§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out Subsection (1).
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Amendments on the Paper? If my hon. Friend is called upon now to move this Amendment, I hope you will put the Question so as to preserve other Amendments to Clause 1, which otherwise would be cut out. There are other Amendments which raise separate issues. There is an Amendment on Sub-section (2), which would have the effect of leaving no charge to be paid by the revenues of India, and there is another Amendment on the same Sub-section which would leave the matter to the discretion of the Indian Legislature. These are two distinct points and, although I do not think we shall want to discuss them at any great length, I want to know whether it is possible for you to safeguard these Amendments when you put the Amendment now proposed to the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe first Amendment on the Paper is to leave out Sub-section (1), but I will do my best to safeguard the two Amendments referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAre we to understand also that the fourth Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words
except that if the Governor-General declares that a state of emergency exists which justifies such action, the Governor-General in Council may place at the disposal of the Admiralty all or any of such forces and vessels, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Admiralty to accept such offer—should be discussed on this Amendment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEBefore giving my reasons for asking the House to accept this Amendment, I think it is necessary to explain exactly its purport. The main object of this Bill is the creation of an Indian Navy for the protection of the shores of India. With that object hon. Members on these benches are in substantial agreement. But the Bill also seeks to make in certain circumstances and under certain safeguards provision for the diversion of the Indian Navy to other areas. When the Bill was on the Floor of this House on Second Beading, we took the view that these safeguards were quite inadequate, and in Committee moved Amendments with the view of substituting what we considered were genuine safeguards for those which are in the Bill. These Amendments were rejected by the Noble Lord on behalf of the Government. Therefore, having come to the conclusion that the safeguards in the Bill are quite illusory, we consider that the right course is to get rid altogether of the provisions which enable this Indian Navy to be used for purposes other than guarding the shores of India. It is for that purpose that we have put down the fourth Amendment on the Order Paper, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has referred. The effect of that Amendment would be to confine the use of the Indian Navy to the protection of the shores of India. At the present stage of this Bill that Amendment would be out of order if previous words in Subsection (1) had already been declared part of the Bill; and it is in order to safeguard this later Amendment that I am moving the present Amendment, which has to be read in conjunction with it. Its object, as I have said, is to confine the use of the Indian Navy to the shores of India and preclude its use for other purposes. Having made that explanation, I come to the reasons on which I ask the House to give us its support. As I understand it, the defence of the Bill in its present form is two-fold. It is supported by two considerations, which I venture to suggest are somewhat conflicting if not mutually destructive. The first one on which it is attempted to defend the provisions of the Bill is that, as India is part of the British Empire it is essential that an Indian 1913 Navy shall, if necessary, be available for all Imperial usages. That argument would hold water in one of two circumstances. If, instead of being the Indian Navy it was the Marine, and if we were to go back to a time when it was recruited frankly as part of the British forces, manned by Britishers with a few Indians thrown in, then, I think, it would be quite natural, as part of the British Navy, that it should be used in any part of the world. If, on the other hand, we look forward to a time when India is a wholly self-governing part of the British Empire with a Navy entirely at the disposal of India in the same way as are the ships of Australia or some of the other parts of the self-governing Dominions, then, again, it is reasonable that such a navy should, with the concurrence of the self-governing country itself, be available as part of the British forces in any part of the world. But the fact is that to-day we are in a transition stage. We are endeavouring to get a Navy which shall be a real Indian Navy, manned and ultimately officered by Indians, and yet at the same time we have not a self-governing constitution in India, and it would rest solely with the Governor-General-in-Council to decide how the Navy should be used. It seems to me that if the change we are making in this Bill is not merely one of name, but is intended to be one of substance and to be recognised as one of substance, then, during this transition stage, we ought not to insist that the Indian Navy shall be used in this way.
The other defence which is put forward is that this Indian Navy is such a little one that it is no matter anyway. That reminds one of the story of the young woman who brought a rather unexpected and, perhaps, undesired baby into the world, and made an excuse for it on the ground that it was such a little one. Not only babies, but navies also grow up, and it is quite likely, and I think it is expected, that this Indian Navy which we are proposing to create will go on increasing. The seaport trade of India is growing steadily, and at the present time we are opening up a new great harbour in India which I had the pleasure of visiting when I was there a few months ago, and on which, I believe, several crores of rupees are authorised to be spent, and on which 10 or 15 crores of 1914 rupees are to be spent after some years have gone by. That Indian Navy, which is concerned with the protection of the shores of India, is bound to become quite a considerable force. If the Indian Navy is to be a big one, then, I think, this proposal is dangerous from many points of view. If it is to be a small one, which I believe is actually the case, then the hypothetical gain which we are going to obtain by the insertion of this provision is not worth the loss of the advantage which we shall suffer through opposing the opinions of people in India, for there is no doubt that, whether it be big or little, Indian opinion is very sensitive on such points at the present time; and, if the object of the Bill in creating an Indian Navy in substitution for the force which exists at the present time, is to some extent desired as a concession to Indian opinion, then it seems to me to be very foolish, when doing this, to go counter to Indian opinion on one of the details of the proposal.
I know I shall be told that one cannot take Indian opinion merely from Indian politicians. That is always said on occasions of this kind, and it was said when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading. The whole of vocal India is behind the political views which are expressed on this matter, and, if hon. Members opposite dispute the fact that that is the opinion of India, then I say the onus of proof rests upon them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Hon. Members say, "No," but if you have one expression of opinion put forward by large sections of people, then, unless you can bring forward an equally widespread or substantial opinion to the contrary, your case, obviously, goes by default. As a matter of fact, it is always argued, where you have an expression of view by a certain number of intellectuals, that they do not represent the view of the people. That argument has led statesmen into many mistakes in the past, and it is likely to do so again in the future. Many hon. Members opposite who speak with some experience of India do so from knowledge which dates back 20 years, or, perhaps, not so long. The fact is that experience of 20, 10, five, or even two or three years ago is not reliable at the present time, for, contrary to the belief that has been put into the form of an aphorism, the so-called Unchanging East is changing 1915 with extraordinary rapidity, and those who do not recognise that fact and who think that the East is the East and will always remain so were proved wrong a little while ago in Japan, and will prove to he wrong again both in India and in China. I venture to think that what may be to-day in those Eastern countries little more than a cloud, no bigger than a man's hand, may, if it be not dealt with, break into a great storm over the heads of the Western countries.
In support of this provision in the Bill, it is also said that, after all, we are dealing with the Indian Navy in the way that we already deal with the Indian Army. In any case, that is not a fortunate parallel at the present time, because we have the Indian Army used in China, and that action is very much resented by large numbers of people in India. I want, however, to suggest that the case of the Navy is not parallel with the case of the Army. You have the Indian Army normally situated, perhaps, in one of the Hill stations in India, and before they can be moved to distant foreign countries a very considerable amount of apparatus has to be put into motion. To transport the Indian Army abroad, is a very considerable undertaking. On the other hand, if the Government declare a state of emergency and allow the Admiralty thereby to use the Indian Navy for some other purpose, it can be moved with very little notice, and I am not sure that it cannot be done secretly and without the knowledge of the people here or in India. Perhaps the Noble Lord will inform us later whether that could actually happen, because I am not quite clear upon the matter. But whether that be so or not, I do suggest that the power to move the Indian Navy from protecting the shores of India to a foreign country would be a very much easier thing than to move the Indian Army.
I also venture to suggest that the proposal in the Bill is bad for recruiting. We desire to enlist in the Indian Navy the patriotism of the Indian people. The patriotism of the young men in India will be aroused by the knowledge that their services are to be used in the legitimate defence of their own country, but it is quite another thing to assume that patriotism is going to be equally aroused 1916 if the idea gets abroad that the Navy is merely to be used as part of the British Navy and is to be sent to any part of the world. We have evidence that there are at the present time a certain number of young men in India who, from their own point of view, are patriotic. They are willing to take great risks by running into courses which we, equally with the Noble Lord opposite, think wholly deplorable. But we know, and he knows and certainly realises, that they do it from a sense of patriotism. If we want men who are adventurous and patriotic and who are willing to lay down their lives if necessary, I do urge that we shall not get the men we want unless we confine the use of this Navy to the defence of the shores of India itself.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to take a long view in this matter. I credit Members of all sections of the House with the desire to secure a contented people in India, proud of taking their part in the British Empire. I do hope that the House will not, for some purely trifling and temporary gain, lose the chance of securing this end. Members who sit opposite and on the lower benches below the Gangway claim to be the Imperialists in this House. I venture I think that we are the true Imperialists, because we recognise that a great Empire can only be built up on co-operation and good will. The prototypes of hon. Members opposite lost to the British Empire that great, splendid, rich tract of country which is now the United States of America. As far as the people of British descent are concerned,. they learned their lesson once for all. But that is not enough. The lesson that a great Empire can be built up only on mutual understanding, assistance and good will, applies, and must apply, not merely to members of the British race, but also to those peoples of a common ancestry with ours, who inhabit the great peninsula of India.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)It will probably be for the convenience of the House if I indicate at once the reasons why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. A perusal of the Bill will show that Sub-sections (1) and (2) can 1917 very largely be read together. Sub-section (2) says that the new Indian Navy shall be used only for the purpose of the defence of India, broadly speaking in Indian? territorial waters, unless the Governor-General in Council declares that a- state of emergency exists which justifies its being used elsewhere, and Sub-section (1) of the Clause says that where such forces are used outside the confines of Indian territorial waters, the revenues of India shall not be applied to their support except with the consent of this House and of another place. As I understood the rather mixed argument which the Mover of the Amendment used, he seeks to brush away both Sub-sections, in other words, it is his wish and intention that in no circumstances shall the new Indian Navy be used outside Indian territorial waters, or outside what might be called the narrow definition of the defence of India. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assent. That of course raises the issue.
Before dealing with it I would say that what is proposed in the Bill is exactly the same as is in operation in more or less similar circumstances in regard to the Indian Army; that is to say, the Indian Army cannot be used outside of India except on a declaration by the Governor-General that a state of emergency exists, and, secondly, if it is so used the Indian revenues cannot be applied to its sustenance except upon a Resolution of this House and of another place. So that it is not sought to put the Indian Navy in a different position from that of the Army. From an administrative point of view, it would be extremely inconvenient to have the new Navy and the Army on different bases. If this House and another place and the Indian Legislative Assembly have accepted as a matter of course the existing position in regard to the Indian Army, which is a much larger force than the Indian Navy is ever likely to be, it seems rather absurd to ask this House to make an alteration in the case of the Navy.
But quite apart from that and taking the Amendment on its merits, I must say that I seldom heard a less convincing speech than that of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. If he will excuse my saying so, I am amazed at what I can only describe as his courage in claiming that he and his friends are the only 1918 true Imperialist party in this House, for a more parochial proposal than that which the hon. Member made I have never heard. I would like to issue to him a sort of challenge. Has he behind him any party, so far as Indian opinion is concerned, in favour of a proposal which would virtually condemn the Indian Navy for all time to being employed only in Indian territorial waters? The hon. Member talked of Indian public opinion and seemed to try to lead me to say that I did not place much reliance upon it. On the contrary, I place a great deal of reliance on it, and it is my duty to do so. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State and I pay very close attention to the opinions expressed by a majority of political opinion in India. In no sense has it been expressed by any responsible section as it has been by the hon. Member in respect of his proposal.
