§ 3. Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the circumstances under which the Liverpool steamship "Pinto," carrying foodstuffs to Valencia, was stopped and searched by the German battleship "Graf Spee," notwithstanding the fact that she carried two of the non-intervention board's officers; and whether any protest has been made?
§ Viscount CranborneI understand that the steamship "Pinto" was stopped by the German battleship "Graf Spee" in accordance with the normal procedure under the observation scheme. Officers went on board to satisfy themselves that the ship in fact carried observers, and that her papers were in order, but there was no question of the ship being searched. I understand that this duty, which was entirely in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the scheme, was carried out by the German officers in a most friendly manner. There is, of course, no question of making any protest, and my information is that the owners of the "Pinto" have no complaint whatever to make.
4. Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent slaughter without trial of some 50,000 men, women, and children in Madrid and Barcelona by the Spanish Government forces; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
§ Colonel WedgwoodBefore this question is answered I should like to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any authority for the statement in the question, and further whether this is a sample of the sort of statement for which he does accept responsibility?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot make myself responsible for statements in questions. Hon. Members are responsible for statements in their questions.
§ Viscount CranborneI am not certain to what specific events my hon. and gallant Friend refers. He will, however, be aware of the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government that the Spanish struggle should be conducted in all its aspects with the least possible infliction of suffering, and he may rest assured that they will do anything which they properly can to help to achieve this aim.
Vice-Admiral TaylorIs the Noble Lord not aware that the Communist and Anarchist supporters of the Spanish Government make a routine of carrying out these murders of innocent people, and in the interests of justice and humanity will he not communicate with the Spanish Government in order that they may take steps to control their supporters and prevent these wholesale murders?
§ Viscount CranborneIf my hon. and gallant Friend has any definite evidence, perhaps he will let me have it.
Vice-Admiral TaylorIs the Noble Lord not aware of the statement made by a very influential paper in this country, the "Times," on this matter, and will lie not make inquiries?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe never take that as evidence.
§ 8. Captain McEwenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether lie is now in possession of any information regarding the alleged landing of 1,500 German troops at San Sebastian on 27th April?
§ Viscount CranborneSince the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 5th May last, I have received a report from the British Vice-Consul at San Sebastian to the effect that he could obtain no confirmation whatsoever of the rumour that 1,500 Germans had landed there towards the end of April or at any other time.
§ 9. Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the progress made by the Non-Intervention Committee concerning the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain?
§ Viscount CranborneThe hon. Member will observe from the Press communiqué issued after the meeting of the Chairman's Sub-Committee on 24th May that the Sub-Committee had before them a report by their technical advisory subcommittee containing a plan for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Spain, and that it was agreed that this report should be submitted to the main Committee which was to meet this morning with a view to its urgent consideration by the Governments concerned.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerI suppose the Noble Lord cannot tell us whether the Committee reached any conclusion this morning?
§ Viscount CranborneI am afraid I cannot.
§ 10. Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the progress made by the Non-Intervention Com- 255 mittee concerning the request made by the Spanish Government for a commission of inquiry regarding the responsibilities for the bombardment of Guernica and the recent violations of the Non-Intervention Agreement?
§ Viscount CranborneThe hon. Member appears to be misinformed as to the facts. The request of the Basque Government for an inquiry into the bombardment of Guernica was not addressed or communicated to the Non-Intervention Committee. A copy was communicated to His Majesty's Government by the Spanish Ambassador on 30th April, and His Majesty's Government subsequently informed the principal European Powers and invited their observations on the suggestion for an inquiry adding that if, in their view, such an international inquiry could usefully be made it could, if thought desirable, be extended to cover other incidents of a similar nature and that His Majesty's Government for their part, would be ready to co-operate in such an inquiry whatever its scope. His Majesty's Government are awaiting replies from the Governments who have been consulted.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerDo I understand that the Government did not submit that request to the Non-Intervention Committee and that they are not acting through that committee?
§ Viscount CranborneNo, they submitted it direct to the Governments concerned.
§ 11. Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he recently refused visas for Spain to Mr. R. McKinnon Wood, Commander Pursey and Mr. G. Bing?
§ Viscount CranborneThe hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. These three gentlemen have been granted endorsements enabling them to proceed to Spain.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerCan the Noble Lord explain why they were originally refused endorsements and why they were held up for a considerable time?
§ Viscount CranborneYes, because when they first asked it was thought that their reason for going was not adequate. Later they gave other reasons, which were considered adequate.
§ Mr. PrittCan the Noble Lord say why these visas were refused definitely six hours before they were granted?
§ Viscount CranborneBecause when they were eventually granted them they gave different reasons from those which they had originally given.
