§ Mr. Humesaid, that in making his present motion he must necessarily bring under the consideration of the House a case of gross and flagrant military oppression. The facts on which his motion rested were well known to the House, as he had on more than one occasion presented them distinctly to its notice. He would, how 322 ever, briefly recapitulate them, in order that those members who had not seats in the last parliament might understand its object. In the course of the year 1814, while lieut.-colonel Arthur was acting as military governor of Honduras, the regiment in which he held the rank of lieut.-colonel was disbanded, and he himself reduced to half-pay. Lieut-colonel Bradley, who was then stationed with his regiment at Honduras, conceived that, as he was the older officer, and was also on full pay, he was entitled, by the laws of the service, to take the command of the military forces at Honduras from lieut-colonel Arthur, as that officer had been reduced from full to half-pay. Lieut.-colonel Arthur refused, however, to resign his command to lieut.-colonel Bradley, and claimed to act as military governor, on a commission from general Fuller, the commander-in-chief at Jamaica. As lieut.-colonel Bradley would not admit the authority of lieut.-colonel Arthur, that officer placed him under arrest, kept him in close confinement for 312 days, and then sent him to England. On his arrival in England lieut.-colonel Bradley found that he had been dismissed the service, and was only permitted, as a reward for twenty-one years' service, to dispose, at the regulated price, of his commission. Being convinced of the illegality of lieut.-colonel Arthur's conduct towards him, he brought an action against that officer, and the damages which he would otherwise hive recovered were greatly diminished, in consequence of two officers from the Horse-Guards producing on the trial a document, purporting to be a commission authorizing lieut.-col. Arthur to take the military command at Honduras. Since that time the noble Secretary at War had said, that the document then produced in court, and sworn to be a commission, was not a commission, but a letter of service. If it were so, he was instructed to say, that by the laws of the army no officer was bound to obey another, unless he could produce a regular commission, giving him superior authority. As lieut.-colonel Bradley had been reduced to ruin by his dismissal from the army, after twenty-one years' service in it in foreign climates, and as it was said that the commission on which lieut.-colonel Arthur claimed the command at Honduras was still in existence, he did not sec what rational objection could be made to its pro 323 duction. The object of his motion was two-fold: first of all, he wished to obtain copies of the commission said to be granted in 1814, under the authority of the duke of Manchester, by general Fuller, to take the command of the military forces stationed at Honduras, whilst he was only on half-pay; and, secondly, he wished to have a copy of lieut.-colonel Arthur's report to the commander-in-chief in 1820, after he had placed lieut.-colonel Bradley under arrest, and also his correspondence with earl Bathurst, who was then at the head of the colonial department, on the same subject. He did not wish to have those letters produced for his own private information, for he had already seen copies of them, but for the information of the House. From those letters it was evident, that at the time he wrote them, lieut.-colonel Arthur had no such commission as it was now pretended that he held; for, in one of them, he wished to be informed in what situation he, who was only an officer on half-pay, was to be considered with regard to lieut.-colonel Bradley, who was an officer on full pay, and at the station, in command of his regiment. When those papers should be placed upon the table, he was sure it would appear to the House, that gross injustice had been done to lieut.-colonel Bradley, and that he was entitled to receive from the House some remuneration for the losses he had sustained after twenty years of service. He called the particular attention of those members who were officers in the army, to the harsh manner in which lieut.-colonel Bradley had been treated, and reminded them, that if any officer could be so treated without obtaining redress, the condition of gentlemen in the army would soon be little better than that of so many slaves. The hon. member then concluded by moving for a series of papers embracing the objects mentioned in his speech.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, he should feel it to be his duty to object to the production of the documents, not because the despatches which were called for did not exist—for he had seen them himself—not because he had any doubt as to the genuineness of the commission or letter of service, for it had been admitted as evidence in a court of justice, but because no parliamentary grounds had been laid for their production. The merits of the case had been, so often discussed, in the last 324 parliament, that he owed the House an apology for pressing upon its attention so hacknied a subject; but, as there might be some members who were unacquainted with them, he felt it necessary to mention them as briefly as possible. The state of the case was simply this: — Lieut.