f the crown. There were two questions to
decide: whether the arrest was legal, and then whether unnecessary
hardship had been endured by the plaintiff. The jury, considering that
Bradley's detention was unnecessarily prolonged, gave him damages to the
amount of L100. The appointment of Arthur to the government of this
country withdrew him from the effect of a legal process, and when
Bradley appealed against what he deemed the injustice of his evasion, he
was told that he could await his recall. Colonel Bradley next published
a statement, that General Fuller had antedated Arthur's commission as
commandant, thus to justify the measures he had taken: a charge
amounting to forgery. A criminal information was filed against Bradley:
he was found guilty, but was not brought up for judgment.

It was decided by the judges that Bradley was mistaken, and that
Arthur's title to command was regular and valid. Bradley, however,
continued to maintain that he was the victim of a deep conspiracy, by
which Arthur was rescued from the consequences of usurpation. It is
certain that Bradley was ruined.

The judges, in pronouncing a decision on Bradley's appeal against the
verdict of justification which Arthur obtained, in reference to the
arrest, set aside the rules and regulations of the service. Their
judgment was built merely upon the absolute discretion of the crown in
the distribution of military command: they inferred that the approval of
Arthur's proceedings and the dismissal of Bradley, were sufficient
evidence of the royal will.[141]

This was not the only charge exhibited against Arthur. In Honduras,
slavery existed in its foulest forms.[142]

Colonel Arthur obtained the countenance of an important class of
politicians, by the compassion he expressed for the negro race, and his
exposure of the connivance of magistrates at the cruelty of masters. He
minutely described the sufferings of several women of color in his
despatches to the secretary of state; and especially denounced that
atrocious bench, which admitted a plea of ownership in justification of
the crime of maiming. The details given by Arthur fully justify his
interference, and the enmity of a people by whom they were tolerated
inflicted no disgrace. Thus a mistress, whose careless severity injured
the eye and severed the ear of a negro woman, pleaded the rights of
property, and the magistrate admitted the defence, although the
character of the sufferer was unimpeached