§ 23 Mr. HUNTasked (1) whether the 34,712 officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army, who did not attend camp at all in 1912, and the 40,684 boys under nineteen years of age, are considered by the Government as fit to take their place in the Territorial Army in case of sudden invasion? (2) Whether, as the Territorial Force is still about 5,000 officers, noncommissioned officers and men short of the number laid down by the Government as necessary for the defence of the country, he can say whether the present numbers are sufficient for safety? (3) Whether, as only 31,976 recruits of the Territorial Force and only 111,432 trained men qualified in musketry in 1911, he will say to what use men and boys unqualified in musketry would be put if, in a sudden emergency, their services were required to defend the country? and (4) Whether, as only 161,450 officers, non-commissioned officers and men out of the 313,000 laid down as required for the Territorial Army, attended camp for fifteen days in 1912, it is considered that the force is sufficiently trained to meet a sudden emergency?
§ Colonel SEELYThese questions deal with the capacity of the Territorial Force to take their part in the defence of the country, which, I am afraid, I cannot adequately discuss within the limits of a reply to a question.
§ Mr. HUNTCan the right hon. Gentleman say what is the use of a Territorial Force that cannot shoot sufficiently well—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is raising a matter of discussion.
§ 26. Mr. HUNTasked why disciplinary action was taken in the case of 2,490 noncommissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force in 1911 for entire absence from camp without leave, whilst in the case of the remaining 4,265, also entirely absent from camp without leave, no action was taken at all?
§ Colonel SEELYIt is understood that the bulk of the remainder quoted were cases where satisfactory reasons were 2111 given for absence from camp, and that in a certain number of cases where the termination of engagement occurred between the date of camp and the end of the Territorial year no disciplinary action was considered necessary.
§ Sir R. POLE-CAREWDoes the opinion of the Chief of the General Staff agree with that of the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Colonel SEELYI do not know to what particular point the hon Member refers. I merely stated the facts in reply to the last question, and in reply to the previous question I said it was too large a question to be discussed at Question time.
§ Colonel YATECan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the present numbers are sufficient for safety?
§ Colonel SEELYThat was the previous question, and I said it was too large a question to be discussed at Question time.
§ Colonel SEELYNo one can deduce that from the figures showing that a very large number have attended camp.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member's questions have already been answered and disposed of. He must give some other Members a chance.
§ Mr. HUNTI was only going to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers I would raise the question on the Adjournment of the House tomorrow.