AIR SERVICE. (Hansard, 17 May 1916)

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, "That this House urges that His Majesty's Government should without delay take every possible step to make adequate provision for a powerful Air Service."
The House will see that I have made the Resolution on the Notice Paper as wide as possible. I wish to refrain from making anything in the shape of a party attack on the Government, and the Resolution will enable the Debate to be as wide as possible. I do not think that I have spoken on this subject since I moved an Amendment to the Address on the 16th of February last, about three months ago, and the object of my Motion to-day is rather to deal with what has happened from the 16th of February last up to the present time, and prove to the House that no real answer has been made by any Government Department to the contention I put forward in that Debate, that both our Air Services should be unified under a Minister responsible to this House. I have not thought it desirable to put that in my Resolution because I desire to make the discussion as wide as possible, but that will be the conclusion I shall be forced to arrive at before the conclusion of my speech. We have had nearly twenty-two months of War, but I do not propose to go back beyond the commencement of the War period, but I think that the Undersecretary for War will agree that whatever information the Government Departments had before that time, within two months of the beginning of the War the Army and the Navy knew exactly what the possibilities of the Air Services were; they knew what aeroplanes could do, and the early reports of our Field Marshal show conclusively the value which the Army in the field attached to the Air Services. They also knew very soon after the commencement of the War the possibilities of Zeppelin raids and what could take place when Zeppelins arrived over our shores. It is now fifteen months since the first Zeppelin raid, which occurred on 19th January, 1915. Twenty raids occurred prior to the last Debate, and in the intervening three months there have 1546 been a large number of Zeppelin raids, amounting in one case to no less than six consecutive nights when Zeppelins arrived over our shores, I do not say unmolested, but at any rate without being entirely brought to book. I must ask the House to allow me to make one or two quotations from speeches made by myself during the War, because I want to make it clear that my condemnation of the Departments concerned arises from the fact that they had ample and definite notice in this House and outside of the actual state of affairs, and I shall ask the House to say that Ministers who have not taken efficient steps in face of the warnings they have received shall not any longer be entrusted with that Service, and that some other Minister should be appointed to take over the duties in which they have failed. I will not go back further than July of last year. On 20th July I said: There has been no real development in the Air Service and in the possibility of what the Air Service can do. They are going on doing what they were doing twelve months ago. They are doing it better, I admit, but it is the same kind of work. There has been no real conception of the possibilities of aerial offence. That was ten months ago to-day. I am asking that there should be immediately provided a sufficiency of powerful fighting machines in order that the Zeppelins may never start from the other side of the North Sea. That was a demand made, not two months ago, but ten months ago, and the object of my speech was to get the Government to realise the enormous possibilities that there were in our Air Service from a fighting point of view. The Prime Minister intervened in that Debate, and he informed us that the Government would be grossly negligent in its duty if it did not make every effort both to extend the mechanical development of the aeroplane and to secure an adequate supply of pilots. Speaking with knowledge and authority, I say that at this moment it is being developed and expanded in every possible way, under the best auspices and the wisest guidance. The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Tennant) also intervened in the course of the Debate and told us: A policy has been decided upon, and that policy is being carried out as rapidly as it possibly ban be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1915, cols. 1351–3, 1367 and 1382.] I assume from the speech of the Prime Minister and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the policy that had been decided upon was a policy somewhat in accordance with the demand 1547 which I had formulated, because neither of those right hon. Gentleman got up and said: "The hon. Member for Brentford is talking nonsense as to the possibilities of aerial defence." They said nothing of the kind, but admitted, silently it may be, the demand that I had made, and both of them said that everything was being done to carry out a policy which I think I am entitled to assume was a policy somewhat on the lines I had laid down. I do not think I need quote my speech in November, but I pointed out that in the spring there would be an increase of aeroplanes and a recrudescence of aerial offensive on both sides, and I asked my right hon. Friend if he could not, with the assistance of scientific advisers, devote the intervening winter months to the preparation and completion of an up-to-date really powerful aeroplane engine. I asked him to devote himself to a powerful engine, in order that our aviators might go up and fight the Germans on a machine which was equal to the German machine. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty replied on behalf of the Government and told us, and I think quite rightly, that it all depended upon munitions. They are improving every day. They are much more formidable now than they were, and they will be much more formidable than they are. He promised us that there would be a much more formidable increase in munitions of war as applied to the Air Service. With regard to the absence of antiaircraft guns, the right hon. Gentleman said: The House must accept that as an unfortunate fact, which is being remedied, which has for months been in process of being remedied, is from day to day improving, and will get right I, hope, before a not very long time. That was six months ago and I am told that many months after that a wooden gun was put up at a certain place. It was admitted in a subsequent Debate that we were short of anti-aircraft guns. I want to call attention to another paragraph in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty which shows, I think, an absolute misconception on his part of what an aerial offensive might become. He told us that the time might come when An aeroplane, starting from the shores of Norfolk, might become a menace and a terror on the banks of the Rhine. But that time is not yet, and there is no use our pretending that it is"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, llth November, 1915, cols. 1384 and 1387.] 1548 We had then been fifteen months at war, and he told us that some time or other an aeroplane might become a menace on the banks of the Rhine, but it was not yet. He would not, however, go so far as to say that it never would be in our lifetime. That is the kind of speech and the type of mind which is not suitable to the inauguration and completion of a great new system, such as our Air Service. Everything was being done both in July and November of last year. What was the defence in February of this year? I was dealing then with defence against Zeppelins by aeroplanes. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War assumed a complete surprise. He said that aeroplanes were intended for fighting purposes only, and not for defensive purposes against Zeppelin raids.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I take this out of his speech. He told us that there were four purposes for which aeroplanes would be used, and he went on to say that they were never intended for defensive purposes against Zeppelin raids. This was a new proposal in February, 1916. My right hon. Friend had never heard of the "hornets" speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Churchill) more than two years ago. I am not going to read it. The "hornet" is here, and perhaps he will be able to tell us something about it. More than two years ago my right hon. and gallant Friend knew that aeroplanes were to be used as an offensive weapon against Zeppelins. I cannot help thinking that the Under-Secretary would not have made this speech in February if he had realised that two years previously the First Lord of the Admiralty had told us that aeroplanes were to be used in a swarm as a defence against Zeppelins. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman opposite knew that thirteen months before aeroplanes had gone up against Zeppelins, and he knew that one Zeppelin at any rate had been successfully attacked by an aeroplane, and that it was at least possible that aeroplanes, could be a good defence against Zeppelin, raids. There is one more quotation I am going to make, and I hope it will be the last. I hope that arrangements will be 1549 made to render unnecessary these constant attempts to "ginger" the Government: We do not require a Debate like this; we do not require an Amendment to the Address; we do not require invective against the Government to make us put forth our best efforts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1916, col. 109.] It seems to me that is exactly what the Government have required and needed.
4.0 P.M.
I really tremble to think what would have happened to the Air Service if, during the last few years, a small body of Members had not tried to ginger the Government. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in spite of his speech six months ago, in which we were told that the difficulty was being remedied and the guns were coming forward, comes down again and says, "We have not got the guns. The Navy and the Army have not got all the guns they want, and how can we expect that the aeroplanes shall have them?" I almost despair of trying to get the right hon. Gentleman to realise what is needed for our aeroplane service. He is splendid and the Board of Admiralty are splendid with regard to "Dreadnoughts" and naval affairs generally, but they do not realise the possibilities of this Air Service. I do not think they like it. They look at it as an excrescence on the Navy which will be got rid of sooner or later. May I give the House one or two instances with regard to the warnings the Government have had on this question of antiaircraft guns. Some three years ago a captain in the Royal Field Artillery wrote to the Board of Ordnance warning them that the anti-aircraft guns were not satisfactory. He put a proposal before them for an improved gun. He warned them that the pom-poms were of no use against Zeppelins or aeroplanes, and yet we have been using them and are still doing so in certain parts of the country. How did they treat that warning? A member of the Board wrote to him: Your invention is the cleverest that has come before the Board in my time. Do work at it and press it. After that he set to to improve the plans. He saw the Board several times, and was asked for drawings, and night after night after battles and fighting in the trenches he sat down in his dug-out and perfected his plan for an anti-aircraft gun. He came back home and worked at the Ordnance Board for six days. The Munitions Board wrote and asked if he could not be 1550 spared to stay over here and perfect his invention, and the Army authorities replied that he was needed at the front and they could not spare him in order that he might perfect at home this very important invention. He went back again to the front and was continually engaged in fighting until September or October last year, when he came back. He again went down to the Board about his invention, but it was of no avail, and when he got back to the front he wrote in exasperation, and said: Is the Army going to take up this proposal for an improved anti-aircraft gun? In six weeks time he got a letter in reply, and the answer was "No." I do not know whether his improvement is a good one or not. I am not here to say anything about that. The case is to be investigated by the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact remains that for nearly three years this improvement in anti-aircraft gunnery was before the authorities, and in the end the officer gets an answer in the negative.

