Lords Sitting of 30 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (FINANCE) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AYR BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2' and reported from the Committee.
KILMARNOCK BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
TROON BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
AYR COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS CON SOLIDATION ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA TION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OFAGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time it might be useful if I recall to your Lordships as briefly as possible the history of this subject. It will be remembered that the Act which expired last year was put through Parliament in 1925. That Act, when it was in Bill form, had originally been prepared by the Labour Government in 1924. They had not time to pass it into law, and the succeeding Conservative Government, profiting from the efforts of the Government of which I had then the honour to be a member, put the Bill on the Statute Book. It may be recalled that the original subsidy was at the rate of approximately 21s. 6d. per cwt. of white sugar, and that lasted until the season of 1927–28. Then it dropped to 14s. 6d.—I am taking in the molasses subsidy with the beet sugar subsidy—and continued at
892
that rate until the season 1931–32. It was then to drop to 7s. 3d., but at that time there had been a very heavy fall in the price of sugar and Dr. Addison, who was then Minister, was faced with the situation that the industry would not be able to continue unless further assistance was given to it. Accordingly, he added 1s. 3d., which was conditional on the addition being returnable if the price of sugar rose, and also conditional on certain beet prices. In the succeeding year the subsidy dropped to 7s. 3d., and that continued until that particular Act came to an end.
Your Lordships will also remember that the Act was due to terminate in September, 1934. His Majesty's Government appointed a Committee in April of that year, and were very fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., as Chairman. Whether noble Lords are agreed with what was said in that Report or not, I think all will agree that we are extraordinarily indebted to Mr. Wilfrid Greene for the amazing ability and clarity with which he has examined the position and stated the case. Your Lordships will remember, too, that very shortly after that Committee was appointed it became quite apparent that the subject was so vast and the range of investigations and the consideration of policy so enormous that it was going to be quite impossible for the Committee to report in time for action to be taken on the termination of the original Sugar (Subsidy) Act. Accordingly, a small Act was passed through Parliament last year continuing the original Act with very minor variations until August of this year. Now we come to your Lordships once more, because, while we have received the Report of the Greene Committee, it is again quite apparent that such large issues and such important questions of policy are raised that we should have a certain time, not for the consideration of policy—I shall hope in a few minutes to be able to satisfy your Lordships that we have given very deep consideration to the policy—but for the actual working out and putting into operation of that policy.
Therefore we ask your Lordships to pass the Bill, which is before you to-day, to continue the subsidy to the industry for vet another year. This Bill is not by any means a pure continuation of the

893
old Act. To begin with it introduces the principle of the limitation of acreage. When I say the Bill introduces the principle your Lordships, if you look at the Bill, will find no actual mention of it. That is for the very simple reason that the factories and the growers between them gave us assurances which satisfied us that they were prepared to put this part of the policy through. Indeed, since giving these assurances they are now in a position to show that they have carried them out. The subsidy is also based on a lower beet price, a reduction of per ton. Moreover, it makes no allowances for the capital services of the factories, neither for profits nor for depreciation. We have, in fact, during the interim period reduced the amount of assistance to the industry to the very minimum necessary for carrying it on. The actual subsidy will be at the rate of 5s. per cwt., assuming the price of sugar to be 4s. 6d. In so far as there are modifications up or down in that price of sugar, so there will be minor modifications in the subsidy. This assistance compares with 7s. 3d. which in the past has been given to the industry.
It means a total subsidy liability to the Exchequer of £2,750,000. It compares for the season just ended with a subsidy of £4,500,000; that is, a saving to the Exchequer of £1,750,000. I think your Lordships will realise therefore that endeavour has been made, whilst enabling the industry to carry on, to cut the cost to the Exchequer to the lowest possible limit, indeed, I shall be surprised if some of my noble friends behind roe have not some comments to make on these provisions. This continuance of the subsidy for another year certainly looks as if the Government were making up their minds to disregard the recommendations of the Greene Committee and to continue the assistance to the industry. On that point I shall 'have an announcement to make to your Lordships in a few minutes. I should, however, like for a moment to discuss the sort of consideration that has been in our minds, and must indeed have been in the minds of any Government that had to face this very difficult and thorny question. Let me make it quite clear first of all that whatever line we take, assuming for the moment that we are to continue the assistance, that should not be taken in
894
any way as a rebuff to the excellent gentlemen who made the Report. After all, the considerations which a Government must have in mind are very much wider than the considerations before a Committee appointed by and finally responsible to the Treasury.
Speaking purely for myself, I would say that there are many points put forward by Mr. Wilfrid Greene in his Report with which, if I were acting on a committee responsible purely for reporting to the Treasury, I might find myself in agreement. But taking the broad field of national policy, realising exactly what must hang on our policy, both nationally and agriculturally, I believe everyone of us would feel that, the Government having by deliberate Government action tempted farmers into a production of a particular crop, having by deliberate action encouraged capitalists to invest their money and their resources in these factories—eighteen of them, every one of them representing a high capital value, every one of them employing a large number of men—it would be a very grave responsibility to undertake suddenly to say, or even after the space of three years as is suggested in the Report to say, that that industry must finish, and to say it at a time such as to-day when, looking back over the last two or three years, we can see such a very profound change in the whole fiscal policy of the country. At one time it would have been quite possible to contend that the beet sugar industry was in an isolated position. It has been argued that it is an uneconomic industry, living in a free trade country where other industries have to fend for themselves. That is not so to-day. There is hardly an industry in the country that is not in process of receiving some form of assistance, fiscal or otherwise, from the Government, and if the beet sugar industry were to be abolished to-clay there would certainly have to be, if we were going to act logically, a great number of other industries abolished along with it.
But, if we look at it for the moment from the rather more limited aspect of agriculture, we shall see that there are approximately 375,000 acres of arable land dependent on the cultivation of beet sugar. Now, again, a few years ago it might have been possible to say: "This is an uneconomic crop; why should not the farmers be persuaded to go in for the cultivation of crops, or the production of

895
live stock, which are more economic to us? "I challenge anyone, whether he is in this House or outside, to tell me of a single commodity in the agricultural world to-day to the production of which you could divert 375,000 acres. A little while ago we might have said: "Why should they not produce milk?" Does anybody seriously suggest increasing the number of cows in this country? I remember that years ago I used to say: "Why do not farmers go in more for horticultural production, poultry production, and so on?" Does anybody suggest that those fields of production are so colossally profitable that they can bear a very large increase? I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, would not suggest that these farmers should go into meat production. If the noble Lord is going to speak, I shall be very interested to hear from him the exact field into which he would hope to see their efforts diverted.
It is a great personal pleasure to myself, if I may say so, that I understand that my late colleagues are not going to oppose the principle of keeping this industry going. It is in strict accordance with their policy. They have never believed that cheapness was the only basis on which an industry could be judged. I remember co-operating with them in the Government on the Coal Mines Act, an Act which distinctly laid down that the producer—the workman—is worthy of his hire, and that neither the consumer nor the State is entitled to that cheapness which comes from the sweated wage of the producer. Nor would they contend—I think the figures are of very doubtful validity, but I know it is possible to argue—that it might be cheaper to put all these men on the "dole." I do not think that is a philosophy which noble Lords either on this side or that side of the House would for a moment support. We all of us think, quite apart from the social aspects, that it is better that men should be in employment, earning their own living, rather than standing at the street- corner on the "dole." Apart from that, we all of us feel to-day that our countryside is something worth preserving. We hear a great deal of talk about rural amenities. We have just been dealing in your Lordships' House with a Bill that is intended to make a contribution to that problem, the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill. But there is one way
896
and one way only in which we are going to assist on a very large scale the problem of rural amenities, and that is by keeping the agricultural land of this country in a state of prosperous cultivation.
Now we come to the consideration of the long-term policy. I know that, strictly speaking, it does not come within the province of this Bill, which is only an interim measure, but I think your Lordships would feel that you were entitled to know exactly what is likely to be the result of your passing this interim measure. I said at the beginning that this interim measure was not simply in order to give us time for considering a Report which has now been in our possession for some time. It is rather designed to give us time in order to put through a policy which we have definitely adopted. That policy will, we hope, be in operation within the year's time which we are giving to ourselves. It might be necessary to have a little longer, but we are very anxious that we should not take longer, and it is also the desire of the industry itself that the provisions of that policy should go through as quickly as possible. Therefore, if I might, I should like to read to your Lordships the definite statement of the policy which will follow on the passage of this interim measure.
The Government have given careful consideration to the Reports of the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C. These Reports have been of the greatest assistance to them in the determination of their sugar policy. The conclusions which the Government have reached, and the financial and administrative arrangements which will be necessary to give effect to them, are as follows:—It is desirable, on agricultural grounds, to continue to assist the beet sugar industry without any limitation of the period during which assistance may be given. It is necessary, however, to set a limit to the volume of directly assisted production. The limit will be the equivalent of 560,000 tons of white sugar, which is the estimated produce of the 1935 crop. It is proposed to appoint an independent Sugar Commission to be entrusted with such powers in relation to the sugar beet industry as may be necessary for the carrying out of the Government's policy. It has been decided to adopt the recommendation of the Greene

897
Committee that the beet sugar factory companies should be amalgamated in a single corporation.
The Beet Sugar Factories Committee, representing all the beet sugar companies, have informed the Government that they are prepared to recommend in principle to the boards of the respective companies that an amalgamation scheme should be prepared and submitted as soon as possible to the Sugar Commission, and, if approved by them, to the Government. The Factories Committee are of opinion that if the amalgamated corporation is to be formed, it should become operative before the 1st April, 1936. In order to facilitate procedure, the Government propose to set up an informal tribunal to advise them upon any scheme of amalgamation which the factories may submit for approval. The financial arrangements which the Government propose are based on the assumption that, as from 1st April, 1936, there will be a transitional period of not more than five years. During this period, assistance will be given upon a diminishing scale based upon certain standard levels for the world price of sugar, the price of beet and other factors, and liable to variation with any variation from those standards. Subsequently, the basic rate of assistance will be subject to review at triennial intervals.
The basic rate of assistance for 1936, adjusted for the price of beet to which I shall next refer, will be reduced to 5s. 3d. per cwt. of white sugar. The price to be paid for sugar beet sown in 1936 is to be 35s. and 36s. per ton respectively, delivered to factories that are paying 36s. and 38s. per ton under current contracts. In the case of beet for the Cupar factory, the contract price will be 34s. per ton, payable free on rail as at present. These prices assume a factory output of not more than the equivalent of 560,000 tons of white sugar, which I might mention I think about represents the 375,000 acres mentioned in the earlier part of my speech. The beet price in 1937 and subsequent years, and the terms and conditions of the contract, will be matters for negotiation between the amalgamated corporation and the growers and in the event of failure to agree will be referred to the Sugar Commission. The acreage to be contracted for in any year will be subject to a maximum limit to be approved by the Sugar Commission.
898
For the purpose of their immediate sugar policy, the Government do not propose to make any change in the details of the Customs, Excise or subsidy scales. They have, however, aimed at securing the financial effects, as regards all the interests concerned, which it is reasonable to expect would have followed from the adoption of the Greene Committee's recommendations with regard to the regulation of refined sugar production as between the beet sugar factories and the refineries. The refiners have undertaken to enter into a new agreement with the factories, under which the factories shall be allowed quota rights for the production of white sugar up to a total of 720,000 tons per annum, but during the currency of the agreement the annual white sugar production of the factories will not exceed 500,000 tons. In return, the refiners have agreed to purchase all quota rights offered to them at a stated price.
The Government have also reviewed the international sugar situation. They believe that the various producing countries can only set their sugar industries upon an economic basis by means of an international agreement for the adjustment of supplies to the requirements of the world market, State assistance being diminished as market conditions improve. The Government's domestic policy is in full accordance with this view. They propose to invite the Governments of the sugar exporting Dominions and Colonies to examine with them the possibility of a joint endeavour to reopen international negotiations if it should appear that there is a reasonable prospect of a successful issue thereto. A White Paper setting out in greater detail the Government's financial and administrative proposals, with an estimate of cost, has been prepared and will, I hope, be available for your Lordships this afternoon.
That is the statement of the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the sugar beet industry. Your Lordships will realise, therefore, that the Government have definitely taken this decision to continue assistance to that industry. I might also say that at the end of the White Paper you will find a reference to a matter which is, I think, of the very greatest importance. I know it will be said that we are protecting an uneconomic and inefficient industry. I

