[To THE EDITOR Or Via " SPECTAT0R-1 SIR,—With reference to
the correspondence which has appeared in your columns (Spectator, September 5th) on the efficiency of military officers, I would ask,—Is it reason- able to expect the highest qualifications from men who do not receive a "living wage" for their services ? It is well known that, with the exception of the Royal- Engineers, no young corps officers can live on their pay until they reach the rank of Captain at about thirty years of age. I do not refer to " crack " corps, so called, but to the ordinary regiments of the infantry and artillery, in which a minimum allowance of £100 a year from the parental pocket is essential to keep a young officer from financial embarrassment Until the authorities can see their way to helping the young officer by reducing his necessary expenses, so that his pay will suffice to keep him, the Service must be relegated to the sons of the comparatively rich. If I may be permitted to express an opinion, it would be to the effect that the authorities prefer the present class of moneyed officers, to the exclusion of the sons of the-poorer gentry, including officers of the Army and Navy, who under present conditions cannot hope to place their sons in the Service. If the taxpayers, however, insist upon having keener professional soldiers, they must be pre- pared to pay for them in some form or other, and it they refuse to do so, I cannot see that they have any right to com- plain of officers—who practically pay to serve their country— not devoting their whole time and energies to the study of their profession.—I am, Sir, &c., TWENTY YEARS. SERVICE.
Previous page
