Lords Sitting of 22 November 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION (ENABLING) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the self-government of industries by enabling them to introduce schemes for reorganization; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government that the Post Office in their announcements should be authorised to utilise the twenty-four-hour system as well as the present one; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last time I called your attention to this subject it was with reference to the Report which the Government had received from the B.B.C. governing organisation with regard to the matter. It was a very indefinite Report, rather to my surprise. I should have thought the public would have been so inconvenienced by the B.B.C. attempting to adopt the system that there would have been a general revolt, but apparently opinion was about equally in favour of and opposed to it. One result, which Lord Templemore quoted, was that the Report suggested that further investigation by the Departments concerned was required, but they did not name the Departments concerned. You have already the Admiralty, War Office and Air Force working on this system. It would be very easy to find out from them how it does operate, and I would like to know whether the Government have consulted any of the Departments.
Apparently the two offices chiefly concerned are the Home Office, though I do not know why they are concerned, and the Post Office. My suggestion is directed to what the Post Office might do

75
to elucidate the question of how far it would meet public convenience if the system were adopted. It is a simple matter, and I suggest that in their various notices of the hours of the arrival and departure of mails the figures should be set down on both systems, so that the public may get accustomed to seeing what the twenty-four-hour system means. That would have a very educative value for the adoption of a system which is bound at a very early date to be utilised in this country as regards the postal and railway services. I beg to move.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend will remember an answer which I gave him on the occasion of his Question on July 25 last. He now asks whether His Majesty's Government have consulted what were described in that debate as "the Departments concerned." The answer is No, they have not; because if he will turn to the context of my speech he will see that the proposal that they should consult the Departments concerned, chiefly the War Office and the Admiralty, was a proposal made by the B.B.C., in which His Majesty's Government did not concur. In that debate I said His Majesty's Government, after carefully reviewing the whole question of adopting the twenty-four-hour system, had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence of general public demand for the change to justify them taking any action in the matter. There has been no change in the position, nor in the attitude of His Majesty's Government, since my noble friend last raised this matter, and I very much regret that I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave him on that occasion.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I admire the pertinacity of my noble friend in continually bringing this question forward, but it seems to me to be a perfectly hopeless effort on his part, and I do not think that even if he were to go and commit suicide on the steps of the General Post Office, or throw bombs in the Home Office, he would cause the Government to believe that there was a public demand for this change. Whenever this subject has been brought forward in recent times my noble friend Lord Templemore, or whoever it may be who answers, has always made the same reply that there is no public demand for anything of this kind. Well, when is there
76
ever a public demand for this sort of thing? I cannot expect my noble friend to be well acquainted with what took place in the eighteenth century, otherwise I would ask him whether there was any public demand for the reformation of the calendar when that took place—and if it had not taken place we should now be fifteen days out of reckoning.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I remind my noble friend that there was great opposition to the reformation of the calendar?
LORD NEWTON: I never heard of it. And I dare say that if there was, and if the Lords Banbury of the day were opposed to it, everybody was reconciled to it a few hours after it came into operation. As a matter of fact none of the reforms which have resulted in general benefit have ever had any large public demand behind them. Take the most analogous case, that of daylight saving. There was no such thing as a public demand for anything of the kind: it was obtained because a public spirited man devoted himself to the cause, and eventually persuaded the Department concerned to adopt it. In this case it seems impossible to convert the Departments. There is evidently what I can only call some mulish spirit of obstruction in those two Departments, which it is quite impossible to overcome. They are absolutely impervious to argument, and that is why I fear all my noble friend's efforts are wasted. I know perfectly well what will happen. My noble friend will go on as long as he has sufficient vitality to bring this question forward, and Lord Templemore, or whoever succeeds him, will reply in the usual strain, and nothing whatever will be done. But this very modest reform is so obviously advantageous that of course it will be adopted. It is a matter of certainty. What will happen will be that as soon as noble Lords opposite come into office they will at once bring about this small change. Then everybody will say: "Why on earth could not this have been done by our own people without any trouble a few years ago?"
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I have received a very discouraging reply to a very simple question, but the Government take refuge, as my noble friend Lord Newton says, in the plea that there

77
is no public demand. I maintain that there is a public demand. All the services which are most interested in having the system adopted favour the proposal—chambers of commerce, scientific societies, tourist societies, Imperial Airways and, most important of all, the coastal services. Those are the people who are going to benefit. The people who are opposed are the kind of people who go to cocktail parties, who say they will not understand what the time is. Those are the only kind of people I know who are opposed to this change. It would not at all affect the lives of the great mass of the people, but it would affect those people who would find great convenience in having the system adopted. I think it is rather a slight on your Lordships. This is a matter which has been passed with your approval not once or twice, but three times, and yet the Government absolutely ignore the action of your Lordships. I think they might pay some respect to the opinion of your Lordships' House. But I am afraid I must withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had the following Notice on the Paper:—To move to resolve, That delay in re-establishing representative (not responsible) government in Malta may be rightly deplored by loyal Maltese as a breach of faith; and that there are grounds for censuring the Secretary of State for the Colonies for consequences of the present system; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord sail: My Lords, I rise to speak from the Opposition side of the House to-day because a direct Vote of Censure should not be moved against His Majesty's Ministers from the Benches behind Ministers. Before opening this debate it should be made quite clear that the Milner Constitution of 1921 has been done to death by the Lateran Treaty and secret influence hostile to Maltese nationality as well as to the Vatican. The object is to show how it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to legalise the position without delay, and to re-establish the Crown Colony Constitution of 1887 with modifications to be studied at a Round-Table Conference. I am not asking for that which
78
is unachievable in the present conditions of Europe. I am not asking for a slice of the moon. I am asking that there should be something carefully considered between the system of Ministerial responsibility, which has failed, and one-man government, which is always difficult. Even if Oliver Cromwell or St. Paul were to come back to Malta he would find it difficult to govern that over-populated country, and under the circumstances the possibility of solving the problem has not been met by His Majesty's Government. Much more than half of the English population of Malta are thoroughly dissatisfied with the present position, and the growing discontent on the part of the Maltese population surely deserves consideration.
Loyalists in Malta protest—and will continue to protest from every available standpoint—that, on the annexation of Malta, the King of England, His Gracious Majesty's predecessor, promised to safeguard the ancient rights of the Maltese to enjoy representative institutions. Representative government, that was not responsible, was in fact established in Malta by one of the Norman cousins of the Conqueror of England nearly eight centuries ago. The promises made by His Gracious Majesty's predecessor to the Maltese were made for valuable consideration, that of blood and treasure and of suffering and starvation, when co-belligerents against Napoleon. It is dishonourable to ignore these promises, and I am here as a loyalist to denounce any continuation of that dishonour. His present Majesty himself graciously gave to the Maltese much more—namely, responsible government, and the grant was confirmed by an Act of Parliament. This grant can be altered by the same means; but if His Majesty's advisers continue to be responsible for other means they will be acting illegally; and moreover, no excuses could justify breaches of treaty rights.
The condition of affairs cannot be met by any system in which freedom of speech in an elective assembly is not restored. The alternative of saying that anything that is done is perfect, that no mistake has been committed, might be justified if nothing is done. It is the man who does nothing who never makes a mistake; and if the opposite is to be asserted, well, sensible people put it down to foolish flattery in-

