SPAIN. (Hansard, 12 May 1938)

§ Mr. R. Acland
I would like to call attention to a question arising out of compensation to British ships damaged by bombing in Spanish ports. I would like to put the following facts of record. On 20th January, the "Thorpeness "was subject to deliberate bombing and several British lives were lost. In January also the "Endymion "was torpedoed and ten lives were lost. On 4th February the "Alcira "was deliberately bombed, with loss of the ship and British lives. On 15th March several lives were lost when the "Stanwell "was deliberately bombed. On 25th April several were injured on the "Stanland "; the Government claimed that the bombing was not deliberate but the captain said that it was. On 5th May the "Stanhope "and the "Stancroft "were deliberately bombed, but no damage was done.
When I asked why the Government presses for claims for compensation for damage done by the Japanese immediately and do not press for claims for compensation for damage done by insurgent forces in Spain, I get this answer, "The circumstances of the Civil War in Spain are so different from those of the present conflict in the Far East that it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to take identical action in both cases." I am aware that the circumstances in the two cases are in many respects different. May I draw attention to some respects in which the circumstances are the same? There is in both areas a conflict supported by the use of arms. In each case war has not been declared and there have been deliberate attacks on British property which has been damaged and on British lives which have been lost. That is the extent to which the circumstances are the same, and yet we get a wholly different treatment in the two cases with substantially different results.
Whereas in the case of Japan, taking it on the whole, deliberate attacks on British property and lives have diminished under His Majesty's Government's pressure for compensation, the attacks on British ships by the Burgos authorities are steadily increasing. The Government in this case are being laughed at and mocked. The Government must have seen the telegram from the six British captains from Barcelona. The British flag is held there in lower esteem than the flag of Panama. That is something the British 1883 Government are proud of. There is here a prima facie case for an explanation from the Government for this widely different treatment, and the answer we get is "Trust the Government." This is the Government which, acting contrary to our advice, has brought the world to its present state. [Laughter.] Let me omit, then, any suggestion of cause and effect and say that after six years of the policy of this Government the world is in its present state, and we are asked to trust that Government.
If it is a case of public interest the House is always willing to accept the Government's request not to press for information if the Government will only say anything or give any hint why it would not be in the public interest. But here we are simply asked by the Government, "Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what grandmother will give you. Take what is handed out and trust us." There are hon. Members, and, more important, there are people in this country, who are not prepared to accept that attitude from the Government. There must be some solid reason locked up in the very different circumstances of these two wars for this completely different treatment of the two cases. We should like to know that reason unless we are told that it is not in the public interest to give the reason. If that is done I can be satisfied. Otherwise are we not forced to the conclusion that if compensation is pressed for and obtained British ships can continue to go to Spanish ports, but that if compensation is not pressed for, and if there is no indication whatever that any compensation is going to be obtained by His Majesty's Government for these outrages on British life and property, then, sooner or later, those ships will cease to go? In that case, those Spanish people who are doing no more than defend a Government which they have elected, and who are now being battered down by the guns, bombs and aeroplanes which His Majesty's Government pretend are not there, will also be starved out, because His Majesty's Government, by its feebleness, its unwillingness to protect the British flag, will be reinforcing this campaign of deliberate outrage upon the British flag, British lives and British property.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler)
This has been a difficult subject to deal with by way of question and answer, and we are obliged to the hon. Member for providing us with an opportunity of giving a slightly fuller explanation of what I have found while I have studied it to be an extremely complicated and technical problem. I feel sure that the hon. Member will find that British interests are safe in our hands. I think that he will find that he is wise to trust to our discretion in this matter, and to believe that we have no other motive than to look after British interests.
The first question is, Why are claims presented at different times in the case of Japan and in the case of Spain? Let us first clear our minds about this first consideration, that, save in quite exceptional cases arising out of circumstances which distinguish them altogether from the ordinary claims on behalf of British nationals, the payment of claims would be made after the end of hostilities. That consideration reduces to that extent the actual importance of the moment of the presentation of the claim itself. At whatever moment presentations are made, they are usually settled after the end of hostilities. That is not surprising when the great complication of many of the claims is considered. It is often not possible to obtain the actual detailed information with which to back the claim during the progress of hostilities. The hon. Member would find it difficult to assess the actual total damage done to a factory in an area of hostilities, while those hostilities were proceeding, and in many cases it would be equally difficult to come to a decision in respect of damage to ships.
We come now to the actual dates for presentation. The ordinary practice, as far as I have been able to study it from precedents, is that in an ordinary war the presentation of a claim is sometimes made before the end of hostilities, but is usually made after it. Some of the claims in the course of the war in the Far East have been made before the conclusion of hostilities, but in the vast majority of cases those claims have not been made or paid.
What is the position in the case of an ordinary war between two national States? The reason for the presentation of claims 1885 after the end of hostilities, which is the normal and usual rule, is that claims presented during hostilities very often have to be revised and supplemented at the end of the war, as it is impossible to check them accurately during the course of it. It is also necessary to arrive at the principles to be applied to the particular cases and the machinery by which the claims have to be examined, and it is very often important, considering the claims as a whole, to divide them into different categories or different types. It is therefore difficult during hostilities to make a presentation.
These considerations are particularly applicable in the case of a civil war. In an ordinary war it is clear against which Government claims have to be made. For instance, in the case of the Sino-Japanese dispute, it is clear that in one case claims have to be made against the Government of Japan, and in the other that the claims must be made against the Government of China.

