§ Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office received a communication from the London Territorial Force Association last November stating that it was their unanimous opinion that it would be a grave mistake to disband the 10th (County of London) battalion and setting out their reasons for the conclusion arrived 661W at; and whether the War Office have ordered the disbandment of the battalion without replying to the letter of the association; if so, will he undertake to have the order rescinded pending further inquiry?
§ Colonel SEELYA letter was received from the association on the 28th November. This letter was in reply to a War Office letter of the 2nd October. On the 9th January the association was informed, in reply to their letter of the 28th November, that a conference would be held at the War Office on the 19th January. It was subsequently decided to hold an informal conference at a later date, and this conference accordingly met on 30th January, at the War Office; the chairman and the secretary of the County Association were present; also the general officer commanding the London district, and the Director-General of the Territorial Force. The whole matter was then discussed in all its bearings; the Army Council finally decided, on 11th April, that, in the interests of the Territorial Force, there was no alternative but to recommend the disbandment of the Paddington battalion, and the raising of another in its place in a locality where it would be possible to secure full numbers and efficiency.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the headquarters of the 10th (County of London) battalion at Paddington the drill hall is an exceptionally good one, having been built at the cost of £5,000, and that the administrative offices are most unsuitable and inadequate; whether the War Office have been repeatedly urged for many years past to arrange for the improvement of the administrative offices; and whether he would now consider the advisability of providing proper offices instead of disbanding the battalion?
§ Colonel SEELYNo request for the improvement of these buildings reached the War Office before the date of the War Office letter of 2nd October, 1911, except as regards the miniature range, for which proposals were approved in principle in January, 1911; owing to protracted negotiations between the association and the London County Council, who owned the site, detailed plans and estimates could not be worked out, and no progress had been made with the matter when the disbandment of the unit was decided on.
662W
§ Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that a greater number of recruits joined the 10th (County of London) Battalion during the year ending 31st October, 1911, than joined any other county of London battalion; whether he has considered the effect which the disbanding of this battalion would have upon the whole Territorial movement in the county of London; and, if so, whether he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the rest of the question, the effect which the disbandment of this unit would have upon the Territorial Force in London and elsewhere was fully considered when the decision to disband the unit was arrived at, and it is not anticipated that the disbandment of this battalion will have any ill-effect upon the Territorial movement in the county of London.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he will circulate to the Members of this House the letter from the War Office to the London Territorial Force Association of 2nd October, 1911, in reference to the 10th (County of London) Battalion, and the reply of the association dated 28th November, 1911?
§ Colonel SEELYPapers on this subject shall be laid.