of government in our possessions. I suggest to the Minister that it is not sufficient to say that as time passes an attempt will be made to help the Maltese people by increasing the measure of representation on the Council which is to advise the Governor. No matter how much you increase the representation, if the Council is merely advisory you will still, in effect, have a kind of palace government, government by the Governor acting on the advice of his officials. That is inconsistent with democracy. We should not tolerate it in this country. We have made mistakes in the past. Malta may also have made mistakes in the past. The fact that we can point to weaknesses in our own form of democratic government would not be accepted as an argument for turning to a kind of Fascist government, and it is not an argument to say that because the Maltese have made mistakes in the last 10 years therefore they are not to be trusted with a form of self-government.

I hope that hon. Members on this aide of the House will record their protest against this attempt to deprive the people of Malta of a fundamental right—which at any rate is acknowledged in this country—to govern themselves in domestic matters. Even if we look upon Malta from the point of view of our Imperial interests the Minister has admitted that defence and foreign affairs are reserved matters and not within the powers of the Maltese Parliament. Therefore, even though our interests in the Mediterranean might be the reason which is at the back of this Measure it does not seem any very cogent reason for this revolutionary change. I hope that when the Division comes hon. Members on this side of the House will dissociate themselves completely from the proposals contained in this Bill.

9.11 p.m.

Captain ALAN GRAHAM

I think those Members of the House who know Malta best will agree that there was really no other course open to the Government than to discontinue responsible government there and to legalise both that and the ordinances passed which have been rendered necessary by it. While I am not one of those who believe that the very peculiar form of Constitution evolved by ourselves, a somewhat peculiar people, and suited to our traditions, temperament and climate, is necessarily at all suitable to people with quite other traditions, temperaments and climates, it does behove all of us who have the sound government of our Empire at heart to examine what were the causes for this discontinuance of responsible government. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) complained that those reasons had not been afforded to him. With a people such as the Maltese, nine-tenths of them loyal to the British Crown, industrious, intelligent, and, in the words of Napoleon's Governor of the island, General Vaubois, who was actually defeated by them, "Good natured, receptive to good treatment and easy to lead," why did responsible Government fail? In my view it failed for one essential reason: the ruling elements in the Nationalist party in Malta were not really reconciled to British rule, and thought that they had greater opportunities for their own advancement under an Italian occupation. The geographical propinquity of Italy has naturally exercised a very strong cultural influence upon Malta through its universities, schools, and seminaries for the clergy, and the ex-pupils of these cultural institutions have been—not all of them, but many of them—willing vehicles for the spread of Italian propaganda and of the utterly false Italian propaganda that Malta is Italia Irrendenta.

The Maltese people on the contrary are primarily of Carthaginian stock, and speak Italian partly for the simple reason of their propinquity to Italy, and partly because Italian has been in the past more or less of a lingua franca in that part of the Mediterranean. And these elements of the Italian intelligentsia, together with discontented lawyers, certain of the clergy who were too clever by half to be spiritual, and too ignorant—others of them—to be rational, have formed ready vehicles for this false propaganda. Their real leader was Dr. Mizzi, who has openly avowed his preference for Italian rule over Malta to British, and the secretary of this so-called Nationalist party has recently been sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour for espionage on behalf of Italy.

With His Majesty's Government or His Majesty's Opposition in Malta composed of elements such as this, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that responsible government has not been carried on in Malta by people animated by democratic principles. That they should be suppressed for disloyalty is a logical principle followed by many of the Governments in the world, particularly that of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, which I know will warm the cockles of the heart of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), But we should be failing in our duty if we were to allow ourselves to let matters rest where they are, without inquiring what are the causes of these discontents and disloyalties. It is one of the features of our Imperial administration on which we have a right to pride ourselves, that we benefit by our special practical capacity in material things such as engineering, sanitation and commerce, especially the poorer classes in the Colonies, but we seem to be very much less happy in dealing with the educated classes in the various portions of the Empire. We do not seem to provide them with those opportunities for intellectual development that are provided for them in other Empires.

It is common knowledge throughout the French Empire that the natives of the French Colonies, however dark their colour may be, when they are educated, look upon themselves as the spiritual descendants of Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Victor Hugo and Fabre. The opposite is the case with us, yet all the time a war of cultural development or of intellectual opportunity is going on. New vehicles for the transmission of thought, such as the wireless and the cinema, have been perfected, and other nations and cultures are making vast use of those vehicles, while we hesitate and are slow to take advantage of them. If we have any faith at all in the ideas underlying our civilisation, we should be impelled to propagate them, and to use the most suitable of modern vehicles for the propagation of those ideas. Particularly is it necessary for us to utilise these new methods to the maximum capacity in the Mediterranean, where we are face to face and in constant contact with two very powerful cultures, the Greek and the Latin cultures. In these days, when we have very much less material power than we had in 1914, we have all the greater need of these intellectual reinforcements. Such would be my first suggestion to remedy some of the discontents which have brought down responsible government in Malta.

My second suggestion is that our Colonial service should have a special Mediterranean section, especially trained for Malta and Cyprus, and not interchangeable with officials from East or West Africa. These two islands should be bastions of British culture in the Mediterranean, where they are faced with the rivalry of Greeks and Latins, and need, to my mind, quite other men and other methods from those which give such good service in Africa, where there are far less civilised and far less subtle populations. My third remedy flows naturally from the other two, and it is that by every means in our power we should show the Maltese intelligentsia that we do care for their welfare, and are ready to open every possible opportunity to them for identifying themselves with our Imperial institutions, whether in all three Defence Forces or in the civilian services also. Every opportunity should be taken to identify educated Maltese with British institutions throughout the Empire.