§ Mr. Mander
Has war been declared?

§ Mr. Butler
In the case of a civil war, such as the war in Spain, the position is that under international law claims lie against Spain as a State. In fact, the legal grounds for and the validity of a number of claims depend upon the outcome of the civil war itself.

§ Mr. Acland
It has already been decided that these claims lie against Franco.

§ Mr. Butler
If the hon. Member will allow me to pursue my argument, he will realise that this is a much more difficult and complicated question that his interpretation of it would suggest. In a civil war, only one side wins, and it is to that side that the claims are made. If there is a stalemate, there is all the more reason for keeping the claims in reserve till we see to which authority they must ultimately be made. Therefore, in a civil war there is all the more reason for keeping the presentation of the claims until the conclusion of hostilities, so that it may be quite clear as to the authority to which the claims shall be made.
In his original supplementary question to me, the hon. Member tried to make out that we were discriminating in Spain in favour of General Franco by not pressing claims upon him. The answer to that is 1886 that our practice followed to-day both against General Franco and against the Spanish Government has been identical. We have, in cases in which we considered there was a claim—and that is the case with those vessels where we have acknowledged that there was a deliberate attack and to which reference has been made—notified the authorities concerned that we considered that they were responsible. We have further notified the existence of a claim and we haveprotested. I consider, therefore, that we have done our utmost, according to the legal exigencies of the position, to protect British interests and to reserve the rights of the owners to payment, which, as I have said, it is the usual practice to make at the conclusion of hostilities. Both sides have been treated exactly alike, and by notifying our intention to press for a claim, we are doing, I maintain, all that we can to protect British interests. If we sum up the position, the hon. Member will see that, although the legal position is complicated, and, naturally, can be misinterpreted, we have taken the usual course according to precedent. I have gone into the precedents in this matter in the American Civil War. We have reserved our final presentation of the claims until after the end of hostilities, but have notified, during those hostilities, the intention that we have of making a claim, and have thereby preserved the interests of the owners.

§ Mr. Mander
It is not a civil war.

§ Mr. Butler
The hon. Member says it is not a civil war, but I must disagree with him there. I think I have proved that there is no difference in practice, such as the hon. Member may have supposed to exist, between our treatment of the authorities at Burgos and the Spanish Government. We have treated both sides exactly alike. That is a typical example of the attitude of impartiality which the Government have shown towards the Spanish conflict. I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member to whom we certainly bear no ill will for raising this complicated matter. I hope I have succeeded in clearing up some of the difficulties.