28 APRIL 1838, Page 10

POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

The Ordnance Estimates were discussed last night by the Commons, in a Committee of Supply. Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN bad the charge of them ; but fairly acknowledged that he was incompetent to the duty, which was usually performed by the Clerk of the Ordnance, but that officer had been so lately appointed that he bad not had time to learn his business. Sir Hussey said he would do his best, but was not pre. pared to answer any question that might be put to him on the moment. He then went through the different items ; the result being an increase over the Estimates of last year of 198,7081. Mr. HUME moved to strike out the vote of 8,280/. for the Yeomanry Corps. He contended, that the Yeomanry were a partisan force, kept up by the Tories to keep down the people ; and he read a letter from Lord Sondes to the officers of the Norfolk Yeomanry, wherein that person declared his at. tachment to his Sovereign, but that he would not subject himself to the "capricious and uncertain conduct of the present Administration," and therefore he should resign his post of Major, and should recom- mend the corps to disband themselves. This letter, Mr. Hume maintained, proved that Lord Sondes was only prepared to serve his Sovereign when a certain party was in power A long and angry discussion followed. The country gentlemen were in a fever of indignation—less at the attempt of Mr. Hume to get rid of the Yeomanry altogether, than at the recent proceedings of

Government for the reduction of that corps. Mr. BENETT, Mr. SAN- FORD, Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, Mr. MILES, Mr. WYNN, Colonel SIBTHORP, Mr. GOULBURN, and Sir ROBERT PEEL eulogized the con- duct of the Yeomanry, the "constitutional force of the country," and denounced the reduction of its numbers as most impolitic. Sir ED- WARD KNATCHBULL and Colonel SIBTHORP itiptited evil designs and political objects to the Whig Ministry ; for their conduct in other mat- ters proved that the pretence of economy was a false one. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Yeomanry was a " dormant force," and the more useful on that account. The " vicinage was responsible for tranquil- lity "—that was an old doctrine of the constitution ; but unless the Yeomanry were continued, a military force from a distance must be brought to quell disturbances.

On the other hand, Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, and Mr. ROBERT FERGUSON were of opinion that the Yeomanry were the worst description of force that could be brought in contact with a riot- ous populace ; and Mr. FERGUSON said that he, as Lord-Lieutenant of Fifeshire, never would call them out to put down a mobt—bere was great jealousy between the agricultural and commercial classes, arising, as he believed, chiefly from the Corn-laws. The Manchester Massacre was not forgotten by Mr. IVAIIISURTOST ; who maintained, that experience proved — indeed, during the Canada discussions it was universally admitted that the suppression of popular disturbances should be left to the Executive power. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied with calmness and tact. He was not for the total disbanding of the Yeomanry, neither would he maintain it in un- necessary numbers; he wished to have a larger force than the Duke if Wellington thought right to keep up in 18-28, but not so large as, under

peculiar circumstances, Lord Melbourne required in 1831. Without entering into the question of partisanship, be thought it must be ad- mitted that Lord Sondes and Lord Winehilsea were, at any rate, im- proper persons to be intrusted with the command of armed men. He preferred a good Militia force, as more useful, and more constitutional too, than Yeomanry Cavalry. Mr. Fox MAUI.E spoke briefly in defence of the reductions in the Scottish Yeomanry. The Tories were obliged to vote with Ministers against Mr. Hume's motion ; which was negatived, by 203 to 57.

In the discussion which preceded the chief question of the night, Mr. Hume called attention to the progressive increase of expenditure and decrease of revenue—

In the year 1833, the expenditure wae 48.600.000!.; in the year 1836, it was 48164,000/. ; in 1837, it was upwards of 50,000,000/. ; and in 1838, it was 31,318,000/. There was an increase of expenditure over the year 1835, of nearly two and a half millions. What was the state of the finances? There was a surplus of revenue of 2,000,000/. in the year 1835; but there was now, on the contrary, n deficiency of revenue compared to expenditure of 710,000/. Were they to go on increasing the expenditure with a falling revenue ? was there to be no stop to such profligacy ?

Mr. Huste also complained of the want of a strong Opposition ; a remark which suggested the following retort by Sir ROBERT PEEL— When he was in office, the honourable Member was much louder in his oppo- sition. There was as much difference as between the report of a musket primed and loaded and one without a touch-hole. The honourable Member at the pre- sent day did not croak like a crow, but moaned like a nightingale. (Laughter.)