assure

Mr. LEE (House of Commons, March 20th): I can the Committee that it is no pleasure to anyone who knows the right hon. gentleman and who has admired his many abilities to be obliged to express, within the somewhat inadequate limits of Parliamentary language, what we feel about his recent speeches. It is his misfortune, I know, to be called to an office which by no means is a bed of roses for anyone; which very few care about, and which very few make a success of. I say quite seriously that no

one wishes more than I do that he should make a success of it; but so far, I cannot help saying, he seems to approach the great task which he has been called upon to deal with in a spirit almost of frivolous optimism and an almost-judging from the speech yesterday-incredible, and at the same time an obviously genuine, sense of self congratulation. I am quite sure it is unconscious. In times like this, when the whole of Europe is almost like an open powder magazine, and when a disastrous explosion might occur at any moment, it is really difficult to follow with patience some of the speeches which the right hon. gentleman makes in the country, and here, and which he seems to think good enough. These speeches, I venture to say, whilst causing unlimited amusement among foreign critics, must make his professional admirers wince. They make us in this House shiver. Then he made a speech the other day in his constituency at Ilkeston, in which he said that the Regular Army is far better equipped with the essential requisites of war than any army in the world. Really that is a monstrous assertion. Take the air service; the question of horses; the supply of officers on mobilisation; rifles; all these things. Does he really thinkhe can hardly believe it-that the Regular Army is better equipped than any army of the world.

Colonel SEELY: Certainly.

Mr. LEE: I can only say I do not believe there is another man in the country who believes it.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS (House of Commons, March 24th): Before criticising the speech which the Secretary of State made last week, I would like to refer particularly to one or two points. As to engines for aeroplanes, I can cordially agree with him that for a long time past we have been deficient. I think there are only two English engines which have passed satisfactory tests. I am credibly informed that the makers of these engines, and the makers of aeroplanes, in this country have been starved before getting orders from the War Office. I think that it is advisable to say so at the outset of my remarks, because the right hon. gentleman has not fulfilled the expectations held out a year ago in regard to British manufacturers.

With regard to the management of the Royal Flying Corps at the Army Aircraft Factory, I cannot, on the information I have received, think that the machines, as to the matter of repairs, are cared for as well under Government control as under private control. The policy of France is not to have these very delicate instruments under the sole control of the Army Department, and instead of being repaired by ordinary French artificers, they are sent back to the makers. After a machine has done a certain number of miles, or a certain number of hours in the air, a representative of the maker is sent to overhaul and tune up the machine. I think much might be done in that way to limit the number of very serious accidents which take place, and which, I am bound to say, must take place for some years to come in connection with this new form of warfare.

As to the Monoplane Committee, I cannot help feeling that a great deal of delay has taken place. Some months ago the Secretary of State was frightened by the accidents which were taking place, and he issued an order proprio motu, that no flying should take place in monoplanes. As the result of that Order fourteen or fifteen new monoplanes were put back into the shed unused, and almost uncared for, while there were men who were ready and desirous to fly them, and who would have had to fly them in the event of war taking place. The Committee reported on December 3rd last, but no steps were taken in consequence of the Report. It was not made public

until February 4th. During October, November, December, January and February these valuable monoplanes remained unused. I do not know even yet whether the right hon. gentleman has issued an Order that flying may take place upon these monoplanes. I believe they are still not being used for flying or practice by the officers of the Royal Flying Corps. It is rather interesting to notice that there are more monoplanes than biplanes flown in the French Army. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty has been giving his time and attention to monoplanes for the Navy. If they are too dangerous for the Army, I wonder the Secretary for War did not communicate with his colleague who is at the head of the Navy as to the risk in connection with monoplanes. The Navy have been flying their monoplanes, though the Army have not been allowed to do so.

On March 4th last year he said that the Army and Navy Flying Corps would be always on a war footing, and that the peace and war establishment would be the same. He told us then that this scheme involved the purchase of 131 aeroplanes. I wish to ask whether during the past six months the Aviation Service has been on a war footing, and whether he has purchased 131 aeroplanes during the past year?