In this connection it is most earnestly to be hoped that suitable representatives of the Maltese nobility will be invited to His Majesty's Coronation next year, and that their courtesy-titles should be, as far as possible, harmonised with our own usage here. Small units lose their pettiness and parochialism only when they can feel that they are integral parts of a much greater whole, and that the greatness of the whole renders each fraction greater than when standing alone. When that attitude of mind is prevalent both here and in Malta, combined with the steady increase of progressive government, which, as the Secretary of State has indicated, is to be given to the Maltese, we have every ground for believing that then we shall have a happier Malta and a stronger and more contented Empire.

9.22 p.m.

Commander BOWER

I must confess to a certain sense of disappointment that, when we are discussing Clause 2 of the Bill, we have not one of the learned Law Officers present. The Clause appears to raise very important questions, and doubtless there are precedents for this kind of thing. I cannot see why, when there are obviously all sorts of cases where legislation, ordinances or enactments in various parts of the Colonial Empire are held to be ultra vires, in the special case of Malta, Parliament appears to be usurping the functions of the Privy Council. Parliament has, of course, a perfect right to do so, but we ought to have a little more elucidation on this important point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us something about it when he replies. In regard to Clause I, the effect is to remove existing limitations to the power of His Majesty's Government to revoke or amend by further Letters Patent all or any of the provisions of the Malta Constitution Letters Patent, 1921, under which the Constitution of 1921 was granted. Under the original Letters Patent, His Majesty in Council surrendered the right to legislate by Letters Patent and reserved no power to revoke the 1921 Constitution. It is now obviously sought to revoke that Constitution, and this Bill is its death knell. I should not be at all surprised if it is the death knell of responsible government in Malta. Malta is a fortress, and certain interests have to be protected. Under the Constitution of 1921, defence, as well as everything connected with the armed forces, and such things as currency, the issue of passports, restriction of aliens, etc., were reserved. This Constitution, which was devised during that orgy of so-called self-determination which followed the War, was a cumbrous and top-heavy instrument, not at all suited to the conditions of the Islands. While I do not regret the passing of that 1921 Constitution, I am not at all satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the future. It seems to me that the Government have no moral right whatever to deny representative government for one moment longer than is necessitated by a grave emergency. The whole history of the Maltese people shows that. I propose briefly to delve into the history of Malta, and I hope I may be able to show that that is so.

The Islands have had a very chequered history. They were originally colonised by the Phoenicians. The Greeks followed, and they were replaced by the Carthagenians, who were Phoenician in origin. Under Rome, the Islands were raised to a great height of culture and prosperity. During the decay of the Roman Empire, they were occupied by the Vandals and the Goths, and finally by the Arabs, who apparently killed off all that survived of the Greek population. In the eleventh century Roger the Norman expelled the Saracens, and Malta became part of the Kingdom of Sicily until, after the Sicilian Vespers, it became the property of Spain and was granted to the Knights of St. John by Charles V in 1530. When the Knights of St. John went to Malta the Grand Master was met by the Popular Council, who, before opening the gates of the capital, insisted that he should guarantee their ancient rights and privileges. There is no doubt that the Popular Council which included elected representatives existed from the time of Roger the Norman, or even earlier, and continued to function in some respects under the Knights of St. John. Then Napoleon captured Malta, but after his defeat at the Battle of the Nile the Maltese population under a reconstituted Popular Council rose against the French, and the armed forces of Portugal and Britain helped the Maltese. Finally, confirmed by the Treaty of Amiens, and the Peace of Paris, the Maltese voluntarily elected to join our Empire.

