The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-05 00:00:00

WEST-MINSTER ABBEY.

Mr. HL ME said he had delayed, until this late
period of the ~ession, asking the light Hon. Gentleman
opposite, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to take any steps for discontinuing the fee
now exacted from persons visiting Westminster Abbey ?
(Hear.) He should say it was extremely discreditable
to exact such fees, and it was the first thing complained
of by all foreigners visiting the Abbey, on their return
to their own country, knowing, as they did, that nothing
of the sort was known on the Continent. The Hon.
Member concluded by reading his motion, as follows, but
did not press it :—" To call the attention of the House
to the practice of exacting fees or receiving gratuities
from the public as the conditions of their admittance to
cathedrals and other public buildings ; and to move,
that, in the opinion of this House, the practice of ex-
acting fees from the public as the conditions of their ad-
mittance to cathedrals is highly improper, and ought to
be discontinued." . .

Sir R. PEEL sail he had always expressed an opinion
in favour of free admission to all the public institutions of
this country, in so far as was consistent with the safety
of the works of arts, for he conceived that nothing
exercised a more beneficial effect on the minds of the
people than being permitted to have free admission to
such places.—(Hear.) He should here add that no-
thing could be more exemplary than the conduct of the
working classes at those places, for instance, during
their free admission to the cartoons at Westminster
Ha l.—(Hear.) But then due caution was necessary to
be exercised in order to guard against such occurrences
as had taken place, in reference to the destruction of
works or art, as in t'.e ease of the Portland vase. The
Right Lion Baronet then read a letter, which he said he
had received upon this subject, in which the writer
stated that measures had already been taken whereby to
effect a change in the charge now made for the ad-
mittance of stratr.zers to Westminster Abbey. The
substance of which was, that, in future, strangers were to
be admitted to the nave, and the choir, and the north
and south transepts, without any charge ' • in fact, there
wa:, to be free admittance to all persons the body' of
the church.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WM. C )UPER said that it afforded him very
great gratification to have heard the statements of the
Eight Hon. Baronet, for he did conceive it was a great
scandal to the church that such exaction should ever have
been male ; aid he doubted very much whether the
Dean and Chapter had ever any right to make any such
charge.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that this change
would prove to be but the forerunner of a total removal
of the exaction of any fee whatever.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr.WILLIAMS concurred with the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down, and said that this was the only
country in Europe in which the clergy exacted such
charges.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK quite agreed with the Right
Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, that
it was better this thing should be carried out by the good
will and concurrence of the clergy, than by compulsory
enactment. Still he thought all those public buildings

ought to be opened without any tax whatever. English-
men ought to be at home in their owa country, and not
be met with charges continually whenever they went to
examine any of the public monuments. It was not so
on the continent, where all the cathedrals and public
buildings were thrown open to the public without a tax.
He condemned the practice of turning St. Paul's Ca-
thedra and Westminster Abbey into show-rooms. They
ought, as had been originally intended, to be open at all
hours of the day for religious purposes, when the public
could be allowed to enter without money and without
price.
Mr. HUME said, that what the Right Honourable
Gentleman had stated was quite satisfactory. TTe was sure
that by carrying out such an arrangement as that spoken
of, the greatest good would be realised.
The report of the Exchequer-bills Bill was then
agreed to.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.—THE CASE OF

any prospect of reward from the company—(Hear, '
hear)—that was expressly set forth in the report, and
borne out by the evidence. It did not appear that the
money paid to Mr. Benham was made at Mr. Wray's
suggestion, but at that of a gentleman connected with
the company. He had said that Mr. Wray was unknown
to him, whereas Mr. Bonham was intimately and well-
known to him. He was still proud to call him his friend.
—(Hear.) He committed a grave error—he acknow-
ledged that he committed a grave error. He could not
offer to extenuate it. He (Sir J. Graham) regretted that he
could not extenuate it, but still he said Mr. Bonham
was his friend. The Hon. Gentleman said that Mr.
