PRIVATES AND TWELVE YEARS' SERVICE.
LTO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPIRCTATOR... J
SIR,—Is it a fact that a private in the Army cannot serve for more than twelve years ? If this be so, it seems to me to have three evils. (1) It is bad for the men, for the service is not a life service for them. It is not a vocation, but a job. (2) It is bad for the community generally, for a great number of men to a large extent unfitted for civil employment are thrown upon the labour market as unskilled labourers. (3) It is bad for the Army, for surely men ranging from thirty-five to fifty-five would make 'excellent soldiers. History can show many examples of this,—e.g., Roman triarii and evocati. I am inflicting this letter on you because a well-set-up mau begged from me this afternoon. He had served twelve years, and told me it was impossible for him as a private to serve longer. If this be false, then please pitch this letter in the waste-paper basket. If it be true, I wish one who feels• so •much interest in the Service would help to remedy this evil policy.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[Privates are not allowed without special leave to extend their service beyond twelve years, because if they were permitted to do so the Reserve might cease to exist. Officers very generally hold that men in the ranks are of little value after thirty-five. We ,do not agree, believing that plenty of
men between thirty-five and fifty-five are quite capable of home service.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