§ Mr. R. HARCOURT
Can the hon. Gentleman say what class of invention it is?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I am prepared to tell the Government what it is, but I do not think I ought to state it openly in the House. It is the invention of an officer who is serving at the front at the present time.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Perhaps I may be permitted to ask to what Board he wrote. Was it the Ordnance Board or the Board of Invention?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
The Ordnance Board.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I understand that that is under the Ministry of Munitions.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Yes, and the Ministry of Munitions asked that this officer should be allowed to stay at home in order to perfect his invention. I am not going to suggest, and I do not suggest, that an improvement has not taken place in the Anti-Aircraft Service. A very great improvement has taken place in many respects. My right hon. Friend asked me during the last Debate to go over to Horse Guards and see the arrangements in regard to the defences of London. I went, of course, and I say 1551 unhesitatingly—I am not going to describe what I saw—very great improvements have taken place in regard to notification, telephones, and so on.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
My right hon. Friend applauds the statement. It is only fair to say that the officer who showed me round pointed out with very great pride that all the improvements that had been made had been effected since January of this year. But we have been trying to get these improvements, not since January, 1915, but since January, 1914. That is my complaint. I admit that something has been done. If nothing had been done, why, good gracious, the right hon. Gentleman would have been hung up on a lamp-post long before now. I repeat a great improvement has taken place. But the point I am trying to make is that all through there has been delay of some kind somewhere. It is not easy for a private Member to put his finger on the exact Government Department and point out where the delay takes place, but the very fact that the arrangements for the defence of London with regard to Zeppelin raids were not put on an efficient basis until thirteen or fourteen months after the first raid took place is a condemnation of somebody in the Government. I am prepared to admit that the defence of London against Zeppelin raids is, as far as one can see at the present moment, very efficient indeed; but the very fact that it has been made efficient is a condemnation of somebody who was responsible or is responsible for the defence against Zeppelin raids, and the men and women who suffered six months ago from those raids are entitled to say to the Government, "The very fact that you have now put London in a proper state of defence shows that you are responsible for the deaths that occurred on the occasion of those raids."
But apart from London, as I think the House will admit, the position in the country is not nearly as satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the whole country could not be fortified. That is perfectly true. But much more could be done than is being done by means of mobile anti-aircraft guns, if you have efficient anti-aircraft gunnery corps of a mobile character. Take that particular 1552 section on the East Coast from the Wash down to the Thames. I do not propose to set out the whole scheme, but I do suggest that some fifty or sixty decent guns, with decent searchlights, on mobile forms of traction, would be a sufficient defence against Zeppelins coming over. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a new scheme; it is not a scheme I have adumbrated for the first time. It has already been put before the Government; it has been approved of by a gentleman in a high position who was responsible some little time ago for certain of the gunnery defences of London. Why has it not been carried out?