79
acceptable to those who are educated and intelligent. Responsible government in addition to representative government was enacted by Act of Parliament. It had been enacted in 1921 by Letters Patent that could be revoked, but two years ago an Act of Parliament was passed making these Letters Patent irrevocable except in regard to certain clauses. When the Milner Constitution was granted Mr. Amery and myself pointed out that it was a great risk to have an irrevocable Constitution in Malta, but that risk has been taken and His Majesty's Government cannot honourably or legally get out of it except by another Act of Parliament.
What would be said in an Australian State, or even in Southern Rhodesia, to which was given a dyarchical Constitution similar to that of Malta, if the Governor were suddenly to attempt to assume one-man rule, and to dispense with all written safeguards? What would the Indian millions have to say if a similar attitude were to be taken up two years after the grant of any new Constitution with or without an Imperial Act? It is allowable to refer to the precedent when Mr. Gladstone was at the same time Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for the Colonies, and to express the view that, as far as Malta is concerned, the weight of responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the statesman who is to-day Secretary of State for War and has also held the highest of legal offices, the noble Viscount the Leader of your Lordships' House. As a matter of fact, Malta has to be considered as a fortress with traditional Treaty rights: it was never a Colony.
Let us go back to the Gladstonian position; and may I be allowed to challenge the Front Bench from a legal point of view? Recently in New South Wales the Governor found that with one side in office there was danger of national bankruptcy and constitutional chaos, whereas when another side governed there was a prospect of marvellous prosperity; a crisis developed and the Governor dismissed the Premier, Mr. Lang, and put in office a Cabinet to administer temporarily so as to carry through a General Election. This, according to the text books, with which noble Lords belonging to the legal profession are familiar, was the correct course under self-government: and this is the lesson of successful practice. The
80
Governor of New South Wales trusted the electors as the Governor of Malta ought to have trusted the electors. It was not his business to rely on the opinion of tipsters as to which side would win. The loyal electors of New South Wales knew perfectly well what the consequence would be if they voted for chaos. The result would have been that the Federal Government would have had to step in. After all, Australia's Constitutions are dyarchical on account of certain reserved powers being in the hands of the Federal Government. I will not enter into that question because I should be getting too close to the position to-day of Western Australia and I do not want to enter into technicalities of law in that connection. May I ask, is there any legal authority in this Assembly who would say that the action of the Governor of New South Wales in replacing Mr. Lang when he had a majority by a Ministry in a minority was a ridiculous thing? No law officer could say that, and I do not think any representative of the Colonial Office should say that in this House, unless he quotes the name of some responsible person who is prepared to chance the effect on his reputation of such an assertion.
I feel that an apology is due to the electors of Malta whose loyalty has been justly praised by the representative of the Colonial Office in this House. And if they are as loyal as has been said, why were they not trusted? Was it because orders had been given to abolish the Constitution, right or wrong, and to find some excuse for doing it? I say that in justice if that abolition of responsible Parliamentary government was to take place, that was no reason to go back beyond 1887, beyond 1847, beyond the promise made when Napoleon was turned out, and even farther back than that. Surely something between those extremes is deserved by those whose fathers fought for England, let alone those of this generation who have been trying to do their duty to the Empire.
Now let me come to the point of law. With brief extracts from the Letters Patent in my hands, I propose to show that an Imperial Act of Parliament is at the present moment being ignored, and improperly ignored. I know that what I say is beyond contradiction, so much beyond contradiction that I chal-

81
lenge the Government to find any representative of the legal profession in this House who can stand up against me on this occasion. When a crisis occurs in Malta, according to the law sanctioned by an Imperial Parliament, the Governor has power to legislate—not power just to do what he likes without legislation. That power to legislate is derived from Clause 12 of the Supplementary Letters Patent of 1921:
"The Governor may from time to time by any Ordinance to be by him issued make laws for the peace, order and good government of Malta with regard to matters reserved from the Legislature of the Island by the Maltese Constitution Letters Patent, 1921, and therein defined as 'Reserved Matters.' "
These are the Supplementary Letters Patent which are subject to amendment by Letters Patent. Even under the present Act of Parliament the Supplementary Letters Patent can be altered by Letters Patent, but they cannot be altered arbitrarily by Despatches.
The same does not apply to the principal Letters Patent. The principal Letters Patent can be revoked and altered only by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. Let us see what we find in the principal Letters Patent as to Reserved Matters. Clause 41 provides that Parliament shall make laws, and that, the said power to make laws shall not extend to matters hereinafter referred to as Reserved Matters, which are those
"touching the public safety and defence of Our Empire and the general interests of Our subjects not resident in Malta, or touching the general interests of Our subjects resident in Malta, and the preservation and continuance of peace, order and good government therein in the event of such being endangered, or the carrying on of responsible government under these Our Letters Patent being prejudiced, by reason of any grave emergency which the Secretary of State shall be satisfied has arisen and continues to exist within the Island and, without prejudice, such general limitation shall not extend to the following matters: "
Then there follows a schedule of specially Reserved Matters.
Now, a quibble may easily be got out of these words "emergency which the Secretary of State shall be satisfied has arisen and continues." it may be said that he can form any opinion he may like as to what an emergency is, that he is absolutely unfettered. On the other hand, it may be said that he has to exer-
82
cise that power as a trustee in a judicial spirit, or at all events in a fair, straightforward English spirit which would have the approval of this House. I will proceed to show that, with the quibble or without the quibble, the present position is untenable. There is a power to legislate in an emergency. The first step in an emergency is therefore for the Governor to legislate without Parliament, so as to meet the emergency, real or imaginary. That power, according to the law, moves concurrently with the power of the Maltese Legislature to legislate. The power is restricted to Reserved Matters, to an emergency and to a continuing emergency. What was provided in the principal Letters Patent when safeguards of the most stringent character were most carefully arranged? It was provided that if Parliament legislated in a manner detrimental to Imperial interests the Governor could stop the debate on the subject and propose amendments. He had the right to "veto" or disallow, and having exercised that right he could legislate by Ordinance. That was considered a sufficiently strong protection. He could perhaps have legislated to stop the Elections. The power to hold an Election is in one of the clauses of the principal Letters Patent which cannot be touched by Letters Patent but only by an Act of Parliament. He could have legislated, or tried to legislate, to suppress the Executive Council. Nothing of the sort has been done.
Let me tell your Lordships what has been done. Suddenly the Constitution was suspended and we had a counterpart of a vicious system set up in Malta. Then tentatively certain little laws were passed with the preamble that "whereas a state of grave emergency exists" and "whereas the Secretary of State is satisfied that a grave condition of emergency exists." Some small amendment of the law or some little law then followed. Now, after that had been done for a short time and there was no public commotion, the Secretary of State has stopped the assertion as a prelude to legislation that the grave emergency continues. Why has he stopped it? Because his conscience is not sufficiently elastic to go on asserting it? There can be no other reason. As it is, other parts of the Letters Patent are now function-

