SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.

HC Deb 24 December 1929 vol 233 cc2167-93

Sir GEORGE PENNY

In raising the question of the Singapore Base to-day I do not intend to discuss it from the purely naval point of view, as hon. Members will be speaking in this Debate who are more qualified to speak upon it from that aspect. I would like to say in passing, however, that every naval officer to whom I have mentioned the slowing down or the abandonment of this Base has stated that it would be deliberate strategical suicide if we were to do so. The decision of the Government to slow down the work at the Base resulted in many questions being asked of the Government, and I regret to say that many of those replies were considered vague and unsatisfactory. Hon. Members asked the Government whether the Dominions had been consulted, and the First Lord of the Admiralty replying stated that they had been notified. When further pressed in this direction he said he had no reason to suppose that the answer which he had given was out of harmony with their immediate views, but he would like a little more time before giving a definite answer. We have waited for that definite answer and it has not yet been forthcoming. The Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions has told us that they are in daily telegraphic communication, so that I cannot see why that reply has not been given. The Dominion Press comments in regard to those views being in harmony with the Government statement are not borne out, at any rate, by the Press comments which I have in my hand at the present time. The "Melbourne Herald" says: Australia cordially supported the League of Nations and all the movements towards disarmament as a result of the Washington Conference. Yet, if the international peace movement means the jealous retention of naval power in northern waters and the use of the Dominions' interests as insignificant counters for bargaining, it will be strange if public opinion in Australia and New Zealand does not undergo notable changes. The "Argus" says: In any case the decision comes from practically the same Ministry which decided in 1924 to abandon the Base altogether. There was no thought of deferring to the decision of an international conference on that occasion. The disturbing conclusion is that the Labour Cabinet in Great Britain is making the Base a pawn in the political game. Such behaviour when serious consequences are at stake cannot be indulged in with impunity. The Singapore Base is essential to the adequate defence of the Empire and vital to those portions situated within the Pacific zone. That is what Australia says. New Zealand also makes some very severe criticisms, for it is stated that concern is expressed in Wellington, and the "Auckland Star" says: Informing the Dominions of the decision is very different from consulting them. The Imperial authorities should take the Dominions completely into their confidence before finally resolving on a step that so vitally concerns their safety and the interests of the whole Empire. The "Wellington Evening Post" points out that information which falls short of full consultation is not calculated to produce a unified Empire policy. I think the House will agree that those comments do not confirm what the First Lord of the Admiralty told us. I would like to ask him if any protests have been made by the Dominions against the action of the Government and if so by whom? As regards the contributions which have been made to the Imperial Government, we know that New Zealand has contributed £250,000. We know that Hong Kong has contributed a like amount and the Federated Malay States £1,200,000. All of these contributions were made on the specific understanding that the Base would be proceeded with. Of those contributions £1,294,000 has been expended, and I would like to ask the Government if they decide not to continue with the Singapore Base, whether they are prepared to refund the money which has been contributed, seeing that it would have been taken from the Dominions and the Colonies under false pretences. We were told the other day that most of the money had been spent by a Conservative Government. I agree as regards this, but we have been keeping faith with the Colonies and the Dominions. When the Labour Government say they are going to do away with the Base as they did in 1924 and that we have a good naval protection at home, it is very poor consolation to the people in those parts. The Government might just as well say: "We are going to do away with the police force throughout this country but we are going to maintain the Metropolitan police." Supposing there was a wave of crime throughout the country, would it be of much help to the people in the north to know that we had a good police force in London. The same thing applies in this connection. I hope, in view of the importance of this Base, that it will not be used as a pawn in the game of party politics.

As regards the slowing down programme, I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty: Will there be any loss entailed by this slowing down and have they estimated the cost which will have to be faced by the country if they eventually decide to do away with it altogether? Turning from those points there is the very important aspect of the forthcoming Five Power Naval Conference. I have lived in Singapore and those parts for about 20 years and I have taken the keenest interest in the Singapore Base since its very inception. I realise that Singapore is the key to the Pacific, and the late Lord Roberts told us that it is there that the mastery of the world would some day be fought out. The cost, although heavy, is a mere bagatelle to the vast value of the Imperial assets it will defend. Many of the opponents to the Singapore Base object to it because it is what they regard as a war-like object at a time when there is an anti-war feeling growing throughout the world. I hope that that feeling for peace and disarmament will grow and get stronger and stronger as time progresses, but I think that their attitude in considering the anti-war feeling is universal is based upon a fundamental error.

There may be, and there is, a strong antiwar feeling in Europe, and at times I am doubtful whether the insistence of the beastliness of war is really all to the good because there is another side to war, and we should not be sitting in this House under these conditions to-day had the youth of the nation in 1914 only considered the beastliness of war. They are mistaken in thinking that the antiwar mentality is shared by all. European and Asiatic views are as different as the poles apart. East is East; as it always was and as it always will be. I defy anyone to produce a tittle of evidence to show that the anti-war feel- ing has altered the views of the Eastern peoples. Orientals look to war as being the final argument. Islam is growing from strength to strength and is still the same old conquering creed. The warlike tribes of India with their Afghan neighbours have shown no desire to give up their fighting instincts. Japan, that great country, would rise as one man at the Emperor's call. The Chinese, with their teeming millions, the majority of whom are so poor that they cannot even afford to eat the rice that they grow, and have to live on millet instead—hon. Members opposite may laugh—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amnion)

I was laughing at your Christmas sentiments.

