Lords Sitting of 7 May 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Stockport, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Dunbar, for the reduction of Postage.—By Earl GREY, from Sunderland, and Newcastle, by the Earl of WICKLOW, from Ballyshannon, by the Marquess of SLIGO, from Wellington, Thornton, Croydon, Lisburn, South Shields, Isle of Orkney, and other places, and by Lord DENMAN, from the Primitive Methodists of Manchester, and from North Shields, praying for the Immediate Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By the Earl of ROSEBERRY, from a place in Scotland, against additional Endowment for the Scotch Church.—By the Bishop of DERRY, from Raphoe, against parts of the system of National Education (Ireland).

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
The Bishop of Durhamon rising to present a petition from Manchester, spoke to the following effect*: My Lords, I am not in the habit of intruding frequently upon your time: and 1 can assure you, that it is my wish not to detain you unnecessarily at present. But the great importance of the subject to which I call your attention, and the number and respectability of the petitioners, whom on this occasion I represent, compel me to trespass upon your patience, while I enter upon some details connected with the state of education in this country; the causes which may impede the adoption of a general system; and also the manner, in which the cause has been taken up by foreign nations.
My Lords, the petition which I am about to present to you, is signed, I understand, by 24,000 persons. I consider it, my Lords, honourable to the national character, but especially honourable to the Gentlemen with whom this petition originates; that they have bestowed so much pains upon the investigation of a subject so important as the education of the people. A set of Gentlemen at Manchester, to whom time must be peculiarly valuable, employed as they are in commercial pursuits of vast magnitude; yet have not hesitated to devote that time to inquiries into the evils by which many of their poorer brethren are oppressed, and into the best means of remedying them. They have found a deplorable want of
*From a report published by Ridgeway.
938
education prevailing; and their prayer is that you will direct your attention to the great and interesting subject of national education.
By this term, my Lords, I do not apprehend that the petitioners restrict their wishes to a system of education, actually comprehending all the children of the country, as is the case in Prussia for instance. They would be glad; no doubt, if it were practicable, to have a really national system of instruction for all. But I understand them to urge the adoption of such modes of improving and extending the present means of education, as shall be at once effectual and practicable. For, I find that, at a meeting of the friends of the society for promoting National Education, a resolution was conceived in the following terms:—
"That this Society shall endeavour, by petitions, and other constitutional means, to obtain from Parliament a legislative provision, securing to all classes of the community an improved and a permanent system of Education."
Now to this resolution I entirely subscribe; and in this sense I advocate the prayer of this petition.
When I proposed to touch upon some of the details, belonging to this very interesting subject, it was far from my intention to enter upon them at much length; still less to anticipate any discussion, which may be expected to take place upon a Bill laid before you by a noble and learned Friend; whose efforts to enlarge and improve the general stock of knowledge have been so unwearied and so praise-worthy. But it appears to me desirable to allude to some topics, connected with the matter of the petition; if it were only to prepare your Lordships for a more full consideration of the whole subject at some future time.
Among the questions, then, about which the friends of national education have been more or less divided, are,—1st. Whether it should be compulsory or not? 2nd. Whether boys and girls are to be educated together or separate? I find this to be a subject, about which the Glasgow Educational Society have formed a strong opinion. They consider it to be highly desirable that both sexes shall be trained together, both in school and in the play-grounds; but all under the inspection of their teachers.
Another question, upon which different opinions are entertained in this and in other countries, is, whether simultaneous,

939
or mutual, instruction is to be preferred? It is well known, that the plan of mutual instruction was matured some thirty years ago under the auspices of Joseph Lancaster and Dr. Bell. The system has been generally adopted in this country. But foreigners appear disposed to regard it, as tending to make but a superficial impression:
Again, it is asked, at what age it be desirable, that the business of education should commence; and to what extent it should be gratuitous?
But the great difficulty of all—that which, I fear, is at present almost insurmountable, as to the success of any scheme of education strictly national, is, in what manner religious instruction is to be conveyed? It is admitted, I believe by all, who in this country take an interest in the subject of education, that it should be founded upon religion as its only proper basis: and that the bible shall be taught. But then, each particular denomination of Christians is anxious to have their own peculiar views of doctrine entertained and upheld. And amidst such a diversity of opinions, as prevails in this country, by what means are we to select any one plan that will satisfy all? My Lords, the petitioners do not attempt to prescribe any particular plan, but they venture respectfully to suggest, what appears to them the best calculated to obviate the difficulty which I am describing:—
"They desire to express their conviction that the course pursued by the British and Foreign School Society of prescribing bible classes in every school, and placing the entire volume of the holy scriptures, without note or comment, in the hands of every child (excepting from this rule Catholics and Jews only), is the best system hitherto devised for meeting the difficulties arising out of the varieties of religious sects in this country."
