The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

COLONEL BRADLEY.

Mr. HUMS had on a former occasion presented a
petition from Colonel Bradley, complaining of his dismissal from
the army, without having been allowed to make any defence, and
other matters, and had moved for certain papers to substantiate
the allegations of the petition, which the Noble Lord (Palmer-
ston) had thought proper to refuse ; but on the following day he
had brought down the commission from General Fuller, under
which Major Arthur had acted in the steps which he had taken
against Colonel Bradley at Honduras, for the purpose of justifying
the conduct of the Government in its proceedings against Colonel
Bradley. But something more was wanted to bring the matter
clearly to light ; and he therefore wished now to call for additional
docutnents. As he thought that in common fairness these papers
ought to be gratated, he was not then desirous of going into the
merits of the question; he would merely move for the documents
requisite fully to elucidate the subject.

Lord PALMERSTON' stated, that he believed
some of them were not now in existence. He had stated that
Col. Bradley had committed an act of disobedience of orders,
which, if allowed to pass unpunished, would be subversive of all
military discipline ; and the Government had come to that con-
clusion, not merely on the representation of Major Arthur, but on
the mistatements of Colonel Bradley. Phis point did not proper-
lye a cause ebeitt endeernt htehne o t
partiesice o f t 1,1
le,aBCourt o
if.Kt ihnagt' s
Court.e ch , whenTb
e thenl only
also ebsetiobnadthdenrneewlaysit,b wrheseptheeetr
tAo I acjoorl Arthur
yh. adl n a uotrhdoerri ttyo to
pro alc.et
this, the Commission from Gan. Fuller, Commander of
theF orcee
4.t Jamaica, to Major Arthur, was produced, and the Court
wtt then, ast of
a
opinion
ot
ntehle
Bradley Commissionb ,4
been was a
kept sufficientunde r authority;arrestfo
r
b
some time longer than he ought to have been, the Court thought
that he was entitled to some damages, and 100/. or 200/. had
been awarded him on account of the excess of imprisonment.
The Honourable Gentleman, on a former occasion, had as•
serted, that there was no such Commission in existence. On
that Account he had laid the Military Commission before the
House, together with a Civil Commission, granted to Major
Arthur. He had further produced 'an extract of a letter from
Major Arthur, proving clearly that Major Arthur, at the time of
the transaction, was perfectly aware of the authority under which
he acted ; so that it was clear that the Commission was panted
at the time it bore date, and not subsequently made out, as had
been insinuated. The Hon. Gentleman appeared to be confound-
ing in his own mind questions altogether distinct.
Mr. HUME stated that this was a case of the
utmost importance in a general point of view, and was, therefore,
of much more consequence than if it had applied to Colonel
Bradley alone, although one could not but be extremely sorry that
a deserving individual had been so used. Colonel Bradley had
been for twenty years in the army, and, during eighteen of these,
had served in the West Indies ; and whatever acts he committed,
which had the appearance of insubordination, were owing to
Major Arthur himself, who had not published his Commission.
It was extremely hard, then, that Colonel Bradley should be thus
condemned merely on the assertion of Ministers. When Colonel
Bradley came home, he commenced his action in the Court of
King's Bench, against Major Arthur, who was defended by the
Crown lawyers, at the expense of the Crown. It had been there
held, tht the Commission was sufficient ; but he could not help
conaidering that a 4 a
*stake of the Learned Judge. Still, how-
ever, Colonel Bradley had a:verdict in his favour ; but Major
Arthur had been hurried off by the Ministers to Van Dieman's
Land, as Governer, so that Colonel Bradley had not even an op-
portunity of procuring his damages or expenses..
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that it had at last
become necessary that this question should be brought to some
termination. Originally, it was represented by the Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Hume), that the Whole question was, whether
any Commission existed that justified Colonel Arthur in assuming
the military command of Honduras. The Noble Lord (Palmer-
Stun) asserted in the most positive manner, that there was a Com-
mission of that nature in existence. The Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Hume) expressed a strong suspicion, that the Commission,
if any existed, must have been a fabrication. This statement was
certainly one of those which approached the extreme limit of de-
bate. The fact? however, was soon placed beyond all doubt.--