83
ing. The power to legislate is functioning with regard to minor matters, but there is no Executive Council, no Privy Council, no Joint Committees. The Nominated Council has sometimes been consulted about these Ordinances and sometimes not. All these safeguards are gone, and I think the Princes of India should be told that all their safeguards in the proposed new Constitution are worth just as much as the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, said was the value of the safeguards in the Malta Constitution. He said that it meant when the time came that the Governor took control. Let the Indians be told that before we go on discussing the value of safeguards.
Why have these safeguards not been used? It is perfectly obvious that in order to work these safeguards the military Governor must sacrifice his military work. Admirals and generals and others called to serve on Joint Committees must give up their work and their afternoon recreation as well. A meeting of the Privy Council means that the Maltese Executive and non-Maltese meet together to discuss serious questions under safeguards. A meeting of a Joint Committee means that an equal number of Maltese and non-Maltese meet together with the Governor ordered always to preside. Of course, if he always presides it means that in a state of emergency he cannot well do his other work. Moreover, what is the position of a Governor who tries to work these safeguards? He has to meet in a Joint Committee and in the Privy Council trained lawyers, and people full of experience and knowledge, willing to work from five o'clock in the morning until late at night. He is untrained in points of law and order, perhaps never having read the Colonial Regulations, perhaps unaware of the Royal Instruction and that it is his duty to report whenever there is dissent.
The fact is that the safeguards as they stand are unworkable by a military Governor in view of the interference with administration which the War Office and the Admiralty have considered necessary in case of emergency. The fact is that the safeguards cannot be worked. If suspension had been by legislation, which is the only way of doing it legally, a lawyer could not have found reason to argue against the present situation, but I say
84
the present situation is absolutely illegal. The only way out is a Bill of Indemnity, and of course that Bill of Indemnity will have to cover power to set up something else between one-man government and Ministerial self-government. That something must be some form of Crown Colony government, which allows at least the right to air our grievances in public instead of having tea-party and card-table government. Your Lordships know that when an Imperial Act of Parliament is defied by a Governor and he gives up his office and comes back as a common citizen to England, he is liable to answer for any breach of an Act of Parliament before a Court of Common Law and a jury. There are precedents in our Colonial history, but I need not refer to them to-day.
That is what is happening now. The Leader of the pro-Italian Party, Dr. Mizzi, has at last found a way of bringing a case to test the validity of the present position of affairs. It arises from a law which was passed compelling newspaper owners to deposit £200 to meet legal liabilities in case of improper publication—a most useful and necessary law, I admit. Dr. Mizzi has deposited that money and now he is suing the Treasury for the return of it because he says the Ordinance under which it was exacted is null and void. Whether that be correct or not I will not say to-day, but I will say this, that I am going to intervene and support him with all my experience and all my resources to test whether a Bill of Indemnity is not necessary to regularise the present situation. Of course we have been told that there is this power in the Governor, a power, as lawyers say, in nubibus or in gremio legis, a power on the lap of the gods or in the clouds whichever it may be. But that will not do. It will not do in Malta, it will not do in India, it will not do for the honour of this House. Let us get down to bedrock. What I have quoted is all there is about "emergency" in the Letters Patent, and these have been sanctioned and incorporated in an Act of Parliament. No argument can be adduced to support the present situation.
It remains for me to show that the present situation, besides being a breach of faith inasmuch as the Act of Parliament is in suspense, is also a breach of faith inasmuch as pledges given on the annexation of Malta have not been car-

85
ried out. Besides that, the system is working badly, and that is what I am going to show. We have had the example of Newfoundland, where the Constitution was suspended because it was said that the financial situation had led to chaos. The same argument was tried in reference to Malta. It was stated in another place that a state of grave emergency had arisen in the case of Malta because of the financial situation. The figure given in another place as the deficit in Malta was different from the figure given in this House for the same deficit. Both figures were wrong. What is more, the assertion that there was a deficit was equally fallacious. There was no deficit. There was a surplus in the Treasury. And not only was there a surplus in the Treasury, but there was no public debt, and a marvellous volume of easily liquefiable assets in the hands of the Government without touching any of the trust funds in the Government savings bank.
That was the position. And what is more, since that date there has been a new financial statement made by the present emergency Government, according to which the surplus has grown to a quarter of a million. There was made in the other House and in this House an assertion, which was not true, as to the existence of grave financial emergency when there was no deficit, no public debt, and plenty of liquid assets. I ask, is it respectful to your Lordships' House to continue supporting the Governor as a man who never makes mistakes, for having telegraphed two different figures, first for one House and then for the other, and then having no deficit at all? The doctrine of the making of no mistakes and having been right everywhere really should have a limit. That is the limit, and that limit is so grave that it cannot be suggested that it is due to any stupidity on the part of some junior clerk in the Colonial Office. The information was given deliberately from Malta, and it is open to the imputation of mendacity.
Now let me pass to a point where I am sure your Lordships will not support the assertion that there have been no mistakes made in Malta under the present system. I have proved that the white slave traffic has been winked at in Malta. My Question on that subject remained on the Notice Paper of your
86
Lordships' House for four months, and I took care to keep it there, so that when I brought up the question I would not be told that I was taking the Front Bench by surprise. When it was brought up there was no answer, because no answer could be concocted—not even by the clerks in the Colonial Office. And when I referred to the way in which a pardon desired by the Imperial authorities was most grudgingly communicated to Joseph Orlando Smith between the bars of the prison, what was I told in this House? I was told that the Governor alone was responsible for that pardon. When, upon that, I wanted to know how it was that a would-be assassin got a remission of sentence, I was told that the Governor was not responsible on that occasion.
That is the way in which we are governed in Malta to-day. There is nobody responsible for knowing the law properly. The legal adviser of the Crown in Malta now is a capable man, but before that the Law Officer was utterly incompetent, and worse. Naturally the Maltese Law Officers, if they are pressed by a Governor who is always supported, right or wrong, have, poor creatures, to be special pleaders and make a mistake, and give the opinion of a special pleader and not that of a Law Officer. It is to the credit of the English Bar that an English Law Officer will never give an opinion for political purposes against his conscientious view of the law. I remember an occasion during my membership of the House of Commons, when I was at variance with the Governor about a wrong act of authority as Head of the Government, and it took a year before the Governor was over-ridden. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who now leads this House, was then one of the Law Officers of the Crown, and an opinion was given correctly according to law. It was not said then that the Governor was to be always right.
Let me pass to another example of what I think is gross wrongdoing under the present Administration. Under the pro-Italian method of governing Malta there was the head of a secondary school whose ultra-political action went so far as to compel Maltese who were baptised in Latin to call themselves Enrico instead of Henry and Guiseppe instead of Joseph and so on. The boys were all made to change their names, and absurd things