§ Mr. TENNANT
Who says it has not?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I do.

§ Mr. TENNANT
You are wrong.

§ Sir E. CARSON
What we want to know is, has it been carried out?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of replying. I would like to tell him that a certain anti-aircraft gunnery corps, of which I spoke three months ago, is still in the Eastern Counties to-day armed with the same pom-poms and the same maxims. It is quite true they have had a certain number of new guns which were sent to them soon after the last Debate. These guns are machine guns, but if they are to be fired with the ordinary machine-gun ammunition they are of no use against Zeppelins. If they are to be fired with a particular class of ammunition, then I may tell the right hon. Gentleman they have not got that particular ammunition to this day. These guns were sent round to the Eastern Counties months ago to fire a certain form of ammunition which has not yet been supplied. I say, if there were an Air Minister who was responsible for that, he could be called over the coals in this House. Why should there be any necessity for this constant backwards and forwards sea-sawing between the Army and the Navy? Why should we really not know who is responsible? I want to go one step further with regard to these guns. I referred to them on the last occasion, and I am going to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if proper guns had been provided for the corps, in all probability Zeppelins would have been brought down six or eight months ago. Let me quote, with regard to one or two 1553 raids, the OFFICIAL REPORT. The raids were on the East Coast, and the Report says: Gun Commanders report that Zeppelin was a splendid target, and more powerful guns would almost certainly have caused considerable damage. I will not say publicly where some of these guns are at the present time, but I want to read to the House another letter sent to one of my colleagues. It is from a gunner, who wrote quite recently:— We feel strongly about the almost criminal folly of leaving a fairly useful and exceedingly well-trained body of men to kick their heels about, armed only with antiquated pom-poms and maxims, guns which, even if they were up to date, are perfectly useless for our purpose. The members of these corps, keen, eager, and anxious as they are to take their part in the defence of the country, complain that they have not yet been given the guns which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty told us months ago were being remedied and pressed forward. The real trouble both here and abroad with regard to our Services is the lack of imagination in the official heads of the Services in this House as to the possibilities of what can be done with regard to air raids. My right hon. Friend has recently rather congratulated himself, as we have seen in the public Press, on our having brought down a number of foreign airmen. I am prepared to stand here and say we have not yet got command of the air at the front. In the earlier part of the War, it is true, we had, but that was due to the bravery of our men and in spite of the inadequate machines with which they were provided with which to beat the Germans. But here and now I say we have not got command. If the House will bear with me, I would like to read one or two extracts from letters in regard to this matter by men who are fighting. Here is one from the front: We have had further illustration of our not having the mastery of the air. Three days ago bombs fell all round our billets. Squadrons of Taubes came practically without interference in full daylight and returned when they had done to their own country. The German Fokker machine has been in active business for a very long time now—I suppose a year—and has of late increased and multiplied so far that its depredations have compelled the attention of the authorities. Such fighting machines as we have been in possession of until now have been fast enough in their way.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Is that from an Infantry officer?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Yes, from a captain in the Royal Flying Corps who 1554 has already received a Military Cross for bravery in this War. He was over here not very long ago, and he wrote a letter with regard to the condition of our flying grounds with regard to Zeppelin raids. Perhaps I had better not read the whole of the letter, because it might give information to the enemy, but with regard to the mastery of the air it gives no information of use to the enemy, and it is only right that the House should know the views of an authority upon this matter. This officer is flying every day. He says: At the front the tales you are told about our mastery of the air are known by all of us out here to be absolutely incorrect. We have not got the mastery. We have the pluck, we have not got the machines. It may soothe the British public's mind, but we airmen know the truth. That is not a satisfactory position. That is not really a position in which we ought to put our men, gallant as they are. This man is a gallant man, and is a Military Cross officer. Later than this and only the other day there was another case. A young officer went up to make a reconnaisance on one of our machines about which I have been complaining for months past. It was a good machine in its way, but was not suitable to meet the Germans because it was not fast enough. He went up to do his reconnaisance. He was above the clouds, he came back, and on his return said he had seen nothing. His superior officer said: Why do you not go beneath the clouds? They are only 3,000 feet? He said: No, Sir, not on this machine. If I had a fast machine I would go, but this machine is not fast enough, and it is too dangerous to do it at that height. After this discussion the superior officer said that he would go himself. He was a brave man. He went up, and within ten minutes he was shot dead.

§ Mr. BILLING
(sitting below the Bar): Shame!

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
That was because the machine was not sufficiently quick enough to enable him to escape the German guns.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I must inform the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing) that, as he is sitting outside the House, he must not make any interruption. If he wishes to interrupt, he must come inside the House, which is the proper place.

