The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-11 00:00:00

RETURNS.

Several Returns from the Treasury and the Customs were
brought up and ordered to be printed.
The Haverlordwest Improvement Bill was read a third time
and passed.
PAISLEY AND RENFREW RAILWAY.

On the motion of Sir M. STUART this Bill was read a
third time and passed.

BODMIN ROAD BILL.

On the motion of Mr. VIVIAN, this Bill was read a third
ime and passed.

MEDWAY NAVIGATION BILL.

Mr. E LPHIN ST ONE rose to move the re-commitment of
this Bill, on the ground that the Committee had not made
sufficient enquiry, and had not taken evidence of any sort.
On the second reading of the Bill, an agreement or compro-
mise had been entered into between the supporters and oppo-
nents of the Bill, and in that agreement it was stated that it
was not intended to deprive the Company of any rights
which they possessed by law, and the parties were left
at liberty to give evidence as to those rights. The Com-
mittee, however, decided that they would not proceed
further with the Bill. Under these circumstances, he moved
that the Bill be re-committed.

Mr. HODGE S, as a friend to the Bill, could not approve
of its being now re-committed, subject to the agreement to
which the Hon. Member had referred. He thought it. would
be much better to defer it to the next Session, but if the sup-
porters of the Bill pressed it, he (Mr. H.) should not oppose
its being re-committed.

Sir F. BURDETT thought the measure as mischievous a
public monopoly as could well be described, and he trusted
the House would therefore see sufficient grounds to refer it to
another Committee.

Mr. HODGES explained.
Mr. PLUMPTRE had come down fully prepared to divide
the House upon the question—(Hear, hear)—but as he
understood that an agreement had been come to between
the Hon. Member for West Kent and the Hon. Member for
Westminster, he had determined not to enforce it. An at-
tempt was now made to renew the matter, and he trusted
the House would not allow itself to be trifled with in the
manner in which it was now endeavoured to trifle with it.

Mr. WARBURTON wished to know why the parties
who were endeavouring to defeat this monopoly should be de-
feated in their laudable attempt. All that was wanted was,
that the whole merits of the case should be gone into ; but
he thought, after all the allegations and charges that had
been made it would be much better to wait to another session,

for the purpose of repudiating them. In another session he
was sure the House would not stop inquiry into such allegations.
His advice, therefore, to the parties was, that for their own
sakes they should put it off for another session and enter into
no agreement with the other party, but bring in a Bill upon
its own merits.—( Hear. )
Mr. HERRIES concurred in the recommendation of the
Hon. Member who had just sat down, and hoped the parties
would adopt his suggestion. The Hon. Baronet, the Member
for Westminster, had entirely mistaken the nature of the agree-
ment entered into between the parties—one of whom had
broken its conditions, and then the Committee stopped the
enquiry.
Captain PEC HE LL would also recommend the Hon.
Member for Hastings to withdraw his motion.
Mr. HUME contended that he had no right to be bound
by the arrangements of any party. He denied that the arrange-
ment had been violated by such party. The Committee
admitted that there were serious complaints against one com-
pany, and yet they had refused that party an opportunity of
defending themselves. On principle the House ought not to
allow these charges to hang over their heads another year, and
common justice required that the Bill should be re-committed.
Mr. HERRIES explained.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG hoped the House would deter-
mine to recommit this Bill. He did not think that the
promoters of the Bill had acted in a consistent manner—
and though he was not a friend to the Bill, yet as he
was of opinion that it involved a great matter in which the
public were much interested, and as he thought the Com-
mittee had been in error, lie would vote for the re-
committal of the Bill, especially as he saw that the
Committee had accompanied their Report with a hope
that the Company would take measures for the redress
of the grievances complained of, when it appeared that
they had no power to redress such grievances.
Lord MA HON defended the conduct of the Committee,
and he had no doubt, if the Hon. Members on the other side
had attended it, they would have come, necessarily, to the
conclusion.

Mr. RUTHVEN had voted for the Report, because it ap-
peared that the parties to it had not kept good faith : he always
would support fair dealing, whatever his opinion upon the sub-
ject might be ; and, therefore, he would vote against the re-
committal of the Bill. _ _

_ ... ...._ _ ..... _____
The motion was withdrawn amidst loud cries of " Ques-
ion" and " Divide."

TITHES.

