HC Deb 27 April 1838 vol 42 cc636-64
Viscount Howick

moved, that the sum of 80,280l. be granted for defraying the expenses of the volunteer corps for the year ending 31st March next.

Mr. Hume

said, that as it was his intention to take the sense of the House on the vote, he would state the reasons which induced him to take this course. He had always objected to the yeomanry, because it was a partisan force, and it was one which was not favourably regarded by the public. He knew, that the opinion of some Gentlemen was, that the composition of this force was fair and unexceptionable, and that it comprised individuals of different political opinions; but some corps were entirely Conservative, and he believed, that very few, or none' were entirely Liberal. He looked upon every force only as it served to keep the public peace; but he had presented petition after petition complaining that this corps was used for party purposes. The petitioners had no objection to the employment of a regular military force, if such employment were necessary, but they were opposed to any partisan force. The House would doubtless recollect, that a few years ago, he believed it was when the Marquess of Lansdowne was Home Secretary, Government had intended to abolish this force entirely; he was sorry that the House had not now before it the evidence then furnished to the Government of the efficiency of this corps as compared with the militia, but he knew that it was intended to abolish the corps; now, however, a part only was to be disbanded and part was to be kept on foot, and what he wanted to know was, what reason there was why if it was fit to be kept up in one part of the country it was not fit to be kept up in another? His opinion was, that it was not fit to be kept up in any part, and he objected to the vote, because, although the amount was reduced, it was still a waste of the public money. He held, that every force ought to have the approbation of the country generally, and he believed, that this force did not receive that approbation. When he was in Norfolk a few days since, his attention was drawn to a letter of Lord Sondes, who was a major of a volunteer corps, and if her Majesty's Government had not seen it, as it was expressed in terms not very complimentary to them, he would read part of it, expressing at the same time his fear that the feeling of this officer extended to others. The letter was addressed to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates of the Norfolk yeomanry corps, and was dated from Elmham Hall, March 28, 1838, and thus commenced:— Brother Comrades,—Her Majesty's Government have disbanded a great part of the yeomanry force of the country, troops raised under precisely similar circumstances as our own. Our corps is for the present spared; how long it will be allowed to remain in existence is very doubtful. The Prime Minister said in the House of Lords, a few evenings ago, that the 'establishment of the yeomanry corps took place at a period of emergency, and without any idea of their permanent continuance.' He certainly added, that it was not the intention to make any further reduction 'unless rendered advisable by circumstances.' What these circumstances may be I cannot say, but I may conjecture. I am willing to prove my loyal attachment to the Throne by serving her Majesty; but I will not, as an independent man, subject myself to the capricious and uncertain conduct of the present Administration. He had thought that the feeling entertained by this nobleman would not have been avowed by others; he had not expected that those with arms in their hands, who professed a willingness to show their attachment to the Throne by serving her Majesty, would have admitted that they would serve only under a Government of one party, and that they would enrol themselves only in support of certain political opinions. [No, no.] Hon. Members cried "no," he would therefore again read the paragraph in the letter. "I am willing to prove my loyal attachment to the Throne by serving her Majesty; but I will not, as an independent man, subject myself to the capricious and uncertain conduct of the present Administration." Further than this, the letter went on to say, "I have, therefore, resigned my commission as major-commandant of your corps. Without presuming to influence your conduct, I humbly advise you to do the same, resign, disband yourselves, and do not wait to be dismissed." So that the House could not expect any officer to serve her Majesty and her Government except only when power was held by a certain party. [No, no.] Hon. Members might say "no, no!" but they could not deny the letter; they might attempt to explain it away, but deny it they could not. He was surprised that any one should have the assurance to put forward such sentiments, and at any rate this circumstance proved, that these were partisan corps. [No, no.] He said, "yes, yes!" Let hon. Members cry "no, no!" till they were tired, the facts would speak for themselves; and he hoped, that Government would support his motion, and not subject themselves to insults such as had been offered to them; and when, if, as he feared many corps partook of this feeling, he thought it was high time to put down the force.

Mr. Bagge

could not listen in silence to the attacks made by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on a nobleman resident in the county which he had the honour to represent, and he rose to bear willing testimony to the universal satisfaction his conduct had given whilst commanding the corps of yeomanry, and to deny he had held that office with arty party view. He was sure the whole body of the independent yeomanry of the country would throw back with contempt the aspersion made on the noble commander by the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

Mr. Hume

begged to disclaim any personal attack on the noble Lord. Had the hon. Member seen the letter?

Mr. Bagge

I have seen the letter, and read it with great satisfaction.

Mr. Benett

, being probably the oldest member of a yeomanry corps in that House, wished to say a few words. He had served forty years in that force; but having now left it, he had no personal interest in the question. He must, however, repudiate the charge of partisanship; he declared solemnly to the House, that he had never in that force, seen the slightest symptom of partisanship. There was no foundation for the charge which had been made against the yeomanry corps in this country. He lamented that any part of it should be put down, because he considered it a most constitutional force. He spoke as an old Whig when he said, that the militia was the constitutional force of the country. Indeed he was old enough to recollect the time when there was the greatest dread of a standing army. If they gave power to the people of the country, they did not endanger the liberties of the country. The yeomanry had, in his opinion, succeeded the militia as an armed constitutional body, not constituted to be under the control of the magistracy, and not the tools of an arbitrary government, or an arbitrary sovereign, if an arbitrary sovereign or government could be at the present day even supposed. But a new principle of a standing army had been introduced, and he feared that it would be followed up by another, which he dreaded still more—a general police force. Our ancestors dreaded and feared such a force, and though it was true that it was not now to be dreaded and feared as in former times, still he could not but recollect, as an old man, his former fears, and he could not help speaking the ancient prejudices of his party. The old doctrine was, that the people should supply the means of preserving the peace of their own district, and this was just, because then no object would be pursued which was not in unison with the people's feelings. With respect to the vote, he believed that it only amounted to 80,200l. for the year, and it was small compared with other votes which were readily passed by the House at all times of the night, and even of the morning; and was it for this paltry saving that they were to endanger the safety of the country, by dispensing with the services of the yeomanry? He had now, owing to private circumstances, left the corps to which he had belonged, and he might, therefore, say, that the Wiltshire yeomanry had performed good service during the riots of 1830, which were of a very serious nature. Agricultural riots were very different from those in manufacturing places: the agricultural labourers were most persevering and active, and yet they were, in Wiltshire, put down by the zeal of the yeomanry corps, almost without bloodshed, only one life having been lost. The corps behaved with great perseverance, and with great leniency towards the parties, and they stopped all the great riots in Wiltshire. That corps was now to be disbanded, which he regretted, as he also regretted that other corps were to be put down. He should always do all in his power to maintain a corps which he believed to be cheap, to be effectual, and to be constitutional. On these grounds he would oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and he trusted that it would be negatived by a large majority.