Bonham was under obligations to Mr. Wray. The
statement that the money paid to Mr. Bonham went to
liquidate a debt owing by him to Mr. Wray had been
refuted, and was without foundation. Mr. Wray's was
only the hand that gave it to him. The evidence proved
that Mr. Wray did not directly or indirectly receive any
benefit from the money. It Elsgood, who was in at-
tendance on the Committee, had been examined, he
would have proved that the money did not pass through
Mr. Wray' private account. He called upon
the muinhers of the Committee who were present to
state, whether he dig not include, in the statement which
he had male to the House, hip strong disapprobation of
the conduct of Mr. Wray ? With respect to Mr. I lig-
nett, he distinctly stated that his conduct rendered him
unfit to be employed as a servant of the Crown. Then
with regard to Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero, who
had stated that they were of opinion that they had done
nothing to impair their efficiency as members of the
Ordnance ; but thinking that the public service would
be impaired by their remaining in office, they tendered
their resignations, which were accepted by the Govern-
ment. The report of the Committee stated that the con-
duct of Mr. Wray was deserving of serious animadver-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) He would state cordially the in-
formation he had received with respect to the proceed-
ings of the Committee. In the draft framed by the
chairman, the words " deserving of serious animadver-
sion" did not stand alone, as there were added to them,
and afterwards expunged, " that the attention of the
Secretary of State be especially called to this subject."
—(Hear, hear.) It those words had been inserted, they
would certainly have called his attention to the subject
more strongly than " serious animadversion." He
thought it right to state that the suppression of that pa-
ragraph by the Committee materially affected his deci-
sion.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. Hignett had been ignomini-
ously dismissed. One Member of the House had re-
signed his office under painful circumstances to himself
and to his friends. No dispassionate person could blame
him for the course he had adopted ; but if he had erred,
it was for the House to say.
Mr. HAWES said as the paragraph in the report was
originally framed, it stood thus—" That Mr. Wray's
conduct deserved the immediate notice of the Secretary
of State for the Home Department." Some objection
was raised in the Committee to referring the subject to
the Secretary of State, the general opinion being that it
should be referred specially to the House, and, conse-
quently, the words " that his conduct deserves the
notice of the Secretary of State" were expunged, and the
words "serious animadversion" were inserted in their

place.
Mr. SHELL said it appeared from the statement of
the Right lion. Gentleman that, with respect to the
conduct of Mr. Wray, he did not come to his determina-
tion without. the utmost deliberation—at all events he
was in communication with one of the Members of the
Committee. He (Mr. Sheil) thought he mentioned the
Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) whose name he found in the
Committee. He understood he was the noble and dis-
dinguished person to whom he referred. He (Mr.
Sheil) thought that it was rather extraordinary
that he should not have consulted the Chair-
man himself on that point—in which he was the
principal and original agent. The draft of the report
was furnished by the Chairman of the Committee in
the performance of his official functions as the head of
the Committee. Would it not have been more regular,
and more consistent with the duty of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, to have sent for the Chairman instead of en-
tering into a communication with one individual Member
of the Committee. At all events, it appeared that the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Depart-
ment did not write the letter in a hasty mood. Now, it
was singular that the Hon. Gentleman should have omit-
ted from the letter addressed to Mr. Wray all mention
of the moat material charge against that gentleman.
The report of the Committee made a distinct specifica-
tion of that particular charge upon which the Hon. Gen-
tleman has expatiated.—(The Hon. Gentleman then read
the resolution of the Committee, which stated that 3001.
was paid to ell. Bonham, and that 100 shares were re-
served for him before the passing of the Bill, which were
disposed of for his sole benefit, and paid to him by
cheque as a gratuity for the services rendered to
the South-Eastern Counties, both in and out of Par-
liament, as a Member of the Committee on their Bill.)
He would now pass from one branch of the transaction
to another, namely, to the letter of the Right Hon. Bart.
What was the complaint made by the Right Hon. Bart.?
Why, it was limited to what was not really the most
serious part of the charge which the report of the Com-
mittee made against Mr. Wray. The Right Hon. Baro-
net only animadverted upon the charge, that Mr. Wray
had been the paid servant of the company, while he was
one of the paid servants of the Government ; but the
Right Hon. Baronet spoke of his having canvassed men
out of Parliament,—he did not say a word of the trans-
action which took place between them, and which was so
minutely detailed in the report of the Committee,—so
minutely indeed, that the whole evidence of Mr.