§ Mr. BILLING
(from inside the House): I was not aware that I was outside the 1555 House. I will exercise the privilege of remaining inside the House, so that I may maintain the privilege of making any comment I think fit.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That was why I informed the hon. Member, and asked him to come in.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Here is another letter, not sent to me, but sent to one of my colleagues on these benches: Will you take part in pressing upon the Government the necessity of supplying our airmen with higher power machines, so as to enable them to fight the German machines on equal terms. At present there are four German machines which are faster than the machines on which my son is every day being sent up. That letter was handed to me. Before I could use it, I wrote to the father and asked him whether I should be absolutely safe—he is a man occupying a high position, and his name would be well known here—in using that letter, and whether he could give the names of the four machines. He sent me a letter this morning giving the names of the four German machines, all of which are superior to the machines on which our men are sent up. I myself have been out to the front and seen the organisation of our Air Service there. It is splendid, I do not dispute that for a moment. The organisation is good, the men are good, and the machines of a type are good. They are magnificent machines, but they are not fast enough, and have not sufficiently high engine power. I saw any number of new machines, all of the same old type of machines that we used when the War began, with the same old engines of eighty-five, ninety, and ninety-five horsepower. What I have been trying to impress, time and time again, is that you cannot meet a German machine of 150 horse-power with an English machine of 90 or 95 horse-power. That is my whole case against the Flying Corps, as I told the right hon. Gentleman in private conference some time ago. What I want is to have someone in charge of the Air Service who will stop the making of these machines. My right hon. Friend knows that a contract was given a little time ago to an English firm for 1,000 90 horsepower engines. They are being pressed for delivery still. Why is not that contract scrapped at once and a new contract entered into, not for 95 horse-power machines, but for 200 horse-power machines? I know that there are other 1556 higher horse-power machines being built, but what is the good of turning out 1,000 engines of 95 or 90 horse-power?
Up till now our machines have been, maids-of-all-work. They have had to carry a pilot, an observer, one or two guns, ammunition, a few bombs here and there, photographic apparatus, and wireless equipment. No wonder they are called Christmas trees at the front. They are decked all over with all kinds of these things, and they cannot go more than the certain number of miles per hour they went at the beginning of the War. I have no time to describe them. My right hon. Friend knows the types of machines we must have if we are to win the battle in the air. We want at least four types, of machines, not in tens or dozens or twenties, but some of them in hundreds. These machines can be made in England. The other day I heard of an excellent machine, a new machine, which I am told is going to be made and which can go, as I have asked for years in this House it should be able to go, from Dunkirk to Essen and back again. The other day I asked a gallant young officer whether, if I could give him 100 machines capable of flying from Dunkirk to Essen and of bombing Essen or the Rhine bridges, he could find 100 pilots to volunteer to do it. The young fellow's eyes blazed up and he said, "Good God! Yes" The young men in the Flying Corps are anxious to do it. They only lack sufficiently high-power machines. We want these machines, not merely in scores, but in hundreds. There is no harm in mentioning the fact that one big firm in France recently had an order for 2,500 machines, and at the present time they have a thousand machines in reserve at their works which have not yet been delivered to the French Army. Who ever heard of an order of that kind being given to one of our British firms? Some English firms have told me that they could do more than they are doing, that they could put up bigger works and turn out more machines. It is not a lack of ability, it is a lack of imagination in high quarters.
I know that hon. Members may think I am a fanatic on this question, but may I ask the House to realise what the position would be if we had the command of the air at the front? I am not really so much concerned about the defence against Zeppelins here, because the real defence is at the front in Flanders and in Germany. If we had our proper defences 1557 there we should not hear much more of Zeppelin raids here. If we had the real command of the air in Flanders we should come very much nearer to ending the War. There would be no German reconnaisance, they would know nothing of what we were doing behind our lines, their artillery would be blind, they could not tell the effects of their gunnery, and they would not know where our batteries were. It is giving no secret away to say that one knows that the artillery fire is directed by the Air Service. If the Germans cannot tell where our fire comes from they send an aeroplane over to locate or spot one of our batteries. I will give an instance. A little time ago an aeroplane was hovering over one of our batteries—one of the officers told me this himself—and by a strange piece of good luck they got hold of the tune of his wireless, so that the battery actually heard this German machine wirelessing back to his own batteries the exact location of the British battery. An hour or two afterwards the battery was very heavily bombarded by about 150 shells. Naturally the Germans did not gain anything by it, because our men, knowing what was coming, got to ground, and the only actual loss caused by that bombardment was one thermometer, which was broken. That is how the fighting takes place. The aeroplanes communicate by wireless exactly where the batteries are placed. If we had the command of the air the Germans could be completely blinded.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that our aeroplanes do not do the same thing in hundreds of cases, as compared with the ten cases of the Germans?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Of course they do. The right hon. Gentleman either does not or will not recognise that my argument is directed to a heavy offensive movement which will give us command of the air. My complaint is that the political heads do not seem to realise what command of the air means. It would mean the blinding of the German Army. It would mean that we should have reconnaissance work, that we should see everything and be able to place our batteries exactly where we wished, and that we should be able to send raids on the German lines of communications, not merely with twenty or thirty aeroplanes—what I want is 500 to-day, 500 to-morrow, and 500 the next day. What would be the result of that? The 1558 absolute command of the air. The German lines of communication, the German, batteries, the German stations, the German trains, the German convoys, the German ammunition columns—everything would be bombed flat, and I want my right hon. Friends who are responsible for the Air Service to realise this, and to give the country at least the opportunity of trying whether it is feasible. It would, not cost much compared with the cost of the War. We are spending £5,000,000 a day. This could be done for £10,000,000. You may say it would not succeed—I believe that is the attitude of a great many people—but at least it could be tried, and there should be a possibility of trying it.
In conclusion, I want to ask whether we are to go on permitting those who have been responsible for the position of affairs up to date to still go on managing them or whether we are to have a new head for the Air Services? We have had Sir Percy Scott, Lord Kitchener, Lord French, Lord Derby, Lord Montagu and my right hon. Friend himself, and we see the position of affairs to-day. What we want is somebody who will take charge of the Services, who will amalgamate them and who will prevent friction, for friction does go on at the present time. We want somebody who will prevent competition in regard to the supply of machines, who will take charge of the factory which is spending over £10,000 a week in wages to-day, the factory whose head is paid the salary of a field-marshal. That factory is hated both by the Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Service, and it is a factory which many of our best flying officers regard as being a hindrance rather than a help, except from the experimental point of view, in regard to which it is doing quite good work. We are told by the public Press that something is going to be done and that some announcement is going to be made to-day. It is very difficult to speak of the possibilities or probabilities when we do not know what is going to happen; but I want to warn my right hon. Friend that no mere reconstruction of previous Committees will do any good in regard to this question. We do not want Committees, and we do not want a man of the eminence of Lord Curzon sitting as chairman of a Committee, perhaps two or three days a week, and thereby wasting his time, in the same way that Lord Derby and Lord Montagu wasted their time when they were on that Committee. Personally I desire to guard 1559 myself from supposing that Lord Curzon would not make an efficient Air Minister. The question is whether he is going to have the power which will make him an efficient Air Minister. I agree that we must have a civilian because if you put an Army man the Navy will not like it, and if you put a naval man the Army will not like it. May I appeal to the Government not to make another board or another committee, but to put some man in charge who will be responsible, some man with a, reputation to lose, and not a man who wants to make his reputation. It is going to be a dangerous and difficult business. It is going to be a business in which failure is quite possible, a business which a man would only take if he is prepared to risk his reputation for the good of his country.

Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW
I beg to second the Motion.
I cannot profess to the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend, but I desire to say a few words from the point of view of the ordinary Member. There has never been a time when the responsibility cast upon the ordinary Member is as great as it is to-day, partly because our numbers are very much reduced—gallantly reduced—by absence at the front, partly because the decisions are so momentous, partly because we run the risk, if we say nothing, of being joined in responsibility for serious trouble, partly because if we take the other course and criticise, or demonstrate what we think is going wrong we lay ourselves open to the attack that we are trying to hamper, or possibly defeat the Government. Therefore the responsibility of the private Member in these circumstances is a great one. I want it to be quite clear that the last thought in my mind is that any criticism of mine should in any way be calculated to impede the Government in their work. We all want to give more strength to the Government rather than the reverse. I think all who listened to my hon. Friend's speech must have felt that it is difficult for the Government to justify a good deal of what has been done, or not done, in the last ten or twelve months. With most of my hon. Friend's remarks I am entirely in agreement but with one in particular, and that is that this question of defence and offence in the air has got to be settled mainly at the front, and not in this country. We are all agreed about that. No one who has studied the strategy 1560 or the tactics of the War can doubt that for a minute. At the same time I want to say a word on a side of the subject which has not been so much emphasised by my hon. Friend. There is, undoubtedly, an uneasy feeling in many parts of the country with regard to the question of defence against air attacks, and it is desirable that that uneasy feeling should be recognised. We are told that the defences of London are now in a very much stronger position. We in London heartily welcome that state of affairs, but we are given very little information as the position of affairs in other parts of the country. We bear in mind the words of the Under-Secretary which he used on 16th February last: It is not really a feasible method of defence to say that all parts of this country are capable of protection against this particular class of warfare. To say that would be misleading the public. It is not possible. I represent a Constituency in Lancashire, where we are a good deal concerned about these words of the Under-Secretary. We feel some doubt whether possibly we may be a locality where those words apply, and when the fact that I was to take part in this Debate was announced, I received telegrams from the mayors of Salford and Manchester dealing with this very point. I will read one to the House. The Mayor of Salford wires: Salford inhabitants are very concerned as to air defences in this district. Hope you will urge Government to take adequate steps. I have received a similar telegram from the Lord Mayor of Manchester in considerably stronger terms. I will show it to the right hon. Gentleman, if I may. I will not read it, because it contains one or two statements which, I think, might possibly be characterised as conveying1 information which had better not be conveyed to the other side. But there is a very considerable feeling of uneasiness. Do not let anyone imagine I am suggesting there is panic, or anything of that kind, because there is not. One of the most gratifying effects of the Zeppelin raids in London was to show that, whatever happens, there will not be any feeling of panic. What we ask is that the Government should take all possible steps to secure us against attack.
Apart from the question of local defence, the position of the ordinary man in the street and the ordinary humble private Member is this. All these points have been raised over and over again—the question of a certain amount of apparently misleading statements to the House and the 1561 question of vacillation. For instance, in December and in January it was so difficult to find out who really was in charge—the Army or the Navy; the question of what sort of defence the higher authorities really have in mind as against Zeppelins—whether it is to take the form of Zeppelins of our own—they apparently never have been tried. It is true we have baby Zeppelins—sausages, so-called—but we have never had big Zeppelins. One was told at one time that the trouble was that the hangars were going to be very costly. Considering we are spending £5,000,000 a day, this question of whether Zeppelins or any other form of defence are going to cost £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 is really a bagatelle. Then also we bear in mind the promise of the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Churchill), that: A contract has been made with Messrs. Vickers for one large and three smaller non-rigid dirigible airships. The rigid is approximately a Zeppelin of the British type. I am glad to see he is here to-day, and I have no doubt he will be able to deal with that promise. The promise was undoubtedly made, and it carried a certain amount of comfort to the breasts of a good many of us, but as far as I am aware nothing in the way of a Zeppelin fleet has really ever been contemplated. Then there is the question of the guns—either no guns, or not sufficient guns—maxims and pom-poms. I do not want to give details—I have had a good many letters relating to these matters—but what has been said already quite establishes the position that either the guns are not there or they are not guns of the type which are really efficient for the purposes of defence. Then we have the difficulty about the aeroplanes themselves—the type of engine. I, too, like my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), went to the front and visited a battalion, with the raising of which I was connected, and the same impression prevailed in that portion of the line which I visited, that our machines are not really of the efficient type which we ought to purchase, and in which we ought to send our gallant men up. There is the question of co-ordination and co-operation between the two Services, to which attention has been drawn so often. Surely by this time we as a business nation ought to have been able to deal with that difficulty. It is a matter of common knowledge that Lord Curzon has had an inquiry and something is going to be done. We are all waiting anxiously for the announcement of what is going to be done. But surely we are 1562 entitled to say this to the Government: "It was perfectly open for you to have done this ten or twelve months ago. The-reason for doing it was just as urgent then as it is now," and without doing or saying anything which can impede them in the course of their conduct of the War, we urge them to put an end to this kind of proceeding with regard to the whole Service. We urge them to definitely adopt an energetic, a large, if you like an expensive policy, but at any rate a policy which will give us the best means of offence and defence, and which will enable us to feel that when our magnificent and heroic Flying Corps go up and undertake their perilous task, they are flying in machine which are the best that money and brains, can produce.