899
have already tried to answer that suggestion on a general basis, but I would like to conclude by laying one set of facts before your Lordships—namely, that when this industry started the subsidy was at the rate of 21s. a cwt. and the price of sugar was 20s. a cwt. To-day it is to receive assistance in the region of 5s. and the price of sugar is 4s. 6d. I think, therefore, your Lordships will realise the tremendous effort that has been made by this industry to adjust itself to new conditions, and your Lordships will see, in paragraph 24 on page 7 of the White Paper, which is not yet in your Lordships' hands but will be available shortly, that provision is made for assistance from the corporation to research and education, and the continuance of effort at all times to reduce the cost of production, and therefore the expense to the Exchequer, to the minimum necessary. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl has made a statement of very great importance. He has outlined the future policy of the Government with regard to the beet sugar industry, and I welcome at once the statement that he has made and the fact that the Government are wasting no time in laying before the country a White Paper, explaining in greater detail that policy and amplifying certain aspects which he has laid before us. On behalf of the Opposition I, broadly speaking, take my stand on the lines of an Amendment to the Bill in another place—namely, that we welcome the continuance of the subsidy, but we feel that when the nation's money is spent it should go to the property of the nation, to improving the general wealth of the nation, and not to individuals. Therefore I welcome the proposed amalgamation of the factories because I believe that it is keeping, so to speak, the industry warm for future Socialism, for full national ownership as soon as we obtain a Socialist Government in this country.
The Bill, of course, is merely the continuance of the subsidy. I personally, and my Party, look upon subsidies as another name for the decision by the country to support those aspects of national production which are of national value, and I look upon home production of sugar as of very great national importance. I think it is wrong in regard
900
to any essential commodity that we should leave ourselves entirely dependent upon imports. In saying this I am not supporting economic nationalism, but I am supporting sound common sense. As I understand it, the present production of sugar in this country is about one-third of our total consumption, and I feel that that is a reasonable proportion of the total consumption that we should support out of subsidies. I do not think that the total consumption of sugar in this country is yet as high as it might be with national advantage.
Here let me take up something the noble Earl said which showed that he has forgotten those lines along which we collaborated in a previous Government. He said that he asked the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, to tell him into what direction he suggested that agricultural production should be directed if not beet sugar, and he asked him what other agricultural production in this country could hope to show a profit with circumstances as they are. Well, I would remind the House that we are not concerned with production for profit; we are concerned with production for need. And if, in fact, we are consuming in this country a third of a pint of milk per head, whereas in the United States they are consuming a pint or a pint and a half, or whatever it is, of milk, and if milk is, in fact, beneficial to the community, then it is the need of the community which ought to limit and indicate the amount of milk we produce, and not the profits to be made out of milk production.
Therefore, if the noble Earl claims that we must not produce milk merely because there is no profit in it, I say to him he is entirely wrong. What we ought to do is to produce the amount of milk that people need, whether there is a profit or not; and if we cannot produce it at a profit while the industry remains in private hands, then the industry ought to be under public ownership and control, with milk produced because the people need it, and the question of profit not coming in at all. If the people need the milk, then the profits resulting from a healthier population, who would work more and produce more, will create the wealth out of which the production of milk can be paid for. And the same with sugar. If sugar is valuable as a food—and I think it is—then I grudge no subsidies to the production of sugar,

901
whether they are direct subsidies or whether they are fiscal subsidies, to which the noble Earl referred, and our Party agree that these are a method by which Socialist production will, in the future, be organised.
Of course, I welcome strongly the fact that the assistance to the industry is going to continue, because I want those factories to continue as going concerns. I want them to be efficient. I want them to produce the sugar we need. I welcome also the fact that, as I understood it—it was a little bit difficult to follow—the factories are not only going to be allowed to refine all British raw sugar produced but are going to be given a proportion of the imports of raw sugar, so that the refining carried through by the British factories will keep them in work throughout the year. At the present moment, as noble Lords are aware, owing to the tremendous grip of the sugar industry in the hands of Messrs. Tate and Lyle and the refining interest generally, the British factories are actually not allowed themselves to refine all the sugar they produce, but they have to send it by train to the refineries to be refined in Greenock or Liverpool, or Glasgow, or wherever it may be. The result is that the refining machinery in our factories—I say our factories, because they are going to be ours as soon as we have a Socialist Government in this country—are only working for three or four months a year. The men are standing idle the other eight or nine months, while the sugar which they ought to be refining is actually going to refineries in other parts of the country by agreement with the owners of those factories.
Now, it is a fact that subsidies are an inefficient way to help an industry. Under private enterprise they are one of the few ways in which help can be given. You can either subsidise by fiscal subsidies, by duties and so on, or by direct subsidies; but, broadly speaking, it is an inefficient way, because it has always been found that the giving of public money in this direction leads to corruption. Corruption is nothing like so bad in this country as in others. In the United States corruption is really remarkable. We had a very interesting case the other day when they subsidised air lines. Extremely efficient air lines were found to be honeycombed with the most colossal corruption. Well, in this country I understand that there is said
902
to be corruption and there is certainly a great deal of waste in the beet sugar industry. Certainly we see very largely differing profits in the various factories, which will no doubt be enquired into when the amalgamation scheme foreshadowed by the noble Earl comes to be put into operation. That will be examined no doubt by the independent Sugar Corn-mission or by the informal tribunal, as the case may be. But it is a fact, broadly speaking, that with subsidies there is the liability to corruption, and without subsidies there is very often a liability to inefficiency. It is only by national ownership, which is foreshadowed by the future proposals of the Government, that you can combine efficiency and no corruption. For that reason, therefore, we welcome these proposals.
Another point I want to mention is this question of economic production. I consider that the fact that we are producing sugar in Great Britain has been partially at least responsible for the fact that we have the cheapest sugar in the world. I am not absolutely certain that that is the case, but I believe it to be the case. I have got figures from other countries which are paying infinitely larger subsidies for their sugar, showing that, for instance, the price in Germany is 4½d. a lb. as compared with 2d. in this country; in France 3d. a lb.; in Italy 7½d.; in Spain 4½d.; in Sweden 2½d.; in the Netherlands 4d. and so on; whereas in this country, with our enormous market far imported sugar, by producing a certain amount at home we are able to secure that the balance is brought in at a cheap rate. And I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the institution of this beet sugar industry in this country, fostered as it has been by the subsidy, for the fact that we are getting that cheap sugar.
Then there is this question. Are we getting it because of slave labour in other countries? Here we have the outline of the Government's proposal for the consideration of the international position. I noticed that the noble Earl mentioned that there was to be international agreement to adjust supplies, but he did not mention any possibility of international agreement to consider the conditions of labour, hours of labour, and wages paid. Men and women working in the sugar Plantations in other countries are receiving very often as little as is.1s 6d., 2s., 2s. 6d., and 3s. a day.
LORD CRANWORTH: Fivepence.
LORD MARLEY: Yes, in Java, but I am thinking of the United States and the West Indies. When you come to Java you find people receiving only a few pence a day. Java produces the cheapest sugar in the world. It is quite clear that as long as we have uneconomic production of sugar through slave labour and long hours abroad, it can be claimed that sugar production in this country is uneconomic, but I do not consider that it is uneconomic when production is based on these bitterly unjust conditions in other countries. I hope that the international regulations outlined by the noble Earl will include hours of labour and wages paid in other countries, no doubt by the operation of international legislation through the International Labour Organisation at Geneva—if it still exists in the next few years.
I would remind the House that in any case this subsidy is a very small portion of the total subsidy which is being received by sugar. The subsidy amounts to 3s. 6d. per cwt.—I think my figures are correct—whereas the preferential subsidy amounts to 7s. 9d. per cwt., more than twice as much. We are only concerned in this Bill with the continuation of this 3s. 6d. per cwt., a comparatively small amount. The noble Earl did point out that the subsidy had been coming down and down with the rise in the world price of sugar. We have this factor that we are on a sliding scale. As the world price of sugar rises—and I hope it will rise as wages get better—we have automatically a reduction of £500,000 payable in the subsidy for every 1s. per cwt. rise in price in other countries. We on these Benches welcome the continuation of the subsidy. We want the industry to be kept efficient. We consider it is of national advantage. We hope that the amalgamation of factories and the alteration in the amounts of sugar refined in the factories will ensure that the whole industry, as amalgamated, will be worked on the most efficient and least wasteful lines so as to be in readiness for us to take over when we have a Socialist Government.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, in rising to say a few words on the Bill which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, I want first of all to express my thanks to him for the very clear and simple
904
statement which he made as to Government policy and intentions and, finally, for the announcement, which I was not expecting, of the policy on which the Government have decided. I always delight in the speeches of the noble Earl on agriculture. He reminds me a good deal of a keeper at the Zoo whose duty it is to feed the beasts. He goes round laden with good things which he distributes to the various parts of agriculture under his charge. One day it is hops, another day milk, yet another wheat; then there is bacon, yesterday we had beef, and to-day the turn of sugar has come. The noble Earl has a way with him, and I do not wonder that he is popular in those circles which benefit so largely by the raid which he makes upon the public purse. It is just twelve months since sugar had its last innings. I do not want to repeat to-day the old arguments, but I think it is desirable, especially in the light of the announcement which has just been made as to the future policy of the Government, that we should recall briefly the history of the sugar subsidy from its inception to the present time.
It was, as the noble Earl told us, the idea of Lord Snowden, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government of 1924. He was fascinated, as I gather, by a visit to a sugar factory, and what has followed is the result of that happy visit. The Government that succeeded took over the scheme from the Labour Government. It is important that those who are not Socialists should remember that they took over the scheme practically as it had presented itself to the Labour Government, and passed it through the Parliament of 1925. The argument put forward was one which they thought would appeal even to hardened Free Traders—namely, the argument of an infant industry. Even Mr. Mill, the apostle of Free Trade, had allowed that a Government, might properly give some assistance to an infant industry to enable it to get on its legs. There was no niggardly dealing with the industry. The subsidy given at the beginning was very large, and it was to be given for a long period of infancy—a large subsidy for ten years. The subsidy was to diminish gradually as the infant grew stronger and, finally, at the end of ten years, it was to cease.

