§ 9. Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to General Franco's recently published Penal Law of Political Responsibilities, providing that proceedings may be taken against all those who have in any way supported the Republican Spanish Government against General Franco; and whether His Majesty' s Government contemplate making representations to General Franco with a view to securing a general amnesty?
§ 35. Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the British agent at Burgos to make representations to the Spanish Government concerning the intention revealed in the law recently promulgated to inflict penalties upon all Spaniards who have supported the last Spanish Government, with a view to mitigating the same?
§ Mr. ButlerI would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) on 9th March, to which I have at present nothing to add.
§ Sir H. CroftHas my right hon. Friend seen a suggestion from a Member of the opposition in Spain, with reference to the amnesty of prisoners?
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs that reply to the effect that His Majesty' s Government have asked the British agent at Burgos to make representations in this matter?
§ Mr. ButlerNot on the question of an amnesty, but the reply gives the circumstances of the inquiry we are making into the particular law to which the question refers.
§ 10. Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement concerning the circumstances under which documents belonging to General Franco's administration were found in a diplomatic bag being carried by His Majesty' s vice-consul at San Sebastian?
§ Mr. ButlerThere is no question of any British diplomatic mail bag being 11 concerned in the recent incident and the documents seized at the frontier were not the property of General Franco' s Government. The Board of Inquiry set up by my Noble Friend has not yet submitted its report, but the persons concerned have now been provisionally set at liberty.
§ 17. Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister what protest has been made by His Majesty' s representatives to the Burgos authorities relative to the announcement made by their naval authorities that they intended to institute a naval blockade of the Spanish Mediterranean coast; have any British vessels been seized; and what British lives or property have been lost since this announcement?
§ 23. Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether the Spanish Government have informed the British Government of their intention to establish a blockade?
§ Mr. ButlerHis Majesty' s Chargé d' Affaires at Burgos was instructed on 9th March to ask what was the exact meaning and effect of the notification, of which His Majesty' s Government were not previously informed. At the same time he was instructed to draw the attention of the Spanish Government to the statement made by my Noble Friend on that day in another place. No British vessels have been seized and no British lives or property have been lost since this announcement.
§ Mr. ButlerI should want notice of that question.
§ Mr. ButlerApparently the ship was taken under control by a Spanish Government warship, but her release was secured by His Majesty' s Ship "Intrepid" the same evening.
§ Mr. RobertsWhat steps are being taken by the British Navy to protect British ships in future?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend has made it perfectly clear that the British Navy will take action on the high seas if any steps are taken to interfere with British shipping.
§ Mr. A. HendersonWas not this ship released at the request of the British authorities because the British Government take the view that this blockade is illegal?
§ Mr. ButlerThe ship was released because the British Government strongly object to the action taken on the high seas, as made clear by my Noble Friend. Therefore, I would add, the action of the Spanish Government was, in our view, illegal.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs it not clear under maritime law that any action taken by the Burgos authorities following upon that declaration of blockade will in fact be completely illegal? Is there any doubt at all upon that point in maritime law?
§ Mr. ButlerI have explained the position of the ship in question, and of the incident, and of the position on the high seas quite clearly.
§ Sir H. CroftHow much longer is Mr. Billmeir to be allowed to risk British seamen's lives in forcing a blockade and prolonging the war?
§ 19. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the declaration of a blockade by the Spanish Nationalist Government, he will state the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to belligerent rights?
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)The policy of His Majesty' s Government regarding belligerent rights remains unchanged.
20. Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Prime Minister whether the Mexican Government and other foreign Governments have yet signified their willingness to receive refugees from Republican Spain if transport can be provided for them; and whether His Majesty' s Government is willing to approach the Spanish Government with regard to steps which may make this possible?
§ Mr. ButlerSo far as I am aware, such offers relate to refugees now on French territory. His Majesty' s Charge d' Affaires at Burgos has been instructed to inquire of the Spanish Government whether and, if so, under what conditions they will be prepared to allow the evacuation of Republican refugees from Spanish territory.
§ 24. Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether he has now any information from the French Government about an agreement reached between the French and Spanish Governments with regard to the position of refugees from Spain now in France, and the return of war material brought to France by the forces of the previous Government of Spain?
