The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-05 00:00:00

MPERIA LPA R LILA M VANT

THIS DAY, MONDAY, AUGUST 5.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

- - - -
The SPEAKER. took his seat at •a
quarter past twelve
o'clock.
On the motion of Sir R. INGLIS, Cruickshank's Estate
Bill was read a second time.
Lord LOWTHER brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on Thelluson's Estate Bill, with amendments.
Read a second time.
Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition from Cam-
berwell ag iinst the Bill now in the House called the St.
Giles's (Camberwell) Pool Bill; also a petition from the
landholders and freeholders of Peckham to the same eff,ct.
Mr. PARKER presented a petition from an attorney of
Sheffield, praying for compensation in case the law for the
abolition of imprisonment for debt be passed.
Mr. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Ham-
lets, praying that in the B .nk Charter Bill the restriction
as to the number of partners in banks of deposit be omitted,
and that such restriction might only apply to banks of issue.
The Hon. Member, in concurring with the prayer of the
petition, gave notice that, in the Committee on the Bill,
he would move an amendment to the second clause to the
above effect.

Mr. W. BROUGHAM supported the prayer of the peti.
Lion, as did Sir S. WHALLEY, WhO conceived that the
restriction alluded to would he a very prejudicial one.
Mr. W. FIELDEN presented a petition from Black-
burn in favour of church reform, and another petition
from the same place, praying for an alteration of the law
relating to Roman Catholic marriages.
Mr. POTTER wished to know whether the petition
which the Hon. Member bad last presented, was agreed to
at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Blackburn ?
Mr. W. FIELDEN believed that it was.
THE CASE OF LIEUT.-COLONEL BRADLEY.

Sir S. WHALLEY then rose, and presented a petition
of which he had given notice, from Liutenant-Colonel
Bradley, praying for an address to his Majesty to inquire
into the circumstances of his case. From the statements
of the Hon. Member it appeared that in the month of
March, 1818, the petitioner, who hall attained the rank of
Lieutenant-Colonel in the 2d West India Regiment,
became the commanding officer of the left wing
of his regiment, stationed at Honduras, and in 1819
received official intelligence of the intended reduction of
the York Chasseurs, the effect of which would be
to place upon the shoulders of Lieutenant Colonel
Bradley the whole responsibility of the military command
at Honduras. The petitioner had several conversations with
Lieutenant Colonel Arthur on the subject, who stated,
that should his regiment be reduced his military command
at Honduras would cease, and devolve on the petitioner.
In June, 1819, the York Chasseurs were emhnrked at
Jamaica, but the petitioner, in vain, applied to Lieut.-Col.
Arthur, to know if lie had received any notification of being
on half-pay, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur merely asserting that
he had received letters informing him he was in full pay,
and still insisting on having the command of the troops it
Honduras. The petitioner urged Lieut. -Col. Arthur to state
on what ground he persisted in holding the command, but
being unable to get any information from him, and believ.
ing that lie held the command in defiance of the notifica-
tion which he must have received of being on half•pay,
he wrote to him on the 2d of May, 1820, calling
upon him to state by what authority be still held
the commaad. To this Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur re-
turned no answer, but convened a meeting of officers, to
whom be stated that he had letters stating that he was
still on full pay, and would hold the command of the
troops.--( Hear, hear.) The petitioner, considering it
not his duty to attend a meeting of inferior officers,
declined doing so, nut expressed his readiness to wait upon
Col. Arthur and communicate with him. In conse•
quence of this, Colonel Arthur caused the petitioner to be
arrested, and appointed an offi er to the command of his
detachment, and stigmatised the petitioner as an officer
guilty of unmilitary and mutinous conduct, and in conse-
quence of the suggeetiona of his Royal Highness, the
Commander-in-Chief, the petitioner was ordered to be
removed from the army, as the petitioner believed, solely
by the false representations of Lieut.• Colonel Arthur. The
petitioner entreated an opportunity of clearing his character
b •tore a courtmartial, which request was not complied with.
He then brought an action for false imprisonment against
Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur, but was defeated by the pro-
duction of a pretended commission, purporting to have
been granted in 1814 by General Fuller. In conclu-
sion, the petitioner stated that by the course he had
adopted he had been only actuated by a sense of duty:
The Hon. Member's opinion was, that Colonel Bradley's
not succeeding in getting a verdict en the trial, did not bar
his right to redress. In this case, as in many others, not
even the shadow of a trial or cottrtmartial had been granted
to the unhappy individual on whom this heavy punish-
ment had been inflicted. Eve❑ Ireland, when cursed with
its Coercion Bill, had left to it the shadow of a court-
martial ; but British officers were placed in a worse situation
than the proclaimed districts of Ireland. He hoped that
Government would take the case into their favourable
consideration, and that they would restore Capt. Bradley
to that rank he so richly deserved. The Hon. Member
concluded by giving notice that he should, on the 15th
of August, move for the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee, to whom all the facts and documents should be
referred.

Colonel EVANS supported the petition. He consi-
dered that Colonel Arthur bad been guilty of a culpable
omission in not publishing his authority.
Colonel WILLIAMS took the same view of the case,
founded upon some knowledge of the service. He was of
opinion that Colonel Bradley had been most grossly in-
jured. It was a suspicious feature in the case that Colonel
Arthur had not made his authority public at the proper
period, but had kept Colonel Bradley in the dark upon it
—disputable as it was—until it was found convenient to
produce it as documentary evidence on the trial.
Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from certain silk
throwsters, praying to be exempted from the provisions of
the Factories Bill.
Mr SHAW LEFEVRE presented a petition in favour
of the better observance of the Sabbath, from St. Mary
Bourne.

Mr. BLAMIRE presented a petition from Mr. William
Augustus Kentish, of the city of London, praying that the
Bank of England Charter might not be renewed, and in
favour of a national bank, as the only bank of issue. The
lion. Member also presented petitions from the electors of
Cross Cannonby, in favour of vote by ballot; and from
Mr. John Taylor, attorney-at-law, Halston, paying the
House not to encourage the feverisb anxiety for alterations
in the course and courts of law, at present manifested.

Sir E. WILMOT presented two petitions from the
riband weavers in two parishes in the county of War-
wick, complaining of the great distress caused by a want
of employment, which they attributed to the free trade
system.

Mr. F. PAGET presented a petition from Bangor,
against that part of the abolition of slavery Bill which
related to the grant of 20 millions as compensation to the
planters.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from the
township of Hulme, in Manchester, complaining of the
late grievous surcharges made in the house assessments.

Mr. POTTER said he bad been requested to support
the petition from Hulme, which he begged to do. He
felt convinced that the general feeling which prevailed in
the country against the asses,ed taxes arose principally
from the system of surcharging which had been practised
throughout the country, many of which were of the most
oppressive and vexatious kind.