§ Mr. PrittIs the Noble Lord aware that after they had given the fullest possible reasons, the visas were refused, and upon my intervention they were then granted?
§ Viscount CranborneI should like notice of that, but I think the facts that I have stated are correct.
§ Miss WilkinsonMay I ask whether in fact His Majesty's Government have any power to prevent anybody going to Spain if they happen to want to go?
§ Viscount CranborneThey have certainly the power to withhold visas.
§ Miss WilkinsonI am only asking for information, because it makes things a little awkward, but is this refusal of visas to Spain really not, in fact, a piece of bluff on the part of the Government, which cannot really prevent anybody from going?
§ 12. Colonel Wedgwoodasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is still the opinion of the Admiralty that the "Espana" was sunk by a mine?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Stanley)Nothing has occurred since my right hon. Friend's statement of 5th May to cause the Admiralty to modify in any way their conclusion that the "Espana" was sunk by a mine.
§ Colonel WedgwoodIs there any chance of the Admiralty making further inquiries into this matter, seeing that the question at issue is one that may cost this country millions of pounds as well as valuable lives?
Lord StanleyThe Admiralty have taken, and are taking, all reasonable steps to get the necessary information, and a considerable amount of evidence has been collected in the statement made by the First Lord. I think that undue importance should not be attached to the fate of an old battleship of this kind as having a bearing on the general question of the result of air attacks on battleships.
§ Colonel WedgwoodCould not we know whether the "Espana" was fitted with anti-aircraft guns?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat question does not directly arise out of the Question on the Paper.
§ 16. Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the extent of damage, number of and which compartments were affected by the explosion in His Majesty's Ship "Hunter"; the reasons which caused the Admiralty to form the opinion that the damage was caused by a mine and not by a torpedo; whether the mine which caused the damage conformed to the Hague Convention which stipulates that all floating mines should be harmless; and, if not, whether a protest has been, or is being, made to ensure that any further mines laid in Spanish waters shall conform to the Hague Convention in order to avoid danger to neutral vessels and their personnel?
§ 17. Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the cause of the explosion on His Majesty's Ship "Hunter," on Thursday, 13th May, while on non-intervention patrol off the south coast of Spain.
Lord StanleyThe report of the Court of Inquiry held at Gibraltar on 18th May to inquire into the cause of the accident to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter" has not yet been received at the Admiralty. In the absence of this report it is not possible finally to determine the cause of the damage, but the information I have so far received suggests that it was almost certainly caused by a mine. Considerable structural damage was done to the ship just abreast of, and abaft, the bridge, resulting in the flooding of two boiler rooms and the partial flooding of three other main compartments. The type of mine cannot be determined until the report of the Court of Inquiry has been received and considered; and I should therefore prefer to await this report before making any further statement.
§ Mr. ParkerHow soon are we likely to have the report?
Lord StanleyI understand that the report is due to-morrow, and we ought to be able to give the information sometime next week.
§ Mr. A. HendersonAs the view of the Admiralty is that the cause of this disaster 258 is contact with a mine, are any steps being taken by His Majesty's Government and the other Powers concerned to protect the ships that are engaged on non-intervention patrol duty by sending an international flotilla of mine-sweepers?
Lord StanleyIt has not been definitely confirmed in any way that there are moored minefields outside the three-mile limit. Naturally, the class of ship that we shall send to this particular duty is always under consideration.
§ Mr. HendersonIs not the only way to deal with mines to send mine-sweepers?
Lord StanleyIt depends very much whether it is an occasional mine which may have broken away from its moorings, or whether you have to deal with a properly laid minefield.
§ Mr. HendersonIs it not a fact that the Franco Government authorities have informed His Majesty's Government that the whole coast of Spain, with two exceptions, has been mined?
§ Mr. EmmottIn any case, would not the sending of a flotilla of mine-sweepers be a positive act of intervention?
§ Sir Archibald SinclairI hope that the Noble Lord will give us an assurance that no action will be taken to protect British ships which will be in any degree offensive to General Franco?
Lord StanleyThe right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that throughout the whole of this dispute the Admiralty have done everything they can to protect British shipping in any waters.
§ 27. Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Force agree with the Admiralty that the "Espana" was sunk by a mine and not by a bomb or by natural causes?
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon)As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, conflicting claims have been made by sea, land and air in connection with the sinking of the "Espana." The statement made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on 5th May indicated that it was impossible finally to establish the cause of the sinking of the ship, and I am not prepared to express any further opinion on the matter.
§ Colonel WedgwoodAre we to understand from that answer that the Air Ministry share the view of the Admiralty that while the ship was being bombed from the air she was sunk by a mine by a felicitous coincidence?
§ Sir P. SassoonWe always endeavour to agree in all things.