of the community, tranquillity could not at any time exist. On the petition being read, it was withdrawn, on account of an informality; the signatures being on a detached sheet of paper. The Marquis of Lansdown then gave notice, that on the 8th of March, he would submit to their lordships a proposition founded on the petitions he had presented. It was probable that before that day the subject would be discussed in another place. But, whatever might be the result of the discussion which might take place elsewhere, he would move the resolution of which he had given notice. He was the more anxious so to do, because the responsibility of not bringing the question forward during the last session, attached more to himself than to any other individual. The Earl of Winchelsea rose, not to reply to the arguments of the noble marquis, but for the purpose of expressing his own sentiments. He sincerely trusted that, before their lordships admitted the Roman Catholics to a full participation of civil rights, and thereby opened to them a road to high situations of political trust-before their lordships attempted to repeal the test act, and to separate the church from the state, they would carefully consider the grounds on which, by the wisdom of their ancestors, such disabilities had been imposed. He felt no small gratification, that when the question of the Catholic claims should again be brought forward, it would appear in a very striking and new point of view, with respect to the reformation which had been begun in Ireland, and which he trusted would proceed. He sincerely hoped that their lordships would direct their attention to the political power which the Roman Catholic priests had lately exercised over their flocks-a power which had created a just alarm. He also sincerely trusted, that their lordships would never abandon that constitution under which that House and all the institutions of the country existed, from any subserviency to public clamour, or any views of political expediency. Lord Clifden could not say how the reformation to which the noble lord had alluded might be going on; but he sincerely hoped, that all the Catholics might become Protestants, and he thought that the most likely means of accomplishing that object was to do away with those exclusive laws which oppressed them. The noble lord had talked about danger to the constitution. He could not see that any danger would arise if three or four members more should take their seats in that House, or if there should be thirty or forty Catholics in the other House of parliament. With respect to reformation, that could only be expected, from ridding the Statute-book of those exclusive laws. If he had been born a Catholic, and had afterwards become a Protestant, as he sincerely was, he should have taken the liturgy of the church of England in his hands, and gone into his apartment to pray twice a-day, but taking good care to lock the door. He would have used such secrecy, not because he was a hypocrite, but because he could not have borne to be separated from his own people, or to have it said of him, that he turned from his religion from motives of interest. This was what would have passed in his mind upon the subject of conversion; and he had no doubt it was what had passed through the minds of many others. Therefore, without the abolition of the disabilities under which the Catholics laboured, no reformation could take place. The noble earl congratulated himself on that reformation, and seemed to have no doubt of its continuance; but "Rusticus expectat, dum defluat amnis." He wished to point out, too, what he had on a former occasion alluded to; namely, the danger which would attend this country in the event of a war with France; and we were as near a war as possible. Had Villèlle been turned out of the ministry, the king of France, who was said to be a poor bigot, though he knew nothing about him, would have been in the hands of the apostolicals, who would have made every effort to oppose the views of England; and if we had declared war against France and Spain, the question of the right of search would have arisen, which would have involved us in a war with America. He begged noble lords to consider the situation in which this country would have been placed, with France, Spain, America, and Ireland too, at war with us. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, February 14. COLONEL BRADLEY'S CASE.] Mr. Hume said, that he had, on a former occa sion, 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 he had moved for certain papers to substantiate the allegations of the petition, which the noble lord had thought proper to refuse; but, on the following day, he had brought down to the House 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 documents. The hon. member then moved for the said papers. was not a question before the court. The only point before the court was, whether major Bradley did or did not possess the military power which he exercised. That he did possess that power, was proved by the production of the military commission granted to him in 1814, by general Fuller. The court being satisfied on this point, decided that the arrest of colonel Bradley by major Arthur was legal; but the court being also of opinion that the arrest was continued longer than necessary, advised the jury to that effect, and they in consequence, on