87
of that sort were repeated; and in the other House Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister condemned that head of the Lyceum. Ministers were dismissed for non-loyalty and for want of co-operation, and that head of the Lyceum was given the highest ecclesiastical post in the gift of the Crown; he was made Dean of the Cathedral. His Majesty the King as inheritor of the sovereignty of Malta inherits the patronage of the Grand Masters, and he has the right to object in Rome to whoever is proposed as Bishop. He has the right to appoint the Dean of the Cathedral, who presides over Chapter assemblies, and it has been made the most careful study of the Foreign Office and of our administration to ensure that these great posts should never be given to anyone except to senior ecclesiastics well known for their loyalty and ability to co-operate. That post was given to a junior ecclesiastic already condemned in the House of Commons, if you please.
Why was that done. And why is it now said that no mistake has been committed? My Lords, I can only guess. It seems to me that there are people in Malta who have so much influence "behind the throne" that they are able to show to the negotiators of the Lateran Treaty and to other outside powers that it is not the Governor of Malta who governs, but somebody else, and to the extent of reversing the policy of the Foreign Office which was declared and followed by Sir John du Cane, a former Governor. At all events, if loyalists are to fight for the Crown and work for the Crown and its prestige, if we are not to go on working on the old lines, if there is to be a sudden reversal of policy and opinion, let us know. Let us stop our newspapers, and let us know, so that our elimination will become more easy. But a sudden reversal of policy of that description is absolutely destructive of all confidence in the wisdom of the Imperial Government and absolutely discouraging to those who have throughout their lives consecrated their resources to upholding our prestige in the Island of Malta, where some of us had the joy of having been born.
Worse has happened in the case of Joseph Orlando Smith. I will not repeat all that I have said on that subject. He was for England a friend in need. His services were acknowledged. When there was a conspiracy backed by large sums
88
of money for suborning the Fleet in Scotland and in Malta, when newspapers and other documents were being printed in Russia to be disseminated from Russia to suborn the Fleet—
LORD STRABOLGI: Not in Scotland, only in Malta.
LORD STRICKLAND: Perhaps my friend knows more than I do as to what happened in Scotland.
LORD STRABOLGI: Hear, hear.
LORD STRICKLAND: But I have had so much experience both in governing and in administering a Sedition Ordinance that I cannot believe that the methods which were being applied to Malta were not being applied in Scotland. If I had time I think I could produce proof which would satisfy my noble friend. But let that pass, and let us stick to what I have proof of locked up in the safe of my solicitors in the City of London. Those samples of documents are there. Joseph Orlando Smith was searched under a Sedition Ordinance by the Nationalists. When I was in office I did not search the Nationalists. I will not say why, but some of them ought to have been searched. The moneys they received to destroy English prestige in Malta were well known. However, we did not search, but other people searched. They did not find those documents in the newspaper office of Joseph Orlando Smith. They had been given to the Security officers, and I brought them to England; I had shown them to the authorities here and they were put in my safe. But they were so disappointed at losing their prey that they indicted Joseph Orlando Smith together with one or two who had no defence—a most cruel thing which used to be done in the days of the Tudors; that is, to indict an innocent man with persons who could not find a defence—I will not say guilty or not guilty. He was condemned and his business destroyed.
That is bad enough, though it can easily be remedied, but what can I do if, when I go on working for England in Malta, those Maltese who co-operate are liable to be treated in this way by Ministers here? I am bound to find a remedy, even if it is again to beg the patience of this House while your Lordships listen to me when I try to obtain justice for Malta. That

89
is my standpoint. He was sent to prison for having in his possession books written by Bernard Shaw and a little poetry which was printed in his newspaper, which was merely milk and water when compared with what I have heard said by noble Lords in this House. The anti-English papers for months were branding him as a gaol-bird, and doing everything possible to destroy his business. Surely it is hard to be branded in this way for having done one's duty, and I appeal to this House to find a remedy, either this year or next year or the year after.
Then what shall I say of the expenditure of English money, in connection with the appointment of one who was quite incompetent to be the head of the Agriculture Department? The Secretary of State sends out an investigator, who reports that the person in question knows nothing about agriculture, during the period of probation. Notwithstanding that certificate his nomination is confirmed, and we are told it is rightly confirmed by reading that bit of Mr. Stockdale's report. Mr. Stockdale was too clever to say what was not true, but what he said was no argument. Two people are going to be paid as assistants by the Colonial Development Fund. I am a taxpayer in England and I have appealed to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
May I ask why the English taxpayer's money is wasted, to provide the amusements of a home farm, when the leaders of both Parties in Malta have in the name of all the Maltese repudiated this pauperising hush money? We are not paupers in Malta, and we do riot ask for alms. The Maltese are a rich and over-developed population, and a surplus has been declared of nearly a quarter of a million. We do not want this sort of charity to uphold a wrong appointment. The Secretary of State says that no mistakes have been made, but I ask the House to take a different view. I have read the Act of Parliament. Malta is not a Colony, and does not come under the Colonial Development Act. There are reasons why this money is going to be wrongly sent to Malta. It is going to be sent as hush money, to hush up the appointment of this legal practitioner, who has been reported by the Colonial Office investigator as having no knowledge of agriculture. I ask your Lordships to say that there is something
90
wrong here and that the present system is working unsatisfactorily.
Now I come to the stage of offering something constructive. It is said you should never attack the Government unless you have something constructive to offer as an alternative. I have already suggested a Round-Table Conference with reference to the Constitution of 1887, which is a Crown Colony Constitution. Do not let it be said that I am asking for slices of the moon. Under the Constitution of 1887, and under the much less liberal Constitution of 1847, the Governor always had to preside in the Council of the Governor, and it is of no use sending out Governors who cannot preside because they do not know the rules of procedure, or are too old to sit in the chair, as has happened in the past. There must be a Governor who is able to preside. It is also necessary that everybody should speak in English, and if the Governor will not meet members and they will not speak in English no Constitution is possible. Let us have a trial, and if the needs of civil government require that the Governor shall preside, there must be somebody who is trained in the procedure of Parliamentary management, and we all know that it is difficult. I have spent all my life at it and have sat perhaps in ten Parliaments in different parts of the Empire, and I can assure your Lordships that I have had to read up Constitutions and procedure every time there is anything of importance.
Lord Curzon, the greatest of our Viceroys, certainly in living history, has put it on record that military officers are quite unsuitable to hold the office of civil Governors. As regards Australian States it was said that the way to appoint Governors in Australia was to select the wife and send the husband out as an adjunct. There was much wisdom in that saying. It means that the selection of suitable men is too restricted, unless trouble is taken to find out, and there must be a wider range of selection than the list of senior Lieutenant-Generals if there is to be some sort of Constitution in Malta. The selection must be made under Parliamentary responsibility that is real, and not under Parliamentary responsibility that is fictitious. Is it real responsibility for the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as Secretary of State for War, simply to