Bonham upon the subject was transcribed and • cited
at length. N,)%l' a general canvass of Members of
Parliament was a very different thing from
applying to a Member of a Committee to whom a Bill
had been `feferred to support that Bill. Every clear-
minded man would see that it was something to canvass
Members of Parliament in the lobby of the House, and an-
ther to canvass an individnal sitting as it were as kjitren;
and solicit his sentiments upon the measure which had
been referred to him in his judicial capacity. Now in the
report of the Committee they had evidence coming from
Mr. Bonham, and a statementgiven by Mr. Wray. Mr.
Bonham stared that in the early part of the session of
1836, Mr. Wray, to whom he was under considerable
obligations, and to whom he owed money, came to him
and said he was very much interested in the success of
the South-Eastern Railway, and he wished him to
give it a lift, and wished his advice upon some
points. He reviled that he was under considerable
obligations to Mr. Wray, and should be glad to do
anything to serve him, and the report added that Mr.
Bonham regularly attended, and voted in the
committee. Now, he thought everybody who read the
evidence must admit that this was a case entirely dis-
tinct from that of simply canvassing members of Parlia-
ment. Mr. Wray said no conversation took place be-
tween him and Mr. Bonham as to the advantage the latter
was to receive for "giving them a lift ;" but he admitted
that afterwards Mr. Bonham received 3001. as a gratuity
for his services in behalf of the company, both in and out
of the doors of Parliament. Now, could the House, under
these circumstances, be of opinion that the letter ad-
dressed to Mr. Wray by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department was a sufficient reprimand upon Mr.
Wray ? The committee was composed of men of all
parties. and of high rank and station in that llonse, and
they were unanimously of opinion that the conduct of Mr.
Wray was deserving of serious animadversion. The
Right Honourable Baronet, however, had omitted all
mention of the most serious accusation against Mr. Wray,
and he thought, in this respect, the Right Honourable
Baronet had been guilty of some departure from his
duty.
Mr. W. PATTEN said, whatever might be his opinion
upon the conduct of Mr. Wray he could not but lament.
that the Hon. Member for Lambeth had felt it to be his
duty to bring a motion forward upon this most painful
subject, for the question could not be discussed without
pointy being entered into which were painful not only to
the House, but many individuals out of it. Upon two
of those individuals a punishment had been inflicted
quite commensurate with the nature of their offence ;
and he should abstain as much as possible from saying
anything upon the subject. Allusion had been made to
Mr. Bonham, and perhaps he might be allowed to say a
word or two with regard to another individual concerned
in the matter, namely, Captain Boldero. He believed
that the Committee concurred in stating that Captain
Boldero's character remained perfectly unimpeached.
The honour of Captain Boldero, they said, was unsullied
and untouched, and he thought his resignation
added still more to the honourable nature of
his feelings.—(Loud cheers.) He was bound to
say, as a Member of the Committee, that he had been
taken by surprise by the Hon. Member's motion, and he
thought, if the Committee were again called together, to
consider this subject, they would not express themselves
upon it in exactly the terms of the Honourable Gentle-
man the Member for Lambeth. The Committee, in his
opinion, only intended that a serious animadversion
should be passed upon the conduct of Mr. Wray ; and
he thought the Right Hon. Baronet had placed a fair and
proper construction upon their report.—(Hear, hear.)
Under all the circumstances of the case, had the Right
Hon. Baronet proceeded to dismiss Mr. Wray from his
office, he would not go so far as to say it would have
been gross injustice ; but the Right Hon. Baronet would
have pursued a rigid course of justice towards him. He
concluded by moving the previous question as an
amendment.
Colonel PEEL seconded the amendment.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the question before the
House was whether the House should take any notice
of the transactions in respect to which the Committee
had laid their report upon the table, or whether the
Hu o s e
wshho uoml do v
eentirely
hee itprepvaisosus by.
question,The
had Hon.sa d Gen-
tlemanthat
rtaheetesrusbojefeitndwiaysidaualpsaoinuftulorondeo,orasn;d
biunjoblveecadusteheit eNtivaas-
a painful case were they altogether to abstain from ex-
pressing an opinion upon it ? It was a question upon
which the House was bound to express an opinion, and
it being a painful duty was no reason why they should
shrink from the performance of a duty which the Con-
stitution had placed upon them. The Government
complained of the Hon. Member for Lambeth having
brought the question forward at this late period of the
session, but he had postponed it with a view of suiting,
not his own, but the convenience of the Government.
