Brontekst bekijken van Yeomanry Cavalry

{{short description|British volunteer military force}}
{{About|a British auxiliary force||Yeoman (disambiguation)}}
{{Main|Yeomanry}}
{{featured article}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2017}}
{{Infobox military unit
| unit_name = Yeomanry Cavalry
| image = File:Westminster cavalry.jpg
| caption = Yeomanry Cavalryman in a 1798 painting<br />by [[Thomas Rowlandson]]
| alt = Drawing of a yeomanry cavalryman on horseback
| image_size =
| dates = 1794–1908
| country = {{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain}} <br> {{flagcountry|UKGBI|1801}}
| allegiance =
| type = Auxiliary cavalry
| role =
| size =
| command_structure  =
| garrison =
| garrison_label =
| nickname =
| patron =
| motto =
| colours =
| colours_label =
| march =
| mascot =
| equipment =
| equipment_label =
| battles =
| anniversaries =
| decorations =
| battle_honours =
<!-- Commanders -->
| website =
| commander1 =
| commander1_label =
| commander2 =
| commander2_label =
| commander3 =
| commander3_label =
| notable_commanders =
<!-- Insignia -->
| identification_symbol =
| identification_symbol_label =
| identification_symbol_2 =
| identification_symbol_2_label =
| start_date =
}}

The '''Yeomanry Cavalry''' was the mounted component of the [[British Volunteer Corps]], a military [[Auxiliaries|auxiliary]] established in the late 18th century amid fears of invasion and insurrection during the [[French Revolutionary Wars]]. A [[yeoman]] was a person of respectable standing, one social rank below a [[gentleman]], and the yeomanry was initially a rural, [[county]]-based force. Members were required to provide their own horses and were recruited mainly from [[landholders]] and tenant farmers, though the middle class also featured prominently in the rank and file. Officers were largely recruited from among the [[nobility]] and [[landed gentry]]. A [[Commission (document)|commission]] generally involved significant personal expense, and although social status was an important qualification, the primary factor was personal wealth. From the beginning, the newly rich, who found in the yeomanry a means of enhancing their social standing, were welcomed into the officer corps for their ability to support the force financially. Urban recruitment increased towards the end of the 19th century, reflected in the early 20th century by increasingly common use of hired mounts.

The yeomanry was first used in support of local authorities to suppress civil unrest, most notably during the food riots of 1795. Its only use in national defence was in 1797, when the Castlemartin Yeomanry helped defeat a small French invasion in the [[Battle of Fishguard]]. Although the Volunteer Corps was disbanded following the defeat of [[Napoleon]] in 1815, the yeomanry was retained as a politically reliable force which could be deployed in support of the civil authorities. It often served as mounted police until the middle of the 19th century. Most famously, the [[Manchester and Salford Yeomanry]] was largely responsible for the [[Peterloo Massacre]], in which some 17 people were killed and up to 650 were injured, while policing a rally for parliamentary reform in Manchester in 1819. The yeomanry was also deployed against striking colliers in the 1820s, during the [[Swing riots]] of the early 1830s and the [[Chartism|Chartist]] disturbances of the late 1830s and early 1840s. The exclusive membership set the yeomanry apart from the population it policed, and as better law enforcement options became available the yeomanry was increasingly held back for fear that its presence would provoke confrontation. Its social status made the force a popular target for caricature, particularly after Peterloo, and it was often satirised in the press, in literature and on the stage.

The establishment of [[History of law enforcement in the United Kingdom|civilian police forces]] and renewed invasion scares in the middle of the 19th century turned the focus of the yeomanry to national defence, but its effectiveness and value in this role was increasingly questioned. It declined in strength, surviving largely due to its members political influence and willingness to subsidise the force financially. A series of government committees failed to address the force's problems. The last, in 1892, found a place for the yeomanry in the country's mobilisation scheme, but it was not until a succession of failures by the regular army during the [[Second Boer War]] that the yeomanry found a new relevance as mounted infantry. It provided the nucleus for the separate [[Imperial Yeomanry]], and after the war, the yeomanry was re-branded ''en bloc'' as the Imperial Yeomanry. It ceased to exist as a separate institution in 1908, when the yeomanry became the mounted component of the [[Territorial Force]]. Yeomanry [[regiment]]s fought mounted and dismounted in both the [[World War I|First World War]] and the [[World War II|Second World War]]. The yeomanry heritage is maintained in the 21st century largely by four yeomanry regiments of the British [[Army Reserve (United Kingdom)|Army Reserve]], in which many 19th century regiments are represented as [[Squadron (army)|squadrons]].

==Background==
Europe experienced explosive population growth from the mid-18th century which, in [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]], was fed by improved farming methods introduced by the [[British Agricultural Revolution|Agricultural Revolution]]. Around the same time, the [[Industrial Revolution]] brought increasing urbanisation, which led to ever greater demands for food away from farms. The more intensive cultivation required to meet these demands led to increased costs but left agricultural wages the same, resulting in poverty and starvation in rural communities. Poverty was also a problem in urban centres as increasing use of machinery put skilled labour out of work. Meanwhile, the political system had not kept up with the shifting population. While once prosperous towns that had become de-populated were still able to elect Members of Parliament (MPs)&nbsp;– the so-called [[rotten and pocket boroughs]]&nbsp;– major new towns such as [[Birmingham]] and [[Manchester]] were not represented. Poverty and disenfranchisement led to social discontent, giving rise to fears that the [[French Revolution]] would provide a model that might be emulated in Britain.<ref>Athawes pp. 1–3</ref>

In 1793, the French revolutionary government declared [[French Revolutionary Wars|war]] on Great Britain, adding fear of foreign invasion to that of domestic insurrection and leading to near panic in London. The regular [[British Army during the Napoleonic Wars|British Army]], which had already deployed six [[brigade]]s alongside the Austrian army in the [[Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition|Netherlands]], was not sufficient to defend the country, and the main military reserve, the [[Militia (Great Britain)|militia]], was considered neither effective nor trustworthy. It had been demobilised at the conclusion of the [[American Revolutionary War]] in 1783, and in the intervening decade it had been subject to cost-cutting measures that had left it deficient. It was embodied in 1792 as a precautionary measure against insurrection, but a body recruited predominantly from among the working class was itself suspect, to the extent that militia units were not trusted to be deployed in their own areas of recruitment until 1795. The government had previously resorted to volunteers to augment its forces in 1779, amid fears of a [[Armada of 1779|Franco-Spanish invasion]], though this was short-lived and did not long survive the end of the war in the colonies. Considering that there was not enough time to address the militia's deficiencies, the government turned again to volunteers to bolster the nation's defences in 1794.<ref name=Mileham8-10>Mileham 2003 pp. 8–10</ref><ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 69–73</ref>

==Origins==
[[File:A Review of the London Volunteer Cavalry and Flying Artillery in Hyde Park in 1804.jpg|thumb|alt=Painting of yeomanry in Hyde Park|''A Review of the London Volunteer Cavalry and Flying Artillery in Hyde Park in 1804'']]
The appeal for volunteers led to the creation of the [[British Volunteer Corps|Volunteer Corps]], of which the Gentlemen and Yeomanry Cavalry, as it was then called, was the mounted component.<ref name=Mileham8-10/><ref>Wyndham-Quin p. 7</ref> A [[yeoman]] was traditionally a [[Freehold (law)|freeholder]] of respectable standing, one social rank below a [[gentleman]], and the yeomanry's ranks were filled largely by landholders and tenant farmers. The officers were appointed by royal [[Commission (document)|commission]], in the person of the [[Lord Lieutenant]], and generally came from the [[nobility]] and [[landed gentry]].<ref name=Mileham2003p10>Mileham 2003 p. 10</ref> Yeomen were expected to provide their own mounts, which represented a high financial barrier to entry and ensured that the yeomanry was an exclusive and prestigious organisation.<ref>Mileham 2003 p. 11</ref><ref name=Beckett-p76>Beckett 2011 p. 76</ref> In addition to farmers, the yeomanry attracted professionals, tradesmen and skilled craftsmen to its ranks, though the strong ties to the farming community meant that yeomanry activities were scheduled with an eye on the agricultural calendar, and harvests in particular informed the training schedule.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 75–76</ref>

