HC Deb 05 June 1917 vol 94 cc126-42

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House on the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. BILLING

At Question-time to-day I had occasion to refer to the recent daylight aero-plane raid, and in view of the exceedingly unsatisfactory reply I received I am taking the very earliest opportunity of raising the matter. The question I asked was a very definite one, and I received something in the nature of an indefinite reply. I asked whether the Government is in a position to reassure the public, especially those who live within striking distance of the enemy aero-plane bases in Flanders, that it is taking serious steps to stop the raids which we may reasonably anticipate will be taking place with heavier than air machines in the next few months by daylight. I was told in reply that bombs had been dropped on Zeebrugge. I am very glad to hear that, and I would suggest it is about time they were. For fifteen months I have endeavoured by every means in my power, by Parliamentary and un-parliamentary methods, to persuade the Government to drop bombs on the submarine bases and the German aerodromes in and around Ostend and Zeebrugge, and it is only during the last four weeks that anything approaching success has attended the efforts which have been made in this House. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that in the last four weeks more tons of high explosive have been dropped in that district than during the whole previous time of the War. We knew, or should have known quite well, where the Germans would endeavour to get their submarines launched. I have particular knowledge of where they were erecting them. In my service days I pointed out again and again to the First Lord of the Admiralty that the proper way to attack both the submarine menace and the Zeppelin menace is where these engines of war are an process of construction, rather than to wait until they are launched and commissioned and have become a serious menace.

But that matter has no direct bearing on the question I want to raise to-night about the defence of this country against the heavier than air machines. I hope the system which has now been introduced, after many years, for dealing with the night attacks of the lighter than air machine is successful, insomuch as it has been found possible and practicable to bring down airships as distinct from aeroplanes; but it is a very different proposition when we come to deal with heavier than air machines. The chances of bringing down heavier than air machines in a daylight raid are very small. The chances of bringing them down, should they commence night attacks by aeroplanes, are practically nil. It is almost impossible to put up any form of defensive operations against heavier than air machines raiding by night. They come over at an altitude of 15,000 or 16,000 ft., where a searchlight can barely pick them up, and if it can, their size is so infinitesimal that it is impossible to keep the beam on them. It is almost impossible to shoot at them, and if we send our own machines up to fight them, although we might use a series of coloured lights to try to distinguish between our machines and theirs, I fear that in ordinary air fighting by night it would be utterly impossible, flying at about 15,000 ft. at the rate of 100 miles an hour, to distinguish between friend and foe, and it might only result in our own men shooting each other. The foe's idea would not be to engage our men at all, but to drop their bombs and get back as quickly as possible. Therefore I think we can dismiss the idea of protecting this country from aeroplane raids by night by any means of defensive operations. At present it would not be sound policy to bring machines and pilots who are really needed on the Western front back to England to defend the country. But I wonder whether the Government will ever discover that the finest form of defensive operations lies in the offensive. I am perfectly confident that the country which obtains the supremacy of the air will make air war so terrible for the other country that it will not dare to challenge it.

I would not like to suggest what the feeling of this country would be if we had the repetition on a large scale of the incident—a quite small incident of the War, a mere nothing as an incident of the War, but, taken as a sign, that it might become a very serious thing—which occurred in the raid upon Folkestone last week. There was a case in which eleven aeroplanes actually dropped their bombs. We will say that twelve aeroplanes actually took part in the raid, with the result that great destruction and devastation was occasioned, and a great deal more than is admitted in the report. I would ask this House, or the few Members who are sufficiently interested in the air defences of this country to remain to listen to this Adjournment Debate, to imagine what it would mean if that raid was multiplied one hundredfold. Bay a hundred squadrons of ten machines each came over. That is not a very large number. One thousand machines is a very small order to-day. Anyone who has intimate knowledge of our own building figures knows that 1,000 machines is nothing. At the beginning of the War it was a big proposition. Now 1,000 machines from the point of view of money is only the cost of two hours of war, and from the point of view of personnel it means only 2,000 or 3,000 men. One cannot suggest, therefore, that it is a big matter to assume that 1,000 Folkestones, or 1,000 towns similar to Folkestone, received bombardment from ten machines simultaneously, and that instead of 200 people being killed or injured 100 times 200 people had been killed or injured in half an hour. Would the Government then wake up to the possibilities of the air as a means of offensive?