My Lords! I heartily wish that some plan could be devised, which would so reconcile existing differences, as to allow of one common course of religious instruction at school; while the catechism, or peculiar doctrines of each denomination, might be reserved for the appropriate instruction of the sabbath-day. But I have no ground, upon which to rest a hope, that such a plan is likely, at the present, either to be devised or adopted.
Nevertheless, my Lords, the amount of evil, arising either from the total want or the partial defects of education, is so great, that every practicable effort should be made
940
to lessen it; and surely no time should be lost, in taking some steps—in making at least a beginning—with a view to remedy it.
As a specimen of the deficiency of means of education in Scotland, I beg leave to lay before your Lordships a statement by Mr. Stow, a director of the model schools, Glasgow.
"Our readers will bear in mind, (he says) that a sixth of the whole population (independent of infants from two to six) ought to be at school:
"There are of children in attendance at school, out of the population of Old Aberdeen, only one child out of every twenty-five; Paisley, Abbey parish, one out of eighteen; Dundee, one out of fourteen; in large districts in Glasgow, one out of fifteen or sixteen; smaller districts in Glasgow, one out of twenty-four. In 132 parishes, in the counties of Aberdeen, Elgin and Banff, in 1832, there was only one in every eleven.
"By a survey lately made over the whole town of Paisley, it appeared that, independent of a vast number of adults, nearly 3,000 children above six or seven years of age were unable to read; and that much of the education received was merely a smattering at evening schools, after being fatigued with the day's work."
As to a very populous and important part of England;
"Estimating the population of Liverpool at 230,000, it was found, that 12,000 children, of all ages, were receiving, at the cost of the parents, an education of a very low order; 13,000—partly at the expense of the parents, partly from charity—a more effective education; 3,700 some little instruction in Sunday schools; 4,000 of the upper and middle classes, educated in superior private schools; leaving not less than 30,000 children, between the ages of five and fifteen, receiving no education either really or nominally."
The report then proceeds:—
"Taking this as a fair measure of the quantity and quality of the education received by the children of the working classes in this country, and comparing it with what may be done, and what, in other civilized countries, has been done, for the education of the same class; the result is one which cannot be dwelt upon, without some feeling of pain and humiliation."
Now, let us see what this state of Education is, compared with that in other countries:—
"In Nassau, the population were educated in the proportion of one in six; in Saxony, one in six; in the State of New York, one in four; in Protestant Switzerland, one in five; in Eng-

941
land, the nominal education was only one in eight; but, in many large towns, any real education was only given to one in seventeen."
But it will be said that, in order to correct this sad state of things, a considerable expense must be incurred. In Scotland alone, it has been calculated that, in order to put matters on a right footing as respects education, no less an outlay would be required than 362,580 1.; of which about 50,000 l. might be considered an annual charge.
As to England, I have no materials upon which to build any safe calculation. But I was lately present at a meeting of the National Society, (which society, I am happy to say, is about to make great efforts in order to improve and extend its operations), where it was calculated that 15,000 additional schoolmasters would be wanted. These masters must be better trained than heretofore; so that, whether the calculation be correct or not, there can be no doubt but in England, as well as Scotland, very great expense must be incurred before an improvement, such as the petition calls for, can be made upon our present systems of education. But then, it must not be forgotten, that the effects, anticipated from better and more comprehensive modes of instruction, are to encourage habits of industry, and to diminish every species of vice and crime. You may, therefore, confidently look for a decrease of that expenditure which is now occasioned by police; by your prisons, and prosecutions. Here again, I gladly avail myself of the research and intelligence of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury.
"What was the increase of cost arising from crime, the fruits of ignorance? Look at the county rates. In 1792, jails 92,000 1.; in 1832, 177,000 1>.; prisoners' maintenance, in 1792, 45,700 1.; in 1832, 127,000 1.; prosecutions, in 1792, 34,000 1.; in 1832, 157,000 1.; constables, in 1792, 659 1.; in 1832, 26,000 1.; total, in 1792, 172,359 1.; in 1832, 487,000 l. Thus, the expenses directly from crime, trebled in forty years, whilst population is only increased sixty per cent. The metropolitan police alone cost 210,000 l. per annum, to restrain crimes, which a good education might have much prevented, or diminished."