The yeomanry was [[county]] based and could be called out (embodied) by the Lord Lieutenant or [[High Sheriff|Sheriff]]. Members were paid while embodied and subject to military law in the event of invasion. Initially, [[troop]]s were liable for service only in their home or adjacent counties, though some troops voted to be liable for service nationwide while others restricted themselves to service only in their home county.<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 10–12</ref><ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 75">Beckett 2011 p. 75</ref> Although some troops quickly combined to form county [[regiment]]s, such as the [[Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry|Wiltshire Yeomanry Cavalry]] in 1797, many remained independent for years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/volmil-england/vcav/wilts.htm |title=The Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry (Prince of Wales's Own) [UK] |website=regiments.org|publisher=T. F. Mills|access-date=28 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023103920/http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/volmil-england/vcav/wilts.htm |archive-date=23 October 2007 }}</ref><ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 11–12</ref><ref>Wyndham-Quin p. 8</ref> By the end of 1794, between 28 and 32 troops of yeomanry, each up to 60 men strong, had been raised. A government attempt to raise more cavalry by compulsion, the [[Provisional Cavalry Act 1796]], increased interest in volunteer cavalry, and by 1799 there were 206 yeomanry troops. By 1800, the [[Provisional Cavalry]] regiments had been either disbanded or absorbed into the yeomanry, where they were frequently ostracised because of their lower social status.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 75–77</ref><ref>Mileham 2003 p. 12</ref>

===Initial deployments===
The yeomanry was as much an instrument of law and order as it was a military organisation, and its terms of service stressed defence against both insurrection and invasion.<ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 75"/> It was only once called upon to repulse a foreign invasion, in 1797, when the French [[Légion Noire]] landed at [[Fishguard]] in Wales, and the Castlemartin Yeomanry was part of the force that defeated the invaders in the [[Battle of Fishguard]].<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 78</ref>{{efn|The Castlemartin Yeomanry's successor, the [[Pembroke Yeomanry]], was awarded the [[battle honour]] "Fishguard" in 1853. It is the only unit in the British Army to have been so recognised for battle on British soil.<ref>Mileham 2003 p. 106</ref>}} The yeomanry was more active as a [[constabulary]], and corps were called out during the [[1794 Treason Trials|treason trials in 1794]], during the [[Revolt of the housewives|food riots of 1795]], and in response to [[enclosure]] protests, the destruction wrought by [[Luddite]]s and disturbances caused by disaffected, demobilised servicemen in the years leading up to the end of the wars with France.<ref name=Beckett-p76 /><ref>Hay 2017 p. 141</ref>

By 1801, the yeomanry was 21,000 strong, with troops in most English, many Welsh and some Scottish counties. They were based in towns, villages and the estates of the nobility, and varied in quantity from one to more than twenty in any given county. Troops were also raised in Ireland, where they reflected the [[Protestant Ascendancy]]. The [[Peace of Amiens]] in 1802 resulted in reductions across the military, with cuts to the army and navy and the disembodiment of the militia. Legislation was passed to allow the Volunteer Corps to be retained without pay, but the yeomanry establishment nevertheless declined, only to increase again when war resumed in 1803.<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 12–13</ref><ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 87">Beckett 2011 p. 87</ref> There were frequent invasion scares&nbsp;– most notably in 1804, when the [[beacon]]s were lit in the Scottish lowlands and 3,000 volunteers and yeomanry assembled for what turned out to be a false alarm&nbsp;– and victory at the [[Battle of Trafalgar]] in 1805 did not fully eradicate the fears of a French landing.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 92–95</ref>

===Early 19th century legislation and decline===
The threat of invasion occupied much of the British political thinking until the final defeat of [[Napoleon]] in 1815, and in the period 1802–1803 alone there were 21 separate pieces of legislation designed to raise forces either voluntarily or compulsorily for the defence of the nation.<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 92</ref> The Volunteer Consolidation Act of 1804,{{which|date=July 2023}} which effectively governed the yeomanry until 1901, rationalised the confusion of legislation. The net result was to make voluntary service more attractive, a significant motivation being to avoid the compulsion of service in the unpopular militia.<ref name="Beckett 2011 pp. 101–102">Beckett 2011 pp. 101–102</ref> Faced with a deluge of volunteers, the [[War Office]] attempted to limit numbers. This caused an outcry, and administrative responsibility was transferred to the [[Home Office]] in 1803 as a result.<ref>Becket 2011 pp. 102–103</ref> By the following year, the number of volunteers and yeomanry together exceeded 342,000 men, significantly more than the government could arm in the immediate term, and in 1805 the yeomanry numbered just under 33,000 men.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 103–104</ref><ref>Athawes p. 18</ref>

A change of government in 1806 resulted in a change of policy, based on the belief that the volunteer force was an expensive solution which escaped central government control and undermined recruitment into the militia and regular army. The Local Militia Acts of 1808{{which|date=July 2023}} created a new militia with incentives for volunteers to transfer into it. By 1813, the Local Militia had supplanted the need for a volunteer force, which had already declined to just under 69,000 men the previous year, and only a handful of volunteer corps remained.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 107, 114 & 120</ref> The yeomanry, however, was retained after the [[Napoleonic Wars]] as a politically reliable force. It was, nevertheless, reduced in numbers nationwide&nbsp;– figures for 1817 indicate an actual strength of around 18,000&nbsp;– and in [[Gloucestershire]], for example, of the 13 troops that existed in 1813, only the Gloucester Troop was kept on after 1815, to serve as mounted police.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 120–122</ref><ref>Wyndham-Quin pp. 68 & 73–74</ref><ref>Athawes p. 25</ref>

==Support to the civil power==
[[File:Peterloo Massacre.png|thumb|left|alt=Painting of the Peterloo Massacre|Peterloo Massacre]]
Policing was the responsibility of the [[parish constable]] and his urban counterpart, the [[Watchman (law enforcement)|watchman]], under the auspices of the [[magistrate]]s. As urban centres grew, increased crime was dealt with by temporary measures such as the [[Special Constabulary]]. None of these were sufficient to deal with large-scale riots. Although the regular army was disciplined and trusted enough to be used, it was too small and too widely dispersed to be an effective response, and the militia, while available as a local force, was not trusted. It fell, therefore, to the yeomanry to deal with civil unrest, and its numbers were soon increased as a result.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 4 & 138–140</ref>

