[Transcribed by Megan Stevens]
Sir, in The Times of this morning, at the end of the article on Colonel Tulloch's1 book, you remark upon Colonel Rumley as having been unjustly promoted to be a Major-General over the head of Colonel Tulloch.
As the writer of this article does not appear to be aware of the facts, I beg to enclose to you the relative dates of the commissions of the two officers in question:-
|Colonel Tulloch||April 1826||May 1835||Nov 1838||March 1839||May 1844|
|Colonel Rumley||Dec. 1824||Oct. 1825||Aug. 1837||Nov. 1841||July 1848|
You will perceive that Major-General Rumley entered the army two years before Colonel Tulloch, that he was a lieutenant 10 years before him was a captain 11 years before him, and became a Major-General two years after him, Colonel Tulloch having received military rank for serving in an office in London, under Lord Grey,2 out of his turn; so that Major-General Rumley has only got his proper place again.
Major-General Rumley is well known to be one of the very best regimental officers in our army; he served with distinction in the Caffre war, has also served in India, and did everything he could to get to the Crimea, but was, much against his will and to his great disgust, retained at Malta, being found so very efficient in charge of the depots there.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
A.C. STERLING, Lieutenant-Colonel.3
13, South-place, Knightsbridge, Feb. 18.
[* We insert this letter, but it is altogether irrelevant. The question is one of seniority of rank, and it is not denied that Colonel Rumley was promoted over the head of his senior, Colonel Tulloch. We did not and do not disparage Major-General Rumley's claims to his present rank. We simply call attention to the fact that, not having had the opportunity of distinguishing himself in the field, any more than Colonel Tulloch, he was promoted over Colonel Tulloch's head, in recompense, apparently, for services much less remarkable than those of Colonel Tulloch.]