905
As The Times remarked the other day, it was morally the intention of the original Act that the production of homegrown sugar should become self-supporting. To a certain extent the industry has flourished. A section of the farming community has undoubtedly benefited considerably from the sugar subsidy. How should it be otherwise '? You give this large sum to certain individuals in the country, and naturally they profit by it. The beet area to-day is an area where formerly other root crops were grown. I believe the whole area in which beets are grown to-day is land on which previously other root crops were grown. It has not increased the arable area of the country. That fact should not be forgotten. When you have artificially driven out the other root crops, it is not quite a fair challenge for noble Lords who represent agriculture to say: "Now that we have created this state of things, what are you going to do about it? "Some of the labourers in the country have gained some advantage from it, though not so much compared with other parties. The people, of course, who have gained large profit are those who have the factories. So far as they are concerned, it is equivalent to a gold discovery in the British Empire, in California or Australia, with the British Government paying out large sums for the growth of "an uneconomic crop"; I quote the words of the noble Earl. The word went round, capital was freely forthcoming, investments were made, factories were set up, and very large profits, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships, have been made by those factories. If they were weeded out to-morrow, I doubt very much whether those factories, with the exception of those in Scotland, would really lose over the whole period that has passed.
The drain on the Exchequer has always been, heavy. The industry showed no signs of becoming self-supporting. The year 1931 came—and here again I would point out to the Government that they were elected on a cry of national economy, of balancing the Budget, and stopping the drain from the Exchequer. They set about that task with vigour, and they did it with success. They cut down the salaries of all the Government employees in the country, they limited the Social Services, but they did nothing to stop this drain caused by beet sugar. Something clearly they ought to have
906
done. After all, was not Mr. Walter Runciman President of the Board of Trade? He described the sugar subsidy and the whole of the transactions connected with it as the most amazing transaction in the history of British finance. He described it as an absolute downright waste. The Government were put in office to stop waste. He called it "crazy finance." The Government were in power for the sake of sound finance instead of what they called the "crazy finance" of the Labour Government. Naturally, they had to do something, and in 1932 Mr. Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that they were going to have a full inquiry into the matter. It drifted on and nothing happened in 1933, but at last, in April, 1934, the Greene Committee was appointed, and in March, 1934, the Minister of Agriculture in another place admitted that in no country in the world can the beet sugar industry be maintained on a profitable basis unless supported by substantial artificial aid.
Naturally it cannot compete with other sugar. I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Marley, said as to the conditions under which cheap sugar is sometimes produced in the West Indies, and especially in Java; but, when all that is taken into account, the natural advantages of the cane sugar growing countries are so great that it is quite hopeless to suppose that in this country, or indeed in any European country, can sugar be grown in competition with those countries. That is, I think, a reason why last year the Government should have admitted the failure of the attempt to set up this uneconomic crop in this country, and stopped the expenditure which had been promised, and which had been given, for ten years. I think that would have been the wise course for this country to take. I agree that it would have had to be done gradually, but the end aimed at should have been the cessation of the payment of public money to enable this uneconomic crop to be grown in this country. May I, in passing, ask: this? The noble Earl said there were other crops. He is quite right. But is there any other crop which you would call an uneconomic crop to which the Government are contributing? I wonder if the noble Earl would give me an answer to that question presently, if not now.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should say that any crop or any industry in the country that required either a tariff or a quota or a subsidy would, under certain definitions, have to be considered as being uneconomic in the sense that it was not able to stand completely on its own legs.
LORD RHAYADER: I think there is a good deal of money being made by various crops in this country. Do farmers pay no Income Tax to-day? Are they being made to pay Income Tax on profits that they do not make?
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord must not misrepresent me. When I used the word "uneconomic" what I meant was that when a crop or an industry needed some outside assistance in order to carry on it was uneconomic in that sense. The iron and steel industry and tramp shipping and so on are, to that extent, in the sense in which I used the word, "uneconomic" industries.
LORD RHAYADER: I am old and the noble Earl is young, but I should have been ashamed to stand up in the Victorian age and say there was no part of the agricultural industry in this country which could not flourish without Government help. It was not so in our day and—the noble Earl will forgive me—I do not think it is so to-day. Another year went by. The Government last year persisted in their way. They objected on various grounds. One was that under the reduced payments they were going to save money. The noble Earl has repeated that to-day. He actually said, unless I misheard him, that the subsidy he is asking for now is only £22,750,000 whereas last year it was £4,500,000. Therefore, he said, there is a saving of £1,750,000. Who has saved? Have the Government? They were not obliged to give any subsidy this year and, therefore, they cannot to be said to have saved. They are spending £2,750,000. Where does the saving come in'? Does not this show the curious state of mind into which people get once they fall into the habit of dipping into the public purse?
I will not go into figures, because there is a great argument about them. Sometimes the figure is given as one of £40,000,000 and sometimes as £20,000,000. Take Mr. Amery's figure if you like. He reduced it to nothing. The argument is that because they have had the money for
908
ten years, therefore you save money if you do not give it for the eleventh year. They have no title to it for the eleventh year. There is no title anywhere to this money which the noble Earl is asking for to-day. It really is a misuse of terms to talk as if you are saving money merely because you are going to spend a little less than you did last year. That, I think, is a very strange argument. We are told it would displace labour and upset farmers. Undoubtedly that is true. We have created a situation and to get rid of it is a difficult thing indeed. I think the Greene Committee makes recommendations on which the Government might have based their policy. The Greene Committee, the noble Earl told us, was appointed to advise the Government on future general policy. The year has gone by, the Greene Committee has reported, and I now know, what I did not know when I came into the House, that the Government do not intend to take the advice of the majority of the Committee which they appointed.
I was very glad to hear the noble Earl pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Greene Committee. I observed that in another place Mr. Amery was pleased to describe the members of that Committee as "thick heads." Those who know the two gentlemen, Mr. Amery and Mr. Greene, can determine for themselves which of the two gentlemen has the thicker head. For my part I know of no one who has a much clearer brain or a greater capacity for giving expression to what is in his brain than Mr. Greene, and I think the Government, who have not adopted the whole of the Report, certainly have done well to recognise the service which Mr. Greene has rendered by an admirable discussion of the whole question. Whether you agree with him or not, I do not think anybody who has studied the sugar question can be other than grateful for the very full discussion and statements set out in that remarkable Report. Mr. Greene's advice was perfectly clear. Putting on one side political considerations, he said: "Stop paying the subsidy." Perhaps I had better put on record the recommendation he makes. It was in these words:
"Since, however, on a review of all the facts put before us, we are unable to find positive justification for the expenditure of a sum of several millions per annum on an industry which has no reasonable

909
prospects of ever becoming self-supporting, and on the production of a crop which, without that assistance, would at present sugar prices be practically valueless, we cannot recommend the continuance of assistance."
The Government have put that on one side. They recommend, if you are to maintain the crop, a number of steps which should be taken to safeguard the public purse. I do not know how far the Government in their scheme are meeting the points raised in the Greene Report, which are, I think, of immense importance as the subsidy is to be continued.
I heard with profound interest the announcement made by the noble Earl. I do not wonder at the enthusiastic welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has given to the scheme. It is the carrying out of his Party's policy. As far as I can gather—I speak under some disadvantage for I have not seen the White Paper—this scheme had its inception in the mind of that Socialist the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden. It was taken up by a Conservative Government in 1925, and now in the hands of the present National Government has ripened into practically the socialising of the sugar industry, in effect the nationalising of the sugar industry. It is a remarkably important announcement, and there will be a great deal more to be said about it. I am not able really to comment upon it at this moment, but I certainly can well understand the welcome given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, and other Socialists.
Before concluding I want to say two things in regard to the whole of this transaction, which I think is full of instruction to anyone who cares for the economic or political life of this country. In the first place beet sugar has wholly changed its character. When I read the resolutions of the National Farmers' Union, articles in the papers, circulars sent to us to influence our decisions, I find that beet has become the keystone of British farming. The keystone of British farming! Beet! It was never grown in this country to any extent until ten years ago. It was just an occasional root crop, and now it has become the keystone of British farming. And we are told that if this subsidy is not continued the whole balance of agriculture in this country is going to be destroyed. I protest that that is grotesque nonsense. In
910
such circumstances there would be a period undoubtedly of great disturbance as a result of what has been done. You cannot do what you have done, you cannot create artificially an industry and engage farmers and labourers, factories and capital in it, you cannot spend £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 on it, without setting up an edifice which when demolished will cause great wreckage.
But what has come of it? You would have been much better without it. If you had spent that money on other branches of agriculture you would have had far more results to show to-day than you have for this expenditure. I see that the Minister of Agriculture says that we should not otherwise get our sugar. Really I find it difficult to take that argument seriously. With the conditions of glut which characterise the sugar market to-day I doubt if there would be any rise in the price of sugar if you let the equivalent of home-produced sugar come in from other countries. I do not believe the British public would lose anything by it. I. see two noble Lords present whose services to agriculture I thankfully recognise, the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Cranworth. I know how much they have done for agriculture and I know how much they care for it. I also know something about agriculture, and I plead with them. I say they are not doing any good to agriculture when they link it up with this uneconomic crop. The towns will find it out and when the towns find prices rising, as they very likely will in the changing conditions of the world, then the towns will refuse to go on paying these sums to maintain an uneconomic crop. It has happened before. You guaranteed the price of wheat and you withdrew the guarantee within six months. I would entreat noble Lords who are friends of agriculture not to link up with this uneconomic crop.
There is one more thing I want to say. Parliamentary institutions are on their trial. In many parts of the world they are disappearing. Nothing is so destructive of Parliament as the introduction of sectional interests in the constituencies and in the House of Commons. With beet sugar you have an extraordinary instance of the influence of local circumstances on the votes of Members of Parliament. Almost every speech made in defence of the beet sugar subsidy has

911
been made by members sitting for beet growing constituencies. You may say it is very natural and I agree that it is natural. I was rather interested to read some remarks made by the noble Lady, Viscountess Astor, who is a distinguished member of the House of Commons. She pointed out that all the members for constituencies where sugar beet is grown had to defend it, and, with the candour which endears the noble Lady to all of us, she added: "I dare say I would do the same if it were grown in my constituency." She represents a port constituency. Well, it is a dangerous thing to let these local interests grow in the constituencies and in Parliament, when Members of Parliament are forced to choose between the requirements of their constituency and the interests of the nation.
I do urge the Government to do what they can to save the country at any rate from the ignoble spectacle which we have seen in some other countries in which corruption works in Parliament when tariffs are set going. One of the earliest things in my career was a visit to America when the McKinley Tariff Bill was being passed. It was, I think, the first of the great Tariff Bills. I was behind the scenes, owing to introductions, and I saw there the corruption which followed the introduction of tariffs. We have seen it working in America and it would be a ghastly thing for this country if similar things were to prevail here. I hope that will be borne in mind by those who are pressing forward these methods. I cannot support the Bill, but I am not going to divide against it. I think the Government are quite entitled to say that they want more time to put the scheme into operation, but I am sorry that they have seen fit to reject the very sane Report, as I think, which Mr. Wilfrid Greene and his Committee brought in and to commit themselves to the permanent maintenance out of subsidies of this uneconomic crop.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise for a minute or two to say that I, on the other hand, feel very pleased with the main result of the speech of the noble Earl, taking that to be that the Government have decided as a long-term policy that the sugar beet industry shall be continued. It is a decision that will bring a measure of relief into tens of thousands of homes in the part where I live. With
912
regard to some of the items, as I understood them, I should wish for more time to study them, but I shall have one word to say with regard to one point later.
In the towns and also in the West Country, and in a large part of England, there is very great misconception as to the importance of the sugar beet industry. Only a few weeks ago I was going up to the Royal Show. I motored in one day 140 miles—though I might have gone farther with the same result—and, except when I passed through the towns, I am sure that I was never for one minute out of the sight of a field of sugar beet. Who is it that is growing this? It is not large corporations, large and rich landowners. There are 375,000 acres of beet being grown, there are 45,000 people growing it; and those of your Lordships who are mathematically-minded will find that, that is an average acreage of a little over eight acres per man. This is a smallholders' crop. I most freely confess that I was somewhat disgusted when in another place Sir Herbert Samuel, that archenemy of the sugar beet industry and, indeed, of arable cultivation altogether, said: "It is true that there may be here and there a smallholder growing a patch." That seems to me somewhat in the nature of an exaggeration, when there are 45,000 persons growing an average of eight acres each.
It is only now about a fortnight ago that I went to the small market town of Bury St. Edmunds. I would have your Lordships know that we in the Eastern Counties do not very much like going to meetings. It takes a lot to get the agricultural labourer to come to a meeting on a hot evening, still more so when it is a Saturday evening; but even so, in this small town, there were over 7,000 of them assembled, because they felt that the livelihood of themselves and of their families was threatened. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, for some reason which I cannot understand, has asked the noble Earl to tell him of some economic crop to take the place of beet sugar. I suggest that it is up to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, to say what the economic crop is that shall take its place. There has been a lot of talk from certain Benches about a crop to take the place of beet sugar, but there has been very little talk as regards the suitable

913
crop to take its place and provide employment for the vast number of men engaged in that industry.
There are two main reasons, one real and one ostensible, which seem to be brought forward against the beet sugar industry. The real one is that it is contrary to the great doctrine of Free Trade, and the second one, the ostensible one, is that it costs much too much and that we cannot afford it. Loyalty is not so common a virtue now that one can afford to decry it, even when it is loyalty to an outworn dogma, but I do not think that that loyalty ought to cause people to juggle with and exaggerate figures. I was rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, did not go into the "countless millions," because I hoped to see a new one. I have watched them rise and rise, and the maximum one at the present moment will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place—stated, naturally, by Sir Herbert Samuel—as £60,000,000. That is what it has got to now. Flow is that made up? By far the largest portion of the £60,000,000, as was pointed out by the noble Lord opposite, is made up by the sum of money to which you might tax the growers of that sugar if they had been foreigners producing it on foreign soil and paying wages at 5d. a day, or possibly 1s. a day in extreme cases. That is how you make up the total sum.
I may frankly say that I was very sorry to hear some of my noble friend's views about the subsidy. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, whether he considers himself subsidised because he is not taxed £2,000 a year for being a Liberal Free Trader. I do not think he would consider himself subsidised at all; he would say that he had a perfect right to do it. So he has; so has the British farmer a right to grow a crop on British soil to feed the British public. I very much object to joining these two figures together. The truth of the matter is this: that a subsidy has been paid at the rate of 7s. 3d., I think, for one cwt. of sugar, an Excise duty has been paid back, and the difference between the two is in
fact the subsidy. During this year I understand that it will amount to £520,000, and I ask anyone to bring forward—no one has—any other means whereby £520,000 will give employment to 40,000 men.
914
As your Lordships know, it has been mentioned to-day that practically every foreign country is producing beet sugar. Most of them are protecting it more heavily than we do; all of them are producing a greater proportion of the sugar they eat than we do. I ask myself why they do it. Of course the noble Lord would say: "Oh, they are all making a great mistake; it is their stupidity; why should we follow them?" But I venture to suggest that it is also a mistake to say that we are the only people keeping step in the company. It is quite possible that they are right, and I suggest that the three reasons that have induced them to do it are these: to give employment, and more especially employment on the land; to provide a weapon of defence in time of war; and as an essential part of good farming. Are not those three objects also desirable in this country? Do we not want to employ more people on the land? Our Government have said so often enough, and that great man, Mr. Lloyd George—whom I believe to be a Liberal; I am not quite sure, though I understand that he is—said that he wanted to put 1,250,000 more men on the land and 500,000 immediately. It would surely be a poor step to start by taking 40,000 men off—or so it seems to me. As an essential to good farming, that I believe is a recognised thing on the Continent, and I believe that no country that grows beet sugar will ever take it out of its crop rotation again.
Finally, 'as a weapon of defence in time of war; we have said in this country that as far as war is concerned we do not intend ever to have a war of aggression again, but that we do intend to provide defence when we are attacked. I believe that all Parties will agree to that, and what better weapon of defence can you have than to provide the greatest proportion of food that you can in this country? It is riot a weapon of offence, but it is a mighty big one of defence., when you come to think of the lives that were lost in bringing sugar and other food into this country during the last War. I was glad to hear the statement of the noble Earl, because it did indicate to me that this branch of agriculture was to have extended to it the only thing which had been asked for. It is always suggested that they ask for something strange and something new—for preferential treatment—but all they ask for is exactly the