Mr. A. Sanford

, agreed in the observations of the hon. Member for Wiltshire. He thought also that arrangements might be made, by which the same sum might be saved to the country, and yet, that the same number of yeomanry corps should be kept up; such, for instance, as instead of having the whole out every year, calling the different regiments out in successive years. In the county which he had the honour to represent, which had a population of upwards of 400,000 persons, there had not been quartered, for many years, a single troop of regulars: all the duty was performed by the yeomanry corps. It was well worthy consideration, that in that county the peace had been so well preserved, when it was recollected, that in an adjoining district, in which the collieries were situated, the yeomanry had been called out no less than fifty times, for the suppression of different riots. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wiltshire in reference to checking the riots in 1830, it was a remarkable circumstance, that at that time the spirit of riot appeared to have passed through the line of counties where the yeomanry had been disbanded, and that it stopped when it arrived at those counties where they were continued. This ought not to be lost sight of; and he deeply regretted that any alteration had taken place, and still more that any further alteration was proposed. He regretted it the more because he knew that the young men who were attached to the yeomanry corps had a feeling of honour in being so employed; and in corroboration of this statement, he would mention to the House an expression which was used in a petition which he had had the honour to present from the men of the corps which he had commanded. They declared that "their feelings as Englishmen, were hurt by the proposed reduction of the yeomanry;" and they came forward, and by a subscription raised themselves into a new troop, which had ever since continued in existence by permission of the Secretary of State. He regretted that he had been compelled to trespass so far on the attention of the House, but his feeling of attachment to his own troop was so great, that he felt, that he could not allow the opportunity to pass without offering some few observations upon the subject.

Mr. Miles

concurred in the sentiments expressed by his hon. Colleague who had just resumed his seat, and he could corroborate the facts he had stated. He, at the same time, must express his opinion that the course taken by the Government in disbanding single troops was one which could not be defended. In the county which he had the honour to represent, two troops had been disbanded, which had done great good. It was well worth the consideration of Government whether by adopting the plan he had alluded to, Government were not in fact disbanding those troops which were the most useful.

Mr. Warburton

felt himself bound to give his support to the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilkenny. The hon. Member for Wiltshire had said, this was as constitutional a force as the militia; but when did the colonel of a militia regiment ever write such a letter as that which had been read this evening in the case of the reduction of his regiment. Was that militia subordination? Was that the submission of the military to the civil power? Was such a thing ever heard as a colonel of militia saying, that he would not continue to hold his commission at the will of any particular administration? He regarded the force, then, as anything but a constitutional force. It appeared to be the feeling that when once the power had been put into the hands of the force, they calculated that they had a right to maintain in their own hands the authority thus given them; and the moment they supposed that, it was time that they should be taught that the civil authority was superior to the military power. He could well understand the use of such a force in time of war, and he thought that at such times it would be highly useful, for all had a common interest in resisting a foreign enemy; but when peace returned, he was prepared to contend, that it was not desirable or wise in times of popular excitement to call out one portion or branch of the population against some other branch. Had the House forgotten, that it was this very mode of quelling excitement that had given rise to so much dissatisfaction already? Did they not remember that there were many instances of the kind, or had they forgotten the riots at Manchester? Had they forgotten the particular degree of excitement produced by the calling out of one portion of the population against another portion, all being friends or neighbours, as the yeomanry were to the people of this country? The general evil was admitted throughout the whole of the discussions on the Canada question, and it was universally admitted, that the duty of quelling such disturbances should be intrusted to the executive Government. He thought it was important for every class in the country that the yeomanry should be disbanded, and that the suppression of every tumult approaching the nature of riot should be intrusted to the executive. For these reasons, be felt himself bound to support the amendment of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Williams Wynn

was of opinion that the liberty and interests of this country would be ill consulted by the disbanding of the yeomanry corps. The hon. Member for Bridport, who had last spoken, said, that it was not advisable to call out one portion of the population against another, but that an appeal should be made to military force. Was that hon. Member, then, prepared to give his sanction to an augmentation of the military force of the country? For he was quite sure that such a step would be necessary in the event of the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny being carried, in order that the riots which from time to time arose might be subdued. He was old enough to remember what took place in the year 1791. At that time those disgraceful riots took place in Birmingham, when the mob were in possession of the town for nearly a week, and when all the power which the magistrates could put in force failed to put an end to the dreadful scenes which occurred. The magistrates were compelled to degrade themselves, using supplications to the mob, and addressing them, as friends and fellow churchmen, praying them to discontinue their illegal acts, and to burn no more houses, for there was no military force which could be immediately resorted to for the security of the public peace. The military were called on, it was true, but they were at such a distance that in order that they should reach Birmingham they were obliged to march fifty-nine miles in one day before they could reach the spot. Now, from the establishment of the yeomanry in 1794 to the present day, how infinitely less of riot and disturbance had taken place, notwithstanding the arts which had been industriously used to incite the public mind. He never would admit, however, that the advantages to be derived from the yeomanry were to be measured by the riots which they had put down, because he was confident that the benefits produced by their existence was not confined to that alone. There were many cases within his own knowledge, when the simple fact of the yeomanry being within reach had had the effect of preserving the peace. Some hon. Gentlemen had referred to the former reduction which had taken place. Now, being the only Member of the House present who was a Member of the Government of Lord Goderich, he might be permitted to say, that although he deeply regretted, that the measure had then been adopted, yet that no such plan as that which had been referred to, as the general abolition of the yeomanry, was suggested or hinted at by that Government. At the time Lord Lansdowne held the situation now filled by the noble Lord opposite, the reduction of the several corps of yeomanry was directed, but no such general plan as he had pointed out had ever been entertained. What was the effect of that former reduction, however? That before three years had passed, Lord Melbourne saw the absolute necessity of re-embodying almost every corps which had been disbanded. He regretted the more, therefore, that any further attempt was now made for a further reduction; and it appeared to him that this power of reducing the corps had been exercised with a singular want of judgment, and he would take the case of the counties of Flint and Denbigh as examples. In that part of Wales there was a large proportion of the population employed in mining, a description of persons particularly liable to be excited into riot, and it was not long since a disturbance, which might have assumed a very serious aspect had been quelled by the activity of the yeomanry, who by taking possession of a bridge, prevented the communication of the rioters with the miners in an adjacent district of Shropshire. There were at that time in Flintshire eight troops, and in Denbighshire there were five troops, and these, with the exception of a small troop in Montgomeryshire, were the only corps in North Wales. The Flintshire corps had been disbanded, and the Denbighshire corps, which formerly consisted of 250 men, was ordered to be reduced to three troops, of only twenty-nine privates each, amounting in all to eighty-seven men. He had no difficulty in saying that it would be better even to take away the whole corps than that it should be reduced to such a state of inefficiency, but he also declared that it was of the highest importance that proper and efficient means should be taken to guard against the possibility of riot. Then, with regard to the question of expense, what was the expense attendant upon the support of these corps? When it was considered that the whole cost did not exceed 5l. 8s. per man every year, that is to say 3l. allowed for clothing and contingencies, and about 2l. 8s. for eight days' duty, he had no hesitation in saying that it would be impossible to provide for the security and peace of the country so cheaply by any other means. It was said, "Disband them now, and then if you want them, raise them again," but this was much more easily said than done; for if their services were required in the parts of the country to which they belonged, and which were exposed to danger of riot and disturbance in the time of peace, and they found that the powers given to them were to be taken from them, it would not be easy to obtain men to act. He was confident that the expense of maintaining a yeomanry force would be much less than that required to support the necessary number of troops. It was said, that when the yeomanry were first raised in 1794 they were intended only as a temporary force. Now he could remember that time, and he could distinctly contradict that assertion; for he knew that its institution and maintenance were considered, both by Mr. Pitt and by Lord Grenville, as useful and desirable; and the late Lord Spencer was one of the first to set the patriotic example to the country of raising a corps. The opinion then entertained was not only that it was desirable that the force should be maintained in war, but that it should be continued in peace; and he remembered that in 1802, at the time of the peace of Amiens, the Secretary at War (Mr. Yorke), in proposing; the vote of supply, said that he trusted that the day would never come when the country would cease to look to the yeomanry for defence whether against external invaders or internal rioters. He should vote in favour of the proposition for granting the supply, but at the same time he must express his extreme regret that any part of the force should be reduced. If any inefficiency should arise, he agreed that her Majesty's Government would be justified in making the reduction, but there was no suggestion that that was the ground on which the reduction was proposed.

