NO ARMS OR MUNITIONS CARRIED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 23 June 1938, Page 7

NO ARMS OR MUNITIONS CARRIED

(British Official Wireless.)

RUGBY, June 21. Continuing the debate on foreign affairs in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister (Mr Chamberlain) said there was no foundation for the suggestion' that British ships had been carrying arms or munitions to Spain. They had, of course, been carrying food, coal, oil and other stores of value in war, and that was the reason why they had been attacked, but the Government did not admit the right of General Franco or anyone else to attack these ships. What they did say,, he continued, was that they could not see any practical means of preventing it which would not be completely at variance with their responsibility of maintaining the non-intervention policy. He examined a number of suggestions advanced by Mr P. J. Noel Baker for bringing pressure upon General Franco, and in each case found that the difficulties were greater than the Opposition supposed. He came reluctantly to the conclusion that while the Spanish war continued they must expect a succession of these incidents. * The sole satisfactory solution of the question would be the termination of the war itself. On that, all he could say was that the Government would from time to time take soundings with a view to seeing whether there were any favourable prospects of successful / mediation, and when that time came they would be glad, either alone, or in conjunction with others, to offer their ' services to bring the lamentable conflict to an end. “INVITATION TO FRANCO.” Replying to Mr Chamberlain for the Liberals, Sir Archibald Sinclair said that he thought that Mr Chamberlain’s speech was an invitation to Franco to maintain and intensify the air blockade of the ports iri Government Spain by the bombing of'peaceful shipping. The only reason, he averred, why Britain, had sunk so low as meekly to suffer such insults was because Mr Chamberlain’s fortunes were politically bound up with the Anglo-Italian agreement and he asked for information' regarding rumours in the newspapers that. Mussolini had asked the British. Government to bring the agreement into operation in advance of the fulfilment of the condition of a general Settlement in Spain. Sir Archibald desired to know what had been the Government’s reply. He went on. to refer to a series of articles which had appeared in a number of United States and Canadian newspapers four or five weeks ago purporting to give the official British views on a number of recent questions of foreign policy. He argued that, in view of the presumption which had been created that the views expressed in these articles had been inspired, it was important that their contents should be denied by Mr Chamberlain and he expressed regret at the latter’s refusal either to confirm or deny them. PREMIER ON RUMOURS. Mr Chamberlain intervened: “I must protest against any assumption that, because I did not deny the interview, therefore I am admitting it. I made it perfectly clear that, if I were once to begin admitting or denying any gossip which may go round as an authentic or as an alleged interview, then, whenever I refuse to give an assurance one way or the other, it would be taken as evidence against me. That is the reason why it is impossible. for me to say that I will either admit or deny the truth of this story.” Several Government supporters speaking subsequently expressed resentment at Sir Archibald Sinclair’s speech, and Commander Southby (Cons., Epsom) declared that the pol--icy Mr Chamberlain was pursuing had won approval from the whole world. Mr Arthur Henderson (Lab., Kingswinford) referred to the persecution of Jews in parts of Europe as a result of a policy of racial discrimination and spoke of the excesses which, he said, had shocked the whole of civilisation. He asked the Government to take an active and helpful part in the forthcoming conference at Evian to discuss the problem of refugees. MR LLOYD GEORGE’S ATTACK. Mr Lloyd George (Ind. Lib., Carnarvon) attacked the Government’s attitude to the bombing of British ships in a vigorous speech. British shipping, he said, was the greatest in the world, and it had always been protected against attack until now. He argued that the incapacity of the Government to find means of continuing that protection originated in the Prime Minister’s rejection of Mr Eden’s advice that

the situation in Spain should be cleared before the opening of the AngloItalian conversations. Mr .Chamberlain’s aim of peace was a noble one, and perserverance in it was commendable, but if, in pursuit of that wide aim, he had taken the wrong course, it was sheer obstinacy not to admit it. Sir Henry Page Croft (Con., Bournemouth) thought that the Prime Minister’s policy introduced a glimmering hope of preserving world peace, and considered Mr Lloyd George’s and other Opposition speeches a dis-service to the cause of peace. Mr David Grenfell (Lab., Gower) wound up for the Labour Party and described non-inter-vention as a farce. NON-INTERVENTION PROGRESS. Mr R. A., Butler, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying for the Government, said that he was glad to be able to tell the House of the very distinct progress which had been made at today’s meeting of the Non-Inter-vention Committee. The agreement which had been reached on the main provision of the British plan meant that they had got a long way nearer to putting the plan into practice. In’ the near future it would be possible to submit the plan to the contending parties in Spain, and as soon as their acceptance had been notified it would be possible to put the plan into operation. Turning to Mr Lloyd George’s remarks about attacks on British ships, Mr Butler suggested that no substantial part of the public would be prepared to stand by Mr Lloyd George, and claimed the election result at Stafford as proof of this. The real issue was were they prepared to join in the war to protect British shipping? The Government was not. Mr Butler mentioned that he hoped to announce tomorrow the British delegation to the Evian conference on the refugee question. A Labour motion to reduce the Foreign Office vote was defeated by 278 votes to 148. Opening the debate on behalf of the Labour Party, Mr Noel Baker replied to suggestions sometimes made by back-bench supporters of the Government that the ships subject to attack had no right to the protection of the British flag and were trading with ports in Government Spain, despite the known risks, only for the purpose of reaping enormous’profits. His case was that the Government seemed incapable of making a stand against the demands of the dictatorship States, and he contended that if only they would show firmness the situation, instead of steadily deteriorating, would be found to improve.