SPAIN. (Hansard, 6 March 1939)

§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn
I apologise for keeping the House, but I wish to take the opportunity of putting some further particulars about the loss of the ship "Stangrove," and to ask whether the Government can give us information which it was not possible to give at Question Time. We of the Opposition must take what opportunities the business of the House permits, and, therefore, I am compelled to raise this matter on the first opportunity. I know that Members of the Government have many important tasks to discharge, in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is engaged closely in the Palestine Conference. I do not make any complaint that he is not present. He has explained how he is fixed in regard to business, so that I can quite understand his absence. There is, however, a right hop. Gentleman present who, I understand, will be able to give any answer that may be required.
I am not going to make any comment or criticism on the policy involved in this matter. I am just going to give the simple story based on the information I have been able to ascertain, but if hon. Members who may be better informed than I am will correct me on any detail I will accept the correction. This is the story as I know it of the steamship "Stangrove." She is a small ship of 1882 600 tons and was in command of Captain Richards, who had been for over 30 years engaged on the Spanish trade and had a very fine record. On 2nd February he was in Valencia Harbour, carrying on a business which was perfectly legitimate, and which has never been described as anything but legitimate by the Government. On 5th February having left Valencia Harbour he arrived at Palma, and according to his statement, he was five miles from the coast. This statement is, I understand, accepted by the Government, because they declare that his capture to be illegal. About 7 o'clock in the morning an aeroplane appeared and began to bomb and machine-gun the ship. We may judge what sort of a man Captain Richards was, a man of 68 years of age, because he ordered the officers and the crew to take to the boats in order to be in a position of safety. He remained in charge of his little ship until the danger was over. When the boats returned with the officers and crew in safety they were smashed against the propellor of the ship.
A few hours later he was approached by a Franco warship and a gun was fired across his bows. He was ordered to heave to. On 6th February he was taken from his position on the high seas to Barcelona and when he arrived there was forbidden to communicate with the shore. Later, he was taken to sea again under an armed guard and two days later arrived, I think on the 7th, at Palma. When he arrived there the consul came aboard and interviewed Captain Richards. On 8th February a naval officer came aboard, so that the captain had been in touch with the consul and the naval officer when he was illegally captured. No report reached his owners of this fact. That is a curious thing, because I am told that if the captain of a ship finds himself in any difficulties his first duty is to report to his owners. All we know is that a letter was written by the Foreign Office who made an immediate protest to General Franco. Some days passed, and on 18th February, inquiries were made at Lloyd's and Lloyd's replied from Barcelona—I do not know why from Barcelona—to the owners saying that information concerning the vessel was not allowed. So that between 18th and 23rd February the captain was held captive, although he had been in communication with a naval officer and the consul.
1883 He was held captive from 18th to 23rd February. That was the week in. which His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" assisted in handing over Minorca; it was the week in which some important negotiations must have been taking place with General Franco with regard to recognition. It is a fact that during the week when all this business was going on, this captain was left a captive in his own ship. On 23rd February, he was told that orders had been received for his release—15 days after the Foreign Office had made their protest—and he was told to raise steam. We know what Captain Richards did when his ship was bombed; evidently he was a very determined man. He was a sailor and a captain, and we know that many captains, when their ship is lost, feel that they should be lost with it. There was this old man in his ship, and he was ordered to raise steam. The Under-Secretary of State said that the captain was ordered to raise steam, but that he was not ordered to leave the harbour. Why should a man be ordered to raise steam unless it was intended that he should be ordered to leave harbour?
We do not know whether he had coal to raise steam. The ship is now a wreck on the rocks, and we do not know whether he had coal or not. We do not know whether he did not feel that if he raised steam and left Palma harbour, he would lose the chance of being liberated; he may have thought—we do not know, and he is dead now—that if he left harbour, General Franco would tell him to go to another port, and he would be a prisoner again, on the eve of his liberation. In any case, he did not raise steam. He stayed where he was. The weather was bad, and his ship was dragged. The authorities on shore put up a breeches buoy and rescued 11 or 15 Spaniards who were the crew, and took ashore the officers —I suppose the engineer, the first officer, and perhaps the observer, if there was one on board. But Captain Richards refused to leave his ship. The next day, there was the old man dead, battered, having concussion, and the ship wrecked on the rocks. Those are the facts as far as I know them, although I am open to correction if anybody knows about this case better than I do. I have no comments to make, but I ask the House, which is very fair in its judgment on matters of this sort, whether responsibility for the 1884 death of this very honourable old man does not rest upon those who held him illegally captive until circumstances over which even they had no control produced his end.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead
I think the right hon. Gentleman fully realises that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is detained elsewhere, and all I undertook to do was to take down, as fully as I could, the points which the right hon. Gentleman made. I have no brief on this subject, and I was hoping indeed that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would have been here by this time; but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will not only report to my right hon. Friend the specific points which he made, and which I took down pretty fully, but also the very moderate and fair-minded way in which he raised the matter. I hope that in the special circumstances the right hon. Gentleman and the House will be satisfied with those remarks.