Captain PE CHELL presented a petition from Duckworth
and Staining, in the county of Sussex, impugning a late de-
cision in the case of Kemp v. Pechell, in the Court of Exche-
quer, relative to the tithes upon turnips which were grown for
the purpose of feeding sheep. He never had brought forward
any statement which was untrue, and he defied the Hon. Mem-
bers on the other side to prove the contrary. He now gave
them seven days clear notice, that if they did not within that
time produce a counter-petition they must for ever after hold
their peace.
Mr. A. TREVOR said, that having been called forth by
the Hon. and Gallant Member, he did not hesitate to stand
forward. Though he was not present when the former peti-
tion was presented, he must do the Hon. and Gallant Member
the justice to say, that he was certainly indebted indeed
to his courtesy for a notice of it ; but he was not present
when it was presented, because it was not a matter in which he
was concerned. Admitting the statement of the petition to
be correct, he thought Mr. Kemp was justified in endeavour-
ing to obtain that to which he was entitled, and the Hon. and
Gallant Member might as well bring complaints against trades-
men for recovering their bills by action, as petitions against
clergymen who had only protected themselves from wrong.
When a clergyman's living was the only support of himself and
his family, he would ask was it right that such a man
should be dragged before the House for seeking to obtain
what was his by law ? He wished that some legislative mea-
sure would be introduced to place the Clergy in some other
than their present cruelly invidious position.—( Hear, hear.)
He would repeat the statement he had made on a former oc-
casion, that he thought the clergy of the Established Church
were an extremely ill-used party ; and as long as he had the
honour of a seat in that House, he would never remain in his
place and hear insinuations cast upon that body which they
did not deserve.

The petition was then laid on the table.
Captain PECHE LL moved that the petition be presented,
as he wished to found upon it a notice of motion for
leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law as to tithes of
certain articles. He wished to state, in reply to what
had fallen from the Honourable Member, that he did not
bring any charge against the Clergy as a body. Ids
had singled out one case which he thought a very grievous, one.
The case, being for a sum under 101., might have teen de-
cided before two Justices, and ought not to bz ;mon& into
the Court of Exchequer, or, as it might in called, the Star
Chamber of the Court f Exchequer,
Sir H. HARDINGE hoped tht lion. and Gallant Member
would not insist upon the printing of the petition. The Hon.
Member had stigmatised the Court of Exchequer as a Star-
Chamber : now he believed that Lord Lyndhurst had given
very great satisfaction in that Court. He was sure that at
that late period of tlko session, the Hon. and Gallant Officer
could not, with any chance of success, bring in any legislative
measure upon this subject.
Captain PECHELL explained.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but
tiOrd HO WICK thought it would be extremely inconve-
Piellt to allow a division to take place upon the printing of a
petition, The better way would be to follow the ordinary
course, and refer it to the Committee appointed to decide upon
the printing of petitions.
Captain PE C H ELL seeing the opinion of the House was-
against him, would not press his motion to a division.