that ground, gave colonel Bradley damages to the amount of, he believed, 1007. When the question was last discussed in that House, the hon. member for Aberdeen stated two things: first, that the military commission produced in the court of law was a fabricaLord Palmerston said, that the hon. tion; and, secondly, that major Arthur member had twice before brought the had not alluded to that commission, in a case of colonel Bradley's dismissal from letter written by him in 1820. He (lord the service under the consideration of the P.) had contradicted those statements in House. On both occasions, he (lord P.) the most positive terms. He might, had stated to the House the grounds on perhaps, have allowed the case to rest which the military advisers of the Crown there, being inclined to suppose, that the had recommended his majesty to dismiss House would at all times be disposed to colonel Bradley. The facts of the case give credit to a person holding an official were these colonel Bradley had taken and responsible situation as he did, for upon himself to question the military com- speaking the truth; but he thought it mand exercised by major Arthur, at Hon- would be more respectful to the House duras, and not content with submitting not to allow the matter to rest on his his doubts to the authorities competent assertion only, and therefore, on a subseto solve them, he had chosen to solve quent day, he had produced copies of the them himself, and by his own act deposed military commission and the letter of major Arthur. This was considered to major Arthur, dated the 27th of May be an act of mutiny, which it was quite 1820, in which he alluded to the commisimpossible could be passed over. The sion. The commission itself was in the military advisers of the Crown had found- possession of major Arthur's legal adviser; ed their opinion of the propriety of rebut of its existence he thought no person moving colonel Bradley from the service, could doubt, any more than that he was not on the representations of major Arthur then speaking within the walls of that alone, but also upon colonel Bradley's House. He was at a loss to know on own representations, contained in his what ground further papers were now letters to the commander-in-chief. Colo- moved for. The question as to whether nel Bradley, however, not contented with the Crown was properly advised to dismiss the decision to which the advisers of the colonel Bradley had been twice discussed, Crown had come, carried the case into a and the House had decided in the affirmcourt of justice. He had rested his case ative. On that point he saw no ground there, on the ground that he had been for calling for further papers. There was illegally confined by major Arthur, inas- another question personal between himself much as he possessed no competent and the hon. member, as to who was cormilitary authority to confine him. It rect in the assertions they had respectively would be perceived, that the case, in the made, he declaring the existence of docucourt of law, did not rest on the same ments, and the hon. member denying it. grounds as those which influenced the He contended, that the papers which he military advisers of the Crown; for the had laid upon the table were as conclupropriety of colonel Bradley's conduct sive a proof as could possibly be, of the existence of those documents. If the hon. | been stated, that major Massey, a senior member should persist in saying that the of major Arthur, had obeyed major Arthur documents were not in existence, he would on that occasion. In answer to this, he say nothing more on the subject, but had a letter from major Massey himself, leave it entirely in the hands of the in which he denied that statement. When House. major Arthur arrived at Honduras, major Massey and major Smith, who had both leave of absence, resigned their commands, and never acted under major Arthur. It was further stated, that major Arthur had applied to major Massey, to ascertain whether he would sit on a court martial; to which major Massey had replied, that if the garrison was in danger, he would act, but then he would take the command, and direct major Arthur to take such steps as he might judge necessary, under the existing circumstances. But, had major Arthur ever thought of putting major Massey under arrest for this? No such thing. Then it was to be considered, that the regiment to which major Arthur belonged had been disbanded about this time, and that major Arthur had been reduced to half pay, and then became a mere private individual, and had no commission from his majesty to supersede his superior officers in rank and seniority. How, then, could colonel Bradley attend on a court martial under major Arthur, and obey the orders of major Arthur in proceeding against his government? What superior officer would like to submit to his inferior in a point of that kind? Colonel Bradley had applied to major Arthur, to know, whether he was aware that his corps had been reduced, and that he was no longer an officer in the army? No answer was returned to this. Major Arthur was then desired to show his authority; but none had been shown. The commission, such as it was, had not been published; and the fair inference was, that there had been no such commission granted. He further contended, that neither the duke of Manchester, nor the king, had any authority