§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to say that I fear that earlier I used a rather loose phrase in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He asked me in a supplementary question whether the Governor's attitude had been recently confirmed, and I referred to the "recent visit" of the Commonwealth Secretary. What I should have said was the visit of the Commonwealth Secretary in October, 1966.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that correction. I hope he will realise that this puts a rather different complexion on the whole thing—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMay I ask the noble Lord, then, with the leave of the House—since obviously I would have asked a supplementary question had I been given this reply in the first place, and I think that that is the reason why the noble Lord has given me the opportunity to do so—the following question. While we all paid the greatest respect to the Governor for the attitude he took at that time, is it really in keeping with the dignity of Her Majesty's Government that Her Majesty's representative should not be paid over such a long period of time? As we all wish to see Rhodesia return to full allegiance to Her Majesty, would it not be right for this matter to be reviewed again at this time?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I fear that my noble friend the Leader of the House is slightly restive that both I and the noble Lord are out of order—at least that I put the noble Lord out of order. This is a matter which I think I should prefer to leave with the Governor. He is in an extraordinarily difficult position. 1114 Certainly we would make an approach to him, but my feeling is that he would prefer the matter to be left as it now is.