§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the position of the steamship "Molton" when captured yesterday; what was the position of the insurgent vessel when making the capture; where is the steamship "Molton" now; has she been brought or ordered to proceed outside Spanish territorial waters; what British ship reported the capture, and in what terms; did she make any signals to the steamship "Molton", and, if so, what were they, and did she take any action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it"]—and, if so, what action?
§ Mr. SpeakerI must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the latter part of the question as he has addressed it to the Minister does not appear in the notice submitted to me.
§ Mr. BennWith great respect, Sir, it is perfectly true that the sentence asking whether the ship made signals was interpolated, and if you do not wish me to ask that part of the question, I shall not do so.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman is aware that Members who are exercising the privilege of putting Private Notice Questions must frame those questions in accordance with the notice given.
§ The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin)According to a report which I have received from the Rear-Admiral, Second Battle Squadron, who was present in His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak," the steamship "Molton" entered Spanish territorial waters opposite Santander at approximately 5.45 a.m. yesterday morning. At this time the Spanish cruiser "Almirante Cervera" was outside territorial waters. When the steamship "Molton" was some distance inside territorial waters, the "Almirante Cervera" signalled to her, but these signals could not be distinguished from His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak." Subsequently the "Almirante Cervera" fired two warning shots, after the second of which the steamship "Molton" submitted, indicating the fact by altering course and reversing her engines. The "Almirante Cervera" ordered steamship "Molton" to proceed on a Northerly course. Shortly afterwards the "Almirante Cervera" fired another warning shot, whereupon His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak" intervened and asked why she continued to fire after the ship had submitted. The "Almirante Cervera" replied that she fired because the steamship "Molton" was delaying in carrying out the order. Thereafter steamship "Molton" steered the course ordered and was taken off under charge of the "Almirante Cervera." I regret that I am not aware of her present whereabouts. The report I have received so far does not show that any signals were exchanged between the steamship "Molton" and His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak" during the incident.
§ Mr. BennDo I understand that this attack on the "Molton" was made by the insurgent ship when the insurgent ship was outside territorial waters, and do I further understand that no action was taken by the "Royal Oak" against this insurgent ship when attacking the British ship?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LlewellinYes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The "Almirante Cervera" was outside territorial waters, but the point really to be noted is where the merchant ship was. She was well within territorial waters.
§ Mr. BennDo we understand, therefore, that it is the orders of the Admiralty to their ships not to interfere with insurgent ships outside territorial waters when attacking British vessels?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LlewellinThe policy of the Government has been made quite clear on this matter, and it was made clear as long ago as 21st April of this year, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, then First Lord of the Admiralty, said in this House:
If, however, a British merchant ship enters Spanish territorial waters, she does so at her own risk. These conditions apply whether or not the Spanish warship is inside territorial waters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1937; cols. 1725–6, VOL 322.]
§ Mr. GallacherIs there any further degradation for us?
§ Mr. Arthur HendersonIs it not without precedent in the history of this country for a British warship to stand by and allow a British commercial ship to be attacked by an insurgent warship, even though in territorial waters, when a state of belligerency has not been recognised?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LlewellinLet us be quite clear. This ship was not attacked [Interruption.] She was brought to by the firing of two rounds. I may say there is a great distinction, if you are in a ship, as to whether you are being fired at or not. At any rate, it is the clear policy of the Government not to afford protection in territorial waters. All merchant ships have been fully advised that that is the case, and they go there at their own risk.
Captain Arthur EvansIs it not the fact that warning was given to merchant shipowners by the Admiralty, and is it not true to say that no protests or representations have been made to the Admiralty by the Cardiff shipowners?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LlewellinI should want notice of that question.
§ Mr. BennIs it not a fact that the Admiralty have not informed the owners of what has happened to the "Molton"?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LlewellinI think I was quite clear. We do not know where the "Molton" is. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerI must ask hon. Members to assist me to see that questions are carried on in an orderly way. They seem to forget what my duties are. My duties are to protect Members of this House, and Ministers are Members as well as other hon. Members. Hon. Members are quite justified in asking questions and eliciting answers, but Ministers are also justified in asking for due courtesy to be paid to them.
§ Mr. BennIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to take an early opportunity of raising the matter.
§ Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee to-morrow he will withdraw the proposal for the recognition of General Franco until after the complete withdrawal of foreign nationals has shown whether or not he enjoys the support of any substantial part of the Spanish people.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden)The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that, at the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee held on Friday last, His Majesty's Government were entrusted by the Committee with a mandate to seek agreement on a solution of the present difficulties. The proposals drawn up by His Majesty's Government in pursuance of this task, which are set forth in Command Paper 5521, have been communicated to the members of the Committee and are to be considered by the Committee at its meeting to-morrow. In these circumstances, there can clearly be no question of any modification of proposals submitted at the Committee's direct request and which the Committee itself has not yet considered. In the meanwhile, the House, recalling that these proposals have been submitted in discharge of an international mandate, will, I am sure, wish to take no step which might have the effect of jeopardising in advance the cause of international appeasement which they have been designed to further.