Page 87 - The Wish Stream Year of 2020 Crest

ence was directly related to the problem of illegal payments. Because their function was illegal, they had to be discrete. They were often former army officers, claiming spurious powers to influ- ence the purchase process. Their clients were often wealthy individuals who lacked their own influence. Fees were often equal to the amount paid for the commission. If this type of transac- tion was discovered, it could result in a large fine (sometimes imprisonment) for those involved.
One dramatic instance of alleged abuse involved the Duke of York (Commander in Chief) in 1809, and his mistress Mrs Mary Anne Clarke. It was alleged that Mrs Clarke, with the Duke’s knowl- edge and involvement, had received large sums of money over a long period of time in return for influencing appointments in the Army. To obtain these posts, gentlemen applied directly to her at her home in Gloucester Place (paid for by the Duke) or through a commission broker. A seven- week enquiry failed to prove a direct involvement of the Duke, even though he apparently failed to notice that Mrs Clarke was living well beyond even the considerable means with which he had furnished her! Although the Duke was exoner- ated, the scandal forced him to resign as Com- mander in Chief and go into temporary retire- ment. He was reinstated again as Commander in Chief (by his father, George III) in 1811. Mrs Clarke’s career as a commission broker ended when she was later abandoned by the Duke! Mrs Clarke’s presumed success resulted in gov- ernment action against the trade of commission broking as a whole, which was rigorously and reasonably successfully enforced for the next 60 years until purchase was finally abolished.
Calls for abolition
From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the start of the Crimean War in 1853, there were few public attacks on the purchase sys- tem, despite the underlying objection in principle to it by successive governments. Indeed, many people supported it. The Duke of Wellington, an influential military leader and later politician, was a noted advocate of the system. Many other senior officers actively supported a system which had given them the promotion they might not otherwise have achieved by merit alone!
Lack of public interest did not however survive the start of hostilities in the Crimea. The general failure of the aristocratic senior officers would lead to a major assault on the method by which they gained their promotions and appointments.
James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan, by Sir Francis Grant ca. 1841
A classic example was James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan, one of England’s richest men. Having spent by way of purchase over £3M in today’s money on his colonelcy, despite being branded by the Commander in Chief, Lord Hill, as being ‘constitutionally unfit for command’, Cardigan then spent almost a further £1M on new equipment, horses and flamboyant new uniforms for his troopers, compelling his offic- ers to spend their own money on themselves. He infamously led the Charge of the Light Bri- gade in 1854 at Balaclava which, although an incredibly brave action by those taking part, led to many casualties and subsequent recrimina- tions, particularly about Cardigan’s leadership and competence.
Public and press hostility concentrated atten- tion on abolition throughout the late 1850s, and it was raised in Parliament from time to time, including a Royal Commission on the subject instigated by Lord Palmerston in 1856, although as he told Queen Victoria: ‘the Commission was proposed rather in deference to the opin- ions of the House of Commons than from any expectation that any change could or ought to be made’. But interest eventually waned until it disappeared as a political issue in 1862. It was raised again sporadically in Parliament but did not achieve any success until the Liberal victory
HISTORICAL 85