§ 51. Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the decision of the Government after consultation with their military advisers on the subject of retaliation for the air raid over the East End of London on Wednesday, the 13th instant?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is not possible for me to say more on this subject than I said on Monday last.
§ Mr. PETOIn view of the intense feeling in the City and the East End and in the country generally with regard to this matter can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the Government will be able to come to a decision as to what is the best means of preventing these air raids?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not think I can add anything whatever. It is a question of what the Government do more than what they say.
§ Mr. FLAVINCan the Government see their way to give some notice to hospitals and boarding schools where there are large numbers of girls day and night?
§ 57. Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the immunity with which numbers of enemy aircraft have been able unmolested to carry out their mission by dropping bombs in broad daylight over London and Folkestone and other undefended places, he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee of three or four members, of whom two shall be Members of this House, to examine, and, where necessary, inspect the latest methods of defence now adopted in France and in our own country against enemy aircraft, more especially in and around Paris and London and our coast towns; and if, in view of the feeling throughout the country that our own air defences have been and still are insufficient and inadequate, he will at the same time instruct such a Committee to report briefly, either confidentially or otherwise, whether in their opinion after examination they consider that sufficient and satisfactory measures have been and are being taken in this country against serious raids, especially within a radius of thirty miles of London and the near neighbourhood of our south-eastern coast town?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is not possible to adopt the hon. Members suggestion.
§ 98. Mr. WILESasked whether the general managers of the railway companies having termini in London were duly informed of the approach of enemy aircraft on 13th June; and, if not, will he state the reason for this omission and what Department was responsible for giving the warning?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs the railway authorities had stated that they did not require warnings by day, they were not on the warning list. They have now been put on at their request.
§ Colonel C LOWTHERIs it not a fact that constant demands for Debates in this House on this subject have been brushed aside for matters of no particular national urgency?
§ 81. Mr. BROOKESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German aeronaut now lying wounded in hospital after his capture on the occasion of the recent air raid on the Medway estuary was, prior to the War, a waiter in London?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe man was apparently a teacher in his own country. As far as is known, this is his first visit to English soil.