§ LORD STRICKLAND had given Notice that he would call attention to the defence possibilities of Malta and the political and economic conditions of the Island; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be permissible to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the great change in strategy in Malta since last July. Then it was generally held, and confirmed by facts more eloquent than words, that the strategy was based upon a belief that Malta could not be defended from air 131 attack, and that in certain circumstances the Island would have to be abandoned, with the expectation that it would be easily reconquered after a long war, which it was assumed would be necessarily successful. Last July, from these Benches, His Majesty's Government was reminded that the abandonment of Malta for any reason whatsoever would be a most horrible going-back from covenants and pacts entered into between His Majesty's predecessors at the end of the Napoleonic wars and the representatives of the Maltese nation. After that—I do not say because of that—there was a hasty rearmament of Malta. The defence that had apparently been altogether neglected was pushed forward with marvellous and efficient rapidity. That Malta would be held became abundantly plain. Every possible landing-place is now protected by barbed wire. If you go to see a friend you are not asked into the drawing room, but into the gasproof chamber. Ladies who are leaders of society are photographed in their gas-masks. There are rehearsals of the putting-out of the lights in case of air-raids at night.
§ Much more, however, remains to be done to obliterate the very far-reaching and dangerous impression that Malta cannot be defended from air attack, an impression which has been the subject of unchecked propaganda among members of the Service to such an extent that it has almost invited preparations for a coup de main, which we have witnessed very ably arranged within less than an hour's flying distance from Malta. A debt of gratitude is due by Malta and His Majesty's Government to General Godley, who was recently relieved of his responsibilities at the end of his term of office as Governor of Gibraltar. He has published in the London Press the valuable opinions of an expert to the effect that the consequences of an air attack on Gibraltar need not cause apprehension, for the reason that the underground galleries are so ample and so available that the stores and munitions necessary for defence are quite safe from attack. There is also room for the shelter of the civil population. What has, according to that weighty authority, been done in Gibraltar is more easily achievable in Malta inasmuch as the rock of Gibraltar is hard and has to be blasted, 132 whereas Malta stands on ground which is easily quarried without blasting, and the result of quarrying there has a market value as building stone.
§ About ten years ago the necessity of arranging underground hangars in Malta was put forward from the back benches of the House of Commons, but it received no attention. To-day in Berlin there is the largest centre of air activity in the world. The administration buildings contain more than 2,200 rooms, and the aerodrome is surrounded by underground hangars that are invisible and bombproof. If in Malta there be concentrated a sufficient force of aircraft for counterattack under such conditions that that air force cannot be bombed or destroyed, I put it to your Lordships' House that, even if you could not say that there never would be an attack, one would be very unlikely. It becomes most improbable that there would be an attack on Malta if a counter-attack could be delivered with the certainty of return and the forces for achieving it could be kept in reserve with the certainty that they could not be destroyed.
§ The point that I particularly wish to submit to your Lordships' House is that if an air raid were attempted on Malta, the bombs would not be wasted in attempts to destroy fortifications and buildings, much less on the population, but the landing-places provided for aircraft that alights on wheels would be broken up and rendered useless in a manner which would necessitate a long time for repairs and which might be arranged for at a critical moment. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who made his maiden speech in this House with the assertion of the authority of experts that expenditure on additional facilities for the alighting of aircraft that comes down upon the water is a waste of money and quite useless, not to be recommended or encouraged even remotely, lost sight of what I have brought to your Lordships' notice as regards the possibility of destroying the landing-places of aircraft which does not alight upon water. There is a further point. The aircraft that is advisable for counter attack must be of the most rapid description, of a description that with difficulty takes off from land and finds a greater difficulty, if not an impossibility, in alighting otherwise than on the water. I therefore submit that expenditure on an air force of any description must be use 133 less unless we set to work as early as possible to provide the type of aircraft for defence by counter attack which can alight upon water.