The Amendment would exclude the Indian Navy from ever being used for general Imperial purposes as long as this Bill was in, operation. No such restrictive covenant is applied to the New Zealand and Australian Navies. The hon. Member's motives, though, no doubt, they are of the best and are intended to please opinion in India, will be very seriously questioned by those whom he quotes as representing Indian public opinion. They will say, "Here is an hon. Member of the House of Commons who has deliberately said that he is in favour of this new force being; put in a humiliating position which is not occupied by any of the Dominion Navies, the position of being used only in Indian territorial waters." The hon. Member used an argument which was one of the most extraordinary I have heard during the 23 years I have been in this House. He said that this force could be used only for legitimate defence. Speaking of recruiting, he said there was a number of Indians who took a great interest in the force, that it was very necessary to stimulate Indian patriotism, and that Indian patriotism could only be stimulated among Indians for the legitimate defence of their own country. Has the hon. Gentleman ever studied naval warfare? Does he realise that it is as impossible to set any bound to the field of sea warfare as it is to set any bounds to the planetary system? Once a conflict starts, you cannot say that it 1919 shall be confined to one sea. Does the hon. Member not realise that in the Great War from 1914 to 1918, India was as much defended in the North Sea as in the Indian Ocean, and that had it not been for what occurred in the North Sea and in the Mediterranean there would have been an invasion of India and hostile action against Indian ports? Therefore, how can anyone say that the legitimate defence of one's own country is confined to the territorial waters of that country? That is the argument of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIf that be so, what is the meaning of Subsection (2), because there the distinction is drawn between being used for the purposes of the Government of India and being used for other purposes? I was really using a phrase which was intended to be synonymous with those distinctions.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe meaning of the phrase in the Bill is that the Navy may be used in territorial waters in the narrow sense of the word, but the hon. Gentleman was going very much further than that. He was saying that in no circumstances could it be held that the Indian Navy could be used for the defence of India if it was used elsewhere than around the immediate shores of India. I say that that is not so. I had experience of Indian troops during the War. It is outrageous to suggest that Indians have such a limited view of patriotism as to think that the defence of their country, which is only part of the Empire, can take place only within the narrow limits of Indian territorial waters or of India's shores. Every-Indian who fought for the Empire in the Great War regarded himself., wherever he was fighting, as defending his own country as much as other parts of the Empire.
The Amendment would make a fundamental alteration in the Bill, and the objections to it are three-fold. First of all it would create administrative inconvenience. Secondly, the hon. Member used no argument to show that it is reasonable to create the anomaly that would be created if his proposal were adopted, by which the Indian Army would be subject to one set of regulations and enactments in respect of both this House and the Assembly in India, while the 1920 Navy would be placed in an entirely different position. Thirdly, I say that no such limit as he seeks to place on the patriotism of people who are likely to join the Indian Navy need be placed. It is most unlikely that the Indian Navy, in the size which it is contemplated it shall be, would be widely used outside of Indian waters in war, though if unhappily there should be a big naval war, it might be that some of the ships would be used for other purposes. In that event I challenge the hon. Member to find any Indian among the types and classes who have been accustomed in the past to defend their own country, who would not say that it was really an odious implication on their patriotism to make them declare "Yes, we are willing to fight in Indian territorial waters but we are not willing to fight elsewhere." For those reasons I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI think the Noble Lord has misunderstood or misinterpreted the arguments that we have put forward. It may very well be that the people of India one day, of their own volition, may want a Navy and may want to fight under conditions in company with the British Fleet or any other fleet, but this Bill lays it down that the Fleet may be used under conditions where the Indian Legislature will have no power whatever, and the Indian peoples will have no power whatever to say where it shall be used or how it shall be used. It for the reason that the Noble Lord has emphasised several times, for the reason that you propose to use the Navy in the same manner that you are using the Indian Army now, that we oppose the Clause.
§ Earl WINTERTONI said exactly the opposite. I emphasised the fact that it was extremely unlikely that the Navy would be used in the way indicated.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat is not what I said. The Noble Lord has quite a quick faculty of rising and correcting when he has not understood what we are saying. It may be that we are very difficult to understand. The Noble Lord used the argument that it would be administratively very difficult to have one set of arrangements for the Navy and another set for the Army. He also said that he believes that the men who serve in the 1921 Indian Army have no objection, and that the people of India have no objection, to that Army serving in parts of the world other than India. We challenge that proposition altogether. We deny that public opinion in India is in any position to express itself on the question whether the Indian troops should be used in China or not. Under the Bill in its present form the new Navy could be used anywhere in defiance of Indian public opinion. Consequently, the Noble Lord's argument that we on this side want to deny the people of India the right of saying where their fleet shall be used, falls to the ground because under this Bill they have no such right. The only person in India who would have the right to determine that matter would be the Viceroy and the only legislative authority which would have power in that matter would be this House and another place. We say that the people of India are the people who should say, first, whether this Navy is wanted or not and, secondly, where this Navy is to be used. In view of the fact that in a couple of years the Government of the day will be obliged to appoint a Commission to consider further amendments of the Indian constitution there should be no hurry in rushing through this small Bill and starting this new experiment. As to the question of whether we on this side stand to serve Imperialism better than the party opposite, I would only say that our view of Imperialism is not that of domination. We believe in a commonwealth of nations, free partners with each other, and we believe that India ought to have the chance of saying whether or not she wants to be a partner in the British Commonwealth. We certainly think she ought to have the right to say whether she wants a Navy or not; and it is only the people of India who ought to have the right of saying when and where such a Navy is to be used.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe original Amendments on the Paper dealt with two distinct points. One was the question of the payment for this Navy when used at the discretion of the Admiralty away from Indian waters and the other was whether the Navy should be so used at all without the consent of the Indian legislature. As the Amendments have been taken, we have to some extent combined these two points, but 1922 there is a further Amendment in the Paper in connection with which I. propose to raise the question of payment. We are at present discussing the question of the use of the Navy and therefore I take the opportunity of making such remarks as I am going to make on that subject now, though this is not my Amendment. The Noble Lord always starts his speeches in this House as one of the elder statesmen. He always meets our arguments at first from the higher plane of his exalted office, but then he becomes the sprightly backbencher of 20 years ago, when he delighted this House by his interruptions—as I know well though I had not the pleasure then of being in Parliament with him. At such times he descends to a certain violence of expression and, while I do not use the expression in any offensive sense, I think in the present instance he has misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Perhaps owing to the way in which the Amendment is drawn it might appear as though my hon. Friend the Mover meant to confine the Indian Navy to Indian territorial waters but that of course is not our intention at all. We know that even this Navy—as it is at present—of four sloops, two patrol vessels, four trawlers, two survey ships and a depot ship cannot be confined to territorial waters. But I think the Mover of the Amendment was not going too far in suggesting that without the consent of the Indian legislature this force should be confined more or less to Indian waters.
The Noble Lord says he never heard of a naval force being confined to any particular area. During the height of the late War, when we were hard pressed for patrol vessels to act against the submarine compaign, the Japanese came to our assistance and sent destroyers to help us in the Mediterranean. Incidentally, may I say that they ran themselves to death and did splendid work, but they acted on the stipulation, owing to the distance from their home waters, that they were not to go beyond the Mediterranean. I was serving in the Navy then, and I know what the orders were, and the arrangement was that they were not to be sent further west than the Straits of Gibraltar, and as a matter of fact they were kept east of Malta. But there you have an actual case of the use of a naval force being confined to a definite 1923 area. The Noble Lord asked for such an instance. He has now got one, and I hope he will not again use the argument which he has just used in that connection. The Noble Lord's defence of this Sub-section rests principally on the fact that the Indian Army can be used at the will of the Governor-General in Council, after a declaration of a state of emergency, and it is argued that it would be impossible to differentiate between the Army and the Navy in this respect. That is where we join issue with the Noble Lord. We regret that the Indian Army can be used in that way. I would like to see an amendment of the Government of India Act providing that Indian troops were not to be used out-side the confines of India, without the consent of the Indian Legislature. But that is not the same thing as saying that the young Indian who is joining the Army is only to be used for home defence. It does mean that he is not to be used outside India on work other than the defence of India, except with the consent of the Indian Legislature. I think the Noble Lord made an unfortunate comparison when he worked himself up at the end of his speech and made references to the armies of Australia or South Africa.
§ Earl WINTERTONI said the Australian Navy.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am talking about the army at the moment, but I will take the Noble Lord on the question of the navy. The comparison with the navy of Australia is a bad one. Does he think that the navy of Australia, which is a considerable force now, can be used for general Admiralty purposes without the consent of the Australian Parliament? Good heavens, no! It could not be done, whatever party was in power in the Federal Parliament. Does the Noble Lord seriously suppose—to return to the army comparison—that South African troops could be taken away from South Africa or Canadian troops from Canada and used anywhere at all, without the consent of the respective Parliaments? Of course not! That is the whole difference between India and the other Dominions. That is what we object to. We say you would get more willing, and therefore 1924 more valuable, service if you put India on the same plane as the other Dominions where her armed forces are concerned. India should be in the same position in this respect as the free self-governing Dominions. At present we have a colour bar. We say the Indians are a subject people and therefore Indian troops, who enlist voluntarily, shall be sent away from India anywhere we like—China or wherever we are in trouble—without the consent of the Indian Legislature. We set up an Indian Legislature, but we do not put it on the same level as regards the use of its own forces as the legislatures of Canada and South Africa. I re-echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester that we on this side are by far better Imperialists than the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because we realise that when you have new forces working in Asia, when you have a renaissance coming in China as it has come there before, you have to treat India in a certain way in order to get the best service and assistance from India.
You can only do it by appealing to the Indian imagination and that is where the Noble Lord fails. He says he has served alongside Indian troops and knows what they are thinking about. I venture to say that in spite of his recent visit to the East he does not know what Asia is thinking to-day. He may have met many civilians in the East, he may have met many Princes, but it is necessary to know what is being said in the bazaars of India on the events in China, in order to understand this business, and I suggest the Noble Lord does not understand it, as this Bill shows. The India Office which is capable of treating this matter as it is treated in the Bill, is unfit to govern a great Empire like the Indian Empire. When this new navy is being created by this House, we should be failiug in our duty if we did not protest against the implications of this Bill. I would have preferred a straight issue on this question, but that was not possible owing to the way in which the Bill is drawn. We repeat that to use the Navy of India without the consent of the people of India ought not to be attempted, and we are bound to resist such a proposal. I regret that what happened upstairs, when the Government majority on this question was very narrow, and what happened on the Floor of the House previously, has 1925 not taught the Noble Lord that he could do more, by putting this little force at the sole disposition of the Indian Legislature, to satisfy real patriotic opinion in India at a very cheap cost than he can do by all the speeches he makes in this House.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'without,' in line 16, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 113.