When the report was laid upon the table, he asked his
Hon. Friend whether he intended to take any notice of
those transactions; and he replied that he thought it right
to wait a week before he did so, to give the Government
an opportunity to deliberate and decide upon the course
they intended to pursue.--(Hear, hear.) It was rather
hard, therefore, for the Government to complain of the
delay which his Hon. Friend had allowed to take place
before bringing the question before the House. The
Right Hon. Baronet had said that he acted upon the re-
port of the Committee, and had carried into effect what
he understood to be their intention. But he (Lord John
Russell) had never heard of a case in which the Com-
mittee did more than report the evidence adduced before
them, and their opinions as to the charges referred to
them. He had never heard of a Committee specifying the
punishment to be inflicted, or the course which the House
ought to take in any particular caw, Aa for instance, in

THE S UN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORN ING, AUGUST 5 1845.

the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, whose case was much
graver than the one now under the consideration of the
House, the Committee in that case did not lay. down
what was to be the penalty. They stated no more than
that he had been guilty of a grave offence in appropri
ating to his own use money paid into his court. But
they never attempted to indicate the course which the
House or the Government was to take in that case.
Both Houses of Parliament considered of themselves
what was the course, and they addressed the Crown to
dismiss Sir Jonah Barrington from his office. The Right
Honourable Baronet was in error, also, when he applied
to members of the Committee for their individual
opinions. If he thought it necessary to ask any one's
opinion, it should have been the chairman of the Com-
mittee.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) thought
that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Hawes) was
justified in bringing before the House this grave
case which could not be passed over without injury to
the character of the House.--(Hear.) The offence was
that of offering a bribe of £3OO to a member of that
House for services rendered to particular persons in his
capacity of Member. What was the punishment inflicted
on him by her Majeety's Government ? It was to inform
Mr. Wray that he had done something which was in-
compatible with the efficient discharge of his duties in
his office under the Government.—(Hear, hear.) It was
much the same as if the Right Hon. Baronet reproved
a messenger in the Home-office, that he could not attend
to his duty in that office, if he employed his time in
running about to distribute bribes to parliamentary
olectors.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet said
that Mr. Bonham had not been bribed—that it had
never been said to him that he was to receive money for
his vote. But if the House looked hack to what had
been done in the reigns of William 3rd and George the
Ist —in those reigns it was declared to be bribery to
give any gratuity to any elector after the election, whe-
ther it could be shown that he had voted in the expec-
tation of such a gratuity or eiot. Would the House, in
the present day admit, or allow it to be inferred, that
they were less pure, and less sensitive as to the evils of
the bribery of their members, than their predecessors in
the reigns to which he referred, and in which two Acts
were pa-7sed to prevent the offer of any gratuity to mem-
bers?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then read the
evidence of Wray before the Select Committee,
from which he contended that Wray admitted
that the sum of £3OO was given to Mr.
Bonham for the assistance which he had ren-
dered to the Company by his services in Parliament.
—(Hear, hear.) If such bribery were passed over, how
could they condemn to a prison the poor hand-loom
weaver, the cobbler, and the daily labourer, for accepting
bribes, to which he was almost driven by the necessities
of his family ?—(Hear, hear.) Would it not be a gross
injustice to punish such persons when a gentleman of
high station, a Member of that House, was allowed to
receive 3001. upon his vote, and the person who offered it
escaped with a mere reprimand.—(Hear, hear.) Taking
that view of the case, nothing should binder him (Lord
J. Russell) from giving his vote to maintain the purity
of the House as muc as he could.—(Cheers.) The
Bight Hon. Baronet said that the offence of Mr. Wray
had been committed so long ago as 1836. But, looking
to the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, he found
that the subject was brought before Parliament
and inquired into, and that addresses were pre-
sented to the Crown for his dismissal from office.
in 1829—the offence having been committed 25 years
before, that is in 1804 or 1805.—(Hear, hear.) But
the Right Hon. Baronet further said that the proposition
of his Hon. Friend would be a vote of censure upon him
(Sir J. Graham). He could not admit that the House
should not preserve its purity, because it might imply a
vote of censure upon the Secretary of State.—(Hear.) It
was not attempted to be implied in the motion of his Hon.
Friend, that the Secretary of State was at all
involved in the objectionable transaction.--(Hear, hear.)
But only that his reprehension of the offending person
was not sufficient to vindicate the purity of the House.
