Commons Sitting of 1 June 1837

PRIVILEGE.
The Attorney-Generalhad petitions of great importance to present to the House. The first was a petition from John Hart Nicholls, who was a printer to the House, and had been employed in printing the votes and proceedings of the House for upwards of thirty years, without any action having been brought against him, until he had received a notice for printing a petition relative to one Thomas Green. A petition had been presented on the 14th March from Green. The House made an order upon that petition respecting the Greenwich railway, and a petition was subsequently presented denying certain charges made in the petition of Thomas Green. Since then the petitioner had received notice of an action for libel from the attorney of Thomas Green. The notice was signed Thomas Lord; and it declared that the petition was a libel against Thomas Green, and for which an action was to be brought against Mr. Nicholls. The second petition was from Mr. Hansard, in which it was stated that there was another action brought against him by Mr. Stockdale, alleging that there was a libel against him in publications printed by order of the House. This fact the petitioner thought it to be his duty to lay before the House, in order that the House might give him directions how to proceed, when an action was commenced against him for obeying the orders of the House. He concluded by moving, that the petitions should be printed
1150
with the votes, in order that a day might be appointed for their consideration.

COLONEL BRADLEY.
Mr. T. Duncombe, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition presented from Colonel Bradley, on the 17th of February last, entered into a detail of the circumstances which, in the year 1818, induced Colonel Arthur, who was then Governor of Honduras, to place Colonel Bradley for several weeks under military arrest. The details have been so often reported, that it seems unnecessary to repeat them. The hon. Member proceeded to press upon the House the necessity of examining into the charges which he had brought against Colonel Arthur, on the testimony of Colonel Bradley—charges which accused him of gross cruelty and inhumanity towards the soldiers under his command, in the infliction of the ordinary military punishments. He had accused Colonel Arthur of having ordered a soldier, of the name of Ingram to be flogged by tap of drum. That accusation had been most indignantly denied: but he had since seen a merchant, now resident in London, who said, that he well recollected men being flogged at Honduras, by tap of drum, during the time that Colonel Arthur was governor of that colony. The same merchant had also told him, that he had received a letter from his correspondent at Belize, in which it was stated, that he had heard that there was a black man then living, who could testify to the same facts; and a drummer, who would however say nothing, unless he was taken home to England, and received something for his trouble. He contended, that Captain Willis had not denied the fact of the cruelty of the punishment inflicted on Ingram; all that Captain Willis had said was, that he had no recollection of it whatever. The hon. Member then proceeded to state, that the case of Ingram was not a solitary case. He could mention the case of a man of the name of Reeves, who had also been flogged by tap of drum by order of Colonel Arthur. On that case he could produce a letter from Colonel Arthur, to the commanding officer of the regiment, in which he desired that "the punishment might not be hurried, but might be most impressively inflicted." There was also another case of the same description, in which 700 lashes were