§ That is the main point which I beg leave to urge upon His Majesty's Government as a paramount necessity for defence. There is no difficulty in locating and bombing land aerodromes by night or in rainy and bad weather. As far as Malta is concerned, cross-bearings are easy and the location is very well known. On the other hand, the aircraft which is to land on the sea knows full well that its landing-places will always continue level unless disturbed by wind and weather, and it is against wind and weather that permanent protection can be easily achieved. When the strategy of non-defence and abandonment was so much talked of in July, and was made believable by facts more weighty than words, it should have been remembered that if Malta were abandoned, in view of the congestion of the population, at least 50 per cent. would have to die of hunger and the value of everything in Malta would be affected to the extent. of at least 80 per cent. The duty of His Majesty's Government to consider those contingencies and the promises made to the Maltese appear to have been the subject of a very salutary reconsideration since last July.
§ Moreover, for six months in Malta the representation of the King has been entrusted to the hands of a member of the Colonial Service. It has often been denied that anyone but a Military Governor could govern Malta efficiently—an assertion which has been contradicted by so high an authority as Lord Curzon, when Viceroy of India. Certainly, if there is any place in the world which can give us a parallel example, it is India, where military considerations are of the greatest weight, and where the selection of a Viceroy is not confined to a small class of senior military officers, selected by the Army Council for reasons of seniority and promotion, and not for reasons of the benefit of India in the civil line. And during the tenure of office in Malta of a member of the Colonial Service, as representative of the King, we have witnessed a marvellous development and change in considerations of strategy for Malta.
§ A Civil Governor can co-ordinate the activities of the Army, Navy and Air Force without undue partiality and free 134 from a lifelong training in one compartment of ideas as regards defence. If Malta is to be defended permanently—and the serious trouble of defending Malta is not likely to arise for three or four years, in the opinion of the best experts upon that question—then Malta, properly defended by the Air Force, and having to rely principally on the Air Force, with the small military force necessary to prevent landing, in the absence of the Fleet, can furnish no argument for saying that a Civil Governor should not deal with the defence of Malta, the coordination of the needs of the three arms, side by side with and adjusted to the position of a civil population and their rights under the contracts entered into in their behalf. It is a fundamental feature of defence that the relations between the defence forces and the civil population should be of the best—that there should be co-operation and co-operation based on education, sentiment, patriotism and, above all, ties of blood.
§ To India this Imperial Parliament, last Session, granted self-government by legislative enactment which is so complicated that it has already had to be amended and made the subject of legislation by compartments, which at best will probably be Utopian. That effort, a very praiseworthy effort, is traceable to the necessity of dealing with the inferiority complex and the superiority complex. That problem is certainly much more difficult in India than it is in Malta, where representative institutions have been known for nine hundred, years, and where they were granted and upheld by the Norman kings of Sicily, of the type practised in the Channel Islands—a measure of representative government which has been promised and guaranteed by the successive rulers in Malta who succeeded the Norman kings. The Grand Master of the Order of St. John had to swear that he would preserve the rights and institutions of the Maltese. Similar promises were made in the name of our King-Emperor's predecessors, when Malta was annexed to the British Empire.
§ I ask your Lordships to have patience to consider what the racial problem means in Malta. It is complicated by the rapid increase of the population, which is more congested now than anywhere else in Europe. There are roughly a quarter of a million souls and additions of 3,000 every year. The bulk of that population 135 is of Phœnician extraction. They talk the language of Hannibal, and have no desire to be assimilated by the descendants of those who destroyed Carthage. I might ask your Lordships to remember that the peasantry in Malta grow their own bread and wine, and cotton for clothing, and pay very little in indirect taxation for imported luxuries. There is no direct taxation in Malta except Succession Duties, no Income Tax or rates. There are 30,000 Britishers who are not Maltese. The facilities of travel to-day attract the wives and families of those who are serving the Crown. Travel is cheap, the climate is attractive, and life is more pleasant in Malta for a larger portion of the year than anywhere else that I know. It is that section of the community, together with the Anglo-Maltese, that pays the largest share of taxation.