to grant such commissions, against the authority of an act of parliament. Besides colonel Bradley had been kept in custody for ten days after major Arthur's commission had expired; and afterwards colonel Bradley had been dismissed the service without any opportunity of being heard in his own defence. Colonel Bradley had acted as any superior officer ought to have done in such a situation; and it was only because he was conscientiously anxious to procure justice for an oppressed individual, that he wished to Mr. Hume denied that he had fallen into any such error and confusion as the noble lord had stated. This was a case of the utmost importance in a general point of view, and was, therefore, of much more consequence than if it applied to colonel Bradley alone, although one could not but be sorry that a deserving individual should have been so used. There were three or four questions connected with this subject, which deserved the serious consideration of this House. The first was, whether the Crown really possessed the prerogative which it claimed of dismissing officers of the army in this summary and arbitrary manner. The second was, whether his majesty had, under any act of parliament, the power, by himself or his officers, to grant commissions of that nature; and if they were granted, whether those who received them were not still subject to the articles of war? The military commission, from general Fuller to major Arthur, was the one produced in the court of King's bench; and the court certainly had held, that it was a sufficient authority to colonel Arthur for acting in the manner he had done. He did not deny the existence of this commission. What he said was, that a person receiving such a commission was still bound, by the articles of war, to exercise it according to the rank and seniority which he held in the army, and that he was still subject to his superior officers. This was a case provided for by a section of the articles of war, and this was a point which was required to be established by one of the papers now called for. This was quite distinct from the question, whether the commission itself had been granted by general Fuller. In giving a commission, it was impossible that he should have the power of giving a commission contrary to the king's commission, which colonel Bradley had in his pocket, and which required him to act according to his rank and seniority. When general Fuller granted the commission to major Arthur, he could only grant it to be exercised subject to the articles of war, and the question was, whether general Fuller's commission was to be considered as paramount to that of his majesty? It had devolving the military command of the co- Co have this case undergo the fullest investigation. Colonel Bradley had been for twenty years in the army, and, during fifteen 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'sbench against major Arthur, who was defended by the Crown lawyers, at the ex-armed persons in the settlement. But pense of the Crown. It had been there held, that the commission was sufficient; but he could not help considering that as a mistake of the learned judge. Still, however, colonel Bradley had a verdict in his favour; but major Arthur had been hurried off by the ministers to Van Dieman's Land, as governor; so that colonel Bradley had not even an opportunity of pro-mand in the colony. That was the quescuring his damages or expenses, which still further diminished the slender means which had been left him, and increased the injustice which had been done him; and he had now only to hope that the House would do him justice. 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 com tion at issue between the parties, and it was upon that question the court of King'sbench had to decide when the case was under consideration before that tribunal. The whole inquiry turned upon these points: "Was it a legal commission? Mr. Secretary Peel said, that it had at Did it entitle colonel Arthur to take the last become necessary that this question command, not only of the local militia, but should be brought to some termination. also of the king's troops?" The quesSince it had been before the House, it had tion was clearly settled, in the lengthened changed its shape so materially, that he argument of lord chief justice Abbott. would in the first place, briefly call the Having referred to the acts of parliament attention of the House to the different relating to the subject, and all the official grounds on which the case had been argued. documents which had been produced on Originally, it was represented by the hon. the trial, the lord chief justice gave it as gentleman, that the whole question was, his opinion, that the commission, in point whether any commission existed that jus- of law, did fully warrant colonel Arthur tified colonel Arthur in assuming the in taking the command of the army in the military command of Honduras. His noble settlement of Honduras. Mr. Justice friend asserted, in the most positive man- Bailey assented entirely to the views of the ner, that there was a commission of that lord chief justice, and Mr. Justice Holroyd nature in existence. The hon. gentleman was of the same opinion. Mr. Justice expressed a strong suspicion, that the com- Littledale, who was present, intimated mission, if any existed, must have been a no dissent from the judgment