1151
ordered to be inflicted on a man of the name of Cooke, who ought to have been tried before a civil court for the theft which he had committed, but who was brought, by Colonel Arthur's order, before a court-martial. In that case, too, he could also produce, and would produce before a Committee of the House, a letter, in which Colonel Arthur said, that he was desirous that the punishment should be inflicted on Cooke in the most impressive manner. He could also produce an individual then in London, to prove that he saw Cooke flogged by tap of drum. 550 lashes out of the 700 to which Cooke was sentenced were inflicted upon him. As they were inflicted by tap of drum, the punishment took up a considerable time, and one thrill of horror pervaded the soldiers who witnessed it. It had been said that these accusations could not be true, because Colonel Arthur was a very temperate, and a very pious man. When he mentioned this to a gentleman who had resided for some time as a merchant at Honduras, the reply he got was somewhat extraordinary—"Colonel Arthur a temperate and pious man! you have been hoaxed. No person could have called him either one or the other, who did not mean a hoax;" and then to illustrate the temper and piety of Colonel Arthur, he mentioned an anecdote of that officer, which he (Mr. T. Duncombe) would briefly repeat to the House. It had long been the custom in the colony of Honduras to let the jury attach the sentence of the prisoner to their verdict. He was not called upon to defend the legality of the custom —all he had to state at present was, that the custom was of long standing. On one occasion, Colonel Arthur thought proper to remonstrate with the foreman of a jury against the continuance of this custom. The juror contended that the custom had continued so long as to be now the law of the colony, and announced to the governor his determination of standing up as the champion of the custom. On being thus opposed by the juror, Colonel Arthur lost all command of his temper, and, drawing his sword, swore in open court an oath, which he declined to repeat, and said, "Sir, you may be the champion of the custom, but, by God, Sir, you shall not be the living champion of it long." In conclusion, the hon. Member said it was not yet too late to do justice. He called on the friends of Colonel Bradley to sup-
1152
port this motion. He called on the friends of Colonel Arthur, whose character was involved in these charges, to support this motion for inquiry. He could not see how it could be opposed, unless it was determined, per fas et nefas, to screen Colonel Arthur from all investigation. He concluded by moving "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of Thomas Bradley, esq., late Lieutenant-Colonel 2d West India regiment, presented the 17th of February last."
Viscount Howickfelt it his duty to oppose the motion. He begged to say, that when Colonel Arthur presented a petition to that House, praying for inquiry, he (Colonel Arthur) did not know what course the Government was prepared to take respecting it. Colonel Arthur was sincerely and anxiously desirous that a Committee of Inquiry should be appointed. He applied not only to this House, but to the Commander-in-chief for inquiry. Having, however, carefully considered the whole question, he (Lord Howick,) felt it to be his duty, for reasons which he would shortly explain to the House, to state that an inquiry ought not to be granted. The hon. Member for Finsbury called for inquiry into the circumstances under which Colonel Arthur claimed to exercise military authority at Honduras; and, secondly, he demanded inquiry into the manner in which Colonel Arthur exercised this authority, and into several cases of cruelty alleged to have been committed by Colonel Arthur. With respect to the first point, he would state very shortly his reasons for refusing a Committee, and they were, in his opinion, quite decisive The question had been already brought before a tribunal which was infinitely better capable of deciding it than a Committee of that House. Colonel Bradley had brought an action in the Court of King's Bench against Colonel Arthur for false imprisonment. In that action Colonel Bradley recovered damages to the amount of £100, on the ground that Colonel Arthur exercised a needless severity in the imprisonment; but the jury distinctly negatived the allegation that Colonel Arthur had wrongfully assumed the command. He thought that the jury had formed a mistaken opinion as to the amount of severity; but Colonel Bradley was so sensible of the effect of the verdict that he applied for a new trial on the express ground that Co-