Sir G. PENNY

It is not a question of Christmas sentiment. I want peace as much as anyone, and so does the party to which I have the honour to belong. We do not give mere lip-service to it, as do so many hon. Members opposite. I am surprised at the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) speaking in that way. The conditions are such in China that men can be hired to risk their lives, on lawful or unlawful occasions, for the sake of a few dollars. They have in that country the greatest potential reserves of man-power in the world, composed of men who know nothing of war guilt and who know nothing of the League of Nations; they have heard of neither. These men are prepared to die for the sake of a square meal and a 10 dollar note.

I wonder whether the opponents of the Singapore Base have ever considered the position that would arise in the Far East if the Bolshevists obtained control over these vast man-power reserves. We know of the Soviet activities throughout the world. We know what has happened in China, in South Africa, in Egypt and m India, yet the Socialist Government have resumed diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia without obtaining a definite guarantee that they are going to stop their poisonous and persistent propaganda against this country. They have given us no guarantee that they will control the Communist International, which is a part of the Government organisation. What will happen if a conflict should take place in these particular parts in the Far East? I do not know whether hon. Members have ever seen a prairie fire, how it advances, devastating and devouring everything as it goes along, and gaining force on the damage it has done. So it would be with the great hordes of people in that part of the world, were they aroused at any time. As I have already said, the mentality of the Asiatic is entirely different from that of the European.

I would like the House to consider this question from still another angle, and that is, in regard to Malaya itself. The cost of the Singapore Base is trifling compared with the millions of pounds which the two great key industries of rubber and tin have given to investors in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes. Investors who are the taxpayers of this country. There are some 30,000,000 tons of shipping which pass through that port every year. The cost of the Singapore Base would be a small amount as an insurance premium for the protection of our shipping and our trade routes. We have been told that to do away with the Singapore Base would be a friendly gesture to Japan. I would point out that the construction of the Singapore Base was taken into consideration when the question of Hong Kong was discussed at Washington. The Japanese are a business nation who, if they make a bargain, stick by it. They would not take the abandonment of the base as a friendly gesture, but as an act of folly on our part. From the geographical point of view, I would ask the House to realise that Japan is as far from Singapore as America is from England. Therefore, what menace could the Singapore Base be to Japan?

When the Singapore Base was proposed, Malaya might have taken up the attitude: "If we have a base here, it is going to invite attack. We will have nothing to do with it." They took the larger view. They said: "We see that it is in the national interest that we should have a base here. Therefore, we will accept the risk." Not only did they take that risk, but they contributed loyally and generously. We remember what the Federated Malay States did during the War. They gave us the battleship "Malaya," and they sent contributions of men and money. They stood by us in the hour of need. These people out there, with whom I was associated for so many years, and know intimately, have abso- lute trust in the honour and sincerity of the British nation. I sincerely hope that the Labour Government will not decide not to continue with the Singapore Naval Base, but that they will complete it. In that way they will be keeping faith with the rulers and peoples of Malaya, and with our Dominions, and will be giving security to our trade and, in my considered opinion, be providing a great factor for the maintenance of permanent peace in the Pacific.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT

My hon. Friend and I are old antagonists on this question of the establishment of a new battleship base at Singapore. I had the honour of opposing the proposal when it was first made in this House, and I must say that as I go along my objections become stronger and stronger. In the first place, I would congratulate His Majesty's Government on having secured the assent of His Majesty to open the new Naval Conference which is to be held next month. It is a very fine gesture on the part of His Majesty, and we hope that the Conference will be successful. I should imagine that the decision to slow down this Base would be necessary in view of such a Conference being held. I want to go a little more closely into the question of the Base and what I consider to be its strategic futility. We must remember that this is a Base for battleships. The cost of the Base is growing every year. I had an answer to a question the other day which stated that the present Estimate was £11,600,000, of which the Dominions would find £3,250,000. That means a burden on the British taxpayer of £8,350,000. I want hon. Members to realise what is likely to be the eventual cost of the Base, upon which this enormous sum of money is to be spent. The present Estimate is over £11,000,000. What it will be in the end no one can say. The shortest route to the Base from Portsmouth is more than 8,000 miles. That is from 30 to 40 days' steaming. What does that mean?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It is 32 days.

Mr. LAMBERT

I said from 30 to 40 days. We are going to spend this enormous sum of money and we shall have these great commitments at Singapore 8,000 miles away, 32 days' sailing distance from our shores.

Sir G. PENNY

What about our Dominions?

Mr. LAMBERT

I will come to the Dominions later. There must be not only this capital expenditure but there must be an enormous annual expenditure. Does the House realise that the War Office are in this scheme and that they are proposing fortifications to the tune of £2,000,000? Then there is the Air Force. They have Estimates for £600,000. What is to be the size of the permanent garrison to be maintained at Singapore? We have never had information on that point. I have asked questions over and over again, but nobody has been able to say. The late First Lord of the Admiralty and the late Secretary of State for the Dominions never gave us an estimate. This is an unlimited commitment for the British taxpayer. We are establishing in the East, 8,000 miles away, another Portsmouth. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny) talked about the Bolsheviks, the Afghans and the Chinese. Singapore will hardly be a defence against the Bolsheviks, the Afghans or the Chinese.