§ Mr. TENNANT
The hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has given the House a historic survey of a good many discussions which have taken place in this House and warnings which he himself has given to the Government as to the desirability of taking further steps for the improvement of the Air Service of the country, and he complained that a speech which he had made on 16th February, which was one of his greatest triumphs, has received no answer. If I were not, to use the classic language of the motor trade, a shock absorber, I should really fee surprised at that statement. I have received so many similar shocks from various quarters of the House that I may well claim that title. Indeed, I have made many speeches since 16th February on the subject, and I should like the hon. Member, who I am afraid was ill at the time, to look at one of them—I am not fond of quoting my own speeches; he has a greater taste for that than I have—which I made on the introduction of the Army Estimates at the beginning of March, when I described at great length what had been done, what improvements had been achieved, what we could hope for and the difficulties which we had actually overcome. Since then the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) has, on two or three occasions, attacked the Government, and it has been my duty—not always a pleasing one—to respond, and, I think, I have given the House a very great deal of information on this subject. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) should not have been a little more handsome in acknowledging the improvements which have been made. 1563 He was handsome—I do not want to mislead him as to what my feelings are—as to the development of what has been done at the Horse Guards, with regard to information and, I think, to guns, but, with regard to other matters, I do not think he was quite fully appreciative, from my point of view, of the successes which have been achieved. There has been this vast extension and enormous development in our Service. Another complaint which is made, and which the hon. Member made long ago, that we have done nothing, is really very wide of the mark, and will not bear examination for a moment. I have one other complaint against my hon. Friend, and that is that he brings forward statements from various sources, letters and so forth, making complaints and allegations which he must know, if he reflects, it is impossible for me to answer. Not that there is not an answer, because there is, but it is impossible for anyone with a responsible position in the Government to divulge facts and give information which it would be very undesirable to give. I do ask the House to believe me when I say it is not a subterfuge, and that there are many things which I could say which I ought not to say, and which it would be very improper for me to say. That is a genuine grievance which I have against my hon. Friend. Of course the House will realise that if I have to choose between incurring a certain amount of odium; and giving information to the enemy, I would rather receive all the odium which may fall upon me.
The hon. Gentleman dealt in some detail, and I am afraid it is necessary for me to go into it, with what has been done at home. I would like the House to realise that the system of warnings which has been set up and which we have adopted for Home defence is now complete. We can tell in any place in the country what is anticipated. In regard to guns and lights, which was a point dealt with at considerable length by the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to say that we have all the guns we want—I cannot say that—but I say we are getting them, and there has been a very great improvement. On this point I may say that I do not think it is at all proper for persons who are in the employment of the State to make the kind of allegations which have reached my hon. Friend. I think that is a kind of thing which ought not to be encouraged. 1564 Complaints by serving soldiers, complaints by persons in the service of His Majesty, ventilated in a manner and used as a stick with which to beat the Government—surely that is not a thing which ought to be encouraged.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I think my right hon. Friend is a little unfair. I have not used this as a stick to beat the Government. I have not brought up a Vote of Censure to-day. I have put on the Paper a very wide Resolution and my sole object, without party considerations, is to improve the condition of the Air Service.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I withdraw that, if my hon. Friend wishes me to do so, and if he takes exception to what I say. Let me say, not a stick to beat the Government, but arguments and statements made for the encouragement of the Government. At any rate, I do not think that we ought to encourage these sort of statements from people who are in the service of the Crown.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
How are we to get the information?

§ Mr. TENNANT
One statement made by the hon. Gentleman to which I take exception is that the mobile guns have not been adopted by the Government. He is quite misinformed if he thinks that is so. Again, I say I cannot go into details of what we have got; it would not be proper. Suffice it, that the hon. Member is misinformed on that subject. I do not say that we have got all we want. I do not wish to mislead the House. I can state, however, in regard to guns and gunnery, that we have established a school of gunnery for officers, with a special course of instruction. We have various types of guns in use, and men are trained on guns which they will use. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that was not so. I do not know whether I have misunderstood him.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I never said anything of the kind.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I understood the hon. Member to say that the officers were trained in the use of guns which they would not use.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I never mentioned anything of the kind.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me. I could not catch what he said. The hon. Member dealt at considerable length with the command of 1565 the air. He said that we utilise our flying machines for every kind of purpose; that we use one machine for all purposes. He really is mistaken there. We have various machines—machines of every kind. I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means when he uses the phrase "the supremacy of Great Britain in the air." If he means that no German machine shall be allowed to go up into the air at all I think he is asking for a very great deal.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
The right hon. Gentleman asks me what I mean. I mean in regard to the air exactly what everybody means by the supremacy of the British Navy on the seas.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I do not want to say what I do not think is absolutely true, but I do say that it is very far from the truth to state that the Germans have got the supremacy of the air. I believe, on the other hand, that we have a very large measure of supremacy of the air, and that in the great majority of combats which take place in the air we are the winners, and not the losers.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. TENNANT
As to reconnaissance and wireless, the hon. Member told the House an interesting story, which is one of the commonplaces of every-day action in hundreds of instances by our machines. We do an infinite amount more reconnaissance work than the Germans have ever done in spotting artillery. I am informed that we have at the present moment two types of aeroplanes faster than anything possessed by the Germans, and we have two other types as fast as their fastest. I make the hon. Gentleman a present of that and ask him to investigate it and see if it is not true. That is the information which is given to me. If these are facts, and I believe them to be true—

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
How many have you?