§ Mr. ButlerThe agreement referred to is confidential and has not yet been published by the French Government. I understand that the Spanish Government have agreed to the return to Spain of all the Spanish refugees who are at present in France. The Spanish Government notified the French Government on nth March that they had given orders for the opening of the frontier in order that the repatriation of the refugees might begin; it is expected that they will return at the rate of about 6,000 or 7,000 a day. The House will, I am sure, sympathise with the French Government in the extremely difficult situation in which they are placed owing to the enormous influx of refugees from Spain amounting to about 450.000 persons.
§ Mr. RobertsCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether that applies to all refugees in French territory, whether or not their lives would be endangered if they returned and whether or not they are willing to return to Spain?
§ Mr. ButlerI should have to examine the agreement, which is confidential, before I could reply.
§ Mr. RobertsWill His Majesty's Government use their influence with the French Government to prevent the forcible return of persons whose lives would be endangered?
§ Mr. ButlerI will pay due attention to the question put by the hon. Member and consult my Noble Friend on the subject.
Miss RathboneWould it not be contrary to French law to compel any refugee to return to Spain against his will?
§ 25. Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement in regard to the sentence of 30 years' imprisonment passed on Frank Ryan, of the International Brigade, by General Franco's courts?
§ 7. Mr. Jaggerasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to secure the release of all British subjects who are still prisoners of war in the jails of the Burgos authorities; and particularly, whether he will secure the release of Frank Ryan, who was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment?
§ Mr. ButlerNegotiations for the release of all remaining British prisoners in the hands of the Spanish Government by means of an exchange with Italian prisoners in the hands of the Republican authorities are proceeding as quickly as possible. The case of Frank Ryan has recently formed the subject of further representations to the Spanish Government, which will, I hope, result in his early release.
§ 26. Miss Wilkinsonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the situation in Central Spain?
§ 32. Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House information respecting the present situation in Madrid; whether the British Government has been, or is, in contact both with General Franco and with Colonel Casado respecting conditions for an armistice; and whether it is rendering assistance or is co-operating with the French Government respecting Spanish refugees in France, and the repatriation of refugees under conditions which guarantee their immunity from subsequent imprisonment, punishment, or execution?
§ 39. Mr. Dobbieasked the Prime Minister to what organisations who are working to assist the Spanish refugees on the French frontier, has the British Government made a grant; what amount has been contributed; whether the Government have any representatives on the committee; and is he now satisfied that the conditions prevailing in the camp for refugees is improving?
§ Mr. ButlerThe situation in Central Spain is still very confused. His Majesty's Government have not been in contact with General Franco or Colonel Casado about conditions for an armistice. My Noble Friend is of opinion that the question of the repatriation of Spanish refugees from France is a matter for arrangement between the French and Spanish Governments. Following consultation with the former Government. His 15 Majesty' s Government have, however, decided to render assistance towards the maintenance of refugees now on French territory through the agency of the British Red Cross Society to whom a grant will be made for this purpose in the immediate future. His Majesty's Government do not propose to be directly represented in this work and they understand that conditions in the internment camps are improving.
§ Mr. SorensenWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information regarding the last sentence in my question, respecting subsequent immunity from imprisonment, punishment, or execution?
§ Mr. ButlerThat matter is, I think, dealt with in a previous answer that I gave, and that is that we are still making inquiries in this matter.
§ Mr. PetherickWhich of the contending parties in Madrid can now be regarded as the official insurgents?
Captain CazaletDoes my right hon. Friend think that recent events in Central Spain bear out the contention of the Opposition that the Communists have had very little to do with the internal affairs in Spain?
Sir Nairne Stewart SandemanWill my right hon. Friend get in touch with General Miaja and ask him not to be too hard on his rebel Communists?
§ Miss WilkinsonIs the right hon. Gentleman now of opinion that the undue haste shown by the Government in recognising General Franco—[Interruption].
§ 29. Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister what reports the Government have received regarding the war material and combatants sent to Spain from Italy and Germany since the beginning of November, 1938; and whether he will give particulars?
§ Mr. ButlerReports indicate that General Franco has continued to receive assistance from Germany and Italy during this period, but it is impossible to give particulars.