915
same treatment as other big industries in this country ask for and in fact get.
There is one criticism which I would make, and I hope Lord Hastings will amplify it. I did understand the noble Earl to say that there was going to be a limitation with regard to sugar, and I understand him, too, to say that it was to be a limitation not, as now, in acres, but a limitation in tons—for the first year at all events. I must say that I regret that. If there is to be such a limitation it seems to me to be contrary to the policy which the Government again and again have indicated. It should be a limitation of acreage and not of tons. otherwise you take way from everybody the ambition to increase his crop and grow more and more. If the limitation is to be merely on tonnage there will not be any necessity in that respect any longer. With regard to the factories, we who grow beet are not necessarily interested in the factories. We are well aware, as has been stated, that the factories have made more money out of the industry than we have, but I would ask your Lordships to remember, in fairness to them, that they have not all made money. Those who have made big profits are the people who taught us how to grow the crop and produce it in sugar, and they would not have got the money for their enterprise unless there had been a reasonable opportunity of getting a big profit. I thank the noble Earl for his statement that the industry at all events is to go on. In East Anglian and other counties of England that will relieve a fear which has much troubled them for many long months.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will devote myself first to the consideration of the Bill which the noble Earl introduced. The very much larger and more important subject which came on at a later stage must also call for a few remarks. When the noble Earl was introducing his Bill he allowed one figure to slip from him which Lord Cranworth has already criticised. He stated that in the years 1935–36 the cost to the Exchequer would be £2,750,000. It is very regrettable that the Ministry of Agriculture should allow it to go out on their authority that that is the actual cost to the country. It is not true. It would surely have been fairer to describe it as the gross cost. Noble Lords know perfectly well that every ton
916
and every cwt. of beet sugar pays Excise duty, and the cost to the country is the net cost after the amount of Excise duty has been deducted. The net cost to the country is not £2,750,000 but in the neighbourhood of £520,000.
LORD RHAYADER: In my speech I was giving a statement which appeared in The Times a few weeks ago, which put it in this way. If the sugar had been imported the Exchequer would have received considerably more in duty, and would not have had to pay any subsidy at all. That, therefore, represents the real contribution of the country to the beet sugar industry.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord is no doubt perfectly right in calling my attention to that, but there is, of course, no telling at what price that sugar would have come into this country if there had been no beet sugar industry in our own country. It is possible that the Exchequer might have benefited to that extent, but what about the British public? What telling is there that the price of sugar to them would not have been at least double what it has been. You have got to take the facts as they are. The facts as they are are that a subsidy of £2,750,000 has to be paid in 1935–36, and Excise duty will be collected which will leave a balance of £520,000. That is the real cost to the country, and, as Lord Cranworth said, would £520,000 invested in any other way find employment for such a large number of persons I trust that when figures are bandied about they will be the actual figures and not fanciful figures.
There was one other matter arising out of the Bill before the House which caused me regret. The only happy part about it is that it is not in the Bill itself. The noble Earl reminded us that a limitation of acreage had been agreed to in negotiation between the Government and the factories, and therefore it was not necessary to put the limitation in the Bill. I am very glad indeed that Parliament is not called upon to commit itself to that principle, but the very fact that the Government are committed to making arrangements with the factories limiting acreage is to my mind a most unfortunate matter. It is not only right but the obvious duty of Parliament to limit the amount of public

917
money made available for any industry, but when Parliament goes further and says that a citizen shall not grow more than a certain amount of any commodity, it goes very much too far. Let us bear in mind that we are importing from other countries a very large quantity of this commodity, and I never could bring myself to agree that while we can and might grow ourselves a single cwt. of a commodity which is imported the production of it should be restricted in our own country. This particular method of restriction of production in the case of commodities which are being imported into this country from foreign countries is a source of the gravest alarm to the agricultural industry as a whole. The restriction of production is a necessity in the case of certain commodities and I find no fault with that, but to do it in the case of sugar production is not right. Limit by all means the amount of public money which is found for assisting the industry, but to limit production is not right, and I shall always oppose it whenever opportunity offers.
The Bill as introduced is to endure for only one year and although I have criticised one feature which is not in it, but is inherent in it, I would like to modify that criticism by an expression of gratitude to the Government for having introduced this interim measure, which will tide over the industry until the long-term policy comes into force. I turn for a moment to the question of that long-term policy itself. In common with my noble friend I have not seen the White Paper, and therefore I speak at some disadvantage, but I made a note or two as the noble Earl spoke, and I observed first of all that the limitation was to be placed in future upon sugar, and not upon acreage. My noble friend Lord Cranworth thought that possibly an acreage limitation, if limitation there had to be, would be better than a limitation on the tonnage of sugar produced. That is as may be because of course I agree with him that, whereas it has been an ambition of the grower in the past not only to produce the largest possible tonnage of beet from the land, but beet containing the largest percentage of sugar, the mere fact that the limitation is to be placed in the future upon the tonnage of sugar may act as a deterrent upon the grower to continue
918
his efforts in the direction of the production of high percentages. But I do not think that is a very strong point and I confess myself that if there is to be a limitation then it should be a limitation of money found and it should be detached from the actual acreage basis.
Although as, in common with the Wheat Act (which, of course, this is in a sense following) there must be some quantity factor to which to attach that limitation—I am not at the moment so much disposed to dispute the wisdom of the 560,000 tons—I can but repeat what my noble friend beside me has said, that any attempt to limit the amount of beet sugar grown will, in a sense, defeat itself. Not only does the beet sugar acreage employ a very large number of persons, but there is no crop grown which better enables other crops to be grown following it. It is, in fact, the most efficacious manner of keeping the land in good heart and in proper condition for rotation crops. It is the best crop that can be found for that particular purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, in the course of his very interesting speech asked whether it was not a fact that these 375,000 acres of sugar beet had not been taken off the previous root crop. Not entirely, but in large part that is so. But do not let the noble Lord imagine that if it had not been for the beet sugar crop those 375,000 acres would now be growing the old-fashioned root crop. They would be doing nothing of the kind.
Why was it that that very conservative individual, the arable farmer, changed over from the normal root crops to beet sugar It was merely because the beef trade fell to pieces to such an alarming extent that he could not grow his old root crops in a manner that avoided colossal losses to himself. And if it had not been for the beet sugar crop, those acres would not be growing roots as heretofore, but they would be derelict; and, once derelict, the labour employed upon them would perforce have to emigrate, and agricultural labour, once emigrated, seldom returns. The great justification for the beet sugar industry on the light lands of East Anglia has been that it has provided the means of retaining upon the land the population of the land, a population which would have been decimated—more than depleted—and which I feel fairly certain would never have returned. That I think, is

919
the strongest justification that can be put forward for the beet industry at all.
On matters of detail I was not quite able to follow the noble Earl, but I take it that when the subsidy per cwt. is paid to the factories there will be some kind of condition attaching as to the price which is to be paid to the growers. I think the noble Earl did mention it, but I was not entirely sure of the figure that he gave. But assuming that it would naturally be so, I would like to pass to a point which has some relation to it. It is this, that whereas the State—and quite properly—will reduce the amount of its subsidy if and when the world price of sugar rises there is apparently in such circumstances no consideration to be paid to the grower. It is a little bit hard upon the grower who has for many years been producing a commodity for a market which was paying him a price considerably below the cost of production, that if and when that commodity fetches a more reasonable price in the open market those factories should perhaps benefit, the State of which he is a member should certainly benefit, but that he himself should get no benefit at all. I think a little reciprocity in that matter should apply, particularly as it must be in the interest of the grower to watch and observe the trend of world prices in the commodity which he grows, and not to remove it entirely from his ken or from his interest.
I wonder if I might make a suggestion to the noble Earl for consideration when this big scheme is in the mould? It is as to whether it would not be wise to consider some form of differentiation in price based upon the quality of the land upon which it is grown. The House will be aware, of course, that it is clearly on the lighter lands of Great Britain where this crop is most essential. It is on those lighter lands that it is more difficult to find alternative crops. It is those lighter lands which are the most difficult to keep in good heart. It is the lighter lands which find it most difficult to retain labour at the present rate of wages. There are better lands which are not faced with the same difficulty and in the same degree, and which of course are bound in the nature of things to benefit more largely from any subsidy that may be going, whether it is on wheat or on sugar beet.
920
Although I do not suggest that it is really possible, yet on going very deeply into the matter I believe it should be found possible, and it would be very helpful, if some form of differentiation could be made based upon the quality of the land upon which the crop is grown. We wish to keep under cultivation the largest possible number of acres in this country, and the difficulty lies naturally in keeping in cultivation the less good lands. It is the less good lands which are the real anxiety to all who have agricultural production at heart, and it is those lands for which it is most needful to do something. And they do not, let me remind your Lordships, all exist in East Anglia where, as the House knows quite well, I live. There are parts of Great Britain which, I am happy to say, have very much thinner land than has the county of my birth.
A word on the question of amalgamtaion. We shall want to see that White Paper, and I hope we may be given an opportunity of observing and discussing the terms of this amalgamation, because it is just as well that the House should realise a few of the facts of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, spoke as if beet sugar had sprung into being ten years ago. May I tell him that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who sits behind me, aided by others, was a pioneer in this industry a great deal more than ten years ago. I, personally, grew beet sugar on a considerable scale for the first factory erected in England as long ago as 1912, and that factory in the years previous to the War was working at full pressure, from beet sugar grown in the county of Norfolk for its own particular purpose.
What I had in mind in mentioning that fact is this. Quite clearly those factories that were early established and were able to take advantage of the high subsidy paid in earlier years were able to amortise their overhead charges, and to establish themselves on a sound financial basis long before those factories which were erected later. The evidence of their annual reports is all that need be brought to the notice of noble Lords. It also follows from that that, had it not been for the fact that those factories existed, it would have been possible in later years for the East Anglian factories to pay more for the growing of their beet

921
than they have in fact done. They have acted more or less under a national agreement, and of course it has been to their profit so to do. If we are going to have an amalgamation, which may entail the support of the weak at the expense of the strong, it should be borne in mind that the grower of sugar beet who for years has received less for his beet than his factory might very well have paid him, is not going to receive any more for that beet, because those factories have to be supported which have not been in existence for very long. I make no complaint—there is no occasion for complaint; on the other hand my heart is full of gratitude—but I see certain difficulties which may arise, certain subjects of criticism which are likely to arise, and I have no doubt the noble Earl will allow them to weigh with him and his Ministry when considering this very difficult, very abstruse, and most complicated subject.
I have nothing more to add except to emphasise and endorse what my noble friend Lord Cranworth has said, and to express the intense gratitude which agriculturists generally—and I use the word "generally" because, if one section of agriculture is let down, it is quite certain to react on agriculture generally before very long—feel at the removal from over their heads, not of a menace, but of an overwhelming fear. The difficulty, the impossibility, of finding other sources of cultivation for 375,000 acres of land, finding employment for 40,000 men, of re-taming upon the land persons who are now there—the fear of not being able to do that has been of an overwhelming kind, and it would be ungracious at such a moment to look a gift horse too closely in the mouth. I would close what I have to say with the reiteration of my thanks, expressed not on behalf of myself at all, but on behalf of the great agricultural labouring community, for, without the assistance that is now to be given, that community would perhaps find itself, not in starvation, but in a position in which in self-defence it would have to remove itself from its home and compete with labour in the towns, where the conditions of life are not congenial to it and where, in the end, it world probably have received less than it is now receiving. I feel certain that this action of the Government, however distasteful it may be to economic purists, is in the social sense
922
of the greatest importance. There could have been no more truly social act done than the setting aside of the economic arguments advanced with so much force by the Majority of the Beet Sugar Committee in favour of the wise social policy which is fraught with so much greater good for the agricultural community as a whole.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' forbearance for a few moments. It is twenty-nine years exactly, I think, since I had the impudence, I suppose it was, to raise in your Lordships' House the first debate on beet sugar which, I think, ever took place here. I do not think there had ever been any mention of beet sugar until we brought it up on that occasion. It was a very interesting debate and one to which considerable prominence was given. The result was that a group of important men interested in the land came forward, strongly recommended that a powerful propaganda should be started in the country, and offered me considerable sums for the purpose of carrying it out. That campaign was started, and propaganda of one sort or another went ahead for a good many years. The best propaganda of all came when the sugar famine fell upon the country at the time of the War, and people realised what it was to be without sugar.
I listened with the greatest astonishment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader. He seems to deny that the beet sugar industry has brought any advantage whatever to the agriculutral community or to the country at large. He seems to be oblivious of the improvement in the quality of the soil, the improvement of cultivation, the increase of the subsequent crops, and the undoubted impetus which has been given to the establishment of rural population, which is one the things we have been anxious about. Only the other day I heard a speech made by the President of the National Farmers' Union in which he gave the most alarming figures to show the falling-off in the number of agricultural labourers in this country during the last ten or twenty years. There is nothing like the sugar beet industry for the purpose of giving an impetus to rural labour. There is nothing like it for the purpose of causing the circulation of money in rural districts, and bringing life into rural districts. There is nothing like