-colonel Arthur was appointed by the duke of Manchester, governor of Honduras, and received from general Fuller a commission, or letter of service, authorizing him to take the command of the troops stationed there. Lieut.-colonel Bradley was, therefore, placed as an officer under the command of lieut.-colonel Arthur. The regiment to which lieut.-colonel Arthur belonged was disbanded, and he himself was put on half-pay. Lieut.-colonel Bradley then chose to suppose, that as lieut.-colonel Arthur's regiment was disbanded, and lieut.-colonel Arthur was placed on half-pay, that officer ceased to retain any military authority at Honduras—an authority which, it ought to be recollected, he derived, not from his regimental commission, but from the commission he received from general Fuller. Lieut.-colonel Bradley made himself the interpreter of the law on the point, and not only made himself the interpreter of the law, but also determined to act upon his own interpretation. He not only said, that lieut.-colonel Arthur had ceased to command, but also attempted to supersede his own commanding officer. He took upon himself great responsibility in so doing, and he ought not now to complain that he was compelled to stand by the consequences of it. Under such circumstances, lieut.-colonel Arthur did that which any officer similarly situated would have done, and if he had not done so, he would have deserved dismissal from the service: he placed lieut.-colonel Bradley under arrest for an act of mutiny. The question between the two officers was then referred to the commander-in-chief, who, after hearing them both, decided that lieut.-colonel Arthur was in the right, and that lieut.-colonel Bradley was in the wrong. As it was impossible to pass over such a breach of military law, the commander-in-chief felt it to be his duty to remove lieut.-colonel Bradley from the service. The whole affair was submitted to the king, and his majesty was pleased to confirm the determination to which the commander-in-chief had come. Lieut.-colonel Bradley was not cashiered, as be 325 perhaps deserved to be: he was allowed to retire, receiving the value of his commissions, which by the bye he had not purchased.—He would now inform the House, that, although in the main points lieut.-colonel Arthur was right, there was still one in which he had been guilty of erroneous judgment. He had done right in placing lieut.-colonel Bradley under arrest, but wrong in retaining him under arrest—not, however, in close confinement, as the hon. member had stated—until he was dismissed from the service. After lieut.-colonel Bradley was dismissed from the army, he brought his case under the consideration of the legal tribunals of the country. He was not satisfied with the decision of the duke of York; he was not satisfied with the decision of his majesty, and he therefore applied for redress to the laws of his country. He contended, that he had suffered great injury, and took the best means in his power to obtain redress. The result of the trial was, that the court affirmed, that lieut.-colonel Arthur had authority to confine lieut.-colonel Bradley: it negatived the assertion, that lieut.-colonel Bradley had been illegally detained in the first instance; but it said, that though lieut.-colonel Arthur was justified in the original arrest, he had continued it beyond the necessity of the case, and it therefore gave him a verdict of 200l.. Lieut.-colonel Bradley was not satisfied with this result. He moved for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection on the part of the learned judge, and had it refused him. His assertion of injury was negatived by the commander-in-chief; then by his majesty; then by a court of law on the trial; and last of all, by a court of law on application for a new trial. Such being the case, on what ground could the House now interfere in this transaction? He thought that these documents were only wanted to enable lieut.-colonel Bradley to swell his next petition with their statements; and that being his opinion, he felt it to be his duty to negative the motion.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that he very much doubted the existence of the letter of service. It was first brought to light in 1819, and he could produce a letter from lieut.-colonel Arthur, proving that he had no such commission at that time. If he had had such a commission, why did he not produce it when he was three times specifically asked to do so? The reason 326 was plain. He had no such commission, and therefore could not produce it. He would ask any officer who heard him, whether lieut.-colonel Bradley, being an officer on full pay, would have done his duty, if he had yielded up the command of his regiment to an officer on half-pay? To what tribunal could lieut.-colonel Bradley appeal for redress, if the House should refuse to interfere on his behalf? Surely the justice of the House would prevent an officer, who had served twenty-one years, from being overwhelmed by ruin, because he had unfortunately differed with a brother officer on a matter of military discipline, which appeared to be involved in doubt and obscurity.