§ Mr. CocksIn view of the statement by the Prime Minister on 2nd November that he had received from Signor Mussolini definite assurances that no further 16 Italian troops would be sent to Spain, are the Government still convinced of the good faith of the Italian Government in this matter?
§ Mr. ButlerI have dealt with this question several times. We have accepted the view of the head of the Italian Government.
§ 31. Mr. Bennasked the Prime Minister whether he has now received a report on the capture on the high seas of the steamship "Stangrove," and the subsequent death of the master?
§ Mr. ButlerThe steamship "Stangrove," a vessel of small tonnage, and not equipped with wireless, was seized on 5th February while proceeding from Valencia to Port Selva. She was carrying a cargo of chemicals consigned to the Spanish Government. The ship was taken to Barcelona and subsequently to Palma. The master of the "Stangrove" maintained that his position at the time of seizure was on the high seas, while on the other side it was held that he was within territorial waters. In either case His Majesty' s Government could not but regard the seizure as illegal, and, when news of the incident was received on 8th February, the acting British agent at Burgos was instructed on the same day to protest against the detention of the ship and its cargo, to demand the immediate release of the ship, its crew and the Non intervention Observer who was on board, and to reserve the right to claim for losses incurred.
As a result of the representations originally made by His Majesty' s Government and repeated on 19th February, orders were issued by General Franco' s Government on 24th February for the release of the "Stangrove" Unfortunately, however, as I have already informed the House, the ship had dragged its anchor in a strong south-westerly gale during the evning of 23rd February and was wrecked on the rocks in the inner harbour at Palma. The Master had been requested by the Spanish authorities to raise steam, but did not comply with this request. After the ship was wrecked the crew were saved by line. In spite of repeated attempts by the Spanish authorities to save the Master as well, he refused to leave his ship, and was subsequently found I regret to state dead in his cabin.
17 I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT an account of the sittings and detailed findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry set up under the presidency of the Captain of His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire"
§ Mr. BennWill an opportunity be given to go more fully into this case. Is it not a fact that an order was given to raise steam at 5.30, that a storm arose, and that the ship went on the rocks at 7.30, giving no time to raise steam? Is it not a fact that a naval officer was on the ship on the 8th, and that the ship was not released until 12 days later, when the storm arise which killed the captain?
Vice-Admiral TaylorIs it not the duty of the master of a vessel to get steam up on the approach of a storm without waiting for an order?
§ Mr. ButlerI would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the full account in the Naval Court of Inquiry, and if there are any further points which he wishes to ask, perhaps he will put a question down.
§ Mr. BennPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also inquire why this unfortunate captain was not allowed to communicate with the ship' s owners or his wife, and why for three weeks he was kept a prisoner on his own ship?
§ Miss WilkinsonWill the Minister also inquire why the Court of Inquiry found that the captain was accidentally killed while alone? How could they know he had met with an accident while alone?
§ Mr. ButlerIt would be better, in view of the length of the report of the Court of Inquiry, if hon. Members would read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I am informed that the master did communicate with His Majesty's Consul at Palma.
§ Following is the account:
§ A British Naval Court, the president of which was the Captain of His Majesty' s Ship "Devonshire," and the members of which were His Majesty' s Consul at Palma, Mr. J. H. Jones, Master of the British ship "Reliant," and Surgeon-Lieutenant Maxwell-Smith of His Majesty' s Ship "Devonshire," assembled on 28th February at Palma to inquire into the circumstances attending the stranding of the "Stangrove," to inquire into the conduct of the master, officers and crew of the said vessel and to investigate the 18 circumstances attending the death of the master. The court called for a report from Lieut.-Commander Gatacre, Royal Australian Navy, who is serving in His Majesty' s Ship "Devonshire," as regards the weather, from which it is clearly established that even on the morning of 23rd February, weather conditions were rapidly becoming so bad as to make it necessary for the "Devonshire" to hoist boats, let go a second anchor and raise steam for safety, whilst by the evening the wind had reached gale force. The court also took evidence from 11 other witnesses including the chief officer, the chief engineer and the boatswain of the "Stangrove," as well as the Non-intervention Observer, the Spanish Captain of the Base and the Officer of the Guard.