===Post-Napoleonic Wars===
Agitation for constitutional reform by the [[Radicals (UK)|Radical movement]] following the defeat of Napoleon resulted in frequent use of the yeomanry. Most famously, up to 17 people were killed and 650 wounded in the [[Peterloo Massacre]] of 1819, when the [[Manchester and Salford Yeomanry]] charged into a 60,000-strong crowd attending a rally in Manchester.<ref name="Beckett2011p135">Beckett 2011 p. 135</ref><ref name=HayPeterloo>Hay 2017 pp. 142–143</ref>{{efn|The casualties at Peterloo vary according to source. Beckett reports "some 400" injured, and Mileham "over 500", with both saying 11 killed. Hay's sources give figures of 17 killed and 650 injured.<ref name=Beckett2011p135 /><ref name=HayPeterloo /><ref>Mileham 2003 p. 16</ref>}} On 2 April 1820, the Stirlingshire Yeomanry was called out during the [[Radical War]]&nbsp;– a week of strikes and unrest in Scotland&nbsp;– and three days later its Kilsyth Troop assisted the regular army's [[10th Royal Hussars|10th Hussars]] in the arrest of 18 Radicals at the 'Battle of Bonnymuir'.<ref>Mileham 1985 Edition 253 p. 24 & Edition 254 pp. 104–105</ref> In south Wales during the violent [[wikt:collier|collier]] strikes of 1822, the Monmouth Troop, assisting the [[Royal Scots Greys|Scots Greys]], used the flat of its swords to disperse a mob that was damaging coal trains, and the colliers pelted the Chepstow Troop with stones as it escorted coal wagons a few days afterwards. Elsewhere, the [[Staffordshire Yeomanry]] resorted to musketry, mortally wounding one person, when it was deployed to protect working colliers from their striking colleagues.<ref>Wyndham-Quin pp. 78–83</ref><ref name="Mileham 2003 pp. 16–17">Mileham 2003 pp. 16–17</ref> In total, the yeomen of 12 different corps were called out to support the civil authorities on 19 separate occasions in 1822, and four years later, 13 different corps attended to 16 incidents.<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 140</ref>

===Swing riots and political protests===
The demand for assistance was not uniform throughout the country, and even at its peak in 1820, less than 30 per cent of counties had called out their yeomanry. Civil unrest declined in the 1820s, and in 1827 local magistrates called upon the yeomanry only six times, a 90 per cent decrease compared to 1820.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 144–145 & 155</ref> Faced with funding a force that it perceived to be increasingly unnecessary, the government reduced the yeomanry establishment on economic grounds. Of the 62 corps or regiments that then existed, those 24 that had not been called out in aid of the civil power in the preceding ten years, primarily from the southern counties of England, were disbanded. The remaining 38 corps were retained, though 16 of them were allowed to continue only at their own expense. It was, however, in the southern counties that the [[Swing riots]] erupted in 1830, a largely agrarian protest which resulted in the destruction of machinery in both town and country. As a result, many disbanded corps were resurrected and new ones raised, although it was a slow process and those corps of yeomanry that had survived the cuts were in much demand. The Wiltshire Yeomanry, for example, served in neighbouring counties as well as its own, earning it the prefix "Royal" in recognition of its many services. This regiment was responsible for the one fatality inflicted by the yeomanry during the riots, when its Hindon Troop fought a 500-strong mob of agricultural workers in the 'Battle of Pythouse' at [[Tisbury, Wiltshire]], on 25 November 1830.<ref name="Mileham 2003 pp. 16–17"/><ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 132–135</ref><ref>Hay 2017 pp. 145–149</ref>

There was further civil unrest the year after the Swing riots, prompted by agitation for political reform following the defeat of the [[Reform Act 1832|Second Reform Bill]] in the [[House of Lords]]. In Wales, the [[Glamorgan Yeomanry]] twice suffered humiliation&nbsp;– and in consequence, disbandment soon after&nbsp;– when miners and steelworkers occupied [[Merthyr Rising|Merthyr Tydfil]]; one group of yeomen was ambushed and disarmed as they tried to make their way into town, and on a separate occasion another group was routed. Equally ineffective, though this time through no fault of its own, was a troop of the newly re-raised [[Royal Gloucestershire Hussars|Gloucestershire Yeomanry]]. It was sent to [[Bristol]] when [[Bristol riots|rioting]] broke out there in the autumn, but was ordered to leave shortly after arriving by the commander of the regular forces deployed in the city.<ref>Wyndham-Quin p. 91</ref><ref>Hay 2017 pp. 150–151</ref> A second troop of Gloucestershire yeomanry was subsequently joined by yeomen from [[Somerset]] and [[Wiltshire]] to help restore order in the aftermath of the rioting.<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 139</ref>

===Chartist disturbances===
[[File:ChartistRiot.jpg|thumb|alt=Drawing of a Chartist riot|Fearing that the yeomanry would provoke confrontation, the fledgling police force was, where available, used in preference to maintain order during the Chartist disturbances.]]
Although further urban unrest in the 1830s resulted in the deployment of the yeomanry in [[Montgomeryshire]], [[Kent]] and Birmingham, the government legislated another round of cuts on cost grounds in 1838, reducing the 18,300-strong force by up to 4,700, though nine corps were allowed to continue without pay.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 156</ref><ref>Beckett 2011 p. 132</ref> As in 1827, the timing was unfortunate, and the rise of [[Chartism]] between 1837 and 1842 resulted in more demands on the yeomanry, to the extent that the commanders of the northern and Midlands military districts were given the ability to summon it directly rather than apply for permission to the Home Office. The greatest pressure came in 1842&nbsp;– a year which saw six of the nine unpaid corps returned to the establishment and just under 1,000 new yeomen recruited&nbsp;– when civil unrest in 15 English, Welsh and Scottish counties required the deployment of 84 troops from 18 corps, which between them accumulated a total of 338 days' duty.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 133 & 141</ref>

Despite being heavily committed, force was applied sparingly, and the yeomanry was deployed wherever possible as a reserve in support of other law enforcement agencies rather than as a primary agent itself. In 1838, a troop of the Yorkshire Yeomanry was held back during a serious disturbance on the North Midland Railway out of fear that their presence would inflame the situation. The following year, Sir [[Charles James Napier|Charles Napier]], commander of the [[Northern Command (United Kingdom)|northern military district]], responded to a magistrate request for yeomanry by saying "if the Chartists want a fight, they can be indulged without Yeomen, who are over-zealous for cutting and slashing".<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 156–158</ref> There were occasions when force was used, such as the violent confrontations in the [[Staffordshire Potteries]] and North Wales in 1839 between protesters and the yeomen of [[Staffordshire]], [[Shropshire]] and Montgomeryshire; there were injuries on both sides and at least four deaths among the protesters.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 159</ref>

===Declining use as a constabulary===
Between 1818 and 1855, the peak years of its employment in support of the civil power, units of yeomanry were on duty somewhere for approximately 26 days per year on average.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 169</ref> It remained available as a constabulary throughout the 19th century, if for no other reason than it was often the only option available to the magistrates, even though it was recognised that its presence might escalate tensions. Its use in this role, however, declined, and the last known deployment in support of the civil power was in 1885.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 161–162</ref> The diminishing demand was fuelled by a decrease in large-scale protest and better law-enforcement options. The development of a national rail network from the mid-19th century enabled rapid deployment of regular forces, and the [[History of law enforcement in the United Kingdom|establishment of police forces]] in all counties by 1856 gave magistrates a better alternative than the yeomanry.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 162–163</ref>

In 1892, the [[Adelbert Brownlow-Cust, 3rd Earl Brownlow|Brownlow]] Committee, set up to investigate the financial and military position of the yeomanry, recommended that its constitution should be specially adapted for home defence, and in 1907 the yeomanry was formally relieved of any role in aid of the civil power. A [[select committee (parliamentary system)|select committee]] report in 1908, ''Employment of Military in Cases of Disturbances'', encouraged a civil response to civil disorder. It recognised, however, the value of mounted forces, and recommended that police chiefs should maintain the ability to temporarily recruit men with yeomanry experience, casting yeomen thus enlisted as ordinary citizens subject to common law. The evolution of law enforcement can be seen in the government responses to the [[Tonypandy riots]] and the [[1911 Liverpool general transport strike|Liverpool general transport strike]] of 1910 and 1911, in which the yeomanry played no part when the regular army was deployed to restore order, supported in the former case by 500 [[Metropolitan Police]].<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 163–164</ref><ref>Beckett 2008 p. 29</ref>