If we had thousands of people killed in half an hour in this country by a similar bombardment, what defence could we put up? These enemy aeroplanes have their concentration bases in Flanders, and again and again I have requested the First Lord of the Admiralty to bring pressure to bear upon the Vice-Admiral commanding the Dover Patrol to stop these concentration bases. I am not satisfied even now that the Vice-Admiral of the Dover Patrol was not aware, before that squadron left Flanders, when they were concentrating for a raid on England. Surely that is the time to strike them. Surely our own pilots are constantly flying over Flanders and bringing reports of the movements of enemy aeroplanes? Assuming that the reports we get in the daily Press are to be believed and that we have the absolute command of the Western Front, so much that we have access to the German movements and we view their strategy or their acts of concentration and everything else, our pilots must have been able-to inform us that these machines were concentrated in one spot, fifteen or sixteen of them, for a raid. Surely there must be an area in Flanders which is most convenient to be used as a striking point for raids on this country. The Germans are at least intelligent. We must pay them that compliment. We may not admire their ways or their principles, but it is a mistake to underestimate their ability. The secret of success in a bomb-dropping expedition is to save petrol, because every mile you can save in the distance you fly means so much more explosive you can carry and so much more deadly is the effect of the raid. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Germans concentrate at the nearest possible point to our coast. The further we drive them back, the more we harass them where they concentrate, the further they will have to go back into Flanders or even into Germany for concentration bases to initiate their raids. The further we drive them back the less explosives they can carry, because the more petrol they have to carry, and the more miles they have to fly, the greater chance we have of engaging them before they arrive.

Quite apart from that, when they arrive, what do they find in this country? They find confusion worse confounded. If anyone wanted a good illustration of what we have come to in this country, look what happened this afternoon here, when the report went round that there was an air raid over London. The Terrace collected more Members in a few minutes than any air debate in this House collected in hours. The Terrace was full of Members gazing up to the sky. Who is in command in England at the present moment? Lord French. What was he doing? He has never specialised in defence by the air. What I want the Government to understand is that the only useful purpose they can serve by the defence of this country in this country is to reduce the Zeppelin menace, which they have done—they could not help it—and to see that a fair system of warning is in operation throughout the whole of the country that is likely to be affected. It is quite useless to introduce a system so that in Folkestone someone will ride round on a bicycle waving a flag, or in Margate, if there is a raid, someone goes down the street and blows a horn, or at Broad-stairs the town-crier goes round wearing a steel helmet. That sort of thing is all nonsense. If there is going to be any form of warning it must be universal, and it must be systematised. It is an open question whether warnings are advisable, but in cases where warnings have been given life has undoubtedly been saved. Surely the taxpayers and the citizens of this country have a right to claim something more than a mere warning to hide in the ground because the enemy is approaching. Surely they have a right to claim that the air offensive should be carried to the spot from whence the enemy raiders come, and which with a little intelligent anticipation and a sound policy in the past the raider would never have left to raid this country. I was discussing with a Member of this House to-day the question of reprisals. He was against the policy of reprisals, whatever it may mean. I said to him, "If by introducing reprisals tomorrow, and if by initiating raids on German townships to-morrow you could win this war, and if by not doing so you lose this war, what would you do?" He said, "By all means do it." I am sure there is no right hon. Gentleman who would say otherwise. If I suggested to the Undersecretary for War that it was possible to win this War, or if I satisfied him that by initiating a great raid on German townships it was possible to finish the War in a week, would the Government do it? I am quite sure he would reply, "Certainly."

It is not a question of principle. It is not principle that is holding us back. If it is principle we are more infernal hypocrites in this country than I thought we were. Why should we talk of principle when we have got the rest of the world helping us? If the rest of the world were helping us and the Germans were at our doors would we question whether to save our women and children, to save what we are fighting for, to save the freedom of the world, we would not drop about upon a German township in order to win the great War for which all these sacrifices have been made? We should say "Drop the bombs by all means." If we can afford to sit here and babble of principles such as that it is simply because our principles are protected by all the rest of the civilised world. There is no question of principle. It is a question of expediency. If it is a question of expediency I fail to see how the Military or Naval Authorities can question for one moment the advisability of immediate action. We know what a disturbing effect air raids have in this country and how cheaply the effect is gained by the enemy. Are we to assume that the German civil population are more courageous than we? Certainly not. I am prepared to assert exactly the opposite—that the raid on Freiburg which was called a reprisal raid, but which was a genuine raid, a war-like action, had the most extraordinary effect on the German population. I think that Germany was more frightened by that raid than by anything else which we did during the War. What did we do? We broke our principle and dropped bombs, and not only that but we dropped messages saying, "This is a reprisal raid. We have sacrificed all our principles because you sank a hospital ship, and this is what we are going to do." What happened? They sank two more hospital ships. What did we do? Nothing.

