§ 38. Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an inquiry has been held into the incidents which occurred at the Hendon aerodrome of the Royal Flying Corps preceding and during the enemy air raid over London on Saturday last; and, if so, what is the result of that inquiry?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo inquiry has been held at the Hendon aerodrome on any incident which occurred at the times mentioned.
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the hon. Gentleman take steps to have an inquiry regarding the incidents that happened at the Hendon aerodrome on Saturday last?
Sir H. DALZIELI should like to ask also whether it is the case that the few machines that went up were machines that were waiting there to be tested and were in such condition that some had immediately to come down?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI think my right hon. Friend might give me notice of a question like that.
Sir H. DALZIELHas not my hon. Friend informed himself in such a case-as this? It is the talk of London at this moment.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy right hon. Friend had the opportunity of raising that specific point in the Debate.
§ 47. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure to protect London from a small force of German aeroplanes appearing in daylight and in view also of the possibility of the repe- 1900 tition on various scales of such raids as we have seen, he will proceed without delay to effect necessary changes in the higher direction of London's air defences?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe answer is in the negative.
§ 48. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the official reports of casualties sustained in air raids include those sustained by naval and military men and Civil servants?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe answer to this question is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. BILLINGWhy should not the deaths of civilians and non-combatants be reported?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy information is that they are reported.
§ Mr. BILLINGAre we to understand that naval and military deaths are also-reported?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have said so.
§ Mr. HOGGECan my hon. Friend explain, then, why it is that the public have been informed only this morning, for the first time, through the medium of a coroner's inquest, that one of our airmen was shot down by the Germans on Saturday?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat surely does not arise out of this question.
§ Mr. BILLINGAre we to understand that every naval and military death that has occurred in an air raid has been duly included in Lord French's report?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot say off-hand. I think notice has been given in the public Press.
§ Mr. BILLINGWere any Canadian soldiers included in the report on the Folkestone raid?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes.
§ 50. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the 1901 diametrically opposed results of our antiaircraft fire from those anticipated whereby the German airmen were unscathed and our civilian population suffered, steps will be taken to provide more efficient anti-aircraft batteries both as regards guns and gun crews, or protect the people of this country by removing the guns altogether?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe results of our anti-aircraft fire were not different from those anticipated.
The shooting of the London guns was observed from the ground to be good, and this is confirmed by our pilots in the air in the vicinity.
The action of anti-aircraft guns is necessarily restricted when our airmen are actually engaging the enemy, as they were on several occasions during their flight over London. The guns provided for the anti-aircraft defence of London are of the latest type, and the training of the gunners is efficiently conducted.
Casualties from our anti-aircraft shells are inevitable, if the public do not at once take cover when they hear our guns, but the casualties would certainly be much greater if the enemy were unhampered by the fire of our guns.
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the hon. Gentleman tell us how the public can take cover if they are not warned?
§ General CROFTIs it not a fact that it cannot be hoped, with the present antiaircraft guns, either in England or in France, to bring down many enemy machines, and that the best we can hope is with luck, to keep the enemy machines high?
§ Mr. FRANCEWill the hon. Gentleman say if the Government would undertake to lend the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) a machine, so that he can observe the gunfire from the air?
§ Mr. MACMASTERCan the hon. Gentleman say, so far as he is able, how many of the casualties ought to be attributed to enemy activity and how many to our own guns?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt is quite impossible for me to answer that accurately.
§ Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUXIs it the case that a new system of firing 1902 from our anti-aircraft guns has been brought into use within the last week or ten days?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am afraid I cannot answer that without notice. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question, I will see if I can answer it.
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the hon. Member give the request of the hon. Member for Morley serious consideration and grant it if possible?
53. The HON. MEMBERasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the various districts throughout the Metropolis and the Eastern counties visited or attacked on Saturday last by enemy airmen; and the numbers of killed and injured in each district?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt is not possible to give this information, as it would be of use to the enemy. As regards the last part of the question, the totals have already been published.
§ 51. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to consider the advisability of introducing a system of warning London and other large cities of approaching air raids by employing coloured captive balloons with electric sirens attached; and, if so, whether he is prepared to consider a complete and detailed system worked out on these lines, and, if the same meets with his approval, that it shall be adopted?
§ The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave)My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The method by which warning of an actually impending air raid can best be given to the public is under consideration.
§ Mr. HOGGE (at the end of Questions)I wish, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance arising out of a question and answer to-day in the House. On Monday we had an official communiqué from the Government in regard to the air raid on Saturday. The answer to the question from the Front Bench stated that all the casualties were included in that communiqué; but in the newspapers there is the result of an inquest on one of our own airmen, who attacked the Germans and who was killed and brought down. I therefore ask your permission, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public import- 1903 ance, namely, "the revelations to-day by the coroner's inquest of facts concerning the recent raid, and, therefore, the obvious concealment of information in the official communiqué of the truth about that raid."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that can really be taken as a matter for discussion in this House, as if it were a definite matter of urgent public importance.
§ Mr. HOGGEMay I respectfully submit to you, Sir, that surely it is a matter of urgent public importance that we should have from the War Office, through the Press Bureau, an accurate account of what took place, and if to-day, in the House of Commons, the Minister of the Crown says deliberately, in answer to a question, that all the casualties were included, and I point out, from the information which comes to us as the result of the coroner's inquest, that one of the British airmen was brought down by the Germans on Saturday, I respectfully submit to you that we, who are responsible for this Government, are entitled to know the truth?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not know where the discrepancy is. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the casualty was not included in the general list? The answer says it was.
§ Mr. HOGGEBut it is not true. On that point of Order I submit, Sir, that we all know the form of these communiqués, and that where a raid occurs they state how many alien airmen were brought down and how many of ours were brought down. The casualties given in the communiqué from the Press Bureau consist of men, women, and children in the Metropolitan area, and in the Isle of Thanet; it did not include that British airman. I submit I am entitled on that ground—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that is a matter capable of being held to be a definite matter of urgent public importance.
§ Mr. BILLINGMay I ask, Sir, whether you do not consider, on a question like this of communiqués to the public, that the point raised by my hon. Friend is only one point on which this House could be easily satisfied as to its accuracy, and that the whole country is asking and seeking for an opportunity for this House to debate that communiqué and the raid, so that the public confidence in the War Office may be re-established?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not take that view.
§ Mr. HOGGEAs I cannot raise the question in the way I propose I beg to give notice that, to-night, on the Adjournment, I will raise the distinct question as to whether a coroner's inquest can be held on a fighting man brought down in a raid, and whether the casualty to the British airman was included in the Press Bureau's statement.
§ Mr. BILLINGIn column 1706 of the OFFICIAL REPORT (Daily Part) we get a very strange omission, and I am sure the House is most anxious that extreme accuracy should be ensured in all these reports. At two minutes to eleven on the evening of the night before last, you called on me, Sir, in the Secret Session, and I had the opportunity of addressing the House for the last two minutes, at which time you rose and proposed the Adjournment of the House. I see no mention of that Adjournment, which was moved automatically, at eleven o' clock under the Rule. I see no mention, furthermore, of what is much more important even than that. I rose on the Motion for the Adjournment, and continued my remarks on this matter of urgent public importance. [Interruption.] We are now listening to the laughter of fools—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to address the House in that way.
§ Mr. BILLINGrose—