The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-22 00:00:00

horse racing.: 14e trusted that the Bill would be allowed to go
into Committee.
I,lr. C. BERKELEY wotild gi*e his support to the Right
Honottrabltf qemleman if he would strife out all the clauses fa
the Bill, except 111.07,e that related to qut tarn actions.—( A
laugh.) He theug fit the Bill would act most un-
fairly towards the licensed vieittallers, and he should not In
content unless all the clauses with respect to them were
Btr u,:k out.
Sir G. STRICKLAND considered the Bill as the foun-
dation of a good principle, and, although some of
its clauses w,ere tlo stringent, he would vote
for the second reading, in order that those clauses might be
amended in Committee.
Captain RODS would vote for the second reading. He
was as anxious to put an end to gambling as any man ;
he did not desire to protect the rich, and he trusted that the
first information would be against Crockford's Club-house.—

(A laugh.)
Mr. WAKLEY considered that the Bill would operate most
harshly on the licensed victuallers ; as to the informers, he
looked upon them as pests to society, and as such they ought
to be treated as strictly as possible in legislation.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not wish to press harshly upon the
licensed victuallers, further than to prevent the growing evil of
gambling. When the House went into Committee, he would
carefully consider what had fallen from the Hon. Members for
Lambeth and Finsbury.
After a few words from Mr. HAWES, the Bill was read a
second time, arid it was arranged that it should be committed
pro forma to-morrow, and another day appointed for its dis-
cussion.
The business of the House was then suspended till half-past
1 four o'clock.

The SrEAKErt resumed the Chair at half-past Four
o'clock.
ROYAL ASSENT—SUMMONS FROM THE LORDS.
Sir Augustus Clifford, the Usher of the Black Rod,
summoned the House to attend the House of Lords to hear
the Royal Assent given to several public and private Bills (for
which see Lords' report).
The SPEAKER, accompanied by several Hon. Members in
obedience to the summons, immediately left House.
The SPEAKER returned from the House of Lords at a
quarter past five o'clock, having been absent about forty
minwes, when the House resumed.
DUDDESTOLS AND NECHELLS IMPROVEMENT
BILL.
The report of this Bill was taken into consideration and
agreed to.