1927| Division No. 73.] | AYES. | [4.43 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James [...]. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Albery, Irving James | England, Colonel A. | Lougher, Lewis |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lumley, L. R. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Everard, W. Lindsay | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Apsley, Lord | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Fermoy, Lord | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Forrest, W. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Atkinson, C. | Foster, Sir Henry S. | MacIntyre, Ian |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fraser, Captain Ian | McLean, Major A. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | McNeill, Rt, Hon. Ronald John |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Bethel, A. | Gates, Percy | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gower, Sir Robert | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Grant, Sir J. A. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Grotrian, H. Brent | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Guinness, Rt Hon. Walter E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Brown, Maj.D.C. (N'th'l'd.,Hexham) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Harney, E. A. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hartington, Marquess of | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Hawke, John Anthony | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Oakley, T. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Owen, Major G. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Perring, Sir William George |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hills, Major John Walter | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hilton, Cecil | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Cayzer, sir C, (Chester, City) | Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Holland, Sir Arthur | Preston, William |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Holt, Captain H. P. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Raine, W. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cope, Major William | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Couper, J. B. | Huntingfield, Lord | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hurd, Percy A. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hurst, Gerald B. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Hutchison,G. A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sandon, Lord |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Jacob, A. E. | Savory, S. S. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.) |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Knox, Sir Alfred | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Dixey, A. C | Lamb, J. Q. | Smithers Waldron |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Strauss, E. A. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L (Kingtton-on-Hull) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Warrender, Sir Victor | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and otley) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Watts, Dr. T. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Templeton, W. P. | Wells, S. R. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wiggins, William Martin | |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major |
| Tinne, J. A. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) | Sir George Hennessy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sexton, James |
| Ammon, Charles George | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shepherd. Arthur Lewis |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, G. H | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Baker, Walter | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Barnes, A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snell, Harry |
| Barr, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Batey, Joseph | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Broad, F. A. | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromfield, William | Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lansbury, George | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Buchanan, G. | Lawrence, Susan | Sutton, J. E. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Lawson, John James | Taylor, R. A. |
| Clowes, S. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lindley, F. W. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lunn, William | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Connolly, M. | Macbonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Mackinder, W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | March, S. | Viant, S P. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Maxton, James | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Dennison, R. | Montague, Frederick | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dunnico, H. | Morris, R. H. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gillett, George M. | Mosley, Oswald | Westwood, J. |
| Gosling, Harry | Palin, John Henry | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton | Paling, W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Groves, T. | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor Walter |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Riley, Ben | Wright, W. |
| Hardie, George D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hayday, Arthur | Rose, Frank H. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Whiteley. |
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word "not" to the word "be" in line 17.
The discussion on the last Amendment dealt with the use of the Indian Navy, and the Amendment I now move deals with the payment for that Navy when the Admiralty take it over. The Subsection, if amended as I propose, would read that the revenues of India shall not be applicable to defraying the expenses when we take over their Navy and use it for general Imperial purposes. That is reasonable enough, but the Noble Lord's draughtsmen have inserted in the Bill the words "without the consent of both Houses of 1928 Parliament." That means that if the Government of the day decide that the cost of the Indian Navy shall be thrown on the Indian Exchequer, then by Resolution of this House and another place with an automatic majority, the revenues of India are to be charged with the cost while the Indian Navy is being used for these other purposes. This must be read in conjunction with Subsection (2), which says it shall be
employed for the purposes of the Government of India loan, except that if the Governor-General declares ….That means that this force will usually be employed for the purposes of the Government of India alone, but the Governor-General can say, "No, it shall not be used 1929 for those purposes alone," and then a Resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament in London, and the revenues of India are charged with the cost. That, we think, is unfair, and my Amendment is to leave out the words "without the consent of both Houses of Parliament," so that the Bill will then read that "the revenues of India shall not be applicable" when the Navy is used for other purposes than those of the Government of India, in accordance with Subsection (2).Therefore, it is now a question of who shall pay the piper when we call the tune. It might be said that there is the safeguard of Parliament, but look at the constitution of this Parliament at the present time! There is the greatest Conservative majority that has ever sat in this House, and I venture to say the most docile and servile, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir P. Wise) and another hon. Member. At the crack of the whip, the whole of the Conservative party, 415 strong, are to be seen scurrying into the Lobby. Indeed, since the Prime Minister put the Noble Lord on the Front Bench, there is no independence on the back benches at all. We shall be told by the Under-Secretary, "Oh, but look at the safeguard of both Houses of Parliament." I say that with a Conservative majority in power to-day, there is no bulwark at all against the executive. There is no safeguard for the taxpayers of this country and certainly none for the taxpayers of India. Therefore, this is an altogether illusory safeguard. When the Labour party was in power, the back benches always ruled the roost—an excellent thing for keeping the Cabinet up to its work. I wish the back benches opposite would show a little backbone, and then we should have the present Cabinet stirred up.
However, I must not enter into a digression about the servility of the back benches; but I do wish to say—and I think it will be agreed by all fair-minded people—that this so-called safeguard is illusory. The present force is a small and a cheap one. The present cost is only about 63 lakhs of rupees, but there is no reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) pointed out when the Bill was introduced, once you get this Bill through Parliament why you should not greatly strengthen the Indian Navy and make it 1930 quite a costly affair, and then it would be a very serious matter. I think it would be a thoroughly healthy principle, that when the Admiralty takes over this force for purposes other than those of the., Government of India, we should pay. It is only fair; India, is a poor country. If we take this force and use it, the least we can do is to pay for it. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition on my part.
§ Mr. SNELLI beg to second the Amendment.
I second this Amendment on the ground that has been put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that though the words would appear to give to India some security in the matter of its revenues, in reality those words are quite illusory. It is almost inconceivable that if there were a state of emergency this House would hesitate for a moment, especially if the present Government were in power, to take this arm from the Indian people and put the cost on the Indian revenue. The Noble Lord, in speaking this afternoon, told us that this was a very small affair, that there was no large Navy contemplated. It was to be merely a symbol of a naval power rather than a power in itself. If that be so, then the Imperial power could afford to pay for it. If it is going to be so very small, it is not worth while running the risk of creating a false impression in India in this particular matter. If the Navy be small, the cost involved will be small, and, on that account, the Imperial power ought to pay for it.
5.0 p.m.
If the Noble Lord will forgive me, I would like to revert for a moment to what drew from him certain amused comments that we on this side should claim to be Imperialists of any kind. But it does seem to me that the real Imperial view is to take the long view in the matter, and that is, if you are going to take the Indian Navy from its shores, to use it in any other part of the Empire for any purpose whatever, the decent thing is to pay for it, and not to run the risk of the Indian people feeling that they have got to pay for it themselves. It is really a matter of psychology. What we in all parts of the House want, I assume, is to get the Indian people more and more associated with the government of the various parts of the Empire, 1931 and this would appear to imply a distrust from the very beginning. It would seem to suggest that they would not willingly cooperate in any case of emergency. That, I think, is a very false step, and a very short-sighted view, so, in those circumstances, I hope the House will accept this Amendment and ask this country, if it takes over any portion of the Navy which is to be created, to do the decent thing and pay for it without any equivocation.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI submit that if the Government resists this Amendment then the title of the Bill is a misuse of words. The supreme control of the Navy surely indicates its ownership. If the supreme control is to be vested in this House, then the Navy ceases to be an Indian Navy and becomes for all practical purposes a British Navy. It is surprising that the policy outlined here should emanate from the Conservative party. India is to be asked to pay entirely for its ships and for its Navy. Every penny of the cost is to be met from revenue collected from the poor Indian people. The Conservative party comes along and asks us to accept the principle that, although the Navy is paid for by India, and, according to all the rules of property, should therefore belong to India, we should insist on the right, when it suited our purpose, to be entitled to confiscate this Navy. Coming from the Conservative party, who are continually lecturing us on the terrible evil of using the word confiscation, it does compel one to think. Of course, it is only in keeping with the history and tradition of the party opposite. Just as in the class war, they denounce us for using the phrase, in the same way they denounce us for using the word confiscation, but they practise the class war whenever it suits them, and they practise confiscation and robbery whenever it suits them. After all, in this they are only carrying out in regard to the Navy what has been their traditional policy in the treatment of India generally. They are in India for the purpose of robbing the toilers of that country, and they are only carrying to its logical conclusion that policy when they lay it down as a Governmental principle that, although India is to have a Navy and is to pay for the Navy, whenever the Navy is wanted by us we 1932 will seize that Navy and use it, and will not even undertake to pay for it during the time we have it in our possession.
§ Earl WINTERTONIn reply to the Amendment I would just like to say, if I may do so without offence to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), that I heard him with great pleasure, though I cannot pretend to have any measure of agreement with him on the matter. I thank him for the compliment he paid to me with regard to my independence. I would reply that, however independent I may have been in the old days, I was never sufficiently independent to make two speeches on the same point So far as I can see the point now raised by the hon. and gallant Member is the same point that we have been discussing on the previous Amendment, and he will therefore excuse me if I do not enter into a lengthy reply to some of the arguments which he brought forward, because they have been discussed on the previous Amendment. But I will reply to his main argument, which was that it would be a great mistake to offend the susceptibilities of the Indian people by putting a provision of this kind in the Bill, and that it would be very much better to exclude it altogether. I can only reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the same way as I replied on the previous Amendment, and as I replied to a similar Amendment moved in Committee upstairs. I think he has no authority to say that the Indian people would be offended by this provision. It is exactly the same provision, in other words, as is applied to the needs of the Army. The Army cannot be used outside of India and paid for out of Indian revenues without the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the procedure in this Clause is exactly the same as in the case of the Army.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIf the Noble Lord will forgive me, I must point out that he is wrong when he says that the Indian Navy cannot be used and paid for without the consent of this House. Sub-section 2 does not say anything about the consent of this House, but about the consent of the Governor-General in Council. It is only where payment is concerned that the consent of this House comes in.
§ Earl WINTERTONI said that the Indian Navy could not be used or paid for, 1933 but I will say that the Indian Navy cannot be used and paid for—I will alter the word "or" to "and"—and a claim made for it from the Indian revenues without the consent of this House. I say it is quite obvious that if this Bill becomes an Act, the position will be exactly the same in respect of the Navy as it is in respect of the Army. I see no reason of any sort why offence should be taken in the case of the Navy. This is a similar provision to that provided in the case of the Army, and I fail to see why there should be any difference. The truth is that this has been the method and the procedure followed in the case of the Army for years past, and it has been found satisfactory. I think it is extremely unlikely that this House would be asked by this or any subsequent Government to devote the revenues of India to this purpose. I think it very unlikely that the power laid down would be used. It has not been used in the case of the Indian Army since the war. It is very unlikely to be used. It is only there because it is considered to be the most convenient and proper method of procedure should the emergency arise. The effect of the Amendment, of course, is negative.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYNo, it is not negative at all.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe effect of the Amendment would be that this part of the Sub-section would read:
the revenues of India shall not be applicable to defraying the expenses of any such vessels or forces ….The Amendment makes complete nonsense of this Sub-section, because it puts for the first time in an Act of Parliament words which would completely alter the procedure. But the whole point is that it is very unlikely that this Sub-section would be operative at all. It has not been put into operation in the case of the Army, and it is very unlikely to be put into operation in the case of the Navy. If the Amendment was carried, what would be the situation? That is why I used the term nonsense. Perhaps it is not the right term to use in that connection, but the situation would be that in no circumstances could India be asked to provide money to defray the expenses of any vessels used outside Indian territorial waters. I do not think that this House 1934 is anxious to impose any such restrictive covenant upon India or upon the Indian people, to whom reference has been made in this Debate. Once again, as I said when speaking on the first Amendment, I refuse to believe that Indian patriotism is of such a restrictive character.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYindicated dissent.