§ Lord Palmerstonbegged to remind the House, that the hon. member and himself were at issue as to a fact. The hon. member had said, that the commission had no existence in 1814. He replied that it had. It was matter of proof, and had been placed on record; and when the hon. member said that the commission did not exist, he denied a fact which had been proved by the oaths of most honourable and virtuous witnesses. If that were proved in a court of justice, it became a matter of fact. The hon. member could not, by any ingenuity, "rail the seal from off the bond." That commission had been produced; and if it was asserted, no matter by whom, that it was a fabricated document, then he must say, that such an assertion was a base, scandalous, infamous calumny, which he felt himself bound to repel, on the part of those affected by it, with all that contempt and disdain that it merited. Not a greater falsehood could be conceived. The commission was granted by general Fuller in 1814; and it was not true, that, in colonel Arthur's letter of 1818, no mention was made of it. He read, last year, a letter from colonel Arthur, in which he alluded to that commission; and he there adduced his holding such commission, as a reason for his exercising the authority he had previously possessed. He, therefore, would repeat, that there could not be a greater falsehood, let it come from whom it might, than to assert, either that no such commission was in existence, or that, if it were in existence, it was fabricated for some base, sinister, and miserable, purpose.
§ Colonel Torrensvindicated the officers of the army from the aspersion; which had been cast upon them.
§ Sir H. Hardingesaid, it was impossible for any military man to sit silent under such an imputation as had been cast on the whole army by the hon. member. If they remained silent, then, indeed, they might deserve to be considered as slaves. Fortunately, however, observations of this nature, coming from the hon. member, were perfectly harmless. Colonel Arthur, under the circumstances stated by his noble friend, had an undoubted claim to the situation of commandant; and if lieut.-colonel Bradley had entertained any doubt on the subject, he ought to have waited until his reference to England, with respect to the assumption of colonel Arthur, had been answered. But lieut,-colonel Bradley said, "no, I will at once depose you, and take this authority on myself." This was unquestionably a disobedience of discipline, that could not be palliated. He, at the same time, admitted, that col. Arthur had acted with less leniency than he ought to have done; because he kept lieut.-colonel Bradley too long under arrest; and a court of law, in consequence of that circumstance, had most properly given a verdict in favour of the complaining party. This had, however, nothing to do with the main question. Half-pay officers on the staff, under the circumstances stated by his noble friend, had a right to exercise the same authority which colonel Arthur had assumed.
§ Mr. Humerose and said, he would rest the whole business on this question — "Did colonel Arthur, when he placed lieut.-colonel Bradley under arrest, possess any authority from general Fuller, which justified him in adopting that measure?" [Lord Palmerston, "Yes."] He wished to know whether the noble lord would admit the letters of colonel Arthur, in which he allowed that he did not possess such a power, to be received as a proof that the statement on this point was not false. Would he allow those letters to be received in contradiction to the charge of falsehood? Colonel Bradley did not, as had been asserted, act precipitately. For three successive months he demanded to know what commission colonel Arthur heldy and from whence it had been received; but he could procure no satisfaction. He now asked, what authority general Fuller had to supersede the king's commission, which was in the hands of colonel Bradley?
§ Lord Palmerston,— I have already stated 328 the facts to the House. To those facts I refer, and I will not add one syllabic more.
§ Mr. Humedid not speak of a commission in existence now, but of a commission in existence at the time when the arrest took place.
§ Sir H. Hardingesaid, he was astonished that the hon. member should, after the luminous explanation of his noble friend, after his unequivocal statement, that such a commission did exist, reiterate his question. It was little less than doubting the veracity of the noble lord.
