Lords Sitting of 3 March 1931

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN POLICE (STAFF SUPERANNUATION AND POLICE FUND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

YARMOUTH NAVAL HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): My Lords, the main objects of this Bill are to regularise the legal position of the Royal Naval Hospital at Yarmouth and to indemnify those in control of the hospital, including the officers, in respect of past actions in connection with the hospital. The hospital has for many years been used by the Admiralty as a place for the reception of persons in the Navy who have become mentally afflicted, but doubts have been raised as to whether the Admiralty have now the power to use the place as a mental hospital in consequence of the repeal of certain legislation to which I will presently refer.
The Royal Naval Hospital, Great Yarmouth, has had a chequered history. It was completed in 1811 at a total cost of £120,000 and was built to receive
198
wounded in the Navy during the war with France, but no naval wounded ever arrived. After the close of the War in 1815 soldiers were admitted. It was next turned into a barracks but was rarely used as such. In 1844 it became a military lunatic asylum and was used for this purpose for ten years. On the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854 the Admiralty claimed the building. The military patients were removed and the place fitted to receive wounded from the Baltic, but none ever came. When peace was declared the War Office again took over the hospital and it was used by them as a convalescent hospital for soldiers. In 1863 the Admiralty again claimed the building, this time for the use of naval lunatics. Various alterations were then made. The boundaries were enlarged by taking in ground on the north and west sides and by the purchase in 1865 of about ten acres from the Corporation of Yarmouth at a cost of £10,982. The deed of conveyance required that this ground shall be used for recreation purposes only, and it contains a covenant that if the hospital should cease to be used as a lunatic asylum the Corporation should have the right to repurchase the recreation ground at the original price. The site of the hospital proper, excluding the recreation ground, together with the hospital buildings, residences, etc., is approximately twelve acres, so that the total land connected with the institution at the present time is about twenty-two acres. The hospital has been continuously used by the Admiralty as a mental hospital since 1863 and is still so used.
A serious legal difficulty has, however, arisen. During the nineteenth century the Navy and the Army dealt with their own lunatics in Service hospitals. The Lunacy Act of 1842 giving Metropolitan Commissioners rights of inspection of all asylums specifically refers to the "Royal Military and Naval Hospitals and all other, if any public asylum's for the reception of insane persons." This included the Yarmouth Hospital. The hospital was inspected by Commissioners during the period it was used as a military lunatic asylum—that is, in 1844 and 1845. Its use was thus recognised under the Act of 1842. The Act of 1842 was repealed by the Lunacy Act of 1845. This Act refers to "any person confined as a State lunatic, or a lunatic under the order of any Criminal Court of Justice

199
… or other person detained" etc., and makes provision for their being visited. The expression "State lunatic" was deemed to include lunatics in naval and military hospitals and on this view the use of the hospital by the War Office as a military lunatic asylum and by the Admiralty as a naval lunatic asylum was justified. So matters remained until 1890. In 1889 and 1890 further changes in the law were introduced. The Lunacy Acts Amendment Act, 1889, introduced various amendments, but did not interfere with the provision as to State lunatics contained in the Act of 1845. This Act, however, never came into force because, before the date at which it was to come into force arrived, the Lunacy Act, 1890, was passed and repealed the Act of 1889 and a great many other Acts.
The Act of 1890 purported to be a consolidating Act. It repealed the Act of 1845 without substituting anything specific to meet the case of persons confined as State lunatics, or without making any specific provision for naval or military hospitals for the reception of the insane. That Act did, however, provide a very wide saving clause for "any jurisdiction or practice established, confirmed or transferred by or under any enactment repealed by this Act." All reference to State lunatics was omitted from the Act of 1890. It is difficult to ascertain now what view the Admiralty took of the altered state of the law: whether they took the view that the saving clause justified the continuance of the hospital for the treatment of mental cases; or whether they did not, in fact, notice the full effect of the change introduced by the Act of 1890. In any case the hospital continued to be used for mental cases. All the time it has been so used it has been inspected by the Lunacy Commissioners, and is now inspected by the Board of Control, under agreement with the Admiralty.
Twenty years after the passing of the Act of 1890, doubts were raised for the first time as to the legal position of the hospital as a place for the reception of mental patients. It is clear that the hospital does not come within the definition of a lunatic asylum or licensed house or licensed hospital in the Act of 1890, and if these are the only places authorised to receive mental patients, then the Admiralty are out of court. On the other hand, there is the saving clause of
200
the Act of 1890 that I have mentioned. What was the object of that saving clause, if not to protect cases such as that of Yarmouth, bearing in mind that the Act purports to be a consolidating Act and not an amending Act? Next the Lunacy Acts do not specifically bind the Crown. Could the hospital be excluded from the operation of the Lunacy Acts on this account? It was not clear whether, from 1845 onwards, the Services claimed the Prerogative as a matter of treatment of persons under discipline, or made a wider claim of the Crown to detain lunatics. There are other legal points, and the whole problem was very puzzling.
In view of these doubts, the question whether the hospital should be discontinued as a mental hospital or whether legislative sanction should be obtained to continue its use as such was under consideration by the Admiralty when the War broke out, and the legal position was left in abeyance. During the War arrangements were made for the admission of a number of ex-naval patients chargeable to the Ministry of Pensions. The Admiralty have now had the whole matter carefully reviewed and have resolved to proceed with this Bill, and thus put all doubts to rest. The Scottish Office and the authorities in Northern Ireland concur in the Bill. The Admiralty take the view that great hardship would be entailed by the dispersal of the present patients. The accommodation for mental patients throughout the country is extremely limited, and difficulty would be experienced in obtaining accommodation for the cases at present at Yarmouth and any future cases occurring in the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Pensions are also anxious to increase the number of patients they have under treatment at Yarmouth by removing them from other institutions, and thus providing further accommodation for civil patients. The Bill makes provision for patients being received from the Ministry of Pensions.
If the hospital is discontinued by the Admiralty as a mental hospital, the patients will, as a rule, be sent to their places of settlement and be received in the county asylums. If this is done, the cost to the State, so far as it can be ascertained, will be higher than if the patients were treated at Yarmouth. It has therefore been decided to seek Parliamentary authority for the retention of