Sir E. Knatchbull

hoped, that the Gentlemen at the other side of the House, as this was a question to which great importance was attached in the county to which he belonged, and as he did not often encroach upon the indulgence of the House, would bear with him while he endeavoured to express his opinion upon this subject. The question, as he had said, was one of great importance, and was regarded with a deep and strong feeling throughout the country. It could not fail, therefore, to strike him as a singular thing, that in the course of this debate no explanation had yet been offered by a Minister of the Crown of the reasons for this reduction, although he doubted not that an explanation would be given before the debate closed. He differed from the hon. Members for Kilkenny and Bridport, in the view which they took of this matter, and he was glad that the question now under discussion was not the reduction of the whole yeomanry force, but only of that part of it which her Majesty's Ministers had been advised to cut down. The hon. Member for Bridport had pursued a course which could scarcely be called politic, in endeavouring to revive a discussion which could be attended with no beneficial result—a discussion on the subject of the Manchester riots. He could not hear imputations thrown out against the general body of the yeomanry, however, without doing his utmost to repel the charges, which, he must say, he believed to be unfounded. He believed, that the yeomanry were a constitutional force, and he thought that it would be better that that they should be called out in times of emergency than the militia, and he really believed, that that course would be most consistent with the feelings of the public at large. He, at the same time, fully agreed with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that the mere presence of the yeomanry produced a great moral effect in securing peace, and he was confident that it would be an injury to the interests of the country that they should be withdrawn. Not the least offensive part, he must say, of what he must term the offensive conduct of her Majesty's Government was the manner in which, the dismissal of the yeomanry in the county of Kent was made known to them; and he was surprised that no explanation had as yet proceeded from the noble Lord opposite upon that subject. An official letter was written by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to the Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Kent, stating, that for the future the four troops subsisting in that county were to be reduced to three, and to be under the command of the Major and a certain number of captains. He would ask whether this was decently respectful, either to the Lord-Lieutenant himself, or to the noble individual who commanded the force in that county? Was it respectful to Lord Winchilsea, who mainly contributed to the support of the yeomanry force in that county, or to Lord Brecknock, a commander in the force, the son of Lord Camden, to whom the country was so deeply indebted! Was it surprising that this course should have given rise to much indignation? He would now take the liberty of asking her Majesty's Government for an explicit answer to the question—Why had this reduction taken place—why was this affront put upon a most respectable and useful body? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would hardly tell him that it was done from motives of economy; for, although that right hon. Gentleman would doubtless find it a difficult task to introduce his budget to the House, he could scarcely believe, that the mere saving of the sum of 25,000l. per annum could have been the inducement; economy, surely, could not have been the motive, when the noble Lord opposite had introduced a Bill for the establishment of a new jurisdiction throughout the counties of England, it being a part of that measure that the expenses of the new court which it proposed to form should be charged upon the county-rates. Any hon. Gentleman considering the provisions of the Bill which the noble Lord had laid upon the table of the House, must come to the conclusion that the sum to be charged by it upon the counties of England would not be less than 40,000l. yearly. This was not the first time that a course of this description, with reference to the yeomanry force, was pursued by a Whig Government. When Lord Lansdowne filled the situation which the noble Lord opposite (J. Russell) now held, a similar measure was proposed, and so strong was the sensation excited throughout the country against the measure that it was not persevered in. Of the individuals composing this force there were many who had come forward voluntarily—many at great personal inconvenience and expense. And, looking at the unceremonious manner in which they had been dismissed, he thought that her Majesty's Government had placed themselves in a position of great responsibility. He felt, that the country was placed by them in circumstances of danger; and that if the time should unfortunately arrive when the services of the individuals composing this force might be required, and if they were called on to render those services by the persons now in power, there might be found to exist a great indisposition—he would use no stronger term—to respond to the call proceeding from such a quarter. He would, therefore, decidedly join with those who were desirous for the continuance of this force at the full amount at which it had hitherto existed, in the strong conviction, that to abolish it, while it would be injurious to the Government and to the country at large, would be visiting those who merited a very different treatment with an implied censure which they by no means deserved.