I could never understand why the Singapore base was commenced. It was begun in the days of the Coalition Government, in 1921, when millions did not matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "They showed vision."] They certainly showed vision as regards expenditure, and we are reaping the bitter results to-day. But this base must be there for some purpose; and it can only be there as a protection against our late allies and friends, the Japanese. What is it there for, if it is not as a protection against Japan? It is not a protection against the Bolshevists in Moscow or pirates in Shanghai. We are not building this base at a cost of these millions of pounds unless there is some purpose behind it. The Hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames says quite correctly that a great amount of commerce flows through Singapore from the East to this country. I was at the Admiralty in the early days of the War and I want to say that if we are at war with Japan no Singapore base, or any base you can erect there, will enable commerce to pass from the East to the West. Our commerce is bound to be paralysed. Let hon. Mem- bers carry their minds back to what was accomplished by a few German raiders in the War.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

Before the convoy system.

Mr. LAMBERT

You cannot have a convoy over 8,000 miles

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

Oh yes, you can.

Mr. LAMBERT

Well, really, I must ask hon. Members to bear this in mind, that Japan is a great naval power. Germany was bottled up, and you cannot have a convoy system over 8,000 miles with a great naval power in the East if you are fighting that Power. I submit to the gallant admiral that it is not possible. It is said that this base is to be a protection for our commerce; and it is 3,000 miles from Japan. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames talked about Australia, which is 4,500 miles from Japan. Australia is inhabited by a vigorous and virile race, and does anybody believe that Japan will attack Australia.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE

They would have it in two days.

Mr. LAMBERT

My hon. and gallant Friend represents Portsmouth, a dockyard town, and he is supposed to have some naval knowledge. Singapore is about 3,000 miles from Japan, and if the Japanese can attack Australia 4,500 miles away, may they not first attack Singapore? That is really a point which has never been met in this House. I have read all the Debates. If the Singapore base, with these enormous commitments, is to be protected against a hostile attack it must have a large garrison, and it must be a garrison of white troops. That garrison must always be there. You cannot reinforce at a time when there is likely to be any danger of hostilities. My mind goes back to the days of the South African War, when even that vigorous statesman Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, could not send troops to South Africa because of the fear of precipitating the very contingency which he desired to avoid. You cannot reinforce Singapore at a time of strained relations because it would bring about the very thing you desire to avoid. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remember, always said that you have to be prepared at the enemy's selected moment. Therefore, unless we kept a large garrison at Singapore it will simply be a present to Japan. I wonder the late Government did not ask the Japanese Government to contribute towards the cost. Let us go back in history. Take the Russo-Japanese War. The Russians made a great fortified base at Port Arthur. It was taken by the Japanese.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

Take a little British history.

Mr. LAMBERT

Surely we should take experience from foreign nations. Are not Singapore and Port Arthur very much on a par?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Port Arthur was sold by its own garrison.

Mr. LAMBERT

Well, that is a new version which I have never heard before. I have no doubt the hon. and learned Member is a better judge than I am of selling and buying, but I thought the Russians defended Port Arthur with great valour. I want to deal with this subject seriously, and when the hon. and gallant Member for East Sussex says, let us have a little British history, I am giving a little Russian history in order that it may not be repeated by Great Britain. Port Arthur was taken by the Japanese from the land, as Singapore can be taken. Assuming there is a state of war, what garrison must there be at Singapore in order to protect these great docks and fortifications, which have cost £11,000,000 already? Sabotage would be at work at once. I read the other day that one in every 10 coolies in Port Arthur was a Russian spy. There will be spies in Singapore when there are strained relations. When you are establishing a battleship base it means that you are preparing for war. Let me read to the House a description of the locality where we are going to locate this large garrison. I take this description from an article in the "Times" of the 17th May, 1928: Where only so short a time ago the crocodile wallowed, eventual playing-fields are coming into existence and buildings are being erected … The whole of the preparatory works are given out to contract, the contractors and the labour being Chinese. That is one way of solving the unemployment problem here! The article goes on: The country at Changi consisted—and still largely consists—of impenetrable jungle, rubber plantation and palm proves on the hill-sides, and dense mangrove-covered, slimy-waterlogged, or tide-flooded marshes wherever the coast is flat. And that is where we are going to plant a garrison in the East!

Mr. MACQUISTEN

What about the Thames?

Mr. LAMBERT

My hon. and learned friend must remember that the Thames is not on the equator, and the crocodile never wallows there. This is where we are to establish a garrison—a large garrison, and a permanent garrison. But it is not only a garrison; there must be a very large force of naval artificers there. If you are to repair battleships in time of war, there must be an enormous amount of machinery there. Who is to keep that machinery in order, right bang under the equator? I do not think that this matter has ever been really thought out; as a fact, I am certain that it has not. Here is what is being suggested; this is the "Times" article again: The new town of Changi will serve its purpose well, to house the garrison of artillerymen and engineers, and perhaps a battalion of infantry, for the defenre of the Naval Base. A battalion of infantry, 1,000 men to defend that base against attack! As I have said, this has never been thought out; I am as certain of it as possible. What sort of garrison are we to keep there? I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has had access to the records. Has he ever considered what kind of garrison must be kept in Singapore to defend it in time of war against a strong naval Power over there? [Interruption.] An hon. Member says that there will be more work. I happened to be at the Admiralty when the new naval base at Rosyth was being built. Magazines had to be built, a submarine base had to be built, and a hospital had to be built; and hospitals will have to be built at Singapore. Does anyone realise what the ultimate expenditure is going to be? Really, I am afraid that economy in a democratic country is a good deal out of date. Hon. Members opposite want money for social reform; hon. Members on this side want money for armaments. Where the taxpayer is coming in, I am not quite sure; but this base must be maintained in perfect order. We are told that we must look ahead, and that it will not be ready for 10 years. Cannot we have a little rest for the time being? Who can say what is going to happen 10 years ahead? [An HON. MEMBER: "We must be ready!"] My hon. Friend says "Be ready." I happen to know that, if you are going to be ready for every contingency, the taxpayers of this country will be paying, not £100,000,000 a year, but nearly £300,000,000 a year for armaments. This is a battleship base. The battleship is a weapon which may be out of date 10 years hence. I should not like to say one way or the other; naval opinion is very much divided upon the point, and the Air people are very emphatic about it.