My Lords, I cannot indulge a hope that, in the present financial state of the country, her Majesty's Ministers would feel themselves warranted in incurring expenses to the amount that I have mentioned; even if the various difficulties to which I have adverted, could be satisfactorily removed.
942
I am quite satisfied that they are aware of the importance of the subject; and would gladly make an effort to supply the lamentable deficiency which has been shown to exist in the means of education; if they could feel it consistent with their duty, as guardians of the public revenue. And I trust, they will be able to make some arrangements, by which a commencement at least may be made in forwarding this truly national object.
It is very evident, my Lords, that one of the first steps to be taken must be to establish Normal schools for the training of schoolmasters. Upon this point, the opinion expressed by the Statistical Society of Manchester, as the result of their inquiries into the state of the borough of Salford, is at once clear and and judicious:—
"That in the establishment of Normal schools, the funds devoted to educational purposes would be more usefully employed than in any other manner; for they consider it hopeless to expect an extensive improvement in the conduct of schools until the teachers have first been qualified for the task of education."
Here then a commencement may be made in this vitally important work; a commencement at once safe and effective. I must, then, before I conclude, respectfully impress upon her Majesty's Government the necessity of making such a beginning. I trust they will be enabled, without inconvenience, to make some advance to the National Society, and to the British and Foreign School Society, in order to assist the exertions they are making towards the formation of Normal schools. I would also suggest, that some grant should be made to the Educational Society at Glasgow, who are at this time employing themselves with much success in improving the system of education in that part of Great Britain. By thus extending aid, so greatly wanted and so loudly called for, her Majesty's Ministers will show their anxiety to wipe off this reproach from our national character and institutions. You, my Lords, will, I trust, zealously support them in any efforts they are disposed to make in such a cause; for, as you regard the religious and moral welfare of your countrymen, as you prefer innocence to crime, comfort to misery, peace and good order to turbulence and licentiousness, you must be disposed to give the most favourable consideration to the prayer of this petition.
Petition laid on the table.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklow, on presenting a petition from places in the county of Wicklow, disapproving of the bill before the House for the relief of the poor in Ireland, would take the opportunity to ask the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, a question connected with this subject. He had been informed that Mr. Nicholls, the Poor-law Commissioner, had been recently on a visit to Belgium and Holland, by order of her Majesty's Government, in order to ascertain how the regulations with respect to the poor in those countries worked. The report upon this subject being closely connected by analogy with the bill now before their Lordships' House, would be of great value, and he should be glad to hear from the noble Viscount whether any steps had been taken for its production?
Earl Fitzwilliamwould take the occasion to suggest also to the noble Viscount that he and many of their Lordships felt extremely anxious to know the grounds upon which Mr. Nicholls had founded the report which he had last year presented. Mr. Nicholls had given them two reports of his six weeks' tour in the north of Ireland in 1836, and of his six weeks' tour in the south of Ireland in 1837, but he had never stated the grounds upon which he had arrived at the conclusions which he therein submitted to Parliament. It would be desirable, in his opinion, before this most important subject was disposed of, affecting as it did the whole state of society in that large portion of the empire, that their Lordships should know the grounds upon which Mr. Nicholls had, if he might use the expression, thrown overboard all the reports and labours of a most industrious Commission, which was engaged for several years on this subject, and advised Parliament to legislate in a manner directly contrary to that recommended by the latter. He trusted, that his noble Friend would give as satisfactory an answer on this subject as to the question of the noble Earl opposite.
Viscount Melbournebelieved it was true that Mr. Nicholls was now travelling in Belgium and Holland, and he believed also that he was paying close attention to the establishments relating to the poor in those countries. He was not aware, however, that that gentleman had been sent out by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department; on the contrary, he believed not, and that Mr. Nicholls
944
had not promised any report to Government on the subject. With respect to the observations of his noble Friend on his right, he must confess he did not clearly understand what he wished to have.
Earl Fitzwilliamwanted to know the grounds on which Mr. Nicholls had arrived at his conclusions.
Petition laid on the table.

THE CORONATION—MARSHAL SOULT.