Malta has always belonged, roughly speaking, to the nation which held command of the Mediterranean. The British government started various forms of regime from the autocratic government of Sir T. Maitland, who was known as "King Tom," to full blown responsible government. The Royal Commission of 1931 has some remarks to make on this subject. It says: It would be almost possible to plot a graph of the constitutional history of Malta during the last 100 years showing the rise and fall of Constitutions modelled alternately on the principle of benevolent autocracy and that of representative government. From time to time some measure of self-government was granted and then, after a period, superseded by a strict Crown Colony system. That went on until 1887, when the Strickland-Mizzi Constitution was brought into force. If that is considered by the right hon. Gentleman to be an unfortunate name for the Constitution, it perhaps might be called the Delaware Constitution, after the Colonial Secretary of that time. Under that Constitution on the representative model a Council of Government was set up, composed of six officials and 14 elected members. Money votes were to be decided by the elected members only, but could only be introuced by the Governor, or on his express sanction. The disadvantage of that was that the elected members were given power without responsibility. They could dislocate the machinery of government by cutting off supplies without being called on to form an alternative government. That was possibly the most successfunl form of Constitution that Malta has had. This Constitution worked fairly well for some years, but eventually, owing to differences of opinion over the language question, the elected members became very tiresome and forced His Majesty's Government to legislate by Order in Council. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 1901 said: It is not to be contemplated that the state of things which we all regret and which exists at the present time should continue. The elected members themselves will be ready to admit that. They cannot expect the Government responsible for this great Imperial fortress to allow this childish game to proceed, and it would be clearly the duty of any Government under these circumstances to preserve the great Imperial interests in their keeping either by going back to the Constitution before 1887 or by such a modification of that Constitution as may he necessary to give the Government a controlling voice in the administration. I make no threat—I have endeavoured to treat the question in a conciliatory way. I hope that no drastic measures may be necessary, and that the elected members and all concerned will meet mme in the same spirit in which I have endeavoured to meet them. Unfortunately, the elected members did not see eye to eye with Mr. Chamberlain, and the Constitution had to be suspended, and from 1903 until 1921 there was pure Crown Colony Government. The language question ever since has been the one burning question in Malta. The Royal Commission went into the matter thoroughly, and made some illuminating remarks in their report. Speaking of the Maltese language they said: While numerous peoples have occupied the Islands for varying periods, by virtue of the sea power which they possessed in the Mediterranean, the Maltese have always maintained a tenacious hold over their own language. Necessarily with the advance of different types of civilisation and of science it has largely borrowed, like every other language, from different nations and particularly from Italian and in recent times from English sources, but its main basis has remained. Professor Sir Themistocles Zammit, in his evidence before the commission, said: Every child from the lowest to the highest talks nothing but Maltese. In intercourse with everybody in the Island, Maltese alone is used. I have never heard anybody talking Italian or English in a private house except those who are indirectly connected with the Italians or with the English people. So you cannot ignore Maltese, especially as a language for a child to graft upon it another language. The Royal Commission also say: Italian was used for all notarial documents, having gradually superseded Latin. The Grand Master of the Knights, Emmanuel de Rohan, in 1784, incorporated the Code of Grand Master Antonio Manoel de Vilhena, dated 15th November, 1723, and added much of his own, including various legal customs. His Code is still treated with great respect in the Maltese Courts. In 1826, Sir George Cornewall Lewis and Mr. Austin, Royal Commissioners, suggested that Italian should remain the official language, on the ground that Italian was of chief service to trade in the Mediterranean. At that time there was no emigration to English-speaking countries and no world-wide trade to the Mediterranean Sea. The small educated class of the Maltese speak English and Italian, nearly all of them both languages, in addition to their native Maltese. Maltese is the language of most of the sermons, in the shops, markets, streets, and public meetings, on election platforms, and in a growing vernacular Press. Italian has its chief footing in the University, law, medicine, and the Church, but it is not known by the majority of the people. The whole trouble in Malta has been the attempt of a small but influential clique of Maltese to force Latinity on the Maltese people. Not more than 15 per cent. of the Maltese speak Italian. A great many more speak English, and, as I have said, they all speak Maltese without exception. The enormous influence of the Church has of course, rather naturally, but none the less regrettably, been entirely on the side of Italian. Then, again, there are complications due to inter-marriage; Italian-speaking Maltese in many cases marry Italians, and so on. I am sorry to say it has been the fashion of the Colonial Office to deny that there is any real, substantial anti-British feeling in Malta, but I submit to the House that recent events have rather shown that idea to be false. The Royal Commission, referring to Mr. made some remarks with which I am bound to say I disagree. They said: It does not appear that Dr. Enrico Mizzi has ever made any secret of the fact that under certain circumstances he would favour stronger connection with Italy, but he has been and may again serve as a Minister in Malta.… We mention this subject because so much has been made of it, and we consider that the accusation of disloyalty against the Nationalist Party is incorrect and largely founded on rumour and surmise. We are not aware how far the Government of Italy, a great and friendly country closely allied to Great Britain in so many ways, may be cognisant of any activities in Malta, but, if any activities are undesirable, your Majesty's Government would doubtless take any necessary steps in the matter. I would point out that His Majesty's Government have done nothing else for the last three or four months but deport Italians almost daily. Mr. Delia, an ex-member of the Legislative Assembly, and the Secretary of the Nationalist Party, who acted for some time as the Maltese equivalent of Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Ugo Mifsud, was sentenced only the other day to three years' hard labour for espionage in the interests of Italy. I feel that, although Lord Strickland and his party have been accused very often of unduly playing the harp on their loyalty, and on the disloyalty of the other side, there is a great deal more in it than has hitherto been suspected.

The 1921 Constitution broke down twice, first under Lord Strickland's administration, when he became involved in a dispute with the Church. I have no desire to rake up the ashes of a fortunately dead, or at least dying, controversy. As the House knows, the Royal Commission was appointed, and reported in favour of immediate elections being held, with the result that in 1932 the opposition party to Lord Strickland were elected. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the Church again exercised a lot of very undue influence. In my maiden speech in this House in 1932 I quoted the case of a parish priest who went round from door to door telling illiterate Maltese that, if they voted for Lord Strickland, an angry god would send worms and insects to devour their crops. Any number of instances of that sort, perfectly well authenticated, could be given.

Mr. LOGAN

There were one or two people who took the same attitude in regard to the Tories not getting in in the City of Liverpool.

Commander BOWER

In 1932 the question of language was reserved, and the Government decided to put into force the recommendation of the Royal Commission that Italian should cease to be the language of the elementary schools, but that Maltese and English should be taught in the elementary schools and that English should be the qualifying language for admission to the secondary schools. This was done. It was accepted with a very ill grace by the Maltese Ministry, and the moment I saw that Mr. Mizzi had been appointed Minister of Education I knew there would be trouble. The Maltese Nationalist Government set themselves out to nullify the language regulations in every possible way. They were warned time and again. I know many of them very well. Some of them came over here, and I told them that it could only result in the suspension of the Constitution; but they all said, "No; look what happened in Ireland. We have only to dig our heels in, and we shall be all right." They would not take any advice, and the result was that the Constitution was suspended again.