§ Mr. Humewas of opinion that the noble lord's answer was evasive. It did not directly meet his question, which related to a commission not of the present day, but issued some years ago.
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, it was impossible for him to be answerable for the extreme obtuseness of understanding possessed by the hon. member. He would venture to say that no other man in the House entertained any doubts as to the clearness of the explanation which he had given. He had stated not only on the present occasion, but in the last session, that there was such a commission; but, beyond that, he had then read the paper which he now held in his hand; namely, a letter from colonel Arthur, of the date of 1820, in which he quoted this disputed commission, as his reason for exercising the authority which he had assumed in 1814. The commission was in existence in 1814, as appeared from that letter; and if the hon. gentleman's intellects were so deeply obtuse, as to require these numerous repetitions and explanations—repetitions and explanations more numerous even than those in which the hon. gentleman was in the habit of indulging—if it were necessary by these means to soak into his understanding, as it were, the comprehension of the most simple fact, he must leave the hon. gentleman to that impenetrable darkness which dwelt within the interior of his brain, and leave his statements to the judgment of other gentlemen whom he had the honour of addressing. It was a matter of indifference to him whether the hon. gentleman understood him or not. He addressed himself to the House of Commons, not to the hon. member for Aberdeen [hear, hear].
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had been long enough a member of that House to know, that an angry tone was not an answer, An at 329 tempt to abuse could not give satisfaction to any beyond the few who thought proper to encourage it. If he was obtuse in his understanding, it was his misfortune, not his fault; and perhaps he devoted as much of his time as the noble lord, to get rid of that mental darkness with which he had been accused. If he could not understand, or see through, the lucidity of the noble lord's statements, he regretted it. But he would ask, what his obduracy, his obstinacy, his obtuseness, his ignorance, his stupidity—the noble lord might call it what he would—had to do with the case of the petitioner? Surely the petitioner ought not to be visited with his imperfections But, he again asked, was what the noble lord said with respect to him any answer to the claim of justice? He had no hesitation in saying, that the documents would bear him out in his view of the case. He would take some trouble, now that the noble lord had come to the specific point, to produce colonel Arthur's letter; and if it did not directly negative the noble lord's statement, he would admit it to be inferred, that he was so obtuse, so stupid, so dark in intellect, as not to understand the meaning of the plainest words. He received the abuse which had been directed against him, as others would do, with utter contempt. It would not forward the object which the parties had in view. It would not alter the circumstances of the case; cheered as it might be by the gallant officer who sat behind the noble lord. His advice would be, that they should keep to temperate language on all occasions. If he ever exceeded the proper bound he regretted it. It was the effect of a momentary impulse. But he could safely say, that he never came down to the House with the deliberate intention of attacking any person. He left, without any regret, to the noble lord and his friends, any feeling of triumph which they might indulge in on this occasion. For his own part, he rested himself on the good sense of the House.
§ Sir H. Hardingeobserved, that those who threw stones first, had no right to complain if stones were flung at them in return. The hon. member had used an expression towards the army at large, to which he had deemed it his duty to reply; but he had not come down to the House for the purpose of speaking on this question; nor was he aware that it would come under discussion. Certainly it was 330 not a pleasant thing for a military man to be told, because he did not agree to the wild theories—he might say, absurdities— which were put forth by the hon. gentleman, that the officers of the army were all slaves. He felt that he was justified, in the language which he had used; and if the hon. gentleman, or any other person, made the same assertion, he would have no hesitation in using the same language, because he thought that such an assertion deserved it.
§ Mr. Hume.—If individuals in the king's service are to be deprived of their situations without the decision of a courtmartial or inquiry of any kind, then, I say, that under such circumstances, every officer in the army is a slave. That was my observation.
§ Sir H. Hardinge.—The "ifs" of the hon. member render his statements very harmless.
§ The motion was negatived.