The Marquess of Londonderryhad a question to put to the noble Viscount connected with the Coronation. He did this the more readily, because he was convinced that he would receive a much more satisfactory answer than he had lately received on this subject, and one which would be more agreeable to that House and the public at large. It appeared from the public journals that her Majesty's name had been brought into discussion in a most indecorous manner with respect to the appointment of the individual who was to represent the French government upon the occasion of her Majesty's coronation; and it further appeared that the appointment of the individual, to whom it was originally intimated that the appointment would be given, had at the request of her Majesty, been cancelled, and an illustrious marshal appointed in his place. He could conceive nothing more improper than mixing up the name of our most Gracious Sovereign with the intrigues of the French court, and he hoped the noble Viscount would favour the House with a distinct declaration that her Majesty's Government had no share whatever in recommending the appointment.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he certainly could give the answer which the noble Marquess seemed to anticipate and expect, namely, that her Majesty's Government had taken no share whatsoever in the appointment.

YEOMANRY.
The Earl of Winchilsea rosepursuant to notice to move for copies of any correspondence which had taken place between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Hertford, relative to the reduction of the yeomanry corps in that county. He would trespass but a very few moments on the attention of the House in putting them in possession of the motives which induced him to move for a return of that correspondence. In looking at the printed returns on the table he

945
found that the reduction of the yeomanry corps in England and Scotland had been characterised by one uniform rule, which was this—that in those counties in which separate troops existed these troops had been reduced; and the only exception was afforded in the case of the county of Hertford. He had been led to understand that, in the first communication to the Lord-lieutenant of that county it had been intimated that a separate troop was to be disbanded; but subsequently, on account of something which had passed between the Lord-lieutenant and the Government, the reduction of that corps was abandoned, and two regiments in another part of the county were then reduced. Now, he expected to find in the correspondence some satisfactory statement or ground upon which that first order was cancelled, and whether there was any ground for the opinion very generally established in the county that the separate troop had been continued on account of feelings of a party character, for he was bound to state, that this troop was commanded by a constant and strenuous supporter of her Majesty's Government. He had another object in moving for these returns, because he expected that it might place upon some intelligible principle, the conduct of the Government, and the motives by which they had been actuated in recommending her Majesty to reduce that highly constitutional and useful force. It had been stated, by the noble Viscount, and his colleagues elsewhere, that one ground for the reduction was that of economy. Now that was likely to be a very popular reason, especially at a time when, as he believed, they had not a stiver at their command—but that would not avail them in this case, for it was necessary for him to state, that the single troops were not a twentieth part of the expense of the regiments, with which all the expenses of the staff were connected. In looking at the papers, he found, that in the county of Hants, there were eight separate troops, fifty-four men a troop, whereas a regiment had been retained in which there were 129 men to a troop. He found, further, that a regiment had been retained, which could have been spared better than any one of the single troops; for it was situated between four military stations, Portsmouth, Windsor, Winchester, and Hounslow. In Somersetshire, a body of yeomanry had been retained, exceeding 1,000 in number, larger than that of almost any other county
946
except Yorkshire; and he had learnt that the two gentlemen commanding those two very strong regiments, were strenuous supporters of the Government. In Surrey, he found, that the Government had thought proper to reduce the corps of a gentleman, a highly-distinguished officer in her Majesty's service, and they had kept three troops confined to one district of the country. With regard to Berkshire, he begged to state that, on behalf of a gentleman who was his (the Earl of Winchilsea's) personal friend, that he had been much hurt at the observations which had been made by a noble Lord in another place; and, for himself, he would say, that whatever animadversions the noble Lord might be pleased to pass upon his conduct, he should be perfectly prepared to meet any odium which could be thrown upon him. He was perfectly prepared to stand upon that letter which he had written, and he did contend, that if this Government intended to keep up that force, their conduct had been calculated to give great offence. So far from agreeing in the observations of the noble Lord, he firmly believed, that, in a civil point of view, in case of any local disturbance, the yeomanry was a most useful, lenient, and effective force. In such cases, they were assembled on the spot, and it frequently happened that in consequence of many of the corps being known to the leaders, as well as to the misled peasantry, great mischief was prevented—loss of life as well as property. Then, again, the moral influence arising from the characters of members of these corps, was highly beneficial, for he had heard of instances in which words dropped from one of the yeomanry corps, had prevented the destruction of property, and even the effusion of blood. Upon these grounds, and for these reasons, he had thought proper to move for the returns which he had mentioned.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to the production of the papers. He believed that the facts of the case would be stated in those papers; but what principle or motives might there be given, he did not know; nor was he at all aware how far the general principle upon which the Government had proceeded might be explained; but if the noble Lord expected, that that would be fully discussed, he believed he would be considerably disappointed. The facts stated by the noble Earl with respect to the county of Hertford, were undoubtedly true; in the first instance, the Government had directed the separate corps

