LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, to India, and to move that it be read a first time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Strabolgi).
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I beg on behalf of His Majesty's Government to oppose the Bill of which the noble Lord has just moved the introduction. This, I fully recognize, is a very unusual procedure. It is very rare that a Bill should be opposed on the First Reading, but this particular Bill, I suggest to your Lordships, ought never to have been introduced into your Lordships' House at all. I would have imagined, if I may say so, that the noble Lord himself would have recognized that if there is any Act which is completely unsuitable for an individual Peer to attempt to amend by means of a Private Members' Bill, it is the 525 Statute of Westminster, which is the foundation of the whole constitutional structure of the British Commonwealth of Nations. If such a Bill were to be introduced—and I cannot feel that at the present juncture it would serve any useful purpose—it must be introduced, clearly, by His Majesty's Government after previous consultation with the Governments of the Dominions. To introduce it without such consultation—and it is obvious, I think, that any private member such as the noble Lord himself is in no position to have undertaken the necessary negotiations with the other Governments of the Commonwealth—would be as though one in a partnership of five were to attempt to introduce a sixth partner without any consultation with the other partners. That would not only be beyond his power but it would be, I think, a very great discourtesy to the other partners. I really cannot conceive why the noble Lord should have chosen this very eccentric method of ventilating this subject. I should have thought that the natural procedure would have been to put down a Motion for a debate in the ordinary way. In any case I feel certain that your Lordships will not wish to let this matter go any further, and I beg, therefore, here quite briefly to oppose this Motion for the First Reading.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, the action of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is not unexpected. Although I had no intimation until just before we met, I anticipated something of this kind. There is, of course, a precedent, as the noble Viscount says, for opposing a Bill on First Reading. In any case I indicated through the usual channels that I had no intention of proceeding beyond the First Reading stage until there was some measure of agreement. I hoped to get the Bill printed and the matter discussed and considered. I must say at once that, though I naturally talked the matter over with my noble friend Lord Addison, I am proceeding in this matter entirely on my own initiative, and I am not in any way seeking to commit my colleagues and my noble friends on this side of the: House. The point the noble Viscount makes about the other Dominions naturally is one which carries very great weight, but there would have been plenty of time, after the Bill had been read a first time and printed and circulated, for this consultation to 526 take place. But in any case this is not a new departure at all, but follows a policy already stated.
The Bill is very simple. It would have added to the list of Dominions cited in the Statute of Westminster, after "Newfoundland," the word "India," which it was always the intention, as I shall presently show your Lordships, of His Majesty's Government and of the Dominions should be done. That is the first clause, with the usual consequential amendments, and there was a saving clause which ran as follows:
Nothing in this Act or in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, as amended by this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931, as so amended, and shall be construed accordingly,That saving clause really meets one of the main objections which the noble Viscount has put forward. The third and last clause is the usual citation of the short title.With regard to policy, it is the policy, declared again and again, to confer Dominion status upon India. If your Lordships will permit me, I will read the relevant passage which is contained in the explanatory memorandum which would have accompanied the Bill. When the Imperial Conference was summoned, the Prime Minister of the day gave formal expression to the decision of the British Government embodied in its ninth resolution, as follows. I ask your Lordships, all of whom I know are very interested in this matter—as who cannot be in view of the state of affairs in India?—to mark particularly these words:
The Imperial War Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war and that it should form the subject of a special imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.That was, of course, during the last war.They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and foreign relations, and should provide effective 527 arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.It would be presumed from that that when the Statute of Westminster, 1931, was agreed upon, India would have been included amongst the Dominions. And your Lordships will, I am sure, agree with this: Dominion status does not depend on the form of government in the particular Dominion. His Majesty can agree that India shall be called a Dominion tomorrow and no change whatever need be made in the present powers of the Viceroy or the Governor-General in Council. One example is Newfoundland, where the Constitution is suspended; but I do not want to labour that point. This Bill is not intended to affect the internal administration of India at all until the future Constitution is settled by a Constituent Assembly or some other means. Already, as your Lordships are well aware—none more so than the noble Viscount—India in many important respects is treated as a Dominion to-day. It has ceremonial rank as a Dominion; it is represented on such bodies as the League of Nations; and the Government of India appoints and receives High Commissioners. It has fiscal autonomy and so, ceremonially and in certain official matters, India is already a Dominion. I will explain my object in introducing the Bill, and I make no apology whatever for doing so. I detected some note of derision in the noble Viscount's words—
LORD STRABOLGI—that a mere private member should attempt to do this. The effect of adding India to the list of Dominions, I am assured by Indians of great experience who are whole-heartedly with this country in desiring to prosecute the war, and whose patriotism is beyond question, would be good. I do not think His Majesty's Government or any of their supporters can be altogether satisfied with the state of affairs in India or with the handling of affairs which has led up to the present circumstances in India. I do not think any of your Lordships can be altogether happy about that. There is an impasse. This is one attempt to begin to remove the causes of the impasse. If the Government think this is not the right 528 moment or that it should not be done by a private member, I bow at once. I only hope that when the noble Viscount particularly and his colleagues have thought these matters over they themselves will put the necessary machinery in motion, in order to do something to remove a grievance in India and to improve the atmosphere there. May I also make one last appeal to the Government in this respect? Last week the Secretary of State for India declared publicly—it appeared in all the newspapers—that he had come to the conclusion (and I am sure he was not speaking for himself only, he was speaking officially) that the British Government and Parliament could not settle the future Government of India; it must be done by the Indian people themselves. These are the circumstances in which I had hoped that this Bill would receive a First Reading and become the subject of discussion and consideration. In view of the noble Viscount's attitude I do not propose to proceed with the First Reading.
§ On Question, Motion negatived.