Crown Colony Government has certainly done much, and, with Maltese now in use as the language of the law and Italian eliminated from the elementary schools, I think the irritating language question is now almost settled. It may be said that responsible or representative Government cannot be restored in Malta while existing personalities are still living in politics in Malta, but I do not agree with that. I think that any kind of constitution must be personality-proof. I think that, if in the due course of nature Lord Strickland and Mr. Mizzi are both removed to what we may hope will be a higher sphere, there is no guarantee that other people will not arise who will be just as arduous political opponents as they have been in the past. I have heard it suggested in this House that Lord Strickland, for instance, would have been better employed had he, on retiring from a very distinguished Colonial career, be- come an Elder Statesman in Malta, but there again I do not agree; I do not see why he should. The experience of the last few days in this House has shown us how difficult it is to persuade our Elder Statesmen to forsake the cut and thrust, the rough and tumble of politics for a duller and calmer Nestorian role. I fully recognise the difficulties, but during the whole of last century Malta has alternated between representative Government, Crown Colony Government, back to representative Government, back to Crown Colony Government again, and so on, and I cannot agree that because, so far, a satisfactory form of Government has not been found, we should stop trying; nor can I agree with the expression of the Government's policy which gives no guarantee that there is going to be representative or responsible Government within a decent lapse of time. I think that it ought to be given at once. After all, the Constitution has now been suspended for over two years, and there is no doubt whatever that the Maltese people, and particularly the educated classes, are gravely concerned about this. I have spoken to many of them quite recently, and they feel a sense of injury. They realise, as we do, the difficulties and the troubles, but they think they ought to be given another chance, and I must say I agree.

In conclusion, I would like to say just two words which I hope may perhaps meet the eyes of some of my friends in Malta. To the Church I would say that the Church in Malta wields an influence far in excess of that granted to it by Canon Law, and I think it should beware of the fate of the Church in other lands where such influence has not always been wisely used. To the Nationalist party, many of whom are personal friends of mine and for whom I have a great regard, I would say, "You loudly assert your loyalty. Very well; prove it by turning out the disloyal element, and have nothing to do with them." To the Maltese as a whole I would say, "Remember that, although you are a little nation, you are yet a great nation with a very proud history. You entered voluntarily into our great Commonwealth. Try to develop yourselves politically, so that you may play a great part in a great future."

9.45 p.m.

Mr. MARKHAM

We have just listened to a speech so packed with learning and local knowledge that one can almost congratulate the speaker on being a Royal Commission in himself. My hon. and gallant Friend has given a most excellent answer to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). I listened to that speech very carefully indeed, and my impression of it was that hon. Members opposite were being urged to oppose the Bill not upon its merits but simply as a party action. The speech that we have just heard has pointed out conclusively that, if we adopt that policy with regard to the treatment of our Colonies, we are going to have a series of muddles such as we have experienced in Ireland, and probably only just avoided in India, and I would appeal to hon. Members opposite not to treat this from a party standpoint at all. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked what were the reasons for revoking or amending the Constitution, and professed his entire inability to find them. He has heard them since. He has heard of this deliberate subsidisation, by a professedly friendly Power working against the British Government by every corrupt means, of the so-called loyal members of the Maltese governing party. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why did not the Minister mention it?"] It is the duty of a Minister of the Crown to be on as good terms as possible with every shade of opinion in the Crown Colonies. On the other hand, it is the duty of every Member of the House, and of the Government as a whole, to resent attempts by foreign Powers to undermine British strength, especially in our islands such as Malta.

We have heard the evidence of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. May I add a little to it? Early this year I was travelling through Italy, and on the bookstalls you could see literature of the kind that was seen in Germany just before the War, when you had maps showing Mittel Europa, with Germany ever extending itself. On the Italian bookstalls you see maps showing an Italy which includes territory at the moment under the control of friendly Powers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) made a distinct point of the Italian boast that in the near future Malta would once again be Italian. There has been a deliberate underground campaign on the part of Italy to subsidise and pervert this 15 per cent. of the population of Malta with the ultimate idea of securing Italian control. It has been going on for some years and I regret exceedingly that neither the Government of Malta nor the Government of this country has found a means of legitimately combating the corruption that has been going on. The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) made a remark about the Maltese nation. There never has been a Maltese nation. It has always been a subject Power, always cringing to some other Power than the one it happend to be under at the moment, in the hope of personal gain. That is the whole history of Malta.

I cannot too strongly support the remarks that have been made of the strength, especially the financial strength, of Italian propaganda for the so-called loyal Maltese which has been going on for many years. If there were no other reason than that for supporting the amendment, or even the revocation, of the Constitution of 1921, I fancy that that reason alone would carry some conviction to Members of the House. But there is another reason. The hon. Member for Caerphilly made the point that the attitude of this Government and, perhaps, preceding Governments in dealing with Crown Colonies was one of going back to ever greater autocracy and reversing democratic tendencies. That is absolutely false. He must know as well as anyone else that, in the case of Newfoundland, the Constitution was suspended at the request of the Prime Minister and of the people themselves, and it was at that democratic request that we sent out a Commission and made the required amendments. He also mentioned Suva, in Fiji. At whose request were those alterations made? They were made not at the request of Whitehall, but of Fiji. As against those two cases you have the cases of Egypt, Iraq, and recently India. where we have been extending the responsible power to people formerly under our more autocratic control. That is the tendency.

But the main reason that I would urge for supporting this is that there has been great harm done in the past through this see-saw policy from Whitehall with regard to the control of our Colonies, and even of the Dominions. There has been a, switchback over a century between benevolent autocracy and radical democracy. In this case the engine seems to have been reversed, but it was not a National or Conservative Government that did the reversing from democracy to autocracy. It was the Labour Government, and it is because they had the courage to take the first step to put an end to a noxious evil that I ask them to support this Bill. Not a single speaker on that side has said he wants to go back to the Constitution of 1921 without change. Not a single speaker on that side has said he wants the continuance of the present autocratic governorship. They agree that a change is needed. This Bill gives you every opportunity of change that you want. You can amend or revoke, and if that party gets into power in the next five years, it can make any change it wishes.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. KELLY

Judging by the speeches to which we have listened, one would imagine that there are very few people in Malta who are not prepared to sell this country. The last speech will do a great deal of harm there and I wish it had never been delivered. I can hardly recognise the people whom I represented for a number of years, from the hon. Member's description. You will find in Malta many men employed in the dockyards, employed on the civilian side of the military establishment and employed by the Air Ministry, who are equal to the best that is to be found in this or any other country. Judging by the statements that we have heard to-night, you would imagine that every one was disloyal and that there were few who could be depended upon. [Tim MEMBERS: "No!"] We have heard very little else.