Lord John Russell

was about to rise after the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, had taken his seat, when the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken thought proper, at considerable length, to complain of his not having given a full explanation to the House of the circumstances under which this proposition was brought forward, and of the grounds on which it was proposed to be supported. By his remaining still, the right hon. Gentleman had had the advantage of making a long speech on the subject, which he otherwise would hardly have had the opportunity of doing. Respecting very much, as he (Lord John Russell) did, the feelings of his hon. Friends at his own side of the House, who had spoken upon this subject, and likewise respecting the feelings of hon. Gentlemen at the other side, who might be connected with the yeomanry, and admiring the zeal and gallantry which had been shown by those corps in many instances, still he thought it his duty, upon an occasion when the public money was to be voted, to inquire whether the service was of such a nature that the vote would be justified by the financial state of the country. He certainly did not think that, merely for the sake of avoiding any amount of odium which might be incurred, or of shielding himself from the insinuations which had been so plentifully thrown out, he should continue to impose upon the country what was, to a certain extent, a burthen, if he did not think, that there were sufficient reasons to justify its continuance. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had complained of the manner in which this arrangement had been carried into effect. The House had heard, during the course of this night's debate, an extract from the letter of one noble Lord; and he supposed they were perfectly aware of the contents of the letter of another noble Lord connected with Kent upon this subject. He would read to the House the letter which he had written with reference to the reduction of the yeomanry in Kent, in order that the House might be enabled to judge whether there was anything either uncivil or indecorous in the wording of it which could justify the intemperate expressions which were made use of in the two letters to which he referred. He said:— I am further commanded by her Majesty to desire that your Lordship will assure the commanding officer, and request him to communicate to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates of their respective corps, that her Majesty is deeply sensible of the zeal and loyalty uniformly displayed by them from the time of their first being called into action down to the present moment, on all occasions when their services have been required; and it is her Majesty's pleasure, as a mark of her royal approbation, that the officers should retain the rank and honours belonging to their respective commissions. To such a state, continued the noble Lord, had they arrived with respect to the use of language, and so little were his colleagues and himself permitted to employ words to which the charge of harshness might even, in the remotest degree, be affixed, that the language which he had just read to the House was thought most oppressive and liable to censure, while so strong was their adversaries' sense of justice, the letters of Lord Winchilsea and Lord Sondes were pronounced to be models of civility and decorum. It was certainly with some surprise that he had heard it contended by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the noble Lords were perfectly justified in using the language which they had thought proper to employ. For his own part, he thought that those noble Lords—of one of whom the corps was, he might observe in passing, retained, although the noble Lord had thought proper to resign his commission—in issuing political manifestos of this description, upon learning that those corps were reduced by order of the Crown, and while the men composing those corps had arms in their hands, had shown a very bad example. As far as the individuals from whom those letters proceeded were concerned, it was quite clear, to them no military command should be intrusted. What would any man think of a colonel of militia, or of the major of a regiment of dragoons, upon the occasion of his being informed that his regiment was reduced, in terms complimentary to his regimental zeal, thinking proper to issue a letter to the individuals composing the disbanded regiment, strongly complaining of the conduct of the Government? Having said thus much with regard to the manner of the dismissal, he must now observe that, founding his conviction upon the communications which he had received from various Lord-Lieutenants, he was very far from believing that this spirit was common among the officers of the militia force; and he thought the exception not very happy or creditable. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, it was not necessary that he should make many observations; because the principal attacks of this evening had been made, not upon the ground that this force was not sufficiently reduced, but upon the ground that the reduction should have taken place at all. Entertaining none of the extreme opinions upon either side, he certainly, however, did believe, that this was a force which it was not proper to maintain to the extent to which it had hitherto existed. He thought that much might be said with justice in favour of the yeomanry. In the first place, they had shown great zeal and devotion in coming forward to preserve the peace of the country. They had likewise devoted themselves in a very praiseworthy manner to the acquirement of the proper discipline of military men, unaccustomed as they were to that kind of occupation; and in several instances, the knowledge that there were corps of yeomanry in the country had been found to be useful in controlling persons who might be disposed to riot. But, on the other hand, he did not think, that to resort to their services for that purpose was the most desirable course to pursue. It was impossible for him (Lord John Russell) to give them that character by which his hon. Friend, the Member for Wiltshire, had described them—the character of a constitutional force. He certainly could not compare them with the militia, who were, upon their establishment, as observed by Lord Chatham, to be considered as a force to be employed against a foreign as well as a domestic foe; and who were, in fact, what they had been called by a high military authority, "The great army of reserve of this country." With respect, however, to the yeomanry, it unfortunately happened that their services were generally required (it was, indeed, hardly ever otherwise) for the purpose of putting down riots. They could not be employed as the militia were during the late war, whose services were found to be so beneficial, upon a portion of their force being joined, in a case of emergency, to the regular army. Under present circumstances, also, it was almost impossible that a corps of yeomanry could be called out in any particular district without exciting a great deal of acrimony and animosity. He did not mean to attribute to the persons belonging to those corps any improper feelings, but it was almost unavoidable that when dissensions arose between one class of the population and another class, which gave rise to riots and disturbances, and when this force was supposed to be connected with one of the parties, that it should not create more animosity than the regular army would do in putting down local riots. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the riots that occurred at Birmingham in 1791, and also to the use of the yeomanry at the last election for that town. With respect to the last subject, he knew from the officer commanding the yeomanry corps on that occasion, that when the riots took place at the late election the colonel commanding the force remonstrated with the magistrates of the town for calling the yeomanry corps of the immediate neighbourhood into the town of Birmingham, instead of a corps from a greater distance, and not so immediately connected with the place. His hon. Friend, the Member for Somersetshire, complained of the reduction in the number of the yeomanry in the county of Somerset; but the fact was, there was left in that county a body of yeomanry of not less than 1,000 men, and in addition to this, there were large corps of yeomanry in the neighbouring counties. He would put it to the House whether a yeomanry corps of 1,000 men was not sufficient for the maintenance of the peace of a single county. He was, however, of opinion that it was not only expedient, but that it was the duty of the Government to reduce the number of the yeomanry corps in those places where their services were not likely to be required, and also in the neighbourhood of large towns, where they were likely rather to create riots than put them down in cases of disturbance, and when other means existed of preserving the peace. In 1831, when this force was reorganised and called out, there were 18,303 men connected