947
to be reduced; and had subsequently thought proper to retain it upon grounds which, if he were to state them, might draw upon him, as it had upon his noble Friend, the censure of noble Lords, for insulting those gentlemen who might command the troops in question. It was not a particularly gracious thing to particularize the comparative merits of different troops; but he would say, that one ground of the determination of the Government in this particular case, proceeded upon representations as to the state of that part of the county in which that single troop was situated, and accordingly they had thought proper to effect the reduction in the other troops of the county. Could anything be more proper, or more conducive to the peace of the county? And if, in other parts of the county, similar representations had been made with respect to the service of the troops, he had no doubt that his noble Friend would have paid the same attention to them. But the noble Earl opposite said that this was done for party purposes—that it was all done to favour political friends. If that were the case, the Government were very unlucky—very unfortunate; for they had been very generally taxed with a fault of a contrary description: they had been much complained of for reducing, in many cases, troops which were commanded by persons—(he did not mean to charge them with acting from any political motives)—but persons who were supposed to follow the Administration. He did not expect the noble Lord would have entered upon a consideration of the dislocation of all the yeomanry corps throughout the country, and he was consequently not prepared to meet him. But the noble Earl had not gone at all into the case of a county with which he was intimately connected—the county of Northampton; and there, at least, he supposed the reduction had not fallen on troops which were commanded by officers of his political opinions. If he had been aware that it was necessary to make himself master of the subject for the present occasion, he would have been prepared to show good reasons for the reduction of each particular troop. It had been remarked, that what his noble Friend had said in the House of Commons was extremely offensive and insulting; but if the opinion of the noble Secretary of State, that this force was not, in all cases, suitable to the suppression of civil discord, was to be considered in that light, how could there be any free dis-
948
cussion? Or how could any one venture to express an opinion on any subject? Could they be told, that the mere expression of an opinion, which might be erroneous, was an insult to those gentlemen throughout the country, and to those persons whose care it was to provide for the maintenance of the public tranquillity, as to justify them in acting in the manner in which they had acted? The sensibility of those persons was perfectly absurd. It was the right of every Minister of the Crown, or Member of Parliament, to pronounce such an opinion—to declare the reasons upon which it was founded—and why he acted upon it. He had no objection to the introduction of the papers; and if the noble Earl should wish to have the question brought forward, he should have no objection to inquire into, and investigate the facts, and to defend more at length, and in detail, the course adopted by the Government.
The Earl of Malmesburythought it was incumbent upon Government, before reducing the yeomanry corps, at least to have consulted the lords-lieutenant of counties on the subject. In that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected the reduction had been particularly inopportune, and might be attended with considerable inconvenience. He regarded the yeomanry as a peculiarly constitutional force, eminently calculated in most cases to repress disturbances; but when he recollected that there were no cavalry or infantry barrack, and no yeomanry force between Dorchester and Portsmouth, a part of the country which unfortunately had not been altogether free from outrage, there was not only ground of complaint, but a heavy responsibility rested on those who had disbanded the yeomanry. The determination of Government to withdraw the yeomanry from that part of the country was particularly unfortunate at the present moment, when the Dorchester labourers had just returned, and he hoped it was not yet too late to beg the noble Viscount, who, he thought, did not altogether agree with his noble Colleague in another place on this subject,—he hoped it was not yet too late to induce the noble Viscount to reconsider the matter.
Lord Portmansaid, that the Dorchester labourers had been already paraded through their own part of the country, and with quite as little notice as in London, probably because they were better known. He must say, that he agreed very much with

949
the noble Earl (Earl of Winchilsea) as to the extreme impolicy of the mode adopted for the reduction of the yeomanry. He certainly thought that the measure had been taken not in the most cautious or the most advisable manner. He thought that the measure required something like careful inquiry, and he deeply regretted that it had taken place. He could never forget the services rendered by the yeomanry in 1830 in the suppression of disturbance and riot. The noble Earl who moved for this return stated that in Somersetshire a regiment had been retained on account of the politics of its commander. Now, he could inform the noble Earl that a most active, and zealous, and powerful supporter of the Government in that county was the representative of the western division, and the troop which this gentleman commanded had been disbanded, whereas the regiment that had been retained was commanded by Colonel Tynte, who was no longer a Member of Parliament. There was one point to which he was anxious to call the attention of their Lordships, he meant the acceptance of volunteer yeomanry without pay. He doubted very much, in a constitutional view of the subject, whether it was right to have any force in this country which was not under the full control of Government, by receiving its pay. He happened to know that the services of a troop in Somersetshire had been accepted, which had been recommended by a Gentleman of opposite politics, and it therefore did not arise from party feeling. He thought that great care and discretion was required in accepting the volunteer services of any.