91
have to pass on as a Post Office the recommendation of the Army Council, that if there is a vacancy in the Governorship of Malta selection shall be made from a restricted panel of senior Generals, and if the wife of the first refuses, then to go to another recommendation? If the recommendation does not work out right what is the Secretary of State for the Colonies to do? He cannot deal with the business, he cannot get somebody else because he does not appoint him; he has to say that that individual has made no mistake—that is the way he gets out of the business. It is as if in a marriage settlement the mother-in-law has the nomination of the cook, and the cook cannot be dismissed. That is the parallel in practice.
Well, I think the time has come for appealing to your Lordships' House, as well as to the other House and to the public opinion of this country, to accept the view which I hold that a Secretary of State is paid to do his work, and in particular to correct subordinates. If the method of selection puts him into such a position that he must say that they are infallible it is like a boomerang which reacts on his Department, and a stage comes when fulsome flattery does more harm than good. And that is happening to-day in Malta, as may be gathered from many newspapers. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That delay in reestablishing representative (not responsible) government in Malta may be rightly deplored by loyal Maltese as a breach of faith; and that there are grounds for censuring the Secretary of State for the Colonies for consequences of the present system.—(Lord Strickland.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies there is one point in particular to which I wish to direct his attention. I perhaps ought in the beginning to advise your Lordships that the noble Lord who has just spoken was not speaking as a new and unexpected addition to the Labour Party. Secondly, I ought to explain that I do not propose for one moment to go into the constitutional question of Malta. That requires more research than I have given to it and I do not propose to touch upon it to-day, except to say that it must always he a very serious thing to the British Commonwealth of Nations when any
92
single part of it has its Constitution suspended. That has happened in Newfoundland, it has happened in Malta; and whilst we on this side who are not responsible for Government do not deny that there may be occasions when in a crisis such suspension has to take place, we ought always to look at these suspensions with misgiving and make their duration as short as they possibly can be. And, inasmuch as the Malta Constitution has now been suspended for some time, we feel that His Majesty's Government ought to bear in mind at all times the possibility of restarting it.
The one point which I wish to bring before your Lordships is the one that I mentioned during a similar debate almost precisely a year ago—the point that has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Strickland. It is a matter of very deep concern to more than the victims of what many people believe to have been harshness, if not actual injustice. Let me in one or two phrases state the position as I understand it. Three or four men were arrested for being connected with, or having in their possession, what was thought to be seditious literature. One of these men, Joseph Orlando Smith, whose name has been mentioned, was a man of proved character, of great respectability, much respected by his fellow-citizens. He was arrested for alleged seditious propaganda against the Crown. He happened to be the Secretary of the Maltese Labour Party—a man, I say, of capacity, holding a responsible position, and with an excellent record. His office was raided, and his papers and belongings were seized. Amongst the seditious literature which was found on his premises were books by Mr. Bernard Shaw, Mr. Wells, and others, including books on economics and constitutional development, books by gentlemen who stand high in economic and political science. Among the things seized as being a danger to the Crown was the inflammatory rhetoric of my noble friend Lord Passfield!
But these publications were not the real offence. What really was in the mind of the Maltese Government was that this gentleman had in his possession or under his control the literature of the Labour Party. There was that dreadful document "Labour and the Nation." There was sedition indeed! What sort of chance, with such material in his

93
possession or under his control, had this poor man of being acquitted? He was arrested as a dangerous person. He tried to make an appeal against the fine and the sentence, but the appeal was technically out of order; therefore he was taken to prison and put behind prison bars. Let me repeat again that, almost as soon as he got to the prison, the Governor, with very great good sense liberated him, and the sentence was remitted.
The grievance that we have against the Maltese Government, or whoever is responsible, is that, although he was pardoned and liberated and the sentence remitted, his conviction stands. So the position is now that he was either guilty of sedition or he was not: if he was guilty of sedition why was he not punished? But since he was pardoned and his sentence was remitted, why is the sentence against him not quashed? The reason would seem to be that he was in possession of this literature which we on these Benches have spread broadcast throughout this country. A year ago the noble Earl opposite (Lord Plymouth) promised me that this matter, to use his own words, should receive consideration. We have been very patient, and a year after, so far as we know, nothing has been done.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): I did go into this matter very fully the last time, or very nearly the last time, we discussed the question of Malta.
LORD SNELL: You mean quite recently?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes.
LORD SNELL: Some of these workers were workers in the dockyard. That is a point I want to have considered. They were deprived of their employment. Now, it is a very serious punishment to a man to deprive him of his employment for ever, through a fault of political judgment—assuming that there was such a fault. It is far more serious for him than to put him in prison for a fortnight and then let bygones be bygones. We feel that this matter is one that ought not to be left where it is, and we desire to emphasise that part of the speech of the noble Lord which called attention to it. We hope that the authorities concerned
94
cerned will do the sensible and generous thing and restore the civil rights of this man and quash these indictments against him.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, who introduced this Motion, in detail into the many subjects with which he dealt because I really think that a number of them, a very great many of them, were not directly relevant to the actual Motion which he has put upon the Paper.
LORD STRICKLAND: May I ask which?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I did not interrupt the noble Lord during the course of his speech, and I hope he will allow me to make my reply without interruption. During his speech the noble Lord made quite a number of provocative accusations. Accusations of mendacity were bandied about, but I do not intend to follow his example. I want to deal quite simply with the various points that are raised in his actual Motion. May I very briefly explain the position? In circumstances which are well known to your Lordships' House and which it is really quite unnecessary for me to repeat on this occasion, the Secretary of State in November, 1933, declared that he was satisfied that art emergency existed in Malta. The Constitution provides that in such a case the Governor should assume the administration and the government of the Island. The action which the Secretary of State and the Governor have taken is therefore in accordance with the Constitution. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the emergency still exists, and the Governor therefore must continue to exercise his special powers.
That position permits of no argument; but the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, has taken the opportunity of criticising the present system. He has attributed to it all sorts of dire consequences. He says that it is a thoroughly bad Government and that the Secretary of State is deserving of some measure of censure for his responsibility in this matter. The noble Lord is fully entitled to hold those views and to give expression to them. No one can prevent him from doing so, but what I do assert, and assert with confidence, is that you could find hardly a single person whose judgment could in any way

95
be considered as impartial who would agree with him in his views. He has during the course of his speech made once again a veiled attack upon the present Governor. I want to reiterate that His Majesty's Government here have complete confidence in Sir David Campbell, and I want your Lordships to rest assured that the special powers which are vested in the Governor are being exercised wisely and in the best interests of Malta.
I should like to give my reasons for saying this, but before I do so I must refer to a certain number of matters to which the noble Lord referred, not for the first time, in conection with what he chooses to term the misdoings of the present Government. He first of all reverted to the question of the finances of the Island of Malta, and to some alleged discrepancy in the figures which were quoted by myself in your Lordships' House and by the Secretary of State, I think, in another place. He said that we referred to deficits in Malta. I have taken the trouble to read with great care what I said upon that occasion, and I should like to point out that I never referred to the question of deficits at any time whatsoever. My argument was this, that on the showing of the Minister's estimates there would have been one had not action been taken later on. It is quite untrue to say that at any time during the course of my remarks I referred to there being an actual deficit in Malta.
Then another subject has been raised again to-day, and that is the question of the trial of Joseph Orlando Smith in which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has taken interest for some considerable time. I do not think the noble Lord could have been present on the last occasion on which we discussed the matter, for at that time I did deal at some length with that question. I remember full well that a year ago noble Lords, not only Lord Strickland but noble Lords opposite, referred to this matter and made a request that it should receive further consideration. Without committing myself or the Government in any way, I said I would look into the matter and, as I have said, on the 1st November I referred to it at considerable length. If the noble Lord will allow me shortly to explain the position I shall do so.
96
I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension with regard to this matter. We wrote to the Governor asking for further information. It would appear to me that the noble Lord puts forward the argument that the action of the Governor in so far as it went is illogical, in that not only should the sentence on Orlando Smith have been remitted but that a free pardon should have been given as well. If the noble Lord had been present in the House on the last occasion on which I mentioned this he would see that that argument is not sustainable in view of what the Governor says with regard to the men. The Governor did not say that he believed that these people had been unfairly convicted. On the other hand, he thought that the first judgment was right and fair. The reason why he remitted the sentence was that these people on a purely technical point had been refused the opportunity of a further hearing. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that the Governor remitted the sentence which had been passed upon them, and not because he thought the conviction had in itself been an unfair or unjust one.
I would add that it is really absurd to maintain that Orlando Smith was sent to prison for having in his possession a book by Bernard Shaw or indeed one by the noble Lord's colleague, Lord Passfield. As a matter of fact, the police found a large number of books in his house. They could not examine them there, and they therefore took them away. Books by Bernard Shaw were certainly amongst them, but these were not the books on which the charges were based. It was on others of a genuinely seditious character.
LORD STRABOLGI: Which?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid that at the moment I am unable to tell the noble Lord, but that is the information which has been given to me. I am afraid I cannot add to that. Your Lordships will see that I fulfilled the promise I then gave, and I informed your Lordships of the observations received from the Governor and the reasons for the action which he took.
The noble Lord, Lord Strickland, has once again referred to various appointments that have been made under the present régime in Malta, and he has once again referred to the appointment of Dr.