with it. This number had been reduced 4,709 men, and there were left in the force in 1838, 13,594 men. He would ask, was not this force, taken with the regular army, amply sufficient to meet any probable emergency in which their services might be required? For his own part he would rather that any force should be employed in case of local disturbances than the local corps of yeomanry. The House was aware that several local disturbances had taken place in carrying into effect the new Poor-law Act, in which it was necessary to call some military force to the aid of the local authorities; but instead of calling on the yeomanry corps, he had preferred availing himself of the assistance of some other body. When application had been made to him in such cases, he had either gone to the commander-in-chief, and asked for the assistance of some detachment from the regular troops, or he had sent to the Commissioners of metropolitan police to dispatch a portion of that body to aid in suppressing the disturbances. He thought that the regular troops, or the metropolitan police, were better adapted for the suppression of local disturbances than yeomanry corps, or other bodies having local connexions. They could then be withdrawn, and quiet and tranquillity would more speedily follow than if a yeomanry corps were called upon to act in the same service causing heartburnings and dissensions to be directed against the body so employed. His hon. Friend, the Member for Somersetshire, suggested that, instead of suppressing any of the yeomanry corps, a part of the present expense might be saved by not calling them out on permanent duty. He did not think that this would be expedient, for if this body were maintained it was desirable that it should be an efficient force; but it could not be rendered so, unless it was subjected to constant discipline and inspection. He repeated, therefore, if the force was not constantly called out, the best characteristics of the force would be destroyed. What they had then to consider was, whether it was necessary to keep up the whole number of the yeomanry force that was kept up in former years; and he was of opinion, after the most mature consideration that he was able to give to the case, that he was fully justified in recommending the reductions that had been made; at the same time he could not concur with the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. While on this part of the subject he confessed that he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite refer to what he was pleased to call the acts of the Whig Government of 1827. It was new to him to hear the Government of that day stated to be a Whig Government, having at its head, first Mr. Canning, and then Lord Ripon, and of which administration, at least one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite was a Member. But that Government had reduced the number of the yeomanry to 7,025, while he proposed that that description of force should be kept up to 13,594, He confessed, that he had seen no such letters as had that night been produced and read, and cheered by Gentlemen opposite, respecting the then reduction of this force. That Government was succeeded in the Administration by the Duke of Wellington, who came into office in 1828. That noble Duke did not at that period think it either expedient or necessary to have the yeomanry force kept up to the extent that Gentlemen opposite thought desirable; at the same time, he did not recollect that such letters were then written as had that night been produced. He did not hear hon. Gentlemen opposite complain of the Duke of Wellington having a yeomanry force of only 8,000 men; but it now appeared, that because he proposed a force of only 14,000 men, they could not restrain their indignation. He confessed, that so far from deterring him from pursuing the course which he thought his duty, it led him to the conclusion that there were a great many persons in the country, who considered the yeomanry force as useful to party objects, and which, if the matter had not been put forward in such a violent manner, he never should have thought of. This force, however, had been increased in 1831, by Lord Melbourne, in consequence of particular circumstances, then existing, which had now ceased. Some time ago, it was a matter under consideration whether there should not be some diminution in the number of the cavalry force continued at home, or whether there should be a reduction in the yeomanry force. He hesitated for a long time, but before the question was finally decided as to whether it was expedient or not to diminish the number of the regular cavalry force, it appeared necessary to the Government to send a corps of cavalry to Canada. Under those circumstances, it was not thought expedient to reduce this excellent force. He did not think also, that the force of the infantry was very large in the United Kingdom. Under these circumstances, he did not think it advisable that they should propose so large a vote for the yeomanry as in former years. When the expenses were not unavoidable, he did not think in the present situation of the country, that they should be incurred. If they did not strictly adhere to this principle, he thought that they would justly incur the censure of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and other hon. Gentlemen. On these grounds, the reduction that had been effected had been made. He was exceedingly sorry that in making these reductions they had excited such a feeling in the country as had been manifested, but they could not consistently with their duty, propose this expense on the country. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the riots at Birmingham in 1791; but he did not know what these had to do with the subject any more than the riots of 1780. He did not know how these were to be attributable to the want of yeomanry, or how these were connected with the question of the yeomanry. At the period of the riots of Birmingham, there were troops within a short distance, forty miles of the place. He believed, that they did not arrive in time to prevent the disturbances; but there were several troops of cavalry at Nottingham. Before he sat down, he would say, he trusted that the time was not far distant when the means of the country would enable him to propose a vote for a more available and efficient force for the country, and at the same time a more constitutional body—he meant a good militia force. He regretted that they were without the means at present, and he did not think that it would be advisable that a large expenditure should be incurred in the present year; but he thought that a good militia force would be most expedient and most constitutional, and might be indeed a most efficient and valuable body in case of hostilities breaking out with any foreign powers. He had felt it to be his duty to state thus much, he trusted without throwing any stigma on the conduct of the yeomanry, but, of course, it was impossible to satisfy those who were determined to see in any act of the Ministers an attempt to ruin and overturn the constitution of the country; he would, therefore, only say, that they must be allowed to continue to indulge in their visions.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that although the noble Lord had just passed so high an eulogium on a militia, he had no doubt it was a measure like many others in which the noble Lord expressed much interest—like, for instance, some of the resolutions which he had so much at heart, or like the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—measures in which the noble Lord was deeply interested, but the period for whose consummation seldom arrived. The noble Lord had spoken of incurring the censure of the hon. Member for Kilkenny; he cared but little for that, and he thought it would be well if the noble Lord cared as little. He (Colonel Sibthorp) disliked the reductions of the noble Lord because they were partial. He found by reference that, in the part of the county in which he resided, a troop had been disbanded, because commanded by an hon. Friend of his, who had been for many years a Member of that House, leaving not a single troop in the neighbourhood. Far different was the case of that part in which a noble Lord resided, whose son he saw opposite, who had done him the honour of alluding to him lately at a public meeting—a reform one of course. The hon. Member had said, that he was in the habit of laying his papers on the table of the House, and fancying himself the leader of the Conservative ranks. He professed himself happy to follow the leader behind whom he sat, and would tell the hon. Member, that he would rather sit behind the right hon. Gentleman, than he would occupy the seat of the hon. Member, although it was in the Ministerial phalanx. In conclusion, he must say, that he had seen enough of the yeomanry to give him a high idea of their services, and that with regard to the present motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he was sorry in opposing it to find himself voting in such company.

