The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-02 00:00:00

contained serious charges, not only with respect to the
character of Colonel Arthur, but the army generally.
Since he had presented that petition, the Noble Lord oppo-
site had presented a petition from Colonel Arthur, praying
also for an inquiry. Considering that Noble Lord had al-
ways been opposed to inquiry, it was most extraordinary that
Col. Arthur should have fixed on him to present the petition.
T►i'e charges in the petition of Col. Bradley might be divi-
ded into two heads ; first—that Colonel Arthur
during his appointment in the Honduras had usurped
the military command of the King's troops there, and
that during that command he had exercised that authority
with injustice and inhumanity. When he (Mr. D.) brought
this subject forward on a former occasion, he was told
that Colonel Arthur was in Van Diemen's Land, and that
it was not right to make those charges in his absence.
Colonel Arthur was now in England, and within the call
of the House ; therefore, he had no scruple now in
repeating those charges, and moving for a Committee
before which he could substantiate them.—(Hear, hear.)
He would prove the charges of cruelty and inhumanity
against Colonel Arthur, not only by documentary but by
oral evidence, if the Committee were granted. The Hon.
Member here referred to an extract from a letter addressed
to a London merchant, from Honduras, which stated that
the writer had known soldiers to be flogged by tap of drum.
Captain Willis did not deny the fact of such corporal
punishment having been inflicted. He merely stated that
he had no recollection of it ; but he (Mr. Duncombe) would
bring forward persons who had a distinct recollection
of the facts. There was a most respectable merchant now
in London who would come before the Committee and state
that Cook was given 550 lashes by tap of drum, and
so severe was it that many of the men were obliged to
leave the ranks. He was in the militia in Honduras at the
time, and saw the punishment. He was called a very hu-
mane man, but he could not find out in what it consisted.
Another case of a similar nature was that of a man named
Doherty, who had been punished in exactly the same man-
ner. Various other cases of inhumanity had been adduced.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the allegations contained in the peti-
tion of Thomas Bradley, Esq., late Lieutenant-Colonel 2d
West India Regiment, presented to the House on the 17th
of February last.
Lord HO WICK considered it his duty to oppose the
motion. He regretted that the correspondence which took
place between the Commander-in-Chief and himself was
not yet printed, and placed in the hands of Hon. Members.
The press of business had prevented its completion ; but
to-morrow morning Hon. Members would have it in their
possession. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had divided
the charge into two parts, the first of which referred to the
circumstances attendant on Colonel Arthur's assumption of
the chief military command at Honduras, by which Colonel
Bradley was removed from his post ; and the second re-
lated to the acts of cruelty and inhumanity which it was al-
leged were perpetrated during his command —( Hear,
hear.) Respecting the first part—namely, the right of
Col. Arthur to assume the chief military command, he
did not think the House ought to grant a Committee of
Inquiry, because the question had already been subjected
to another tribunal better qualified to decide. An
English Court of law had recorded their verdict in the
action instituted by Colonel *Bradley against Col. Arthur.
The Court of King's Bench had awarded the sum of 1001.
damages to the former. This sum had been given
against Col. Arthur, on the ground of severe imprisonment,
but a distinct negative was put on the assertion that the
command had been improperly assumed by Col. Arthur.
The sum awarded was considered by Col. Bradley as too
small, if the command was illegal, and he applied for a
new trial in order to prove the point. The evidence of
Sir Henry Taylor and other military officers clearly proved
that Col. Arthur was entitled to the command, and the
Jourt of King's Bench decided that a new 'trial ought not
to be granted. After such a decision he could not consent
that the matter should again be entered into. If he had
been in the situation of Commander-in-Chief, which the
Duke of York then filled, he certainly would not have
dealt so leniently with Colonel Bradley as to allow him to
quit the service without a Court-martial. The Duke
took into consideration his former good conduct, and
left him the price of his majority. These were his rea-
sons for objecting to a Committee of Inquiry on the first
part of the charge. With respect to the second, that
Colonel Arthur had been guilty of various acts of cruelty
and inhumanity, which, if true, would sink him into an
abyss of infamy, he should also object to an inquiry.
These were alleged to have taken place between the years
1818 and 1820. How came it to pass that, though Col.