CASE OF COLONEL BRADLEY.
I.IWMAS PVNOOMPE rose to present the pod-

Lion of which he had given notice, relative to the dismissal
of Lieutenant-Colonel Bradley, of the 2d. West India Regi-
ment. The case was one of peculiar hardship, and might be
stated in a very small compass. The Hon. Member here
stated the facts connected with the case of petitioner, which
have been 'already frequently before the public. The
petitioner was second in 'command to Colonel Arthur-
at Honduras ; and upon Colonel Arthur's regiment of.
Chasseurs being disbanded, petitioner, as a matter of
right, claimed the command, and after several evasive replies,-
Colonel Arthur required petitioner to attend a meeting of
officers upon the subject, which petitioner refused to do,
and he was placed under close arrest for a period of
ten months—( Hear)—and at the expiration of that time
was dismissed the service. The petitioner had subsequently
brought an action for false imprisonment against Colonel
Arthur, and had obtained a verdict of 100/. damages. The
case was one of very peculiar hardship, and in his ( Mr. Dun-
combe's) opinion called for the interference of that House.
Lord HOW ICK said, as the Hon. Member had given
notice of his intention to move for a Committee, and as the
case had already been so often before the House on former
occasions—( Cheers)—he thought he would be consulting
the convenience' of the House by now abstaining
from all arguments on the case. When it came before the
House in a regular manner, he would state what his opinions
were upon the subject. He would now only say, that seven or
eight secretaries at war before him had agreed in opinion on
the case with him. They had concurred in opinion with him,
that there was nothing in the case of Colonel Bradley
that called for the interference of the House or the Govern-
ment. As far as his opinion went, so far from his
being treated with harshness by the late Duke of York, he
thought he had been treated with great leniency.—( Hear,
hear.) Even had the law of the case been quite
clear upon the matter, as presented by Colonel Bradley,
still he had been guilty of a very gross breach of military
discipline ; and, had he been brought before a court-mar-
tial, he (Lord Howick) was very doubtful if he would ever
have been allowed to sell out. In place of writing to his
superior officer requesting an explanation of the mistake, ho
issued orders in his own name as commandant, appealing to
the officers and men in his own favour. Major Arthur offered
to send home the statement of the whole case by a ship
then leaving, but Col. Bradley refused, and again appealed to
the men and officers, when he was put under arrest.
Mr. HUME was very sorry the Noble Lord had not
kept his promise to the House, and not have gone into
one part of the merits of the case and left out the
other. The Noble Lord had stated some facts which did
not appear before the House. Colonel Bradley, it ought to be
remembered, was Commandant of a Regiment, while Major
Arthur was merely on half-pay, and that after the parties came
home, the petitioner obtained damages in a court of justice for
his imprisonment—which damages were paid by Gowroment,
who refused Col. Bradley an inquiry into the circumstances.
There were now new circumstances in the case, because at the
trial the adjutant swore that Major Arthur acted under
a Commissioner from the Governor of Jamaica, when it now
appeared that there had been no such Commission issued for
the last 20 years. He thought Col. Bradley had acted for the
honour of the army in resisting such an innovation as a
Major ordering all kinds of punishment in a regiment com-
manded by a Colonel of twenty-one years' standing.
It was said that there was no commission, and consequently
Col. Bradley, after many years of important service,was entirely
superseded. The negation, or want of discipline, complained
of had been encouraged by the authorities at home • if the
Noble Lord agreed to a Committee to enquire into the merits
of that simple question upon which the whole trial turned,
he had no hesitation in saying that Colonel Bradley would
be able to prove a triumphant case, and shew that after 21
years service he was degraded, had lost his character as an
officer, and was ruined as a man. It was a very hard case, and
he had hoped that long ere this justice would have been done.
The returns before the House showed that no such commission
ever existed, and upon that point alone the merits of the ease
rested.

Sir H. HA R D INGE had heard this subject repeatedly dis-
cussed, and it fell to his lot to look through the papers
when he was Secretary at War ; and he also saw Col. Bradley.
After so doing he came to the same conclusion as that of the
Noble Lord, and he believed every Secretary at War who had
examined the case formed the same opinion. He did not
agree with the Hon. Member for Middlesex, as to the only
point upon which the question rested.
Mr. O'CONNEL L said there was a strong feeling
in the public mind that great injustice had been done
to Colonel Bradley, and consequently the public voice ran in
his favour. He hoped the Noble Lord would consider the case,
so as to put an end to further trouble to the House, for if the man
really felt that injustice was done to him, he would be less
than man if he remained quiet. If the facts were so strong
against him as had been insinuated, the public would concur in
the sentiment, that nothing should be done in the case.—
( Hear.) He hoped, therefore, before the motion was made,
the Noble Lord would well consider and deliberate upon the
case, to which be could not be suspected of being a party, for
at the time the transactions took place he was not a very active
politician.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE denied that all Secretaries at War
had been of the same opinion as the Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman opposite.—( Hear, hear.) One of the Presi-
' dents of the Board of Trade had written to Colonel Brad-
ley, and told him that he thought his case a hard one,
and Sir J. C. Hobhouse, the late Secretary at War, had de-
clared that he did not consider the damages he had obtained
a sufficient compensation, and he gave notice that on the 21st
of July be should move for a Select Committee to inquire into
this case.
Lord HOWICK contended that the arrest complained of
was merely a nominal one.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—He was kept in close confinement.
Lord HO WICK—He had the most comfortable quarters
in the barracks, and be was allowed daily exercise on horse-
back. He was told that there was no official information for
his removal from the army, but he was told that he was at

full liberty to go home upon making proper application.
The House had just decided in the case of the petition pre-
sented by the Hon. and Gallant Member for Brighton that
they would adhere to the ordinary practice, and he thought it
much better to adhere to it also in the present case.
Mr. DUNCOMBE could assure the House that Colonel
Bradley had stated to him that he had been in close confine-
ment in the barrack-rooms, and was not even allowed to walk
in the barrack-yard.
The subject then dropped.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from certain
Magistrates, residing in Finsbury, for the repeal of the 10th
and 28th of George 11.