Lords Sitting of 22 August 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Bankrupts (Ireland); Administration of Justice (Parts of Counties); Exchequer Dills; Consolidated Fund.—Read a third time:—Metropolis Improvement.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Bute, from Ayr, for Parochial Education; also for Church Extension; from several places, against Intruding Ministers into Parishes against the Wishes of the People.—By Lord Brougham, from Prisoners in Monmouth Goal, against the Injustice of their Sentence.

COLONEL BRADLEY.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from Mr. Thomas Bradley, late lieu tenant-colonel of his late Majesty's 2nd West-India regiment of foot, in which the petitioner went over the whole of the dispute which had occurred between him and Sir George Arthur, and which has been before the public repeatedly for several years past. The petitioner complained of the injustice under which he had so long suffered, and concluded his statement in these words:—
"It must be evident to your Lordships, from your Lordships from the above statement, that your petitioner has been deprived of his commission with on trial, and without having been guilty of any military offence whatever: and your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that he may not be deprived of the ordinary privilege pf a British subject, but that your Lordships Will at least enquire for what reason he has been stripped of his commission, after twenty years of arduous service in the West-Indies and America."
After adverting to the facts of the case, the noble and learned Lord said he was greatly astonished that any difficulty should stand in the way of justice being done to this injured gentleman by restoring him to his rank in the service. Even if Mr. Bradley had acted erroneously (which, in his opinion, was not the case), he bad, assuredly, suffered quite enough. He had suffered a long imprisonment in a most unwholesome climate; he had been ousted from the service; he had been deprived of his commission, and had suffered a pecuniary loss of 1,900 l.. It was a case of very great hardship, and he hoped, that his noble Friend, at the head of the Executive Government, would take it into serious consideration.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as a commission of which he was a member, was now sitting, and had been sitting for a considerable time, before which, cases of this nature might be heard, he did not wish to offer any opinion on this petition. The noble and learned Lord had not stated that

483
her Majesty's permission had been asked, and had been given, for the consideration of this subject. He, therefore, recommended to the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the petition to give the noble Viscount an opportunity of judging whether it would be proper to advise her Majesty, that she should assent to its being considered.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was the practice of the other House to refer to the Crown in cases of this nature, but he was not aware, that such was the practice of their Lordships' House.
Lord Broughamsaid, they might receive a petition for inquiry into malversation, military or civil, if it did not involve an application for money.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he felt no hostility towards the petitioner; but they ought to take care that the rules which were usually followed with reference to questions of this nature should be properly adhered to. He was anxious that the circumstances should be inquired into in the most indulgent manner.
Lord Brougham,after what had been said by the noble Duke, would withdraw the petition. By doing so, he distinctly marked his opinion, that to petition Parliament on such a subject was the very last step that ought to be taken.
Petition withdrawn.

CHARTIST PRISONERS.
Lord Broughamhad also a petition to present from Henry Vincent, W. Edwards, and J. Dickinson, complaining of the hardships under which they still suffered, during their confinement. They stated, that they were only allowed the gaol diet—2 qts. of gruel, 1½lb. of bread, and 11b. of potatoes daily, and they called on their Lordships to relieve them from this hardship, by which they were deprived of all animal food whatever. Mr. Baron Alderson, they said, who tried them, expressed it as his opinion, by a letter to the Home Secretary, that they should not be subjected to any unusual deprivations; and yet they were denied the use of pen, ink, and paper. They further alleged, that their object in attending the meeting (for their speeches at which they were convicted) was the discussion of the People's Charter; and that they were perfectly justified in their conduct by the best constitutional authorities, both ancient and modern. He (Lord Brougham) thought they were right in this opinion, for it was sanctioned not only by the best writers on the constitu
484
tion, but by a noble Friend of his in another House, who, not in his place certainly, but by an address to what he presumed was a constitutional meeting, maintained the right of the subject to meet for the free discussion of political questions. This view was confirmed by another high constitutional authority—his noble Friend, the President of the Council, who, though not now in his place (for he had gone abroad) had declared, in that place, in the most strenuous manner, and with a vehemence of language which he never heard exceeded—I seldom equalled—that it was the right and duty of the people to attend public meetings, in order to complain of their grievances; and then his noble Friend broached an opinion—from which he (Lord Brougham) differed, by not going so far—that numbers were no test of the illegality of a meeting. He preferred abiding by the sounder doctrine of the Secretary of State, I who watched over the police and peace of the kingdom, when his noble Friend said, that all lawful meetings were legal; or, in other words, that it was the right of the people to attend meetings which did not break the peace, or put the peace in jeopardy. The petitioners, backed by such authorities, naturally expressed their surprise, that the attempt to violate this right, ("one of the most important," in the language of the President of the Council, I "which the subject enjoyed") should be made by her Majesty's present advisers, who were the active promoters of, and principal actors in the public meetings of 1831 and 1832, of a far more alarming character than those for their attendance at which they had been confined. They could not allude to him, for he had pronounced the meeting of 150,000 men at Birmingham illegal. He did not know I whether his noble Friend attended any such meetings. [Lord Melbourne: No.] He supposed, then, that such practices were confined to the Members of the other House.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he understood these parties were subjected to the same regulations as all other prisoners in the same ward. Whether those regulations were proper or not was a distinct question; but he did not see any reason why there should be any extraordinary interposition in favour of these petitioners.
Petition laid on the Table.

BOLTON POLICE.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the Order of the Day for a Com-

485
mittee on the Bolton Police Bill. If their Lordships consented to go into Committee, he would then move a clause empowering the Commissioners to extend the advantages of the police force to be established by the bill, to that part of Little Bolton which was without the borough. With regard to the conduct of the mayor, which had been commented on by the noble and learned Lord opposite, an inquiry had been instituted by the Home Secretary-He had read every communication which had been received respecting the occurrences at Bolton; he had obtained, besides, all the information he could upon the subject; and he must say, that there did not appear to him anything in the conduct of the mayor which could not be approved of by the Government.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to observe, that that part of the force at present in Bolton which was appointed by the court-leet consisted of thirteen persons, and that there was besides a force of 40 consstables. How they were chosen he was not aware, but they were regularly sworn in, and had existed for a period of thirty or forty years; so that, at this moment, they had this body of forty persons, in addition to those elected by the court-leet, and also the body of special constables which had been called into action by the mayor. What, then, did the noble Viscount propose to effect by this bill? It would establish a rate of 8d. in the pound; and supposing the noble Viscount to introduce the clause to which he referred, so as to render the whole of the rate-payers of that part of Little Bolton without the borough liable to that rate, the sum levied would not exceed 3,000 l. After deducting the necessary expenses provided by the bill, there would be left for the police the sum of 1,560 l. Now, if they were to be paid at the rate of 1l. per week, that sum would only raise a force of about thirty-two men, so that they were, in fact, abolishing a police force of a considerably greater number, as he had already shown, for the purpose of supplying a police force of thirty-two persons. What he had stated the other evening, with respect to the conduct of the mayor, had been communicated to him by letters from Bolton, the accuracy of which he had no reason to doubt, but as that subject was now under inquiry, he would say nothing more upon the subject. The question between them was this:—this Act would put an end to the operation of an existing police, and
486
substitute a force which he considered inadequate to preserve the peace of so populous a town as Bolton in case of riot. He made no opposition to the motion of the noble Viscount; but upon him and the Government must rest the responsibility.
Their Lordships went into Committee.
Some amendments were made, and the House resumed.
Bill to be reported.