Mr. MARKHAM

That is a gross travesty. I said it was only 15 per cent. of the population, and that 15 per cent. consisted to a great extent of the intelligentsia. I wish no aspersion to be cast on those who are working in the dockyards or in the Government Departments.

Mr. KELLY

I accept that statement, but it is vastly different from the one to which I listened, when I heard the Maltese described as people who were always cringing and subject to others. That was a statement contrary to everything which I know of those people, with whom I have been associated for years in their efforts to improve their position and standard of living and to raise the general condition of the working people in that part of the world. Tonight we are asked to agree to this Measure, which deals, among other things, with the appointment of judges and with the fact that the trade unions of Malta have representation in the Council. Not a word of explanation of these matters was given by the Minister. He kept very closely to a draft which appeared to have been handed out to him, but there was not a word with regard to the Sections which we are asked to-night to agree to repeal. One Section deals with reserve matters, another with the judges, and a third with the Trades Union Council. I have known that ever since the Trades Union Council was given representation the idea has never been liked by His Majesty's Government. There have been great difficulties in the past with regard to the choice of persons from the trade unions in the island to represent the people with whom they work.

I would ask the Minister to explain why we are being asked to-night to agree to the repeal of those particular Sections, 1 to 4. Why are we being asked to agree to legalise ordinances without being told what they are? Are hon. Members to go into the Lobby in response to the appeal to vote for the Bill without knowing what the Bill lays down? There has been no explanation by the Minister as to the ordinances about which very grave doubt is felt at the present time. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). There was a time when the party of which he is a Member were believers in freedom, but to-night we have had a statement made in the nature of an appeal to the Government to set up some form of benevolent despotism that may take the people of Malta along the road to somewhere.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

That is an entire travesty of the statement that I made to the House. I wish to contradict the statement of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) here and now. I did not say that I was in favour of any kind of despotism, but I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, that if there was any despotism at all, I hoped that it would be benevolent. I hope that before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman will answer several questions which I have put to him to-night.

Mr. KELLY

I accept the statement of the hon. Member, but I took down the words, and he made use of the term "benevolent despotism." The muzzling of the Press and the suppression of the people in Malta make it impossible to secure an expression of opinion with regard to the action which is now being taken by His Majesty's Government in this Bill. It is serious indeed that people who have acted so well towards this country and done so well in its service should not have an opportunity of expressing themselves as to the form of government and the method of administration to be operated over their lives. I trust that hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members on the opposite side will have regard for the good government and name of this country and go into the Lobby against this Bill.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I want to supplement the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) earlier in the Debate. He submitted to the House that no justifiable reasons have been given for the complete revocation of the Constitution of 1921. He tried to imagine four or five reasons or excuses that might have been applied, but none of these applies to the position at the moment. Notwithstanding the statements made by certain hon. Members opposite and the fervent appeal of the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham), we are still wanting a true explanation of the introduction of this Measure. This country was more or less in charge of Malta for about 100 years, and it was only in 1921 that it conceded a Constitution in which self-government in regard to local affairs was made permissible.

I would ask not only the Minister but the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham and other hon. Members sitting opposite whether they can justify the statement that the Maltese, in the Legislative Assembly between 1921 and 1930, failed in any particular. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham, who appears to be so interested in this problem, could point to any particular incident between 1921 and 1930, until religion intervened, where the then Legislative Assembly failed, there would be some justification for the belief that he advanced this evening. I do not think that the Minister, the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member in this House can advance one instance where the popularly elected Legislative Assembly failed to fulfil its function during those nine years.

It was in 1930 that the first serious trouble began, when the Labour Government were obliged temporarily to suspend the Constitution, not because the Nationalist party or the Constitutional party or the Labour party had exceeded their powers, or because the Assembly failed in any way to fulfil the functions for which it had been elected, but because of outside influences which had intervened to serve the Maltese. It was not because of Italian propaganda or any other external influence, apart from that of the Church.

Mr. MARKHAM

The hon. Member has given his whole case away by admitting that it was outside influence that dominated Maltese politics during the period in question. If he will refresh his memory by reading the Debates in this House in 1930 he will find my point very fully borne out.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member must give us credit not only for having read the Debates, but for having paid attention to the question before 1930 and subsequently. I said that the Legislative Assembly of Malta, a popularly elected body, as such failed in no material particular to fulfil the functions for which it was elected, but that an outside body, namely, the Church, intervened and disturbed the peaceful political situation. Following the suspension of the Constitution in 1930 the Royal Commission was set up and the Constitution was restored in 1932. Then the language question brought about a second suspension of the Constitution in 1933. That really is no justification for the revocation of the Constitution. In the nine years during which the Legislative Assembly was in operation I witnessed with my own eyes the good work that it was doing. I have had the good fortune to be in Malta three times during the past seven or eight years. I saw the Maltese Legisla- tive Assembly building working-class houses out of revenue. No interest mongers were making money out of the Maltese people. That is a thing perhaps never hitherto done by any British Government or any official or unofficial council representing that country. I saw schools in the course of erection, and children being educated, between 1921 and 1930. For about 100 years children had had no educational facilities afforded. I saw social institutions developing. I saw that small island beginning to live in reality. When hon. Members tell me that the Maltese Parliament has been a hopeless and lamentable failure, I say that that statement is inconsistent with the whole of the facts.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the strategic influence of Malta is something that this House cannot ignore, but I am not sure that it is full justification for the complete revocation of representative government, or that it is a justification for returning to Crown Colony government. There has been no promise from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place, or from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that in any reasonable time the hope even of unofficial members of the Council being popularly elected will be realised. What does that imply? It means that the Governor will have full power to appoint his officials. I gather that there are lots of people in Malta, where professional jobs are not too numerous, who are anxious to obtain situations under the new regime, and at the moment they are perfectly quiet.

