REBEL ATTACKS ON SHIPPING

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22429, 16 June 1938, Page 11

REBEL ATTACKS ON SHIPPING

ATTITUDE OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT PRIME MINISTER MAKES STATEMENT “SHIPS MUST TRADE AT OWN RISK” (BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.) (Received June 15, 1.10 p.m.) RUGBY, June 14. A crowded House to-day listened to a statement by the Prime Minister »(Mr Chamberlain) on the bombing of British ships in the ports and territorial waters of the Government of Spain. At the conclusion of a long answer to a private notice question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. R. Attlee) Mr Chamberlain said that apart from two proposals, of which he gave details, the result of a detailed examination made by His Majesty’s 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 an active part in the hostilities.

“In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, it would not be justified in recommending such a course, which might well result in a spread of the conflict far beyond its present limits,” he declared. “The Government must, therefore, repeat the warning which it gave British shipping on November 28 and 29 last that while it will continue to afford protection as hitherto to ships on the high seas, ships entering ports which are liable at any time to be the object of military operations and attack, must do so at their own risk. At the same time, it is impossible that attacks, frequently involving the loss of life, and sometimes apparently deliberate, on British ships, can be repeated, without serious injury to the friendly relations which the Burgos, authorities have declared that they desire to maintain with the British Government.” Early Debate Likely 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 began 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 ports, and to the reply of June 5, in which the Burgos authorities denied discrimination against British ships, and gave the reasons why they were unable to renounce the use of their air arm, including the assertion that the prolongation of the war was due to the importation of military supplies carried by British and other ships. “If by military supplies the Burgos authorities meant arms and munitions, it should be recalled that, by strict adherence to the non-interven-tion agreement, His Majesty’s Government has taken drastic steps to ensure that no British ships carried arms into any port in Spain,” said Mr Chamberlain. He added that the Burgos authorities had been invited to furnish His Majesty’s Government with any evidence in its 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 beep any contravention of the law by British ships. Continuing, he said that since the date of that reply the 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. Eleven had been sunk or seriously damaged, and in seyeral cases the attack appeared deliberate.

Faced with the situation which had arisen out of the develonment of military aircraft, and which was without precedent in previous exnerience, His Majesty’s Government had given earnest consideration to what action, if any, could be taken, and which was likely to ' give protection to British shipping, without, reversal of the policy of non-inter-vention. Difficulties of Protection 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 His Majesty’s ships. He indicated that the direct defence of ships in the present case was impossible without action which would constitute participation in the defence of the port, and which would amount to intervention. The Government had also considered retaliatory action of various kinds, but at present it was not prepared to embark on such measures which, apart from inherent disadvantages, could not be relied on to achieve their object. Finally, the Prime Minister mentioned two proposals which, if found practicable, might go some way to provide protection. The first proposal was for safety zones in certain harbours. This was being actively investigated. The second proposal was made by the Burgos authorities themselves, and it was that a port in Spanish Government territory be selected outside the zone of military operations for the use of British merchant shipping. Mr Chamberlain said that there were certain obvious difficulties about this suggestion. Replying to orie of the supplementary auestions by Mr Attlee, who asked if he were making representations not only to General Franco but to those governments also which were supplying the attacking aircraft, Mr Chamberlain said he thought that they must hold General Franco entirely responsible for the orders given to the forces under his command. A similar statement was made by the Foreign Secretary (Lord Halifax) in the House of Lords, where Lord Snell said that when the members of the House had had an opportunity to study it, they might have to ask for a debate*