§ Mr. TENNANT
I am not able to give that information, nor do I think it desirable to do so. We have, however, two types faster than anything the Germans have, and we have two types as fast as their fastest, forbye, as they say in my country.

§ Mr. LYNCH
Two types faster than the fastest possessed by the Germans?

§ Mr. TENNANT
Yes. I want to say another word in regard to what my hon. 1566 Friend said about landing grounds. He made a complaint, when he spoke on a previous occasion, that we had not a sufficient number of landing grounds for night flying. Probably he did not say that to-day, because he knows that that defect—if it were a defect—has been remedied. We have a sufficient number of landing places. Arrangements have been made and are made by those who are practical flyers, and they use the grounds at night. We have provided these facilities with the approval of the pilots, and if my hon. Friend thinks that that is not a correct statement, and is a too sweeping statement, we are quite prepared to have the matter inquired into by the Committee of Inquiry which, as the House knows, has been set up. Before I pass to the statement of what we are prepared to do, I cannot pass by in silence the correspondence which I have seen in this morning's newspapers in relation to that matter. The hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Pemberton Billing), on whose charges I asked the Prime Minister to set up a Committee of Inquiry—a judicial body, as I called it at the time I announced it—declines to give evidence before the Committee on two or three grounds. One ground, that the Committee does not include an inquiry into the Royal Naval Air Service, as to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty may have something to say. Secondly, on the ground of the composition of the Committee of Inquiry. Thirdly, because, I think, he was not consulted as to the composition of the Committee, and as to the gentlemen who were asked to serve upon it; and, fourthly, because it is proposed that some parts of the evidence should not be given to the public. In regard to the composition of the Committee I am responsible, and if anybody has any ground for complaint let them lay it upon me. I said at the time that I would set up a small judicial body to investigate certain charges of murder. I have done my best to obtain the most reliable gentlemen accustomed to sift evidence, to be helped and guided in mechanical, engineering, and technical difficulties by two engineers of great experience and great ability, and I cannot see how it would be possible to improve the composition of that Committee.

§ Mr. BILLING
Quite easily.

§ Mr. HOGGE
made a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I regret that I did not consult my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. If I had done so, perhaps I should have got something valuable.

§ Mr. BILLING
You should have consulted the House.

§ Mr. TENNANT
It has been suggested to me that some of our practical flying men ought to have been put upon the Committee. I would ask the House to consider what that means. What practical flying man is there who is not rendering much better service to the State at the present moment than by sitting on a Committee of Inquiry to investigate charges made by a Gentleman who has lately been added to the Members of this House?

§ Mr. BILLING
rose—

§ Mr. HOGGE
He won a seat anyhow.

§ Mr. TENNANT
Yes, and my hon. Friend has even won a seat.

§ Mr. BILLING
again rose—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled—

§ Mr. BILLING
On a point of Order—

HON. MEMBERS
Sit down!

§ Mr. BILLING
On a point of Order—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I must inform the hon. Member that he is not entitled to rise and to interrupt any other hon. Member during his speech unless he wishes to raise a point of Order. If he wishes to raise a point of Order, I will hear what his point of Order is. I must also inform the hon. Member that when I am on my feet he is out of order in rising, and if he insists in standing when I am on my feet I shall have to call upon him to withdraw.

§ Mr. BILLING
On a point of Order. I would like to know whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to use this opportunity of adding to the already very regrettable methods adopted by Sir John Boraston and others of casting innuendoes at me for having been able to defeat the two party machines?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member will have an opportunity later on, of which he will avail himself, no doubt, as he has done in the past, to making such charges and replies as may seem good to him.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman's remark as to 1568 innuendoes. I made a most plain, straightforward statement, that the hon. Gentleman was lately added to the Members of this House. I do not know on what ground he takes exception to that statement of fact. Before I leave this question of superiority in the air, I would like to say that the Fokker machine which was captured not very long ago was a new machine, and, of course, been tried by our own airmen. I could give, and will give the hon. Gentleman in private, the information which we obtained from our own pilot himself. I have refrained from doing that for obvious reasons, but I will give just two sentences of what our own pilot, who flew the Fokker machine, said: The speed of the machine is practically the same as that of an 80 horse-power Morane scout with deflector propeller, but the climb is not nearly so fast. The pilot who flew it to-day reported that the lateral control is not good and that the fore and aft control1 is distinctly bad. It is stated that it is a difficult machine on which to teach pupils to fly. When the interruption occurred I was dealing with the composition of the Committee. I only want to say one other word about that—that pilots who are now engaged in the fighting services ought not to be taken away from those important services to sit upon a Board or Committee, and, moreover, it would not surely be in accordance with our ideas of what is correct in matters of discipline in the Army to place a junior officer to sit in judgment upon a superior officer. The question whether all the proceedings of the Committee can be conducted in public or not is a matter for the chairman to decide. It might be very important that secrets which might be of assistance to the enemy should not be allowed to leak out.
No doubt the House is impatient to know what it is we propose to do. It has been arranged that an Air Board shall be constituted on the following lines: It shall be composed of a president, who shall be a Cabinet Minister, with a naval representative, who shall either be a member of the Board of Admiralty or shall be present at its meetings when matters connected with work of the Air Board are under discussion. There shall be an additional naval representative, who need not always be the same individual. There shall be one military representative, who shall be a member of the Army Council, and an additional military representative, who need not always be the same individual. 1569 There shall also be a member of independent administrative experience, and a Parliamentary representative in the other House from the House in which the president sits. The Board will be an advisory board in relation to its president. That is, its decisions will not be arrived at by voting. The Board shall be free to discuss matters of general policy in relation to the air.