==Role in national defence==
[[File:Royal Gloucestershire Hussars.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Painting of a yeomanry troop|Yeomanry Cavalry of the late 19th century]]
In 1850, [[Henry FitzHardinge Berkeley]], MP for Bristol, derided the yeomanry in Parliament as "maintained at vast expense; in peace a charge, in war a weak defence".<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 152–153</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1850/jul/26/supply-army-estimates#column_375|title=Supply&nbsp;– Army Estimates (Hansard, 26 July 1850)|work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|date=26 July 1850|page=375|access-date=20 January 2018}}</ref> By 1891, the force suffered, according to the [[David Ogilvy, 11th Earl of Airlie|Earl of Airlie]]&nbsp;– an experienced cavalry officer who was at the time adjutant of the [[Hampshire Yeomanry|Hampshire Carabiniers]] and who would later be killed leading the [[12th Royal Lancers|12th Lancers]] in South Africa&nbsp;– from a lack of purpose and training.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 26</ref> As its constabulary duties subsided, the yeomanry was left without any real role between the 1860s and 1892. Militarily weak and few in number, its effectiveness and value as a national defence force was increasingly questioned.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 30–31</ref> It was regarded, not least among the members themselves, as light or auxiliary cavalry, and the yeomanry regiments adopted the titles of [[hussar]]s, [[dragoon]]s and [[lancer]]s. Their training, in which they practised complex regular cavalry drills at the halt, emphasised the use of the sword.<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 20–22</ref> It was wedded to the idea of a cavalry role, despite increasing efforts by the government to encourage proficiency in the use of firearms.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 25–26 & 28</ref>

The yeomanry was left untouched by the [[Volunteer Act 1863]] ([[26 & 27 Vict.]] c. 65), which governed the new [[Volunteer Force]], leaving it still subject to legislation passed in 1804, although some changes were made to the way in which it was administered.<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 188</ref><ref>Hay 2017 p. 21</ref> More substantial changes were considered in a series of committees which attempted to assess the state and role of the yeomanry, and although the first, the Lawrenson Committee of 1861, achieved nothing, some changes to the organisation were made in 1870 by [[Edward Cardwell, 1st Viscount Cardwell|Edward Cardwell]], [[Secretary of State for War]]. Independent troops and corps with less than four troops were abolished and the established strength set at 36 regiments, and basic training and drill requirements were laid down. There is also evidence that Cardwell hoped to transform the yeomanry from cavalry to mounted rifles, and an attempt to do so was also made in 1882, though both came to nothing.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 22, 24–25 & 220</ref> The Stanley Committee of 1875 recommended better training for the yeomanry leadership and the disbandment of regiments that returned an effective strength of less than 200 men for two consecutive years. Although the former was implemented, the latter was ignored.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 26 & 64–65</ref>

Training in the latter half of the 19th century focussed more on mounted [[reconnaissance]], flank protection and [[Picket (military)|pickets]], activities regarded by traditional cavalrymen as beneath their dignity, but it was rarely realistic, and the yeomanry proved resistant to the introduction of musketry standards.<ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 189">Beckett 2011 p. 189</ref><ref>Mileham 2003 p. 24</ref> The Brownlow Committee sought to define a more professional role for the yeomanry by incorporating it into the nation's mobilisation scheme. As a result, in 1893, regiments were organised by [[Squadron (army)|squadron]] rather than troop, and understrength regiments were paired into brigades. In another attempt to encourage the use of firearms, allowances were increased for those who achieved a certain level of proficiency in musketry, but those who failed to do so in two consecutive years would be expelled.<ref name="Hay 2017 pp. 27–28">Hay 2017 pp. 27–28</ref> Nevertheless, the yeomanry's continued existence owed more to its significant representation in Parliament, which gave it a political influence beyond its numbers, than it did to its utility as a national defence force.<ref name=Hay2017pp6-7>Hay 2017 pp. 6–7</ref>{{efn|The numbers of yeomen serving in either the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] or the [[House of Lords]] were: 1843&nbsp;– 14; 1847&nbsp;– 22; 1850&nbsp;– 65 (some eight per cent of the yeomanry officer corps); 1852&nbsp;– 52; 1870&nbsp;– 66; 1882&nbsp;– 74; and 1897&nbsp;– 66 (with a further 18 former members of the yeomanry).<ref name=Hay2017pp6-7 />}} The changes introduced by the Brownlow Committee were, according to [[Henry Campbell-Bannerman]], leader of the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]] then in opposition, the yeomanry's last chance to justify its existence.<ref name="Hay 2017 pp. 27–28"/>

===Imperial Yeomanry===
{{main|Imperial Yeomanry}}
[[File:Boer War Q71976.jpg|thumb|alt=Photograph of an imperial yeoman in South Africa|Imperial yeoman]]
By 1899, the yeomanry was at its lowest point. It was a small force, largely untouched by developments since its founding in 1794, of uncertain value and unclear benefit. It took major failures in the regular forces during the [[Second Boer War]] to restore the yeomanry to relevance.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 171 & 209</ref> In October and November 1899, Lieutenant-Colonel A. G. Lucas, the yeomanry's representative in the War Office and a member of the [[Suffolk Yeomanry|Loyal Suffolk Hussars]], suggested the yeomanry as a source of reinforcement in South Africa. His proposal was initially declined, but the disastrous events of [[Black Week]] in December, in which the British Army suffered three defeats in quick succession, prompted a rethink, and on 2 January 1900 the [[Imperial Yeomanry]] was created.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 200 & 202–203</ref> It was a separate body from the domestic yeomanry, free of the home force's restriction to service only in the UK, and was organised by companies and [[battalion]]s rather than squadrons and regiments, betraying its role as mounted infantry rather than cavalry.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 173–174 & 205</ref><ref>Mileham 2003 p. 27</ref>

By the end of the war, some 34,000 volunteers had served in the Imperial Yeomanry, although little more than 12 per cent of that number had been recruited from the domestic yeomanry.<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 203</ref><ref>Hay 2017 p. 173</ref> The experience in South Africa convinced the authorities of the value of a mounted force and influenced the Militia and Yeomanry Act of 1901. The law transformed the yeomanry, which it renamed ''en bloc'' to Imperial Yeomanry, from cavalry into mounted infantry, replacing the sword with rifle and bayonet as the yeoman's primary weapon. It introduced khaki uniforms, mandated a standard four-squadron organisation and added a machine-gun section to each regiment.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 207–208</ref><ref>Hay 2017 p. 214</ref> The yeomanry resisted the retirement of the sword and the loss of "cavalry" from its title, a reflection of its own aspirations and the wider debate about the role of cavalry.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 214 & 216</ref>{{efn|Three regiments petitioned the king to be allowed to retain the sword on parade, and all but one of the 35 commanding officers petitioned the army for its retention in 1902.<ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 208">Beckett 2011 p. 208</ref> Colonel Lancelot Rolleston, commander of the [[South Nottinghamshire Hussars|South Nottinghamshire Imperial Yeomanry]], went further, and refused to surrender the regiment's swords on the grounds that the regulations permitted their use until the equipment was worn out, and even introduced the lance to the regiment in 1904. With some string-pulling, the regiment secured for itself a place in the Northern Command review in 1903, in which it drilled alongside the regular forces as cavalry and paraded without rifles.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 218</ref> The desire to retain the sword was not unanimous, and at an Army Council meeting in 1904 in which use of the sword was revisited, 21 of the now 55 yeomanry commanding officers were in favour of the bayonet. Demonstrating that the debate about the yeomanry role went on even within the yeomanry, their reasoning was that the force might be useful as mounted infantry or rifles, but it could never hope to become efficient cavalry.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 217</ref>}}