§ Earl WINTERTONI see the hon. and gallant Member is not satisfied. Let me read the Sub-section to him. The Subsection states:
Where any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General in Council are in accordance with the provisions of this Act placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India shall not"—this is where the Amendment will come in, and how the. Sub-section will read if it is carried:be applicable to defraying the expenses of any such vessels or forces if and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.I say that that is nonsense because it is putting a restrictive covenant upon the Indian people. It says that in the future, at no time, however much it might be desired by the people of India and by Indian public opinion, in no circumstances can they give money, even if they wanted to do so, for general naval defence. This Amendment really makes nonsense of the Bill and is quite unnecessary. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said about the position of this country and India generally, let me tell him that, when it is in order, which I submit it is not on this Bill, to raise the general question, I shall be very glad to answer him fully on the statement which he in a responsible position saw fit to make, that we have always Been in India purely for the purposes of robbery.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI cannot understand how the Noble Lord can pretend that the omission of these words will make nonsense of Sub-section (1) of the Bill. The Bill as it stands provides in the first place for an Indian Navy. In the second place in Sub-section (2) it provides that in certain circumstances the Navy shall be used for purposes other than the purposes of the Government of 1935 India. Sub-section (1) states that in general when it is so used other than for the purposes of the Government of India it shall not be paid for by the Indian people. All our Amendment does is to remove the exception in Sub-section (1). If our Amendment is carried it will make perfectly good sense. I was very much amused, in the course of the Noble Lord's speech, to hear him use the actual words which he accused me of using when he said that I had talked absolute rubbish when I pointed out that the distinction between the forces being used in and around India, and he took me very severely to task for that. He said it was absurd to pretend that you could limit the place in which a Navy would be used, and that he could not make the distinction which I had drawn. When I pointed out to him that I was endeavouring to express in other words the distinction contained in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, namely, the distinction between the Navy being used for the purposes of the Government of India and being used otherwise, he said that was an entirely different thing. Yet when he himself comes to expound Sub-section (1) he uses the same words which he had found fault with me for using in regard to the distinction. I think that is the best comment on the Noble Lord's attitude to me in regard to the Bill.
The Noble Lord says further that he does not think that the expense ever will be thrown on the Indian people in this case. That is very likely so, but our answer to that is that, if it be really true that this power is never going to be used, why on earth do you put it in? It seems to me merely to be arousing suspicion quite unnecessarily. I should have thought it was perfectly clear that, if the Government of this country did intend under certain circumstances to use this Indian Navy, not for the purposes of the Government of India but for the purposes of this country, the people of this country, in common decency, should pay for the use of the Navy in those circumstances. I do not think so ill of hon. Members opposite or of the Noble Lord himself as to imagine that they would take any other course. We do not know at present what is going to be done in this connection with regard to the use of the Indian Army in China, but I imagine that this 1936 country will foot the bill in that case, and I believe that it is extraordinarily unlikely that, even with this provision in, the Government of this country would be so mean as to throw the burden upon India, not when the Indian Navy was used just outside that country but when it was definitely used for this country. Therefore, what is the use of arousing suspicion and making ourselves appear as if we were going to be so mean, when the Noble Lord himself has said that it is very unlikely that we should use this power? I strongly support the Amendment.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt is an awful thing to find that the Noble Lord can sometimes nod. It is like a, sign almost of approaching age. Evidently he had not read the Amendment, he had not got up his case, he had not been properly coached, because this Amendment is not only common sense but it makes the Bill a good deal more sensible. The substantial words of the Clause are
Where any naval forces … are … placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India shall not be applicable … if … they are not employed on Indian naval defence.Those are the substantial words of the Clause, and they remain if this Amendment is carried, but if the Amendment is not carried, we are told that, where any naval forces are placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India shall not be applicable without the consent, not of India, but of the Houses of Parliament, if they are not employed on Indian naval defence. In the first place, I think the alteration ought to be made, because it would carry out the universal practice of our relations with India. The Noble Lord seemed to be under the impression that the Indian Government paid for the troops used in France in the Great War, but I do not think that was so. I think our relations with India, so far as the Army is concerned, have been that we have always, without any exception, paid the expenses of those troops when used away from India. I am almost certain that we did it in the Egyptian War, and again in the South African War.
§ Earl WINTERTONI am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I did not intend to suggest that India paid the cost. The extra cost was paid for by this country, 1937 but India gave a large money sum towards the expenses of the Great War, and I think—although it is a long time ago, and I should have to look up the references—also in the case of some previous wars. The effect of this Amendment would be to prevent India from doing that.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThen I am quite right. There has not been a single occasion on which India has helped us with her Army, either in South Africa, or in Egypt, or in Flanders, or, I think, at the present time in China, where the Imperial Exchequer has not paid the cost of the Indian troops. It has been the universal practice. In fact, it is one of the points upon which every Indian Administration has always insisted, that when the Indian troops were used outside India for Imperial purposes the Imperial Government should pay. That has been the universal practice so far as the Army is concerned, and presumably it will be so far as the Navy is concerned. The Noble Lord says that India contributed towards the cost of the War. She did, and a very generous contribution it was, but it was not specifically earmarked for the cost of troops in France. That came out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, and if it came out of our pockets in those days, when we were extremely hard up for money, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we should call upon India to pay the cost of the Indian Navy if it were used in parallel or similar circumstances. That being so. obviously, if we leave these words out, the situation for the Indian Navy will be exactly similar to that for the Indian Army.
I wish the House could picture themselves for one moment in the position of India. If this Amendment is carried, this Clause is a perfectly honest bargain between England and India. If, however, the Amendment is not carried, just think what will be the impression created upon the ordinary Indian elector or politician. They will say: "Here is a straightforward bargain, but, at the instance of one party to the bargain, the contract can be upset, and the English Parliament can free themselves from the liability of paying for the Indian Navy." Apart altogether from the fact that we never have done it in the case of the Indian Army, and apart from the fact that I 1938 cannot imagine any Parliament deliberately putting the burden upon the Indians, especially in the future, as the Indian self-governing institutions grow, apart from that, we could not be comfortable in the position where we should be voting money into our own pockets. We should be using the power of Great Britain actually to make the Indians pay for what, under the terms of the original bargain, we had to pay for. If it were the Indian Legislative Assembly and the Indian Council of State that had the power of saying: "No, we will not ask England to pay in this particular case; we realise that their burdens are heavier than ours, and, therefore, we will sanction the expenditure coming out of India's pocket," then the position would be understandable, and it would be in the long run, in my opinion, far more financially beneficial to the people of this country.
We may put these powers in this Bill, but we know we cannot use them, as we never have in the case of the Army. We know, therefore, that they will be of no service to us financially at any time, and yet, instead of leaving it to the decision of the beneficiaries, the British taxpayer and the British House of Commons, if we leave it to the Indian Parliament we might, when we are in dire straits, find that assistance there for which we could not ask, but which we might very well receive if it were given. I think this Amendment has quite the strongest case behind it of any Amendment that I have seen for a long time past. It would improve the Bill, it would improve the opinion of India in regard to this Bill, and it would improve our chances of getting financial assistance. As a very strong supporter of the idea of an Indian Navy—I want to see India build up its own defensive forces, officered by Indians—I should strongly urge that the Bill be improved by the acceptance of this Amendment, and that thereby we should show that we here, in this country, are not anxious to queer the pitch by having words in a contract which are one-sided and could be used for our benefit, although we do not intend so to use them.
§ Major CRAWFURDUntil the intervention of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who is always as clear as he is 1939 emphatic, a great part of this Debate seemed to me to be taken up with an attempt at explaining what the Amendment is. The Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for India, tried to show that what was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in this Amendment was nonsense, and the hon. and gallant Member himself was endeavouring to show that, at any rate, if be did not know what the Amendment meant, he knew what he meant it to mean, and the result, to my mind, seems to be that, up to this point, we are not clear as to what the effect of the Amendment is. The Noble Lord, in his intervention in the middle of the speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, discussed the case of the Indian troops in France, and said that, although they were not called upon to pay for the upkeep and cost of those troops in France—
§ Earl WINTERTONNot the extra upkeep.
§ Major CRAWFURD—they nevertheless contributed a large sum of money to the. general cost of the War. Could the Noble Lord or, if I may say so, one of his more lucid colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] The Noble Lord has tried twice to make clear what is the effect of the Amendment, and I would still like to know whether, if the words of the Amendment were accepted, that would debar the Indian Government from making a contribution of the same kind as it made after the Great War. If so, I am in this dilemma, that I am against the Amendment, but if it is not so, if the effect of the Amendment is merely to prevent the revenues of India being compulsorily taken, I am for the Amendment. Before we go to a Division, I should like to have some authoritative account of what it really means.
§ Earl WINTERT0NI will endeavour to answer the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for West Waltham-stow (Major Crawfurd), although it was couched in a very discourteous form.
§ Major CRAWFURDNo, no!
§ Earl WINTERTONI will answer the question to the best of my ability, and I will say that, in the first place, in regard 1940 to the cost of the troops during the War, India was not asked to pay more than the normal cost of upkeep. That is to say, India did not wish to profiteer, and she paid what she would have paid in peace time, and the extra cost between the normal cost of upkeep and what it cost to keep troops in the War zone was paid out of Imperial Revenues. The Government of India gave a large money contribution to the cost of the war, however, and my answer to the specific question put by the hon. and gallant Member is that, to the best of my knowledge, the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent. India from making a similar contribution in future in respect of naval operations. The words are
to defraying the expenses of any such vessels or forces if and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.Previously the Clause speaks of revenue, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a Government cannot make a gift of money except out of revenue.
§ Major CRAWFURDMay I be allowed one minute to make a personal explanation? The Noble Lord has referred to my question as having been couched in discourteous language. I want him to accept it from me that nothing was further from my mind than any idea of being discourteous. The phrase more or less slipped out, or was used in the Pickwickian or ironical sense.
§ Earl WINTERTONI am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Mr. AMMONIt seems to me the Noble Lord himself, in the intervention which he made just before his last intervention, made the case for the applause my hon. Friends have given him. What he said about a grant of money having been made by India in respect of movements of troops in times past makes it quite clear that this Amendment will strengthen his Bill. We did not need the consent of both Houses of Parliament to that grant of money. The Indian Government can grant any sums of money they like without coming to this Parliament. This Amendment simply seeks to remove words in order to make that quite clear. May I remind the Noble Lord of the discussion which took place in Committee when my hon. Friends moved to insert certain words to bring about what they desired, and the hon. Member for Penryn and Fal- 1941 mouth (Mr. Pilcher) expressed himself in such doubt that the Noble Lord had to tell him that the interpretation of the Opposition was quite correct? His own Friends desired to remove the words which we are now moving to omit, in order to make the Clause quite clear. The very illustration he brought forward in regard to Egypt and South Africa and the last War when grants of money were made by India to meet the expenses makes it quite clear that they will not be debarred, but that it is not essential, in any case, to have the consent of the British House of Commons.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI hope the Noble Lord will maintain his resistance to this Amendment, because, as far as I can see if it were inserted, it would make this Clause perfectly ludicrous. The suggestion is that without the consent of both Houses of Parliament no money from Indian sources is to be applicable to defraying the expenses of such vessels or forces so long as they are not employed on Indian naval protection. That would mean that the actual wages of the crews, and so forth, could not. be paid. The position is altogether different from that of the Army during the War. The wages of the crews could not be paid if the vessels were utilised for purposes outside India's defence. But what is Indian naval defence? Naval defence is universal, and if the British Empire were engaged in dealing with an emergency, and some of these vessels were required, or if a certain mine field had been laid down and some of these vessels were engaged in sweeping up the mines it would be impossible to say that that was our defence. All the afternoon hon. Members opposite have been saying we are robbing the poor Indian peasant to pay for our naval defence. What absolute nonsense. What about the hundreds of millions of money of the English taxpayers spent on keeping the peace in India for the last 200 years? We do not get any credit in this country for what the British taxpayer has to pay for the defence of those people. Now, for the first time, they are paying for their own vessels under their own control and to suggest that if ever they go out of Indian waters payment for them by the Indian Government should stop, and the cost should be borne by the British Admiralty, would be a perfectly ludicrous position for the Indian Government.
