ss002d6252 Posted 1 February , 2018 Share Posted 1 February , 2018 (edited) Quote Mr. WILKIE asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order was received at the headquarters of the l/4th Royal Scots Fusiliers to the effect that, as from the 20th of October last, sergeant-majors, quartermaster-sergeants, sergeants, corporals, and lance-corporals were to be reduced to privates, that on the 20th of November the sergeant-majors and quartermaster-sergeants who were reduced to privates were then promoted sergeants, the sergeants who were reduced to privates were promoted to corporals, and the corporals who were reduced to privates were promoted to lance-corporals; whether he is aware that the order was only intimated to the men on the 28th of December, that three of the sergeants and about seven or eight of the lance-corporals are men belonging to a draft at present in Kilmarnock and awaiting orders to proceed to the front, that since the 20th of October these men were drawing the pay of and doing the work of the ranks they were supposed to hold, that in consequence these men, some of whom are married, find themselves in the position of having overdrawn their pay and having got into debt as the result of an order not communicated to them until it was two months old; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and ascertain the reason for such an order being made and the cause for it not being communicated at the proper time? http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1916/jan/12/14th-royal-scots-fusiliers#S5CV0077P0_19160112_HOC_17 Does anyone have any ideas as to the reasoning behind this ? I can't find the war diary to check what it says. Craig Edited 1 February , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 1 February , 2018 Share Posted 1 February , 2018 10 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1916/jan/12/14th-royal-scots-fusiliers#S5CV0077P0_19160112_HOC_17 Does anyone have any ideas as to the reasoning behind this ? I can't find the war diary to check what it says. Craig No mention in the War Diary. The 1/4th Bn RSF (TF) was hard at it in Gallipoli at the time. I suspect it relates to the 2/4th Bn...in Nov 1915 the 2/4th Bn RSF, 2/5th Bn RSF and the 2/5th Bn Border Regt formed No. 13 Bn in 194th Inf Bde.. In Jan 1916 the battalions resumed separate identity and then immediately the 2/4th Bn absorbed the 2/5th Bn RSF. If the two battalions had full compliments of NCOs, it seems this would be an administrative adjustment that was badly managed. My speculation. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 1 February , 2018 Share Posted 1 February , 2018 I agree with Martin. It is worth mentioning that, apart from removal of a lance stripe, which a CO could do,, I don't think that it was possible to demote an NCO except by sentence of court-martial, or with the man's agreement. I suspect that the battalion had a number of NCOs with acting promotions, rather than substantive ones, and that these acting promotions were simply cancelled. The Parliamentary question does not say from whom the battalion received the relevant orders. I wonder if there is a later entry in Hansard giving the answer to Mr Wilkie's question? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 1 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Ron Clifton said: I agree with Martin. It is worth mentioning that, apart from removal of a lance stripe, which a CO could do,, I don't think that it was possible to demote an NCO except by sentence of court-martial, or with the man's agreement. I suspect that the battalion had a number of NCOs with acting promotions, rather than substantive ones, and that these acting promotions were simply cancelled. The Parliamentary question does not say from whom the battalion received the relevant orders. I wonder if there is a later entry in Hansard giving the answer to Mr Wilkie's question? Ron Good spot Ron, I hadn't considered that about the powers of the CO. Seems odd though that as many Privates would be acting up as far as Sgt Major etc but possible I suppose ? Unfortunately the response does not seem to appear in the online Hansard records. Craig Edited 1 February , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 1 February , 2018 Share Posted 1 February , 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, ss002d6252 said: Good spot Ron, I hadn't considered that about the powers of the CO. Seems odd though that as many Privates would be acting up as far as Sgt Major etc but possible I suppose ? Unfortunately the response does not seem to appear in the online Hansard records. Craig The questioner may have been mis-informed or partially informed. It happened a lot if Hansard is any guide. What tended to happen is a mis-informed journalist rattled the cage of an MP who asked mis-informed questions only to be shot down in Parliament by someone in the War Office primed with the facts. A bit like GWF on occasion... Edited 1 February , 2018 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 1 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2018 1 minute ago, QGE said: The questioner may have been mis-informed or partially informed. It happened a lot if Hansard is any guide. What tended to happen is a mis-informed journalist rattled the cage of an MP who was fed mis-information and then shot down in Parliament by someone in the War Office primed with the facts. A bit like GWF on occasion... Similar had crossed my mind... (Perhaps their area provided more men than any other...) Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now