Let me put this to hon. Members as a common-sense question: Assume that we were at war, does anybody believe that we are going to send immense battleships which cost £7,000,000 a piece to be 8,000 miles away in time of war? Of course we are not. Why not? So many men might jump in here. Does anybody believe that these great battleships will be permitted, in time of war, to be 8,000 miles away at Singapore? The idea is perfectly ridiculous, and my hon. Friends really ought to know it. If they do not know it, it shows that they have not considered the matter at all. [Interruption.] I do not mind these interruptions, and I am ready to reply to them, but I think I might just as well go on with my argument. It is not only a question of battleships. Battleships are no good in these days without destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and all the paraphernalia.

I suggest, therefore, that it would be a very wise thing if the Government dropped altogether the building of this base. The Dominions can be compensated. It would be infinitely cheaper to pay them than to involve ourselves in a liability of £8,000,000, with a large liability, the amount of which no one knows, for annual expenditure. Nobody can say what the cost will be. If any hon. Member here will tell the House, I shall be glad, but I do not know what it is. It may be £1,000,000 a year, it may be £2,000,000 a year. No one can say what will be the size of the garrison which will be needed. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not only slow down, but will drop altogether the work on this base. I have never had the slightest doubt about it.

Let me put one point which may be a little appropriate to this Christmas season. We have signed the Covenant of the League of Nations; is our signature a scrap of paper? We have signed the Kellogg Pact; is that an empty form 1 Are we to honour our signature of the Kellogg Pact by building an enormous battleship base? This, in my judgment, is preparing for future war. I have faith enough to believe that, by the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg Pact, the risk of war has been greatly diminished. I say therefore to the Government that I hope they will drop this base, which will be costly financially and will be futile strategically. I cannot see any reason for its construction.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

I desire to speak in favour of the base at Singapore, but I am perfectly sure that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench can make just as adequate a defence of the whole principle of that base as I can, against what they have heard from the Front Bench below the Gangway, because I am confident that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to do any more than slow down, and perhaps modify, the base at Singapore, and that it is certainly not their intention to take advice from the Liberal party. Liberals should be cautious how they advance these conceptions of their's. I am absolutely staggered and amazed to think that the Liberal party has learnt so little since the risks which they created for this-country up to 1914 that a member of their party who is an ex-Minister of the Crown can stand here and make the assertions and suggestions which the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has made. He commenced his speech by what I would call confusing the issue, and by a misrepresentation in describing the Singapore base as a battleship base. It is nothing of the kind. That is confusing the issue, and intentionally so.

Mr. LAMBERT

I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon; it is to be a battleship base.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

Nothing of the kind.

Mr. LAMBERT

I say that it is.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

These bases are not described as "battleship bases" at all. This is a base for the use of His Majesty's Navy in war.

Mr. LAMBERT

For battleships.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the enormous sum of £11,500,000, of which more than £3,000,000 is being paid by the Dominions and Colonies. An enormous sum! And yet we expend more than £24,000,000 a year on extra doles and extra pensions, when the whole interest and safety of the British Empire is literally imperilled if the Navy has no base to use in war. He talks of unlimited commitments. Is not the British Empire an unlimited commitment? Is it not desirable that we should do everything possible in reason to protect the Empire's interest? Unlimited commitment indeed! Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Singapore being another Portsmouth. It is nothing of the kind; that is a gross exaggeration, to put it no higher, or lower. It is not to be another Portsmouth and no one in his wildest imagining would suggest that it will be any such thing. At Portsmouth the capital expenditure has probably run into hundreds of millions. Does anyone suggest that in the course of centuries anything of the kind will be necessary at Singapore?

I observed the other day, in a speech made by a friend of mine, apropos of bases, a remark which I think is worth repeating. He said that you may just as well expect the British Navy to work in war from Malta and Gibraltar and our own home dockyards, without a base such as Singapore, as expect the London General Omnibus Company to work their system with a garage at John o'Groats. That is a very fair simile. Every single argument that has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman could be applied with equal force to Gibraltar and Malta, and I do not believe that even the Liberal party would go to the length of suggesting that we should dismantle those bases.