The court found as follows:The fact that the ship was under arrest, and at the time subject to the orders of the Spanish Captain of the Base, does not in any way relieve the Master of his responsibility for the safety of his ship.The fact that the Captain of the Base sent a message to warn the Master docs not, in our opinion, constitute an acceptance of responsibility for her safety by him.The principal cause of the stranding of the "Stangrove" was the inability of the engineers to raise steam in time to move the engines when the ship began to drag at about 19.20 (or 7.20 p.m.). This failure was due to the fact that fires had been extinguished on the 7th February by order of the Master, and although steam had again been raised on Saturday, the 18th, for auxiliary purposes, it had been extinguished that same day with the Master' s consent. On 23rd February, therefore, the engineers were faced with the problem of raising steam in emergency with a 44-years-old Scotch boiler, quite cold, and it was obviously impossible to produce any pressure under a period of at least eight to 10 hours.The weather conditions at about noon, and during the afternoon of the 23rd February were threatening, and a study of the barometer and the general weather conditions should have made it clear to an experienced seaman that bad weather was approaching. It seems clear to us that the Master was warned of this probability during the afternoon by at least three people—the Chief Officer, Mr. Evans; the Non-intervention Observer, Mr. de Graaf; and the Spanish Officer of the Guard-Falange Naval. Don Rafael Forteza. A temporary drop in the strength of the wind between 14.00 and 15.00 hours (i.e., 2 and 3 p.m.) and a general lack of faith in his barometer seems to have lulled the Master into a sense of false security, with the result that he took no precautions whatever for the safety of his ship until after 19.00, when he had received a written message from the Spanish naval base, and conditions of sea and wind were already dangerous.19It is unfortunate that no evidence could be produced as to the weight of the anchors and length of the chain cable, but the confidence of the Master and Chief Officer in the holding power of these stockless anchors seems to have been unwarranted.In our opinion the Master should have accepted the warning of his own experience and the reports of those officers already mentioned and started to raise steam early in the afternoon. We also consider he should have informed the Spanish naval authorities, through the Spanish Guard, of the dangerous position he would be in if the weather got worse, being without steam and anchored close to a dangerous lee shore.After the ship began to drag and the second anchor failed to hold her, there was nothing left to be done. It was now out of the question for the Spanish authorities to rescue the ship from seaward.After the ship struck, the conduct of the Master, officers and crew was beyond reproach, and the Master exhibited courage and leadership in arranging for the rescue of his company, and remaining on board himself until all were safe. We feel that his action in remaining on board was perhaps unnecessary, but that it was his considered opinion at the time that this course was not fraught with exceptional danger.We have formed the opinion from scanty evidence that the death of the Master was possibly brought about by accident when the ship listed heavily at about 03.00 on the 24th February, at which time he may have received the injuries which were directly responsible for his death. It is to be assumed, from the post-mortem report and the evidence given at this court, that death was due to contusion of the skull and concussion of the brain, accelerated by the poor constitutional state of health of the deceased. There was no evidence to point towards death being due to drowning.We consider that the conduct of the Spanish Officer of the Guard and his men was praiseworthy.
§ 34. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the traditional policy of His Majesty' s Government of allowing political refugees to be evacuated by British warships, he will assure the House that this policy will be maintained as far as is practicable as regard refugees from Central Spain even though the consent of General Franco to such evacuation has not been obtained?
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave on 8th March to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to which I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. HendersonIn view of the fact that these refugees are obviously fleeing from 20 General Franco, is it not absurd to expect them to receive the permission of General Franco before they can leave the country?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is a large question, and I do not think it is easy to put all the considerations in answer to a supplementary question, but I think it would clearly be very difficult for us to attempt to take off some thousands of refugees without any knowledge of what the circumstances are.
§ Mr. HendersonWhen His Majesty' s ship "Devonshire" went to Minorca she took off over 400 Spanish refugees, and would not the same considerations apply in that case, namely, that the captain did not know anything about the merits of the case?
§ The Prime MinisterThat was by agreement.
§ Mr. PetherickIs it not the case that when evacuation was carried out from territories under the control of the former Spanish Government the consent of the authorities was obtained?
Miss RathboneOwing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.