Mr. Mark Philips

felt bound to support the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He had on one occasion given his vote in favour of the maintenance of the yeomanry force, but he had since found ample reasons for changing his opinion on the subject. All the experience he had since had in the districts with which he was connected, convinced him that the yeomanry force was totally useless for its assigned purpose, The universal feeling throughout the manufacturing counties was entirely adverse to the maintenance of this force. It was highly inexpedient to employ one class of the population of a district in coercing the rest. What had taken place on the occasion of several disturbances in various parts of the country, showed that the force was not always efficient in the suppression of disturbances. Was it the case that the yeomanry had distinguished themselves in suppressing the riots at Bristol? He was convinced, that there would not be the slightest difficulty in keeping the peace of the country, or in putting down disturbances, if the yeomanry were entirely disbanded. Indeed, looking at the manner in which railroads would shortly intersect the whole country, and the great facility besides, of rapid communications with all parts of the kingdom by steam navigation, he was clearly of opinion, not only that the time had arrived for disbanding the whole yeomanry force, but that a considerable reduction might advantageously be made in the standing army.

Mr. Goulburn

would oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He considered, that when a reduction of the yeomanry was demanded, the House and the country had a right to require from Government that they should show some distinct grounds for that reduction, and this, not only as a satisfaction to private feelings, but on grounds essentially affecting the main interests of the country. He was well persuaded, that if thoroughly satisfactory reasons could be shown, for the disbanding of this force—if it could be proved, that the public interest required such a measure to be taken—this highly meritorious force would, throughout the kingdom, be as ready to dissolve itself as it had been prompt in offering its best services to the country. The whole ground stated by the noble Lord for the reductions which had been made, was the cost of the service; but the noble Lord as well as the hon. Member ought to know, that it was not always reductions of this sort, which were productive of real economy. Lord Lansdowne, for instance, in 1827, made a reduction in the yeomanry force. What was the consequence? Why that the Government of 1831, a Government composed not of partisans of this force, but whose Secretary of State for the Home Department was the present Premier, found itself under the necessity of imploring the nobility and gentry of England and Scotland, to organise the yeomanry force as before, with this slight difference, that the same force which before 1827, cost 120,000l. cost in 1831, 180,000l. So much for the economy of the thing. The noble Lord argued that the yeomanry force was not an eligible one to be employed in quelling riots, because of the which was thereby generally created between neighbours, yet, curiously enough, the noble Lord admitted at the end of his speech, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had done quite right in calling this improper force again into existence. It was quite unnecessary for him to enter into any justification of the character and conduct of this force. If such justification were required, which was far from the case, it was sufficiently given in the speeches of the hon. Members for Kilkenny and for Bridport themselves, who had nothing to adduce against the body, except what they thought proper to say in reference to the proceedings at Manchester, and to the letter of a single officer of a single corps of yeomanry. Even admitting the conduct of the officer in question to be improper, which he (Mr. Goulburn) in no degree did, it would be outrageous to assert that the whole of this valuable force throughout the kingdom were to be condemned and disbanded, because of the improper conduct of an individual. The noble Lord spoke very complacently of the civility which he had displayed in the terms of his circular, but really, the noble Lord was not to imagine that so highly respectable and meritorious a body, when they saw themselves dismissed in the same way in which one would discharge a drunken menial, would be quite reconciled to such treatment by a few civil words. If a person were to hit him a blow on the face, he should not be disposed to pass the outrage quietly over, merely because the assailant followed up the attack by a low bow, and "your most humble servant, sir." Many of the most efficient corps throughout the two kingdoms, had already been in this way disbanded, and in a manner too which exhibited manifest partiality. A striking instance was afforded in the case of Berkshire. Hungerford, the very town most accessible by a military force, was precisely the head-quarters of the only yeomanry corps retained, the commander being a member of the Government, while the wild parts of the county were left unprotected. The Lanarkshire corps was preserved he supposed because it was in the neighbourhood of Glasgow; but the Renfrew corps had been disbanded, though in the neighbourhood of Paisley. It appeared to him, that the same argument applied to both these cases, yet the course pursued in the one instance was diametrically opposed to that which was adopted in the other. In his opinion, there was abundant evidence to show, that to disband the yeomanry would be to act quite at variance with the policy which ought to be adopted. This must be admitted in their favour, that though there existed every disposition to cast a stigma on them, only one case was described to-night, that being the one which occurred in the year 1819, in which they were supposed to have misconducted themselves. The right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, said, he had no alternative but to mark his disapprobation of the motion by voting with the noble Lord.

Mr. Fox Maule

differed from the right hon. Gentleman, who said there was no ground stated for the reductions. The noble Lord had stated in his circular, that the tranquillity of the country justified him in recommending to her Majesty to dispense with the services of some of the corps. With regard to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, that the principle of reduction, confining it to single troops, and not extending it to entire corps, had not been adhered to, the only case he had stated in England was the Flint corps, consisting, as he said, of four troops, which had been reduced. The right hon. Gentleman had been corrected by the right hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Wynn); four troops had, in fact, been reduced in February, 1837; but there was another troop, which was re- tained, but it had been reduced, not by the act of Government, but at the recommendation of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Essex troop had been disbanded, because the officers of the Ordnance had stated that they were able to protect the powder works at Waltham with their own force. With regard to the Berkshire yeomanry, the reduction had been guided by the recommendation of the inspecting field officer of cavalry. The Hungerford troops had been reported to have been called out in 1836, in aid of the civil power, and the other three troops had been reported to have been never called out at all; the condition of the Hungerford troop had been reported "very good;" that of the other troops only "good;" so the former had been preferred. With regard to the Fifeshire regiment, which the right hon. Gentleman had stated had been formed at the request of Lord Melbourne in 1831, he begged to say the right hon. Gentleman had been mistaken. At a general meeting of the Lord-lieutenancy of Fife in 1831, a wish was expressed that, considering the state of the county, the yeomanry force should be re-formed, and the Lord-Lieutenant was requested to communicate to the Secretary of State the wish of the gentry of the county to have a yeomanry corps. Had the Fifeshire corps been called on to act since? Never. The riots in the town of Dunfermline were put down, not by the yeomanry, but by the Queen's troops from Edinburgh, sent across the Frith of Forth. This corps had cost 14,000l., without having rendered the smallest service. With regard to the Renfrewshire corps, it had never once been called out in aid of the civil power. Indeed there were only two corps that had been so called out, and they were the Lanarkshire and the Ayrshire corps. Both of these corps were under the command of officers of experience, both could be transported with ease elsewhere, and both therefore were to be retained. He had given the best advice in his power with respect to the different yeomanry corps in Scotland, and he was certain that from no part of Scotland would the House hear that the reduction of the yeomanry force in that country was not in accordance with the wishes of its inhabitants.

Mr. Ferguson

declared, that as Lord-Lieutenant of a county in Scotland, he should always be most reluctant to bring the yeomanry into collision with the ma- nufacturing population. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more fatal than such a proceeding. There were jealousies enough existing at present between the farmers and the manufacturing population, one of them arising from the operation of the corn laws; and as the bringing the yeomanry into contact with the manufacturers would, of necessity, increase those jealousies, he should be very loth to employ that description of force in maintaining the tranquillity of the county with which he was connected.