Mr. LAMBERT

Singapore is a case of building, not dismantling.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

The right hon. Gentleman also talked of compensating Australia and New Zealand and the Colonial Dependencies in the East. Has he asked them? I suggest that he make a speech in Australia or New Zealand and see what sort of response he gets. They have not the slightest intention of giving up their absolute desire that the Singapore Base be proceeded with. They are not so foolish as to suggest that we should spend unlimited money on the base. But the safety of the Empire and of trade in that part of the world is dependent on having a base from which our fleet can work. Now I address myself not so much to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as to the occupants of the Government Front Bench. I do not wish further to impress them with the necessity for the base, except by giving one quotation. It is from the final Report of the Committee on Industry and Trade. I give the quotation merely, as it were, to encourage the Front Bench, because I believe that they sincerely believe that the base must be continued, even if it be slowed down temporarily. The Committee say: During the past century there has been a steady growth in our dependence on overseas supplies for the essential means of existence, and there is not the slightest reason to expect that the tendency will be arrested or reversed in the near future. If there were nothing else to go by, that should be sufficient for anyone who has made even a cursory study of naval requirements. We should continue with the base. The Government, I must confess, have done badly in the matter. They refer in "Labour and the Nation" to the desirability of keeping the public and this House very fully informed of everything that is going on. Yet it has been only with the greatest possible difficulty that we have been able to get such information as we have at last obtained by a process of pumping. It is not right. This question should not be a party question; it is purely a national question. The Prime Minister has spoken of its being a waste of public money which he cannot incur. No one wants public money to be wasted, but it is not being wasted in this instance. It has also been said that as it is a matter of policy it cannot be brought up at the Five-Power Conference. Who is to guarantee that matters of this kind cannot be brought up at the Conference? I know that the question of the capital ship will come up, and that we shall hear a great deal more about it. It is just possible that some minor changes may be necessary at a place like Singapore if the size of the capital ship be considerably reduced from the present standard, but at the same time the alterations would not be such as to suggest any serious modification.

I am afraid that I consider the whole attitude of the Government is only another instance of the policy of scuttle and surrender to the pacifist outlook. I have looked at the foreign Press and have not seen a single congratulatory comment on our action in the matter. It is a very foolish gesture, made under the guise of a good intention. It convinces no single thinking man, and only causes foreigners to smile and to hope for further concessions from ourselves. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would be here. I must confess that I have not any faith in him as a representative of this country during the forthcoming Conference. I am sure that my view in the matter is shared by a great many people in this country. How can I and how can people have real confidence in a right hon. Gentleman who, at the beginning of the late War or a few days after the start of that long-drawn-out four years of agony, encouraged our people by pointing out, in a speech which was reported at Leicester, that one of the principal reasons for the War was that the Admiralty was anxious to seize any opportunity of using the British Navy at battle practice. The right hon. Gentleman is the principal representative on whom we have to pin our faith at the forthcoming Conference.

I spoke just now on the Liberal view regarding the Dominions and Colonies. There is not the least necessity to elaborate that point, except to quote what the Prime Minister of Australia said in 1926: I can only say that Australia believes that the Singapore Base is absolutely essential. I am confident that that view has not changed one iota in the years that have passed. Why should we risk the security of our Dominions in order to help out what I would call the misguided pacifists? I have no idea what is the Admiralty view in these matters, except from my practical experience as a naval officer. But I would emphasise that this is a national question. The expert after years of experience can base naval requirements only on his experience and on history and, above all, on the geographical disposition of the Empire as a whole, and its trade. He must do that. If he is given other standpoints by the Government it is his business to say, "Well, if that is the case, so-and-so will suffice." It is the duty of the Government in such cases to make it perfectly clear to the British public that the decisions which are come to are not necessarily the decisions that have been suggested to them by their experts. The policy of reduction has almost invariably in our history proved itself to be the precursor of disaster.

I said something just now as to this expenditure not being the gigantic sum that the Liberals suggest. It is a sum that we can easily and properly afford. It is race suicide for us to go on pouring out doles and pensions, as the present Government are doing, and at the same time run the tremendous risk of disintegrating our principal defence service by failing to provide it with adequate bases and ability to protect trade routes during war. My last word is this. It has always happened in the past that it is not the Government of this country which pays the bill when it has to be paid. The Navy has to pay it, and, above all, the nation has to pay it, and if we continue the principle of giving in all the time at the dictation of this, that or the other nation, or of our own pacifists and enemies at home, I foresee nothing but disaster in the future. If only the fate of Admiral Byng could overtake misguided statesmen, how much safer we should be in this country.

Commander SOUTHBY

I have no desire to reply in detail to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), but I think it is necessary to refer to his amazing statement that if, in war, your enemy is 8,000 miles away your battleships should not be there to meet that enemy. Before making that statement the right hon. Gentleman should have looked more closely into history and he would have found that decisive actions have been fought all over the globe and at very great distances from this country. If I do not make a detailed reply to the right hon. Gentleman it is only because I am reminded of the words of Robert Louis Stevenson: The touching confusion of the gentleman's mind completely disarms me. In discussing the question of the Singapore Base it is well to consider first why there is any such question at all. The construction of the base was undertaken 'in accordance with a resolution passed at the Imperial Conference of 1923. In 1924 the Socialist Government with, I suggest, a complete lack of consideration for the Dominions and a lamentable lack of ideas with regard to proper provision for the defence of this country, decided not to proceed with the base. They were not unanimous on the subject, and one may well believe that on this occasion the present Government are not unanimous either. It is interesting to read what was written in the Socialist Press on the subject at that time. In 1925 it was stated in "Forward": It is no doubt necessary to have a pied a terre somewhere in the Pacific … a weak link will let the British Empire down never to recover. Mr. Newbold, then a Socialist Member, writing on 21st March, 1925, said that since it was situated at the grand junction of the East the strategic importance of Singapore alike for mercantile and naval purposes is immense. 1.0 p.m.

