Officer Recruitment

One of the areas which brings out very clearly the com-plexities of the relationship between society and the Victorian army is that of officer recruitment. This was a problem area which affected very considerably the position of the army in three dimensions — as a profession, as an organization and as a political force. Professionally, the question which arose was whether a system of recruitment which allegedly produced a self-perpetuating clique would coincidentally hinder the development of professionalism, or whether the latter would only be ensured if recruitment were ‘open’, that is, based on criteria which emphasized the need for individual merit and ability. As an organization, the army was faced with the problem of developing a viable relationship not only between the mem-bers of the officer corps and their subordinates, but also between the military and political élites. In both instances, the crucial question was whether the association between ‘officer’ and ‘gentleman’ was so vital to the development of this effective relationship that it precluded the widening of the base of recruitment to include candidates from the ‘lower orders’. In terms of its political attitudes, the Victorian army was similarly faced with problems which were derived from the adoption of any policy governing officer recruitment. On the one hand, it could be argued that a policy based on achievement produced a politically sterile military force, an argument which has been succinctly summed up by a modern commentator: (¹)

It implies that there is nothing in the professional soldier's social background which would endanger internal democracy. If the officer corps were a representative cross-section, they would hardly harbour intentions to upset the political balance. They could not be accused of imperial ambitions beyond those 13sanctioned by the popularly elected legislators.