Sir H. Hardinge

wished to ask the noble Lord(Lord J. Russell) two questions in connection with the subject under debate. He perceived, by the return which he held in his hand, that in the county of Hertford, there were at present seven corps of yeomanry—that was, one in the northern division of the county, four in the south, and two in the east. Now, on the principle of the noble Lord, as laid down in his own observations, the single troop in the northern division should be reduced. But it had been said, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, who commanded it, having remonstrated with the noble Lord, it was, in consequence of what then passed between them, retained. A proportionate number of men had, however, been reduced from the other six troops, for the purpose of forming an equivalent reduction on the entire number in the county. The consequence was, as every one could foresee, that they were rendered less effective than before, and their utility greatly impaired. By the same return, he also found, that in Sussex, the Petworth troop, commanded by a gallant Friend of his own, had also been reduced. Now, economy could not be pleaded in this case, as that corps had been clothed and principally maintained at the expense of the late Earl of Egremont; yet still it was reduced, though four troops under the command of Lord Surrey, had been kept on foot. That was clearly against the principle of the noble Lord; for even if the Hertford case were to be taken as the precedent, the four troops of Lord Surrey should have been reduced by fifty men for the purpose of having the Petworth troop retained, as the corps of the hon. Member for Sheffield had been in Hertfordshire. The Petworth corps were now in existence, he was informed, but they were so only because they served without pay, and were of no expense whatever to Government. Now, he wished the noble Lord would inform him of the reason of the difference which had been made between these two bodies?

Mr. Alston

defended the retention of the Hertford Yeomanry. With respect to the corps commanded by Captain Ward (the hon. Member for Sheffield), he thought at the time the reduction was about to take place, that they had as good a right to be retained as any other men in Hertfordshire; for a better disciplined and more effective body of men he had never seen, and he had stated to the noble Lord that it would be a hard case for that part of the county of Hertford, in which he lived, if they were not kept up. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, that he knew scarcely one of them himself, and could not tell which were his political friends, or which his enemies.

Sir R. Peel

observed, that as he had filled the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was therefore acquainted both with the circumstances which had called the Yeomanry force into existence, and with the services which it had rendered in maintaining internal tranquillity, the House would, perhaps, expect him to explain his opinions upon the subject then under discussion. With respect to the speeches made by the hon. Members opposite, he must say, that there was only one of them which he could understand, and that was the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. That hon. Member objected to this force altogether, considering it dangerous to bring a force of such a description into collision with the people. The hon. Member might be right, or might be wrong in his opinion, but at any rate it was an intelligible opinion. But the opinion of the hon. Member for Bridport was, he confessed, quite above his comprehension, "In case of war," said the hon. Member. "I have no objection to employ the Yeomanry." But, as far as the argument was concerned, there was no difference whether the Yeomanry was employed in time of war, or in time of peace, for in both cases there was the same danger from bringing them into collision with the people. But the noble Lord opposite said, that in time of war, the Yeomanry would be no defence against a foreign enemy. It was true that they could not garrison towns; they could only preserve internal tranquillity. But was there no danger of collision with the people in time of war? Perhaps party spirit ran higher in time of war even than it did in the piping times of peace. As to the hon. Secretary who had advised them to discontinue this force, because it had not been brought into operation, he must say, that with him also he could not agree. One of the most valuable points in this force was, that so long as it continued in existence there was a dormant spirit in existence which might at any moment be called into activity to protect property and to suppress riot: and perhaps one of the greatest compliments which could be paid to the yeomanry was, that after being so long embodied, it had not often been called into active duty. On the one side there was a consciousness of strength which gave security to the loyal, and on the other there was a dread of force which awed the turbulent into peace; and, in consequence, property was secured, and tranquillity was maintained, where both might have been endangered, had not this force existed. Indeed the very fact of its not having been engaged in active operations was a strong reason for continuing it in existence. But another hon. Member asserted that it was a new principle of the British constitution that the vicinage should be called in to the aid of the civil power when engaged in maintaining the peace. Indeed! Then had he read the history of the constitution very differently; for he thought that it was one of the Saxon principles of the constitution that the vicinage should on all occasions be called in to secure property and maintain tranquillity. He thought that the posse comitatus, and indeed every process of our law, imposed on the vicinage the maintenance of peace. He drew a clear distinction between such a case as that of Canada and the ordinary suppression of riots; but where property was endangered and peace disturbed, he expected that the feelings of all would be in favour of employing the nearest and most convenient force in the suppression of disturbance. If they were prepared to maintain a military force in every part of the country to suppress insurrection, let them do so; but he knew that they were not prepared to maintain troops of dragoons in every town in the country for the purpose of securing peace, and if they were not prepared to do so, then they must appeal to men of substance and property, and give them a retaining fee for the purpose of securing internal peace and harmony, He did not believe that they would be able to substitute for the yeomanry any force which would be half so satisfactory as that species of force to that portion of the people of England which were ready to obey the law, and act in conformity with its dictates and injunctions. If the principles which the noble Lord had laid down that night for the reduction of the yeomanry corps were good for any thing, the remains of that force must be considered as retaining existence upon a very precarious tenure indeed, for those principles went equally to the total abolition of these corps. Said one of her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenants, "There is nothing so fatal as to bring the yeomanry into collision with the population of our manufacturing towns." That observation was cheered by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, he believed, by the noble Lord himself. If that observation be correct, then must they abolish all the yeomanry corps now in existence; for, as he would show the Committee, it was chiefly, if not entirely, in the manufacturing districts that the yeomanry force was at present withheld He would go through the different manufacturing districts and show that it was there, and almost there only, that these corps were now retained. They were retained in Cheshire—they were retained in Lanarkshire—they were retained in Lancashire—they were retained in Leicestershire—in Northumberland—inNottinghamshire—in Somersetshire—in Staffordshire—in Warwickshire—in Wiltshire—in Worcestershire—and, last of all, they were retained in the great manufacturing districts of Yorkshire. And why were they retained in these particular counties? He would tell them—because these corps already abounded in those districts. Everybody knew, that the manufacturing population was more liable to sudden excitement than the agricultural population, and because at Manchester twenty years ago a jealous party feeling had been excited by the employment of the yeomanry against the people there, it was now proposed to get rid of the yeomanry altogether, although that was the only case in which any permanent ill consequences had arisen from their employment. Why, the hon. Secretary opposite had admitted the necessity of having such a force in the manufacturing districts, for he had told them that he maintained the Lanarkshire yeomanry on account of their vicinity to Glasgow. Then, again, in another part of his speech, the truth had silently crept out; for the hon. Secretary had said that there was a great increase of this force in 1831, and that nothing could be more wise than the course taken by Lord Melbourne in making that increase. And why was that course wise then! Because party feeling, according to the hon. Secretary, then ran high, and because great political excitement then pervaded the country. But if a yeomanry force were dangerous from the liability of its coming into collision with an excited people, how could Lord Melbourne be justified in increasing that force, in 1831? The excitement then existing among the manufacturing population was great. Why did not Lord Melbourne then say, "We will not recommend you to incorporate a large yeomanry force, but we will call upon you to grant to the King's Government a much larger force both of cavalry and of infantry. For his own part he frankly confessed, that he was utterly unable to reconcile the different grounds which had been taken up by different Gentlemen in the course of this debate; but his impression was, that this proposed saving of 25,000l. would be a very great loss. He did not agree with those who fancied, that when a necessity arose, that the yeomanry, on account of this supposed slight, would be unwilling to come forward to render their services. He did not believe, that they would be actuated by such feelings. Hon. Members might read letters written under excitement by one individual or another, but he would place against these individuals' acts the testimony of a noble Lord, with respect to those corps which had been discontinued, that on all occasions on which their services were required they had uniformly displayed zeal and loyalty. This was with respect to the corps which had been discontinued, and he did not claim a higher compliment for those which had been continued. But if they had a powerful force composed of the élite of the country, composed of men who, he believed, without disparagement to others, might as firmly be relied upon for loyalty, exertion, and personal sacrifice as any other class—if for 25,000l. they could avoid slighting these men and wounding their feelings—if they could retain them in this service, though they might not have been called into actual conflict, and though there might be no necessity for their acting, he believed they would purchase for 25,000l. a-year not only the affections of a loyal and devoted body of men, but a more certain guarantee for the permanent maintenance of tranquillity than they could purchase by any other mode in which they could expend that sum.