The Commission itself was produced, and it them further appeared
that it was signed by Gen. Fuller in 1814, and had the effect of
devolving the military command of the colony upon Col. Arthur.
The Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume), on the pro-
duction of this document, shifted his ground. He no longer de-
nied its existence , but he contended that the Commission was not
properly worded, and therefore that it did not entitle Col. Arthur
to take the command upon himself. [On the delivery of this passage
in the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, we believe Mr. Hume was
in the act of rising to address the House]. The Right Honour-
able Secretary continued. He assured the Honourable Gentleman
that he would not misrepresent his arguments, which he per-
fectly well remembered. The Hon. Gentleman denied that the
Commission gave Colonel Arthur authority to assume the military
command ; yet what were the words of the Commission ? It
empowered Colonel Arthur to take the command of all the armed
persons in the settlement. But the Hon. Gentleman insisted that
this was not explicit enough to warrant Colonel Arthur in taking
the command of the King's troops. They, he maintained, were
not included in the general terms used in the appointment. The
Commission should have stated distinctly that Colonel Arthur was
to have the chief military command in the colony. That was the
question at issue between the parties, and it was upon that ques-
tion the Court of King's Bench had to decide when the case was
under consideration before that tribunal. The whole inquiry
turned upon these points : " Was it a legal Commission ? Did
it entitle Colonel Arthur to take the command, not only of the
local militia, but also of the King's troops ?" The question was
clearly settled in the lengthened argument of Lord Chief Justice
Abbott. If the House, then, were satisfied that the Commission
was in existence, and had confidence in the judgment of the four
Judges of the King's Bench, they must be satisfied, that, as to
every question of law and fact, Colonel Arthur was fully justified.
The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded by saying, that such
being the state of the case, he hoped the House would concur
with him in resisting the production of any more papers re-
specting it.
Mr. BERNAL stated that, in his opinion, the
principal point was one which the Right Hon. Gentleman had
overlooked, namely, whether General Fuller had legal authority
to grant the Commission in question to any officer. In the deci-
sion pronounced by the Court of King's Bench, Mr. Justice Lit-
tledale had taken no part, because he had been originally engaged
as counsel in the cause. But it would be seen by reference to the
report of the trial, that the other Judges did not sufficiently advert
to the point to which he (Mr. Bernal) was calling the attention of
the House. The case of Col. Bradley was one altogether of great
hardship, and he would take the liberty of advising the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) to represent it in the highest quarter,
is one well deserving of redress. •
Sir H. HARDINGE raid, that the only thing lie
regretted in this case was the misfortunes of the individual.
The motion was then negatived without a division.

Mr. HUME, on moving the next resolution, re-
marked, that if the Gallant Officer who had last addressed the
House had taken time enough to investigate the facts of the case,
he would have found that Colonel Arthur was not considered to
hold a Staff appointment, when he exercised the command at
Honduras. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for
Copies of any Official Notification of the appointment of Colonel
Arthur, under the Commission granted to him by General Fuller.
Mr. WOOD thought the production of these do-
cuments would tend to save the time of the House, and secure
the approbation of the country.
The motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. HUME next moved for a copy of the letter

from Colonel Torrens to General Fuller, relative to the ap-
pointment of Colonel Smith.—The motion was negatived without
a division.
Mr. HUME next moved for a copy of the Duke of
Manchester's commission, dated 7th July, 1824, appointing Major
Arthur Commandant of all his Majesty's subjects, armed, and to
be armed, at Honduras.
In moving for this document, Mr. HUME made
some observations, which were not distinctly audible in the Gal-
lery, in the course of which he was interrupted by
Lord PALMERSTON, who rose for the purpose
of asking the Hon. Member whether, in stating that assertions
had been made in that House not founded in fact, he meant to
apply the observations personally to him (Lord P.) ?
Mr. HUME said, that what he meant to convey
was, that assertions not founded in fact, had been made in that
House, and that he therefore chose rather to rely on the evidence
of authenticated documents.

Lord PALMERSTON felt himself called upon
again tb inquire of the Hon. Member, whether he meant to apply
the observation personally to him (Lord P.) ?
Mr. HUME did not think the Noble Lord en-

titled to any courtesy from him (Mr. H.) The Noble Lord had
stated on a former occasion, that although he was ready to satisfy

the House, he did not think himself bound to answer any question
which he (Mr. H.) might put to him. He had no right at pre-
sent, therefore, to expect any courtesy from him (Mr. H.), hav-
ing on that occasion so notedly declined acting as a gentleman.—
(Cries of " order, order.")

The SPEAKER said, that it was the duty of every
person who had the honour to sit in that House, to take care that
the Orders of the House were complied with ; and that, lf_a.
any
irregularity escaped an Honourable Member in the warmth
the
of de-
bate, he was bound, if the irregularity were noticed, to satisfy
House that the expression was not meant to conasveiyt
might thing
which would be as disrespectful to that House,
ht be
If he understood
painful to the feelings of Honourable Mau
he
aid before the House were
was, that authenticated instruments
:bat could be made in that
better evidence than any arenrtint,
be was sure, be perfectly
House. Such an explanatio
and to every body in that House.
the Honourable Member's explanation, all intended to convey
satisfactory to the Noble Lord,
With respect to
the Honourable Member must himself feel
lie was quite sure that
dniv .
and he was satisfied that the Hon.
disorder]. e . 7
that it was highly
could not have deliberately intended to make it.
the last observation of the Honourable Member,
never felt any inclination to offend
UofMthEe House, and had uniformly endeavoured, in the
adAnii;yeclaihAabliteeginrebi-oeLfr his public duties, to give as little personal offence as
Possible. It might be inferred therefore, from the general tenour
of his conduct, that it was not his intention to insult any one. He
had no hesitation in saying that he did, on the present occasion,
mean to tell the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Hume) would return
the same conduct which the Noble Lord had shown towards him
on a former occasion. If he had done wrong, he begged pardon
of the House; but he certainly thought the Noble Lord had no
right"to expect any reply from him, as a matter of courtesy, hav-
ing shown so little courtesy to him on a former occasion.
The motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. HUME subsequently moved for several papers
connected with the case of Colonel Bradley, and the motions were
' severally negatived without a division.