201
the hospital as a place of mental treatment. The present number of patients in the hospital is 119. Several of the wards are not in use pending the decision on the present Bill. There is normal peace accommodation for 213 patients, but this number could be increased to 260 by some reorganisation of the existing accommodation and without any structural alterations or additions. It is estimated that the number of naval entries which may be expected annually would, with a Force of approximately 90,000, be about ten. If the Bill is passed, the Ministry of Pensions intend to transfer patients to Yarmouth from other institutions and to utilise, (together with naval patients) the whole accommodation. The number that would be thus transferred by the Ministry of Pensions would probably be from 100 to 130.
The Bill also provides for the reception of voluntary patients under Clause 5. These provisions are similar to those in the Mental Treatment Act, 1929. Their insertion has been deemed advisable in view of the advance of medical science and the possibility of treating menial disabilities at a non-certifiable stage. It is considered that, in view of its nature, such treatment should be on a voluntary basis. I may add that no voluntary patients have hitherto been received at Yarmouth. Another provision to which I should like to direct your Lordships' attention is Clause 8, which is intended to indemnify those in charge of the hospital and their subordinates against legal action in connection with the past use of the hospital. If it should be held by a competent Court that the Admiralty acted without lawful authority, then, as they were acting in good faith and in the public interest, it is right that they should be protected. Likewise, as the officers were acting under the orders of their superiors, they, should be protected from any claims that might be brought against them. The clause also protects officers who may act outside their jurisdiction under the Bill but in good faith. This is taken from Section 330 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. These are, briefly, the reasons for the Bill and a statement of its main provisions. I ask for it the favourable consideration of your Lord ships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time, I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions about it. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the Government on their decision not to discontinue the Royal Naval Hospital at Great Yarmouth as a mental hospital, It has been known for some time that the matter was under consideration, and it was doubtful, at least, how long the patients would be retained there, and I may say that not only to me, but also to other of the Lunacy Visitors, to which body I belonged at that time, this was a matter of considerable apprehension, because we did feel that it might entail very great hardship upon patients already in the hospital.
That is all I have to say on the general subject, but there are one or two other matters, which deal rather with Committee points, to which I would like to refer. I notice that in the first clause two certificates of medical practitioners are required, but there is no provision in the Bill as to how those certificates are to be framed; only that they are to be certificates that the person is of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained. In the Mental Treatment Act there are carefully drawn up forms of certificates, and I should have thought that it would have been convenient to put into this Bill a clause requiring the certificates to be in a prescribed form, and enabling the Admiralty to prescribe the forms, which no doubt would be brought into consonance with those provided for by the Mental Treatment Act.
The next point to which I would like to refer arises under Clause 5, to which my noble friend has already referred. It deals with the reception of voluntary patients. It may be within your Lordships' recollection that when the Mental Treatment Act was before the House considerable difficulty was experienced in framing a clause, which would properly define what was required of a patient to entitle him to apply for voluntary treatment. It was felt that it was difficult to say at any moment that mental illness existed. It was also felt, I think, that whereas many persons might be found to admit that they were apprehensive of mental sickness, many of them would hesitate before admitting that they

203
were actually the subjects of mental illness. I believe the phrase ultimately adopted was hammered out in the House of Commons, and that is the phrase appearing in the Mental Treatment Act. It is in that Act not "any person who is suffering," as in this clause, but "any person who is desirous of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment for mental sickness and who makes a written application for the purpose." What I submit to the Government is that where, as is stated by my noble friend, the object is the same, it should be expressed in the same language as is used in other Acts of Parliament.
Further, I notice that there is no provision for the reception of involuntary patients, other than under certification, in this hospital, except in the case of those who have been detained in other institutions already. From the title of the Bill I gather that that is not within the contemplation of the Bill, and that it is thought sufficient that a patient desiring admission, or whose friends desire admission for him, should first be received into a civil hospital and then in suitable cases transferred to the Royal Naval Hospital. That may be the intention of the Bill, and I propose to say nothing further on that. The only other point, which was also mentioned by my noble friend, arises on subsection (2) of Clause 8. The subsection appears to me to be rather drastic, and to call for some explanation, because it says:—
"No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any person in respect of the reception or detention of any person in Yarmouth Hospital before the commencement of this Act."
I do not suppose there is any person who has any cause of action, but it does seem to me that the clause is sufficiently retrospective to deprive a person who had a cause of action of that cause of action. I realise that in so far as there is doubt whether any person detained in the hospital was lawfully detained there it is necessary that the clause should be somewhat wide, but I should have thought that same less drastic words might have been inserted which would protect all bona fide acts done before this Bill was passed. I only throw that out as a suggestion, and I do not wish to detract by one word from the satisfaction which I feel in seeing this Bill before the House.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I will see that the several points which have been raised are considered before the Committee stage is reached. I was greatly impressed by the noble Lord's observations, especially with regard to the certificate, and also the question arising under Clause 5. With regard to Clause 8, subsection (2), I am not quite sure, but I think that is a general provision which appears in other Statutes dealing with similar cases of indemnity. I will take the opportunity of looking into that matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WILLS AND INTESTACIES (FAMILY MAINTENANCE) BILL.
Order of the day for the consideration of Commons Message of Wednesday last.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY) moved, that this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons—namely: "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is not a Motion which commits your Lordships in any way to an expression of opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill, or the particular means whereby that principle is sought to be effected. At this stage, therefore, it is not necessary, nor indeed would it be appropriate, for me to say anything upon the merits. If this Motion be carried, and if the Bill itself obtain examination by a Select Committee, and it come before your Lordships on some future occasion on a Motion for Second Reading, your Lordships will be perfectly free either to accept or reject the Motion. The object of the Bill is to secure that in the distribution of an estate of a testator or a testatrix the surviving husband or surviving wife, or any surviving child who is of an age which necessitates parental support, should have a statutory right to some provision. This statutory right is to prevail against the provisions of the will, subject to this, that any benefits in the will may be put against the benefits of the statutory right. It is only proposed that the Act, should it be passed, should apply to England and Wales.
The English law upon this subject is singular, and for this reason, that it allows a man to ignore his obligations to his wife and family, and to leave his money, should be so desire, to a stranger. The Scottish law and the law of most European countries pays more attention to the family relation. This Bill in the main follows the Scottish law, but it steers a middle course between the Scottish law, which makes definite provision for a surviving spouse or any surviving children, and the law of other parts of Europe, which only allows a surviving spouse or a surviving child to apply to a Court if he or she be left destitute. The Bill was a Private Member's Bill. It was introduced, I think, by Miss Rathbone, who is 'Member for the English Universities, and received a Second Reading by a very large majority—149 to 28. It received the support of many Conservative members.
Now, your Lordships will readily understand that the provisions of this Bill are of a somewhat intricate and complicated character, and would need much minute and detailed examination before a Committee. I do not pause to go into details, but on many points this Bill will involve highly legal technicalities, and those who examine the Bill will find that the promoters of it have treated the subject with very great detail. Now it may well be that some of that detail is not necessary. It may be that there has not been sufficient elaboration. It may be that some of the provisions by which it is sought to carry the enactment into effect will want drastic amendment; or, again, it may be that the Bill itself will have to be entirely remodelled. It appears, at any rate to some of us, that this is hardly a matter which could come before this House or could come before a Committee of the Whole House, having regard to the very difficult legal technicalities involved. For my part I think the best plan would be to refer this Bill, as your Lordships are requested to do, to a Joint Committee, when the great amount of legal talent available in this House could be immediately employed in endeavouring; to find a solution to its many difficulties. I think there is a precedent for this course, and I commend it to your Lordships for your favourable consideration.
Moved, That this House do concur in the following resolution communicated by
206
the Commons, namely: "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think when this proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is examined it will be found to be one of the most unusual and startling propositions which, have been brought before this House for a long time. Whether the Bill to which he has referred is right or wrong, whether it be wise or foolish, one thing is quite certain about it: it is to interfere with and to take away rights, which have been possessed by Englishmen for many centuries, to do what they like with their own. I am not saying that there might, not be circumstances in which those rights should be limited. I am not saying that your Lordships might not think that the limitation proposed by this Bill might ultimately be accepted. But I do say without hesitation that to ask your Lordships to assume without debate in this House that the principle underlying that Bill is one which you can accept, and therefore to appoint a Joint Committee of this House and the other House to examine its provisions, is something which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been done. The appointment of Joint Committees is of enormous consequence. They enable Bills, notably Private Bills, or Bills that relate to matters that are essentially agreed, to be discussed between the two Houses at the same time, and it saves an enormous amount of time. But is there any member of your Lordships' House here who can tell me of a Bill that has been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, when the underlying proposition is in dispute, and may even be rejected by this House? I must say the thing surprises me.
The history of this matter is also not a little interesting. I find that on August 1, 1928, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, brought in a Bill with this effect, and had it read here a second time. So far as I can find out, he did nothing with it then, but left it deposited on the doorstep of your Lordships' House, where in due course it perished from neglect when the Session ended. What advantage had been gained by that except the expense of printing the Bill I do not know, but on March 6, 1929, he repeated

