HC Deb 10 May 1900 vol 82 c1238

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether twenty-eight out of the non-commissioned officers and men who have been invalided home from Africa owing to illness contracted or wounds sustained in the campaign, subsequent to their examination by the principal medical officer at Netley, applied at the Assistant Adjutant Generals Office for furlough, but received refusals to their application on the ground that their services were required for duty at Netley; why, out of the 6,000 men who have been invalided home from the front, should an exception be made in the case of these men to the practice of permitting men invalided from the war to go on furlough; and, whether, having regard to the disappointment to the invalided soldiers and their friends entailed by this refusal of furlough, the War Office authorities will reconsider their decision in this matter.


Furloughs have, as the hon. Member points out, been very freely granted, but a certain number of men are necessarily detained at Netley to perform the duty of attendants at the hospital. The selection of these men rests with the General commanding the district, and he will no doubt take care that the duty shall not press inequitably upon any individuals.


Will these twenty-eight poor fellows get their furlough in duo course?


If the hon. Member suggests that any men have been detained on duty until fit for service, and then have been sent back without having leave granted them, I will inquire.