The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-08 00:00:00

YEOMANRY.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA moved for copies of letters addressed
by the Home Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of the county of
Hertford, with regard to the reduction of Yeomanry in that county.
One of the objects he had in view in moving for these returns was
to see whether the motive (as had been pretended) in making
this reduction was economy. He could not believe that was the motive,
because they were not supported at the public expense. He con-
fessed that ♦ery great party feeling was characterised in this act of
the Government. He moved for copies of the correspondence, be-
cause he hoped to find some intelligible principle by which the Home-
Secretary was guided in first proposing a reduction, and afterwards
withdrawing the Yeomanry of that county.
Lord MELBOURNE said there could be no objection whatever
to the copies that had been moved for. The facts stated by the Noble
Earl with respect to the county of Hertford were undoubtedly true;
in the first instance the Goi,ernment had directed the separate corps to
be reduced ; and he had subsequently thought proper to retain it upon
grounds which, if he were to state them, might drawn upon him, as it
had upon his Noble Friend, the censure of Noble Lards for insulting
gentlemen who might command the troops in question. 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. l=ie
did not expect that the Noble Lord would have entered upon a conside-
ration 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 commanded by
officers of his political opinions. It had been remarked that what his
Noble Friend had said in the House of Commons was extremely offen-
sive 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
discussion, or how could any one venture to express an opinion on any
subject ?—(Hear, hear.) The sensibility of those persons was perfectly
absurd.

The Earl of MALMESBURY complained of the incautious manner
in which this step had been taken. It came upon the county with
which he was connected like a clap of thunder—the very first notice
was that the yeomanry was disbanded.—(Hear.) The Government
should, in the first instance, have applied to the Lord Lieutenants for
their opinion ; at least, as to the forces which ought to be reduced. The
large district extending from Dorchester to Portsmouth was left with.
out any protection ; and that at a time when the Dorchester labourers
were being paraded about, fortunately in town without effect; but pro.
bably in their own neighbourhood the result might be different.
Lord PORTMAN could relieve his Noble Friend from any anxiety
as to the Dorchester labourers. They had been already paraded about
that part of the country without effect ; and that circumstance was
owing, perhaps, to they better known there than in other parts of the
country.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He concurred in the opinion of the
extreme impropriety of the mode adopted in reducing the yeomanry
cavalry. The step had not been taken in a courteous manner, and had
been adopted without sufficient inquiry. Upon one point, however, he
must correct the Noble Earl opposite, who had stated that in Somerset.
shire the reduction had taken place on account of politics. Now he
knew that one of the most active and zealous supporters of Govern_
went, the representative of the West Riding of that county, had
himself and his troop been put down.
Lord SONDES said 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.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE would say to the Government that they 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, es.
pecially in manufacturing towns, would have proceeded to a very
alarming extent.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose 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 nor those of his colleagues, for his
Noble Friend was made to say this—" that it was inexpedient 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 HA REWOOD made a few observations, but they were
inaudible in the gallery.
The Duke of CLEVELAND considered the militia the most consti-
tutional force.

The Duke of WELLINGTON was one of those who was disposed to
put down disturbance with the least possible loss of life, and his opinion
was that for that purpose it would be better not to employ infantry.
The best course of all would be to prevent disturbance, but if troops
were to be called in he would recommend cavalry in preference to
infantry.
Mier a few words from the Earl of ABINGDON,
The Earl of WINCHILSEA replied, and the motion was then agreed
to.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mar 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
HULL ELECTION.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND brought up the report o fthe 11011
Election Committee, whieh was that W. Wilberforce, Esq., had
not been duly elected—that William Hutt, Esq. , was duly elected,
and ought to have been returned—that Sir W. C. James, Bart., was
duly elected—and that neither the petition nor the opposition thereto
was frivolous or vexatious. The report further stated that the Com-
mittee had amended the poll by striking off the names of some persons
who ought not to have voted, and by adding the names of others who
ought to have voted.