§ Mr. J. JONESI always thought this House stood for the principle of no taxation without representation. In our school days, at any rate, we were led to understand that our greatness was founded upon that principle. Now we are talking about the people of India having control over their own affairs. What a figment of the imagination! The great mass of the Indian people have no voice in saying what shall be done in any Department of their Government. The largest portion of those who control the Government of India are what are called Anglo-Indians, the people who go to India for a certain number of years and come home to England to live upon the results. We are told the Indian people have an Army and a Navy of their own. When has the Army been used to defend the people of India? Who has attacked the people of India? Why, we have;. and yet we are told that we have an Army to defend India. We, know what we mean. We have an Army to defend our interests in India, and now we are going to have a Navy—just to show there is no ill feeling.
The Navy is not to be used solely for the purpose of defending India, it is to be a supplementary force to our Navy when this is engaged in other parts of the world; and if we use the Indian Navy it is only honest that we should pay for it. That is all that is meant by this Amendment, so far as I can understand it. Not being a lord or an ex-student of a university, I may be a little bit dense; but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said we were not in India for India's good, but for our own good, why cannot we be honest enough to admit it? Of the 300,000,000 people there not 5,000,000 have a voice in saying how they shall be governed, who shall be in control, and how criminal offences shall be dealt with; and-yet we are told by people talking with their tongues in their cheeks and marbles in their mouths that we are there for their good. No, we are there for their goods. If we wish to protect our propertied interests in India we ought to be men enough to pay the cost. If we call this Navy away from its own shores to fight or to patrol in any other part of the world, the bill is ours and nobody else's. But the impoverished people of India are to be called upon to pay.
1943 The average income of the Indian ryot is not more than £l a year, not £l a week. There are hon. Members who get more in one year for not telling the truth in this House than the Indian native gets in 10,000 years for working honestly. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, I know I cannot speak so politely as some of you,, but I can tell the truth more honestly.
§ Mr. E. BROWNLet somebody else say that.
§ Mr. JONESI will always give way to the big noise. We say that if we have an Indian Empire, it ought to be a real Empire based upon fraternity amongst the people. Let the native of India have equal rights with the native of Great Britain. No nation is good enough to dominate another, and no nation is poor enough to be dominated by another.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYOn a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Amendment?
§ Mr. JONESThe hon. and gallant Member may know a great deal more about the Rules of the House than I do, but not as much as you, Mir. Deputy-Speaker, do. I will submit to your ruling, but never to his. In the course of this Debate reference was made to the connection between Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. There is no such connection. Australia is a democratic State,, where all the adult population have the right to say what kind of Government they shall live under, what kind of force they shall have and how it shall be used. New Zealand has the same right, and so has Canada: and yet for the purpose of gaining a party political point it is submitted that India stands in the same relationship to the Empire as those great self-governing Dominions. We stand for the same rights for India as for Canada, Australia and any other parts of the Empire. The people of India have no voice in saying what shall or what shall not be done. It is done without their consent and without their being consulted. Therefore, we claim that we are doing quite right in bringing forward this Amendment. If the people of India want to be real partners in this great Empire they ought to come in on terms of equality with all other parts of the 1944 Empire, be treated with the same respect and have the same rights as any others belonging to this great Empire which we are so proud of boasting about.
§ Mr. THURTLEThe Noble Lord suggested that if the Amendment were carried it would be impossible for payment to be made for the Indian naval forces if they were employed outside Indian waters. I submit that that is an incorrect reading of the Amendment. The contingency envisaged by this Amendment is a special contingency. The Clause says:
Where any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General in Council are in accordance with the provisions of this Act placed at the disposal of the Admiralty.I want the Noble Lord to take note of that phrase,are in accordance with the provisions of this Act.If he turns to Sub-section (2) he will see that it has reference to a state of emergency declared to exist by the Governor-General, and it is only in such circumstances that this particular Clause becomes operative. In the ordinary course of events, when the ordinary management of the Indian Navy prevails, the vessels may go to the uttermost ends of the Seven Seas and it will still be possible for payment to be made out of the Indian Revenue. I would draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney) to the last few words of this particular Subsection, where it says:If and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.At any time when they were employed upon Indian naval defence, it does not matter where, this particular Sub-section would not become operative. I think that disposes of the point he made.I rose, however, to deal more particularly with the extraordinary vehemence displayed by the Noble Lord in resenting the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). My right hon. Friend said, and I think with truth, that the British, Government were largely in India for what they could make out of India. That was hotly resented by the Noble Lord. On this occasion my right hon. Friend was not being original. Usually when he contributes to a Debate 1945 he is original. In this case he was quoting a most distinguished Member of the present Government, quoting a remark made by the present Home Secretary some time before he became Home Secretary. One day when speaking about India he said in a burst of candour:
Let us be frank. Let us clear all our minds of cant. We are not in India for the love of the Indians, but we are in India for what we can make out of it.That was what was said by the present Home Secretary in a burst of candour, and it has been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. The next time a Member of the present Government, thinking about India honestly and reveals his thoughts honestly, he will say exactly the same thing, that we are in India not for the good of the Indians, but for what we can make out of them.
§ Mr. BUCHANANA question has been asked about the British contribution to the general cost of the Navy. In his speech the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) said that Great Britain and the taxpayers of this country bad never got enough credit for the £300,000,000 which they had paid towards the defence of India by maintaining the British Army and the British Navy, and he compared that with the contribution which the Indian natives are asked to make towards the defences of this country. There is, however, this difference, that Great Britain makes her contribution to the Navy with the consent, or with the partial consent, of the British people through the House of Commons. The £300,000,000 has been paid by the consent of the British people to some extent, but in the case of India we are asking her for a contribution to be made for the purposes of another people without the consent of the people who are called upon to pay. It may be argued that we have been very good to India, and that we have ruled India better than the Indians could have ruled themselves; but after all, because we think we are better rulers of somebody else, that does not give us the right to rule them. For many years, we thought we could rule Ireland better than they could rule themselves. [An HON MEMBER: "So we can."] At any rate, between the present Government 1946 of Ireland and the Government of this country I have no hesitation in saying where the choice would be.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)I think the hon. Member is now going beyond the scope of this Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI acknowledge that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have given me a fair amount of toleration. and I apologise for having gone outside your ruling. The point I was dealing with was one made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, that we got no credit for the £300,000,000 we had paid extending over many years towards the defence of India. That £300,000,000 was paid with the consent of the British House of Commons, but the contribution which the Indians are being asked to make under this proposal is not being made with the consent of the Indian people or any Government representing them. I contend that we have no right to impose on the Indian people anything, whether it be good or bad, unless the Indian people have given their full consent, and unless it is done with a full knowledge of what they are being asked to consent to. Therefore, our Amendment is simply one asking that, if the Indian Navy be sent out of the Indian area, this country should pay for its use when the Navy is not being used for Indian purposes. We hear a good deal of talk about the sanctity of contracts, and we are told that we cannot reduce the interest on the War Loan because it would break a national bargain, but when you are asking for the use of the Indian Navy outside Indian waters you refuse to pay for that service. I think the Amendment ought to be supported, and I am surprised at the Noble Lord resisting such a reasonable proposal.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI want to support the Amendment, and I cannot for the life of me understand the attitude of the Government on this matter. All we are asking is that when the British Navy use the Royal Indian Navy the British Government shall pay for its use. Surely we do not want it to go out to the world that we are a country of tyrants, and that the rulers of the British Empire, this great commonwealth of nations, consists of a body of men 1947 who have set the heather on fire as far as the Royal Indian Navy is concerned. Surely you do not want to advertise to the world by opposing this Amendment that you are deliberately organising the Indian Navy not for the protection of India but for the use of the British Empire. By refusing this Amendment you are telling the workers that you are going to use the Indian Navy, and that in doing so you are not going to consider the Indians in any shape or form. I think for barefaced audacity this is absolutely the limit. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) says that the boys of the bulldog breed have defended this poor belated race known as "Indians" for a good many years, and that people of this poor type of humanity are not able to stand up and defend themselves against a fierce and warlike race which might come trooping down from the mountainous regions away in the North. I want the House to understand what we are really asking for by our Amendment. We are simply asking for a square deal, and that is the classic language of the Prime Minister. It has always been our duty and our privilege to defend the Indian race against the ruling classes of this country. What are the conditions that prevail in India? What is it that India has to defend? Why should they require a navy? I have here a Report of the conditions prevailing in Bombay, which is part of India, and it says—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Question before the House is not whether India requires a navy, but whether the words "Both Houses of Parliament" are to be left in this Bill.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODSeeing that you will not allow me to go the way I want to go, I wish to say that I desire to show up this despicable Government, and I should think that is quite in order. At any rate, if I were in the Chair it certainly would be in order, because I have -a bias against the Government—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must wait until he gets in the Chair. For the moment, I am in the Chair, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue to make irrelevant remarks.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. STEPHENI want to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I listened carefully to the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for India, and I tried to get the point he was endeavouring to make. I do not think the Noble Lord was very convincing in the. position which he took up. As far as I could make out his explanation, it was that, if this Amendment were accepted, the Indian revenues could not be used by the Governor-General in Council in order to make a grant in connection with any special emergency or for some special purpose. An illustration has been given relating to the contribution that was made by India during the Great War. I do not think it follows at all, if the fact is definitely laid down, as this Amendment would lay it down, that this force is not to be used except for the purpose of Indian naval defence, that the charge involved in the use of this force is not to be borne by India unless with the consent of both Houses of Parliament here. It appears to me that this contribution by India, if there were a special emergency, might be made quite apart from being spent in this particular fashion in' connection with this Indian Naval Force. The financial contribution that India made during the Great War was not a distinctive contribution in regard to paying the wages of Indian soldiers, though evidently the hon. and gallant Member opposite thought that the sailors would not be able to get their wages unless this Amendment was defeated. None of those things follow at all. If Britain is going to use this Indian Navy for some of the purposes of the British Empire, then the British Government should arrange for the payment of the Navy in that respect. If this purpose of the British Empire were one that commended itself to the Indian people, if the naval and military commitments were such as to involve a big expenditure, and the Indian people thought it was of value to them as a part of the British Empire, there is nothing in this Amendment which would prevent it. I quite admit that it would prevent the expenditure of money specifically in connection with this Indian Naval Force, but it does not prevent the Indian Government from 1949 contributing in a different form its share as one of the parts of the British Empire.
