OPPOSITION MOVE TO REJECT ARMS BAN MEASURE

Northern Advocate, 2 December 1936, Page 8

OPPOSITION MOVE TO REJECT ARMS BAN MEASURE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS DOMINION VESSELS CLARIFIED

[British Official Wireless.l (Received 2 p.m.)

RUGBY, December 1 fiiiHE second reading of the Bill to prevent the use of British ships in the transporting of arms and munitions to Spain was moved in the House of Commons by Mr Runciman, President of the Board of Trade. He said the British Government took the view that the Navy must not be used to safeguard British ships acting

in contradiction of the policy of the Government.

The simple prohibition of consignment by British ships was the proper course. Once the Bill was law there could be no excuse for any interference by Spanish warships with British vessels. As for Dominion vessels, it was entirely a matter for Dominion Governments.

What of Dominions’ Ships?

Opposition Concerned,

Mr E. Shinwell (Labour, Seaham); Supposing a Commonwealth ship, registered in Adelaide, engaged in this traffic would it receive protection of the Navy? Mr Runciman; I think the Navy would refrain from protection if Dominion ships were contravening the law relating to British ships. Mr Shinwell: Has • the absence of protection been conveyed to the Dominions? Mr Runciman: That has nothing to do with it. Rejection of the Bill was moved by Mr Noel Baker (Labour, Derby) who claimed there was no precedent for the Bill in British history. He argued that the Government should have waited for consultation with the Dominion Govern- - ments.

The Opposition was concerned at the effects of this. They also considered! that legislation on these lines should have been postponed until consultations with other non-interven-tionist governments had taken place.

Sir Archibald Sinclair argued that if General Franco wanted to challenge the British Navy, the Bill would not prevent him. and if, as Sir Archibald imagined, he considered it disastrous to his cause to attack the British Navy, the Bill was unnecessary.

Intervening in the debate, the Foreign Secretary, Mr Eden, first turned to the position of Dominion shipping, which he thought had been confused by the Opposition. They had no reason, he stated, to believe any Dominion ships were engaged in carrying arms to Spain, or that there was any likelihood of their doing so, but, if there was, they had no reason to believe that any Dominion Government would not co-operate with Britain in carrying out the policy of nonintervention. The position was that .Dominion ships would be entitled to the protection of Britain.

As he understood Mr Runciman, Dominion ships, on their lawful occasions according to their own law, but contrary to the proposed British law, would be deprived of protection of the British Fleet.

“Illogical,” Says Mr Eden.

Mr Eden declared that it was illogical to support non-intervention, as the Opposition professed to do, and to oppose the Bill. If the non-inter-vention agreement had been well observed the Bill would not have been necessary. - Unfortunately all, or portion of the countries were not carrying cut the policy of non-intervention. The Government thought it wrong that volunteers from any country should take part in fighting in Spain. Referring to the suggestion that the exclusion of the carriage of arms to Portuguese ports from the scope of the prohibition favoured the insurgents, Mr Eden recalled that the international committee had dismissed as unproven the only two accusations brought against the Portuguese Government, and informed the House that an enquiry addressed to the British representative at Lisbon elicited a reiteration of previous assurances. He had no evidence of violation of the agreement by Portugal.