===Territorial Force===
{{main|Territorial Force}}
A key issue exposed by the Boer War concerned the ability of the auxiliary forces to reinforce the regular army in times of crisis. In 1903, the Director of General Mobilisation and Military Intelligence reported an excess of home defence forces which, because they were not liable for service overseas, could not be used to expand an expeditionary force in foreign campaigns.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 220–221</ref> This occupied much of the debate around military reform in the first decade of the 20th century, and gave the yeomanry the opportunity to retain its role as cavalry by positioning itself as a semi-trained reserve to the numerically weak regular cavalry. This was reflected in a change to the training instructions issued to the Imperial Yeomanry in 1902 and 1905. The former warned the yeomanry not to aspire to a cavalry role and made no distinction between yeomen and mounted infantry, but the latter merely proscribed the traditional cavalry tactic of shock action while otherwise aligning the yeomanry with the cavalry.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 216 & 220</ref>

The changed focus in training was prompted by plans to allocate six yeomanry regiments as divisional cavalry in the regular army, supported by the establishment within the Imperial Yeomanry of a separate class of yeoman free of the restriction on service overseas.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 222–224</ref> This, however, relied on men volunteering for such service, and offered the regular army no guarantee that enough men would do so. That enough would volunteer was made more doubtful by the requirement that they should abandon their civilian lives for the six months of training considered necessary for them to be effective in such a reserve role. As a result, the plans were dropped from the final legislation that combined the Volunteer Force and the yeomanry, now without the "Imperial" prefix, into a single, unified auxiliary organisation, the [[Territorial Force]], in 1908.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 224–230</ref>{{efn|The difficulties inherent in relying on volunteers to reliably augment the regular army can be seen in the numbers, or more accurately the distribution of those who had done so by 1913. At just under 4,000, the quantity of volunteers exceeded the estimated requirements, but 88 per cent of them were distributed across 54 different regiments, making it too complex to integrate them into the regular forces.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 238–239</ref>}}{{efn|As well as defence against foreign invasion, the Territorial Force was intended to reinforce the regular army overseas after six months training on mobilisation. The force was, however, subject to the same restrictions on overseas service as its predecessors, and deployment abroad therefore relied entirely on members volunteering to do so. [[Richard Haldane, 1st Viscount Haldane|Richard Haldane]], the Secretary of State for War who introduced the reforms, hoped that between a sixth and a quarter of territorials would. The process by which members could volunteer was formalised in 1910 as the Imperial Service Obligation.<ref>Beckett 2011 p. 215</ref><ref>Beckett 2008 p. 32</ref>}} The yeomanry ceased to be a discrete institution and was, as one yeoman put it, "slumped in with the volunteers".<ref>Hay 2017 p. 232</ref>

==Recruitment==
[[File:Yeomanry recruitment 1820-1900.png|thumb|upright=2|left|alt=Chart showing yeomanry recruitment figures 1805–1905|Yeomanry recruitment 1805–1905, showing establishment (authorised) and effective (actual) strength. Broken lines represent no data available between known datum points.]]
In the first half of the 19th century, the number of corps and overall strength fluctuated in line with the incidence of civil disturbance, reflecting the government's reliance on the yeomanry as a police force and its willingness to finance it.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 75–76</ref> Peterloo sullied the yeomanry's reputation in many quarters, but it also prompted a surge in recruitment, reversing the reductions implemented after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. By 1820, the yeomanry establishment had been restored to its war-time peak of some 36,000 men, although its effective strength was actually some 6,000 short of that number. The same cycle was repeated in the late 1820s when, after 10 years of political stability, the government reduced the yeomanry to between 8,350 and 10,700 men,{{efn|Sources do not agree on the exact scale of cuts made to the yeomanry in 1827. Beckett reports that the established strength fell from 24,288 to 10,705, while Hay reports that the yeomanry was reduced "by around" 21,332 to 8351 "in the ranks", without specifying whether he is referring to established or effective strength. Hay does add in a footnote that the values are approximate because in the period from 1821 to 1830, figures are available only for 1829.<ref name="Beckett2011p133"/><ref>Hay 2017 p. 145</ref>}} only to increase it again in the 1830s following the outbreak of the Swing riots. Yeomanry strength peaked on this cycle in 1835 at an effective strength of 19,365.<ref name="Hay2017pp4–5">Hay 2017 pp. 4–5</ref>

Further government cuts in 1838 were once again reversed after the outbreak of the Chartist disturbances, and effective strength peaked again in 1845 at 15,249 men. Numbers subsequently fell once more, and although they were bolstered by invasion scares in the middle of the 19th century, a general decline set in as the yeomanry role in support of the civil power diminished. By 1900, the yeomanry establishment stood at just over 12,000 with an actual strength some 2,000 short of that figure.<ref name="Hay2017pp4–5" /> A wave of enthusiasm during the Second Boer War doubled the size of the yeomanry, and the Militia and Yeomanry Act of 1901 set an establishment of 35,000, though effective strength was only around 25,000. To achieve these numbers, 18 new regiments were raised, 12 of them resurrected from disbanded 19th century corps.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 175, 213 & 215</ref>

===Officer corps===
A commission in the yeomanry's officer corps entailed expenses which, for a troop captain in 1892, were on average £60 per year ({{Inflation|UK|60|1892|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) in excess of allowances received. These costs imposed a financial qualification on appointments and made such positions the preserve of the elite. While a proportion of the yeomanry's leadership, between eight and fifteen per cent over the course of its existence, came from the nobility, the main demographic from which officers were recruited was the landed gentry.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 37–41 & 49–50</ref> The coincidence of wealth and position in society was reflected in the leadership of the yeomanry. In 1850, for example, 31 per cent of the officer corps were magistrates and a further 14 per cent held even greater authority as a Lord or Deputy Lieutenant, and the 828 yeomanry officers then serving included 5 Lords Lieutenant, 111 Deputy Lieutenants, 255 [[Justice of the peace|Justices of the Peace]], 65 [[Member of Parliament|Members of Parliament]] and 93 officers with previous military experience.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 49–50</ref> This element changed little over time, and the number of county elites serving in 1914 was practically the same as in 1850.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 71</ref>

[[File:An officer of the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars.jpg|thumb|alt=Painting of a yeomanry officer in 1834|Captain Surman, ex-[[10th Royal Hussars]], adjutant of the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars 1834–1858.<ref>Wyndham-Quin pp. 131–132</ref>]]
Although social status was in some cases a prerequisite for commissions, personal wealth was the predominant factor.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 41, 43–44, 58 & 71</ref> With its access to the county elite and appetite for wealth, the yeomanry officer corps was an avenue for '[[Nouveau riche|new money]]' to gain social status and position. This was evident even in the early days&nbsp;– the Staffordshire Yeomanry contained a number of newly rich officers from industry and business before 1820&nbsp;– and increasing numbers were able to elevate their social position via commissions in the yeomanry throughout the 19th century.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 53–58</ref> Another theme in officer recruitment was family tradition. The Churchill family, for example, was involved in the [[Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars]] between 1818 and 1914, the last being [[Winston Churchill]], who commanded a squadron even while [[Home Secretary]] and later [[First Lord of the Admiralty]]. [[Duke of Beaufort|Dukes of Beaufort]] served with the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars for over 150 years from its formation in 1834, providing the regiment's colonel or honorary colonel for all but 13 of them.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 47–48 & 63</ref><ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 86–87</ref>