We have the machines and the pilots, and now that we have broken our principle I ask the Front Bench to initiate these raids. Despite the tons of bombs dropped during the last few weeks, not 20 per cent, of our machines have been engaged. Yet here we have thousands of machines in this country and vast numbers of pilots doing absolutely nothing of military significance in the War at the present time. These men could be employed in striking, not one such blow as Germany struck at us, but twenty in one afternoon. If we did that I do not think that we should be troubled any more with aeroplane raids in this country. I would also suggest that we should at least stop the aeroplane raid before it becomes a serious menace. It will become a serious menace if it is allowed to go on. We can protect ourselves against it only by a counter-offensive I would like my hon. Friend in reply to assure me that there is some hope of such a counter-offensive taking place. I do not think that it would be giving any information to the enemy. He need not tell me the exact district in which it is proposed to do it. I should also like to know whether, for the control of the defence of England, we can have one man to whom this country can look who will have absolute responsibility for that and nothing else? Lord French, who by his statements has anticipated the landing of the enemy in this country, has the whole weight and responsibility of the movement of our defensive troops on his hands. He might have been called at four o'clock this afternoon from the middle of a weighty conference to defend London against an air raid. We want a capable man of aeronautical experience and training, and not too senior in age, to be immediately and absolutely responsible for initiating systems of warning for the police, the civil population, and the military, and for giving the actual orders, and arranging a system whereby the pilots of this country will know where they stand.

I have heard that two officers were court-martialled over the last raid because they insisted on going up without orders. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can help me about this. The pilot does not know where he is. I have heard that it is a common thing for a C. O. B. to be away from his station when a raid occurs, and you have everybody rushing about and telephoning, asking, "Where has the raid occurred? Has anybody heard of German aeroplanes? What have we got to do?'' You see naval officers ringing up the police stations to know if they have heard anything of Germans dropping bombs a few miles away. The whole thing is preposterous. The Home Office is advising the police. Somebody else is advising the Anti-Aircraft Service. Somebody else is advising the Royal Flying Corps. You have West Kent cyclists riding about in all directions over the whole country. It is turned into a sort of comic opera, and yet we wonder how these fellows get back. We ask, "What should be done?" and we are told that Lord French is in command in England. I would like to know what he did on the night of the Folkestone raid, or whether he knew anything about it until all the people were dead? I do not think he did. I think that the naval and military authorities should hand over the responsibility of the air defence of this country to some individual who would be directly responsible for the whole organisation.

One of the most scandalous things in this War is that men I know, personal friends of mine, and hundreds of men in this country, may be seen walking about maimed and disfigured owing to these raids. I know four people in my Constituency whose houses were blown about their heads before there was any question of insurance whatever. They cannot get a penny of compensation; and the wives of men who were killed in Zeppelin raids cannot get a penny compensation. If we had put up a fight against Zeppelins, against these raids, if the defence against them had not been a criminal disgrace, both in the political and military administration of the defensive organisations of this country, it would be bad enough to leave these people destitute and injured by an act of the enemy. But when we remember that during the period I am speaking of, when for months and even years the only advice we could get out of the military authorities, and the gospel which was preached by every subsidised paper in the country, was "darkness and composure," and when any man who raised his voice and demanded a proper system of defence was charged with play- ing the German game, then I ask what consolation is it for a man who has been an honest, honourable citizen, who has paid his taxes and paid his way, most probably the very man who got hot and excited over all the elections, the khaki election, the "we won't wait" election, and most probably sacrificed his tea to go out and vote in favour of eight battleships, what satisfaction is it to know that the amount of protection which he gets is that he is allowed to be killed and his wife and children are left to starve by an incompetent Government?