§ The Anglo-Maltese, who in the near past have been treated politically as nonexistent, are increasing in number, not only because of the facility of travel and residence but because the relaxation of the rigour of the canon law as to mixed marriages has become increasingly operative. The standard of remuneration and allowances in the Services, particularly in the ratings of the Navy, is so high that in these days of modern culture and education in the Services there is a. growing departure from that condition of society which used to be described by saying that a sailor had a wife in every port. Anglo-Maltese families, the result of mixed marriages, are growing in number, and any attempt to hold Malta indefinitely must be based upon a recognition of their position and claim to consideration, because blood is thicker than water, and the bribery and corruption which make administration in Malta difficult are less operative where there is British culture combined with descent.
§ The other class of the population of Malta to which I ask your Lordships to give attention is the Siculo-Maltese contingent. They number perhaps some 3,000 to-day. They are fast dwindling in importance and influence in comparison with the other sections of the community. But that class still has a paramount hold on the administration, a paramount hold in the Church and in are Courts, and they are able under present conditions to edge in one imported administrator after another. During the reign of the Knights of St. 136 John the official language was Latin because the Knights were a cosmopolitan Order. When the Knights were eliminated, those who succeeded them had to find professional services in the nearest market, and that was Sicily. Very naturally those Sicilians and some of them who inter-married, who in culture and education formed a class, became the masters of administration and arranged their monopoly by introducing trilingual education, trilingual examinations, and the pushing into office of those who knew the three languages. Naturally the rights of the Phœnician Maltese, the aboriginal inhabitants of the soil, were nowhere. Much less were the British or the Anglo-Maltese. But when a Constitution was granted in 1921, with a. larger measure of representative government than the Constitution of 1887 gave, the sons of the soil, the Anglo-Maltese and the British came to have equality of opportunity.
§ Now that that Constitution is suspended those in the Civil Service who have gathered around the Governor claim to be exempt from criticism, to enjoy stagnation—otium cum dignitate; to be supported in the commission of abuses and favouritism, the putting into office of their sisters, cousins and aunts, or their husbands, the making of examinations less important. All those abuses, against which there was an outcry in 1887 accompanied by a demand for representative government, which had been promised to the Maltese, are growing again to-day to an extent which is not creditable to British administration. Last July I asked for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the method in which Malta is being governed and the difficulties of obtaining redress of grievances and abuses under the present system. That request was denied, and I do not repeat it to-day. What I ask for to-day is very little. Two years ago two distinguished and experienced officers, trained in the Colonial Department, came to Malta and remained there for some weeks to advise, inquire and report. I ask here that that procedure be repeated and that some practical system be set up, so that we may have a feeling that grievances can be redressed, that it is of some use working for progress in Malta.
§ Your Lordships' House is the only place where anyone born in Malta, claiming a right to vote and to speak in the 137 language of his birth, can enjoy freedom of speech. The most drastic Press laws have been enacted that are a veritable disgrace and reproach to those administering institutions under English liberty. Moreover, when the Constitution was suspended, at the annual meeting of the parish priests, the Governor addressed them saying that constitutional government had been set aside for reasons of non-co-operation. It was suggested that nobody in Malta was suitable to stand for election and that henceforth the Governor would be responsible for every single decision. That might be possible sometimes in ideal but unachievable circumstances, but when Malta is an armed camp, on the frontier as it were, when a system of strategy and defence has to be devised and put into execution that will keep Malta British if troubles arise again three or four years hence, that is more than one man's job. Dealing with a civil population in these circumstances is more than one man's job even if he is in the best of health, at the best age of life, and with every possible gift and achievement the thing cannot be done. Therefore the Colonial Office is forced to declare that it will support the Governor right or wrong, and when the Governor is supported right or wrong those immediately below him want to be supported right or wrong, and have to be support ed right or wrong. So the system goes on all the way down.