The right hon. gentleman pledged himself that there should be three squadrons forming the Royal Flying Corps, that they should each fly twelve machines, and that there should be for each squadron six spare aeroplanes for casualties. Personally, I should have thought, having regard to the enormous number of accidents, small or large, which must take place, that if these squadrons were to be kept up to a war footing, there should be a 100 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. of spare aeroplanes. These three squadrons were to have eighteen machines, making fifty-four in all. These machines were to be kept on a war footing. I want to know from the right hon. gentleman whether at any time during the past year these three squadrons have been on a war footing. I wish to know further whether the fifty-four aeroplanes are efficient, ready to go to war at any moment.

He told us last week that there were 101 aeroplanes in the Army. When my right hon. friend was asked if they were efficient, he replied: That depends upon what you mean by efficient." He fenced the question. May I tell the House what I regard as efficient. I would say that an aeroplane to be efficient must be as good as the bulk of those in the French Army. It must be capable of starting off at once, flying at a speed of at least 50 miles an hour, and able to rise in the air at least 3,000 feet. Anything short of that I do not consider efficient. An aeroplane may be efficient for the purposes of instruction; it may be good enough to use in a schoolroom for the practice of these young officers, but that is not a war footing. I think the right hon. gentleman has confused, and he certainly has confused the House, between aeroplanes on a war footing and aeroplanes which the Royal Flying Corps possess for the purposes of instruction. I have questioned him from time to time as to the number of aeroplanes possessed by the Royal Army Flying Corps as recently as, I think, January 18th and January 22nd. The right hon. gentleman gave me a very different figure from this figure of 101. If the right hon. gentleman has got 101 efficient aeroplanes, I have nothing further to say. If they are efficient for war purposes, all the complaint I have made falls to the ground, and I shall be forced to acknowledge my fault and to say that the right hon. gentleman has done far better than I thought he had done. But I do not think that those figures are consistent with the figures which he gave me in answer to questions in this House as recently as January 9th.

These are the figures which he gave us on January 9th. He repeated them on January 22nd in reply to other questions by myself. He said that the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, possesses twenty-nine aeroplanes, and the Central Flying School twenty-six. Of these, twenty-six and nineteen respectively are in flying order. That is scarcely two months ago, and he now tells the House that he has got 101 machines ready to fly. Where have the balance of the machines come from? He cannot tell us. In the boast which he made in a speech

he said that he had got 101 of these machines. If seventy of them are school machines, let him say so. But in the whole of this paper squadron he told us two months ago that there were only twenty-six machines that could fly. Of these twentysix machines I think I am right in saying that at least twelve were these monoplanes which were not then in flying order. I asked again the question only a few days ago with regard to particular machines. It is only by getting the exact details that we can find out whether we have got the machines which the right hon. gentleman has rather boasted that we have.

Colonel SEELY: I said so. I did not boast. Let us clear this away. I say we have got 101 aeroplanes. If the hon. gentleman doubts me let him say that it is untrue.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is exactly what I am trying to say inoffensively, that we have not got 101 effective aeroplanes. I say that from the information which I have been able to get, based very largely on his own figures

Colonel SEELY: I say on my full responsibility as a Minister that we have got 101 aeroplanes which we are flying. I understand the hon. gentleman to say that that is not true. That is a very unusual statement to make. We certainly have got 101 aeroplanes.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do not let the right hon. gentleman impute more than I have said. Throughout my speech I have tried not to be provocative. It is a matter of vast importance whether we have the machines or not. We may have 101 aeroplanes than can fly, and you might have 101 tom-tits that can fly, but this is no good for the purposes of the Army. What I am concerned about is, How many of these 101 are efficient for military purposes? The right hon. gentleman told me about two months ago that he had only twenty-six on the military side that could fly. I do not care how many he has got in the schools for use or training. He could not use in war these machines after they had been buffeted about in the Army Flying Schools for months with beginners flying upon them and coming down crash upon them. He dare not send any military flying corps out to war with those machines. The right hon. gentleman made a most extraordinary suggestion in his speech the other day. He said that though some of these machines are machines on which he would not let officers fly in times of peace, yet in times of war there were so many bullets, troubles, and other dangers going about that they might take an extra risk and fly on these machines. I do not think that he could really have meant what he said.