There would also be this advantage, if the Amendment were accepted by the Government, that, if India were called upon to make any contribution in connection with any serious trouble in which her forces were used, India would come in and make her contribution in the same way as any of the Dominions that make up the Commonwealth of the British Empire. India would be put into the same position as any of the great self-governing Dominions in this respect, in that her Navy could not be used at her expense on something that was an Imperial matter, and not specifically an Indian matter. I hope I have made it as lucid to the Nable Lord as he made it, when he was making his statement from the other point of view. Certainly, in view of this discussion, I think we should have a further reply from the Government on this important Amendment. It is the worst thing that the Government can do, in connection with their Indian policy, to be put in the position that this Indian Navy is going to be created at any time with the consent,
§ not of India, but of the Houses of Parliament here. India has got to pay the bill for the use of her Navy on something which does not concern India at all. It is about the worst thing, at least, so it seems to me, in connection with the difficulties we have got to face in view of the distrust that has been created in connection with our relationship to India. I do not mean to suggest that it is the worst thing this Government could do. My imagination could scarcely conceive the extraordinarily disagreeable things and the horrible depths to which this Government could go in its general policy; but, in connection with its Indian policy, I think it would be advisable, if the Noble Lord is concerned with the possibility of India making a contribution in an Imperial emergency in the future, that India should make her contribution quite apart from the consent of the Houses of Parliament in this country in regard to the use of the Indian Navy.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 126.
1953| Division No. 74.] | AYES. | [6.7 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Burcoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Burman, J. B. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Albery, Irving James | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Caine, Gordon Hall | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Campbell, E. T. | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Carver, Major W. H. | England, Colonel A. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Atkinson, C. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Balniel, Lord | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Chapman, Sir S. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Fermoy, Lord |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Chlicott, Sir Warden | Forrest, W. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston Spencer | Foster, Sir Henry S. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Clayton, G. C. | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. |
| Berry, Sir George | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Bethel, A. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Gates, Percy. |
| Blades, sir George Rowland | Cooper, A. Duff | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cope, Major William | Goff, Sir Park |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Couper, J. B. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Grant, Sir J. A. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Crawfurd, H. E. | Greaves- Lord, Sir Walter |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (Nth'l'd., Hexham) | Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks,Nawb'y) | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) |
| Bollock, Captain M. | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | MacIntyre, Ian | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Harney, E. A. | McLean, Major A. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Malone, Major P. B. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley) | Margesson, Captain D. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Henderson, Lieut -Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. | Meller, R. J. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Merriman, F. B. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Herbert,S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by] | Meyer, Sir Frank | Strauss, E. A. |
| Hills, Major John Walter | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hilton, Cecil | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Holt, Capt. H. P. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Nicholson,Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Nuttall, Ellis | Tinne, J. A. |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Penny, Frederick George | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Perring, Sir William George | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Waddington, R. |
| Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Philipson, Mabel | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on Hull) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's) | Price, Major C. W. M. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Radford, E. A. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Raine, W. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Jacob, A. E. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Wells, S. R. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Remer, J. R. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rentoul, G. S. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Rice, Sir Frederick | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Kindersley, Major G. M. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Ropner, Major L. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Withers, John James |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Salmon, Major I. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Sandon, Lord | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Lougher, Lewis | Savery, S. S. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Lumley, L. R. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Shepperson, E. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Colonel Cibbs and Mr. P. C Thomson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Compton, Joseph | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Connolly, M. | Hardie, George D. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cove, W. G. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hayday, Arthur |
| Baker, Walter | Day, Colonel Harry | Hayes, John Henry |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Dennison, R. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Barnes, A. | Duncan, C. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Barr, J. | Dunnico, H. | Hirst, G. H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Gardner, J. P. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Broad, F, A. | Gibbins, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Bromfield, William | Gillett, George M. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Bromley, J. | Gosling, Harry | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Buchanan, G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Kelly, W. T. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Kennedy, T. |
| Clowes, S | Groves, T. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Grundy, T. W. | Kirkwood, D. |
| Lansbury, George | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Riley, Ben | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Lawson, John James | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lee, F. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland) | Townend, A. E. |
| Lindley, F. W. | Rose, Frank H. | Viant, S. P. |
| Lowth, T. | Salter, Or. Alfred | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Lunn, William | Sexton, James | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Mackinder, W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Sitch, Charles H. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| March, S. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Maxton, James | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Westwood, J. |
| Montague, Frederick | Snell, Harry | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Mosley, Oswald | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Stamford, T. W. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Oliver, George Harold | Stephen, Campbell | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Palin, John Henry | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Paling, W. | Sullivan, Joseph | Windsor, Walter |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sutton, J. E. | Wright, W. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Taylor, R. A. | |
| Potts, John S. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Purcell, A. A | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley. |
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, on page 1, line 17, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words, "and of both Houses of the Indian Legislature."
I hope the Noble- Lord will not say he does not understand this Amendment. I think it is very clear. This is still on the question of the payment for the extra cost of the Indian Navy when employed away from Indian waters and outside the jurisdiction of the Indian Government. The House has just decided that where the consent of this House and another place has been obtained we can make the Indian revenues bear the cost of the Indian Navy, even when the Governor-General decides to put it at the disposal of the Admiralty and when it is used, in the terms of the next Sub-section, other than for the purposes of the Indian Government only. It will then read as follows:
Where any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General in Council are, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, placed at the disposal of the Admiralty the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament and of both Houses of the Indian Legislature, be applicable to defraying the expenses of those forces if and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.The political ancestors of the Noble Lord, not his lineal but his political ancestors, made the mistake of attempting to tax the colonists of New England without their consent, and the Tory party of that day, wiser in many respects than the Tory party of this day, nevertheless were so obstinate and stubborn that they lost us what is now the United States of 1954 America. We on these benches, the guardians of the British Empire in its true sense—a Noble Lord below the Gangway whose political ancestors were on our side on that occasion, as they were great Whigs, laughs at that idea. I am sorry to say the Whig element in the Conservative party has not permeated the foreign and Imperial policy of that party. We in this case are the Imperialists who are trying to safeguard the British Empire. There is no case where in practice we insist on the Indian revenues bearing the cost of the Navy in these circumstances. Therefore, I see no reason why the Under-Secretary should not be prepared to accept this Amendment. If we are prepared in particular circumstances to say the Indian revenues must bear the cost of the Navy, even although the Admiralty uses it for its own purposes, then at least consult the Indian Legislature.That is our very reasonable Amendment. The party of Morley and Montagu and other great liberators of India surely would have supported us had they been here, but they are not here. Perhaps Borne of my hon. Friends will meet them outside when the division bell rings and tell them if Morley and Montagu had been here they would surely have voted with us on this occasion. I hope the Noble Lord will not use that argument about the Indian Army. I believe the Indian troops at present being used in ' China are all paid for eventually by this House. I do not know that the matter is finally settled, but I think we shall be paying for those troops. As a matter of fact, there have been protests in India 1955 against the use of Indian troops in Shanghai. I think it is a horrible spectacle to see the troops of one Asiatic people, and Naval forces when they are in existence, used against another Asiatic people under the control of a Western Power. To get the willing service of India in a time of great emergency—and it will only be in a time of great emergency that you will use this small Navy —you must have the consent of the Indian Legislature for its use, and therefore, ipso facto, you pay India for it. I really do not see why the India Office cannot accept the Amendment. When India was tested in 1914, she came nobly to the assistance of the Empire. Why not trust them? You have these legislatures in India functioning here and there with difficulty, but nevertheless, assisted by the Secretary for India, they are making great progress. Why not give them the responsibility of deciding whether under these circumstances the Indian Navy shall be paid for by the Indian revenues? That is all we ask. It is a most reasonable proposal, and I ask the Government to accept it in the spirit in which I put it forward. I am not putting it forward to wreck the Bill. I want to see this Navy become a symbol of Indian liberty in time. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment in that spirit.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to second the Amendment.
This change will do something to remove the bad effect of not passing the last Amendment. I wish hon. Members would look on India for a few minutes as though it was Australia or any other of the self - governing Dominions. Suppose we were legislating about Australia, suppose we really wanted to get financial help if we were in a difficult position, would it not be infinitely easier to get that assistance if we showed them, in legislation such as this, that we trusted them, that we wanted their help, and that we did not want to command that help but to get the only help that is of any value, real voluntary assistance? What we say at present is that the British Government, when the Indian Navy is used outside Indian waters, can, if it so chooses, put the cost of that upon the Indian people. We have never done so in the case of 1956 the Indian Army, and we probably should never do so in the case of the Navy. But the very fact that we state definitely in our Act of Parliament that we can at any moment force the Indians to pay, naturally deprives them of any incentive to pay. We submit that, if we omit these words that payment shall be made by the Indian people instead of by the British people in certain special cases if the Navy is used not for Indian but for general purposes, it will make it far more possible for those services to be paid for by the Indian people. We make it more possible, because, if you judge the Indians by the standard of any of our three Dominions, everyone will realise that the Indian Legislature will be far more likely to give us this assistance than if we compulsorily take that assistance under the Bill as it stands. I do not believe the Noble Lord can possibly envisage any circumstances in which the British Government would ask the Indian people to pay for the use of their Fleet outside Indian waters. I do not believe he could conceive of a case where we should demand from Australia that when Australian troops are offered voluntarily to the Empire the cost should fall upon the Australians. There have been endless cases where the Australians and Canadians have paid for their troops, but they would never have done so if we had demanded it or had the right to demand it and deprive them of the right of giving it.
What we want is that India, like the rest of the Dominions, shall have the right to give, and the right to give, in war, is going to be much more valuable for the British Union than the right to demand. If we imagined that India was going to endure under its present Constitution for ever and that we were to have for all time the Government of India Act of 1919 perpetually governing the relations between this country and India, then, indeed, it is conceivable, looked at from the autocratic point of view, that it might be desirable to deprive India of any voice in this matter, but there is not a Member of the House who does not know perfectly well that the relations between this country and India are in the melting pot and that sooner or later the Government of India Act which we are amending to-day will be far more radically amended, and 1957 sooner or later India will take its place beside the other self-governing Dominions of the British Union; and, that being so, is it wise, is it necessary, to draft your amending Act in connection with the Navy in such a way as must necessarily make it more difficult for the Indian Legislature in the future to come to our assistance voluntarily in any particular crisis? Our relations with India in future must depend upon mutual trust and confidence. If they are to depend upon Acts of Parliament-like this, you will get exactly the reverse of the results the Noble Lord and we ourselves want to obtain. The trust of India can only be secured for the people of this country so long as we show that we have trust in them, and that we rely upon them to help us if need be, and that we cannot command their assistance. That is the basis of our new relations. I beg the Noble Lord to consider whether it is not possible to accept this Amendment, which will make no difference during the few short years of the present form of the Indian Constitution. Can he not accept this as an indication to the Indian people of our confidence in them, to lay down a plank upon which the future self-governing Dominion can work in co-operation, in self-respecting co-operation, with the British people and with the rest of the British Empire?
§ Mr. BUCHANANCan we not have some reply from the Noble Lord on the very important points raised by the hon. and gallant Members from this side? I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should have thought that the Amendment would have appealed to the Noble Lord's sense of justice and to his democratic sense, and that he would have accepted this very mild Amendment. Both hon. and gallant Members have put their case very ably and reasonably. They are in favour of the Indian Navy, but I am not. Surely there might have been some compromise on the part of the Noble Lord to have encouraged these hon. and gallant Members in their support of the Indian Navy.
