Sitting of 8 December 1826

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—CONDUCT OF LORD C. SOMERSET.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he had been informed, that in the discussion which had taken place last night respecting the Cape of Good Hope, a question had arisen as to the course which he intended to pursue with regard to a petition which he had formerly presented, complaining of the misconduct of the governor of that colony. That petition he had presented two sessions ago, on behalf of Mr. Bishop Burnett; and he understood it was now said, that the report of the commissioners had dealt with the subject matter of that petition, and completely exhausted it. He had not read that report with any great attention;

321
but in the cursory perusal he had given it, he did not find that it referred at all to those parts of the petition to which his notice had been more particularly called. In presenting that petition, he had said, that there were some matters stated in it of so extraordinary a nature, that he could not believe them to be facts; but that if they were facts, it was impossible for the House not to take the earliest opportunity of investigating them most rigorously. The matters to which he referred did not form what was more particularly called the case of Mr. Bishop Burnett. That individual had brought forward, in his petition, collateral charges against lord Charles Somerset, of far greater importance than those which formed the substance of his own case, and to those charges his own attention had been forcibly attracted. The report of the commissioners might have thrown light on those accusations; but if it had not, there was a strong necessity that an ample investigation of them should be instituted. He had understood that lord Charles was coming home, and indeed had arrived, to meet the charges preferred against him. He was glad to hear that fact, because the case of Bishop Burnett was much subordinate to the charges which his petition opened against the noble lord. He would take the earliest opportunity of examining the report more accurately than his avocations had hitherto enabled him to do. The charges to which he alluded, might not be noticed in the first report of the commissioners, which was already on the table of the House; and yet might be made subject of inquiry in their second report, which would be forthcoming immediately. If they were not noticed in either one or the other—if they did not meet with a satisfactory refutation from the noble lord whose conduct was so strongly implicated by them—he should think it still necessary for the House to institute a rigorous inquiry into their truth or falsehood.

CASE OF COLONEL BRADLEY.
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 200 l.. 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.

ARIGNA MINING COMPANY.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, he had intended to move, that an addition should be made to the members of the select committee appointed to investigate the proceedings of the Directors of the Arigna Mining Company; but he had abandoned that intention as his hon. friend (Mr. Brogden) had expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the committee as it stood.
Mr. Brogdensaid, he certainly had expressed a wish, when he read the list of the committee, that some alteration should be made in it. He had wished that some persons more conversant in the business of the city should be placed on it. He now, however, desired no alteration. He felt himself perfectly safe in the hands of those to whom the investigation had been intrusted.

EMIGRATION.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had two petitions to submit to their lordships, which came from a part of the country with which he was not connected, but which related to a subject that, from the unhappy situation of the petitioners, was calculated to attract the serious attention of their lordships. It was, however, his duty to state, that, the petitions were of such a nature that they could not be laid on the table without approbation being previously given to them by the king's government, as the petitioners prayed for pecuniary assistance to transport themselves to the British colonies in North America, or to some other part of the world, in which they might find means of maintaining themselves by their labour, instead of remaining in a country in which they could not obtain subsistence. It was an affecting circumstance, and one which could not fail to recommend the petition to the consideration of their lordships, that they came from persons who were not desirous of leaving their native land from any love of change, or any spirit of discontent, but solely from the unhappy circumstances into which the manufacturing districts had recently fallen, and
318
which, however contrary to the habits to which they had been accustomed, induced the petitioners to seek in foreign climes the means of maintaining their families in some degree of comfort. It was not his intention to offer any decided opinion as to how far it would be proper for the government to promote emigration. At the same time, he must say, that there was no period in any country, under any circumstances, and more especially in this country, which appeared fitter for inquiry; than the present. But it was for the king's government to consider well how such a measure ought to be carried into effect; on how great a scale, and under what regulations it would be right to proceed. Here, two considerations would present themselves; first, as to what extent emigration could be carried, consistently with the degree of expense which might be borne by this country in transporting a multitude of people to colonies, and with regard to the safety of the colonies themselves; secondly, to what extent any plan could be carried, so as to afford relief to the starving part of the population. In thus stating the question, he must add, that he had not been able to satisfy himself that it would be possible to administer relief by emigration, to that extent which some persons seemed to suppose could be accomplished—that was, to the extent of providing subsistence for the large body of manufacturers now suffering under great distress. Now as to the means, the question for the consideration of the government and the House would divide itself into two parts; first, what would be the expense attending such an operation on a large scale; and next, whether that expense was one which could be recommended. If it should be found that the expense was one which could; not be recommended, it would then fall to be considered, whether an emigration; of a more limited nature, which would, take out of the country that description of persons who, having some small capital, were capable of contributing to the expense of their removal, should be encouraged. He was not prepared to say, that some plan of emigration might not be; safely carried on, under the direction of I the government. He was afraid, however, that if any plan were adopted for relief in this instance, it would be impossible to tell how far the House might afterwards be called upon to go. However deep the

319
distress of the petitioners, he could not but feel that there were other parts of the empire in an equally unfortunate situation; from which, therefore, similar applications might be expected to come. It was extremely difficult to see to what consequences such an opening might lead. All, then, that remained for him to do, was to express his satisfaction, in knowing, that this important subject had engaged the attention of his majesty's ministers. He trusted that means would be found of doing something at once practicable and consistent with sound principles of policy.
Earl Bathurstsaid, that as the consent of the Crown was necessary, before the petition could be laid on the table, he rose for the purpose of giving that consent; but in doing so, he wished to be understood, that the government pledged itself to nothing on the subject. That consent was given purely for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to express their sentiments to their lordships. Those petitioners were labouring under a degree of distress which it was impossible to think of without sympathy; and they had borne their sufferings with patience. He wished he could add that the distress was confined to the district whence the petitions came. Unhappily, it was very general. He believed, however, that there was scarcely ever a period, in which sufferings had been endured with such forbearance and obedience to the laws. At the same time he must observe, that he believed there never was a time when the public had stept forward so readily to relieve those sufferings by liberal pecuniary assistance, and in forming committees to manage and distribute the aid raised by subscription. It must also be added, that there never was a time in which so few instances were known, of persons ready to aggravate the distress, by using inflammatory language, and exciting the suffering multitude to acts of violence. All this was not only very creditable to the country, but also to the sufferers, who were entitled to every regard, for their unshaken loyalty and obedience to the laws of their country. With respect to the particular case of the petitioners, they prayed for pecuniary assistance to forward themselves to a settlement in those possessions which belonged to the Crown in North America. Their lordships were aware that, these possessions consisted of
320
immense tracks of lands, on which no house was erected, and which were covered with immense forests. It would, therefore, be very hazardous to place large numbers of any description of people in those trackless lands, in the hope that they might be able to support themselves; and it would be much more so to send there persons born and brought up in cities. He did not wish the observations he had just made to be understood as implying, that the relief which the petitioners prayed for ought not to be given. It was not his intention that they should be so understood. He had made them for the purpose of showing to their lordships, the necessity of great consideration, before that species of relief which was prayed for should be granted. With that object, in the course of last session, a committee had been appointed by the other House of Parliament. That committee had made a report on the subject, and it was his intention to move, that a message be sent to the Commons for a copy thereof. Should any measure for encouraging emigration be adopted, great discrimination must be employed in the choice of persons to be sent abroad. The aged, the sick, and the infirm must be excluded; not because they were unworthy of relief, but because the particular species of relief called for was not applicable to them; for to send out to a foreign country those who were rendered helpless from infirmity, would be only to expose them to unspeakable calamities.
Ordered to lie on the table.