923
it for the purpose of bringing in other trades, not merely confining the advantages to particular individuals, but giving employment all round, which is the one thing we are crying out for at the present time.
When I heard the noble Lord speak in the way he did, I could only marvel at the extraordinary mentality, the narrow mindedness, which is caused apparently by the extreme study of Free Trade principles. I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Lord, but I have got no other way of describing my own feelings as I listened to him. For my part I congratulate the Government on having taken up this matter in the way they have done. I cordially support what has fallen from my noble friends Lord Cranworth and Lord Hastings. I listened with interest to what Lord Cranworth said about that remarkable meeting at Bury St. Edmunds. I can quite understand that meeting. I am connected with the factory at Bury St. Edmunds, and I think it is the most remarkable one in the country, treating about 4,000 tons of beet sugar a day during the season. That takes a bit of doing, and it gives an enormous amount of labour. It circulates a large amount of money in the district, it benefits the tradespeople, and it benefits the labourers. Well might they gather together in their thousands for the purpose of hearing what was said in support of the movement in opposition to the Greene Report.
I shall not keep the House longer because what I should say would be merely a repetition o£ what has already fallen from noble Lords; but I should like to emphasise one thing mentioned by Lord Hastings and that is the strong objection I feel to any limitation of a paying crop. Why should there be any limitation? A crop may be a paying one in the future, independent altogether of any help from the Government. If we can grow a larger amount of sugar per acre it will become a more paying crop. The crop has been improving steadily all the time. At the present time I think we are getting something like two pounds' worth of sugar per acre, and there is no reason why that should not be increased. Our farmers have learned a remarkable amount in the few years in which they have been at it. They are doing quite as well as the farmers in most of the Continental countries where
924
they have been at it for more than 100 years. I shall not detain the House longer, but in conclusion would again thank the noble Earl and the Government for what they have done and wish them every possible success.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we can all feel that we have had a most useful discussion. If there have not been a very great number of us here, I think we have made up in quality what we have lost in quantity. I am sure it has given the House particular pleasure that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who is one of the fathers of the industry, should have been able to come here to-day and take part in the discussion. Several important points have been raised by noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, in particular, raised a number of points many of which, as I think he will recognise, have been dealt with before; but I would like to thank him for the fairness with which he put them. It did seem to me that while he was prepared to pull the Government's legs on committing that great crime of which the Liberal Party believe the Government are grievously guilty—namely, helping agriculture in a number of directions—he did recognise that we have not done it in a manner entirely without benefit to the country as a whole, or without asking agriculture to accept responsibilities towards the country which have not been accepted in the past.
I do not think, however, that he really gave credit for the debt which we owe to this particular crop as regards employment Thus, from the Greene Report itself, you get the amazing figures, that while the number of agricultural workers in England and Wales has declined by 14.7 over the last few years, it has increased in the beet sugar areas by very nearly 5 per cent. Again, you get the fact that in these beet areas you have an Average rise in wages of about 1s. 6d. per head per week. I think the noble Lord will recognise that that is a desirable result to have attained, and also that it is not entirely a coincidence that it has occurred particularly in the beet-producing counties. There is one very major point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, with which I would like to deal. I think he used the words that we had "rejected the Greene Report." The noble Lord will remember that the

925
Greene Report had two very definite sections to its recommendations and I think, when the noble Lord reads the White Paper, he will realise that there are very few of what I might call the Greene recommendations with regard to the reorganisation of the industry that have not in fact been accepted.
LORD RHAYADER: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for telling me that, and I am glad to hear it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. The question in regard to limitation was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said what he did on the question of limitation by tonnage not really being very different from limitation by acreage. What it means is that the growers will not in fact lose the benefit of increasing their efficiency in growing, but that it will be possible for them to grow the same tonnage on a smaller acreage with, what we know to be possible, a lower cost per ton. I can, however, reassure both noble Lords on this principle of limitation of acreage. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to prohibit the growing of more than a certain quantity of beet.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, for the one year.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thought we were on the long-term question. There is, of course, an interim policy which is rather different, but, as regards our long-term policy, we are definitely only limiting the amount of tonnage which is to be assisted. I think from what the noble Lord said afterwards, that it is clear he would be in agreement with that policy. Coming to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I am glad he was in agreement with the main principle of our policy. I am a little sorry that he had to try to bring what we are doing under the old political labels. It seems to me that if there is one merit in the agricultural policy being followed at the moment, and particularly the policy we are discussing to-day, it is that it is extraordinarily hard for the political dogmatists to label it. I do not think anyone would for a moment contend that this is strict individualism nor would anybody contend that it is
926
Socialism. Whether in future the industry is going to be nationalised or not, I do not think that is a matter for discussion now. I should say that if this scheme works it will remain as it is. If it does not work then there are bound to be alterations one way or another. I suggest to the noble Lord that if only we could get into the state of mind of looking at the subject from the point of view of dealing with each commodity on its merits we should be very much more likely to accomplish what we desire—namely, to get something done for the good of the country—than if we try to attach particular labels to our various actions.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DISQUALI FICATION) (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had the following Notice on the Paper:—To move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence and report on the manner in which Malta has been governed since the suspension of Parliamentary elections, and on the most suitable method for implementing the

927
treaties and solemn promises to the Maltese as to the enjoyment of representative institutions first set up by the Norman Kings of Sicily, and also to enquire and report on the administration of justice and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since this Motion was placed on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House three very weighty reasons have been added for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence and report on the administration of the Government of Malta. The first reason is that your Lordships' House has passed the Government of India Bill, which sets out in detail the mentality of His Majesty's Government as to the possibility of setting up a form of Parliamentary Government with Ministers of a sort, which is far removed in its democratic scope from Dominion status. When the Constitution of Malta was transmitted by Secretary Lord Milner as a draft for acceptance by the leaders of thought in that country, it was intimated that the Constitution was more democratic than the Constitution of the State of New South Wales. In view of the international horizon and of other reasons, I am unable any longer to advocate that for the present in Malta there should be re-established a Constitution more democratic in its character than that of the State of New South Wales. At the same time no one with any sense of pride in the land of his birth, or with any knowledge of any form of Colonial government, can be a party to acquiescing in "one-man government." Therefore it results that much has been done towards a solution of this problem by the most admirable industry and care with which an effort has been made to find some sort of Parliamentary Government between these two extremes. I am not a- believer in the prospects of working a system of Government between these two extremes with any great measure of success in any highly educated and wealthy community; but, however that may be, at the moment in Malta it is the duty of the Government and of all lovers of English principles of government to find some way out of the present difficulty. For that purpose I ask your Lordships to adopt the view that the appointment of a Royal Commission is very necessary and urgent.
The second new reason is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, in another place,
928
was asked by a predecessor of the noble Earl who now represents the Colonial Office in your Lordships' House, to express his opinion as to the condition of declared emergency in Malta. With great ability and foresight the Secretary of State for the Colonies found a reason for agreeing up to a certain point with the view that emergencies could not continue indefinitely, but at the same time he indicated that so long as there was an appeal pending to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on fundamental points of law affecting the Constitution of Malta it was inadvisable for His Majesty's Government to make a move. Therefore, my Lords, it is still possible for His Majesty's Government during the interval, between the obtaining of leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and the possible pronouncement of judgment, to solve this question by the adoption of some form of Parliamentary and Ministerial representative government which is not responsible. That solution is imperatively necessary, but it can only be achieved by Act of Parliament and the alternatives would be chaotic in either direction.
The alternatives are one-man government and quasi Dominion status. There are rumours of war in the North and in the South and other complications due to the temporarily suspended interference of a certain section of ultra-clericals in politics, which may be quiescent at present, but may be revived at any moment by forces beyond the influence of either His Majesty's Government or those who have at heart modern progress in Malta. It is very regrettable that that wise and cautious pronouncement of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald was impaired by what he said in another part of his speech where he was made to say—no one knows by whom—that Malta had emerged from the list of Colonies with a deficit and entered on the list of Colonies with a surplus. It is really heart-breaking that the Secretary of State for the Colonies could be so advised. There was no deficit in the revenue of Malta last year nor the year before nor the year before that.
When Parliamentary Government was suspended in Malta some reason had to be found for that suspension. It was said that there were two reasons. One was that Ministers did not co-operate or failed to co-operate to an adequate extent

929
in the policy of His Majesty's Government so that it was impossible to carry on with them. That was a euphemistic way of saying that Ministers were under disloyal influences. Perfectly true. But when these Ministers were removed that emergency finished. There were no longer Ministers who were disloyal to embarrass the Government. 'The other allegation was that the finances of Malta had been brought to a parlous condition, so parlous, in fact, as to endanger the general interests of the Colony where quasi Dominion status entitled Ministers to have a deficit.
What is a deficit in any self-governing Colony of 10 per cent. of the full amount of the year's revenue? Nothing of that sort existed in Malta. By some slip this, which was the condition of the revenue of Newfoundland, was represented as existing in Malta when it did not exist, and to cover up that mistake a great deal was said about the necessity of creating a reserve fund. They are putting down a big reserve fund on one side of the account against the revenue, and by making cross-entries anybody accustomed to deal with financial statements could change the balance from one side to the other. They tried it on in Malta since the suspension of Parliamentary government, but it has so happened that the revenue in Malta has improved so rapidly by the adoption of the policy of the Ottawa Agreements and by the ad valorem tariff which was adopted by the previous pro-British Administration that even the expedient of creating a quite unnecessary reserve fund has failed to produce that deficit which Mr. Secretary MacDonald informed the other House of Parliament on a Colonial Office Vote had recently existed in Malta.
In connection with the declaration of the continuation of an emergency, there are two points of importance. Either the Constitution of Malta is to be worked, as indicated by Lord Milner, in consonance with a method more democratic than the Constitution of the State of New South Wales, or it has to be administered in accordance with a method, not contemplated in the Constitution but logically possible, and perhaps to be supported by a Bill of Indemnity, more similar to what we find in the Government of India Bill. Under the Government of India Bill, when a state of emergency compels the Governor to rely on. Clause 43; when, as
930
a matter of fact, Martial Law takes the place of civil law in all except the administration of justice; the Governor has to act at his discretion. The result of that exercise of discretion has only to last six months, after which the Parliament of the United Kingdom has a say as to prolongation, and that prolongation has not to last more than three years, when automatically the Government of India Bill will be restored unless an Act of Parliament is passed here in England. Mr. Secretary MacDonald must have had that in view when, in reply to a. former Under-Secretary for the Colonial Office, he said in another place that emergencies cannot continue indefinitely.
But there is a further feature as to the exercise of the personal responsibility of any Minister of the Crown towards the Crown, the Parliament of Great Britain and the people of Malta in declaring an emergency, and in the declaration that the emergency continues. According to the Constitution sanctioned by Act of Parliament, an emergency must arise in Malta and must continue in Malta. Wars and rumours of wars are out of the picture; that declaration must come from the discretion of the individual judgment of the person making it, whether that declaration is made by copying the Government of India Bill, or, on very different principles, if it is made in accordance with the relations between the Crown and Ministers in England, or the relations between the Governor and his Ministers in the Federation of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, or the several States of Australia itself. What has been lost sight of entirely by those responsible for setting aside the Constitution of Malta, be they the legal advisers to the Colonial Office or to Malta, is that the enactment providing that the relations in Malta between the Governor and his Ministers are to be regulated as nearly as possible upon the practice in England is one of the clauses of the Constitution which cannot be altered otherwise than by Act of Parliament; it is not one of the clauses that can be altered by Letters Patent.
In the Constitution for India and in the Maltese Constitution a Whole series of safeguards are provided. What would be said of a future Governor in India if, when trouble arose, he immediately jumped at the possibility of putting into force Clause 45 and ignored all the other

