I was reading the book "Plain tales from the Raj" about British India, and it mentioned that at the time, an officer in the British army had to have about a hundred pounds a year of private income to supplement his official income, as the expenses were larger than the pay. This seems rather strange, as why would people wish to serve in the army then? Could anyone shed some light on this? Also, when this did stop being the case? (assuming it is not the case any longer)
I have read "Plain tales from the Raj" but I can't find my copy at the moment.
Does it say that holding a commission in all British Army Regiments would require that sort of expenditure or just the more socially esteemed ones ?
I thought it was the true that if you were an officer in, say, a Cavalry Regiment then it certainly was the case that you spent more than you earned; partly due to mess expenses, with messing being done on a more elevated scale ; and partly due to the fact that Polo was a common pursuit in such regiments and the keeping of one or two Polo ponies, at your own expense, was more or less de rigeur. People were willing to serve in such regiments due to the social kudos and the type of people who were likely to be accepted (or in earlier times able to buy a commission) in such regiments generally had a private income so the fact they were spending more than they received wasn't very significant.
By contrast I thought that an officer in , say, the Royal Engineers would have led a more "normal life" in that he received more income than he had to spend.
I'm sorry I don't have a direct source for this but this is a sort of side-long look at some aspect of Officer life in the British Army pre-1870's as it discusses the sale of commissions and why some people were willing to spend (or at least "deposit") significant sums of money to serve as an officer http://www.colonialwargaming.co.uk/Miscellany/Army/Commissions.htm