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet complained of
the late period of the session when this motion was
brought forward, and said it should have been made ten
days ago ; when, in point of fact, the motion e as delayed
out of forbearance to the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet said that he had acted from
motives of lenity. That had not always been the ruling
motive of the Right Hon. Baronet in the discharge of his
duty. He had not been lenient to those foreigners whom
he accused of being suborners of assassination, and whose
innocence was admitted by his Right Hon. Friend four-
teen months afterwards.—(Hear, hear.) With-respect
to Captain Boldero. he (Lord John Russell) did not
think that he was not guilty of any criminality, but that he
was the least culpable of the three--(Hear, hear)—and
he thought that the vindication of the purity of the
House required him to give his support to the motion of
his Hon. Friend.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said that the Noble Lord had en-
tirely mistaken the purport and intent of his Right
Hon. Friend, in complaining of the introduction of this
motion at so late a period of the session. What his
Right Hon. Friend complained of was that the letter to
Mr. Wray was laid before the House on the 22d of July,
and notice of this motion was not given until the Ist of
August.—(Hear, hear.) Whereas the notice ought to
have been given on the day when the Secretary of State
announced to the House whet he had done.—(Hear,
hear.) The Government had not shrunk frcrn the pain
of accepting the resignation of Captain Boldero and Mr.
Bonham, who were the personal and political friends
of hts RightHon.Friend and himfelf.--(Ministerial cheers.)
He did say, that having had occasion, in his public ca-
pacity, to perform many painful acts, yet it never had
fallen to his lot to have acted a more painful part to his
private feelings, than when he bad advised the Queen
to accept that resignation —(Hear, hear.) With
respect to Mr. Bonham, he (Sir Robert Peel) had long
been upon terms of private friendship with him, and
when that Hon. Member was labouring under the in-
fliction consequent on his removal from the public ser-
vice, yet he would say, that his friendship for him
remained the same.—(Hear, hear.) And with respect
to Captain Boldero, though he was not upon the same
terms of private intercourse with him that he was with
Mr. Bonham, yet when he advised the Queen to accept
his resignation also, he did feel a considerable degree of
pain ; and this he would say further, of that Hon. Gen-
tleman, that in the whole range of the public service he
did not believe there was a man who had discharged his
duties with greater industry, integrity, or fidelity.—
(Hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) knew all the difficulties of his
position, yet he would appeal to his Hon. Friend, and
ask him if he ever knew a man who had discharged the
duties of his office with greater satisfaction.—(Hear-)
With respect to Captain Boldero, again, he (Sir R.
Peel) would ask why had he tendered his resignation ?
Not because he felt he could be accused of any breach of
official duty, or that his official conduct could be
questioned ; but he tendered it in that spirit which he
felt should actuate him, having seen the report of the
Committee.—(Hear, hear) But even under these cir-
cumstances he (Sir R. Peel) would have no hesitation
in saying that no feelings of private pain would have de-
terred him from the performance of his public duty.—
(Hear.) He did think, then, that he had shown through
out the whole *f this affair, in the acceptance of the re--
signation of these two gentlemen, a desire to set an ex-
ample, and protect the public.—(Hear, hear.) But the
Noble Lord said that the House should not be deterred
from passing this resolution ; now, he (Sir. R. Peel)
begged to assure the House that his Hon. Friend did
not seek any exemption from any punishment
his conduct in this affeir7might merit.—(Hear, hear.)
But let him ask, did his Hon. Friend'slconduct deserve
censure? for that was really the whole question now be-
fore the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was a question as
against Parliamentary privileges, and not as against an
officer of the police. Well, then, this House took cog-
niaances of it as such, and appointed a Committee to in-
vestigate it, and on that Committee devolved the duty of
reporting upon it. Now, if the House were to be called
on to decide this question, without reference to that re-
port, why then he would say it was an attempt to lead
this side of the House into a snare.--(Hear, hear.) Let
him just read what the decision of that Committee had
been. Here the Hon. Baronet read an extract from the
report, which was to the effect that the conclusion the Com-
mittee had come to with reference to the South-Eastern
Company's case was, that Mr. Hignett bad corruptly
used the influence of his station, and was, therefore, un-
vieorthy of a continuance of the confidence reposed in
him.—(Hear, hear.) By that the House could see that
the Committee did not, as in other cases, *lle the facts
and leave the punishment to this House ; but they stated
at once what punishment ought to be inflicted ; and upon
that report he (Sir R. Peel) advised the dismissal of
Mr. Hignett.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then it had been
said by Hon. Members opposite, that the Committee was
composed of distinguished men, and that they were una-
nimous. Why, that is the very thing that they at this
side of the House had acted on, for they conceived they
could not have adopted a better course than to carry out
the intention and recommendation of the Committee.—
(Hear, hear.) With respectlo Mr. Bonham and Capt.