931
safeguards? That point has been discussed in the Parliament of England during the passage of the Government of India Bill, and it has been clearly laid down that before there is any attempt to set up what, from Malta's point of view, is nothing better than Martial Law, the Governor in India is bound to try to find other Ministers in place of those whom he has dismissed. If that is to take place in India, why was it omitted under a Constitution which, in the clearest terms, is more democratic than that of the State of New South Wales, where the Governor is instructed by the Royal Instructions and by the Letters Patent constituting his office to take an oath of office to administer the Government, not in accordance with one clause in the Letters Patent or the interpretation of one paragraph of the Letters Patent, but in accordance with every one of their provisions? That is a matter calling for the attention of His Majesty's Government during the breathing-time provided, in accordance with the words of Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald, by the fact that there is pending an appeal to His Majesty in Council on certain questions of law—as to which I will follow his example by not going into them at the present moment.
There is a third reason, my Lords, which adds importance to the appointment of the Royal Commission. It arises from incidents which took place in Malta last Sunday and which have been reported by telegrams, some of which have appeared in the Press. Last Sunday loyal subjects of His Majesty in Malta were arrested for taking part in a meeting and there crying out: "Long live England: Long live England." Some were carrying Union Jacks which were taken from them by the Police. In Malta all public meetings have been suppressed for about two years, both inside and outside the Fortress, and political meetings are not allowed by the Police even inside private premises. Whether that be legal or not I am not going to discuss. There is no doubt whatever that under the reserved powers the Governor was quite entitled to pass an Ordinance forbidding meetings within the Fortress, and the action of the Police, if with the least possible irritation, in putting an end to this meeting can be in no way questioned. In fact the loyalist Press in Malta has been
932
very careful in always appealing to loyal subjects of His Majesty in Malta to obey the law in every circumstance, although your Lordships' House is the only place left in which to demand a redress of grievances under the method by which Malta is now being administered.
May I remind your Lordships that this would happen as to India when Clause 45 is going to be put in motion? What is more, instead of having one or two members who have been born in India demanding the redress of grievances in your Lordships' House, we shall have a repetition of what happened in the past in the case of the East India Company, when there was so much injustice in India that great merchants had to buy half a dozen pocket boroughs and get their own men into the House of Commons in order to voice their grievances. In India there is a magnificently thought-out series of steps by which the redress of grievances can be asked for. A Governor who does not redress a grievance is subject to some control by the Governor-General, and then there is the Secretary of State, who is responsible to the Cabinet and to Parliament here. But when a former Secretary of State, not Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, made it perfectly clear that every mistake and blunder perpetrated in Malta would be supported right or wrong, a form of administration was put in force for which no parallel can be found either under the provisions of the Bill for the Government of India, or in the incidents which occurred in New South Wales.
There is, however, something of much deeper interest emerging from the telegrams and incidents to which I have made reference. That meeting of loyal Maltese and of proved pro-British subjects of His Majesty had been provoked by the broadcasting from Rome of aggressive speeches reviving the claim that Malta should belong to Italy. Night after night aggressive speeches and propaganda against the prestige of the Empire in Malta are heard in Malta. Money ought to have been spent to stop that broadcasting, by the method known and used to stop similar broadcasting from Soviet stations. It has not been done. That is one of the indications of inefficiency as to which a Royal Commission ought to enquire and report. Apart from the moral effect, detrimental to recruiting and so on for which Malta should be prepared in case

933
of war, this method by which loyal subjects in Malta can hear it said that Malta belongs to Italy means provocation, and serious provocation. I would certainly praise the Police of Malta for discovering who were the organisers of a meeting in the Fortress, against the law, but surely-your Lordships will sympathise with those who were arrested, even for a few hours, and those especially who had their Union Jacks torn from their hands.
Let me submit to your Lordships a very serious feature of this propaganda, and the very widespread moral effect thereof. Not only among a certain section of the Maltese population, but throughout Italy and some of the Chancelleries of Europe, the claim that Malta belongs to Italy is based on a pact and the Charter of the Emperor Charles V, which gave Malta to the Sovereign Order of the Knights of St. John. The pact provided that if the Knights left Malta the Island would revert to the successor of the Emperor Charles V, as King of Sicily, hereditary King of Aragon. That pact is invoked in the name of the head of the House of Savoy, who is not the hereditary representative of the Emperor Charles V as King of Sicily and Aragon. The House of Savoy acquired Sicily by force of arms. The French, under Napoleon Bonaparte, acquired Malta by force of arms from the Sovereign Order of the Knights of St. John, and therefore any pact by that Charter was extinguished under International Law.
The present title of the English to Malta was also acquired by force of arms from those who had acquired the sovereignty from those who claimed it under the Charter of Charles V. The French were besieged in Valetta by the Maltese after the massacre of the French garrisons in the country. The French were starved out, and the French surrendered to the English and Maltese as co-belligerents. Thereby, at International Law, the sovereignty was transferred entirely independently of any Charter of Charles V. I am told often that the English sovereignty of Malta depends on the Treaty of Paris. So it does, with a qualification. The Treaty of Amiens contemplated the return of Malta to the Knights of St. John. That was a short time after the end of the first stage of the Napoleonic Wars. The refusal of Napoleon to part with Malta at any cost resulted in Wentworth
934
being given his passports, and the status quo deriving from conquest by the Maltese and by the English continued till the Treaty of Paris. When the Treaty of Paris was negotiated all the Allies who had finally conquered Napoleon found themselves round a table making a partition of the acquisitions which they had made by the sword, and dividing those acquisitions among themselves. The fact that in the record of that partition it was said that the Maltese had come themselves in all good faith under the protection of Great Britain—that was accepted, not only by Great Britain but by the Congress of Vienna—alters in no way the fact that the sovereignty of Malta had been acquired by the sword by the English and Maltese as allies, and all the allies have, under International Law, equality of rights as co-partners.
Doubts will be raised as to my version of the legal position. These facts occurred nearly one hundred and forty years ago, but in a debate in your Lordships' House at a time when men who were then living were witnesses of these occurrences Lord Glenelg used these words:
"Look at the peculiar tenure under which Malta was now held by the British Crown."
I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"Malta was not a possession the result of a conquest."
That brings in the leading case of Campbell versus Hall.
"Malta, when it belonged to the French, resisted French usurpation and appealed to this country for aid. Great Britain furnished auxiliaries and with the Maltese' had blockaded Valetta and to those united forces the French surrendered, and then the Maltese people by their own act and authority, voluntarily assented to the protection of Great Britain. In that light the rights and privileges of the Maltese had ever since been regarded."
And they were so regarded by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain in a speech in the House of Commons and in another speech delivered when he was Secretary of State in the Palace of Malta.
And besides these views as to the international position expressed by witnesses of what had happened, we have an authoritative pronouncement and a Despatch of Lord Grey in the following words:
"Her Majesty was deeply sensible of the noble confidence reposed in the honour and good faith of Great Britain at the period

935
when, having nearly achieved their independence by their own gallant effort, they placed their dearest rights almost unconditionally at the disposal of Her Majesty's Royal predecessor."
The words "almost unconditionally" call for legal interpretation. When the Maltese as co-belligerents had rebelled against the French, and when that rebellion had become a successful revolution, they had representative institutions, acknowledged by their co-belligerents; and when a pact was made it was not unconditional. It contained a promise to maintain the laws, religion and privileges of the Maltese, and that has always been interpreted as a reference to the representative institutions established by a Norman King of Sicily—a measure of government very similar to what exists to-day in the Channel Islands. After studying the public and family records of what went on in old days in Malta, I went personally to the Channel Islands to see what was going on there. I found the same designations of public officers, the same system of representative government.
Responsible government was granted to Malta by an Act of this Imperial Parliament. I say that if that Act is taken away for Imperial reasons, I for one would not impute any breach of faith to His Majesty's Ministers for so doing. But to take representation away from a nation which was competent not only for representative government but also for responsible government is a breach of treaty which is not consistent with the honour and interests of England, nor consistent with logic and common sense in view of the manner in which the Constitution has grown up in England. The giving of certain interpretations to the preamble of a Bill for India may be a promise for consideration or may not. It may be a promise made by one Government without the sanction of the Crown, and one which only retained its legal value until the next Session of Parliament. But the promises made to Malta were made for a consideration—the consideration of blood and treasure and land. And they should be kept. They can only be kept, if the international atmosphere excuses the assertion of emergency, by an Act of Indemnity for what has been wrongly done under the provisions of a Constitution more similar to that of India than that of New South Wales.
Here I am not raising a point of law; I am raising a point of administration. Mr. Secretary Cunliffe-Lister declared an emergency. Three months ago he declared that it continues. But that was on his own personal responsibility and his personal opinion. We are entitled to know what is the opinion of Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald. Is he prepared to say that an emergency still exists in Malta now, under any reasonable interpretation of the enigmatic provisions of an amendment of the Letters Patent, when the Ministers who were not loyal have been got rid of, when there is no deficit, when he himself says the deficit has ceased and has been transformed into a surplus? Surely the collective loyalty of the Colonial Office which supports each other's views or mistakes cannot extend to such a case, and compel Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald to adopt the judgment arrived at, rightly or wrongly, by his predecessor on data which he himself says to the House of Commons have now disappeared?
That is the present position. Bad as it is, I am not asking that it should be immediately discontinued or that a General Election should be proclaimed in Malta. I am asking that those responsible should bring in a Bill of Indemnity and that some Constitution should be established at Malta which, as regards emergency, will be left open and not merely restricted to what is a local difficulty. The pledge given at the time of the annexation of Malta for the respecting and maintenance of laws, religion, and privileges has been interpreted as constituting a claim on the part of extreme ecclesiastics to the rights and privileges of their predecessors at the close of the Middle Ages, during the days of the Knights and before Napoleon Bonaparte established modern ideals in the Government of Malta. The grandfather of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition in the House, General Sir Frederick Ponsonby, issued Proclamations in 1821 abolishing benefit of clergy and abolishing certain immunities which were irreconcilable with the Administration of Malta under modern conditions. It has been a struggle ever since on the part of extreme ecclesiastics to have those privileges re-established as part of the bargain under which Malta became part of the British Empire. I am sorry I o say that there have been persons in authority

937
in Malta who have been unduly impressed by those specious arguments.
When the present Constitution was established religious toleration formed a conspicuous part of that Constitution. All the clauses of that Constitution were accepted by the whole Maltese people, even by the ecclesiastics, by those who were extreme and those who were not extreme, those who were patriotic to Malta and those whose patriotism was in another direction. Any attempt to persuade any officer in His Majesty's Service to facilitate in any way departure from religious toleration is deeply to be regretted. It was regretted at the time when Mr. Secretary Henderson took steps to counteract what is known as the Maltese Pastoral, under which it was proclaimed that anyone disobeying it incurred supernatural penalties. The matter did not end there. When the present Governor came to Malta with the best of good intentions, having declared here in England that he would make it his business to re-establish responsible government in Malta, the proletarian Ministers who afterwards were dismissed, and the leaders of extreme ecclesiasticism, absented themselves from the swearing-in ceremony which the Governor was ordered by law to perform as the first of his duties on assuming office. No greater insult could have been offered to any Representative of the King than abstention from that ceremony. Nevertheless immediately co-operation was established with political irreconcilables, and that brought to an end the possibility of a fair Election just as much as the Pastoral which had produced negotiations with outside authorities.
An examination of the ambit of a Governor's duty in a Constitution similar to that of New South Wales or similar to that of the States in India, of a Governor's Province in India, or even of the duty of the Governor-General in India, brings us to the conclusion that no form of constitutional government can be worked under a Military Governor. That is not simply my own opinion. I have heard it said that I oppose every Governor. I only discuss these matters as one who has been connected all his life with the making and unmaking of Constitutions and has had the honour of serving under several forms of them. My opinion is that recorded so admirably by
938
the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, who piloted with so much ability the Government of India Bill through this House. In his "Life" of that great Viceroy, Lord Curzon, we are told that, in the opinion of Lord Curzon, by their education and mentality military officers were quite unsuited to be Governors. I am certain that the noble Earl representing the Colonial Office will have something to say to me because of the opinion I hold on this subject, but I hope he will remember that in so doing he is criticising that great Viceroy, Lord Curzon, whose experience and patriotism it is very hard for anybody to question.
A Military Governor has to be obeyed without argument. Many members of your Lordships' House have been in the Army and Navy and have been controlled on the barrack square. We have been made to do what we were told, whatever we thought of the suitability of commanding officers' mandates. And, after all, commanding officers and Governors are human. If they are trained to listen to no argument they cannot drop their training when they have to administer a constitutional law which Lord Milner said was more democratic than that of New South Wales. But under the present system of selecting a Governor there are many more regrettable circumstances which ought to be changed and which a Royal Commission ought to enquire into and change. The selection is made by the Army Council, and I consider the Army Council an unconstitutional body created to diminish the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War—to change the Secretary of State for War from being a Secretary of State for War into not being a Secretary of State for War for all that pertains to war—namely, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. The security system, the counter-spy system, the relations with the civil population, all those things should be under the Secretary of State for War, who has direct responsibility to the Cabinet and, through the Cabinet, to this House and to the House that makes and unmakes Ministries.
All that has been set aside by the Army Council, created to shift a Commander-in-Chief who happened to have been created by patent. It is unconstitutional, quite as unconstitutional as the body set up by the Government of