The high barrier to entry meant that the pool of officer candidates was limited, and the yeomanry consistently struggled to find enough officers.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 35–37, 47 & 50–51</ref> Those that were found were sometimes of questionable value. Officers were not always able to attend to their yeomanry duties, either because they lived too far away or, as in the case of Winston Churchill, had more pressing demands on their time. In 1875, an inspecting officer complained about inefficiency in troop leadership, but the introduction of mandatory formal training for yeomanry officers that year did not improve matters. [[Charles Cavendish, 3rd Baron Chesham|Lord Chesham]], Inspector General of the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa during the Second Boer War, spoke in 1904 of the poor quality of yeomanry officers during that conflict.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 62–65</ref> Promotions were more an indication of an officer's precedence, in both society and regiment, and his ability to spend time and money on the latter, than of his merit for the role.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 43</ref>

An element of professionalism was provided by ex-regular army officers, who comprised 23 per cent of the officer corps in 1876 and 14 per cent in 1914.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 45</ref> Furthermore, within each corps, training and administration was controlled by a permanent staff led by an [[adjutant]] of at least four years regular military experience.{{efn|Two notable men who served as yeomanry adjutants were the future [[Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom)|Chief of the General Staff]], [[John French, 1st Earl of Ypres|John French]], who served with the Northumberland Hussars between 1881 and 1884, and [[Adrian Carton de Wiart]], who was appointed adjutant to the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars in 1910.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 66</ref>}} Even then, social status was often a factor in the selection of adjutants and, with applications being made directly to the colonel of a regiment, a measure of county influence was required for appointment.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 65 & 70–71</ref>

===Rank and file===
[[File:Sergeants, Gloucestershire Hussars, 1896.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Photograph of yeomanry sergeants in the late 19th century|Sergeants of the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars yeomanry]]
In 1889, an MP described the yeomanry as "a survival from the days when tenants followed their landlords to the field".<ref>Hay 2017 p. 76</ref> There is evidence that some of the rank and file were required to serve as a condition of their tenancy, in one case as late as 1893. On the whole, however, landlords did not have the ability, or at least the will, to coerce a tenantry which served, or indeed refused to serve, of its own free will. If the county elite commanded any influence in this matter, it was generally, in the class-driven society of 19th-century Britain, on terms of deference rather than subservience.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 77–82</ref>{{efn|A small number of known estate clauses, dating largely from the first half of the 19th century, has given rise to a stereotype of a yeomanry rank and file forced to serve by landlords. More likely, it was a "softer paternalism" that motivated voluntary service by a deferential tenantry seeking to curry favour with landlords.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 106</ref>}}

Although farmers represented the largest single demographic in the rank and file, statistics indicate that, between 1817 and 1915, just under half of yeomen were recruited from outside of the farming community. Other demographics appearing in the albeit incomplete data were merchants (4.9 per cent), professionals (5.6 per cent), small businessmen (14.9 per cent), artisans (13.5 per cent) and skilled or unskilled labourers (4.9 per cent).{{efn|Merchants sold or produced goods on a large scale, examples being grain merchants, warehousemen and manufacturers. Examples of professionals include lawyers, physicians, bankers, accountants, and also clerks. Small businessmen were innkeepers, hoteliers, butchers, grocers and tailors. Artisans provided a highly skilled service, examples being farriers, carpenters, masons and builders. Skilled labour included bricklayers, apprentices and machine operators, and unskilled labourers included agricultural, construction, mine and shop workers.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 254</ref>}} In some cases the ratio of farmers within the same corps varied over time, an example being the [[Ayrshire (Earl of Carrick's Own) Yeomanry|Ayrshire Yeomanry]], which comprised over 81 per cent farmers and their sons in 1831, a number which dropped to just over 60 per cent by 1880. The 1st Devon Yeomanry, on the other hand, shows largely unchanged ratios for the years 1834 (44.7 per cent) and 1915 (40.2 per cent). The ratios also varied between corps; for example, over 76 per cent of the [[Lanarkshire Yeomanry]] (Upper Ward) between 1822 and 1826 were farmers, but the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry of 1819 contained none.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 83–86</ref>

The early appearance of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry demonstrates an urban theme in yeomanry recruitment that became more marked as the 19th century progressed, influenced to some extent by an agricultural downturn in the late-19th century. In contrast to [[Lanarkshire]]'s Upper Ward regiment, its [[Glasgow]] and Lower Ward regiment, raised in 1848 and later to become the [[Queen's Own Royal Glasgow Yeomanry]], was recruited from the city's middle classes.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 92–93</ref><ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 92–93</ref> In the 1860s, the [[Leicestershire Yeomanry]] and the South Salopian Yeomanry (Shropshire) were both recruiting from towns in their territories, and by 1892 all but one troop of the [[Middlesex Yeomanry]] were recruited in London.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 92</ref> The urban element was not without its own issues of class. The rank and file of the Edinburgh Troop in the 1830s consisted mainly of gentlemen who were charged £12 ({{Inflation|UK|12|1830|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) to join, and the commander of the Middlesex Yeomanry's B Troop, which was known as the gentlemen's troop, believed there would be class friction if it was forced by the new squadron system of 1893 to join a troop of lesser status.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 94</ref>

The increasing use of hired mounts, particularly after the turn of the century, also indicates a dilution of the rural contingent in the rank and file. The percentage of horses that were hired rose dramatically, from up to 14 per cent in the last quarter of the 19th century to around 50 per cent in the period 1905–1907. Although this was a predictable trend in the case of, for example, the largely urban-recruited Middlesex Yeomanry, the more rurally-based East Kent Yeomanry experienced a progressive decline in the ownership of horses, from 76 per cent in 1880 to 66 per cent in 1884 and a little over a half in 1894.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 93–94</ref>

==Popular perception==
[[File:The Massacre of Peterloo.jpg|thumb|alt=Caricature of the yeomanry at the Peterloo Massacre|''The Massacre of Peterloo'' by caricaturist [[George Cruikshank]]]]
Peterloo polarised opinions in the press, the Radical outlets framing it in terms of murder and massacre and the establishment outlets tending more to a defence of the yeomanry. Although an extreme episode, the events at St. Peter's Field coloured perceptions of the yeomanry among the politically involved working class, who equated it with the abuse of civil power. Negative perceptions persisted long after the event, even in the upper echelons of society, and as late as 1850 Peterloo was referenced when the yeomanry's "inclinations" were criticised in Parliament.<ref name=Beckett2011p135 /><ref>Hay 2017 pp. 111–113</ref> In the mainstream national press, however, as Peterloo became yesterday's news, so too did the yeomanry, and, outside of public events which it attended in a ceremonial role, it was seldom reported on. More often, the yeomanry was the subject of [[caricature]], in which yeomen were portrayed as old, incompetent and waving blood-stained weapons. Caricature evolved into [[satire]], and magazines such as [[Punch (magazine)|''Punch'']] regularly ridiculed the force as the epitome of bumbling high society, with overweight yeomen unable to master their weapons or the sick, undersized horses they rode. Common themes in the portrayal of the yeomanry in books and on stage included amateurs with delusions of grandeur, social climbing, self-importance and a greater concern for leisure and appearance than national defence.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 113–118</ref>

