King's Regulations 322 (2) (c)

[Moonraker]

I've come across a reference to soldiers being discharged in late 1914 under King's Regulation 322 (2) ©. What situation did this regulation cater for, please?

(The same passage had a reference to discharges under 392 xi iii (e), and Google directed me to The Long, Long Trail, which happily explained what this one was about. I did wonder if "322" had been a misprint for "392", but I couldn't get the sub-clause numbers to match.)

Moonraker

[Tyneside Chinaman]

Hi

it is definitely a misprint

KR322 is "Employment of a soldier under Colonial Goverments"

regards

John

[Moonraker]

The reference relates to Canadian soldiers based in this country, so just possibly might a (sub-) clause of 322 relate to their discharge? (And I do realise that in 1914 Canada was a dominion, not a colony!)

Moonraker

[Phil Evans]

Moonraker,

He didn't come under the Canadian KR's did he?

I can only access the 1917 version, where the causes of discharge are under Para 377, but the side note says "Procedure on Discharge Can. 322", which I believe relates back to the 1910 version.

Under the 1917 KR's Para 377 (2) © relates to recruits within 3 months of enlistment who are considered unfit for service.

Does that make sense?

Phil

[Taiha]

Moonraker,

He didn't come under the Canadian KR's did he?

I can only access the 1917 version, where the causes of discharge are under Para 377, but the side note says "Procedure on Discharge Can. 322", which I believe relates back to the 1910 version.

Under the 1917 KR's Para 377 (2) © relates to recruits within 3 months of enlistment who are considered unfit for service.

Does that make sense?

Phil

That would also be my guess.

[mhifle]

From the Canadian KR's.

Regards Mark

[Moonraker]

Moonraker,

Under the 1917 KR's Para 377 (2) © relates to recruits within 3 months of enlistment who are considered unfit for service.

Does that make sense?

Phil

Phill

Yes, it does, and my thanks to you and others who responded.

Moonraker