YEOMANRY (SCOTLAND). (Hansard, 3 April 1838)

§ Mr Gillon
rose to move for a "copy of any precognition taken for, or report made to, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, respecting the conduct of the Ayrshire yeomanry cavalry, in and near the town of Kilwinning, during the last election for the county of Ayr; especially such extracts as will show the order issued for the assembling of the above corps, or any part of it, on the day previous to the said election; the name or number of the troop or troops assembled, and the number of men from other troops than those ordered out, with the names of the officers commanding or accompanying the troops which turned out on that occasion, and stating whether with their own troops and men, or with those of other troops; also the name of the place or places where the officers and men were ordered to meet, and were quartered during the day and night previous to the aforesaid election; also the hour and place at which they paraded on the election day the distance of that place from the polling station at Kilwinning, the hour they marched into that town, stating also the pace at which they were conducted, and the hour and place of their arriving at the polling-booth, the time they were kept there during the hours of polling, and when relieved from duty." If the learned Lord would consent to grant his motion, he would not say one word upon the subject; but as he was given to understand that the learned Lord would oppose it, he 383 felt bound to offer a few words in explanation of his object. The reason for which he asked it was, that the yeomanry corps in many parts of the country had been disbanded by the Government. He was far from complaining of the adoption of this course; but what he complained of was, that the Government had not gone far enough. There were two corps in Scotland still in existence—those of Lanarkshire and of Ayrshire, and he desired to know what justification there was for their maintenance? for he was prepared to argue that they should peculiarly have been disbanded. He asked for the returns referred to, in his motion, in consequence of the transactions of the corps. He would state, and believed his statement could be proved, that at the last election, on the day before the polling took place in Ayr, the corps of yeomanry was summoned—by whom or for what purpose, he did not know—but they were summoned in a peculiar way. Two troops were called out, but persons connected with the corps, both privates and officers, but who were not immediately connected with those troops, were called upon to volunteer to act with them. On the night before the poll, the officers were quartered in Eglinton Castle, and the privates were also provided with shelter in the stables and outhouses of the castle, or in the houses immediately adjoining. On the next day, when there was no riot, or appearance of riot, the troops were wantonly marched into Kilwinning at full gallop, and with their swords drawn, and every attempt was made to provoke the people to a riot, the men themselves being placed at the side of the polling-booth, for the purpose of preventing the electors coming to the poll. But however they might have acted in this respect, the conduct of those who had marched them into the town was unconstitutional and improper, in being likely to produce terror in the minds of the people, and to cause risk and danger to their property and their persons. He repeated that his only object was, to show these corps were of such a description as to be peculiarly proper to be disbanded, for he had been informed that they were employed as a species of canvassing committee for the Tory candidates in the different counties. He should hope, therefore, that the learned Lord would not find it incompatible with his duty to grant the returns he asked for.

§ The Lord Advocate
could not agree to grant the motion of the hon. Member, and for a very good reason. The fact was, that although a report had been made to him in reference to the conduct of the yeomanry on this occasion, yet the report was not of such a nature as to enable him to give the returns called for. It was merely in the nature of a precognition, which stated that some degree of riot had taken place, but the facts which it set forth were by no means ample, and the precognition itself might be revoked by the witnesses, from whose evidence it was framed, before any trial could take place. It was not of such a nature, therefore, as to afford the necessary information to the House, its object being merely to convey a species of primary information to the Crown, which might subsequently be acted upon or not. It was evidence taken merely at the instance of the Crown, and without any cross-examination, and it would afford only conjectures which could not be fairly acted upon. He was desirous merely to say, that the production of the document could not produce any satisfactory result for the precognition did not touch on any of the particular points referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Robert Ferguson
saw no difficulty in saying, that as far as this corps was concerned, whether as regarded the officers or the privates, he believed it was most respectable; but he could not help adding, that if any corps should be required to put down any disturbance, or to disperse a mob, the yeomanry was the very last which should be called on to act, for their own sakes; and he would ask what possibility there was that they should be well disciplined, when they went out to drill only for a week at a time, and then as much for amusement as anything else. In this country the people depended on the standing army, and they did their duty, and nothing but their duty.

An hon. Member
submitted, that the hon. Member for Kirkaldy was travelling out of the matter under consideration.

Mr. Ferguson
said the hon. Member appeared to be mistaken with respect to his opinion in reference to the yeomanry. He repeated that he had the greatest respect for all the component parts of it—for officers, men, and horses. He was the last person who, in his capacity of Lord-Lieutenant, would have called out the yeomanry force to act in such a case.

Mr. Wallace
meant to speak to the question which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Falkirk. Belonging to the county in which the yeomanry were established which had been referred to by that hon. Member, he would say, that he believed the statement of that hon. Member to be quite true; and he could not exactly understand the nature of the duties of the learned Lord, which prevented him in his capacity of public prosecutor from laying before the Houses the circumstances which must have come to his knowledge. He had admitted the riot, and he had admitted, that he knew something of it, but he would not communicate what he knew. He was prepared to say, that the time had arrived when the duties imposed upon the learned Lord required revision if he should be allowed to conceal circumstances which might come to his knowledge under them.