The yeomanry's less confrontational activities resulted in a more positive interaction with the general public. It was often generous in its support for local charities, and its gatherings, whether for training or social events, injected wealth into local economies, to the extent that towns would petition regiments to be selected as venues for such occasions.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 119–120, 123 & 127</ref><ref>Wyndham-Quin p. 172</ref> Sporting events and pageantry, particularly the many occasions on which the yeomanry escorted royalty and visiting dignitaries, also drew appreciative crowds. The presentation of [[Military colours, standards and guidons|colours]] to the Wiltshire Yeomanry in 1798, for example, was watched by over 20,000 spectators, yeomanry bands entertained visitors at the opening of the [[The Arboretum, Nottingham|Nottingham Arboretum]] in 1852, and the Royal [[Midlothian]] Yeomanry Cavalry Races in 1863 attracted a considerable attendance.<ref name=Beckett-p76 /><ref>Hay 2017 pp. 122 & 128–130</ref>

Although the political allegiance of yeomanry MPs in the House of Commons was fairly evenly split between the two main parties by the early 20th century, this was after a gradual shift in political affiliations since 1843, when the ratio of politically active members of the yeomanry was significantly [[Tory]].<ref name="Hay2017pp8–9">Hay 2017 pp. 8–9</ref>{{efn|In 1843, some 80 per cent of yeoman politicians were [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]], declining to 68 per cent in 1852 and around 50 per cent in 1870, and increasing only slightly in favour of the Conservatives by 1908.<ref name="Hay2017pp8–9" />}} ''[[The Satirist]]'' cast the yeomanry as "ultra Tories" in 1838, and the perception of the force as an instrument of the Tory establishment made some local authorities cautious in its use against political reformers during the Chartist disturbances.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 8 & 157</ref> In terms of the yeomanry leadership at least, the nature of the reform movement in the first half of the 19th century meant that the yeomanry was regularly pitted against a different class, but it was called upon to do so by governments of both political parties. Furthermore, its membership was not without sympathies for the causes it was called upon to police, and there are a number of cases in the early 1830s where the loyalties of some of its corps were doubted.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 137–138</ref><ref>Hay pp. 168–170</ref>

==Funding, remuneration and terms of service==
[[File:Knoetel yeomanry 1899.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Drawing illustrating different yeomanry uniforms|Different uniforms of various yeomanry regiments c.1899]]
Yeomen had to provide their own horses, but saddlery and uniforms were paid for, either by the officers or by subscriptions in the counties in which the troops were raised, leading to a variety of colourful and flamboyant choices in attire. Their weapons&nbsp;– swords, pistols and a proportion of [[carbine]]s per troop&nbsp;– were funded by the government.<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 10 & 23</ref> Other than when called out for duty, when it would be paid as regular cavalry, the yeomanry received no remuneration until 1803, when the first allowances were granted. The confused legislation of the early 19th century meant that different corps, and even different troops within the same corps, operated under different terms and conditions until the Volunteer Consolidation Act of 1804 introduced some uniformity. It restricted pay to a maximum of 24 days per annum, set 12 days of training as the qualification for exemption from conscription into other auxiliary arms, offered bounties for active service and gave yeomen the right to resign on 14 days notice. It did not, however, amend the different areas of liability (military district or nationwide) set by previous legislation.<ref name="Beckett 2011 pp. 101–102"/><ref>Athawes pp. 9–10 & 24</ref><ref>Wyndham-Quin pp. 3–4</ref> In 1816, the annual training requirement was reduced to eight days, inclusive of two days travelling, and the next year an annual allowance of £1 10s ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|1.5|1817|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) per yeoman was awarded to help with uniform and equipment costs.<ref name=Beckett2011p133>Beckett 2011 p. 133</ref>{{Inflation/fn|UK-GDP}}

In addition to weapons and allowances, expenses incurred by the government in maintaining the yeomanry included the permanent staff, compensation for losses and injuries to men and horses, and pay at 7s per day for annual training and when called out.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 17, 100 & 107</ref> Volunteers also benefitted by exemption from [[Duty on Hair Powder Act 1795|hair powder duty]] until 1869 and horse duty until 1874.<ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 87"/><ref>Hay 2017 p. 101</ref> Between 1816 and 1821, the cost of maintaining the yeomanry had risen by nearly 46 per cent, and with only seven per cent of the total cost directly attributable to aiding the civil power in 1819, governments struggled to justify the expense.<ref name=Beckett2011p133 /> Cuts to the force on economic grounds were legislated twice, in 1827 and 1838, saving £92,000 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|92000|1827|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) and £22,000 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|22000|1838|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) respectively.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 13</ref>{{Inflation/fn|UK-GDP}}

Government funding, however, consistently fell short of actual requirements. Subsidisation of the yeomanry by its members, particularly the officers, was common practice throughout its existence, and not only during those periods when corps were maintained at their own expense. [[Other Windsor, 6th Earl of Plymouth|Lord Plymouth]] paid £6,200 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|6200|1832|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) to equip a troop of Worcestershire Yeomanry in 1832, and the [[William Ward, 1st Earl of Dudley|Earl of Dudley]] was reputed to have spent £4,000 (approximately {{Inflation|UK-GDP|4000|1854|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=-4}}) per year on the same corps between 1854 and 1871. The second [[Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos|Duke of Buckingham and Chandos]] was said to have been bankrupted in 1848 in part by the massive contribution he made to his regiment, which received no government funding between 1827 and 1830.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 133–134</ref> In 1882, it was calculated that officers paid an average of £20 each ({{Inflation|UK|20|1882|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) and the men up to £5 each ({{Inflation|UK|5|1882|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) towards the cost of their regiments, giving a total subsidy of £61,500 ({{Inflation|UK|61500|1882|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) in a year when the government voted a £69,000 budget ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|69000|1882|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) for the yeomanry.<ref>Hay 2017 pp. 19–20</ref> Twenty years later, the annual cost of being a yeomanry officer was estimated to be £100 ({{Inflation|UK|100|1902|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) in excess of the pay and allowances received by the officer.<ref name="Beckett 2011 p. 189"/> This willingness to support itself with private funding was another major factor in the yeomanry's survival after its usefulness in suppressing civil disorder disappeared.<ref>Hay 2017 p. 119</ref>{{Inflation/fn|UK-GDP}}

Changes were made to the yeomanry terms and conditions in the second half of the 19th century. The National Defence Act of 1888 made it liable to serve anywhere in the country, and four years later an annual capitation grant of £1 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|1|1892|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) was awarded. However, the force remained largely subject to the terms set by the Volunteer Consolidation Act of 1804 until the passage of the Militia and Yeomanry Act in 1901.<ref>Beckett 2011 pp. 188 & 207</ref> The new legislation replaced the right to resign on 14 days' notice with a three-year term of service for new recruits; increased the annual training requirement to 18 days, 14 of which were compulsory; introduced a £3 allowance ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|3|1901|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) per man and grants of £20 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|20|1901|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) and £30 ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|30|1901|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) for squadron and regimental stores; reduced duty pay to 5s 6d per day ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|.275|1901|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}), compensated for by extra daily allowances for travel, musketry practice, forage during permanent duty, and squadron drills, which in total amounted to an extra 10s 6d ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|.525|1901|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}); and introduced a £5 allowance ({{Inflation|UK-GDP|5|1901|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) for the hire of horses.{{Inflation/fn|UK-GDP}}

The incorporation of the yeomanry into the Territorial Force in 1908 introduced further adjustments. Duty pay was reduced by 1s 2d per day, compensated for by free rations, a messing allowance of 1s per day was introduced and £1 was awarded for reaching a set standard of horsemanship. The new organisation also introduced some significant changes to the terms and conditions, including a four-year term of service and reducing annual camp to fifteen days, eight of which were necessary to gain a certificate of efficiency. The most fundamental change of all, however, was the transfer of administration from the regiments to the newly created [[County Territorial Association]]s. These were made responsible for the provision of horses, and relieved the officers of the burden and expense of maintaining the regiments.<ref>Beckett 2008 p. 43</ref><ref>Hay 2017 pp. 107, 213 & 231</ref>