The Governor always in the case of Malta is an ex-General of the Army, virtually appointed by the Army Council. He will have full power to appoint the unofficial members of the Executive Council. I would ask the Minister and members of the House generally what is likely to be the type of person that a General will appoint as an unofficial member of the Executive Council. Is it likely that the General Governor or the Governor-General, whatever he may be called, will think in terms of a Labour member? The very life that he lives will compel him almost inevitably to look upon the average trade unionist or member of the Labour party as he looks upon a private in the Army. It is fair to assume that once this Measure has been passed Labour or trade union representation in the Island of Malta will have gone almost for all time. Therefore, in view of our experience in the past, which is a fairly good guide for the future, we can have little or no confidence in the situation that this Bill will create.

A member of the Legislative Assembly, who had represented his country and was a loyal member of the British Commonwealth, was convicted because he had books in his possession written by George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells. That conviction still remains. No Colonial Secretary out of the last three or four has attempted to remove that conviction, a conviction merely because a respected. member of the Legislative Assembly, elected by the people through the ordinary agency of the popular vote, had books of that description on his bookshelf. I would ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Markham) whether that is the sort of government that he thinks ought to exist in Malta? Is that the form of government that he regards as democratic and suitable for 1936 7 During the nine years that the Maltese people were able to elect their own representatives, not to deal with strategic points or questions of the Army or Navy but to deal with social questions which touched the daily needs of their own people, it cannot be denied that they made real progress in regard to housing, and that they developed their educational system.

I do not know whether I am wrong.—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am—but I think that when the Maltese were given self-government in 1921, after 100 years of British government, they had 80 per cent, of illiteracy, but by 1930, after only nine years of self-government, they had a system of compulsory education. If it was not absolute and covering the whole of the children between five and 14, at all events the system was well on its way. To the extent that they had attempted to do something to educate their people they had justified a better fate for themselves than, this Bill will provide. Social insurance, compensation, and things that matter so much for the worker will be left to be dealt with, not by the individuals who have secured the franchise of the people and to represent their desires and aspirations, but to the executive council appointed by the Governor. If the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied the House that the 1921 Constitution -was so intricate and difficult, that the Governor could not attend five different bodies where the Maltese language was, spoken, that other difficulties existed and that the Constitution no longer met the situation, and that he was willing fairly quickly to revise or amend the Constitution and make it more consistent with modern needs, perhaps there would have been no disagreement with his proposals, and we could turn ourselves into a Council of State so far as Malta is concerned, but if the mere revocation of the 1921 Constitution means a return to the pre-1921 position, when the workers were suppressed, held down, left uneducated, without decent houses and without opportunities for organisation, without any of those things which enable them to express themselves freely, we must oppose the Government on this Bill.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us what are the real reasons for the revocation of the Constitution apart from the fears of 15 per cent, of the residents in Malta; to what extent Italian influence and propaganda is responsible for this step, and what steps the Foreign Office have taken to invite the Italians to cease their propaganda. Also, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what date he has in mind at which to allow the unofficial members of the Executive Council to be elected by the people and not appointed by the Governor? That is fundamental. I have a letter here from the Labour party in Malta, not an irresponsible party, but a party which secured the election of five members to the Legislative Assembly out of a total membership of 32. They have helped to govern the country in two periods during nine years, and have rendered good service. They ask us quite justifiably to see that they are not for all time deprived of the right to vote and elect their own representatives to look after their own interests, and to level legitimate criticism against the administration when it is failing in its duty to the people of this small island. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the date he has in mind when the unofficial members will be popularly elected. In the absence of any reply we shall be obliged to vote against the Second Reading.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Let me say at the outset that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that the Labour representatives in the Maltese Parliament were among the best and most useful members of the Assembly. While on this point let me deal with the question which has exercised the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), in regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, with reference to trade union representation. It is rather a complicated point. When the new Constitution of 1921 was formed it was decided, quite apart from any representation which Labour might get from the electorate in the Legislative Assembly, to give them two reserved seats in the Senate. Accordingly, two seats were specially reserved for a trade union council, This was done with a certain gift of prophecy or hope, because at that time there was no trade union council in Malta. Consequently one had to be brought into existence for the purpose of electing these two representatives to the Senate of Malta. The object of this is to prepare the way and enable the Government freely to alter the Constitution of Malta. If the Senate is to be abolished—and I say frankly it is the intention to abolish the Senate—then the specific provisions in the original Letters Patent, amended in the Act of 1932, must be got out of the way by this Bill, otherwise we shall be in the position that there will be on the Statute Book a provision for a Trade Union Council created ad hoc solely for the purpose of choosing two members in a Senate which no longer exists. What I want to make clear to the hon. Member is that that does not mean that the Trade Union Council in Malta ceases to exist or ceases to be effective for ordinary trade union purposes. May I make that clear to the House and to everybody in Malta? There is no intention to do that, and I certainly hope that body will continue to do its appropriate trade union work and support the interests of its members.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) was anxious that I should reply to one or two specific points. I think he was the first in this Debate to do what I did not do at the beginning—for reasons to which, I think, one of the hon. Members on this side referred—that is, allude specifically to Italian propaganda. Nobody can deny that, particularly during the last years, one of the causes of difficulty, one of the problems that faces the Governor of Malta has been the intensification of Italian propaganda. One can never get away from that fact in considering this Bill to-night. I do not say it is the only reason, but it is one of the factors of the situation, in view of the general position in the Mediterranean and Malta. The case has been alluded to to-night of a prominent Maltese politician, taking an active part in the political life of Malta, having just been sentenced for espionage. If there were an election to-morrow in Malta all these questions would inevitably be raised, and yet at the same time, under the Constitution of 1921, all questions affecting the defence and external affairs of Malta are reserved matters and have nothing to do with the electorate of Malta. That is the absurdity of the dyarchic position.

