be liable to be superseded by one junior to himself in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, either as Colonel, or, subsequently, as Major General."
In 1833 another case of supersession occurred, and Lord Hill, writing to the President of the Board of Control, in the course of a long argument, remarked:
"The only safe and unerring principle on which the system of promotion can be soundly and justly regulated as between the King's and the Company's Officers in India, appears to be that which has been already alluded to; that under no possible circumstances can it be permitted that a Lieutenant Colonel in the King's Service should be superseded by one junior to himself in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, as Colonel, or, subsequently, as Major General."
Again,
"In all that has been said throughout the voluminous discussions which have taken place upon the subject of Military promotions in India since 1796, the ruling principle has ever been so to uphold the position of the King's Officers that they might not suffer in any collision of interests with the Officers of the Company's Army in their character or military dignity."[1]
I quote these extracts in order to show that supersession is no mere sentimental grievance, but that it was looked upon as a grave and serious question really affecting the interests of the Army, by such men as the Duke of Wellington and Lord Hill.
In the year 1854 a Royal Warrant was issued which made material alterations in the mode of promoting to the rank of Colonel. It also established
- ↑ Report of Committee on Supersession of Colonels. War Office, 1870.