939
India Bill to give advice to the Secretary of State which he must, in certain circumstances, accept whether he likes it or not. That, in my view, is an undermining of constitutional responsibility. The Army Council finds it extremely difficult to find anybody with the prescribed seniority to accept the Governorship of Malta. There is a very limited range of choice, and that limited range is only susceptible of producing something after a great deal of negotiation. The first man approached says: "I cannot do it." The second man says, perhaps, that his wife will not go there. A third man says that the Governorship of Malta is nothing but a sweated industry. Another says that if he goes to Malta he wants to see after the defences and to find out how Malta can be governed and defended against air attack. Another may have come to the end of his career, and says he wants an easy time.
We have heard in this House time after time, in the discussions on the India Bill, that for India supermen are necessary as Governors and as Governors-General. No superman can find the time. When Malta is the key of the holding of our eastern trade and our position in the Mediterranean no Civil Governor has the time adequately to perform the necessary revision in view of modern instruments of war and the defence possibilities of the three great Forces, the Army, Navy and Air Force, or, let me say, the Air Force, Navy and Army, for the Air Force is becoming every day the most important consideration. We have heard it said that Malta cannot be defended from the air. I think it is horrible that such a statement should be allowed to spread. The slogan should be: "Malta must be defended and will be defended," because of our treaty rights to defend the Maltese, and because we are not going to sacrifice the most important link in the chain of communications with Singapore, Colombo, Hong-Kong, Australia and so forth. Malta must be defended at all cost. Anybody who is entrusted with the task must find a way to defend it and must persuade the Imperial Government to find the necessary money. The hesitation should be enquired into by a Royal Commission.
Your Lordships will remember how unsympathetically I was met when asked for a trifling sum of £200 to advertise the possibilities of Malta as a flying-
940
boat base. That advertisement would have cost less than half a page in the Daily Mail or some other newspaper here. That advertisement would have had its effect on civil aviation, and would have shown the possibilities and the dangers to be faced. It would have had its effect, I believe, in inducing companies to start flying in those waters. No principle was involved except the principle of saying "No" to somebody who went begging and wanted more. There was no principle involved in respect of the Air Force until the suspension of responsible government, representative government, every form of government and the possibility of demanding redress of grievances. At least we might have been told that Malta would be defended against air attack at all cost. Instead of that we had not a single crumb of consolation, not even £200.
Then, when a candidate for the Governorship of Malta is selected by the Army Council, and, perhaps very reluctantly, got to go there, if he goes there reluctantly he cannot be expected to want to work day and night. He is not a young man working for promotion; he is at the end of his career. The temptation to be dragged along the line of least resistance and to put the Government into the hands of Secretaries and A.D.C.s is much greater than it would be in the case of Governors in India when use is made of the provisions in the Government of India Bill. In Malta the position is very different. There you have a wealthy and educated community, and members of the Civil Service with acute brains, the descendants of the Phoenicians with magnificent psychological experience as to how to manage the situation. What is the unfortunate Secretary of State for the Colonies to do? Can he override a blunder of a Governor? He is told, in the first place, that he did not appoint him. He was appointed by the Army Council, nominally by the Secretary of State for War perhaps, or, perhaps, by the Cabinet, but certainly not by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Not having appointed him he cannot even tell him what to do. I have known a Governor in Malta, perhaps one of the best we have had, getting a Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, carefully considering it, making up his mind that it was a great blunder, and ordering it to

941
be put in the waste paper basket. And nothing came of it.
But we have worse than that in the history of to-day. This Parliament, this House, considered the Malta Constitution Act of 1932. The noble Lord, Lord Darcy (de Knayth) introduced an Amendment into that measure having for its object the removal of certain disabilities in regard to appointment to the judicial office of certain members of the Bar in Malta who had obtained their warrant after a degree granted by an outside University. There was a monopoly for these degrees derived from the Malta University and not from a University in England or on the Continent. The noble Lord was complimented by the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Sankey, upon the ability with which he had inserted that Amendment into the Malta Constitution Act. But what happened? An Ordinance was passed by the Government of Malta cancelling what was done by this House, cancelling that Amendment. It took years of correspondence to convince the Colonial Office that it had been cancelled. It was decided that the mistake should be rectified, but it was not rectified. Meanwhile there had been a vacancy on the Judicial Bench and among the candidates was a member of the Party of those Ministers who have been dismissed for disloyalty. Those candidates who were well-known for years for their loyalty to the British connection had amongst them one who was debarred even from being considered, notwithstanding that Amendment deliberately passed by this House. That is certainly irreconcilable with the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865.
Notwithstanding that, a Governor of Malta has all the Ministries concentrated in him and every decision is given by him, or may be given by him. But something may occur, as has occurred in the instance of this cancellation of an Amendment passed by the Imperial Parliament. I could give many other instances to show that those who govern are those who administer, and that nobody can co-ordinate and administer defence needs and at the same time be a match for the ultra-clericals, the ultra-pro-Italians and all the other influences around him unless he has been in Malta in former years, has had political training and is a young man
942
who may hope to become some day, perhaps, Governor-General of India. The range of selection should be extended to members of both Houses of Parliament of suitable age with Parliamentary experience, and there should be an end to the present state of affairs if the least weight is given to the dictum of the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, recorded in the monumental and illuminating work published by the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland. I cannot close without making an appeal to your Lordships to reconsider a matter which has arisen under this system of supporting the blunders of a Military Governor.
I wish again to ask for reconsideration of the case of Joseph Orlando Smith. In no debate in this House has the least shred of argument been brought forward to justify what has been done in that case. Here is a man, who at the risk of everything, rendered a signal service to the Security officers at the time of the Invergordon troubles, when similar troubles were being organised in Malta. I have taken steps to have the original letter from Security officers thanking Joseph Orlando Smith brought into the custody of the High Court in England, and I hope that there will be no contradiction of anything I have said based on that evidence. In the House of Commons whatever a, member says has to be believed. Here I do not ask for more credence to be given as to the rights and wrongs of this case than may be justified on the sworn evidence now in England.
Then we have the fact that under the present system, with a desire of course to be on the best of terms with the ultra-clericals, a man who was dismissed as disloyal and who is also quite unacquainted with agriculture, or with scientific agriculture, has been appointed to a post connected with agriculture. That was in the report of the Colonial Office expert, and the word "scientific" might have been inserted in order to argue about it. To prop up this appointment instead of buying out the mistake by a few thousand pounds or perhaps a few hundred pounds, more than £20,000 of English money has gone to Malta to bolster up agriculture, including a loan which Malta does not want because she has plenty of money and a surplus of £250,000. What is more, this particular nominee of the anti-British element in Malta is not only made from a disloyal

943
Minister into the head of a Department, but his salary has been increased and he has got the Jubilee Medal. The Governor has refused to publish a list of those who got the Jubilee Medal. When I submitted to your Lordships' House previously that this particular official was not qualified by his standard of loyalty for appointment in the Public Service, I was told that the Government had different reports. Well, these contradictions have to be faced. There has been a case in Court before a tribunal chosen by the person himself, and we have sworn evidence on record that he did refuse to take off his hat when "God Save the King" was being played in public. If the gentleman had been head of a public Department in the Service for twenty years, he would have had to be suspended, but this man gets the Jubilee Medal and increased pay because it is necessary to uphold the present system of government!
I must now pass to that part of the Motion which deals with the administration of justice. When the last Royal Commission reported, it was one of their recommendations that the Judges in Malta should be English. It was quite an impracticable recommendation, and I did my best in the then Ministry to make the carrying out of that recommendation impossible. Now we are having cases, in which non-Maltese born are concerned, tried more frequently in camera. This method of trying cases in camera is a negation of the principles of the administration of justice which are held in this country and throughout the Empire. Here again, there is great need of the Report of a Royal Commission. Something has been said in this House about my local patriotism, but I would never allow local patriotism to interfere with my duty to the Empire or the rights of British subjects not resident in Malta. If we are to take the Government of India Bill as instructive and illuminating, let us have a proportion of the Judges in Malta English—be it only one. That is a sufficient reason by itself for having a Royal Commission in Malta. There are 30,000 or 40,000 non-Maltese in Malta, and intermarriages between Maltese and English are increasing every day. The future of Malta is not so much, as it has been heretofore, with the progeny of Italians as it is with the progeny of Maltese and British.
Another reason why there should be an inquiry into the administration of justice is the defiance—I can use no other word—of a Court in Malta of a pronouncement of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council. The Privy Council was asked to consider the question of whether a Judge who was financially interested in a newspaper was justified in writing reports for his newspaper in reference to a case judicially before him, to save it from employing other reporters. The condemnation of that incident by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was in the very strongest terms. That was communicated to the Court before the judgment was delivered, and it was pointed out to the Court that, where the law might not be sufficient, there was always the executive authority of the King's Representative to deal with such mistakes. But nothing was done, and his judgment was delivered notwithstanding the filing on the records of this pronouncement of the Judicial Committee. I ask you, my Lords, is that not more than a sufficient reason for having a Royal Commission on the administration of justice?
When that question was before the Court, when it was suggested that there were financial interests involved and that the Government, without having 'any restraint by debate in Parliament or representative institutions, had granted financial favours to a newspaper which had strongly opposed the Government and was now always praising it; when that was filed in Court and a witness was asked to be summoned in examination, nothing was done. The very Judge who admitted in open Court that he had sent in this report, asked in open Court that the bank manager should be called at once; nothing would have pleased the parties in the case better, but it has not been done. That is a most cogent reason why a Royal Commission should be appointed in Malta to deal with the administration of justice.
The importance of the situation is my justification for taking up so much of your Lordships' time. I beg leave in a few words to conclude by summarising what is necessary. What is necessary is an Act of Indemnity for what has been done, and an attempt should be made to have either a Report of a Royal Commission on what kind of Constitution would be suitable to

945
Malta, or a Round-Table Conference. Let us not run the risk, in view of the rumours of war in the Mediterranean and the neighbourhood, of having a situation which, when a judgment is brought from the Privy Council, may involve an immediate General Election in Malta and the immediate re-establishment of a method of government more democratic than that of the State of New South Wales; or, as an alternative, if the case goes the other way, the constitutional procedure that in one House or the other of this Parliament an Address to the King would be proposed for the removal of the Governor. These alternatives can only be avoided by the promise of an Act of Indemnity and of a Royal Commission.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence and report on the manner in which Malta has been governed since the suspension of Parliamentary elections, and on the most suitable method for implementing the treaties and solemn promises to the Maltese as to the enjoyment of representative institutions first set up by the Norman Kings of Sicily, and also to enquire and report on the administration of justice.—(Lord Strickland.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the noble Lord, in introducing his Motion, has traversed a very wide field, and I feel that it would not be possible for me to follow him into the very many questions that he has raised. The actual effect of the Resolution which he has moved is to ask that a Royal Commission should be appointed to enquire into a number of different matters in Malta, and he stated at the commencement of his speech that, since he had placed the Motion on the Paper, three additional reasons I ad arisen to fortify him in his intention of bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. He referred first to the Government of India Bill having been passed; secondly, to a certain statement made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place, about which I shall have just a word to say later on; and thirdly, to an incident which, he stated, occurred during the week-end in Malta in the course of which a number of loyal people in Malta were reported to have been—or he was informed that they had been—arrested.
946
As far as the passage of the Government of India Bill is concerned, I cannot feel that that has any very material bearing upon the situation. The noble Lord is always fond of drawing an analogy between India and Malta, but I am always tempted to explain that, in our view, at any rate, it is an analogy which cannot fairly be drawn, and that, as a matter of fact, the conditions obtaining in those two countries are so entirely different that you cannot possibly draw any kind of conclusions from it. In regard to the incident to which he refers as having taken place at the week-end, I can only say that we have no official information with regard to the arrest of anybody; but, whether anybody has been arrested or not, I cannot for a moment admit that that incident in itself would constitute a reason for appointing a Royal Commission to enquire into the situation in Malta.
The position is really this. A Royal Commission was appointed on Malta in 1911, and another one was appointed in 1931. There is, in the view of the Government, no case whatsoever for the appointment so soon after the last one of a further Royal Commission to go into the affairs of the Island. On the contrary, the Government consider that a further Commission is the very last thing that the Island needs at the present moment. The appointment of such a body, taking evidence on a large number of subjects, would inevitably raise a great number of controversial issues. This procedure would, as far as I see, serve no profitable purpose, nor would it in any way advance the welfare of the Maltese in any degree. In the view of His Majesty's Government the great need of the Island at the present time is a rest from agitation and political strife. A period of calm is required in which the Government can plan and carry through a concrete and constructive scheme for the welfare of the population as a whole. I feel strongly that attention ought to be directed more towards the practical work of administrative improvement than to political issues which have in the past engendered so much bitter feeling. The present Government have already carried through many schemes for the improvement and development of the Island, and further schemes are in contemplation. I would merely repeat that in my view it would be a great mistake to deflect attention from solid work of this character and

