§ Sir H. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why chevrons for war service have been conceded to those who have been engaged in the cross-Channel transport of wounded and to many branches of non-combatant services, including conscientious objectors engaged in non-combatant units and civilian members of the Censor staff, also men of the Inland Water Transport Section crossing to and from France and Belgium, and yet are withheld from officers and men engaged in the Remount Service, although such men are constantly and habitually required to be exposed to the danger of the cross-Channel journeys with remounts, which renders their service additionally hazardous, and also are often called upon to proceed to bases overseas; and whether he will cause Army Council Instruction No. 520, of 1918, to be amended so as to inelude the personnel of the Remount Service who are engaged in the cross-Channel or overseas service?
Mr. T. WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that chevrons are permitted to be worn under Army Council Instruction No. 520, of 1918, paragraph 3, by all personnel of the Indian Army, and all Regular troops serving outside the United Kingdom on the 5th August, 1914, and also soldiers enlisted or re-enlisted in the Imperial Forces abroad, although such 527W service may be far removed from any sphere of actual military operations; and why in these circumstances are chevrons refused to the personnel of the Remount Service who are permanently occupied in crossing with remounts overseas; and (2) whether he is aware that the Board of Admiralty have sanctioned the award of chevrons for services in connection with the present War as from August, 1914, not, only to the regular naval personnel, but also to officers and men of the mercantile marine, to Queen Alexandra's Naval Nursing Service, and reserve members of the Women's Royal Naval Service, and to officiating ministers and civilian medical practitioners and dental surgeons giving whole-time service; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider the case of officers and men permanently occupied in the transport of remounts overseas, who are constantly engaged on and exposed to the dangers of the cross-Channel traffic, and thus remove a grievance on the part of those rendering a valuable war service?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 15th May last. The matter was very carefully considered.