I shall never cease, so long as I remain a Member of this House, to press on the Front Bench the necessity of realising their obligations to the citizens of this country. If there were enough of them it would be all right. When it comes to soldiers' and sailors' pensions, and there are enough to make a row, something 18 done. If 10,000 people were injured they would get compensation. It would be worth the whole of half a dozen Members to take up the case. But when there are only ten or twelve, or 100 or 150, they do not count at all. Besides, probably half of them may be half-witted and they could not be relied on to vote for the Member even if he did take up their case. It must not be a question of the amount of pressure that a Member can bring to bear on the Government as to whether it shall be done or not, but it must be purely a question of justice—whether these victims are justly entitled to compensation or are not; whether at the time they were citizens of the country, honourable and patriotic citizens of the country, most probably poor workers, they are entitled to compensation after having been injured by enemies of their country. The whole thing depends upon that. My Noble Friend the late chairman of the Kitchen Committee stated at a meeting held only yesterday with reference to dogs that he had thirteen dogs, and that he was not going to have them sacrificed in the way proposed. They must combine and organise the country, and make themselves a nuisance, and by doing that they would save the dogs. There are more dog owners in this country than there are victims of the air raids, and it is possible that they will be more successful in enforcing their wishes. It will be interesting to note as a point of purely political history whether or not the dog owners' agitation succeeds in its object, while the hundreds of citizens who are the victims of inefficient defence fail to get common justice. I do not wish to detain the House, but I do wish these points to have the consideration of the Government, and not to be lightly dismissed.

The first point is as to our means of defence, and the carrying out of a strong offensive policy. This is going to be a large question of our undefended towns against the enemy's undefended towns, and I very much regret that we are tot sufficiently bloodthirsty to want it to be the enemy's undefended towns that are to suffer. That is a point I do not want the Government to set lightly aside, on the ground of principle or of policy, or whatever it may be. We have the machines, that I know, but if the Government in their wisdom think there are better methods, I humbly submit that they will find that a strong offensive in the heart of Germany, where the moral of the people has been already shaken, will have more good effect than all the talking, and all the protests, or all the anti-air guns over so many square miles. As regards the protection which the Government proposes to give this country by way of warning the people that they are to hide when the German raiders are coming, I ask that the whole of the defence should be placed in the hands of one man only. If the system is as rotten and inadequate as it has been in the past, at least we will get the one man directly responsible. So far as compensation is concerned, I do not think that anything I can say will help the Government at all. Deputations from all over the country have been received, and a deaf ear has been turned to them, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as managing director of our national insurance, refuses to-accept the liabilities which he has cheerfully incurred by way of taxation. I have nothing to Bay to that at all, however, but perhaps the number of casualties will become greater, and then the question will receive more serious consideration. I sincerely hope it will. I do not see the representative of the Admiralty in his place, and there are only a few faithful Members interested in the defence of the country sufficiently to keep them here tonight, but another question to which I should have liked to call the attention of the representative of the Admiralty, if he had been here, is whether it would not be possible to have one person commanding at Dunkirk, giving him a free hand to locate and destroy any enemy squadrons, which attempted to mobilise for the purpose of initiating a raid on England within forty or fifty miles of Dunkirk. We could, hold him responsible for any squadrons which sought to initiate raids within that area, and the more we can drive them back the better it will be for this country—so far as these raids are concerned. In conclusion, I repeat to this House that, in my opinion, if the situation continues as it is to-day, this War will never be won on land, will never be won on the sea, and will never be won under the sea. If this War is yet to be won it will be by the nation which seriously takes the new weapon which has been delivered into its hands, and is able to strike the greatest offensive that, considering the low moral condition of different countries in this War to-day, would have the most extraordinary and the most beneficial effect to that particular country, when it comes to the terms of peace.