Here at least one finds some appreciation of the necessity for a base at Singapore. At the Washington Conference in 1921 the whole question of bases was reviewed and it was clearly laid down that America should have the right to fortify Pearl Harbour in the Hawaiian Islands, one of the strongest strategic positions in the world, and that Japan should fortify Formosa, and her bases in the East, and that Conference broke up with the definite understanding that we should have the right to fortify Singapore. There was no doubt about it. Japan knew it, the United States knew it and everybody at the Conference knew it. It was a perfectly clear and harmonious understanding. At the Imperial Conference of 1921 the representatives of the different parts of the Empire clearly recognised the necessity for the base. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) presided over that Conference, and I think I am also right in saying that, when a vote was taken in this House in 1924, he paired against the base with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

At the Imperial Conference not one dissentient voice was raised against the base. The matter was thrashed out by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and there was unanimity in recommending that the base should proceed. We have heard the base described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton as a battleship base. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thinks only in terms of battleships, but this base is a naval base from which ships of every kind are to operate for the defence of trade in the East. The House might consider what exactly is meant by a base. A base is a place where His Majesty's ships can refresh, refit and replace supplies. It may be asked why is this particular base necessary. I would remind hon. Members that round this base lie three-quarters of the territories of the British Empire; that round this base live three-quarters of the inhabitants of the British Empire. Thousands of millions of pounds' worth of trade pass across the Indian Ocean every year and this base is at the gateway of the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It is as vital to the humblest worker in this country as to the wealthiest person that that gateway should be adequated defended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton said that we on this side were asking for armaments. We are not asking merely for armaments, as such, but for the defence of the Empire, which, as I say, means as much to the humblest citizen of the Empire as to the wealthiest.

Modern ships require modern bases. Hongkong and the old Singapore base are out of date and as a matter of fact the point of strategic importance in the East has shifted. The vital key position is Singapore. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know, and no one knows better, that the trade of the Empire is the life-blood of the Empire. Singapore is a necessity if we are to keep that stream moving and safe. There is another aspect of the question and that is the defence of the Empire. Singapore, as I have said, is a key position. Some who are perhaps more internationally-minded in their outlook than patriotic to the Empire, see in any question of the defence and solidarity of the Empire a covert threat to somebody else. I have never been able to understand the attitude of mind which is always anxious to find fault with the suggestion that we should defend our own people, our own Empire and our own trade. This base is required first and foremost as a base from which the Navy can operate. It is an axiom which was borne out in the last War that, if you want to hinder a country's trade, you have first to capture that country's bases, and the converse is true. If you have trade to defend you must have bases from which your ships can operate in defence of that trade. Without such bases you cannot take effective steps to defend your trade.

Nobody has ever suggested that the British Navy is anything but a guarantee of world peace. It is a menace to nobody and has always stood first for the protection of the Empire, and then for upholding the liberties and the happiness of the peoples of the world. What would happen if we had not a base at Singapore? Do hon. Members realise the position? I wish they would study the distances in an atlas. At present if you wanted to refit a ship which was operating in Chinese waters you would have to bring that ship 6,000 miles to Malta for the purpose. Some hon. Members have suggested that Singapore would be a menace to other nations. The suggestion that it would be a menace to Japan is absurd. The distance from Singapore to Japan is 3,000 miles. Has anybody ever suggested that Hongkong is a menace to Japan even though it is 1,500 miles nearer to Japan than Singapore is? Why should Singapore be considered any greater menace to Japan than Japan is to Singapore? Nobody would suggest that Portsmouth is a menace to the United States, but the distance from Portsmouth to the United States is the same as the distance from Singapore to Japan. The idea that Singapore would be a menace to the United States is too absurd to require discussion.

The fundamental necessity for this base is the defence of commerce in the East and the defence of our Empire in the East should a conflagration arise. I do not think that any hon. Member in this House desires such a contingency. Then this base would be a vital necessity, but the best way to prevent a conflagration is to take steps to meet it adequately should it arise. The right hon. Member for South Molton mentioned, I gathered with pride, that he was one of those who had been responsible when in office, for the creation of Rosyth. Had he been at Rosyth in the early days of the War, he might have heard some comments about hon. and right hon. Members in positions of authority in the Government of that day who had so badly done their work that the base was only half ready when the War broke out.

The record of the Socialist Government in 1924 in this matter is apparently going to be repeated. May I quote from the speech of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on the 14th March last in this House, in which he said: I want to enter a protest on behalf of the Opposition—I am sure that I can say that with perfect safety—against the further continuance of this scheme. I still look upon it as an absolute waste of money, altogether apart from the suspicion which it is likely to raise in the minds of other nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1929; col. 1323, Vol. 226.] Then he went on to say: One recognises that in large measure this scheme has gone forward in the last four or five years. This is a matter for extreme regret, and I think that it will not be many years before we shall find that it is an absolute waste of money which could have been better spent in other directions, and that the Singapore project will remain a cause of irritation and suspicion on the part of the other nations of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1929; col. 1324, Vol. 226.] If those were the opinions of Members of His Majesty's Government when they were in Opposition, it is reasonable to suppose that they are the opinions of His Majesty's Government now that they are in power. I cannot see from the replies which we have had in this House to various questions which have been put that there is any change of belief or of heart. Questions have been put, and we have never had flat or fair answers to them. I have asked whether any criticism has been made or protest entered by the Dominions or Colonies at the de- cision of His Majesty's Government to slow down the work. We know that the orders were given before the Dominions were consulted, and I asked the Prime Minister—and I would be glad if I could have an answer now—if either the Dominions or the Colonies have in fact entered a protest, since the orders were given, to the effect that they objected to those orders being given.