Lord Sondessaid, that as his conduct had been adverted to, in consequence of a letter which he had written on this subject, he begged to assure the noble Viscount and the Government that it was not his intention in writing that letter to attempt in any way to insult them. He had done all he could to render the yeomanry of the county with which he was connected as efficient as possible, but amongst the supporters of the Government he had found so many obstacles thrown in his way that he had come to the conclusion that it was useless for him to go on. He had been accused of issuing political manifestoes to armed bodies; and he, therefore, had been judged unfit any longer to command them. He had no intention of carrying arms or commanding armed bodies, unless her Majesty should call on him to do it; but he might appeal to the Lord Lieuten-
950
ant of the county of Norfolk whether he would be unwilling to trust him with such a command.
Lord Wharncliffecould not understand if, as had been said by the noble Secretary for the Home Department in the House of Commons, they were not proper troops for quelling disturbance, why they were maintained at all; but the Government did not know the use or advantage of the yeomanry corps. He had known instances in which, if there had been only the regular troops, riots, especially in manufacturing towns, would have proceeded to a very alarming extent. In Sheffield, on one occasion, the soldiers had been called out, and had fired upon the people, many of whom were killed; but if the yeomanry had not been able to protect them the most disastrous consequences must have ensued, and many more persons have been killed. The yeomanry were further said to be an improper body, because they were generally known to those against whom they had to act; but if that were the case what became of the old constitutional bodies of posse commitatus and special constables and magistrates? It had astonished him to hear that the Home Secretary of State should have taken the opportunity of stating in the House of Commons, first, that this was not a proper force to employ on occasions of civil disturbances; and next, to insinuate that their continuance would only be temporary, until another force could be found.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that after the many instances the House had had of inconvenience arising from the practice of discussing, even under disguise, the proceedings of another place, the noble Baron opposite, throwing away that disguise, and speaking distinctly of the House of Commons, had produced the strongest instance of that inconvenience, inasmuch as he had referred to the proceedings of that place in a way the most unsatisfactory: for the noble Baron stated that which was perfectly absurd, if the expression had been used to which the noble Baron, if he referred at all, should have referred with considerable accuracy. He rose, therefore, for the purpose of expressing his decided belief that the terms put into the mouth of his noble Friend were not, and could not be, the terms which he had employed; for these terms neither expressed his opinions or those of his colleagues, for his noble Friend was made to say this—"that it was inexpedient

951
for a Government professing economy to keep up a force which they did not think it expedient to employ." It was not unlikely that his noble Friend might point out particular instances of service in which he might not think this force appropriate; and although he was fully prepared to bear testimony to the general utility of the force in the county of which he was Lord Lieutenant still he could subscribe to that opinion.
The Earl of Harewood boretestimony to the efficiency of the yeomanry. He must say, that the impression produced on his mind was, that the yeomanry were to be summarily dealt with.
The Duke of Clevelandsaid, that at Manchester there was more blood shed by the yeomanry, than there would have been by the regular troops, or by the militia. He protested against the yeomanry cavalry being considered the most constitutional force that could be employed. He preferred the employment of the militia.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that although many noble Lords doubted that the yeomanry were the most eligible force for putting down disturbances, yet he was inclined to a contrary opinion. The first consideration was, in every case to put down any disturbance that might arise with as little delay as circumstances permitted. He should always be for putting down disturbance with the least possible loss of life. He therefore thought, that whatever force partook most of a preventive character must be considered the most eligible. He believed, that the yeomanry best answered to that description, and it was to be remembered, that when troops were present, or supposed to be near the spot, it rarely happened that disturbances arose. This he considered to be a strong argument in favour of the employment of the yeomanry. He further thought, that if troops were to be called, cavalry were to be preferred to infantry.
The Earl of Winchilseareplied, he should not then go into the question of the loss of life, but limit himself to this observation, that if the case of Bristol were compared with others, it would be found a comparison greatly in favour of the yeomanry.
Motion agreed to.