§ Colonel CHURCHILL
Will the right hon. Gentleman mind reading out the powers rather slowly, so that Members may take notes?

§ Mr. TENNANT
Certainly. The Board shall be free to discuss matters of general policy in relation to the air and in particular combined operations of the Naval and Military Air Services, and to make recommendations to the Admiralty and War Office thereon. The Board shall be free to discuss and make recommendations upon the types of machines required for the Naval and Military Air Services. If either the Admiratly or the War Office decline to act upon the recommendations of the Board, the president shall be free to refer the question to the War Committee.

§ Sir E. CARSON
Will he be bound to refer it?

§ Mr. TENNANT
Presumably he would not. The Board shall be charged with the task of organising and co-ordinating the supply of material and of preventing competition between the two Departments.

§ Colonel CHURCHILL
Will the Board have executive power?

§ Mr. TENNANT
The Board shall organise a complete system for the interchange of ideas on air problems between the two services, and such related bodies as the (Naval) Board of Inventions and Research, the Inventions Branch of the Ministry of Munitions, the Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the National Physical Laboratory, and so forth. The Board shall have a secretary to assist in the conduct of the business that comes before it.

Captain FABER
Who will control the money?

§ Mr. TENNANT
They will get all the money they require voted in this House.

§ Colonel CHURCHILL
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will answer a question to elucidate the basis. Suppose the Air Board wish to order a thousand 1570 machines of a particular type, which the Admiralty or the War Office do not agree to, have they power to do it, or have they not?

§ Mr. TENNANT
If there is the disagreement which my right hon. and gallant Friend suggests, the decision would rest with the War Committee. The War Committee would give their instructions through the Ministry of Munitions, and—

§ Colonel CHURCHILL
They have not the executive power apart from agreement with the War Committee. The War Com-authority of the War Committee?

§ Mr. TENNANT
That is so. The Prime Minister invited Lord Curzon to accept the presidency of this Board. Lord Curzon has accepted that offer. Lord Sydenham has also accepted the invitation to become a member of this Board, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Major Baird) will represent the Board in this House. I hope that the House will realise that this is a different proposal from that which was suggested by the hon. Member for Brentford in his speech. This is not a method of finding a way out at all. This is a real Board accessible to the War Committee, and consisting of responsible persons, with far greater powers and authority than any body which has hitherto been created to deal with the Air Services. It could pick out larger questions than the Air Service generally. The old Committee was confined in its powers to material. This body will have much more important powers. It will not only have the powers which I have read out, but it will charge itself with larger and wider questions of thinking out the possibility of developing its own body, possibly with a regular Department under it, such as has been suggested in various quarters of the House—what is called an Air Ministry. It has been thought that during the process of a great war the difficulty and the dislocation and friction involved in setting up an Air Ministry now would be too great for us to embark on. I hope that the House will realise that this is an important step which has been taken, and will agree with the Government that the best results are to be hoped for from it.

§ Colonel CHURCHILL
The House will have heard with some feelings of disappointment the announcement of my right hon. Friend of the change which is proposed by the Government. After the many months that this matter has been 1571 under discussion, and the repeated post-ponements in bringing it before the House, we had hoped that a real solution, or a real effort towards a solution, would have been set forth in the Government statement. In the choice of a man, no doubt the Government is well advised. The Air Services have long needed the guidance and the aid of some personality of first-rate eminence versed in public affairs, and with adequate influence in the Cabinet. This they will find in Lord Curzon, but Lord Curzon, without adequate powers, will not succeed in altering the present state of affairs, and in the choice of a policy, judging by the impression made upon me by the statement to which we have just listened, the Government have followed no principle whatever, except the familiar principle of postponing until the last possible moment and then following the line of least resistance. I propose, before I sit down, to endeavour to make a rather closer examination, as far as it is in my power to do so, of the proposal of the Government. Before however, I come to this, I wish to clear out of the way some points of a general character on which much misconception has long existed. I have never yet had the opportunity of addressing the House on the subject of air and air policy. It is a matter with which I was at one time much concerned, and for which I am continually criticised, and if I go back into the past a little, craving the indulgence of the House for that purpose, it will be because a knowledge of the past is necessary for a comprehension of the present position, and also because I desire to establish my own credentials for offering further counsel to the House upon this question. First of all, we have never had from the Government a plain statement of how it was that the Admiralty came to be responsible for aerial Home defence. I have always wondered why the First Lord of the Admiralty has not been able to make such a statement. It could be done quite shortly, and it is necessary for a fair appreciation of the present position.
It is commonly supposed that the Admiralty before the War, at some distant period, more or less distant period before the War, under my impulsion rushed into the business of Home defence, snatched it away from the proper authorities, and then mismanaged and neglected it. That is not the truth. The contrary is the truth. Until a month after the War 1572 had begun the sole responsibility for the defence of all vulnerable points in England, by gun fire, seaplanes, or any other method against aerial attack, rested with the War Office. The only exception to this was that at a conference between the heads of the War Office and the Admiralty, on the 19th November, 1913, it was agreed that where a vulnerable point was in close proximity to a naval air station the naval aeroplanes would also be available. But even this position was challenged by the General Staff as late as the 21st July, 1914—that is to say, on the very eve of the War, though not that we had any reason to expect an immediate outbreak. At that date a meeting took place of a Committee appointed to regulate the relations of naval and military aeroplane and seaplane bases, and at that meeting the representative of the War Office—the War Office was then in charge of the present Prime Minister—claimed for the War Office the sole responsibility, not only in regard to everything inland, but also in regard to naval ports and vulnerable points of all kinds, even those of exclusively naval interest. Notwithstanding these views, which in principle are quite sound, so far as the integrity of Home defence is concerned, the War Office had not, up to the time of the declaration of war, provided any aeroplanes for Home defence. They had limited themselves exclusively—