Bradley was hostile to Col. Arthur, not a hint of this con-
duct was thrown out until the debate of last year on mili-
tary flogging ? How did it happen that 18 or 19 years
were suffered to elapse without some charge being brought
forward on the subject ? Was it to be tolerated that an
inquiry should now be granted relative to acts alleged to
have taken place so many years before ? It was this con-
sideration which influenced him, when the Commander-in-
Chief referred the case to his investigation, to refuse the
inquiry. He stated in his letter to Lord Hill, as Hon.
Gentlemen would see when the printed papers were, in the
morning, placed in their hands, that, however Colonel Ar-
thur might desire an inquiry, yet a refusal must be given,
as the length of time which had elapsed since the alleged
impropriety of conduct was a complete bar to any investi-
gation at present. If this application were granted there
was nothing to hinder charges being brought against other
officers, and, though the charges might be utterly false,
what difficulty might they not have in disproving them,
from the death of witnesses or other circumstances at-
tendant on the length of time which had elapsed ? The
Hot). Gentleman had dwelt on the evidence to be brought
against Col. Arthur, and had produced considerable effect
on the House by the narration of the various cases. Let
the House look to what the evidence really was. In the case
of Ingram the evidence was merely hearsay. Persons in this
country spoke of what they heard told by a drummer and
a black man at Honduras, and on that evidence the Ho-
nourable Gentleman thought the case was established.
Those witnesses were still at Honduras, and if the Committee
were appointed its proceedings were at a stand-still until
these witnesses were brought over. But, by a sort of provi-
dential chance, he happened to possess evidence that Col.
Arthur was distinguished by a spirit of leniency when in his
command at Honduras, and that the Magistrates had deemed
it necessary to address him a letter requesting that an
example might be made, and pointing at this very man In-
gram as a fit person for the infliction.—(Hear.) He pos-
sessed also letters from four officers now surviving, who had
been present at Ingram's punishment, and they positively
denied the fact that he had been punished by tap of drum.
—(Here the Noble Lord read the letters from the magis-
trates and the officers.) He had, besides, the evidence of
three private soldiers of the 2d West India Regiment, also
denying the truth of the allegations in Ingram's case. In
Cooke's case the facts were these :—Before Colonel Arthur
went to the colony there was an anomalous state of judicial
authority, arising from the nature of the treaty between
this country and Spain. Considerable difficulty was found
in establishing a proper tribunal, particularly for grave
offenders. The mode of dealing with these was to esta-
blish Military Courts-martial to try them. Colonel Ar-
thur doubted of the propriety of awarding death in such a
manner, and he set his face against the practice. For atro-
cious offences, however, he did not object to have recourse
to the long-established practice. The magistrates of the
colony pointed out the case of Cooke as one to be
tried, and added that he was charged with a most atro-
cious burglary. The man was tried by the Court-mar-
tial and sentenced—not by the wish of Colonel Arthur, but
because the case deserved it. The whole secret of the
charges made against Colonel Arthur now was, that he had
formerly, in the discharge of his duty, informed against cer-
tain persons in the colony, who had detained Indians as
slaves, contrary to law. He had too good an opinion of the
sense of justice which governed the Hon. Gentleman's pro-
ceedings, not to believe that he would withdraw the motion.
Mr. HUME said it was the duty of that House to sup-
port the present motion, for if it should be rejected, the
greatest injustice would be done to a meritorious officer.
Sir H. HARDINGE said, that after the very clear and
able statement of the Noble Lord the Secretary at War,
he felt quite convinced that the House ought not to sanc-
tion the present motion. He should oppose the motion,
because, if such a course were sanctioned, any officer would
be liable, after a lapse of twenty years, perhaps, as in the
present case, to have charges of this description brought
against him.
Colonel THOMPSON should vote for the present
motion.

Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, which were quite
inaudible.
Major BEAUCLERK should support the motion,
although he feared there was but little chance of its success.
Mr. WAKLEY was greatly surprised at the determi-
nation of the Gallant General opposite (Sir H. Hardinge)
to oppose the motion, after the observations which had
fallen from that Hon. and Gallant Officer on the subject
on a former occasion.
After a few words from Mr. Ward, Mr. G. F. Young,
and Mr. Dumcombe, in reply,
The House divided—