§ 91. Sir CHARLES HENRYasked whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to granting to those men who have served in the Army during the present War and on account of wounds or illness contracted during this period have been discharged some distinctive badge by which their services would be recognised?
§ Mr. FORSTERIt has been decided to issue such a badge and the design has been approved, but the conditions under which the badge is to be awarded are under consideration and have not yet been settled.
§ Sir C. HENRYWill the right hon. Gentleman say at the same time as to the manner in which they should be obtained?
§ 92. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether men invalided home suffering from shell-shock, rheumatism, pneumonia, or trench fever will receive the same recognition in the way of gold stripes as men actually wounded?
§ Mr. FORSTERI will send my hon. Friend a copy of Army Order1 of the 6th of July last. This Army Order gives particulars of the distinction in dress authorised for officers and soldiers who have been wounded, but there is no badge contemplated for those who have been sent home on account of sickness.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH—COOKEDoes the hon. Gentleman mean by "sickness," shell-shock, rheumatism, pneumonia, or trench fever?
§ Mr. FORSTERI do not know about shell-shock, but the others obviously are sickness.
§ Sir C. HENRYWhy is a distinction made between a man wounded and one who becomes incapacitated through sick-ness?
§ Mr. FORSTERI think there is a very material difference.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH—COOKEIs the hon. Gentleman aware that there is at the pre-sent moment in London a man who fought in six engagements, and has only been sent home with trench fever? Is that man to have no recognition?
§ Mr. FORSTERI am afraid it does not depend on the gallantry of the individual but on the bad luck of being wounded.