1153
lonel Arthur was not entitled to assume the command, and the Court of King's Bench came to the decision that there was no ground for the statement of the assumption of the command being illegal, and they therefore refused the application for a new trial. The question having been thus decided, he, for one, would not consent to have the question raised in that House. The hon. Member for Finsbury called for an inquiry into the manner in which Colonel Arthur had exercised his authority, and said, that, if a Committee were granted he could prove the grossest and most horrible cases of cruelty which any officer, or man, or wretch in the human shape could have committed. He had two reasons for resisting the inquiry upon this ground. In the first place, as he hoped shortly to satisfy the House, he was prepared to disprove these alleged cases of cruelty; but besides this, he wished the House to consider that these alleged cruelties were stated to have taken place in various years from 1818 to 1820, and yet the very first syllable breathed about them was in the course of the debate on this subject last year. Was this to be tolerated? If they were to grant inquiries under such circumstances, such a course might be productive of the greatest cruelty and injustice to individuals, who, by the absence or death of witnesses through length of lime, might be rendered unable to disprove a charge however false. It was provided by the Mutiny Act that no person could be tried by court-martial after the lapse of three years from the period of the alleged offence, unless it could be proved that some necessary impediment prevented an earlier trial; and even in that case no more than two years was allowed after the impediment was removed. This he thought was a just and a wise provision; and if it were not acted upon there would be no security for officers in his Majesty's service. But what was the evidence upon which these charges against Colonel Arthur were made? The only evidence with respect to the case of Ingram was hearsay evidence, namely, that a person heard a drummer and a black man say that they could tell something about the matter, but that they would not give their evidence unless they were paid for so doing. Was the House to grant a Committee upon such evidence as that? With respect to the punishment alleged to have been inflicted upon Ingram, he held
1154
in his hand the letter of the four surviving officers who were present, and they all distinctly stated that no such punishment as that described took place. They remembered the punishment of Ingram, and they all stated that it happened in the ordinary way. Their letters further proved that Colonel Arthur, instead of aggravating corporal punishment, frequently interfered to recommend that solitary confinement should be inflicted instead of the lash. In addition Captain Wllis stated, in his letter that Colonel Bradley himself complained, not of severity on the part of Colonel Arthur, but that Colonel Arthur was so lenient, so averse to the infliction of corporal punishment, that he endangered the discipline of the troops. With respect to the punishment of Ingram, he had also the testimony of three privates, and it was to the same effect. With regard to the punishment of Cook, and his being withdrawn from the civil power, lest the punishment might not be sufficiently severe, what were the facts? He held in his hand a letter addressed by the magistrates of Honduras to Colonel Arthur, in which they requested that the prisoner Cook should be tried before a general court-martial; which request they enforced by a statement to the effect that such was the mode hitherto resorted to on former occasions. This showed, so far from its being true that Colonel Arthur was desirous that this person should be brought to a court-martial, that in fact he unwillingly resorted to a mode of proceeding which, in the time of his predecessors, was always exercised. The real truth was, that Colonel Arthur, by the bold and unflinching manner in which he protected the rights of the slaves at Honduras, had incurred the hatred of certain persons, who had persevered in persecuting him from that hour, and who had not yet forgiven him. Colonel Arthur had complaints made to him that certain natives of India, who were by law entitled to their freedom, were nevertheless detained in slavery, and having these complaints brought before him, he took those measures which he felt it to be his duty to take, and which had procured for him the approbation of the Secretary of State at the time, namely, he asserted and obtained the freedom of these persons. This was the real origin of the persecution which Colonel Arthur had undergone; and he would ask the House whether, in defianee

1155
of the wholesome rule of the Mutiny Act —whether, to gratify the malice of the owners of these slaves, they would inflict the stigma which would be cast upon Colonel Arthur if this ease were sent to a Committee? This was the case he had to lay before the House, and he felt that further explanation was unnecessary. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, now that he had the real facts of the case before him, would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Humesaid, that undoubtedly if Colonel Bradley had taken the course stated by the noble Lord, that House ought not to listen to his demand for inquiry. But if, on the other hand, Colonel Bradley did report this very case to the Horse Guards at the time, and that his report received no attention, if that were the case it altered the matter altogether. It was a case of the grossest injustice. It was proved beyond all doubt that the case referred to by the noble Lord had been reported to the Horse Guards by Colonel Bradley at the time; but no notice was taken of it. He denied the statements made by the noble Lord with respect to the attempt alleged to have been made by Colonel Bradley to excite a mutiny. The noble Lord was quite misinformed as to the accuracy of this statement. He thought it very improper to remove Colonel Bradley without a court-martial. Colonel Bradley himself courted inquiry, and on his return to this country brought an action against Colonel Arthur in which he obtained a verdict. Inquiry now could not be instituted anywhere but in that. House, and he thought that the House should not refuse to go into the case.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that, having already heard the hon. Member for Middlesex state this very case six or seven times, and having himself had on several of those occasions to reply to it, he should say a very few words on the present occasion, particularly after the very clear and straightforward statement which they had just heard from the noble Lord the Secretary at War. Upon looking into the whole of the evidence in this case, he fell felt bound to declare that, in his opinion, there was not a shadow of foundation for the charges against Colonel Arthur.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he should feel obliged by being told from any quarter, if he was labouring under any strong hallucination, or had the appearance of being
1156
in any of those states of body or mind which make men see double or see half; for he assuredly had believed he heard one or more public letters read with Colonel Arthur's own signature, in which that officer directed that a military punishment "might not be hurried, but most impressively inflicted," If he had heard aright, he wanted to know if there was an army man in the House or elsewhere, who would lift up his hand and say that he had the slightest doubt, the smallest approximation to unbelief, that these expressions were meant to direct that the punishment should be administered in an unusual and exaggerated manner. Great professions had been made from the other side of the House of the necessity of inquiry, if a shadow of probability could be given to the facts asserted. Well, here were the letters of the officer who directed the facts; of course then inquiry would be granted as proposed. As to the general case of Colonel Bradley, he had long toiled to satisfy a laudable curiosity why Colonel Bradley had been dismissed the army, and the only cause he could arrive at was, that he had been dismissed for not surrendering his command to an officer who could and did produce no visible reason why the command should be surrendered to him. If this was to be the rule, let it be explained to all ranks, from the colonel downwards, let it be inculcated on each of them, that he was to surrender his command to anybody that asked for it, whether he showed any authority or not. But at all events let there be the inquiry which all parties professed themselves so zealous for. Here were the officers concerned, both begging for an inquiry; why refuse them a little inquiry when they asked it, and send them abroad upon the world as men who had been praying upon their knees to the Government for inquiry and could not get it.
The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 81: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Fielden, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Gillon, W. D.

