§ Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers and men are required to bring the Territorial Force up to establishment strength, and what method it is proposed to adopt in order to secure the requisite numbers?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)In reply to the first part of the question, on the 1st October, 1,779 officers and 47,746 noncommissioned officers and men were required to complete establishment. As regards the second part of the question, the Government are carefully considering what is the most advantageous method to be adopted, if necessary, to secure the required numbers, especially in view of the engagements which will be completed next year. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWhen may we expect some definite announcement?
§ Colonel SEELYCertainly before the Army Estimates come on next year. I do not know that there is any great advantage in announcing it at a very early date.
§ Mr. SANDYSasked on what grounds the efficiency of the Territorial Force is officially stated to have improved, in view of the fact that the number of the force has decreased by 284 officers and 2,645 men since last year, and also in view of the fact that the number of officers and men attending camp for the full period has declined by 129 and 12,755 respectively, whilst the numbers of those absent from camp during the whole period of training have increased from 25,995 in 1910 to 33,511 in 1911; and whether the right hon. Gentleman considers these figures satisfactory?
§ Colonel SEELYIt is admitted that the figures quoted are not satisfactory. But it must be remembered that the general efficiency of a force does not solely depend upon its numbers, and there is a consensus of opinion amongst the military authorities, who are best able to judge, that, on the whole, there has been a decided and satisfactory improvement in the general efficiency of the force.
§ Mr. SANDYSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter portion of my question refers to the training and not to the numbers, and does he consider the figures with regard to attendance at camp training satisfactory?
§ Colonel SEELYThat is what I meant when I said that the general efficiency of a force does not depend on its numbers. I also added that the best military opinion, which I shall be glad to quote to the House, is that the efficiency of the force has greatly increased.
§ Mr. SANDYSWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question, in which I ask him on what grounds the efficiency is stated to have improved?
§ Colonel SEELYI have stated that we rely on the best military opinion, and at the proper time I shall be very glad to produce the opinion of the Inspector-General and others on this point.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Napoleon did not say that "victory lies on the side of big battalions"?