207
the experiment—either brought back the same Bill to be an object of pity on your Lordships' steps, or another one to the same effect. I really do not know which, for this reason, that he did no more with it but left that Bill there, exactly as he did the other, and nothing ensued. I suppose it was that the noble Viscount thought that the Bill did not seem to be much welcomed by your Lordships. No one seemed to take it up, or seemed interested in it.
So he then adopted another method, and on this occasion he moved a Resolution in your Lordships' House which did not exactly, as far as I can make out, carry out the effect of his Bill, but was a Resolution to enable matters to be adjusted for the same purpose through the operation of the Court. And that Resolution had a most unfortunate experience. There was not a single person who spoke on the matter who was not opposed to it, excepting the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and the opposition was in part based upon this thing that I am mentioning: the House was not prepared to see its rights taken away by a Resolution of that kind. And the late noble and learned Earl, Lord Cave, who was then Lord Chancellor, pointed out that the limitations in France to which reference had been made were limitations which an eminent French lawyer had declared would for ever prevent France being called a, free country while they remained. So that it cannot be said to have got a favourable hearing here. And yet that is the only opportunity you have had of discussing this matter.
And if this Motion goes through now, and a Joint Committee is appointed, what results? Well, is it not plain that the Bill will come back then prepared, amended, with the authority of both Houses; and that although you have never debated it? I protest against this Resolution. I believe it has no precedent whatever in this House. Its necessary result must be to dull the edge of debate, to obscure criticism, and to prejudge the very issue which underlies the whole matter. And these are the reasons why I find myself wholly unable to accept this Resolution. I sincerely trust that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will realise that he has asked this House to do something which is out-
208
side its ordinary practice, and that he will withdraw his Motion; and, if he finds himself unable to do that, I shall unhesitatingly ask your Lordships to support me in the Motion which I shall move that this debate be adjourned sine die.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has quoted me, I think it might be well, before your Lordships go any further, if I were to correct a misapprehension which exists in his mind. He is wrong in regard to the order in which the events occurred. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that in May, 1928, I introduced a Motion in your Lordships' House before any Bill was ever introduced.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; the Motion preceded the Bills? But my history as to the Bill is accurate.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Yes; but the noble and learned Lord said that, having failed with a Bill—
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes, there I was wrong.
VISCOUNT ASTOR:—I then came forward with a general discussion here on this question of the unjust disposition of property through will. The debate, I venture to say, was not as unfavourable as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, and the spokesman for the Government of the day, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Hailsham) said—
"I do not think that in the present position of this Parliament and in the present state of public business there is any real prospect of the Government being asked, or finding itself in a position, to pass legislation …"
The noble and learned Lord did not condemn the proposal as being in itself fundamentally wrong. His difficulty was in finding the necessary Parliamentary time for legislation. He went on to say that the societies which were supposed to be behind the proposal for a change in the law had recently had a great deal of legislation passed on other social matters which they were interested in and, therefore, it was unreasonable for them to ask for more legislative time.
After the discussion, which I think showed that there was a considerable

