Multiple Eras Purchasing a Commission in the British Army

[GCCE1854]

Just started reading a book called The Guards Brigade in the Crimea by Michael Springman. Not too far into it yet, but it's already fascinating. The idea of purchasing your commission seems a bit foreign nowadays, but I always assumed that it was left over from mediaeval times or something like that. Interestingly, there is a whole page about it in the above book which sums it up nicely.

 

The short version is that when Cromwell used his new army to take over and control Parliament, it made a profound impact on the English leaders and politicians. So much so that it would be 200 years before they "got over it". Cromwell's military officers were men acting on Religious and patriotic principals who trained to a point of excellence. As soon as the monarchy was restored, Parliament decided that officers could and would only be selected from the families who had a stake in the running of the country and the money to support the monarchy and Parliament. Therefore, the practice of purchasing a commission was instituted -- and stayed in place until the reforms of 1871.

 

This is an aspect of history that I'm always interested in and would be happy to hear thoughts on the system and whether the above seems correct, etc. Generally, what I've found online ascribes various motives to the purchasing of commissions, but usually just "good reasons" for the way certain people could or could not move up the ladder of promotion, the use of cashiering as discipline, etc. 

 

@FROGSMILE Tagging you here, as I'd be interested in your thoughts and input on this topic.

[FROGSMILE]

18 hours ago, GCCE1854 said:

Just started reading a book called The Guards Brigade in the Crimea by Michael Springman. Not too far into it yet, but it's already fascinating. The idea of purchasing your commission seems a bit foreign nowadays, but I always assumed that it was left over from mediaeval times or something like that. Interestingly, there is a whole page about it in the above book which sums it up nicely.

 

The short version is that when Cromwell used his new army to take over and control Parliament, it made a profound impact on the English leaders and politicians. So much so that it would be 200 years before they "got over it". Cromwell's military officers were men acting on Religious and patriotic principals who trained to a point of excellence. As soon as the monarchy was restored, Parliament decided that officers could and would only be selected from the families who had a stake in the running of the country and the money to support the monarchy and Parliament. Therefore, the practice of purchasing a commission was instituted -- and stayed in place until the reforms of 1871.

 

This is an aspect of history that I'm always interested in and would be happy to hear thoughts on the system and whether the above seems correct, etc. Generally, what I've found online ascribes various motives to the purchasing of commissions, but usually just "good reasons" for the way certain people could or could not move up the ladder of promotion, the use of cashiering as discipline, etc. 

 

@FROGSMILE Tagging you here, as I'd be interested in your thoughts and input on this topic.

I’m sorry that I cannot add much other than to say that the explanation you have quoted is a very good one, it was a system intended to ensure that army officers were stakeholders in the status quo of a monarchy based on patronage, and an at-the-time (Charles II), Parliament with both, limited powers and a suffrage restricted to land owners.  The British Civil Wars (“wars of the three Kingdoms”) that went on for nearly two decades and upturned all corners of Great Britain and Ireland, utterly traumatised their populations and, for the period of the Republic, penalised any overt expressions of joy, celebration, entertainment, or the slightest signs of any perceived immorality felt to be outside a partisan and strict interpretation of the bible’s teachings.  
 

There was a determination by both the Monarchy, with its landowning supporters, and an undoubted majority of ordinary people, who disliked strict Puritanical beliefs, that such a political regime and in particular regicide, should never occur again.  Arguably, to this day it is overall an underlying attitude that separates the historical and social culture of large swathes of the United States (but not all) from parts of the United Kingdom, although in both countries significant immigration by groups from outside Protestantism are continuing to lead to a gradual change in attitudes in those areas where the incomers settle.

 

However, in the U.K. the overall scenario described led to an increasingly bitter friction between Protestantism and Catholicism that was reflected too within the then reigning Stuart dynasty and it was the war that emerged from this that led to the “Glorious Revolution” started by an invitation to a Protestant Dutch King, who was married to a Stuart, to come to Britain and usurp King James II.  The outcome, whereby the victorious Dutch King became William III in Great Britain, led eventually to the “Bill of Rights” and the basis of Constitutional Monarchy that still exists in the U.K. today.

 

The limitations of the system of purchase of an army commission, it’s pros and cons are another matter, but there were sufficient benefits for it to remain in use for over two centuries (until 1871). 

[GCCE1854]

Thanks for the added info. That's interesting, too, about the change from Protestantism to Catholicism and then the coming of William III. Those things are generally taught here without the connection of the effects on things like the Army, etc.

 

Quote

The limitations of the system of purchase of an army commission, it’s pros and cons are another matter, but there were sufficient benefits for it to remain in use for over two centuries (until 1871).

 

 

The author of The Guards Brigade in the Crimea comes across as completely against the purchase system and seeing no pros whatsoever. I'd be interested in hearing any pros (or cons), because it does seem like a rather odd system from today's viewpoint. However, to have lasted for so long, there must have been more arguments for it than the memory of the Revolution.

[GCCE1854]

I've been doing more reading on this, and an aspect that hadn't occurred to me was the fact that during the centuries of purchased commissions, the selling up of their commission was the only "pension" a soldier could get. Since he didn't get a pension, he'd need that money for future support in old age, etc. Sadly, for all those Lt.-Colonels promoted to Colonel and above lost the right to sell their commission, thereby forfeiting the money they had invested. 

Not an easy system to reform, considering the many aspects they had to deal with.