97
Micallef as Superintendent of Agriculture. He is guilty in dealing with this matter of certain misstatements. The noble Lord reiterated on several occasions that Mr. Stockdale had said that the Superintendent of Agriculture knew nothing about agriculture. If he would read Mr. Stockdale's Report carefully he would see he did not say that the Superintendent knew nothing about agriculture, but that he had no knowledge of agricultural sciences, which is an entirely different thing, as the noble Lord must know. But Mr. Stockdale went on further to say that it was his belief that the Superintendent had the confidence of the farmers of Malta and Gozo, and that he would be able in due course to do much valuable work on behalf of agriculture in the Island.
In dealing with this particular subject the noble Lord again repeated the charge which he made on the last occasion—namely, that the help which had been obtained for agriculture in Malta, from the Colonial Development Fund had been obtained merely in order to bolster up the appointment of the Superintendent of Agriculture. I took the opportunity at once of contradicting what the noble Lord had said with regard to this, and I want to repeat once again that that suggestion and that charge is utterly unjustifiable and, in my view, an absolutely improper one for the noble Lord to make. I can assure your Lordships that this assistance is being given to the agricultural industry in Malta purely and simply because that industry is a most important industry in the Island. It is the industry which means more to the inhabitants than any other, and His Majesty's Government are most anxious to assist that industry and, in that way, the population of the Island of Malta.
I said some time ago that I wished to give reasons why I did not think the noble Lord was justified in any degree in suggesting that the present Government in Malta had been conducting its affairs badly and without thought for the interests of the people of that Island. May I give a few examples of the reforms which have been instituted by the present Government already, or which are in the course of being pit into operation? I will take agriculture first of all. Once more I want to emphasise that that industry is far the most important industry in the Island, and a number of
98
claims for the assistance of that industry are being pushed forward with the help of grants from the Colonial Development Fund. I would shortly refer to these various schemes which are now being put into effect. There is a scheme for the establishment of a Government stock farm and a hostel for agricultural students. This is to be assisted by a free grant from the Colonial Development Fund of £22,000 spread over five years. I might remark parenthetically that I gather from the noble Lord's speech that he disdains help of this kind from the Colonial Development Fund, and looks upon it as charity. That is the first time I have ever heard that argument put forward from any part of the Colonial Empire, but I would only remark in passing—
LORD STRICKLAND: May I be allowed to interrupt? A protest has been made in the Press of Malta of both Parties that we do not want this kind of assistance. The Press of both Parties has strongly said so.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Then I cannot believe that the Press of the two Parties put together represents any very great body of opinion in Malta. I want to continue and to say that every former Government in Malta had the opportunity of furthering agriculture and doing what they could, as the present Government intend to do now as far as possible, but they do not appear to have taken their opportunity or to have taken any very effective measures in the matter. Then again, continuing with agriculture, there is the appointment of an adviser in agricultural marketing and controller of agricultural exports. For this purpose a free grant of £5,000 is being made from the Fund together with a loan of £2,000.
Apart from this, efforts are being made to improve the poultry breeding, the viticulture, and to introduce improved strains of cereals. A model poultry farm is now almost complete at the Government experimental farm, which it is proposed to stock with improved breeds with the object of gradually replacing the mongrel flocks existing in the Island. The section of the Department of Agriculture dealing with plant pathology is actively engaged in combating the disease, with which, unfortunately, the apple orchards of the

99
Maltese Islands are now infected. In addition, a number of new Ordinances are being prepared with a view to the introduction of new schemes of agricultural organisation. That is a very important matter as no attempt heretofore has been made to grapple with the problem. These schemes deal with such matters as the control of the exportation of agricultural produce, the control of the importation of seed potatoes, the conservation of the soil and various other similar matters.
Now I pass on to the question of the reforms of the Courts. As your Lordships no doubt know, reforms were introduced some few months ago with the object of removing various abuses in the Island's judicial system. Legislation has been passed in order to reform the procedure of the Courts which formerly entailed delay which, in many cases, amounted to nothing less than a denial of justice. It has also been laid down that in future the use of the native language, Maltese, is to be insisted upon in the Courts wherever possible. This reform is based upon the simple elementary principle of justice that legal proceedings should be conducted in a language with which the parties themselves are familiar. There appears to be every evidence from the information at our disposal that these reforms are definitely welcomed by the vast majority of the people of Malta.
Then, passing to other matters, I would point out that special attention is being paid to the important subject of public health. In particular it has been decided to make a definite effort to stamp out undulant fever, a disease which has for long been a menace to the health and the welfare of the Maltese. For these purposes a free grant of £3,000 and a loan of £9,000 from the Colonial Development Fund has recently been made for research work in the immunisation of goats from this disease. This grant is to be followed by a further free grant of £3,750 if the results warrant it. A scheme is also under consideration for dealing, in the interest of sanitation and health, with the question of refuse collection and disposal. Other matters which are receiving attention are those of water supply, the reduction of electricity rates, fire control, hospital accommodation and education.
100
I venture to say that these are results which are not negligible. I would ask your Lordships in all seriousness whether these results are in your opinion useless and insignificant, and whether your Lordships consider that the Secretary of State and the Governor are deserving of censure for their responsibilities in these respects. The fact is that real progress is being made in Malta in relation to certain matters which hitherto have been to all intents and purposes completely neglected, and I once again would assure your Lordships that the Governor is using those powers which are vested in him wisely and in the interests of the people of Malta as a whole.
I would conclude what I have to say by referring shortly to what the noble Lord has said with regard to the future government of Malta. The noble Lord has discussed at considerable length and expressed his views as to what would be the best form of Constitution for Malta, and he has suggested a system of representative but not responsible government. In the circumstances which exist it would, in my opinion, be most inopportune, and quite inappropriate and indeed improper, to enter into any consideration as to what might or might not be the best form of government in Malta in normal times.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, replies, I beg to be allowed to detain your Lordships for a moment to supply the noble Earl with information about the list of books—I think it is a very entertaining list and that your Lordships would like to hear it—that were seized by the police on the occasion referred to by my noble friend Lord Snell. I would not have intervened this afternoon were it not that I have the very happiest memories of many pleasant months spent in the Island of Malta over a period of many years as a naval officer. In those days the Island was contented and happy and prosperous, and there was the best of feeling between the forces, both on land and at sea, and the population. I personally always found the Maltese workmen most admirable people. We had excellent service from those who took service in the fleet with us and there was no trouble of any kind. I am sorry that there has been deterioration since I left the forces.