209
feeling for some sort of action or inquiry, a Bill was prepared and introduced, it was not proceeded with because, as so often happens, one wanted to elicit expressions of opinion from various legal associations, discussion in the Press, and informal discussion between members of Parliament. That was the object, and there is nothing unusual in it, of introducing a Bill formally and having it read a first time. That is constantly done. As the result of the discussion in the Press and among legal societies and private individuals, the Bill was redrafted and the House of Commons recently passed the redrafted and altered legislative proposals.
As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, your Lordships are not being asked to express any opinion either for or against the proposal to-day, but merely to assent to an inquiry being conducted by a Joint Committee of the two Houses to see how strong the case for legislative reform is, and to see whether, if anything is done, it should be done on the lines of the Scottish law or on those adopted in the Dominions or on the lines of some compromise between the two. I suggest that it would be wise to have this inquiry. Your Lordships will not be committed in any way to anything by the inquiry. If there is any doubt or misgiving, I venture to suggest that an inquiry is the best way of obtaining the necessary information on which your Lordships may be in a position subsequently to express an opinion.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I share the surprise of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster at the course proposed by the Lord Chancellor on this occasion. Speaking for myself, I feel great reluctance in not accepting any advice which the Lord Chancellor might give in dealing with a matter which is more or less a legal one. But, as he very truly said, he did not go in any way into the merits of this Bill or of the proposals which we are asked to send to a Joint Committee. He said there were legal technicalities involved; quite true. He said there were difficulties; quite true. If in this House we were expressing our approval of the principle of the Bill I venture to think it would be a very proper course for us to say: "There are these legal techni-
210
calities and difficulties; let us send them to a Select Committee or a Joint Committee that they may be solved." But the position is entirely different. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, brought forward a Motion some time ago which, I believe, was not carried. Upon the strength of that Motion and two derelict Bills, the particulars of which were never discussed in your Lordships' House, he supports this proposal to appoint a Joint Committee to enquire into a matter of which we have never accepted the principle in any shape or form.
What is the principle? The principle of the Bill which obtained a Second Reading in another place the other day on a Friday afternoon in a very small House, is a very startling one. I forget the exact number but there were certainly considerably under 200 members in the House at the time out of over 600. They carried this; Bill, whether rightly or wrongly I do not say for the moment, with very little discussion, when very few members were present and when there was no opportunity really—there never is on a Friday afternoon—for the full discussion of a great question like this. What is the question? For 600 or 700 years, in fact ever since civilisation arose in this country, the uniform law and practice has been to allow testators to dispose of their own property, and to dispose of it as they liked by will. In the case of intestacy, certain rules were laid down as to what relations should share and in what proportion. This Bill, which was carried in another place under the conditions I have mentioned, proposes to take away from testators that right which they have enjoyed for hundreds of years. Your Lordships are asked to say that the principle on which that Bill is founded is correct and that you will send it to a Select Committee for them to work out the details for carrying it into effect. I respectfully trust that your Lordships will do nothing of the sort.
May I suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who takes a deep interest in this matter, that if he wants this question to go forward he should at once bring in a Bill founded upon the lines of the Bill passed in another place, or any other principle he likes, and have it discussed in your Lordships' House. If the principle is admitted and the Bill receives a Second Reading, I think it

211
would be a reasonable thing to send that Bill for discussion to a Select Committee either of this House or of both Houses where the legal technicalities, of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has spoken, could be looked into, examined and, possibly, removed. But though your Lordships have never expressed your opinion on the principle, you are asked to sanction a proceeding which, in substance, accepts the principle involved in the Bill which passed a Second Reading in another place, and you are asked to make an enormous and unprecedented alteration in the law and practice of this country without discussion in this House. I sincerely trust that your Lordships will not accept that view, but will accept the view put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, that this Motion should be postponed and if and when a Bill has passed a Second Reading in this House that will be the time to consider the question of sending it to a Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I purposely refrained from discussing the principle of the Bill, because the principle of the Bill has nothing to do with the Motion which I was venturing to put before your Lordships' House. I rather gathered from the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, although he very carefully concealed it, that he was somewhat against the principle, and I gathered also from my noble and learned friend Lord Danesfort, that he was somewhat against the principle of the Bill. I would rather like, if I might, to ask my noble friend Lord Danesfort a, question. He said: "Why, this is perfectly ridiculous. Look at the House of Commons. They passed this Bill in a very small House. There were 149 for the Bill and 28 against it." I admit that my arithmetic is not very good, but I believe the addition of those two numbers makes 177. The question I would like to address to my noble and learned friend is this—How many people would he like to see in the House of Commons when a Bill is passed?
LORD DANESFORT: I will answer that question at once if the noble and learned Lord will allow me. My experience of the House of Commons is that, to pass an important Bill in a House consisting of less than 200 is extremely
212
unusual, and I think everyone who has been in the House of Commons will say that is so. I should like to see a Bill of this sort passed, if it be passed, or rejected by a House in which there were about 500 present.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble and learned Lord will encourage a House of 500 for the debate upon this Bill. I am rather appalled at the violence of the language used by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, which I do not think the mere passing of this Resolution justifies. After all it is a very small Bill, and it is a small thing to ask this House to approve this Resolution. I regret that I am unable to withdraw the Motion, and I still hope your Lordships will accede to its terms for the reasons I have already given.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I am rather disturbed at the course it has taken. We are discussing a question of procedure; we are not discussing the principle of the Bill. I gathered that that was stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and by the noble Lord who supported him. The question has become this, whether we should refer this Resolution to a Joint Select Committee in consequence of a Resolution which has been passed in the House of Commons and which the Government is supporting. For my part, without discussing the merits of the Bill, I hope your Lordships will accept the proposal which was put forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. So far as I can understand the procedure of the House it commits us to nothing except to refer the Bill to a Committee. The House of Commons passed a Resolution; it came to the conclusion on a first view that it was a difficult matter to deal with in discussion, and thought, therefore, that it was expedient it should be referred to a Joint Committee in order that there should be an opportunity of discussing it such as you do not get otherwise.
That is all we are dealing with at the present moment, and no one who supports this Resolution is prevented from taking any point he chooses when the Bill comes up for further discussion in this House. Everything will be as free

213
to the members of this House as it was before the Motion which is now proposed. It does seem to me that the case is hardly made out for refusing to accept this request, which is made to us in the form of a Motion to carry out what the House of Commons desired, solely in order to get further information and further knowledge for the purpose of trying to fashion a Bill which might have a better chance of support. Your Lordships can again consider it after it has been before the Joint Select Committee. It is in my view a pure question of procedure and nothing else. I ask your Lordships not to resist the Motion which is put forward by the Government. The Government has few members in this House, and it is not able to carry this
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Resolution without the assistance of noble Lords on this side. I think we should have this further examination, which would enable us to express an opinion upon the Bill with the advantage of all that has been done before us. If there is opposition to any interference with the general principle of law already in existence nothing prevents any noble Lord from taking that point when the matter comes up again. I hope we shall accept the view that has been put forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33, Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Passfield, L.

Reading, M.

Addington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Armstrong, L.

Sempill, L.

Effingham, E.

Arnold, L.

Sinclair, L.

Iveagh, E.

Askwith, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Camrose, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Strafford, E.

Clwyd, L.

Dickinson, L.

Stanmore, L.

Astor, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Devonport, V.

Lawrence, L.

Esher, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Stonehaven, L.

Trenchard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hayter, L.

Midleton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Berwick, L.