Everybody knows that there have been very serious foreign complications during the past six months and the past six weeks. Everybody knows that if war should break out it would be with absolute suddenness. How many of these 101 machines could the right hon. gentleman send out with the Expeditionary Force or any other force? At the outside, twenty-five machines.

The right hon. gentleman must tell us with greater frankness what these machines can do. I asked him whether they could fly sixty-five miles an hour, and he said that it was not in the public interest that the House should know that. When did he begin to think that? I suggest that he began to think that when my questions, which I am afraid I rather showered upon him during the last three months, got a little too near the point, because only three months ago he was quite prepared to tell me how many machines we have got which could fly seventy miles an hour. He was very frank with me up to the time when I began to ask his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty questions with regard to the naval side of aeroplanes. The First Lord of the Admiralty was rather, I will not say more clever, but more cautious than the right hon. gentleman. He first developed this idea of secrecy. It was the First Lord of the Admiralty who said, "It is not in the public interest to answer your questions on various points, and though the Secretary of State told you how many could fly at seventy miles an hour it is not in the public interest to tell you how many can fly at sixty-five miles an hour." I think that it is in the public interest and the interests of the country that we should know. If I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many “Dreadnoughts" he has got, and what is their speed, or how many torpedo boats he has got this House is entitled to know. Otherwise we should not vote the Navy Estimates. If I want to know the velocity of a 13.5 inch gun or anything of the kind, I am entitled to get the information. Why am I

not entitled to know how many effective aeroplanes we have got and the pace at which they can go?

This policy of secrecy has been set up almost entirely because of the fact that he has not got a sufficient number of effective aeroplanes to man these three existing squadrons.

We

Colonel SEELY: I must confess that I have been a little puzzled by the attitude of one or two hon. gentlemen who feel themselves unable to accept a plain statement. I do not in the least complain, but it seems to me to be a little unusual. When an hon. member says something is so, somebody else may say, “I do not believe it," but it is, of course, very discourteous. I do not, however, complain. Now we have got a little further, because the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has been good enough to give us a definition of what he calls an efficient aeroplane or one efficient for war. It is very difficult to define an aeroplane efficient for war. You can make it one of high speed or low speed, facility for landing, etc., and he has taken a figure which he says he will take for the purpose of this Debate, and he will call a machine efficient for war that will fly fifty miles an hour, rise to 3,000 ft., and continue to fly at fifty miles an hour at that height. I have got on to our experts on the telephone since the hon. Member spoke, and I can tell the House that, making every allowance and with a determination to understate rather than overstate, we are in possession of over eighty aeroplanes which come up to that standard. My belief is that on the hon. Member's statement the number would be about eighty-seven, but in order to be on the safe side I say it is over eighty. And so we may clear away that suspicion which I regret has come into this Debate, because there need be no suspicion about it. We were working up to secure over 150 by May 31st. have had great difficulties owing to delays. I impute no blame to the manufacturers, because in a new industry in all countries there always must be delays, especially to secure safety. Delay has been delay caused in the manufacture of the suitable stays, because we found some kind of stays were dangerous. This comes out by accidents, and we have had scientific investigation at the Royal Laboratory at Kew. Consequently we have had to go to our manufacturer and say, "You cannot make the stays up to your specification because it will not be safe." That has happened very often and has been the cause of delay. Working on the programme laid down the position is that by next Monday we shall have added a further number of twenty-six, all of which will be far above the standard laid down by the hon. Member for Brentford; and in the course of the following eight weeks a further twentyone will be added, if the deliveries are made as expected. I hope after this statement we shall have no further disputes. I want to be quite frank with the House. If we get the deliveries we shall have to-day week 127, of which at least 110 will come up to the hon. gentleman's standard, and by May 31st we shall have 148, and possibly the number may be accelerated, of which at least 130 will come up to his standard. I do not wish to argue whether that is wholly adequate or inadequate to our needs, but the people who have been concerned in this difficult business of aeronautics have worked very hard indeed to make so enormous an increase in personnel and material as from 12 to 123, an increase of over 900 per cent. --all men who can fly, and and the great majority of them very expert fliers-and from 17 to 101, and within a few weeks more to 148. To have made so great an advance with so few mistakes reflects great credit, not on me, but on those who work under me.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was a further addition to my suggestion, and that was that they should be ready to start for war within a reasonable time.

Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes; these eighty are ready to go and will fly at 50 miles an hour, and will continue to fly at 50 miles an hour at 3,000 feet.

Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether the whole 101 aeroplanes are absolutely owned by the Government?

Colonel SEELY: I believe they have been paid for. I hope we have got them safe. We certainly have got to pay for them, whether the money has been actually handed over or not. If we get delivery, we shall have 127 by this day week and 148 by May 31; and we have now in possession 101. unless there have been two delivered during the holidays.

Mr. C. C. Turner, in The Pall Mall Gazette "

"The great betrayal, leading to Britain's present ignominious and perilous position, is to be continued. For the Government to admit the ignominy and the peril would be too much.

They do not admit it: instead, they say that all is well, and to prove it they issue an erroneous statement of the position, make picturesque assertions about their 'secret strength, and announce an aeronautical policy governed, as they say, by considerations of strategy and tactics, that must astonish every soldier and sailor in the land.

Colonel Seely is attempting a big bluff, or perhaps he has himself been bluffed. But this is what it means:

He says, in effect, to the private manufacturer, whose designs have gone to the building up of every machine produced at the Royal Aircraft Factory. You are no longer wanted; we have the best machine in the world!'

The factory has all along existed as a parasite upon the industry. True, it now possesses some excellent talent, but there is more and better talent outside it. And Colonel Seely says we have the best aeroplane in the world.' The factory that turned it out must surely have told him that! There will be merriment to-day in French and German aeronautical circles."

Mr. H. Massac Buist, in "The Morning Post":

"Colonel Seely's statement that the Army possesses 101 aeroplanes to-day and will have more than 148 by May 31 is something more than a welcome surprise; it is a revelation of the manner in which the Government is failing to support the native industry. The orders which our manufacturers have had and are at present executing, including those for building biplanes of the B.E. Royal Aircraft type, do not account for half the total of the machines named. Moreover, the orders placed among the foremost foreign makers may be included in that half.

"A greater mystery than the question where these 101 Army aeroplanes that we already possess have been and are accommodated, and when and where they have been used, is the mystery where they have been brought into being. Are we to understand that the Government is manufacturing in competition with the young industry, and is not confining the Royal Aircraft Factory's activities to experimental work?

We

"As for the claim of the Minister for War that we have the finest aeroplane in the world, it is not justified by facts. have an Army pattern biplane which is as good as any other, but is not in a class by itself as the best.' Colonel Seely appears to consider it something wonderful that it has been timed to attain a maximum mean speed over a short distance of 91.4 miles an hour. France has aeroplanes that travel at the rate of 120 miles an hour and have flown 119 complete miles in sixty minutes; so that we are only three-quarters on the way to attain such speed as is already possible.

Mr. J. H. Ledeboer, in the “ Daily Telegraph :

Colonel Seely's speech fails to answer a single point in the indictment; it justifies up to the hilt every criticism of the hopeless inefficiency of the present system. Until a broad national policy is boldly adopted the country will remain defenceless, as it is to-day, against every form of aerial attack, the sport and ridicule of every European spectator.

"Colonel Seely complains, in the first place, of the misapprehension that prevails regarding our position, and ascribes this to the reluctance of military aviators to publish their doings in the Press, together with the fact that military aviation was of so confidential a nature that it had perforce to be kept secret in the interests of the State. That latter plea has been advanced on every occasion when the Government has been accused of neglecting national security on a definite issue, and has been asked to render an account of its stewardship. It will hold good no longer; there is no secret about aviation, save only so far as the policy of the Government is concerned. It is a matter of definite numbers of men, aeroplanes, airships, and organisation."