==Heritage==
{{see also|British yeomanry during the First World War}}
[[File:Lady Butlers Charge at Huj.jpg|thumb|alt=Lady Butler's painting of the cavalry charge at Huj|''Jerusalem Delivered'' by [[Elizabeth Thompson|Lady Butler]], depicting the 1/1st Warwickshire Yeomanry and 1/1st Queen's Own Worcestershire Hussars in one of the British Army's last cavalry charges at Huj.]]
Yeomanry regiments served overseas during the [[First World War]], in [[Western Front (World War I)|France]], at [[Gallipoli Campaign|Gallipoli]], in Egypt and during the [[Sinai and Palestine Campaign]]. The nature of the conflict in Europe precluded the use of mounted forces; cavalry actions were rare, and several regiments finished the war re-purposed as infantry. The same fate befell a number of yeomanry regiments posted to the [[Middle East]], although the yeomanry [[2nd Mounted Division]], having fought as infantry at Gallipoli, reverted to the cavalry role on its return to Egypt. Being more conducive to mounted operations, the Sinai and Palestine Campaign saw extensive use of the yeomanry, though it often fought dismounted. Some of the last ever cavalry charges conducted by the British Army were made by yeomanry regiments during the campaign, by the 1/1st [[Warwickshire Yeomanry]] and 1/1st Queen's Own Worcestershire Hussars in the [[charge at Huj]] on 8 November 1917, followed five days later with a charge by the 1/1st [[Royal Buckinghamshire Yeomanry|Royal Bucks Hussars]] in the [[Battle of Mughar Ridge]].<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 38–47</ref>

In 1921, of the 56 yeomanry regiments active after the First World War, only 14 were retained in the cavalry role, while 16 were disbanded and the remainder converted to either batteries of the [[Royal Field Artillery]] or armoured car companies of the [[Royal Tank Regiment|Tank Corps]].<ref>Hay 2016 pp. 37 & 39–40</ref> As with previous attempts to relieve the yeomanry of its cavalry role, a number of regiments resisted the change, concerned that the new roles would result at best in an unacceptable change to the unique character of the force and at worst wholesale resignations. Political lobbying succeeded only in increasing the number of regiments to be retained from the originally proposed ten.<ref>Hay 2016 pp. 40–48</ref>

[[File:Reservists Training to be Challenger Tank Crew MOD 45156269.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Photograph of a modern yeomanry tank|[[Challenger 2]] tank of the [[Royal Wessex Yeomanry]], one of four regiments which preserve the yeomanry heritage in the 21st century.]]
The yeomanry saw active service during the [[Second World War]] in armour, artillery, [[Anti-aircraft warfare|anti-aircraft]] and [[Anti-tank warfare|anti-tank]] roles. Units fought in Europe during the [[Battle of France]], the [[Normandy landings]] and the subsequent [[North West Europe Campaign|campaign in North-West Europe]], in North Africa during the [[Western Desert Campaign]], in [[Italian Campaign (World War II)|Italy]] and against Japanese forces in [[Battle of Singapore|Singapore]] and [[Japanese conquest of Burma|Burma]]. Yeomanry regiments were also deployed in their traditional cavalry role to [[Mandatory Palestine|Palestine]], though by 1941 only three regiments still retained their horses. The last action by British cavalry on horseback was fought on 10 July against [[Vichy France|Vichy French]] forces in Syria by the [[Queen's Own Yorkshire Dragoons]], which also had the distinction of being the last regiment on active service in the British Army to give up its horses.<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 52–65, 118</ref><ref>Beckett 2008 pp. 141–142</ref> Several post-war reorganisations resulted in more disbandments and the reduction of surviving regiments to cadres, leaving only the [[Royal Yeomanry]], which performed an armoured reconnaissance role. In 1971 the cadres were restored to form three new yeomanry infantry regiments, and in the 21st century these were converted to armour-based roles alongside the Royal Yeomanry in the [[Royal Armoured Corps]].<ref>Mileham 2003 pp. 66–68</ref><ref>Beckett 2008 pp. 69–70</ref>
{{clear}}

== See also ==
{{Portal|United Kingdom}}
* [[List of units of the British Army Territorial Force 1908#Yeomanry|List of Yeomanry Regiments 1908]]
* [[List of British Army Yeomanry Regiments converted to Royal Artillery]]

== Footnotes ==
{{Notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Bibliography ==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book
  |last=Athawes
  |first=Peter D.
  |title=Yeomanry Wars: The History of the Yeomanry, Volunteer and Volunteer Association Cavalry. A Civilian Tradition from 1794.
  |publisher= Scottish Cultural Press
  |location=Aberdeen
  |year= 1994
  |isbn=978-1898218029
}}
* {{cite book
  |last=Beckett
  |first=Ian Frederick William
  |title=Territorials: A Century of Service
  |publisher= DRA Publishing
  |location=Plymouth
  |year= 2008
  |isbn=978-0955781315
}}
* {{cite book
  |last=Beckett
  |first=Ian Frederick William
  |title=Britain's Part-Time Soldiers: The Amateur Military Tradition: 1558–1945
  |publisher= Pen & Sword Military
  |location=Barnsley, South Yorkshire
  |year= 2011
  |isbn=978-1848843950
}}
* {{cite journal
  |last1 = Hay
  |first1 = George
  |date = 2016
  |title = The Yeomanry Cavalry and the Reconstitution of the Territorial Army
  |journal = War in History
  |volume =  23
  |issue =1
  |pages = 36–54
  |doi = 10.1177/0968344514536704
  |s2cid = 156787231
 }}
* {{cite book
  | last = Hay
  | first = George
  | year = 2017
  | title = The Yeomanry Cavalry and Military Identities in Rural Britain, 1815–1914
  | publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
  | location = London
  | isbn = 978-3319655383
}}
* {{cite journal
  |last1 = Mileham
  |first1 = Patrick
  |date = 1985
  |title = The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820
  |journal = Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research
  |volume = LXIII
  |issue = 253
  |pages = 20–30
  |jstor = 44229635 <!-- Article is split over 2 editions. Second JSTOR ref = 44224358 -->
}}
* {{cite journal
  |last1 = Mileham
  |first1 = Patrick
  |date = 1985
  |title = The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820 (continued)
  |journal = Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research
  |volume = LXIII
  |issue = 254
  |pages = 104–112
  |jstor = 44224358
}}
* {{cite book
  | last = Mileham
  | first = Patrick
  | year = 2003
  | title = The Yeomanry Regiments; Over 200 Years of Tradition
  | publisher = Spellmount
  | location = Staplehurst
  | isbn = 978-1862271678
}}
* {{cite book
  | first = Henry | last = Wyndham-Quin
  | title = The Yeomanry Cavalry of Gloucestershire and Monmouth
  | publisher = Golden Valley Publications
  | location=Wormbridge, Herefordshire
  | year = 2005
  | orig-year=First published 1898
  | edition=Facsimile
  | isbn = 978-0954257859
}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
* {{Commons category-inline|Yeomanry}}

[[Category:Yeomanry regiments of the British Army|Yeomanry regiments of the British Army]]
[[Category:Cavalry regiments of the British Army]]
[[Category:Army Reserve (United Kingdom)]]
[[Category:Military units and formations established in 1794]]
[[Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1908]]
[[Category:Volunteer military formations of the United Kingdom]]