Monson, L.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, might I be allowed, before the Question is put, to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill one or two questions of which I have given him private notice? It appears that the Chinese Government have for some time past been in default on their obligations to the British shareholders in Chinese railways on loans which are guaranteed by China. Now China has made default and has commandeered the rolling stock of those railways. The loan which is proposed to be made to China under this Bill will substantially benefit China and these railways which are in default at the present moment. I am told that China—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—has recently opened negotiations with England about

215
these defaults. In fact, that was announced in another place only the other day. Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly tell us what is the nature of these negotiations and what China is going to do about its obligations under the guarantees I have mentioned. Are they going to make good these defaults out of money which will be coming to them under this Bill? I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that that would be only reasonable and right. Here we are conferring benefits on China by this Bill. They are in default to our shareholders under their guarantee. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to reassure us by telling us that before the Chinese get all the benefits which are coming to them under this Bill they will be asked to make good their default. He will also, perhaps, be able to tell us how the negotiations are going on.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having given me notice of this question which he desires to raise on the Third Reading of this Bill. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government, as it was the policy of their predecessors, to be very careful that this indemnity should not be used as a bargaining counter in getting satisfaction for other claims. As a matter of fact under the Bill a certain amount of money will go into Chinese railways, and therefore their better development will be of benefit to the bondholders. With regard to the negotiations, a Conference was held in November last at Nanking. It was an International Conference and certain documents were submitted by the Chinese Government. It was decided that these documents must be carefully examined by the various Governments who attended the Conference. The Conference was therefore adjourned and a full list of bondholders and claims is being drawn up. No doubt the Conference will meet again at a later date.
LORD DANESFORT: May I ask whether any progress has been made in getting this default made good? Has there been any progress in the negotiations?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Not since November.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Education (Local Authorities).

China Indemnity (Application).

Unemployment Insurance.

Colonial Naval Defence.

Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND rose to call attention to and ask for information in reference to relations between His Majesty's Foreign Office and the Foreign Office of the Sovereign State of the Vatican City, and this particularly in reference to Malta, and to seek information in reference to the political affairs of Malta; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may appear remarkable to your Lordships that, while reports of a Royal Commission and a Round-Table Conference for India are under consideration, and a popular leader in India is conferred with in prison and received at the Viceregal residence, a deputation of loyal and pro-British Parliamentarians from Malta has had to have recourse to a Committee of the House of Commons to obtain a hearing in the capital of the Empire. This raises a question of Privilege which concerns every member of this House. Every member of this House may be affected by my claim that the holding of a political appointment overseas does not prevent a member of either House of the Imperial Parliament from enjoying the right and the privilege to communicate directly with any Secretary of State on public affairs, either verbally or in writing, although the Secretary of State may not be bound to give an immediate reply.
I trust your Lordships will consider it unsuitable to urge against me or against any Executive Councillor in Malta the custom which restrains members of this House who happen to be civil servants from debating in your Lordships' House matters that are of departmental concern. In 1888 paid members of the Executive Council of Malta submitted to the then Secretary of State that their hopes of re-election might be destroyed if they were not allowed to dissociate themselves by publicity from decisions when the Governor acted against the overwhelming voice of public opinion or against the advice of Executive Councillors. Notwithstanding that ruling in 1888 in favour of the contention of the Executive Councillors, Maltese Ministers to-day have been accused as if it were an official crime to have published a certain official document. But it was quite proper to publish that Ministerial protest under this ruling when the document published was merely a report against mismanagement of traffic questions—a document emanating from Ministers themselves, and not a document marked "confidential." It did not contain anything secret, and the publication was in the public interest.
It is hoped that an apology will be forthcoming for the undeserved accusation that Ministers betrayed a trust, in view of that ruling and of the precedents in the history of this House. In the reign of Charles I there is a record which I beg leave to read from Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution": —
"Freedom of speech in the House of Lords has not come into question as often or as definitely as the like privilege in the Commons, but the attempts of Charles I to prevent the attendance of Peers whom he considered to be hostile to himself, and the dismissal from non-political offices during the eighteenth century of Peers who acted in opposition to the King's Ministers show that freedom of speech in the Lords has not been wholly unquestioned."
And from Gardiner's "History," page 91:—
"At this juncture a fresh champion raised his voice on behalf of the privileges of Parliament, a champion whose co-operation was all the more valuable to the leaders of the Lower House because he could speak with official knowledge of the actions which he denounced, and was not, as they had been, compelled to extract the truth from the mouths of unwilling witnesses. When Charles I ascended the Throne, he had missed the opportunity of putting an end
218
gracefully to his long altercation with Bristol. He assured his father's late Ambassador that, though He was quite aware that he had not offended in any matter of honesty, he could not acquit him of trusting too implicitly to the Spanish Ministers. Bristol must therefore acknowledge his error if he wished to be received into favour, though the slightest acknowledgement would be sufficient."
And from Hallam's "Constitutional History of England ":—
"Princes were to have their prerogative, but yet to be confined within reasonable limits. The Queen could not of herself make laws, neither could she break them."
And may I ask my noble friend Lord Passfield not to assume more authority than Queen Elizabeth?
"This was the true view of English liberty, not so new to men's ears as Hume has imagined, though many there were who would not forfeit the court's favour by uttering it. Such speeches as the historian has quoted of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, and many such may be found in the proceedings of this reign, were rather directed to intimidate the House by exaggerating their inability to contend with the Crown, than to prove the law of the land to be against them. In the present affair of Strickland, it became so evident that the Commons would at least address the Queen to restore him, that she adopted the course her usual prudence indicated, and permitted his return to his house."
The other Strickland referred to in the quotation represented Westmorland in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He had to leave the House of Commons for religious reasons.
As to the relations with the Pontifical Secretary of State at the Vatican City, members of this House as taxpayers in England may expect that His Majesty's Government will assist them through the Chargé d'Affaires accredited to the Vatican to ascertain whether there is support from the Vatican for recent action by the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta which is prejudicial to the Imperial connection, and goes beyond the ambit of Maltese politics. Lady Strickland has founded in Malta a Catholic college which the Archbishop has refused to bless, and also a Ladies Imperial Club fundamentally non-political and open to ladies connected with the Imperial Services. I feel sure that your Lordships' House will be amazed to hear that the sacraments of the Church have been refused to ladies who belong to the Ladies Imperial Club in Malta. This followed upon an announcement in the