§ Not only was the Constitution set aside on the supposition or allegation that nobody was suitable to seek the franchise and the confirmation of the electors, but the electors themselves were deprived of the right given to them by the Constitution—a Constitution declared by Lord Milner who enacted it or advised it to be more democratic than that of New South Wales; a Constitution confirmed by this Imperial Parliament and by your Lordships' House in order to increase the status of that Constitution and give recognition to the loyalty of the Maltese. That loyalty has been proved beyond measure by the Jubilee festivities a few months ago. There is no doubt as to the loyalty of the Phœmician Maltese, of the Anglo-Maltese, and of the Britishers in Malta. They as electors could have been, and should have been, trusted to turn out a Ministry dismissed for alleged disloyalty on the allegation that it had wrecked the finances to an extent that 138 justified Imperial intervention. The assertion of that wreckage was so far from truth that it has been condemned in the Maltese Courts of Law in language unrepeatable in this House but proved in the presence of the Maltese Law Officers of the Crown, and neither the Judges nor the Law Officers objected to the veracity of that condemnation.
§ There was no deficit in Malta, although two Secretaries of State, one after another, have been induced somehow or other to represent that there was a deficit and that this deficit was so terrible as to justify Imperial intervention. We had no debt in Malta, and we had an ample margin for fresh taxation. That shows how false assertions and false reports have to be supported by the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office is not able to reprimand those responsible for misleading them and for causing Secretaries of State to cut that deplorable figure in the Parliament of England.
§ Under present conditions I am not one to say that responsible government should be immediately re-established in Malta. That proposition is now under appeal on points of law to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council. Therefore I must refrain from going into technical points of law, but on the main principle, and as regards the sacred, promised rights of the Maltese, I do, and I must, go so far as to say that the suspension of representative government as contrasted with responsible government is entirely unjustifiable and a slur on the honour of England. There is no escape from the argument that these pledges have been given. I sympathise with the noble Earl who represents the Colonial Office in your Lordships' House in the difficulty he has of finding any argument whatsoever in reply to, this contention.
§ I marvelled at the ingenuity with which, last July, instead of an argument, there was an attempt to find a distinction between a treaty and a solemn compact. These solemn compacts made between the Crown and the Maltese were asserted and confirmed in the Treaties of Amiens and Paris and by the Congress of Vienna, and that association is sufficient to describe them as treaty rights; but let the word "treaty" be left out and let them be called solemn compacts. To deny these solemn compacts, which have been asserted and reasserted and admitted by one statesman after another 139 for 135 years in both this House and in another place, is to me an appalling attempt to escape from duty, an attempt so appalling and so far-reaching in its consequences that I hope it will not be repeated without a Cabinet Minute authorising that change from a policy that has been established for 135 years.
§ In conclusion, I wish to appeal for the sympathy of your Lordships' House in the period of transition which must elapse after the decision of His Majesty's Privy Council on points of law —not on points of administration, such as the declaration or non-declaration of a state of emergency—and before legislation can be framed and passed to establish the form or, representative government similar, perhaps, to that of the Channel Islands but within the scope of the privileges conferred by the Norman King of Malta and repeated by dynasty after dynasty. There should be some abatement of the friction and discontent, growing every day in Malta, caused by the despotic and arbitrary use of power by officials who think they can never be brought to book and never be reprimanded. Of course when they know that the Colonial Office will support mistakes, right or wrong, they act accordingly—that is the atmosphere of the Civil Service at present in Malta. It is quite possible to have brought from Palestine to Malta one who taught Arabic, not trained at all in the Colonial Office, who would bring to the Government of Malta methods suitable for dealing with the Arabs in Palestine.
§ At the bottom of all these difficulties is the inferiority complex. Many in this country think that the Maltese are not a white European race as were the Phœnicians from whom the bulk of the population is descended. Whatever may be the willingness of some Maltese to put up with treatment as camp followers and accept favours and other considerations from those who have power over them as superiors, that mentality is not going to be adopted by the Anglo-Maltese or the English in Malta. None of the Maltese Britishers has the right to the franchise in Malta, nor have the Phoenician Maltese, who are the original lords of the soil. These elements will not put up with the exercise of the inferiority complex and be respectful and cognisant of the principles of British liberty, the teachings of Magna 140 Charta, and the teachings of our constitutional lawyers. Some method must be found of abating these causes of friction and discontent to-day. May I say that our troubles in Ireland arose from the same causes? What was called the Saxon garrison in Ireland, namely, the descendants of Normans of non-Irish and of mixed marriages, were known there as ipsis Hiberniis Hiberniores, that is to say, more truly patriotic in regard to Ireland than those Irish who were indigenous. That is the analogy in Malta with reference to those Anglo-Maltese who want to spread a culture that is British and thereby to assure Imperial co-operation and the permanent defence of Malta by ties of mentality and of blood which are more reliable than ties produced by threats and favours.
