BACKGROUND

As to the officers themselves, a very great deal of nonsense has been written and indeed still continues to be written both about their social background and about the supposed iniquities of a promotion system based on the premise that military rank could be bought for hard cash.

1. Officer, 22nd Light Dragoons, 1807
2. Officer, 10th Prince of Wales Own Royal Light Dragoons (Hussars), 1805
3. Officer, 12th Prince of Wales Light Dragoons Regiment, 1805

There is still a very widespread belief that Wellington's army was substantially commanded by wealthy aristocrats who had purchased their commissions. Wellington himself, who socially at least always remained a provincial Irish snob, certainly contributed to this impression by surrounding himself with Guards officers, and by his vigorous defence of purchase.

Nevertheless his doing so obscures the extent to which promotion did not depend upon purchase during the Napoleonic Wars - and for that matter the fact that the social composition of the wartime army was in many respects very different from the peacetime one.

The most widely advertised drawback of the system was the apparent ability of wealthy officers to purchase rank beyond their abilities or experience and contemporary critics were prone to parading poor but honest old Lieutenants grown grey in the service and passed over by aristocratic young striplings with more gold in their pockets than brains in their heads. [6]

However in 1795 the Duke of York's reforms included proper enforcement of the existing rules governing the age limits for first commissions, and the period of time which had to be served in each grade before qualifying for further promotion.

A prospective Ensign or Cornet normally had to be aged between 16 and 21. The upper limit was routinely waived in the case of commissioned rankers and officers volunteering from the Militia. As to under-aged officers the position was by no means as straightforward as it might appear. It is above all vitally important to approach the question from an 18th century rather than a 20th century perspective.

Although children were legally considered infants until the age of 21, they normally began their working lives -- or at least entered upon apprenticeships - between the ages of 12 and 15, so there was no reason why those contemplating a military career should not do likewise.

It is probably helpful to draw a distinction between children below say the age of 13, who were clearly incapable of serving with their regiments in any capacity, and teenaged boys who could be taught their duty. Prior to the Duke's crackdown there were certainly a number of cases where very young children had commissions purchased for them and with no real check upon subsequent promotions it was indeed possible for them to rise as high as money would permit without ever leaving the nursery or schoolroom, far less clapping eyes on their regiment.

On the other hand the abuse was afforded a dubious endorsement by the granting of non-purchase commissions to the deserving orphans of dead officers. Nevertheless they accounted for only a very small proportion of those carried on the Army List. Even as early as 1791 the youngest officers turned up in a random sample of ten regimental inspection reports were aged 16 and the average age was 21.

The situation was in any case exactly paralleled in the Royal Navy where there was a long-standing practise of entering very young children on ships' books in order to quite fraudulently increase their sea-time and thus assist their eventual careers by boosting their notional seniority. [7]

Whilst the eventual abolition of Purchase tends to be hailed as a thoroughly good thing it actually had no discernible effect whatsoever on the social composition of the British Army. The fact of the matter is that by the second half of the 19th century the Army was firmly in the hands of a pretty homogenous officer caste, substantially drawn from the aristocracy and landed gentry - that very level of society in fact which was best placed to purchase commissions in the first place. It was even argued at the time of its eventual abolition that the removal of purchase would ensure the predominance of the landed gentry by excluding the nouveau riche with only their money to commend them.

Indeed it can also be argued that the 18th century army drew its officers from a rather wider base and was more open to promotion from the ranks.

Peacetime

In peacetime, with the army maintained on a reduced establishment and casualties of all kinds at a minimal level, purchase naturally predominated. In wartime it was a very different matter. Not only was the establishment of officers within existing regiments increased, but a whole host of new ones were raised, in turn requiring a steady supply of officers. All too many of those officers then proceeded to become casualties and had to be replaced by yet more aspiring heroes.

Consequently the expansion of the army resulted in an exponentially larger demand for officers, and since this demand was not matched by a corresponding increase of the birthrate of the gentry and the aristocracy, the additional officers had to be drawn from a much wider social base.

Ensign John le Couteur was rather sniffy about this declaring that, "In those days of raging wars, all sorts of men obtained Commissions, some without education, some without means, some without either, and many of low birth." [8]

In his study of the social origins and backgrounds of 18th century army officers P.J. Razzell
[9] estimated that in 1780 some 24% were members of the aristocracy while a further 16% were drawn from the landed gentry. However, over the next thirty years both figures declined quite sharply. In 1780 no fewer than 30% of Major Generals bore inherited titles, but by 1810 the proportion had dropped to only 20%" which in turn implies that the overall percentage of aristocrats may have dropped as low as 16%. Moreover both aristocrats were disproportionately concentrated in the Household units and, particularly in the even more fashionable Hussar regiments. While only 19.5% of first commissions were being purchased in 18 10, these accounted for 44% of Ensigns in the Guards and 47% of cavalry Cornets.

An interesting contemporary comment on this comes in a letter written by Ensign Keep of 2/28th in 1812:

"Many of our Gents are restless to remove from the infantry to cavalry, particularly if at all aristocratically inclined, for the latter though expensive is considered the most dashing service, and is generally selected by young men of good fortune and family. The consequence is that officers of the infantry hold themselves in very low estimation comparatively." [11]

Even in the infantry, the social distribution could be very uneven. Some regiments certainly prided themselves on maintaining a 'select' officer corps, [12] while others must consequently have been much more workaday in style. Whilst all officers were officially designated gentlemen, if only by virtue of their commissions, the reality was that the majority were the sons of soldiers, clergymen, the professions, and even tradesmen. Some of them could afford to purchase their commissions but for the most part they applied for non-purchase vacancies.

A significant number of officers actually began their military careers in the ranks. During the 1800s the Gazette not only recorded whether a commission was purchased, but also very helpfully noted whether the recipient was an Officer Volunteer, a former NCO, or simply a private gentleman.

Analysing the Gazette entries, Michael Glover reckoned that during the war some 4.5% of newly commissioned subalterns were Volunteers - young men who went out on service at their own expense in the hope of being on the spot when any non-purchase vacancies arose. From the same source he also concluded that a further 5.42% were ex-NCOs exclusive of Ensigns appointed to Veteran Battalions who were almost invariably drawn from the ranks. Taken together the two categories account forjust under 10% of newly commissioned officers. [13]

However there is good reason to believe that the true figure is actually higher for this analysis takes no account of those men who served in the ranks as private soldiers rather than as Volunteers, and who were discharged before taking up their commissions. A notable example occurred in 1799 when five privates of the then 100th (Gordon) Highlanders were discharged in consequence of being commissioned. All five had enlisted when the regiment was first raised back in 1794 and at the time one was described as a tailor, while the other four were labourers! [14]

Officers and Gentlemen Part II: Commanding the British Army in the Napoleonic Wars

Part II: Background
Part II: Purchase and Promotion
Part II: Retiring
Part II: Richard Sharpe