219
Churches on February 15 to the effect that the sacraments would be refused to those who continued to belong, or to subscribe, to clubs of the Constitutional Party or the Labour Party in Malta. May I remind your Lordships that in Malta ladies have no votes, and, therefore, this aggression against the Ladies Imperial Club has the aspect of aggression against the Imperial sentiments of those who uphold British supremacy and culture in that very important British place of arms? At the same time, Italian money is being spent to obtain possession of premises adjacent to the Ladies Imperial Club in Malta and to organise in such premises a centre of pro-Italian propaganda.
In response to an invitation made to me in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, speaking as a leading Catholic Peer on the Maltese question last year, the greatest restraint has been exercised by the leaders and members of the Constitutional Party and the Labour Party in Malta so as to avoid anything that might rightly give offence to the Vatican authorities. In addition to that restraint, on the part of speakers of the Labour Party, and of the Constitutional Party and the Press of the two Parties, I have personally assured my noble friend who holds the Seals of the Colonial Department, that I am prepared to record further in writing expressions of regret in addition to what I have printed in the Malta Government Gazette in regard to anything that I have said improperly in the heat of debate in the Parliament of Malta if I may have caused offence to the ecclesiastical authorities either in Malta or in Rome, provided that my noble friend may be good enough to indicate what he will consider suitable for me to say in the interests of His Majesty's service and that the acceptance thereof shall be similarly recorded.
Since that apology, which was tendered in this House and in the Malta Government Gazette, was published, there has been an evident desire and indication on the part of the Vatican authorities that all those working with them should work for peace. In accordance with this known desire, the annual Lenten Pastoral of the Archbishop of Malta was couched in terms, as it were, of an olive branch carried by a dove. But when
220
instructions were given for its publication there was a secret meeting of parish priests held by the Archbishop in the church of St. John, and thereat the Archbishop directed that the Pastoral should be followed by a verbal addition. That postscript was acquiesced in to please an ultra-clerical section, and it embodies a new declaration of war, which has been delivered on grounds unconnected with questions of faith and morals. Some of my newspapers in favour of British culture, and some of those of the Labour Party have again been banned by ecclesiastics in Malta, and the time has come to ask for the support of your Lordships when I ask His Majesty's Government here—as paying taxes in England that support the Diplomatic Mission to the Vatican—to obtain official information in Rome as to whether the action of ecclesiastics in Malta—namely, the refusal of the Sacraments to those who frequent certain political and pro-British Clubs—has been ordered from Rome. I also hope that His Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the interests of British subjects not domiciled in Malta are involved, will consider the possibility of issuing an Ordinance which will protect newspaper property and English employees in Malta from commercial disaster when there is not sufficient reason for action against them on religious grounds. That which is commercially ruinous should not be allowed to occur in view of the constitutional safeguards as to religious toleration.
Maltese who, like myself, have been engaged from youth upwards in the service of the Empire at, the risk of our resources and even of our lives, are entitled to know how far His Majesty's Government in this country is prepared to listen to constitutional appeals that we may make in both Houses of the Imperial Parliament and in the offices in Downing Street. Mr. Secretary Henderson last year made a straightforward declaration published in a Bluebook that His Majesty's Government could not allow in any way an outside authority to dictate either in Malta or elsewhere the dismissal and punishment of British Executive Councillors appointed in the overseas Empire in the name of His Majesty the King of England as Ministers. Declarations in accordance with

221
the diplomatic Note of Mr. Secretary Henderson were repeated in both Houses of this Imperial Parliament and welcomed with acclamation by the representatives of all Parties. But by action in Malta and in London the declaration of Mr. Secretary Henderson in support of Maltese Ministers and their constitutional rights has been watered down in practice almost to disappearing point, and the pledges given in your Lordships' House that Maltese Ministers would be retained in a consultative capacity, have been interpreted against them in a manner that would surprise your Lordships' House and astonish any lawyer who reads the Maltese. Constitution, if the illegal interpretation could be challenged in open Court.
In the Maltese Constitution, as indeed theoretically in every other, it is contemplated that; between a. Dissolution and the meeting of a new Parliament, the King, or the King's representative, as the case may be, is not in theory under a constitutional obligation to listen to the advice of Ministers. But nowhere in modern times under the English flag has the Head of the State or even of a Crown Colony considered himself entitled to interpret this power so as to ignore Executive Councillors in a manner calculated to compel them to resign where no important question of public interest has required arbitrary action and where there has been no risk to the safety of a fortress or where Imperial interests are in no way concerned.
Before the Maltese Elections were suspended, I was elected unopposed as a member of the new Parliament. My constitutional position, therefore, is unassailable until an Election is completed and until in a new Parliament a Vote of Censure might be carried. I had advised the dissolution of the previous Parliament after having enjoyed therein to the end the uninterrupted support of a majority, and the pro-British Party I have the honour to lead in Malta had been returned at the General Election with a larger number of votes than any other Party in the House which makes and unmakes Ministries. Because until the Elections are completed there is no Parliamentary majority by which the Maltese Ministry can be censured, our tenure of office is at least
222
as constitutional as that of any Ministers relying in this country on a minority of the electors.
So certain of defeat is the anti-Maltese Party, fighting for pro-Italian culture, and against Maltese nationality and language, that its leaders do not want a free Election. The pro-Italian "Nationalists "act as if they preferred the destruction of democratic constitutional government. The only hope of such "Nationalists "—in the Italian sense—has been in the pastoral of the 1st May making it a mortal sin to vote for the Constitutional Party or the Labour Party. It would never have been welcomed were it not known and admitted that the Compact Party was certain of victory. That pastoral indirectly compelled the election by religious sanctions of those who are called "Nationalists "in an anti-Maltese and anti-English spirit, and who are led jointly by the Dr. Mizzi who was condemned in war time for disloyal activities, and the Sir Ugo Mifsud who boasted in the Assembly that he would "win the Elections by fair means or foul."
The clauses in the Constitution of Malta that can only be repealed by an Act of the Imperial Parliament require the Governor of Malta to deal with his Ministers as nearly as possible according to the practice followed in England, and to take advice in Executive Council as to appointments and dismissals from office. Against that legal position, it has been contended by Law Officers—apparently those of Malta—that under the present provisional Government, there is "no such thing as a Governor-in-Council." But the Governor-in-Council is established irrevocably by Letters Patent, and the sections thereof that create the Governor-in-Council cannot be altered except, by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. This is a matter of fact: a law and a fact that cannot be altered or eliminated by argument. We have moreover the acknowledgment of that fact as is evidenced by no fewer than ten Government Notices in the Malta Government Gazette signed by officers now responsible for administration in the name of the Governor. This evidence has been tendered since the provisional Government was established, and it is indeed amazing that thereafter any Law Officer would make declarations against the fact