§ Earl WINTERTONI had intended to rise when I saw the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on his feet.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI did not think the Noble Lord was going to rise. Had I thought that he intended to reply I would not have intervened.
§ Earl WINTERTONIt was a mistake on both our parts. I saw the hon. Member on his feet, and I did not want to stand in his way. I certainly intended to reply to the very interesting speech from the right hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) who moved the Amendment. I can give my answer very shortly. Most of us, in all quarters of the House, would agree very largely with the general considerations which the right hon. Member urged, but where we on this side would differ from him would be in saying that these general considerations applied to this particular Amendment, or were raised in any form by the Sub-section which we are discussing. Although I am not hopeful that I shall be able to persuade him that I am right, it seems to me that, if this Amendment were adopted, it would not be regarded in India as the gesture of goodwill which he seems to think it would be. On the other hand, if we do not adopt the Amendment, there is nothing in the Sub-section, as it stands, which would offend in any degree the susceptibilities of the Indian people. That was the main burden of his speech. If I am wrong and he is right, there would be a reason for adopting the Amendment, but there is no reason. The very important question of principle which he raised is not affected or raised by this Clause. It has never been pretended at the present transition stage of the Indian Constitution that India, through her Assembly, has full control over the revenues of India. It has never been pretended by us that she has, and, except for a very few Indians, there is no demand that that control should be given at this moment. I must not, however, get on to the wider subject. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be a Commission of Inquiry into the whole question of the relations of this House to India. Until that Commission is appointed, and the whole question is gone into, it seems to me that any Government bringing forward any proposal of this kind—if the right hon. Gentleman had been the Secretary of State for India, I believe he would have done the same thing—would apply to the new Indian Navy exactly the same provisions and form of procedure as are applied to the existing Indian Army. As I said in 1959 reply to the previous Amendments, all the Amendments moved from the benches opposite would put the Indian Navy in an absolutely different position from that in which the Army stands to-day. Let me read the position in which the Army stands. Under Section 22 of the Government of India Act, it is provided that:
Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of His Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defraying the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of those possessions by His Majesty's Forces charged upon those revenues.We have had a very good-humoured Debate, and, as the point raised in this Amendment is not a fresh point, I hope the House will be prepared to come to a decision upon it.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI am afraid that, as on the last Amendment, it is necessary to draw the attention of the Noble Lord to the meaning of the Amendment under discussion. He pretends with, I hope, an assumed innocence, not to understand the implications of the proposal before the House. He thinks that he has disposed of the principle of the Amendment by the Division which took place a few minutes ago. What is asked for in this Amendment, as I understand it, is that both Houses of the Indian Legislature on this point should be put on terms of equality with the Houses of Parliament here. The property we are dealing with is Indian property, the Indian Navy, and the Opposition submit to the Government a reasonable proposition that in dealing with their own property the Indian people, in so far as they are represented in the Indian Legislature, should have the same voice as is claimed by the Houses of Parliament representing the people who will be confiscating that Navy. I agree with the Noble Lord that the Houses of Legislature in India no more represent the Indians than we represent the Indian people, but we have to think ahead.
The world is changing very rapidly, and it is changing very rapidly as the result of the despotic policy propagated and practised by this Conservative Government. We may reasonably hope that in the future we shall have a Legislature 1960 in India really representative of the Indian people, but we cannot afford to be running the risk of a quarrel with about the only friend we have in the East. We are not particularly strong in friendly attachments with the peoples in the Eastern part of the world; we are chopping them off one by one, but we have still the Indians left. It seems to me as if Providence had provided us with a mad Government in order that we might destroy the one friendly link that exists between the East and the West. What we are claiming here is mere elementary justice, that people should have equal rights in the disposal of their own property or, as it happens to be here, in regard to payment for that property during the time that it is being used by the people who have taken possession of it. We are claiming that we should approach India upon this and every other question in a spirit of friendship rather than in the spirit of the bully. In the long run, from the Conservative point of view, that would be a very profitable policy to be used. One can easily contemplate that if this Conservative policy is to be pursued, this Indian Navy in the very near future may be used against Indian Soviets, and it may be used against Indian Soviets under the command of this Government, and the Indian people will be compelled to pay for their own destruction. That is an unreasonable and untenable position to be assumed by any party claiming to be fit to govern.
We have a case which may serve somewhat as an analogy in regard to our relations with the Irish Free State Army. In setting up the Free State in Ireland we did not in regard to the 25,000 troops, or whatever was the size of the Army which we allowed those free people to organise, while we were granting them their so-called liberty, go the length of suggesting to them that if we required to use the Army against Ireland in the future, we would retain the power to make them pay for it whilst we were using it against them. We did not claim that right with Ireland but we claim it with India. We go on stupidly insisting upon doing the wrong thing, until we are right up to the verge of ruin. Conservative policy in the past has always led us there. It has led us there industrially, it has led us there politically. We only 1961 protest friendship to people when they are in arms against us. We never adopt the wiser policy of utilising the time of peace and friendship to lay the foundations of greater peace and greater friendship. I hope that the Government, even now, may spend a few minutes in considering what this Amendment means, and the spirit that it would indicate to the Indian people if they did accept it and incorporate it in the Bill.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI rise to answer one or two points made by the Noble Lord in defending the Bill in its present form. He says that the analogy of the Army must be followed, and that it would be improper to deal with the Indian Navy in a way different from the way in which we deal with the Indian Army. That is a very hollow argument. I do not think it follows that the precise method of dealing with the financial questions in the Army should necessarily be followed in the case of the Navy. If I am not mistaken, the method of dealing with the Army is contained in the Government of India Act itself. A good deal of time has gone by since that Act was put forward, and, if we have to consider the whole matter de novo in the case of the Navy, it does not seem to follow that we are bound to adopt slavishly that precise model in dealing with the Navy. In the second place, he claims that we have no business to alter the Government of India Act because a Commission is being set up. This Bill itself is an alteration of the Government of India Act, for we are making a change in order to create this Indian Navy and, that being so, it is a perfectly proper proceeding to modify the method of handling this service when we are constructing this new idea of an Indian Navy.
In the third place, he argues that in the Government of India Act we have not given power over finance or control over the forces of the Crown to the Indian Legislature and, therefore, there is no reason why we should give them the power proposed by this Amendment. That argument does not apply in this case. In the Amendment we are not giving them control over their navy, we are merely saying that when the Governor-General considers that a state of emergency exists, and it has been decided that the navy shall be put at the disposal of this country, then the cost of 1962 that navy shall not continue to fall upon the Indian people unless the sanction of both Houses of Parliament and the Indian Legislature is given. That does not confer the wide powers which the Noble Lord thinks is inconsistent with the Government of India Act and, therefore, that argument falls to the ground. It is only reasonable that provision should be made whereby the Indian people are not saddled with a burden for which they are in no way responsible. I think the Noble Lord is taking up an unnecessarily obstinate point of view in resisting this Amendment. This is perhaps the most reasonable of all the Amendments we are putting forward, and if he continues to resist it he will be doing something which will be strongly resented among all sections of the Indian people which are vocal on this question.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI want to add one word to what has been already said from these benches. In this Bill we are asking that the Indian people shall make a contribution to the British Navy. We are asking them to find the money for their navy, and then they are to have no further control whatever over it. We are to control the whole thing. If I know anything of the condition of the Indian people, after hearing it described in this House and reading of it in various publications, it seems to me that when the Indian people have paid for the cost of the British administration and the cost of the Army in India there is very little left them to pay for the navy. I fail to see what the Indian people are going to gain from the expenditure they have to make. It is an outrageous thing that the poverty-stricken Indian peasants, who have to live on one meal a day, with not enough calico to properly clothe themselves, short of houses and short of food, should be taxed still further in order to provide an additional support to the Empire which has kept them poor, and which has exploited them all through the ages. This House will be false to its duty and to its professions of friendship to the Indian people if it insists upon passing a Measure of this description without accepting the Amendment which has been proposed, and which would give them some voice as to the way in which the navy for which they pay shall be used. That is the crux of the whole question. The Indian people, 1963 if they are compelled to pay for a navy, should have some voice as to the way in which it is used.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 272.
1965| Division No. 75.] | AYES. | [6.52 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Elland) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hayday, Arthur | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Ammon, Charles George | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sexton, James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bllston) | Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Baker, Walter | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield). | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Barnes, A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barr, J. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Batey, Joseph | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snell, Harry |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Bromley, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kirkwood, D | Sullivan, J. |
| Charleton, H. C | Lansbury, George | Sutton, J. E. |
| Clowes, S. | Lawrence, Susan | Taylor, R. A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lee, F. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lindley, F. W. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Connolly, M. | Lowth, T. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Lunn, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Townend, A. E. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Mackinder, W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dennison, R. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Viant, S. P. |
| Duncan, C. | March, S. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Montague, Frederick | Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Gillett, George M. | Mosley, Oswald | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Gosling, Harry | Naylor, T. E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Oliver, George Harold | Westwood, J. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.) | Palin, John Henry | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Paling, W. | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. | Windsor, Walter |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wright, W. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Riley, Ben | |
| Hardie, George D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Briscoe, Richard George | Colfox, Major William Phillips |
| Albery, Irving James | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cooper, A. Duff |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Cope, Major William |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Couper, J. B. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby) | Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Buckingham, Sir H. | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Apsley, Lord | Burman, J. B. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Dalziel, Sir Davison |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) |
| Atkinson, C. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Calne, Gordon Hall | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campbell, E. T. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Balniel, Lord | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Chapman, Sir S. | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Berry, Sir George | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) |
| Bethel, A. | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Betterton, Henry B, | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | England, Colonel A. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Clayton, G. C. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. VI. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Rye, F. G. |
| Fermoy, Lord | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Salmon, Major I. |
| Forrest, W. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Lamb, J. Q. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Sandon, Lord |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Savery, S. S. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Lougher, Lewis | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie |
| Gates, Percy | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Lumley, L. R. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.) |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | MacIntyre, I. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | McLean, Major A. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Greene, W. P, Crawford | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.) |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Macquisten, F. A. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Malone, Major P. B. | Strauss, E. A. |
| Hall, Capt. W D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Margesson, Captain D. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hanbury, C. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Meller, R. J. | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Merriman, F. B. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Meyer, Sir Frank | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Haslam, Henry c | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Moore, Sir Newton J, | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley) | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Waddington, R. |
| Herbert,S. (York, N.R. Scar.& Wh'by) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hilton, Cecil | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Nicholson,Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone) | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Nuttall, Ellis | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Holt, Capt. H. P. | Penny, Frederick George | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Perring, Sir William George | Wells, S. R. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hopkinson, sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Phillipson, Mabel | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Power, Sir John Cecil | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonol C. K. | Price, Major C. W. M. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Radford, E. A. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Raine, W. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Remer, J. R. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's) | Rentoul, G. S. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Rice, Sir Frederick | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Jacob, A. E. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | |
| Jones, G. W. H, (Stoke Newington) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) | Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Ropner, Major L. | Barnston. |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Earl Winterton.]