§ Mr. Lansbury
May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it would not be possible for the Under-Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to make as full and complete a statement as possible on this subject after Questions to-morrow? Nobody who has listened to this story can be unmoved. It is a terrible story, but one thing redeems it, and that is the courage and the devotion of this man to his duty and to his ship. That will stand out as one of the most wonderful stories of sea heroism that has been recorded of late. But that does not get away from the fact that this House and this country ought to have a clear and definite statement of the full facts, and if we cannot get anything more from the Government to-night, I ask that to-morrow, at the end of Questions, the House should have an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister himself a statement of the facts and of what the Government intend to do about this.

§ Mr. Arthur Henderson
May I endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)? Whatever the facts may turn out to be, it does appear that, in the initial stages, the present Spanish Government or their representatives, did 1885 commit a definite breach of international law in arresting this ship. Although one does not wish to discuss this question on a basis of legal technicalities, it is only reasonable to hold those authorities at least morally responsible for what directly followed as a result of that illegal seizure on the high seas. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first clear case since the Spanish civil war began, in which, beyond all doubt, the Spanish insurgent authorities arrested a British ship on the high seas. There have been many cases of doubt whether or not incidents took place within territorial waters, but in this case, apparently, the Government are prepared to admit that the seizure took place on the high seas. May it not therefore be a case in which His Majesty's Government ought to press with all the power of which they are capable, for the payment of adequate compensation to the family of this gallant seaman? I hope that whoever replies for the Government will give the undertaking asked for, that a full statement should be made to the House and the country of all the facts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has admitted that there are certain lacunae in his story. Can we not have the complete story? It must be in the possession of the Government. Let us have it to-morrow and with it, I hope, we shall have an undertaking by the Government that they will do all they can to secure some kind of compensation for the unfortunate people who have been left behind by Captain Richards.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson)
I gladly respond to the invitation which has been extended to the Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow 1886 and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) that they should avail themselves of the earliest opportunity of making as complete a statement as they can, on the incident which has been raised to-night. The only point I would make is this. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have been in his place to-night, had he not been engaged on public business. It was not a private engagement which kept him from the House but a matter of great importance, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was made aware earlier.

§ Mr. Benn
I have explained that.

§ Captain Margesson
As some hon. Members have come in since the right hon. Gentleman spoke I thought it well to make it clear. In the second place, the House will not expect me to say anything upon this incident on one side or the other. The House has heard the case stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and they will no doubt hear the case, such as it may be, on the other side when the appropriate moment comes. The only other point is this: The right hon. Gentleman said, could not the statement be made to the House to-morrow? It may be that it will be possible to do it to-morrow, but I would not like this evening to pledge my right hon. Friend that he will be in a position to do it actually to-morrow.' I can, however, assure the House that he will take the earliest opportunity of laying before the House the full facts.