Mr. R. McNEILL

The hon. Member who has just sat down has twice, in the course of his speech, commented upon the paucity of the attendance, and the few Members sufficiently interested in the air defence of the country to be present at this Debate. I hope that the hon. Member will not be offended when I say that, in my opinion, probably the paucity of the attendance is due to the fact that there are possibly few Members of the House who take quite the same view of the hon. Member's qualifications for giving it advice. I have listened to his speech and to previous speeches of his on the subject, and I confess that I am very sceptical on that point. I noticed that he said on one occasion, with some emphasis, that he advised the First Lord of the Admiralty to take a certain course—I really forget what course, though I do not know that it much matters—but my own reflection at the-time was, on hearing the hon. Member, that I myself should begin to feel exceedingly nervous as to the safety of this country if the First Lord of the Admiralty really acted on the hon. Member's advice. My own reason for rising is not to discuss the hon. Member or his advice as to how the War ought to be ended, though it may, of course, have some value, or may not, nor to discuss the advice he has given to the Government with regard to their defence. Whether he is qualified to give that advice I really do not know. I am not in any way an expert on the subject. The only reason why I rise is that, in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon), I am, in a sense, doubly representing the people who suffered from this air raid to which the hon. Member has referred. I want to tell the House that I have been in close communication with the local authorities and other persons in that locality and they are not in the least panic-stricken; they have not in the least lost their heads; and they are not at all inclined to make any unreasonable demands upon the Government.

Mr. BILLING

I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, so far from suggesting that any panic existed amongst the people, the suggestion I made was that each town is now adopting its own method of warning. In some they do so by ringing bells.

Mr. McNEILL

I do not know why I should think I am not entitled to tell the House that these people are not panic stricken, because the hon. Member did not refer to the point. I did not suggest that he did. It nevertheless is reasonable that the House should know the view of these people who have suffered, and the hon. Gentleman will kindly permit me to repeat that they are not panic stricken, and are making no demands on the Government. The hon. Gentleman has given us a description of the sort of warnings which he says are prevalent in East Kent. If I may say so without the use of many words, his description is sheer nonsense, as nothing of the kind occurs, and the idea of a town crier going about ringing bells is a thing that does not occur. At the same time I should like to tell the Under-Secretary that I think there is a case for improvement in the methods of warning, and although I am not going now to put any criticisms before my hon. Friend, or ask him for any assurances, I should like to tell him that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in Folkestone and the neighbourhood, and that there is, at all events, an interrogative state of mind existing there, and anxiety to know whether the best that can be done is being done, and a desire to put before the Government certain points on which the people feel doubtful as to whether an improvement could not be effected. I hope within the next few days to be able to bring some of the leading people from that neighbourhood into communication with a Member of the Government. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken thinks I should have been better advised to have requested him to receive the deputation, in order that we might have the benefit of his advice before going to the Government.

Mr. BILLING

rose—

Mr. McNEILL

As the time is short, I am afraid I cannot give way.

Mr. BILLING

Then why occupy the time in making remarks intended to be funny?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. McNEILL

Perhaps I may be allowed to be my own judge of that. I only wish to tell the hon. Gentleman opposite that I hope to have the opportunity of entering into closer relations on the subject, and I think that is the reasonable way of doing it, and the better way of doing it than levelling criticisms on the spur of the moment, until the facts are more fully known either to myself or the hon. Member. When that time comes, I hope that he and those with whom he is associated will be ready to give a patient hearing and be willing to admit that, however effective they may think the arrangements are in several respects, there is very considerable room for improvement, and we hope that that improvement will be effected.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)

I think that nothing could have been fairer than the statement of the case for the inhabitants of Folkestone which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill). He has not exaggerated the case, and he has told us that in a few days he is to represent the position by a deputation or otherwise of the inhabitants of that part of Kent with which he is associated, directly or indirectly, before the Government through its representatives. I happen to know a little about this particular raid, and I think that when that hon. Member states that there is anxiety and dissatisfaction, he is giving an accurate statement of the case. To say, as the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) said, that there was "destruction and devastation," is not strictly accurate. Our sympathy goes out to the homes of the stricken and to the friends of those who have been lost, but when the hon. Member talks about destruction and devastation—

Mr. BILLING

expressed dissent.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I have taken down the hon. Member's words, and he was referring very distinctly to the Folkestone raid. I think I can rely on the support of my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill) when I say that no such appalling destruction and devastation occurred in Folkestone. To call it destruction and devastation is really an exaggeration, which I am afraid my hon. Friend is sometimes given to when his enthusiasm carries him away. I would like to take this opportunity of extending on the part of the Government to the inhabitants of Folkestone their sincere sympathy, and the assurance, and I have it on the very highest authority, that everything that is possible will be done, and really has been done in the past, to defend those vulnerable points on the South-East coast which are daily in danger of attack from the air. The hon. Member for East Herts told us that the finest form of defensive operations lies in the offensive. I am not going through his speech as a whole, and I do not at all object that he makes it, but when he says that the finest form of defensive lies in the offensive, I would like to tell him that that is exactly what has happened. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in his reply to a question by private notice, within the last five weeks we had twenty-four reprisal raids upon Zeebrugge and within the last five days six raids on Zeebrugge in the Way of reprisal.

