§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the travelling allowance of Officers invalided home from Abyssinia has been disallowed; and, if so, for what reason?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that he very much regretted the terms in which the Question had been put, because it was calculated to mislead the public in two very important respects. Any person who was not conversant with the Rules and Regulations of the Army would infer that officers invalided home from Abyssinia came home entirely at their own cost; and, secondly, that these officers had been treated in a different way to which officers who came from any other part of the world were treated. He must protest against any such inference. It might also be inferred that the War Office had a discretion in the matter, when the truth was that they had no power in reference to it. This case came under rules which applied to all officers from whatever part of the world they came. Officers who came home on sick leave were landed free of all cost in their own country; and the only cost to which they themselves could be put were travelling allowances as affected by accidental delays upon the way and the expense of travelling to their own homes from the place where they were landed. He thought, however, that the rule, restricted as he had explained, bore hardly upon some of the officers who came home ill, and that they should be sent free of cost to their homes, wherever those homes might be. On this account they were now considering a new rule. The rule had hitherto been that officers on sick leave should be considered in the same position as officers on general leave; but the new rule would be that officers sent home by a Medical Board should receive all their travelling expenses.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he wished to know whether this would be prospective only, or whether it would apply to the officers whom he had referred to?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas under-stood to say that he could not answer that Question.