101
The list of books that I am going to give to your Lordships consists of books seized, not from Joseph Orlando Smith, but from two other men. They are still retained by the Court. I read the list, not only because it is interesting, but because I think it throws a sidelight on the mentality of the police in Malta. If this is the attitude of the police in Malta to what I suppose would be called in Japan "dangerous thinking," I think it is a matter which should engage the attention of His Majesty's Government here at home. This is the list of dangerous books: "Precepts of Life and Character," by Goethe; "How to Know the Spiders"; "Eating for Health," by Barrett; "Food and Calories"; "Best Poems," by Walt Whitman; "Toleration," by Voltaire; "Bruno: Famous Martyr"; "Crimes of the Borgias," by Alexandre Dumas; "Controversy on the Creation of Man," by Haeckel; "Story of Kant's Philosophy" and "Story of Neitzche's Philosophy," by Dr. Will Durant. And now we come to some books which I suppose cast some doubt on Christianity. I am not in any way defending atheism or the teaching of agnosticism, but it is no crime yet to be an atheist or agnostic. Here are the books: "Self-Contradictions of the Bible"; "Six Reasons for doubting the Bible," by Ingersoll; "Wisdom of Confucius"; "Story of the Old Testament," by Clement Wood; "Morals of Human Conduct," by Seneca; "French Self-Taught," by Du Bois; "Religion and the French Revolution," and "Mussolini and the Pope" by McCabe. Perhaps this last is one of the dangerous books, but why the others should be retained I do not know. The last two books on the list are: "Psychology for Beginners," by Carrington; and "Pope Alexander VI and. His Loves," by Clement Wood.
Certainly the police secured a very mixed bag, and these are the books that are retained by the Court. Once you begin trying to interfere with people's opinions, then you make blunders of this kind. To that extent I cordially support the noble Lord, Lord Strickland. They obviously made a blunder. To suggest that these books are going to be reproduced and are going to cause disaffection in the Mediterranean Fleet at Malta is utterly absurd. I suggest to the noble Earl that the whole question of police
102
administration in Malta, in view of what we have heard, should receive the attention of His Majesty's Government.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, perhaps it would be interesting if I began my reply by referring to the list of books which has just been read by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am the last person to wish to waste the time of your Lordships by bringing up the Orlando Smith case over and over again. I only do so because I have begged the authorities in Malta, but without result, to let me know what there is against Joseph Orlando Smith apart from that list of incriminating publications. I know that the rules of your Lordships' House are very generous; nevertheless, I do not want to repeat unnecessarily, nor to interrupt unless unfairly pressed, and great care is taken to be relevant. But I do appeal to the noble Earl to order the Governor to let me know if there is any case against this man. If there is justification for fine and degradation and ruin, I do not want to trouble your Lordships' House further with the matter in years to come. This man has been heavily fined for sedition, his business has been ruined and he is branded as a gaol bird—we say most unjustly on this side of the House. There must be some undisclosable reason behind it. The noble Earl said Orlando Smith should have appealed to the Privy Council. No more cruel revelation could be made of the mentality of the responsible Government officials in Malta and of members of the police that acted wrongly. How could an unfortunate small merchant who has been ruined by a long-drawn-out prosecution appeal to the Privy Council? Offers were secured to provide all the resources necessary for an appeal, to brief Sir Stafford Cripps, and to meet all costs, but it was found impracticable to proceed. The Colonial Office ought to know that it was impossible to succeed in the Privy Council. If a law officer there advises the Minister differently he ought to be sacked.
That indicates the callousness with which Joseph Orlando Smith is being treated. I have repeatedly applied to the police in Malta to show me what there is against Joseph Orlando Smith and they are not allowed to tell me. I have tried in every way to find out, but

103
have failed to ascertain any justifiable ground for the Governor's attitude. As I had the courage to tell the noble Earl on another occasion in this House, His Majesty's Government is responsible in this matter as if it were the catspaw of the modern remnant of what is recorded as the methods of the Spanish Inquisition. That is why a member of the Imperial Parliament is not allowed to see the official files. That is why nobody can get at what is behind this obstinate attitude. I hold as a Roman Catholic, brought up in the faith of my ancestors for which they have suffered in this country for generations, that unless we can be faithful to our religion under conditions that are reconciliable with justice and education and common fairness and a recognition of the constitutional provisions safeguarding religious toleration, much damage will be done to our religion, Support of such abberation and of mediæval methods has immense repercussion religiously, intellectually and politically.
If the Government want to avoid a revival of tension between Church and State, the Governor ought not to become a party to these attacks against one of the most sacred and important clauses in the Constitution of Malta which provides for religious toleration. Joseph Orlando Smith is being persecuted because it is thought that he was helping some form of belief or non-belief unwelcome to those who sway the Government. That is the real reason that underlies the whole of this unreasoning and ungrateful reply.
I hope the noble Earl will examine this matter further, and if he does not I hope that the constituents of Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister will think it their duty to do so at the next Election. Injustice to loyalists in India was brought to a head in the days of the East India Company by organised appeals to English constituencies. A way to redress and justice must be found, whatever the consequences may be to the individual demanding redress. It rests with the noble Earl to order the Governor of Malta to give access to the real case against Joseph Orlando Smith to avoid greater evils than the supposition of his infallibility.
As to the deficit, I referred pointedly to a deficit declared in another place, put forward there by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the responsibility
104
of the Governor of Malta. Not a word has the noble Earl said about the inaccuracy of that assertion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or as to the responsibility of those who so wrote or telegraphed to him that it caused him to make a misleading statement. It is certainly not to his credit that he was misled. As to the discrepancy of a parallel statement in this House, I refer to the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which are present to my mind recording the quoted debate of last year although I have not looked it up. The noble Earl referred to a Report published in the Malta Government Gazette by the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Harry Luke. I then showed that the noble Earl's figures were wrong; that is where the figures will be found which show the discrepancy between Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister's statement in another place and the debate in this House on the 29th November, 1933. If the noble Earl had not read that Report when he criticised me to-day I am sorry for him, but I assert that my accuracy has been in no way shaken by any reference to arithmetic made to-night.
As to my having talked of things that were irrelevant, the Resolution is so drafted that it covers not only what I have said, but a very great deal that could be added. Now I come to the suggestion that I had said what I ought not to have said as regards the administration of the present Governor. My words are of very small weight in comparison with the deeds of Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister. Which of my words can equal the indignity involved when the Colonial Office sent two inspectors to report on the administration? This, indeed, did show want of confidence. The Colonial Office sent out to Malta last year inspectors to examine the situation. We had the pleasure to welcome Messrs. Dawe and Davies sent out to Malta to report and interview. They were billeted on the Governor, not for days or even weeks, but for months, living in his house, seeing the way in which the administration was carried on or not carried on, and seeing how one-man government worked in private as substitute for Parliamentary discussion in the open under the privilege of Parliament. Since then for all practical purposes the Colonial Office has taken charge of the