223
of such a character in order to support an erroneous and unjust line of action.
It is hoped that your Lordships' House will support a request that, pending alterations in the Constitution—alteration as promised in this House by His Majesty's Government, so as to make a free Election possible—the Governor of Malta may be instructed as a duty to the Crown to be on good terms with Ministers in office, whatever may be the opinions entertained by others as to anomalies of the political situation. An exaggerated desire to appear to be exuberantly fair all round inevitably handicaps heavily those who have rights in possession and in whose favour therefore nine points of the law should be reckoned. I beg to move the printing of the correspondence that has reference to the questions now submitted to your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will not think me wanting in courtesy if my reply is considerably briefer than his speech. It will be within your Lordships' knowledge that the situation in Malta for the past nine months has been one of considerable tension, and it is extremely desirable not to do anything, or to say anything, which might increase the friction which has existed. Your Lordships know that the Constitution has been suspended temporarily, and we are advised that the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, with regard to the position of Ministers and of the Executive Council is not correct. The Order in Council of 1930 makes it quite clear that, there is no Governor in Council in existence, and that the Governor is charged with complete authority. He may consult Ministers or he may not. He may consult anybody else if he chooses, and whoever he consults he may disregard their advice if he chooses. But in the impossibility of holding an Election, and, therefore, of obtaining the Parliamentary Assembly which could support Ministers, the Government was obliged to take that step, and to suspend the Constitution, and, temporarily, to place Malta in the position of a Crown Colony of the extremest type in which the whole authority is in the Governor.
224
I do not want to say anything about what has happened. I must not be taken to agree to any of the details which the noble Lord has set forth. I can only say that with regard to the action of the Maltese Ministry, and of the heads thereof, I do not think that their action has been such as to make the Governor's task easier under the difficult circumstances in which he is acting. I say no more than that by way of judgment. But, equally, I must say that His Majesty's Government have not received any assistance from the Vatican in endeavouring to bring about the resumption of a normal state of things. In those circumstances we have continued our approval of the action of Sir John Du Cane, the Governor, who has maintained the Government very successfully, as I venture to think, and with great discretion, under very difficult circumstances. Now the time has come, as your Lordships know, when the Government have decided to ask His Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to proceed to Malta, and endeavour to redraft a Constitution in such a way as to permit, if possible, the resumption of constitutional Government.
I am not able, unfortunately, to state the personnel of that Royal Commission at this moment. Your Lordships will be aware that it takes a little time to approach the members of a Commission, and get their consent to serve, and I am not in a position at the present moment to give the membership of the Commission. But no time will be lost. The terms of reference to the Royal Commission, of which His Majesty has approved the appointment, are:—
"To visit Malta and consider the existing political situation in the Island; and to make such recommendations as may seem to them desirable as to the steps which should be taken to deal with it, with special reference to the possibility of re-establishing constitutional government."
I have very little more that I can say in the circumstances. I would like to refer to the complaint of the noble Lord that the deputation from Malta has not been received by His Majesty's Government, by the Secretary of State, or by any other Minister. Your Lordships will realise that, as laid down by Mr. Snowden in another place on February 26, the Government have taken the view that all sections of Maltese political opinion would doubtless have opportunities of laying their views before the Royal Com-

225
mission, and that, in order to avoid embarrassment to the Commission, it is considered desirable that, in the meantime members of His Majesty's Government should refrain from receiving deputations on Maltese political matters. Therefore, I would assure the noble Lord that it was not from any discourtesy that I was unable to give him an interview. Our correspondence, I nope, has been conducted in terms of perfect courtesy, but I was not able to give the noble Lord or the other members of the deputation an interview, because the Government have taken the view that it would hamper the Royal Commission if some persons were received and others were not received. We must, as a matter of fact therefore, remain exactly, as it were, neutral.
There is one other thing I wish to say, and that is that I gladly note the statement of the noble Lord that he will be prepared to make an apology more full than the apology which he has already made with regard to any actions which need apology in relation to His Holiness the Pope or to the Roman Catholic Church. I hope that if that is the disposition of both sides the Royal Commission may be able to conduct its deliberations with, at any rate, no interruption from either side in the controversy; with the support, in fact, of those who are anxious for the restoration of peace and good feeling. I hope, if that spirit prevails, that the Royal Commission will be able to find a solution which will permit the re-establishment of the constitutional government in Malta, which of course everybody desires.
I think in the circumstances I ought not to add any more. I can only assure the noble Lord that I should have been delighted to have had conversations with him but for the reasons I have given. It seems better that we should hold our hand and leave it to the Royal Commission. I ought to say in reference to the noble Lord's Motion for Papers that there are no Papers which I can produce. The situation stands where it did when the last White Paper was issued and in the very delicate circumstances it would be quite unwise to put into print anything that has passed orally between the parties to the controversy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press his Motion for Papers?
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, it is my duty to observe that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, who has just sat down, in his reference to the Order in Council of June 29 last year only quoted one portion thereof. He has not quoted the portion of the Order in Council which establishes that the Executive Council of Malta—that is to say, the Ministry—as established at the date of the Order in Council (that is, as required by the Letters Patent then in force) is to continue as heretofore notwithstanding that Order in Council of June 29. Perhaps the Colonial Department deserves congratulation for the manner in which oracular Despatches and oracular Orders in Council are sometimes drafted to be interpreted both ways; but this particular Order in Council is in that direction the most artistic that I have come across during my four governorships and forty years of public service.
It is quite obvious that the law officers of the Colonial Office were not prepared to draft Orders in Council against the position of Ministers that were dead against the Letters Patent. It must have been quite obvious to them that the Letters Patent contained sections that cannot be altered by Order in Council, sections in favour of Ministers that could only be set aside by an Imperial Act, and that Ministers had according to law to continue in office between a Dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament on the completion of the Election. I am not venturing—although I am a member of the English Bar who has spent a long life in contact with constitutional questions—to give what may appear to be merely my opinion upon this point. A learned representative of the University of Leipsig, who has spent months in Malta, and has been received at the Colonial Office to discuss the Constitution of Malta and its scientific bearing upon constitutions elsewhere, has assured me there is absolutely no difference between my view of the Maltese Constitution and the view thereof of any lawyer he has come across in the Colonial Office in England. That being the case, I say with added confidence that the interpretation which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, is asking this House of Lords to-day to countenance is one which is wrong and is based on what is oracular and can be interpreted both ways. It is