The absurdity of the dyarchic Constitution of 1921 in Malta is the fact that it attempted to draw a line between matters of local concern—and I count as being purely local such things as social progress, the building of houses and so on—and other matters which could not in political practice be effectively drawn. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley used the very phrase which comes to one's mind in this matter. Frankly I would not have used that phrase in this particular connection. He said everything went well until there was the intervention of an outside body. Everything, he said, went well on the local government side until the intervention of an outside body, and when asked what was the outside body, he said it was the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic Church is the established church of Malta. It is the church of the overwhelming mass of the people of the island. He described that as an outside body. It is both an inside and an outside body, but that is where a dyarchy is so limited.

There is the question of education. Obviously, the erection of schools is a purely local concern, raising no external question or no question of defence. But the question of whether Italian, English or Maltese is to be taught in schools is not a purely local question; it is an Imperial question. That is why I say that, whatever constitution may be developed in Malta in the future, I hope profoundly it will not be a dyarchic constitution. And when the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) asks why it is desired to abolish the Constitution in Malta my reply is—because dyarchy is impracticable in Malta, having regard to the character of the island. It is the greatest mistake to imagine that you can have a single pattern constitution which is capable of being applied to every colony. I think there are about 50 colonial constitutions in the Empire and each varies from the others in some particular. Other Empires have sought to impose a stereotyped and uniform type of Constitution on all their colonies, but I do not think there is a single British colony, protectorate or mandated territory, the Constitution of which is identical with any of the others. They vary according to local conditions. None of them—apart from a few very old colonies such as the Bahamas, the Barbados, and the Bermudas which have remained practically unchanged for 300 years—retains exactly the same form of Constitution for great periods of time. They vary from time to time.

The hon. Gentleman opposite asks for an assurance that the present rigid form of Crown Colony Constitution in Malta, which obtains owing to the suspension of the former Constitution, will soon disappear. I cannot say, and nobody speaking from this Box could say, exactly when or attempt to give a date. I have already said that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to begin once again on the recurring problem of Constitution making for Malta—to begin, admittedly, in the way in which the first restoration was begun by the association of electoral with nominated elements. But I must be the judge of the conditions in regard to the Mediterranean and in regard to the fortress, and of the political and other situations in Malta, in considering when it is desirable to reintroduce the system of election. As I said, I hope it may be possible to reintroduce a system of election for the unofficial side of the new Legislative Council. That is my intention, but I must reserve judgment as to when that is to be done, in the light of the conditions on the island. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely referred to wireless sets, but I think he misunderstood the position. He said that the introduction of the wireless in Malta had resulted in the constant reiteration of Italian propaganda from Italy into Malta. As a matter of fact, we have been making every effort to counteract that, and the introduction of the 1,000 wireless sets, to which I think the hon. Member referred, so far from having been an accident, was deliberately arranged by a company with which I think the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) is associated in this country, namely, Wireless Relays, Limited, who have made great efforts to co-operate, not only with the Maltese Government but with leading Maltese citizens, to introduce the British Broadcasting Corporation's Empire programmes by means of relays for the people of Malta who desire to have it; and much has it been appreciated. It is quite unfair to draw an indictment against any politician in Malta, whether Lord Strickland, Dr. Mizzi, or anybody else. Malta has had a somewhat stormy political past. Do not let us imagine that everything was uniform and stable for centuries, or even for the century since the British connection with Malta before 1921, that nothing very much happened, that then everything went well for a bit, and that then there was trouble. The whole story of Malta is a stormy story.

I am confident that the association of Britain and Malta is still most emphatically desired by the overwhelming mass of the Maltese people. It is true that there is a minority of the intelligentsia who would prefer Fascist Italy, who are tremendously affected by Fascist propaganda, but I am quite convinced that the overwhelming mass of the people do desire to continue to be associated with us, and I do not believe that there is a deep-seated sense of grievance among them that the 1921 Constitution, which has twice been abandoned, is now going to be abolished. The hon. Member opposite asked me about the case of a man who, he said, had been sentenced in Malta, and tried, and kept in prison, for possessing the works of George Bernard Shaw.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I did not say he was sent to prison. I said he was con- victed and taken to the prison gates, and that there the Governor discharged his prison liability, and he was allowed to return home, but the conviction remained, merely because he had those books in his possession.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I do not think that is a very severe indictment. I understand he was not convicted because he possessed the works of Shaw, but because of quite other things in his possession, and that it was merely a sort of joking report that he also possessed the works of Bernard Shaw. But does it not suggest itself to the hon. Member that the fact that the Governor did not allow him even to serve a day's imprisonment, and that his sentence was wiped out immediately, shows that it is not a very good case to bring as an example of the brutality of British rule in Malta?