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI want to take this opportunity of entering a most emphatic protest against the provisions of this Measure. I do not know what case was or could be made out for an Indian Navy, but I know that no case can be made out for an Indian Navy which is not under the control of the Indian people. What we are asked to do here is simply 1966 farcical. We are asked to subscribe to a situation in which there will be an Indian Navy which may be taken away by the very people, who in certain conceivable circumstances may be India's chief enemy, and used by these people, while they retain in their power the right to say who is to pay for the Navy during the time it is being used without the consent of the Indian people. I have never seen a situation that revealed to a greater extent the fraudulent character 1967 of what we call native government, or self-government when we are using euphonious terms. In those circumstances, that we should talk of India having to the slightest extent control of its own forces is simply to misuse words.
I am deadly opposed to the whole principle that lies behind this Bill, and I wish to enter my strongest protest against it. India has not benefited from British rule to an extent that would justify us in imposing on it the financial conditions embodied in this Measure. India, as I understand it—I have never had the opportunity of studying it at first hand—is to-day one of the poorest parts of the earth. Whatever blessings we have brought to India, we have certainly not brought the blessings of prosperity. Yet it is on these poor people that we, the richest part of the world, are attempting to impose what is obviously an unjust financial obligation and, while pretending to be giving them a say in their own affairs, we are depriving them of the most elementary part of local government. What would we think of a state of affairs in which we here in Britain, if we were what I might term the junior partner in this commonwealth of nations, had it laid down to us by India that we might have a British Navy with the consent of India, but that, while granting us that concession, she reserved the right to take that Navy when she willed and to use it in whatever way she willed, and only by the consent of India were we to be relieved of the obligation to meet the cost of the Navy during the time it was in India's possession. Why all our blood would revolt against the indignity of the proposition. After all that is what we are attempting to impose on India. If there be anything in this popular habit of talking about the constituent parts of the British Empire as being brothers in arms, or brothers in worldly prosperity, or brothers in the battle for freedom, surely we should not have to wait until we are forced by a militarily weak constituent part to grant it elementary justice,, before we will grant it.
I wish to repeat something I said on the discussion of one of these Amendments, that it is absolutely foolish policy to be always insisting on our pound of flesh during the fraternal period of our relations with other members of the 1968 Empire. I wish we would get it out of our minds that we here are the Empire. It is the party opposite who are continually lecturing us and telling us to remember that the British Empire is something much greater than Britain. If the British Empire is something much greater than Britain, then Britain should not be always availing itself of the opportunity to impose its individual will on every part of this greater British Empire. If we believe that there is anything except the relationship of the master to the slave binding these constituent parts into what we sometimes call a commonwealth, then we should be prepared here and there to make little concessions to the spirit of fraternity and to the spirit of brotherhood.
There is not much being claimed here. It is not being claimed that India should be placed in a privileged position in relation to Great Britain within the Empire. All that is really being claimed is that, within the administration and the financing of their own property, they should have an equal voice with us. The claim seems so elementary that I cannot understand the party opposite rejecting it, but they do reject it because in their heart they show people that there is nothing like a relationship or equality or a spirit of brotherhood or equal intellect existing between these various parts at all. They believe in holding India by the sword, as they have always held it. They believe in imposing their will, which they believe to be a superior will,, on these people whom they regard as a backward section of the world's population. If there be any justification at all for Imperialism, surely it carries with it the obligation to contribute something to the intellectual elevation of the people over whom you have established your military control. You are not contributing anything when you refuse to grant them any say in their own government, which can be safely done without any risk to the Empire or any part of the Empire. This Bill is, in my opinion, in spirit totally backward, and I will be very sorry to see it get the approval of this House.
§ Mr. MAXTONI wish to support my right hon. Friend in opposition to this Bill. I have listened with very great care to the discussions that have taken place on the earlier stages of the Bill, 1969 and I am absolutely at a loss still to find out what the reasons are for producing this Measure at this time. The British connection with India goes back for a very considerable period. It is, in fact, a matter of centuries. The Noble Lord, in opposing some of the Amendments, said that this is to be a Navy in the same position as the Indian Army. I do not understand yet the reasons why we, having managed all these hundreds of years with an Army alone, should now have to introduce a Navy as well. It seems to me quite out of keeping with what is supposed to be the world trend now in the direction of peace. It seems to me a provocative step in the East, which will not bring any good reactions to the standing of Great Britain among the various populations that inhabit the East. For these reasons and for the additional reasons given by my right hon. Friend, that the whole nature of the Bill and the whole of its provisions are framed on the conception that the Indian, if a partner in the British Empire, is a very inferior and a very junior partner, I am proposing to resist this Bill having a Third Reading.
§ Mr. AMMONI very much regret that I have to declare that I shall advise my friends to vote against the Third Heading of the Bill. We have tried again and again throughout these discussions to get some Amendments accepted in order that we may show that it is indeed a Bill for an Indian Navy. We have tried to get the Government to agree to show that there is some attempt to admit the Indian people into proper co-partnership and consultation in the use of this Navy, and in regard to the money it will cost. It is because we have failed to get any acceptance of those Amendments or any advance towards the approaches we have made, which would give a real earnest that there was an intention to make this an approach to India self-government and to giving them a larger share in their own affairs, that very reluctantly we shall he obliged to vote against the Third Reading.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam)I feel that perhaps one word of explanation is necessary in regard to the speech made by the last speaker. I would point out to the House 1970 that the opposition to this Bill is based on something wholly wrong. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has seized the opportunity to accuse this party and everybody who has ever been connected with the Conservative party of having no object whatever except to live or batten upon the Indian people. Of course, it is perfectly unnecessary to drag such a futile statement into Debate when the whole point of this Bill is to carry out what is the acknowledged policy of His Majesty's Government and the British people, and that is by degrees to give to the Indian people more and more self-government and more and more interest in their own defence. I would point out to the House that at the present time the whole naval defence of India lies in the hands of the British Admiralty, and the object of this Bill is by degrees to take from the British Admiralty the responsibility for looking after the naval defence of India and to give it to the Indian people. By degrees it is no doubt the intention of the British people to give to the Indian people self-government, but you cannot do that in the twinkling of an eye. The hon. Members opposite compare the position of the Indian people to that of the great Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They must know as well as we know that you cannot compare the relative positions of those peoples at the present time.
§ Mr. AMMONWill the hon. and gallant Member permit me to say that that side of the argument was first introduced by the Noble Lord who, in rebutting an argument, said that Australia and New Zealand would resent any such odious comparisons? It was on that line that we endeavoured to get the Noble Lord to accept our Amendment.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI have listened to the whole Debate and if the hon. Member had done so he would know that my Noble Friend—
§ Mr. AMMONWhat do you mean? The hon. and gallant Member is at fault. I have been in charge on this side from the time the House met, and I have not stirred from this Box.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMIf that be the case, I apologise to the hon. Member. I was sitting here and he was sitting 1971 there, and we both sit very low in our seats and I never saw him. The whole attitude of the party opposite has been to try and show that we are trying to keep the Indian people in subjection. Let me emphasise once again that the policy which this Bill illustrates is one more stage in entrusting to the Indians the task of their own self-government and their own defence. How long it will take for us to look upon the Indian Empire as a self-governing Dominion depends very largely upon the caution and the care with which we take each step in the process of change. If hon. Members opposite attempt to advance too rapidly they are in danger of defeating their own object. When they describe this Bill as they do, they are exaggerating profoundly and giving an entirely false impression not only in this country but to India, and are probably doing a great deal more harm to the object that they have in view than if they adopted an attitude that was saner, sounder and fairer.
§ Mr. BARKERUnfortunately, I have not been able to be present throughout the Debate, but I am astonished to hear the Government say that they are creating this Navy for the purpose of giving self-government to India. That is the most hypocritical statement that could possibly be made. Why are they creating this Navy for India? Because it is
§ a long way from here to Singapore. The Government are not honest with the House. They should tell the House that they are creating this Navy to supplement the base at Singapore. To say that it is being done in order to give Home Rule to India—
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI did not say that. I said that this Bill was one further stage in a policy which this country has adopted of bringing India by degrees into the same position as the other Dominions.
§ Mr. BARKERThe Singapore policy may be right or wrong. At any rate it would be honest for the Government to say why it is bringing in this Measure? It is an insult to the Indian people to say that we are creating this Navy for the purpose of giving prestige to India. It is sheer humbug and the Government know it very well. The object is to defend this country against Japan and to use the Indian people for that purpose. If the Government were honest they would say so. But they are not honest. They are trying to cloak this Measure, and I am glad that I am in the House to vote against it.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ The House divided Ayes, 256; Noes, 122.
1975| Division No. 76.] | AYES. | [7.20 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.Colonel | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Crooke. J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Buckingham, Sir H. | Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Albery, Irving James | Bullock, Captain M. | Dalziel, Sir Davison |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Burman, J. B. | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover) | Caine, Gordon Hall | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Campbell, E. T. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Atkinson, C. | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) |
| Bainlel, Lord | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Barclay. Harvey, C. M. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | England, Colonel A. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Chapman, Sir S. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Berry, Sir George | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Bethel, A. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Clayton, G. C. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fermoy, Lord |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Forrest, W. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cooper, A. Duff | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Cope, Major William | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J. | Couper, J. B. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Gates, Percy |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Goff, Sir Park | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Lumley, L. R. | Sandon, Lord |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Savery, S. S. |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | MacIntyre, I. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | McLean, Major A. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Smithers Waldron |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Macquisten, F. A. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.) | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Stanley.Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E.) |
| Hanbury, C. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Malone, Major P. B. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Strauss, E. A. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Margesson, Capt. D. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Meller, R. J. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Merriman. F. B. | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) | Murchison, Sir Kenneth | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Hilton, Cecil | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K.P. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Waddington, R. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wallace, Captain O. E. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrslld.) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Nuttall, Ellis | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Perring, Sir William George | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.) | Phillpson, Mabel | Wells, S. R. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's) | Price, Major C. W. M. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Radford, E. A. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Raine, W. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Jacob, A. E. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Reimer, J. R. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Rentoul, G. S. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U | Wolmer. Viscount |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Rice, Sir Frederick | Womersley, W. J. |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-- |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Rye, F. G. | Captain Lord Stanley and Mr. |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Salmon, Major I. | Penny. |
| Lougher, Lewis | Sandeman, N. Stewart | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Dennison, R. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Duncan, C. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Dunnico, H. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Eillston) | Gardner, J. P. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Baker, Walter | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery) | Gillett, George M. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Barnes, A. | Gosling, Harry | Kennedy, T. |
| Barr, J. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Kenworthy, Lt-.Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lansbury, George |
| Broad, F. A. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Bromley, J. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lawson, John James |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Groves, T. | Lee, F. |
| Buchanan, G. | Grundy, T. W. | Lindley, F. W. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Lowth, T. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lunn, William |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hardle, George D. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Mackinder, W. |
| Compton, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Connolly, M. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | March, S. |
| Cove, W. G. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Maxton, James |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hirst, G. H. | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Montague, Frederick |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Snell, Harry | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Mosley, Oswald | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne) |
| Naylor. T. E. | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Oliver, George Harold | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Palin, John Henry | Stamford, T, W. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Paling, W. | Stephen, Campbell | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Potts, John S. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Westwood, J. |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sullivan, J. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Rlley, Ben | Sutton, J. E. | Whiteley, W. |
| Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Taylor, R. A. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Sexton, James | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Windsor, Walter |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Thurtle, Ernest | Wright, W. |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Tinker, John Joseph | |
| Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Townend, A. E, | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Viant, S. P. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.