105
important decisions of the Government of Malta.
To my mind, with my experience of four Governorships, and an apprenticeship in the Service, when inspectors are sent out, and the public know what they are there for, the Governor's authority is undermined to extinction. There is no more room to assert infallibility; in my time such an inspection would have brought about immediate resignation. I remember that when the Comptroller and Auditor-General was sent out to Malta to recast public accounts, when I held Sir Henry Luke's present place as Chief Financial Officer, the Governor declined to allow the Comptroller and Auditor-General to interfere. He was welcome to have friendly conversations, but we declined to be supervised. In the case of Sir David Campbell the Colonial Office have shown a want of confidence which should bring immediate resignation. The sending out of inspectors there was not done because the Governor was a military Governor. I think this is proof of want of confidence by facts stronger than anything that I have said by words. Then we have the case of the appointment of Dr. Micallef; we had an inspector sent out from England, Mr. Stockdale, to see whether that appointment could be whitewashed or not. He reported that Dr. Micallef knew nothing of agricultural science. If that was not enough to suspend a temporary appointment I do not know what was. But the fact is that the inspector was sent out to see whether the Governor was making a defensible recommendation or not. That was an act of want of confidence, not mere words.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I cannot accept that or the former statement.
LORD STRICKLAND: This is quite natural, I do not expect it to be accepted officially.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is not true.
LORD STRICKLAND: The arrival and billeting of these inspectors are facts. I have been brought up in the Colonial Service, and that is how these facts in the Colonial Service have been always and will always be interpreted. The sending out of inspectors to see the way in which we do things or do not do things does not imply confidence.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There were no inspectors sent out at all.
LORD STRICKLAND: The officials, came, they saw, they reported. That description is all a matter of degree. As to the rest, it is too small a difference whether they were inspectors or observers praetor non curat de minimis.
The most important feature of this debate is the question of law. I have shown that the emergency powers of the Constitution are so worded that they only give powers of legislation; they do not give powers of administration till laws have been enacted for the purpose. They provide how the administration is to be conducted under the law by the provisions of the Letters Patent. The noble Earl comes here and says that the Constitution gives powers of administration such as the Governor has assumed and that the Governor administers under the Constitution. I have read now to your Lordships' House all that there is in the Constitution giving emergency powers. The noble Earl has not read a single word to prove his contention, and he has not put up a legal member of your Lordships' House to support him. He cannot find such a one. I ask this House to give that weight to the noble Earl's quotation of the law from anywhere against what I have read from the Kings Letters Patent, which might be gathered from the mere opinion of a special pleader.
As to the good done to Malta in the last year, I have been the first to express in the most grateful and sincere terms appreciation of what His Majesty's Government has ordered to be done in regard to putting the English language and the Maltese language nearer to the place which they ought to occupy in Malta. I have already shown the shortcoming in the carrying out thereof. But two wrongs do not make a right, and I ask your Lordships' House not to accept a whole list of petty favours and small reforms as a counterweight to injustice and as a "set-off" for having destroyed the elementary right of the Maltese to have some sort of representative Constitution rather than a one-man Government.
There is no answer to the charge that His Majesty's gracious predecessor, when Malta was annexed to the Crown, promised to respect our vested rights and

107
privileges as to representative institutions, and there is no answer as to the disregard of that, and no excuse as to the danger that a breach of that promise is going to create to the detriment of the future safety of the fortress and the feeling of Maltese loyalists. That was the main point of this Motion. As to the fact that an Act of Parliament is being disregarded, that is too patent for any intelligible contradiction; and your Lordships will find that in the case of Newfoundland Ministers had to pass an Act to put things straight. In Malta, Ministers may not want to pass an Act to put things straight. Why? may I ask. Is it because Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister has said that the Governor has made no mistakes? If that is why an Act of Indemnity will not be passed, the refusal does not make the position legal. The Governor, as many a Governor has done before him, has threatened to resign to put pressure on the Colonial Office. Is it for this that he is upheld in everything, right or wrong? The Colonial Office seems to be "between the devil and the deep sea," and from that difficulty every other difficulty has followed. If the treaty promises are disregarded that certainly will create a feeling which will be detrimental to the future safety of the fortress and is undoubtedly detrimental to the honour of England.
If one cannot get redress by pleading in this House once, twice or any number of times, the result will be to drive many earnest and loyal Conservatives out of the Party. Many are from day to day being driven to become so-called "Fascists," because they cannot get redress of grievances from the bureaucratic machine. It hurts me to hear of Conservatives becoming Fascists, but this has been heard on all sides, and the Party is being broken up and destroyed by this method of refusing redress. A majority of two hundred in the House of Commons demoralises, and therefore the bureaucracy knows that Ministers will support it right or wrong. Subordinates get to think that they also will be supported right or wrong, if Governors and heads of Department are so supported, and the whole prestige of the Government is gradually destroyed. Fascism is thus gaining ground every day. I appeal from the Front Bench in your Lordships' House and to those who
108
direct the Party outside, to find us some sort of remedy against this disintegrating disease. I may be one who has to cross the floor for one day, but if this system of finding excuses for wrong doing continues, and if deserving Imperialists like Orlando Smith, who has done acknowledged service to the Empire, are to continue to be treated in this way, the crossing of the floor will be followed more permanently and more will follow me next time.
It is really amusing to hear of the great things being done for Malta by the local bureaucracy and of marvels of agricultural achievements. But what has been reported on the subject from Malta has a questionable value. The report of the arithmetical deficit also had a questionable value. I am the President of the Farmers' Union in Malta, and I have been to visit this Government experimental farm in that capacity. I can assure the noble Earl or anyone else who has a home farm in England that he would feel absolutely disgraced if his home farm were in the condition in which I found this Government home farm, bolstered up with money from two Governments, English and Maltese; it was ridiculous. The noble Earl has read part of the recent report about the magnificent achievement in agriculture as published to the Press for consumption here. I can assure him that those interested in agriculture, both landlords and tenants, in Malta have gone on doing similar experiments for years and years out of their private resources.
There is not time to explain what the difficulties are in reforming agriculture in Malta; but for the noble Earl to say that nothing has been done by the Maltese is to say something which ought not to have been said. My family has devoted considerable resources to similar experiments. I have done all that could be done, as Chief Secretary in Sir Harry Luke's place, and private individuals have made great sacrifices to help agriculture in Malta, such as attempting to eliminate middlemen. Others have done the same amongst the nobility and gentry, and if the Governor says we have done nothing I must protest. We have imported new breeds of poultry, we have imported new qualities of pigs, and we have imported modern machinery out of our private resources. I will not

109
say that the Government cannot do better, but when reports come over here that the Governor alone has clone something and they say that Maltese have done nothing, I would like to know on what standards these assertions are believed. The Governor said that we have done nothing and published that he has done a very great deal. Amongst the recent boasts is a repot published by Sir Harry Luke as to the great achievements in pig breeding of the Malta Government. It is printed officially and placed on record that seven gentleman pigs hive been imported from England and that they have paid attentions to fifty per cent. of the lady pigs of Malta. I suggest that this inaccuracy is to be compared with the estimate of the financial position for which an Act of Parliament is disregarded.
That 50 per cent. boast shows the sort of arithmetic with which the Colonial Office can be stuffed. It is heartbreaking to note the facility with which the Colonial Office repeats here views which
110
the public of Malta would consider ridiculous. I am speaking for the good of the Empire, and I hope the time will come when public opinion in this country will wake up the Colonial Department. The time will come when some Secretary of State, I hope it may be the present one, will open an eye, and realise that he is paid by the English taxpayer to correct mistakes and not to bolster them up with fulsome praise.
On Question, Motion disagreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I understand that apart from the legal sittings of this House there will be no sitting before Wednesday. On that day there is a Motion on the Paper by Lord Snell, and also Lord Rankeillour's Judiciary (Safeguarding) Bill. Apart from that there is no business down.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.