HC Deb 29 July 1910 vol 19 cc2665-6W

asked the same right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, on the amalgamation of the 3rd (Dumfries) Volunteer Battalion, K.O.S.B., and the Galloway Rifles Volunteer Corps, Lord Lucas, at the Kirkcudbrightshire county meeting on 5th December, 1907, promised that Colonel Lennox and his (the Galloway) officers should receive fair play as regards promotion; whether the Dumfries commanding officer received the command of the amalgamated battalion, although he had already had two extensions in the Volunteer Force, and has since received two extensions of command in the Territorial Force; whether the late Galloway commanding officer, on applying for an extension in order to take up the command on the retiral of the present commanding officer, has been refused on the ground that he has had no training while supernumerary during the extensions granted to the other commanding officer; and whether, in implement of Lord Lucas's promise, and in view of the dissatisfaction which prevails in Galloway, and the fact that other supernumerary commanding officers in a similar position have received extensions, he will consider the matter with the view of granting the application for extension by the Galloway commanding officer?


I am aware of the speech alluded to. Lord Lucas stated the rule which is always followed, subject, of course, to the paramount consideration of military efficiency. In the case of this particular officer, I can safely say that the rule would have been followed were it not for the fact that four experienced senior officers, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, were, on purely military grounds, unanimously against the extension which this officer had applied for. I can, therefore, see no reason for reconsidering the matter.

Forward to