BRITAIN CANNOT GUARANTEE SAFETY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 139, 15 June 1938, Page 7

BRITAIN CANNOT GUARANTEE SAFETY.

RISKS TO SHIPPING. Vessels Entering Spanish Harbours. MR. CHAMBERLAIN EXPLAINS. British Official Wireless. .> (Received 12.30 p.m.) RUGBY, June 14. The House of Commons met after the Whitsun recess and a crowded House listened to a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, on the bombing of British ships in ports and territorial waters of the Government of Spain. At the conclusion of a long answer to a private notice question by the Labour Leader, Mr. C. R. Attlee, Mr. Chamberlain said that, apart from two proposals, of which he gave details, the result of the examination made by the British Government had been to show that effective protection could not be guaranteed to ships trading with ports in the war zone while they were in territorial waters, unless Britain was prepared to take active part in the hostilities. In the opinion of the British Government it would not be justified in recommending such a course, which might well result in the spread of the conflict far beyond its present limits. They must, therefore, repeat the warning they had already given British ( shipping on November 28 and 29 last, that, while the Government will continue to afford protection as hitherto ships on the high seas, ships entering ports which are liable at any time to be the object of military operations and attack I must do so at their own risk.

Possibilities of Further Attack. At the same time it Is Impossible that attacks, frequently involving loss of life, and sometimes apparently delil>erate, on British ships can be re|>eated without serious injury to the friendly relations which the "'irgos authorities have declared they desire to maintain with the British Government. The answer gave rise to a considerable number of supplementary questions, at the end of which Mr. Attlee announced that in view of the grave issue involved the Opposition would take an early opportunity of raising a debate on the matter. Mr. Chamberlain bepran his statement by referring to the British representations to the Burgos authorities on May 31, protesting against the damage suffered by British shipping in, or adjacent to, Spanish Government portß, and to the reply of June 5, in which the Burgos authorities denied discrimination against British ships and gave reasons why they were unable to renounce the use of the air arm, including the assertion that prolongation of the war was due to importation of military supplies carried by British and other ships. The Prime Minister said that if by military supplies the Burgos authorities meant arms and munitions, it should be recalled that by strict adherence to the non-intervention agreement the British Government had taken drastic steps to ensure that no British ships carried arms into any port in Spain. Rebel Charge* Not Proved. He added that the Burgos authorities had been invited to furnish the Government with any evidence in their possession on this point, but no evidence had yet been produced, except in one case, which was at present sub judice, to show that there had been any contravention of t">e law by British ships.

| Continuing, he said that since the date of that reply air bombardment had continued, resulting in the loss of several lives and further damage to ships. Since the middle of April 22 British ships had been involved in air attacks in Spanish ports, 11 had been sunk or seriously damaged, and in several cases attack had appeared to be deliberate. Faced with a situation which had arisen out of the development of military aircraft, and was without precedence in previous experience, the British Government had given earnest consideration to what action, if any, could be taken that would be likely to give protection to British shipping without a reversion of the policy of non-intervention. Mr. Chamberlain described the difficulties which had been encountered in | seeking a means of protection. The problem was totally different from that which arose last summer, when piracy by submarines was effectively countered by the action of British ships. Danger of Intervention [ He indicated that direct defence of ships in the present case was impossible without action which would constitute participation in the defence of a port and amount to intervention. The Government also considered retaliatory action of various kinds, but as present advised it was not prepared to embark on such measures, which, apart from their inherent disadvantages, could not be relied on ta achieve their object. Finally the Prime Minister mentioned two proposals which, if found practicable, might go some way to provide protection. The first was for safety zones in certain harbours, and was being actively investigated. The second was made by the Burgos authorities themselves, and was that a port in Spanish Government territory be selected outside the zone of military operations for use by British merchant shipping. Obvious Difficulties. Mr. Chamberlain said that there were* certain obvious difficulties about this suggestion. Replving to one of the supplementary questions by Mr. Attlee, who asked if he was making representations not only to General Franco, but to those Governments also which were supplying the attacking aircraft, Mr. ( hntnlx rlain saidji he thought they must hold General Franco entirely responsible for the j orders given to the forces under his , command. I A similar statement was made by the ' Foreign Secretary, Viscount Halifax, in the House of Lords, where Lord Snelljt said that when they had an opportunity |i to -tudy it they might hive to ask for, 1 a debute. 1