SHIPS IN SPAIN

Wairarapa Times-Age, 25 June 1938, Page 7

SHIPS IN SPAIN

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PRIME MINISTER DEFENDS NON-INTERVENTION OPPOSITION TWITTED (British Official Wireless). RUGBY, June 23. Moving the adjournment of the House of Commons in order to discuss the subject of further attacks on British ships in Spain, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. R. Attlee)said that there was no doubt at all that these ships were engaged in perfectly legitimate trade. They had non-interven-tion observers on board—in one case a Frenchman and in the other a German. The attacks .were delivered at a low altitude, and must have been deliberate. This followed a long series of other attacks on British ships and the late British protest at Burgos, yet the Prime Minister declared that nothing could be done. Mr Attlee claimed that this was a really extraordinary position if the powerful British Navy could not assure protection or exact immunity for British shipping from General Franco, whose naval forces were relatively negligible. He recalled that Mr Chamberlain had insisted that the attacks must be regarded as made by planes and pilots under the control of General Franco, and argued that in that case the position was simplified, for if the Government took action no complications, he inferred, could arise with any other Power—least of all, he suggested, with any other Power represented on the Non-Intervention Committee, which must share the British feelings regarding these attacks on merchant ships operating within the provisions of the non-intervention system and under the surveillance of the Non-Intervention Board’s officers. A British ship was as much a part of British territory as Gibraltar, and a British sailor just as much a British subject as any other person. The Prime Minister must be more specific, said Mr Attlee, if he wanted the House to believe he could not defend them. MR CHAMBERLAIN’S REPLY Mr Chamberlain, in reply, announced that the British Government had instructed the British agent at Burgos to ask that an explanation of these latest attacks be given without delay, and had directed him to return to London as soon as he received a reply in order that the Government might consider, in consultation with him, the situation resulting from the terms of the answer received. The Government, however, was not going to change the policy it has already proclaimed regarding the Spanish situation. The motive of that po - icy was not a preconceived idea in favour - of one side or the other in the Spanish civil war, but the will to preserve the greatest of British interests —peace. All through, the object of the non-intervention policy had been to avoid what they conceived to be the inevitable result of intervention, namely, the spread of the conflict beyond the borders of Spain until it became a European conflagration. Once warlike action was started, whether against General Franco or against some objective, who could tell that the operation would end there? He asked whether it was claimed that the country should go to war or take action which might conceivably involve it in war, in order to give protection to people who had gone in for the purpose of making profits in this risky trade despite the warnings given by the Government. Mr Chamberlain twitted the Opposition with a new-found enthusiasm for the defence of British rights and property and expressed doubt if their motives were entirely unmixed. He charged them with really desiring to see intervention on the side of the Spanish Government, and when the Opposition Leader intervened to assert that the Labour movement had accepted the non-intervention policy until it had been shown to be absolutely one-sided, he said that if any of the Opposition were still for nonintervention it behoved them not to be diverted from it by any provocation. The Prime Minister was subjected to considerable interruption from the Opposition benches, and at one point in his speech interrupters had to be ejected from the public gallery. The motion for the adjournment was defeated by 275 votes to 141. REDUCED MAJORITY UNEASINESS IN GOVERNMENT RANKS. DIVISION INTO TWO CAMPS. LONDON. June 24. The correspondent of the Associated Press states that the Government’s majority on the subject of attacks on British shipping in Spain was one of rhe smallest on a major issue of the present Parliament. The division lists reveal many Conservative abstentions. Uneasiness is spreading throughout the Government ranks as the result of the ceaseless and definite bombing. The Government supporters have no desire to harass Mr Chamberlain, but are divided into two camps. One accepts Mr Chamberlain's policy that intervention means war and consoles itself with the reassurance that the ships enter Spanish waters at their own risks, the owners and crews earning large profits. The other camp is deeply distressed and anxious that Mr Chamberlain should restore British prestige and discover an effective counter without risking war.