§ But the Siculo-Maltese culture still dominates notwithstanding reforms in the recent Letters Patent and the great benefit to the Empire and to Malta conferred by the present Secretary of State for Air when he was Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister with language reforms long overdue and still defied. Notwithstanding the gratitude due to him for that enactment those under anti-British influence are able to defy the reforms; they control examinations, they arrange- the details of legislation, and in other ways they still are able to defeat the very object of the noble Viscount's great achievement. But these acts in defiance of reform, as in the case of other mistakes and abuses, are almost invariably supported by the Colonial Office—right or wrong—to the extent that, for example, to-day Latin is not being taught in Malta in the secondary schools either in the Maltese or English language but through another language that is foreign. The superseded Letters Patent are upheld even in the Government schools where education is free. I will not detain your Lordships and I hope allowance will be made for the earnestness with which I have addressed your Lordships' House. It is the fact that freedom of speech under the privilege of Parliament is now entirely impossible in Malta, because of the suppression of our Parliamentary institutions. The loyal and the disloyal are equally degraded without any intelligible reason. It is here that in the name of English liberty we beg leave to demand redress. I beg to move for Papers.
141§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)My Lords, the noble Lord has worded his Motion in such a way as to enable him with complete justification to range over a very wide field, but it has left me at this disadvantage, that I was not aware of the actual points which he intended to raise. I hope, therefore, that, your Lordships will excuse me if I do not reply to the noble Lord at any very great length. The first matter that the noble Lord referred to was the question of the defence of Malta, and I am sure your Lordships will have listened with very great interest to the observations which he had to make upon this particular subject. I fully admit that the problems that he touched upon are of very great importance. I hope, however, that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail through the various topics which he has introduced into this discussion, for a number of reasons.
They involve difficult technical questions of defence which it would be hardly appropriate for me to enter into on this occasion even if it were in the public interest that I should do so; out I desire to say that the question of the defence of Malta, both at present and for the future, is one which is engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government. In the careful review which is being made of this matter full weight is being attached to the necessity for safeguarding the interests of the Maltese population as well as the interests of Imperial defence, in which the Island plays a very prominent part. The noble Lord referred more particularly to the air defence aspect of the position in Malta, and he raised a subject which has been discussed in this House, in one form at any rate, as recently as last week—that was the relative merits of defence by means of seaplanes and landplanes. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Air dealt with that point, I thought very completely, during the course of the discussion last week, and there is, therefore, very little that I can add to-day with regard to that particular matter; but I trust that the noble Lord will see that there are two sides to this problem.
I can only say that as far as the Government are concerned they do not share the view that a seaplane base is less open to attack than would be aircraft on 142 shore. To begin with, the seaplanes, while riding at anchor, might themselves be bombed, but, apart from that, the slipways, hangars and workshops on the shore, on which they depend for their maintenance, are just as open to attack as any other building. The noble Lord then proceeded to the subject of underground hangars. As far as that is concerned I merely want to say that this is an aspect of the problem which has not escaped the consideration of the responsible authorities. They have considered the possibility of providing these hangars. The conclusion reached is that very great expense would be involved and that the aircraft in time of war could only be fully protected by that method at the price of their losing most of their readiness for taking the air against the invader. That is the considered opinion; of the responsible authorities on this particular subject. Further than that I do not feel it right that I should discuss detailed matters in connection with the defence of Malta at this particular juncture and, if I may, I will now pass on to deal with one or two other matters which the noble Lord raised.
