§ 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.
936§ 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.
944§ 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 STRICKLANDThere is a new fact in the appointment of Mr. MacDonald.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHI 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 STRICKLANDI did not say that.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHWith 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 STRABOLGIThat only applied to Military Governors. Naval Governors are well known for their success.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHI 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 STRICKLANDMy 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