"The Daily Express":"The speech with which Colonel Seely introduced the Army Estimates in the House of Commons yesterday worthy of Mr. McKenna himself.

was

"The Secretary of State for War declared that this country possessed 101 aeroplanes. He produced this figure by an indiscriminate census of flying machines no more germane to the subject of Army aviation than a census of costermongers' donkeys would be to the Army remount question. "He admitted that the number of our Army airmen is considerably greater than the number of our aeroplanes-even at his own figure; this despite the warning of Major Sykes, commanding the military wing of the Royal Flying Corps, that all aeroplanes will have to be renewed every three or four months on active service.

Airy Fairy Tales:-We must be permitted to receive the assurances of Colonel Seely yesterday with something less than complete confidence. How his fleet of 101 aeroplanes is made up we do not know, but we should be very much surprised to hear that they are all in the hands of the military authorities, or that they all satisfy military requirements. Be that as it may, the observations he was pleased to let fall on the subject of airships show that he has not appreciated even the elements of the problem before us."

"The Evening Standard :

"Colonel Seely's speech may soothe the public mind for a time, but it is certain that before many weeks pass we shall have a rude awakening as to our aerial capacity."

Figures for a Million.

As an appendix to the Memorial addressed by the Aerial Defence Committee of the Navy League to the Prime Minister, the following schedule of suggested expenditure has been issued. It should be noted that this is entirely capital expenditure for the purpose of making a beginning with our aerial defences, and is not affected in any way by the sum voted for the regular annual charge for the upkeep of the Royal Flying corps, which is an establishment expense, nor is it considered that the sum can fit out anything like a fleet we need It may also be well to explain that "establishment in this matter does not mean "establishing" a new thing, but is used in the same sense as in speaking of a person keeping up a big establishment.

ARMY.-Aeroplanes of latest and most efficient

type to equip the five squadrons of the Military Wing R.F.C. allowed for in the Estimates, and provide adequate reserves in the ratio of 1 to 1. (120.) Transport for five squadrons (15 flights) Squadron headquarters for five squadrons, with Barracks, Workshops, Sheds, and Garages

Workshop Depôt (Lines of Communica

tion)

£120,000 £120,000

£250,000

£25,000

(N.B. This allows only for the five aeroplane squadrons thought by Colonel Seely to be sufficient this year for the Expeditionary Force, and does not include anything for Home Defence.-ED.)

NAVY.-Four large rigid dirigibles (experimental)
Three double Sheds for same
Hydrogen Plant for three Stations
Hydro-aeroplanes (experimental), 75......
ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY (experiments only)
LAND (Purchase of five landing grounds of 200
acres each)

CIVILIAN AERODROMES (Two double sheds for
R.F.C. at each of six private aero-
dromes)

£200,000

£150,000

£60,000

£100,000

£100,000

£30,000

£6,000 £1,161,000

Ground rent for R.F.C. sheds at Civilian Aerodromes, and use of ground there, repairs to machines, wages at R.A.F., pay and allowances for R.F.C., hydrogen for dirigibles, and all usual "running expenses," come under the heading of establishment expenses, which should be included in the ordinary votes in the Naval and Army Estimates, and so do not enter into these calculations.-C. G. G.

GOOD FRIDAY.

Friday's sport was very nearly ruined, first by the severe and gusty wind, then, when that had subsided to a limited extent, by frequent downpours of rain. Nevertheless, although the racing fixtures arranged did not take place, the numerous visitors were well rewarded for their tribulations by several fine exhibition flights, M. Desoutter being the first up, and M. Chevillard again demonstrating, in an 80-h.p. British-built Henry Farman, how to convert a deadly sideslip into a fatal dive-and still continue to exist.

He, with Captain Tyrer as passenger, and M. Desoutter flew a four-lap race, the Blériot receiving a start of 12 seconds and winning by nine of them.

