Historical record of the Seventh Regiment, or the Royal Fusiliers: Containing an Account of the Formation of the Regiment in 1685, and of Its Subsequent Services to 1846.Cannon, Richard
History
Historical record of the Seventh Regiment, or the Royal Fusiliers: Containing an Account of the Formation of the Regiment in 1685, and of Its Subsequent Services to 1846.
Cannon, Richard
Great Britain. Army -- History; Great Britain. Army. Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment)
1804 Serjeant Francis Gilliman, Quarter-Master, Nova Scotia Fencibles.
1805 Serjeant-Major George Galbraith, Ensign and Adjutant, First Royal
Foot.
---- Quarter-Master-Serjeant John Hogan, Quarter-Master, Seventh Royal
Fusiliers.
[17] A General Order was issued to the army on the 18th January,
1810 (No. 182), by direction of the Commander-in-Chief, containing
the substance of the following General Order, issued in North
America, on this subject:--
"GENERAL ORDER. QUEBEC, _4th October, 1809_.
"The Commander of the Forces has lately had occasion to see in a
Halifax newspaper a copy of an address presented by the serjeants
of the 1st battalion ROYAL FUSILIERS to Captain ORR, on that
officer relinquishing the Adjutancy in consequence of being
promoted to a company. So novel a circumstance could not fail to
draw the attention of His Excellency, it being the first of the
kind that has come to his knowledge during the forty-six years that
he has been in the service; and as the first instance has thus (so
far as he is aware, at least) occurred on the part of the army with
the charge of which the King has been pleased to intrust him, he
feels himself called on by every obligation of duty to His Majesty
and the service to bear his testimony against it by a public
expression of disapprobation.
"His Excellency does not mean in this instance to ascribe any
improper motive to the serjeants. He has no doubt that their sole
view was to express their regard and gratitude towards an officer
who, in the intimate connexion that had officially subsisted
between them, had very commendably conducted himself with kindness
to them without departing from that strictness of discipline which
was indispensable to the discharge of his duty.
"But while His Excellency thus does justice to the intention of the
serjeants of the ROYAL FUSILIERS, he desires at the same time very
seriously to observe to them, that in presuming to meet, in order
to deliberate on the conduct of their superior officer, they have
in fact, however unintentionally, been guilty of an act of great
insubordination.
"It matters not that the design of the meeting, or in whatever
manner the address was unanimously assented to, was solely to
express their respect and esteem; the very circumstance implies
discussion, and by that discussion they rendered themselves
obnoxious to the imputation alluded to.--Who, indeed, shall say
where such a practice, if once introduced, shall end? If the
non-commissioned officers of a regiment are permitted to express
their approbation of the conduct of the Adjutant, why may they not
exercise the same right with respect to their commanding officer?
Or what reason can be given why they should not be equally entitled
to express their disapprobation? Indeed, should the practice become
general, the merely withholding the former would imply the latter.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account