One thing that emerges is this: It is obvious that this base will be a pawn in the Five Powers Conference, and I suggest that the Government are treating the Dominions in this matter with the scantiest of courtesy. Before the Government make up their mind to do away with the idea of this base, I would suggest that they should read a little history. The possession or the non-possession of a base has, in the past, resulted in the whole destinies of the world being changed. Between the years 1744 and 1762 the whole futures of Great Britain and of France hung in the balance. Louis XIV, King of France, chose the military and continental policy of Louvois in preference to the policy of trade expansion and maritime supremacy of Colbert. France had extensive overseas Dominions, large possessions abroad, and an enormous trade with her Colonies in Canada, and there, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, she had a base, Louisbourg, on Cape Breton Island, which was the key to the St. Lawrence, Quebec, and Montreal. That base was captured by us in 1745, and I would invite attention to this fact. It was captured by a naval force under Admiral Warren who was assisted by a force of 4,000 American Colonists from Massachussets and New Hampshire, led by Colonel William Pepperell, a shipbuilder, of New Hampshire. In 1748, when peace was made, France realised that Louisbourg was the key to Canada, and, in order to get it back, she vacated Flanders for the possession of which she had fought. The Government of the day decided to give back Louisbourg to France.

They may or may not have been right in their decision, but they gave it back without consulting the Colonists of North America, and it may well be that the seeds of distrust and irritation which were sown in 1748 by this surrender of a base, which was realised to be vital by the North American Colonists, without a word to them, were the seeds which afterwards fructified into the War of Independence. In 1758 Louisbourg was recaptured, and its possession meant for us the possession of Canada. It is interesting in passing to consider what might have happened if France had retained it. She would have maintained the whole of her trade with Canada, and it might well have been that the French flag might now be waving over the whole of America from Hudson Bay to Panama. The trade which sea power would have given France would have made her people so prosperous and contented that there might well have been no French Revolution. One Government in the past made the mistake of flouting the Dominions and Colonies, with disastrous results, and I suggest that this Government should pause before flouting the clearly expressed wishes of the Dominions and Colonies with regard to Singapore.

In conclusion, I would like to quote what a Frenchman once said: the trident of Neptune is the sceptre of the world. that sceptre cannot be wielded unless you have not only a navy, but adequate bases from which that navy can operate when it is wanted. I suggest to the Government that if they give up the idea of this essential base, if they even retard its proper development, not only will they be flouting the distinctly expressed wishes of the Dominions and Colonies, but they will also be neglecting the lessons of history and deliberately jeopardising the safety and security of the Empire, of the people who dwell in it, and of the trade by which we all live.

Mr. AMERY

I rise not in order to prolong the Debate, nor to repeat the arguments that have been so effectively used in the interesting speeches delivered on the benches behind me, and by my hon. Friend on this bench, but rather to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question on this matter directly affecting the Naval Conference which is to meet next month. We all, on whatever side of the House we may sit, wish that that Conference shall succeed. I think we should all welcome the very largest measure of disarmament which that Conference can achieve, as long as it is disarmament on fair lines. At the same time, I think there are certain factors which will remain in the situation, whatever degree of disarmament is achieved. To whatever strength our Navy may be reduced, after this Conference, it will still require bases in order to be mobile. Whatever may happen at the Disarmament Conference, the British Empire will remain geographically distributed as it is at present. Whatever happens at that Conference, the obligation upon every part of the Empire to co-operate with every other part in defence remains unimpaired, and upon us, as the most important partner in the Empire, that remains a major obligation. Therefore, I suggest that, whatever the outcome of the Conference, whatever degree of disarmament we may hope to attain, it is essential that there should emerge from the Conference an undiminished power and right on the part of this country to co-operate with every other part of the Empire, and not least with the Dominions in the Southern Hemisphere, in our common defence.

The question, therefore, which I should like to address to the First Lord is simply this: Whether this base, which is admittedly indispensable if we are to have any kind of naval co-operation with Australia and New Zealand; indispensable if we are to do anything to help the defence of Australia and New Zealand against any attack, from whichever direction it may come; indispensable if we are to cover the trade of those Dominions and of all the British possessions in the Indian Ocean—whether the right to maintain that base is to be made a bargaining counter at the forthcoming conference, or is to be regarded as one of those lesser matters which, for the sake of a gesture, can be abandoned to others, and not maintained, as it ought to be, as an essentially internal matter of British Empire security, which it is not for us to discuss with the outside world?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

It is advisable in the very few minutes which I shall occupy that I should try to bring the Debate back to its proper perspective. We have had two or three speeches which seem to range over the question of the whole policy of naval building, which is a very different question from that of the naval base at Singapore. The position to-day is not such as would justify a De- bate covering that range of ground at this time. Indeed, I am not at all sure from the point of view put by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), that the most ardent advocates of a base at Singapore are helping themselves very much by their remarks this morning. The real position is this, that we are just coming to what is perhaps—I will not say perhaps, but what I hope to be the most epoch-making naval conference the world has ever seen. If that conference is to be as successful, as I gather that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) thinks that men of good will in all parties would desire it to be, it is obvious that you would have to consider very seriously any very large capital expenditures which might be involved in future, either in your naval or military defences, to see whether such capital expenditures were being wisely and properly arranged, having regard to any changed circumstances which might arise as a result of the conference.