delivered by fabrication. This statement was cer- the court. But there was another obtainly one of those which approached the jection to colonel Arthur's authority. His extreme limit of debate. To the positive regiment had been disbanded; and upon assertion of a nobleman holding the re- that fact arose the question, whether it sponsible office of Secretary of War, he did not invalidate the commission granted felt that he could not but give implicit by general Fuller. Upon this point also, confidence. The fact, however, was soon the opinion of the judges of the court of placed beyond all doubt. The commis- King's-bench was given; and it was exsion itself was produced; and it then fur-pressly stated, that so long as colonel Arther appeared, that it was signed by ge- thur remained a half-pay officer, he was neral Fuller in 1814, and had the effect of as well entitled as ever to hold the commis sion granted by general Fuller. The judges had no doubt that the mere tenure of his regimental rank made no difference whatever with regard to his right to the command. 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'sbench, they must be satisfied, that, as to every question of law and fact, colonel Arthur was fully justified. Such being the state of the case, he hoped the House would concur with him in resisting the production of any more papers respecting 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. It would be seen, by reference to the report of the trial, that the judges did not sufficiently advert to that point. The judges alluded slightly to some evidence that there had been a recognition of a local kind, as to some authority possessed by general Fuller to grant a commission of this nature. But surely it was too much that, in 1825, any uncertainty at all should exist as to so material a point. The judges shrunk from the question, instead of entering into it boldly and manfully. It was their duty, he conceived, to state expressly, whether the Crown had authority, by martial law, or by the ordinary Statutes of the land, to delegate to its commanders abroad, the power of granting commissions, like that given by general Fuller to colonel Arthur. He also thought that it was equally the duty of the right hon. gentleman to elicit from legal authority, the fact, whether such a power was possessed by the Crown. This, he trusted, was not too much to expect in 1827. On the face of the report of the trial, the point had evidently been blinked. Besides, the words of the commission in this case did not give authority to colonel Arthur to command the regular forces. The case of colonel Bradley was altogether one of great hardship, and he would take the liberty of advising the right hon. gentleman to represent it in the highest quarter, as one well deserving of redress. Sir H. Hardinge said, he had not the slightest doubt as to the point adverted to by the hon. gentleman. It was a great absurdity, surely, to argue, that if any military officer commanding in chief, in the West Indies, for instance, or any officer holding the second command, should die, there should be a sort of interregnum until an appointment to fill the vacant office could be received from England. It would otherwise be impossible to carry on the military government of the colonies. It had been always the custom for the governor to appoint a successor to the command pro tempore, subject to his majesty's future approbation; and that that appointment was valid to all intents and purposes, until his majesty's sanction or disapprobation was received. In this case it was certain that his majesty did sanction the appointment of colonel Arthur. From the year 1814, when he was appointed, the Secretary of State regularly kept up an official intercourse with him, and thereby sanctioned his appointment. The same practice had been constantly followed in every colony belonging to this country, in every part of the globe. Nothing could be more awkward-no precedent more dangerous-than such a rule as the hon. gentleman who spoke last sought to institute. The judges of the King's-bench had no doubt as to the state of the law. They gave their opinion upon it in distinct terms. Lord chief justice Abbott said, expressly, that, "as to the second point, affecting the validity of colonel Arthur's commission, it was for his majesty to determine afterwards whether he would approve of the appointment made by general Fuller, as to the military command of Honduras. According to the facts in evidence, it appeared that his majesty had given his sanction, as colonel Arthur was officially acknowledged and treated as having been duly appointed." There could be no doubt, therefore, as to the approbation, or sanction, of his majesty. The only doubt on the trial was, whether a half-pay regimental officer could hold a staff appointment. He had given his opinion in the affirmative. Any officer receiving pay was, by military law, competent to command. Colonel Arthur did not receive his pay as he might, as a colonel on the staff, merely as a matter of economy, colonel Arthur received the salary of the office of civil superintendent, which he held as well as that of military commandant. There could be no question as to the right of a half-pay officer holding a staff appointment to assume the command. In this very capital, the major of the Tower was a half-pay captain. He was responsi |