227
wrong in law, and is unjust and unfair to Maltese Ministers, of whom some have spent a life in the service of the Empire. That wrong view is not assisted by any public requirement, and it is advanced by the Colonial Office to get out of difficulties rightly or otherwise.
As to the alleged reason for not shaking hands with the deputation, may I remind this House that two Maltese ex-Ministers of the Opposition in Malta, came to England last summer and had interviews with members of the Colonial Department, who did not refuse to confer with them notwithstanding that a Royal Commission had been asked for by Ministers now in office as soon as the Election was suspended. Moreover, may I remind the noble Lord, whose Department no doubt keeps him informed as to what appears in the Maltese newspapers, that one of the two leaders of the Opposition has claimed at a meeting in Malta that he had persuaded the noble Lord that the "Nationalists" represented the majority of the country, and of the votes that had been cast at the proceeding General Election?
It will amuse your Lordships to hear of the intellectual gymnastics by which these representations could possibly be put before the Colonial Department with an elastic conscience and listened to patiently. The votes cast for members of the "Nationalist" Party in reference to the Assembly—the Lower House that makes and unmakes Ministries—were by the "Nationalist" spokesman added to the votes cast for that Party in the Senate, another House that has nothing to do constitutionally with the making and unmaking of Ministries, and the votes of an independent member were also ingeniously but not veraciously added to salve the consciences of those who thus constructed a misleading grand total, in order to say they had "a majority of the Maltese people "behind them! The facts are that during the whole period of the life of the last Legislature, of which I advised the Dissolution, I enjoyed the uninterrupted support of my own Party as well as of the Labour Party. This was the majority that could make and unmake Ministries. Moreover, the votes cast for the Constitutional Party reckoned separately as regards the Lower House, were more numerous than the
228
votes cast for the so-called "Nationalist" Party, which is nationalist not in the Maltese sense, but in the Italian sense—nationalist from the point of view of those who want to deny all that history makes irrefutable—namely, that Malta is a Colony of the Phoenicians. It is absurd to think—as the pro-Italians preach—that Latins ever came to colonise the Maltese rocks in the Mediterranean in ancient times when the Latins had fertile land nearer home. I beg your Lordships to allow me to emphasise the fact that if the desired amendments of the Constitution and of the law to ensure free Elections are being studied and drafted and arranged on the advice of legal advisers in Malta, it appears that there is little hope that they would emerge in a manner which supports the free Election desired by this House.
As to Malta being a Crown Colony of a severe type, I ask my noble friend what is the authority he has for saying that or for "making it so." He has not issued Letters Patent purporting to say that. He has not passed an Act of Parliament that would be effective. He has simply argued that the Order in Council may by inference have changed the whole spirit and effect of the Letters Patent, even in sections that cannot be altered by Order in Council. That, I hope, is not an attitude which your Lordships' House is likely to countenance when face to face with those who are devoted in Malta to the English connection and culture and who have been working to uphold progress and justice according to British ideals.
If I heard the noble Lord aright, he suggested that the Governor had not of late been receiving assistance from Maltese Ministers as required by this situation. I fail to realise that the imputation is just or supported by evidence. If the giving of loyal and intelligent advice by persons who know the local circumstances, and who know the true position of affairs in Malta is unacceptable, because that advice is not pleasant or because it calls for the correction of mistakes and injustice, then I am not able to concur that his line of argument is in the interests of the public service. Executive Councillors are sworn to give honest opinion and should not be deterred from speaking the truth and adhering thereto.

229
Let me add that the deputation that has come to England has brought and presented to the Colonial Department carefully-prepared drafts of legal enactments which would meet effectively the present situation and enable a free Election to be held forthwith, and which represent the experience and considered work of responsible experts. If that production of careful drafts is not to be reckoned as assistance, I want to know what is. But if the legal advisers that are now around the Governor are of "Nationalist" mentality, they are not likely to approve drafts that are framed to introduce the English Common Law, or that are likely to be advised by Maltese Ministers of the Compact Party—namely, the Party in a majority in the last Parliament that represents the Labour Party and the Constitutional Party, working together for the development of Malta on modern lines and on the Maltese and British principles of culture. The solution of the Maltese Constitutional difficulty is to be found in adding safeguards to the clauses in the Letters Patent that guarantee "religious toleration." It is enacted so far that nobody shall be disqualified from holding office for religious reasons. That is the Common Law in England and thereunder, if undue religious interference is proved in an Election, the seat can be claimed by the candidate that has been prejudiced. That is not so in Malta. In Malta the sanction is either fine or imprisonment, and either is certainly not likely to be inflicted severely on any Nationalist candidate in the present political atmosphere.
I feel it my duty to the Empire, which I have served in four Governorships, and to which I am still devoting all my resources and what remains of my life, ready to risk it for the benefit of Malta—I feel it my duty to advise my noble friend (and we sat together on office stools in the Colonial Office some forty years ago) to receive the Maltese deputation. Courtesy will do no harm to the Empire or to the Royal Commission, nor would it harm my noble friend to have the benefit of their views on matters outside the ambit of the Royal Commission. The Commission will have to get information from every source, as soon as' it can and its members will get it from persons who are under no restraint and
230
from all sources everywhere. Our opponents have been received by the Department under the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, and they say that they have persuaded him that they are "the majority." I have proved that this is false constitutionally against present Ministers entitled to act in the King's name in Malta.
I hope also that the noble Lord will realise that, as a Peer in this House, it is my duty to continue to protest if there is any attempt to question or diminish my rights to address any Minister of the Crown in England verbally or in writing on public affairs. I hope I have been wrong in forming the opinion that the Secretary of State for the Colonies wishes to assail the privilege of Parliament or to support an inhibition against the rights of any member of either House of the Imperial Parliament. No harm can be done by consultation with persons who are loyal and pro-British and who have had many, in my case forty, years' experience of Colonial administration. As to matters that will be outside the business of the Royal Commission—we may note for instance, the sort of apology that I may be ordered on the responsibility of the Secretary of Stat" to add to what has already been tendered to the Vatican. Questions in which consultation would be most suitable are many. If consultation is barred, one is tempted to remember the proverbial ostrich that thought it was doing its duty by putting its head in the sand. Perhaps the explanation is that my right hon. friend knows too well that things of an illegal and improper character have been done; it is very unpleasant perhaps to hear the truth. I hope, therefore, that this policy will be altered in accordance with the respect due to the law and to the privileges of this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it the noble Lord does not press his Motion for Papers?
LORD STRICKLAND: I may submit to the House, before withdrawing the Motion, that it is my duty to point out that my noble friend is not quite correct in saying that there is no correspondence that could be usefully published. He has already promised this House, on a

231
former occasion, to produce further correspondence giving the reply to misleading or unproved accusations made against me in a Vatican White Paper. There are other papers of which the publication would interest this House, and of which full knowledge in the light of day would be conducive to the better administration of His Majesty's Dominions and Colonies and which I hope may be published sooner or later. I may mention amongst others the Papers relating to the continuation in office of the present Agent-General for Malta in London and the dismissal of j his secretary: to notes and observations; on a hotel scheme at Malta; to interference with Ministers addressing communications to the Secretary of State for the I Colonies; to the constitutional position
232
of Ministers in Malta; and to the publication by Ministers of certain Papers not of a confidential nature. These are questions of great public interest, not only to the Maltese people but to members of this House who take an interest in public affairs and study the result of precedents on other communities. If I ought to withdraw the Motion by leave of the House in deference to what I conceive to be the wish of your Lordships' House, I do so as a matter of courtesy to my noble friend and not because I admit that the interests of the Empire will not call for their publication at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.