ARMY RECRUITING
By MAJOR-GENERAL SIR FREDERICK MAURICE. THE Secretary of State's memorandum which accom- panies the Army Estimates of 1925-26 must have caused a good many old soldiers to have become remini- scent. In more ways than one the Estimates have reached what our American friends call " normalcy." The cost of the Army, £44,500,000, is, after allowing for the change in the value of money and the increased cost of the soldier in pay and maintenance, almost exactly what it was in 1913. Its establishment, inclusive of the British troops in India and exclusive of a small number of colonial and native Indian troops paid for by the British taxpayer, is 213,460, as compared with 255,830 in 1913, and these numbers certainly cannot be reduced as long so conditions remain as they are. Indeed, the Army is back at its old pre-War task of trying to make a pint of liquid fill a quart pot. But the part of the memorandum which reappears like an old friend is that which deals with the problem of recruiting. The Secretary of State wanted 34,000 recruits and he does not expect to get more than 30,000. He expresses mild surprise that this should be so at a time when unemployment is rife and the soldier gets in pay and kind about twenty shillings a week more than the agricultural labourer for much less arduous work and with better prospects of increasing his pay.
Sir. L. Worthington-Evans tells us that he has been informed by his military advisers that the falling off in the number of .recruits may be ascribed to war-weariness, the attraction of immigration, unemployment benefit, popularly known as " the dole " and uncertainty of employment at the end of colour service. Probably each of these factors has some influence, but the history of recruiting in Great Britain makes it at least doubtful whether, if they were all solved, the difficulties of the War Office would disappear. When Lord Cardwell abolished long-service the annual intake of recruits soon settled down at 23,000 men, and it remained at that figure for many years. In 1892 the Inspector-General of recruiting reported that : " The standards for infantry of the line are—age 18 to 23 years ; height 5 feet 4 inches and upwards ; chest 33 inches and upwards in proportion to height ; weight 115 lbs. and upwards. These standards are considerably higher than those of any foreign army. As a matter of experience it is found that the country furnishes on an average 23,000 recruits a year who are up to these standards. In years when more recruits arc wanted, some, at any rate, of the conditions have to be relaxed if the required number. of recruits is to be obtained. It follows, therefore, that standards are intended and arc used more as guides to recruiters- in the relation of men than AS strict .definitions of -the physique of_ accepted In the 'nineties of the last century an annual contingent of 23,000 recruits proved to be insufficient to meet the increasing calls made upon the Army, and in a memorable speech Lord Wolseley described the home-service battalions, after they had sent their drafts abroad, as " squeezed lemons." Expedients of many kinds were then tried to improve recruiting. The recruiting service was reorganized and improved, the soldier's pay was in- creased and great pains were taken to make him more comfortable. Changes were tried in the terms of service and for a period colour-service was reduced from six or seven years to three, but this proved to be a costly failure, while as a last resort the physical standard was lowered. By these various means the total number of recruits finally approached was gradually worked up to about 30,000. In 1911-1912 the number accepted was 30,858 ; in 1912-13 it was 28,047. But the lowering of the physical standard proved to be an expensiVe expedient, and a large number of men were discharged as physically unfit during their first year's service, having been of no service to the country and having cost a great deal in pay, maintenance and hospital treatment. After the Boer War the discharges for physical incapacity were so numerous as to cause an Inter-Departmental enquiry to be held as to whether or no the race was physically deteriorating. The committee reported that there were no signs of physical degeneracy in the nation generally, but that the Army was recruited from a low stratum of the population in which physical inefficiency was rampant.
The Secretary of State for War justly tale .s credit for the fact that to-day the methods of selecting recruits arc far more careful than they were before the War. He says : " The number of men accepted for service during any year does not, of course, represent the number who apply to join the Arniy. High standards of physique, education and character arc exacted in the interest, not only of the Service, but of national economy." The figures amply bear out this contention. In 1912-16 216,123 men offered themselves to the recruiting officers, of whom 28,047 were accepted. In 1923-24 the number of men who wanted to be soldiers was 81,506, and the number accepted was 30,508. What the War Office calls " the casualties before attestation," that is the number of men rejected in the first examination, was 15,957 in 1912-13, and in 1923-2 I. it was 50,836, or more than three times as many. It is very much to be hoped that the Secretary of State will not be tempted to revert to pre-War .practice and lower the standard of admission.
The physical standard to-day is practically the same as it was in 1892, when we got 23,000 fit recruits. There has been added a very desirable standard of character. The result of the stress of unemployment, of the attraction of improved pay and conditions of service, is that the number of men willing to be soldiers has increased by about 40,000 a year, and the number who were up to the desired standard has gone up by 7,000 a year. It is very doubtful whether it is reasonable to expect more than this. We are maintaining in time of peace under a system of voluntary enlistment an Army of about 215,000 men, an Air Force of about 40,000, and a Navy of about 110,000 ; that is, for the three Services, 365,000 men. No other country in the world attempts as much, and the United States with three times our population and higher rates of pay has difficulty in keeping up establishments which arc about half ours.
The moral seems to be that with the competition of the Air Force and the loss of the territory of the Irish Free State as a recruiting area the Army cannot expect to obtain more than about 80.000 recruits a year, so long as the present standards arc maintained, and again let us _hope that they will be maintained. This is a serious position for the Army because the large number of men who came into the Army in 1919 and 1920 to rebuild it in its old form will be passing to the reserve in the next couple of years, and the need for recruits will be greater than ever. This, however, is but a temporary diffieulty. The permanent fact is that under a voluntary system of enlistment there is a definite limit to the size of the Army which can be maintained. That being so, our first case should be to see that the tasks imposed upon it are such as it can reasonably be expected to carry out efficiently. Few will be bold enough to maintain that the strength of the Army bears any relation to the duties which it has to perform. That strength can only be increased in three ways : by making service compulsory, which is politically impossible ; by lowering the standard of entry, which is extravagant and of no permanent value, and by improving the physique of the stratum of the population from which the Army is recruited, which must necessarily be a very slow process.
Previous page