GRIMSBY DOCKS BILL.
rhe report of this Bill was also considered and agreed to.
EPPING RAILWAY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from persons re-
sidt nt in Edinburgh, and having friends and relations in New
Zealand, praying for an inquiry into the state of that colony.
Mr. SPOONER presented a similar petition from Bir-
mingham.
Mr. DUNCAN presented 2: petition from Dundee com-
plaining of delay of the mails in Edinburgh.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from inhabitants
of the county of Surrey, praying for the postponement of this
Bill, and alleging that the petitioners had important Informa-
tion to communicate to the House on the subject, if time
were allowed.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. HAWES begged leave to take that opportunity of
putting a question to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
( eir Robert Peel) on the subject of the matters which
had transpired respecting the South-Eastern Railway.
He wishes to ask whether the Government meant to act upon
their own responsibility in reference to the report of the Com-
mittee of the House? His question was, whether they had
taken into consideration the report of the Select Committee
of the House respecting the conduct of Mr. Bonham,
Captain Boldero, and Mr. Wray ?—( Hear, hear.) He wished
to know whether the Ministers, in the case of those gentlemen,
had acted upon their own responsibility, or were waiting for
further proceedings in the House?
Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to state to the House, in an-
swer to the question of the Hon. Member, that the course
taken by her Majesty's Government was this : After
the consideration of the report of the Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the matter had been laid be-
fore them, a communication had been received from Mr. Bon-
ham and Captain I.3t,ldero, surrendering the offices which they
respectively held. They stated that although they had been
exonerated from any suspicion in this transaction; althoughtheir
characters wet e completely cleared, and although in
their official capacity they had not been influenced
by any suggestions of self-interest, yet, at the same
time, they felt that their efficiency as members of a pub-
lic body was likely to be impaired, and therefore they
tendered their resignation. With respect to Mr. Wray,
who held ine office of Receiver-General to the Police
establishment, his Right Honourable Faiend beside him
directed a communication to be forwarded to him,
calling upon him for an explanation, and, as re-
garded Mr. Hignett, his Honourable and Gallant Friend the
Master-General of the Ordnance had informed him (Sir R.
Peel) that he had been formally dismissed her Majesty's service.
Captain BOLDER() felt truly the painful situation in
which he was placed before the House, and he would endeavour
to inform them, in as few words as possible, of every circum-
stance connect trig his name in any way with these transactions.
The House was, of course, aware that the South-Eastern
Railway Company had presented a petition to the House, in
which charges were brought against Mr. Bonham and himself.
The matter had been referred to a Committee of the House
for inquiry, and after mature deliberation and the strictest
inquiry—after witnesses had been examined, and after the do-
cuments connected with the transaction had been received and
perused, that Committee had presented a report to this House,
to which he would briefly refer. The report stated " Your
Committee, upon the evidence before them, cannot, entertain
a doubt that the paragraphs in Mr. Hignett's letters of the
3d of February, 1815, which refer to Captain Boldero and Mr,
Bonham are altogether false. But your Committee find that
Capt. Boldero and Mr. Bonham have trafficked in the shares
of a railway company, the progress of whose Bill depended
upon the consent of a public board, of which, at the time, they
were members ; and thoy are of opinion that such transactions
are inconsistent with the maintenance of that strict impartiality
of conduct upon all public questions which is to be expected
from every servant of the Crown, and are calculated to impair
the confidence of the public in the integrity of members of the
Government departments." And then went on to say—" Your
Committee entertain no doubt that the decisions of the
Master-General and the acts of the Bonrd of Ordnance in re-
ference to these railway companies, were the result elone of a
desire to p. otect public interests, and to efford consistently with
them a reasonable and proper accommodation to the public in
the districts through which it was proposed that these railways
should pass " The Committee in that report stated
that nothing had transpired which led them to suppose that
the Mas'er-General or other of the higher officers of the
Board of Ordnance had been influenced by other motives
than those which depended solely on the mer:ts of the question
of railways itself. When he ( Capt. Boldero) was examined
before that Committee, he exposed every private transao-
tion of his connected with railways without any hesitation,
and in the course of his evidence he stated that he
had purchased some shares in the North Kent, but
he was not in the slightest degree Implicated as a member of the
Board, nor would any decision of the Beard be affected by that
circumstance. After finishing his explanation he had not had an
opportunity of hearing the short-hand writer read his notes, nor
did he get a sight of them on the next day. The real facts
which induced him to sell those shares were these. On Satur-
day the 7th June, after the business of the day was ever, he
found by the Times newspaper that a military witness at-
tached to a powder establishment at Feversham (the pro-
perty of the Board of Ordnance) had been examined. It was
evident to him that he might be called upon, in his character
as a Member of that House, and as holding a special situation
in the Board of Ordnance to explain the act of the Master-
General (who had not a seat in that House), with respect to
the passing of a railway line close to that work, and he decided
on disposing of the shares he had in the rival line. On Mon-
day, then, the 9th of June, he disposed of them on the principle
that if called upon to give an explanation to that House, or to
take part in any debate on the subject he
might do so, without being impressed in any
wayl by the fact that he was interested in the matter.
This was the impression made upon the minds of the Commit-
tee. He could assure the House that it was entirely inconsis-
tent with the mode in which the business was carried on in that
department. There was no power whatever, either negative or
affirmative, in his hands. The decision rested entirely in the
hands of the Master-General.—( Hear.) If there should be a
doubt about what he stated, he would undertake to say that
both those gentlemen would corroborate the statements
which he had made. There was the paragraph as
it stood, and be would ask the House if such
a paragraph were published to the world, what
course there was open to him, except that dictated by an
honourable mind ; and he put into the hands of the Right Hon.
Beionet the First Lord of the Treasury his resignation as clerk
to the Ordnance. In doing that he thought it his duty to
read the letter which he communicated to state his only
grounds for the course which he took. The words were to the
effect that he acted under a clear conviction and perfect con-
sciousness of the utter groundlessness of any imputation which
might be thrown on his character, either in his public or his
private capacity. This was all he wished to put forward; and
he would conclude by thanking the House for the patient
manner in which they had heard him, at the same time hoping
that the words uttered by him had given offence to nobody.
Mr. HAWES wished to understand from the Secretary of
the Home Department, whether Mr. Wray was still continued
in office after the report was made?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as soon as the report which the,
Hon. Gentleman referred to was presented to him he thought
after mature reflection, that the transaction of 1836 had no
connexion with the subject matter which gave rise to the in-
quiry. He thought that at was then his (Sir J. Graham's)
duty to animadvert strongly on his (Mr. Wray's) conduct in
1836, and he was deserving of serious animativerson. His ap-
prehension up to that time was that he (Mr. Wray) had no
right to employ himself in any other business than
that connected with his office.—(Cries of " Hear.")
Since that period the official labour which had devolved on
Mr. Wray had considerably increased, and there had, in conse-
quence, been an augmentation of his salary. Mr. Wray hail,
therefore, been called upon to give his time exclusively
to the business of his office, and he had been informed that
any employment that he might enter into not immediately
connected with his office, would be considered as a ground
for his immediate removal from the situation which
he held. He (Sir James Graham) had looked
at this matter dispassionately, and, in his humble judgment, the
course which he had adopted was the proper one.
Mr. HAWES—Has the Right Hon. Gentleman any ob-
jection to lay the letter to which he has alluded on the table of
the House?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Under the peculiar circumstances
of this case—although I have before refused in such cases to
produce the terms in which the Secretary of State has thought
fit to discharge his duty—yet, in this case, I am prepared to
lay thr letter on the table of the House.
Mr. ROEBUCK —lf I understood the Right Hon. Gentleman
rightly, he said that in the appointment of Mr. Wray, that gen-
tleman was not restricted from applying himself to other busi-
ness. Was it understood that he was to employ himself in the
character of a barrister—that was, that he was not to withdraw
himself from Westminster-hall? 1 want to know whether it
was considered that this was a palliation of the proeedingsoflf
Mr. \'dray, and whether he way justified in employing
in the business of cathe South-Eastern ttnaviz.saiyngcvoorzifioyr? the private purpuses of
circumstance
which
ihe wouldli(
besairp..'il.litit(t!ilfAtLi—pairetieuiel:rivteratnlisaatetloon
Gentleman refers.
hoatnso
the
aibikeee
whole,
hoindefensibleplace,lew
.di ;og I thitlueortt
the .sp.se of am
considering I
hich I have staptietetiofie(ko an act of justice, I have
WARD begged to say a few words on this subject.
considerationsoact withundue d"ti.
thoughti‘tr. it b:'st to take the course I have stated.
He did conceive that a great deal of misapprehension existed in
regard to Mr. Wray, and if anything could be said in extenua-
tion of his conduct it was the disgraceful mode of forming the
Committees that existed in the year 1836.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had heard that explanation with
considerable surprise, and that such a state of things as the
Hon. Member had described as existing in 1836 was no excuse
whatever for the conduct that had been spoken of here this
evening.
Mr. WARD said a few words in explanation.
Sir .T. GR Ail VI said he had never had any communication
with Mr. Wray on this subject, but he hail weighedtheevidence
that had been elicited very carefully, and had, upon his own