Mr. BILLING

Are we to understand that in the event of the Germans stopping their raids in this country, we shall stop raids on Zeebrugge?

Mr. MACPHERSON

Not at all.

Mr. BILLING

Then they are not reprisals.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I am only trying to point out in my own quiet way that my hon. Friend was really contradicting himself. We have at the present time the most gallant men in the world flying, with really magnificent machines, who are doing work of which we can hardly estimate the value in this country, and are inflicting on the Germans almost daily "Folkestone raids," which are really doing as much to break down the morale of the people of Germany as any part of our fighting forces could possibly do. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to stand up in this House and ask why we are not ready to meet an attack, and to draw a vivid picture of these aeroplanes concentrating in a certain part of Flanders, while in another part of his speech he says that there were only ten or a dozen aeroplanes. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that it does not require a concentration of ten or a dozen aeroplanes, for that is the normal number of aeroplanes which one may find in any given station either in Flanders or Germany or this country. Consequently the drawing of this picture, for the purpose of his argument, of the assembling of these in a certain part of Flanders for attack is really asking the House to believe too much. While my hon. Friend was talking about what these aeroplanes were doing, our own aeroplanes were doing quite as well at the same time at another place.

My hon. Friend asks if I can give him an assurance that the defence of these shores is in competent hands. I can assure him that the Government is satisfied with the competence of those who have charge of this matter. He attempted to belittle the value of my Noble Friend's services, and proceeded to ask what knowledge he had of aeronautics. As a matter of fact, it is not absolutely necessary for the officer in chief command of Home defences to be a specialist in every branch of Army work. If it were, it would be impossible to get any Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces. What my hon. Friend apparently desires is to have a perfect paragon of all the military virtues. Everybody is satisfied, except perhaps my hon. Friend, with Lord French, who is one of the most distinguished of living generals. He takes a deep, personal interest in this particular work, and has got around him a most competent staff, some of whom are exceedingly expert in this particular branch of the Service. Not only has he got his own staff, but his staff is in the closest co-operation with the Admiralty staff, and with the various staffs in the various commands throughout the country. I am perfectly satisfied that the country has a great deal of confidence in Lord French, the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces. I do not know what justification my hon. Friend had for the statement as to the court-martial in connection with the Folkestone raid.

Mr. BILLING

I only asked the question.

Mr. MACPHERSON

Very often questions are asked without sufficient inquiries being made, which means that the question is merely a statement put in the form of a question. I do not think my hon. Friend has any justification for asking his question or for suggesting that a court-martial has taken place. The implication is that these two gallant officers were court-martialled either for neglect of duty or cowardice.

Mr. BILLING

No!

Mr. MACPHERSON

Then what was it?

Mr. BILLING

I understand from the information I have had that these two officers requested permission to go up when the enemy was sighted, and that they could not get that permission. There was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction, and they were put under arrest for insubordination. They were, it is said, only too anxious to fight.

Mr. MACPHERSON

The two officers asked to be allowed to fight the enemy, and wove not allowed to do so?

Mr. BILLING

Yes.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I do not know on what basis the question was framed, but it seems to me highly improbable that anything of the kind happened. However, my hon. Friend has asked me to make inquiries, and I will do so. In regard to the question of compensation, it really, perhaps, did not arise out of the question asked by my hon. Friend this afternoon. But my hon. Friend probably knows that the Government instituted a very cheap and reasonable insurance scheme. For a small payment anyone can have their property insured against any damage by hostile aeroplanes. I have made no attempt to follow my hon. Friend into his matters of strategy or military history, or the various personal events to which he has referred, but I hope that I have answered every single point which really did arise in the questions asked by him. I would impress upon him, if I might, to be more careful in making his statements, which he may make in perfectly good faith, but which really—as in the case of such statements that there was "destruction and devastation at Folkestone," and that these two gallant officers were court-martialled—are not calculated to do any great good.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes alter Nine o'clock.