The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 203; Noes 57: Majority 146.

List of theAYES.
Acland, T. D. De Horsey, S. H.
Adam, Admiral Douglas, Sir C. E.
Alsager, Captain Duff, J.
Alston, R. Duffield, T.
Andover, Viscount Duncombe, hon. W.
Anson, hon. Colonel Dundas, Captain D.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. East, J. B.
Ashley, Lord Eastnor, Viscount
Attwood, W. Eaton, R. J.
Bagge, W Ebrington, Viscount
Bagot, hon. W. Egerton, W. T.
Bailey, J., jun. Egerton, Sir P.
Baker, E. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Baring, hon. F. Ellice, Captain A.
Baring, H. B. Erle, W.
Baring, hon. W. B. Estcourt, T.
Barrington, Viscount Fector, J. M.
Benett, J Fellowes, E.
Berkeley, hon. C. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Blackstone, W. S. Filmer, Sir E.
Blair, J. Fitzalan, Lord
Blakemore, R. Forbes W.
Blunt, Sir C. Forester, hon. G.
Briscoe, J. I. Fremantle, Sir T.
Broadley, H. French, F.
Broadwood, H. Freshfield, J. W.
Brocklehurst, J. Gaskell, Jas. Milnes
Brodie, W. B. Gibson, T.
Bruges, W. H. L. Gordon, R.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Gordon, hon. Captain
Burrell, Sir C. Gore, O. J. R.
Burroughes, H. N. Goring, H. D.
Campbell, Sir J. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Campbell, W. F. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. C. Granby, Marquess of
Cayley, E. S. Greenaway, C.
Chandos, Marquess Grimston, Viscount
Chetwynd, Major Grimston, hon. E. H.
Chute, W. L. W. Hale, R. B.
Clayton, Sir W. R. Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hayes, Sir E.
Codrington, C. W. Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Cole, hon. A. H. Hodgson, R.
Cole, Viscount Holmes, W.
Conolly, E. Hope, G. W.
Corry, hon. H. Hotham, Lord
Craig, W. G. Houstoun, G.
Crompton, S. Howard, P. H.
Dalmeny, Lord Howard, R.
Damer, hon. D. Howick, Viscount
Darby, G. Hughes, W. B.
Darlington, Earl of Hurst, R. H.
Denison, W. J. Hurt, F.
D'Eyncourt, rt, hn. C. Ingham, R.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Richards, R.
Jermyn, Earl of Rickford, W.
Johnstone, H. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Jones, J. Rolleston, L.
Kemble, H. Round, C. G.
Knatchbull, hn. Sir E. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Knightley, Sir C. Russell, Lord J.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Russel, Lord
Langdale, hon. C. Sanford, E. A.
Langton, W. G. Seymour, Lord
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Sheil, R. L.
Lefevre, C. S. Sheppard, T.
Lennox, Lord G. Sibthorp, Colonel
Lockhart, A. M. Sinclair, Sir G.
Long, W. Slaney, R. A.
Lowther, Colonel Smith, J. A.
Lygon, hon. General Somerset, Lord G.
Mackenzie, T. Stanley, E. J.
Mackinnon, W. A. Stanley, W. O.
Macleod, R. Stewart, J.
Mactaggart, J. Stuart, H.
Marton, G. Stuart, V.
Maule, W. H. Strangways, hon. J.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Surrey, Earl of
Morpeth, Viscount Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Neeld, J Townley, R. G.
Nicholl, J. Trevour, hon. G. R.
O'Connell, J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pakington, J. S. Turner, E.
Palmer, C. F. Vere, Sir C. B.
Palmer, R. Verner, Colonel
Palmerston, Viscount Verney, Sir H.
Parker, J. Villiers, Viscount
Parker, T. A. W. Wall, C. B.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H. Walsh, Sir J.
Patten, J. W. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Peel, right hn. Sir. R. White, S.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Wilbraham, G.
Perceval, Colonel Wilbraham, hon. B.
Perceval, hon. G. J. Wood, C.
Philipps, Sir R. Wood, G.
Philips, G. R. Wood, T.
Phillpotts, J. Worsley, Lord
Polhill, F. Wyndham, W.
Powell, Colonel Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.
Pringle, A. Yates, J. A.
Protheroe, E. TELLERS.
Pryme, G. Maule, hon. F.
Rich, H. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Divett, E.
Attwood, T. Duckworth, S.
Baines, E. Duke, Sir J.
Bannerman, A. Duncombe, T.
Berkeley, hon. H. Dundas, C. W. D.
Bewes, T. Easthope, J.
Brotherton, J. Evans, Sir D. L.
Bryan, G. Evans, G.
Callaghan, D. Ferguson, R.
Chalmers, P. Finch, F.
Chester, H. Hall, B.
Chichester, J. P. B. Hastie, A.
Clay, W. Hawes, B.
Collins, W. Hayter, W. G.
Dashwood, G. H. Hodges, T. L.
Dennistoun, J. Horsman, E.
Hutton, R. Salwey, Colonel
James, W. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Jervis, J. Speirs, A.
Jervis, S. Tancred, H. W.
Lushington, Dr. Thornley, T.
Lushington, C. Vigors, N. A.
Morris, D. Wakley, T.
O'Brien, C. White, A.
O'Connell, D. White, L.
O'Connell, M. J. Williams, W.
Philips, M. Wilshere, W.
Redington, T. N. TELLERS.
Roche, E. B. Hume, J.
Rundle, J. Warburton, H.

The House resumed.