ARMY REFORM.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sin,-4 have read with much interest the letters on " Army Reform," and your comments on them and on the subject generally, in the Spectator of September 12th. I will not discuss the present system of officering the Army, or the characteristics of its present officers and their merits or defects. But it is only fair to them to say that not only are they not the " gilded popinjays " that Mr. J. Burns calls them, but that their ordinary life is very different from what those who only see them at a review or on leave suppose it to be. Their daily work is by no means slight, and they are subject to a discipline which would be irksome to most civilians. During even peace manoeuvres they undergo fatigues almost amounting to hardships, and what they have to endure in time of war, even apart from the chance of death, is a very heavy price to pay for any fine feathers they may wear in peace-time. I only now desire to consider the proposition, laid down by yourself and many others, that it is desirable that service in the commissioned ranks of the Army
Ishould be regarded as a profession holding out to young men of brains, but with little or no money, as fair prospects as those of the other professions, especially those of law and medicine.
Assuming this proposition to be correct, I think you have "hit the right nail on the head" in pointing out that the one thing necessary for giving effect to it is substantially to increase the pay, not of the junior, but of the senior officers. If a young man enters the Army between eighteen and nineteen, the age at which he would be going to the University with a view to entering one of the "learned professions," an allowance of £100 a year, say for ten years, which would see him through his time as a subaltern, does not represent a greater outlay than would be required for his University education and entrance into the pro- fession of his choice. But what may he reasonably expect to receive in return for this outlay ? Roughly speaking, in the ordinary professions for the first ten years, say from twenty-five to thirty-five, he may expect to be able to keep himself decently as a bachelor; for the next ten years, say from thirty-five to forty-five, he should be able to marry if he feels inclined ; and from forty-five onwards he may look forward to a life of at least moderate comfort, to say nothing of his chances of obtaining any of the real prizes of his profession.
What are his prospects in the Army? As a Captain in an ordinary infantry regiment it will require the strictest economy to enable him to live on his pay. When he becomes a Major his position will be but little better, and marriage, unless he marries money, Will be out of the question. When he obtains the command of his regiment the increase in his necessary mess and regimental expenses will at least fully equal the increase in his pay. If he is a married man with a family, it will be simply impossible for him to command his regiment in home service, and the only course open to him is to retire on a pittance into genteel poverty, I need say but little about the prizes of the Army as compared with those of the other professions. No doubt the success achieved by men like Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener is great, and even dazzling. But such cases only occur once or twice in a generation, and great as their success is, they scarcely equal that of the lawyers who become Lord Chancellors. And if we descend to the smaller prizes, what does the Army offer in comparison with ordinary Judgeships, or with the incomes, ranging from £2,000 to £20,000 a year, enjoyed by the leading members of the legal and medical professions ? But the question is not so much one of possible prizes, as of what position a man of fair average ability and industry may reasonably expect to attain. To make the Army equal in this respect to the other professions there must be, as you point out, a very substantial increase in the pay of officers above the rank of subaltern. It may, indeed, be possible, at least in theory, to enforce a Spartan discipline, and to compel all officers to live even on their present pay. But to do this would be to reduce them to a position but little above that of the present non-commissioned officers, a position which might be attractive to the superior class of artisan, or even smaller trades- men, but which would certainly not attract the young men who now enter the liberal professions.
Whether it is really desirable to attract the latter, and whether, if they were secured, they would give us a more efficient Army than we have at present, are points on which I offer no opinion. What is certain is that if we want them we must pay for them. Are we prepared to do this? Is the present Government pre- pared to ask Parliament for the sum required ? Is there the slightest chance that a Liberal party, already pledged to Army retrenchment, would ask it if it came into power ?
[We agree that the Army does not offer to officers the same number of posts attainable by " a man of fair average ability and industry " as are offered by other professions. But we would urge, in regard to possibilities of increased expense to the nation in augmenting the officers' pay, that possibly better officers--i.e., men who bad obtained well-paid and responsible posts only after much severer competition—ought certainly to be able to decrease the amount of money spent by the nation in obtaining the Army it wants.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
