REMISSION OF SENTENCES IN MALTA. (Hansard, 7 November 1934)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)

My Lords, on the 23rd of May, 1930, Miller fired three shots at Lord Strickland while he was entering the hall of the Court of Appeal at Malta. Fortunately the noble Lord was not hit. Miller was tried by the Maltese Courts for the attempted assassination and was sentenced to fifteen years hard labour. Following upon the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Kent (then Prince George) to Malta in August, 1932, the Governor reported that in view of that occasion he had, at the request of Ministers, exercised the Royal Prerogative of mercy in favour of all prisoners undergoing sentences passed by the Criminal Courts of Malta by reducing their terms of imprisonment by one fifth. There were 126 prisoners who benefited by this general remission made in honour of the Royal visit and Miller was one of them, his term of fifteen years imprisonment being reduced by one fifth. I wish to emphasise in this connection that at the time of the remission of the sentence Parliamentary government was in force in Malta and that the action of the Governor was taken on the advice of his responsible Ministers.

With regard to the second part of the Question, our information is that Miller was employed as a billiard marker at the Nationalist Club at Senglea from the 23rd August, 1928, until the date of the crime, and received lodgings on the premises. He purchased a revolver and twenty-five rounds of ammunition from a shop in Valletta either one or two days before the attempt. Shortly after the crime was committed the Governor, in a telegram, stated that the investigation was still in its early stages but that there was to the best of his judgment good ground to conclude from such evidence as was available that the crime was due to the close association of Miller with the Nationalist Party and to the reaction on an excitable temperament of the highly-charged political atmosphere. The Governor added that there was "at present," which was of course at that time, no evidence to show that the attempt 188 was instigated by a group or an individual.

§ LORD STRICKLAND

My Lords, I desire to ask your Lordships' House to adopt the view that the action which the Government have taken in this case is open to criticism inasmuch as Miller was not a first offender. He had previously been convicted and imprisoned for another serious crime against public order as one of the leaders in the most regrettable incident in Maltese history in this century—namely, the riots of 1919 that led to bloodshed, after the calling-out of military forces, which might have been avoided if there had been greater care taken by those who were then responsible for the administration. The Military Governor at that time was an Acting Governor during a term of interregnum, and naturally he was prone to lean on the advice of his local advisers, who may have been under political influence.

The general impression imposed on the inhabitants round the shores of the Mediterranean by the facile treatment of incidents of this description may be pressed further on the attention of His Majesty's Government by a reference to a similar attempt organised against Sir Augustus Bartolo, at one time Minister of Education and now one of His Majesty's Judges. The scheme was that the person selected for the crime was to be paid a sum of money to be enjoyed later on, on the other side of the Southern Atlantic, and he was assured that there would be a change of Government, that he would be comfortably housed in an asylum for the mentally defective, and that after a not too lengthy period he would receive facilities to leave the Island and enjoy a pension. The information produced by the police to Ministers was to the effect that that plot against Sir Augustus Bartolo failed because the cash was not forthcoming at once and in sufficient quantity.

In the case of Miller there was also evidence of the same admirably concerted psychological preparation. As soon as the Miller case was about to come before the Courts a Maltese newspaper began printing magnificently written articles in Italian suggesting that he was irresponsible, and they created the psychological impression desired to the extent that in a published letter by His Grace 189 the Archbishop the suggestion was made that Miller was irresponsible. I ask your Lordships to believe in the great power of Press suggestion not only in southern countries but also in England. So strongly was that suggestion of irresponsibility broadcast that even the Malta Royal Commission of 1931 has a paragraph suggesting that Miller was irresponsible, notwithstanding that a Maltese jury and a Maltese Court presided over by the Chief Justice awarded fifteen years imprisonment. These remissions bring to mind the system followed elsewhere and well known to those who have studied the development of one-man rule and the assassination in a neighbouring country of a leader of the Opposition, when those responsible were duly arrested and properly tried. After a long period the trial ended. Just before the trial ended there was the anniversary of an historical royal event when those condemned enjoyed without delay a political amnesty of all the political prisoners.

In order to obtain office the Party successful in the last General Election in Malta made lavish promises of obtaining pardon for friends and relations of those whom they had employed. The Ministers referred to by the noble Earl who has just sat down made it a prominent part of their appeal to the electors that there would be vast remissions of sentences if they were returned to power. That naturally appealed to the friends of the gangsters who are not uncommonly employed by certain parties in Elections. What I ask His Majesty's Ministers to understand is the ability with which a psychological effect is produced in the case of representatives of the Imperial Government who ought to look at both sides of the question and be well aware of the well informed and systematic effect of organised terrorism in countries South of the Alps and East of Suez.

It is said that the punishment should fit the crime. In this case the remission fits the people whose liberty is desired. I have heard with much relief from the noble Earl who has just sat down that he is now advised that responsible Ministers are responsible, or share the responsibility, for the remission of sentences. I gather that he had on a previous occasion been otherwise advised as regards the case of Mr. Orlando Smith. 190 I am not surprised that there are these divergencies of opinion from the legal advisers of the Colonial Office, because the early text books on self-government in the outside Empire did hold the view that the Governor was primarily, and in some cases solely, responsible for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. But later authorities, such as that most respected and authoritative work by Professor Meredith Keith, of Edinburgh, have made it perfectly clear that under self-government, as practised to-day in Australia and Canada, and as was followed in Malta, Ministers are responsible for the recommendations to mercy. I admit it may lead to grave abuses, and even to corruption, but that is the working of responsible government.

The Governor, however, has the power not to take the advice of Ministers on such subjects when he is prepared to persuade them to adopt his views and when he is prepared to find other Ministers. Under the present position of affairs it would be very interesting to find any authoritative writer on Constitutional Law to tell us who is or who is not responsible for the exercise of that prerogative of mercy. If I may venture to express an opinion I would say the person responsible is Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, who, under the present position, is responsible for Malta to the Imperial Parliament in accordance with the declarations made by His Majesty's Ministers when the Constitution of Malta was suspended. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.