Mr. BRACKEN

Will my right hon. Friend tell us of any other instance where the final administration of justice is in the hands of the prison governor?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

It had nothing to do with the prison governor. It was the Governor of Malta, who alone exercises the prerogative of mercy. As a result of this Debate we have had from this side of the House two speeches to which I think I ought to pay a special tribute, namely those of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) who served many years in Malta and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wirral (Captain Graham). I have some sympathy with the feelings of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wirral on the question of the relation of administration and education. It is a matter that requires the most careful consideration of anyone in my position, and I feel that we must keep the closest eye on it, because not only there, but in every colony and protectorate, it is not mere administration of justice, it is not mere economic development, it is not mere improvement of the conditions of the working classes, it is not mere facilities for trade and commerce that count in colonial administration in the long run. It is the development of those things which are on the cultural and spiritual side which tie peoples not of our race to us throughout the Colonial Empire. It is on the cultural and the higher educational side where, although we may fail, we ought to make a real effort, and I was delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend spoke on that matter. It is because of this Bill and what may follow it in a new Constitution, that I want to assure both this House and the Maltese people that on the cultural side we do want to understand them and to associate them with us and do all we can on that side. I know that many of them have been long associated with Italian culture. Many of them are attracted by the new phases of Italian culture that have developed in Italy in the last few years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Culture?"] That is how they regard it. We do want to give them the best of our culture and link it up with their great historical culture. I am sure that in that spirit we can go forward to a new Constitution of Malta, and by passing this Bill we shall have done a good day's work for the island.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the specific question which I put to him, namely, is it the policy of the Government to deny Malta for all time a responsible Government, as was said in another place'?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I never said that. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was said in the other House."] "Deny for all time"—I do not quite know what those words mean, and I cannot on the spur of the moment answer vague, general phrases of that kind. I have defined my position to-night by an answer which, I thought, had made the position quite clear.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 129.

Division No. 264.]	AYES.	[10.42 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Eckersley, P. T.	Levy, T.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)	Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Lloyd, G. W.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Ellis, Sir G.	Loftus, P. C.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Elliston, G. S.	Lyons, A. M.
Assheton, R.	Emery, J. F.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Atholl, Duchess of	Emmott, C. E. G. C.	MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. j.	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Entwistle, C. F.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Erskine Hill, A. G.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Everard, W. L.	McKie, J. H.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)	Fleming, E. L.	Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Birchall, Sir J. D.	Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Magnay, T.
Bird, Sir R. B.	Furness, S. N.	Maitland, A.
Blair, Sir R.	Ganzoni, Sir J.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Bossom, A. C.	Goodman, Col. A. W.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Boulton, W. W.	Gower, Sir R. V.	Markham, S. F.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Bracken, B.	Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Guinness, T. L. E. B.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Guy, J. C. M.	Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)	Hannah, I. C.	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)	Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Bull, B. B.	Harbord, A.	Munro, P.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Carver, Major W. H.	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Heneage, Lieut,-Colonel A. P.	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Channon, H.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Hopkinson, A.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Colman, N. C. D.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Palmer, G. E. H.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Penny, Sir G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'rS.G'gs)	Hulbert, N. J.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Petherick, M.
Craddock, Sir R. H.	Hunter, T.	Plugge, L. F.
Craven-Ellis, W.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Porritt, R. W.
Crooke, J. S.	Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)	Radford, E. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. [...].	Keeling, E. H.	Ramsden, Sir E.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)	Rankin, R.
Cross, R. H.	Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Crowder, J. F. E.	Kimball, L.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Cruddas, Col. B.	Kirkpatrick, W. M.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Dawson, Sir P.	Latham, Sir P.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.	Leckie, J. A.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Duncan, J. A. L.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Salmon, Sir I.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Touche, G. C.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)	Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)	Wakefield, W. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Storey, S.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Scott, Lord William	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Simmonds, O. E.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'[...]'st),	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.	Tate, Mavis C.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.	Ward and Sir James Blindell.
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Oliver, G. H.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Paling, W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Parker, J.
Adamson, W. M.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Parkinson, J. A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)	Hardie, G. D.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Ammon, C. G.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Potts, J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Pritt, D. N.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Banfield, J. W.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Barnes, A. J.	Holdsworth, H.	Riley, B.
Barr, J.	Holland, A.	Ritson, J.
Batey, J.	Hollins, A.	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Bellenger, F.	Hopkin, D.	Rothschild, J. A. de
Broad, F. A.	Jagger, J.	Rawson, G.
Bromfield, W.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Salter, Dr. A.
Brooke, W.	John, W.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Sexton, T. M.
Burke, W. A.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Shinwell, E.
Chater, D.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Short. A.
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Silkin, L.
Cove, W. G.	Kelly, W. T.	Simpson, F. B.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Dagger, G.	Kirby, B. V.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Dalton, H.	Kirkwood, D.	Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lathan, G.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Lawson, J. J.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Day, H.	Leach, W.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Lee, F.	Thurtle, E.
Ede, J. C.	Leonard, W.	Tinker, J. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Leslie, J. R.	Viant, S. P.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Logan, D. G.	Watson, W, McL.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)	Lunn, W.	Welsh, J. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	McEntee, V. La T.	Westwood, J.
Foot, D. M.	McGhee, H. G.	While, H. Graham
Frankel, D.	Maclean, N.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Gallacher, W.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Gardner, B. W.	Mander, G. le M.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Garro Jones, G. M.	Marklew, E.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Messer, F.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Gibbins, J.	Milner, Major J.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamllton)	Montague, F.	Woods, G. S, (Finsbury)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R.	Naylor, T. E.	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mothers.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]