That is the whole basis of the decision which has been taken by His Majesty's Government, and it has been communicated to the Dominions. On that, the hon. Baronet who opened the Debate asked whether, if we did not continue, we are prepared to refund the money which has been contributed by Dominions, Colonies and Dependencies, and which has been spent—he said—under false pretences. It is most unwise to use language like that in a Debate of this character, and very unfair after the categorical statement which has been made in the House by the Prime Minister in reply to questions, that, of course, no British Government dealing with such a matter as that would ever run away from their obligations. It has also been fully stated that if there were to be any large decisions over the whole area of the question of the Singapore Base, of course not only the Dominions, but the other contributing Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire, would be fully consulted. If the hon. Baronet had taken ordinary care before making such a statement, to read the answer in the OFFICIAL KEPORT, we might have been spared that. I want to impress on hon. Members opposite that surely it is not reasonable, in such an important matter, to try to create further suspicion or mistrust than is necessary for the purpose of creating party capital.

Sir G. PENNY

I most emphatically state that there is no desire on my part to create party capital out of this. I say that we should be betraying our trust to take money from them if we eventually close down the Singapore base. That was based on the question which I asked the First Lord as to whether they had been consulted at all in the decision which the Government have taken with regard to the slowing down proposals

Mr. ALEXANDER

The Government took this question into consideration as far back as June and July, and at that time quite full information was given to the Dominion Governments as to the lines along which His Majesty's Government would go; and they were promised, as they ought to have been promised, that if any further development took place, they would be immediately notified and consulted. When the decision was taken, and an announcement had to be made because of questions in the House, the Dominions were at once notified. We have had no protest from any of the Dominions, except one, which raised a question as to the answer to a supplementary question which I gave, a question of which I had had no notice. Since then, when the position was fully explained, we have had no further protest, because the Dominions trust His Majesty's Government quite fully on the pledges which have been given, that before any final decision is taken in this matter, they will be fully consulted.

Sir G. PENNY

Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know what that protest was in connection with?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I have already said that it was in regard to a supplementary answer which I gave. I am speaking from memory, and what I said at the time was that I had no reason to suppose that the general tone of my answer would be out of harmony with their immediate view. I added that I should like to let that matter rest until I had further time to deal with it. As a matter of fact, the whole of the latter part of my answer had not been cabled to the Dominion which complained, at the time they made their protest. When it was fully explained as to what the answer really meant, apparently they were quite content to trust the pledge of the Government that, before any binding decision is taken, they will be fully consulted.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

Have the Dominions and Colonies definitely stated that they are in agreement with the action of His Majesty's Government in slowing down the progress of this base?

Mr. ALEXANDER

The point is that they will be fully consulted before any final decision is taken. The pledge has been given, and I really cannot go beyond that.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

What about the interim decisions?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I do not think I can give way again.

Sir B. FALLE

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the Dominion?

Mr. ALEXANDER

No, I am not prepared to say any more about the point. I think that I have gone fairly far this morning.

Commander SOUTHBY

May I—

Mr. ALEXANDER

No, I must not give way again. I have given way quite enough already. There is only one other point to which, I think, I need reply, and that was put to me by the right, hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. He asked, quite definitely whether I could say if this question of slowing down the Singapore Base was going to be used as a bargaining factor in the Five-Power Conference. An answer to that has been given already on behalf of His Majesty's Government in another place, on 18th December, and it was quite categorical. Under no circumstances will that decision of ours to slow down pending the result of the Conference be allowed to be used in any sense or form as a bargaining factor in the Five-Power Conference—in no way. The whole reason for our position is that if any expenditure of a large character such as I have referred to is to be made, it ought to be made with the wisest economy and with the most careful consideration of what the position will be as the result of such a large and important Conference as we are anticipating. And, of course, nothing will be allowed to arise at the Five-Power Conference which will deny the right of the various constituent parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations of looking after their several interests; and I need hardly remind my right hon. Friend that every one of the Dominions concerned will be directly represented at the Five-Power Conference. I think that is all I need say at this juncture, and I will close by saying that I rather regret that upon Christmas Eve, when to-morrow morning we shall all be praying for peace and good will, when dealing with this subject, we have had a good many perhaps unnecessary references to warlike subjects.

Sir B. FALLE

I have a few minutes left before 1.30. The right hon. Gentleman has set a limit to this Debate. After having heard three or four excellent speeches he wants to limit it, and he hopes that at this epoch-making moment all men of good will, etc., will come together. We had a good many Christmas Eves on the Western Front and elsewhere, and the fighting was not less bitter because it was Christmas Eve. We are asked to make a gesture of peace and good will by discontinuing for a moment work on the Singapore Base. It would be of much more value, it seems to me, if other nations were to act in that spirit. Why should all the giving be on our side 1 I asked the right hon. Gentleman the name of the Dominion which protested, but he will not give it. I suppose it was not looked upon as of any value. We do not look upon it in that way. It has been stated by an hon. Member in the course of the discussion that if we were at war we should keep all our battleships at home. It will be cheerful news for New Zealand and Australia to know that if war comes we will look after ourselves first and keep our battleships at home, and that only after we have succeeded in driving off the enemy will we then allow them to go out there. That is very pleasant news on Christmas Eve. The Marxian Socialists have an idea that if a man is very rich we should take from him. The other nations of the world have exactly the same views with regard to the British Empire. They say we have too many populations subject to us, that too much of the inhabited globe owes us allegiance, and that we do not mean to defend it, and that they will take it from us.