The noble Lord animadverted to one of his favourite topics, and that was the relative advantages of having a Military Governor as opposed to a Civilian Governor in Malta, and he attempted to strengthen his argument on that point by drawing an analogy between Malta and India in this particular connection. I think you cannot possibly maintain an analogy between India and Malta from this particular point of view. There really is no similarity between the two places whatsoever. But the noble Lord attempted to argue that since the Military Governor, Sir David Campbell, had been away and his place temporarily taken by a Civilian Governor, the policy in Malta had entirely changed. There is no truth whatsoever as far as that is concerned. There has been no change of policy in any respect there, and the Colonial Office are prepared to shoulder full responsibility for everything which has taken place. Policy a nay have changed, but merely because circumstances have changed; it is an evolution of policy and in no way a, change of policy. I should have thought that recent events in the Mediterranean would 143 have shown the advantage rather than the disadvantage of having a Military Governor controlling the situation in Malta.
The noble Lord went on to discuss the history of Malta at considerable length. I am sure that, with his great knowledge, what he told us will have proved of very great interest to noble Lords present, but I venture to say that there was not anything in what he said that called for any answer on my part. He concluded by making a severe attack on the Colonial Office generally, and I think the gravamen of his charge was that the Colonial Office were compelled in some mysterious way—I could not quite make out how—to accept the decision of the Governor of Malta, whether he was right or wrong. So far as I know there is absolutely no truth in that statement. Every question is decided upon its merits. I do not know what he has in his mind when he makes such accusations as he has made to-day. He further complained that the people of Malta had no opportunity to make representations to the Government except through the House of Lords and I suppose in another place as well. That really is not true. The people in Malta are in exactly the same position as the people in any other Colony. They have the same rights as every British subject in the Colonies to make representations to the Secretary of State on any matter through the usual channels, through the Governor. I really do not quite understand what he means when he says that British subjects in Malta have no opportunity of making representations except through him in your Lordships' House.
He then made reference to the constitutional position. I agree with him that the legal aspect of that particular question is at present sub judice and that therefore it would be improper to attempt to discuss it. But he referred to other aspects of the constitutional position all of which he raised in a previous debate and which were then discussed at very considerable length. I am afraid I cannot follow him into the details of those matters. I gave my answer on the last occasion upon which they were debated in your Lordships' House as recently as July, and I really have nothing to add to what I said at that time. Those I think were the principal problems raised, and in view of the fact that we have several times in this House 144 discussed the question of Malta in some detail, I am afraid there is nothing further I am able to say this afternoon.
§ LORD STRICKLANDMy Lords, I must express my astonishment at the statement of the noble Earl representing the Colonial Department that anyone in Malta is in the same position as any other inhabitants of the four dozen or so of Colonies under the Colonial Office. He is right in reference to the Virgin Islands or St. Helena, where a, British subject is in exactly the same position as in Malta, but in most other Colonies there are degrees of representation. Even where the majority is not white, namely, in the Federation of the Leeward Islands, of which I had the honour to be Governor, there is a Federal Council and an elected Assembly in four Presidencies except the Virgin Islands. Elected members can ask questions and speak under privilege of Parliament. Heads of Departments have to answer in public for advice given to the Governor and for blunders, and redress can be demanded in debate. But the loyalists of Malta are in the position of those in St. Helena or Ascension Island. In Malta even the Executive Council is suspended, and yet the noble Earl says that the people of Malta are in the same position to demand redress as anybody else, on large matters and small matters that may be killed by delay.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHMy Lords, I said the individual subject.
§ LORD STRICKLANDThe individual subject is not in the same position because in other Colonies he has the right to vote for an elected representative and he can have questions asked forthwith in public and get redress through him from a Governor who has heard both sides. As to the noble Earl's objection to Malta being compared to India because India is large and Malta is small, I would say that human nature is substantially the same everywhere and has been but slowly changed through the ages. Because the population of Malta is a quarter of a million and Ireland, say, four or five millions, as compared with India's population of four hundred million or five hundred million, it does not follow that the same argument does not apply when racial or psychological questions are considered. 145 Ireland has suffered under Dublin Castle rule and is now separated as to Southern Ireland by the faults of the bureaucracy of which we complain. There is an analogy as to mentality and reciprocal promises. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.