31. Major GUESTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial General Staff has assured him that, in the absence of the Expeditionary Force, the available military forces left in this country are considered by them to be sufficient to defeat any hostile invading forces which, in the considered judgment of the Admiralty, may be able to elude the British Fleet?
§ Colonel SEELYThe Admiralty state that it would not be possible for an organised invasion far less in numbers than 70,000 to elude the Fleet after the 1923 departure of the Expeditionary Force. The General Staff has assured me that the troops remaining in this country would be adequate to defeat any organised invasion which, on the basis of Admiralty calculation, could elude the Fleet under the circumstances named. The number of 70,000 could only be reached by a series of isolated raids at wide intervals of time and space. With our available resources the General Staff hold that the security of the Kingdom can be upheld against this latter form of attack.
§ Sir CHARLES ROSEDoes the right hon. Gentleman draw a complete distinction between a raid and an organised invasion in estimating the power of resistance of the Territorial Force?
§ Colonel SEELYI am glad my hon. Friend asks me that question. Such a distinction has always been drawn. It would be manifestly impossible to assert with confidence that the Territorial Force only a few days after mobilisation could overcome a concentrated army composed of 70,000 highly trained European troops, with all their Cavalry, Artillery, and accessories. We contend that such a situation cannot arise so long as we maintain our present naval superiority. I wish to emphasise that it was in that sense I replied to the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) in the course of Friday's Debate. It is important to make the distinction.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAre all the statements of probabilities which the Secretary of State has just made now the subject of investigation by the Committee of Imperial Defence? Are they the subjects which were referred to the Special Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
§ Colonel SEELYI have explained to the House that there is a special Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to consider the whole question of attack from oversea, and all these questions are now before them. I was asked what is the view of the General Staff, and I have stated the view of the General Staff.
§ Mr. SANDYSAre we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman now wishes to withdraw the statement which he made on Friday, to the effect that after the departure of the Expeditionary Force the 1924 troops left in this country would be adequate to deal with a raid of 70,000 men?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir, I do not wish to withdraw in the least. I want to make the distinction clear. A "raid" has always been understood in these controversies to mean a force which can only come without Artillery and Cavalry, and on that basis I adhere absolutely to the statement I made. With regard to an organised invasion the facts are as I have stated, but, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that the question I was asked was with regard to raids.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat ground has the right hon. Gentleman for stating that the word "raid" in this connection has always been used to indicate a force without either Artillery or Cavalry?
§ Colonel SEELYI would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the most lucid statement on the subject made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), in which he drew a very careful distinction between a "raid" and an organised "invasion." It is conceivable to think that a "raid" might have some Artillery, but for the purposes of these discussions we describe a properly organised force as an "invasion."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat I meant to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether he implied that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London in speaking of a "raid" on that occasion limited it to a force with no Artillery. My right hon. Friend never said anything of the sort.
§ Colonel SEELYPerhaps I may be forgiven for replying again. One could not say such a force could have no Artillery. That might be going too far. A distinction has always been drawn between a "raid," which is a force which may be supposed to elude the Fleet in a swift ship, which obviously could carry but little Artillery, and could not land it, and an "invasion," which is a properly constituted force with full complement of Cavalry, Artillery, transport, and all the necessary appurtenances of an army.