At this point, a 110-h.p. Canton-Unné Bréguet, scenting sport, came out of his hangar and gave tongue, but a fresh downpour drove him back again to be wiped dry.

M. Noël made a few circuits in the new 70-h.p. GrahameWhite biplane, which has been bought by the War Office, and Mr. Lee Temple essayed a short flight in his Caudron biplane (the only 35-h.p. machine to venture forth), but was brought to earth by a defective plug.

The day's flying was wound up by the somewhat dramatic arrival-in a British-built Maurice Farman biplane and a

rainstorm-of M. Verrier to the martial strains of the Marseillaise, after a tempestuous flight from Farnborough, covering the 30-odd miles in 19 minutes.

SATURDAY.

Saturday morning promised well, but the promise was not kept, for the wind freshened and became very treacherous after noon. M. Richet was up early on the Bréguet and said it was the trickiest wind he had experienced. M. Chevillard took his Henry Farman up for a height competition, but gave it up after reaching a height of 1050 feet and came down in one of the most remarkable spiral dives ever witnessed at Hendon. He found it impossible to rise above the 1,000 ft.. because every time he rose another 50 feet he struck a cloud, and was promptly dropped anything between 40 and So feet. There were no other competitors. M. Verrier made some circuits in the Maurice Farman, but wisely attempted no "stupts," as the wind was becoming even more tricky, and his engine was not behaving itself quite so nicely as usual.

Mr. Gordon Bell, with his mechanic, Chapman, as passenger, arrived from Eastchurch in the course of the afternoon, piloting a new and very handsome 50-h.p. Short biplane, of the improved S.38 type, an exceedingly fine performance considering the weather and the low power. The 51 miles,

with a side wind, only took an hour. Over Enfield the gusts were so bad that the toolbag was lifted clean off the floor, and came down again upside down.

Soon afterwards Mr. Spratt took out a little 35-h.p. and did a short but very fine flight, pitching and rolling in the big gusts like a cork in a sea.

Later in the day M. Verrier, with Mr. Gates as passenger, and M. Chevillard started out to race each other and had nearly completed their first circuit when they ran right into a fierce squall coming up from the south-east. The two aviators had barely time to land before the worst gust swept across the aerodrome. Lightning, thunder and copious rain followed, while the wind rose suddenly to such a height that the Farman mechanics had their work cut out to hold the two machines to the ground, while Mr. Gordon Bell's Short biplane, being for the moment unattended, was lifted up sideways, turned completely over, and laid down-none too gently upon its back, suffering considerable damage, chiefly to tail-booms, rudder and ailerons.

Thus ended the day's display. There were those among the crowd who expressed disappointment, but for those who knew anything of flying it was one of the finest exhibitions of the modern aeroplane's capabilities under adverse conditions that has yet been seen.

Easter Sunday.

Mr.

Easter Sunday provided some very fine flying. MM. Chevillard and Verrier doing their usual good work. Hamel turned out and performed a sort of aerial duet with Chevillard, and afterwards flew off to Brooklands, returning after a short stop, to do more fancy flying. Young Mr.

M. Chevillard and Captain Tyrer on the Henry Farman.

One of M. Chevillard's fancy descents.

Temple flew quite well on his little Caudron, and Lieut. Wildman-Lushington, R.M.A., of the R.F.C., did a particularly good test flight on the Admiralty's new 80-h.p. Caudron. M. Collardeau, the new Bréguet pilot, gave a foretaste of his quality, and all went well till that popular young Blériot pilot, Marcel Desoutter, came to grief.

He told several of those who went to pick him up that he was reaching forward when about 30 feet up to turn off his petrol to land, and as he did so his left hand slipped on the cloche. Before he could regain control the lower " planche hit the ground, and the chassis doubled up, then the engine hit, and the whole front of the machine crumpled. His left leg was caught in the wreckage, and badly fractured below the knee, but otherwise he was unhurt. He very pluckily raised himself in the wreckage, and waved his handkerchief to those who ran to his rescue to show them that he was not