Bowring, Dr

Grattan, Henry

Brotherton, J.

Grote, G.

Browne, R. D.

Hector, C. J.

Crawford, W. S.

Hindley, C.

Curteis, H. B.

Hume, J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Elphinstone, H.

O'Connell, D.

Ewart, W.

O'Connell, J.

1157

O'Connell, M. J.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, Morgan

Wallace, Robert

Palmer, General C.

Williams, W. A.

Pryme, George

Williams, Sir J.

Richards, John

Wood, Alderman

Scholefield, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

TELLERS.

Strickland, Sir G.

Duncombe, T.

Thompson, Colonel

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Jones, Wilson

Baillie, H. D.

Kerrison, Sir Edwd.

Balfour, T.

Mangles, J.

Barnard, Edward G.

Martin, J.

Beckett, Sir J.

Melgnnd, Visct.

Bethell, Richard

Miles, William

Bewes, T.

Morpeth, Visct.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Boiling, Wm.

Murray, right hon. J.

Borthwick, Peter

Nicholl, J.

Bulwer, E. L.

O'Brien, W. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

Palmer, George

Chapman, Aaron

Parker, M. E.

Clerk, Sir G.

Parker, J.

Cole, Visct.

Pelham, John C.

Collier, John

Pendarves, E. W.

Crawley, S.

Poulter, John Sayer

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Pusey, P.

Dick, Q.

Richards, R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rickford, William

Duffield, Thomas

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Elley, Sir J.

Ross, Charles

Fector, John Minet

Rushbrooke, Col.

Feilden, William

Russell, Lord John

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Ferguson, R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Forbes, Wm.

Stanley, Lord

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Steuart, R.

Gordon, Robert

Thornley, T.

Goulburn, H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Graham, Sir J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Grey, Sir G.

Vernon, Granville H.

Hamilton, Geo. Alex.

Vivian, John Ennis

Hardinge, Sir H.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Hawes, B.

Weyland, Major

Hay, Sir A. L., bart.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Hinde, J. H.

Young, G. F.

Howard, P. H.

Young, Sir W.

Howick, Viscount

TELLERS.

Irton, Samuel

Maule, hon. F.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Ward, H. G.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. Borthwick Mr. Borthwick moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a system of national education connected with the Established Church, and so constituted that, without offending any man's conscience, instruction might be afforded to all classes of his Majesty's subjects.
Mr. A. Trevorseconded the motion, because he thought such a system would work beneficially for the poorer classes of the community.
The Speakersaid, if the money was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, it would be more convenient to follow the usual practice, and move resolutions in Committee.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, if such was the usual practice, he would he ready to act according to it; but what he simply wanted was to obtain leave to bring in a Bill, in order that he might ascertain the intentions of his Majesty's Ministers on the subject. When the Bill went into Committee he would propose resolutions for a grant of money, and proceed accordingly.
The Speakerdid not mean to say, that it was absolutely necessary to propose resolutions in Committee before leave was given to bring in a Bill; but as a proposition for a grant of money must be made in Committee, it would be better to follow the usual practice.
Mr. Law Mr. Law moved the adjournment of the House.
The House divided:— Ayes 36; Noes 34: Majority 2.
House adjourned.