947
to throw the Island back into the controversies which would be aroused by the arrival of a Royal Commission to take evidence as suggested by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord in what he has said, and indeed as is implicit in the wording of his Motion, has suggested that there is some definite obligation upon the Government of this country to maintain representative institutions in Malta. Before I actually deal with that particular point that he raised, there is perhaps one other matter that I ought previously to mention. The noble Lord in the course of his speech made a reference to the legality of the position as it existed out there, and actually asked whether it can be maintained that a state of emergency could still be considered to exist in the Island which justified the suspension of the Constitution. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, this is a matter which has a very definite legal aspect, and it has been, I think, on the initiative of the noble Lord himself that the legality of the position has been brought before the Courts of Malta, and is at the very moment being considered in that country with a view to an appeal to the Privy Council. I think I am right in that.
LORD STRICKLAND: There is a new fact in the appointment of Mr. MacDonald.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am not prepared to discuss that, but I have stated what is the position as the noble Lord admitted it to be. He quite rightly refrained from arguing that particular point from the legal aspect, and I, therefore, am not prepared to argue it from the legal aspect either, but the noble Lord did make reference to a statement which was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place a few days ago, when the Estimates of the Colonial Office were being discussed. It is perfectly true that my right honourable friend, alluding to Malta in another place on July 25, said that a state of emergency cannot go on indefinitely, but the noble Lord would be well advised not to read into this obiter dictum more significance than it will bear. It was a perfectly general remark, and I have my right honourable friend's authority to say that he did not intend to state more than what was a self-evident proposition.
948
To pass on to the other point which the noble Lord raised—namely, that the Government of this country was under a definite obligation to maintain representative institutions in Malta—I would only say this. As your Lordships know, Great Britain took over Malta in 1800, and, as explained by the noble Lord, in certain circumstances. I must say that I listened with a very great deal of interest to the noble Lord's recitation of the history of Malta during those days, and of the various circumstances which surrounded the taking over of Malta by the British Government. I am not prepared, nor do I wish, to controvert many of the statements which he made, but I must say this, that in spite of everything he said I do not think anybody can take the view that there was any formal treaty between the two countries, which involved an obligation on the part of the Government of Great Britain definitely to maintain representative institutions in that country. As the noble Lord himself was quite prepared to admit, the legal position does rest upon the Treaty of Paris in 1814.
LORD STRICKLAND: I did not say that.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: With certain qualifications I think he said it. But that, as I understand it, is the position with regard to that particular matter. At any rate I cannot feel that at the moment it is very germane to the question of the suspension of the Constitution at a particular time and for a particular reason. Then the noble Lord made some reference to the Governor of Malta, and took his stand on the general ground that he did not feel that Military Governors were qualified to govern an Island such as Malta; and he made reference to a statement of the late Lord Curzon, in which he is stated to have put forward the general proposition that soldiers and sailors were not properly qualified to act as Governors of Dominions or Colonies. I do not know what the exact wording was.
LORD STRABOLGI: That only applied to Military Governors. Naval Governors are well known for their success.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not know the actual text of the statement, nor do I know what kind of territories or dependencies the late

949
noble Marquess had in mind when he made the statement—no doubt at the time when he was Viceroy of India, and I dare say he had a territory very different from Malta itself in mind when he made this general proposition. Whatever the case may be, I would say that from my own personal experience I have known a number of Military Governors who have governed their territories most efficiently and. with a great deal of success, and I certainly am not prepared, without qualification, to accept the general proposition which the noble Lord has put forward. As far as the Governor of Malta is concerned I want, however, to be very definite indeed, and I wish to say that Sir David Campbell enjoys the fullest confidence of His Majesty's Government. They consider that he has governed the Island with very great courage, wisdom and justice during a particularly anxious and difficult period. I go further than that and say that it is evident from the tokens of respect and affection which are continually forthcoming from the local population that the people as a whole greatly appreciate the services which Sir David Campbell has rendered to the Island. I should also like to say that I know we have all been very sorry that Sir David has himself been ill lately, and we are glad to know that he is now well on the road to recovery.
Then the noble Lord raised a number of matters which he has already raised in your Lordships' House upon a number of occasions. Tie raised shortly the case of Mr. Joseph Orlando Smith. I have dealt with that case very fully on two or three occasions in your Lordships' House, and I really have nothing to add to what I said then. Nothing that the noble Lord said to-day has altered the position, and I can only repeat that what I said upon the last occasion in this House still represents the attitude of the Government on this particular question. The noble Lord also raised the question of the appointment of Mr. Micallef as Director of Agriculture. That matter we have also discussed at considerable length in this House on more than one occasion. I have repeatedly said that this appointment was made on merits purely and simply, and that the Secretary of State's adviser who went out to Malta reported that he felt sure that Mr. Micallef would be able
950
to do much good work for agriculture in Malta.
Lastly the noble Lord has suggested that it is necessary to send a Royal Commission out to Malta to enquire into the administration of justice. Once again I am afraid the Government cannot admit for a moment that there is any need for such a Commission. The question of the administration a justice has been under frequent review during the last few years. The Royal Commission of 1931 devoted a certain part of its Report to the matter, and made various recommendations. The matter again came under review when the Secretary of State sent to the Island as Legal Adviser, Sir Alison Russell, a distinguished lawyer who had served as Chief Justice in Tanganyika. The Governor entrusted Sir Alison Russell with the general duty of examining into the work of the Courts. As a result of that examination, two important reforms were introduced.
First, an Ordinance was passed containing many detailed revisions for reforming the procedure of the Courts with the object of removing one of the main causes of complaint, which was the frequent delays in the disposal of cases. In the second place, legislation was enacted by Letters Patent making an important change in the language of the Courts, with which your Lordships will already be familiar. The object of this reform was to lay down that in future the native language, Maltese, should be used in the Courts wherever possible. The reform was based on the simple and elementary principle of justice that legal proceedings should be conducted in a language with which the people themselves are familiar. These reforms have worked very satisfactorily. The new methods of procedure, according to the information I have available, has resulted in a very gratifying elimination of arrears in the Courts of First Instance, and their success seems unquestioned. With regard to the language reforms, these, I am glad to say, have also worked well and there appears to be every evidence that they have been definitely welcomed by the vast majority of people in Malta. In this connection I should like to say that I think a tribute might well be paid to the manner in which His Majesty's Judges in Malta have worked in order to make these reforms a success.

951
In dealing with the question of the administration of justice, the noble Lord made references to a certain Judge and certain actions which he had taken, and suggested that this, too, was a sufficient reason for asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission. I am well acquainted with the actual case that he had in mind. I would merely say that after what was said by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Government naturally gave their attention to what their Lordships had said, and felt it proper to make certain inquiries of the Judge in question on the subject. I am able to say that we have received information to the effect that the Judge has now given assurances which the Acting Governor regards as satisfactory. But in any case I cannot admit for a moment that a matter of this kind is sufficient reason for the appointment of a Royal Commission. I have dealt with a number of matters which the noble Lord has raised. It has naturally been impossible for me, owing to the very comprehensive way in which he dealt with the whole position in Malta, to follow him in detail, but I have attempted to answer a number of points which he has raised.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for the great courtesy and the detail with which he has addressed himself to your Lordships' House in reference to my speech, but I am not able to express satisfaction with the conclusions or logic of many of the replies, and in particular with the suggestion that I have asked for a Royal Commission with power to enquire into two or three arrests. I have fully explained how this demonstration of loyal Maltese last Sunday had been provoked by the broadcasting from Rome of repeated claims that Malta belonged by right to Italy, and I have explained how that was a claim which was being most carefully and systematically propagated in the Press in Malta and Italy. The provocation arising amongst a loyal population from this systematic propaganda and the failure to counteract it is, I submit, a good reason for the appointment of a Royal Commission.
We are told that no inquiry is needed into the administration of justice because Sir Alison Russell has enquired into it. But Sir Alison Russell 'has not enquired into the defiance of a pronouncement by
952
His Majesty's Privy Council, nor has he enquired into the allegations lodged in Court as to financial favour to newspaper proprietors and the connection of the Government therewith. I can assure your Lordships that the Bar in Malta is indignant at these occurrences and that the general opinion is that respect for the administration of justice has been fundamentally shaken. Nor has the noble Lord suggested any reply as to the suitability of reconsidering the question which was reported upon by the Royal Commission as to the way in which claims of nonresident British subjects in Malta should be dealt with in the Courts of Law by the appointment of one English Judge rather than by extension of the trial of cases in camera. Nor has there been inquiry as to the alterations in the order of precedence of the Judges, a matter of principle in England, which has been the subject of protest in this House in a case on all fours with what has happened in Malta. These are two sufficient examples of the want of conclusiveness in the replies that have been received.
May I ask, can any British subject born in Malta be satisfied with that present position? Can anyone here in this House be wanting in sympathy with the fact that by the suspension of Parliamentary institutions all British subjects born in Malta have been degraded from the position of citizens of a co-equal sister nation in the British Commonwealth of Nations to that of citizens of a Crown Colony of the most severe type? I may add that the judgment that has been delivered by His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Malta on the constitutional position is most emphatic in laying down that representative Government has been legally promised and assured to Malta time after time and that it has been promised by treaties that are legally binding. The noble Earl does not concur in the view on that point expressed by Lord Glenelg. There were treaties made between two co-belligerents when Maltese and English side by side were victorious co-belligerents and shared in the sovereignty of Malta acquired by the sword; and these treaties were not merely verbal, they were embodied in Proclamations then issued in the name of the King of England setting forth that the rights, laws and privileges of Malta would be maintained. Malta had representative

953
institutions when the nation was organised against the French.
Moreover, there have been the declarations of Lord Grey and Mr. Chamberlain. Then we have the recent fact that your Lordships' House itself sanctioned an Act of Parliament granting responsible government and recognising the sanctity of these treaties as the reason for the passing of that Act. Why was an Act of Parliament giving constitutional status to Malta passed if it was not called for by virtue and force of the treaties referred to by Lord Glenelg? Now we are expected to be thankful to those who have deprived us, as loyal subjects, of these representative institutions, and to those who have degraded English and Maltese domiciled in Malta to the inferior status now subsisting in Malta. It is an intolerable position, and it is most regrettable that any special pleading should be attempted and devised to excuse that diminution of status. It is not possible to sweep away the weight and meaning and import of those treaties and promises and the interpretation thereof that has been held from generation to generation here and in Malta.
There is no answer or excuse for the present non-existence of the Executive Council. How can war, may I ask, be carried on without contact with the civil population by an Executive Council? It is a contradiction of what is written in the law. Yet we are expected to be grateful. If public meetings had not been suppressed there would be resolutions passed at meetings all over the Island against the present state of affairs and demanding the appointment of a civil Governor. The Press, too, has been muzzled by favours. Favouritism has gone to the extent that after condemnation in a criminal libel suit remission was given to a writer in a newspaper from the Palace without any report from the Judge who tried the case of criminal libel or advice from the Law Officers, and now that newspaper has become a humble servant full of praise for the Administration. Other newspapers have also received favours at the expense of others. Therefore the time has come for the Colonial Department not to place reliance on what is printed under undue influence.
On Question, Motion negatived

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, could the noble Earl give us any information as to the business for the rest of this week and after the Recess?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that to-morrow, besides what he sees on the Paper—namely, consideration of the Commons Amendments to the. Housing Bill—the Lord Bishop of Winchester is raising a debate regarding the Reports of the Commissioners for the Special Areas. The Question by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury regarding Assyrians in Iraq has been postponed. On Thursday there will be consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill, the Government of India Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. As the noble Lord is aware, these Bills are being discussed in another place now. They will come to us to-morrow, and be considered on Thursday. In addition to that, Lord Cranworth has a Question down regarding Attested Herds. It is proposed that the House should meet on Friday morning, when, probably, the Consolidated Fund Bill will be put through all its stages, and a Royal Commission will be held to give the Royal Assent to a number of Bills and Measures.
LORD MARLEY: It will be purely formal on Friday?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Purely formal. As regards the Adjournment, it is proposed that the House should adjourn on Friday next until Tuesday, October 29, subject to the usual Motion empowering the Lord Chancellor to call the House together should circumstances arise which render it necessary for the House to meet before that date.
LORD MARLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the information.