Boldero, the report stated that those gentlemen's con-
duct had been inadvertent and inconsistent with the
integrity of Members of this House, and the conse-
quence was, that they had tendered their resignations.—
( i fear, hear.) Well, then he came to the case of Mr.
Wray; and what did the seine tribunal of this House, that
pronounced Mr. Hignett corrupt, say of Mr. Wray ?
Why this, that the conduct elif Mr. Wesey deserved the
most severe animadversion. Well, then, what had he (Sir
Hobert Peel) done, in pursuance of the report of the
committee ? Why, this, that Mr. Hignett had been dis-
missed--the resignation of Mr. Bonham and Captain
Boldero had been accepted, though his own private and
political friends, and they had expressed their disappro-
bation of the conduct of Mr. Wray.—(Hear, hear). Well,
now, let him contrast the meting now before the House
with the recommendation of the Committee.—(Hear,
hear). The Committe,, in their report, had drawn a
marked distinction between the merits of the case of Mr.
Hignett and that of Mr. Wray ; for in the former they
state he is unworthy of confidence, while in the latter
they say the
while the motion before the House says that Mr. Wray
party deserves " severe animadversion,"
"not only" deserves animadversion ; but had not the
confidence of the House.—(Hear, hear). By putting in
these words the conduct of Wray and Hignett would be
assimilated, which the report of the Committee had not
done.—(Hear, hear). Well, then, if so, let him ask
would there be any justice in the House adopting this
motion?—(llear, hear). He begged to declare most
solemnly, that if the Committee had come tothe same de-
cision in reference to Mr. Wray that they had to Mr.
Hignett, he had not the slightest doubt but that his Hon.
Friend would have dismissed him at once.—(Hear,
bear). He also begged to say that, considering
the position of Mr. Wray as a member of
a high and honourable profession, and that he had had
inflicted on him the expression of the sense of disappro-
bation of this House—he did not know what the Noble
Lord opposite might think of such punishment—but he
(Sir R. Peel) should say that, next to dismissal, it was
the severest punishment he could have got.—(Hear,
bear.) And what was the object of punishment of any
sort, if it was not to deter others from similar courses ?
—(Hear, hear.) He would say then that, looking at the i
whole of this case--taking into consideration the fact of

the dismissal of one party, the resignation of two others,
whose resignation the Queen of this realm had been
advised to receive, and the reprimanding of a fourth—if
the object was to deter others by punishment—surely he
(Sir R. Peel) could not be accused of not having inflicted
that punishment.—(Hear, hear.). If the House went
further than that, they would not only be driving punish-
ment beyond its legitimate limits, but they would also
be taking out of the hands of their own tribunals the
powers they had invested them with.
Mr. HUME said he was sorry he could not agree with
his Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth on the pre- '
sent occasion. Not that he did not concur with the con-
demnation of such practices as those he had referred to,
but because he thought the matter against Mr. Wray
had already been carried too far. He had known Mr.
Wray for twenty years, and until now he had never
known that gentleman guilty of a mean or a dishonour-
able action. He (Mr. Hume) admitted that Mr. Wray
had acted a very improper part, but he did not think his
conduct at all assimilated to the conduct of Juke Bar-
rington, in the case of 1795, which had been refired
to. He blamed Mr. Wray for his iedisereti,n, but he
did not think he b;.d been guilty of corruption. Thin-e
had been no evidence of that kind adduced before the
Committee. Mr. Wray had already suficrid inch ; he
had been severely punished in the publication of the
letter of the flight lion. Gyn tie:flan the SecretAry of
State for the Home Department, which must onerate
very severely on a sensitive mind. That, with the de
bate of to-night., he considered punishment sufficient.
Viscount EBRINGTON was surprised at the course
recommended by the Hon. Member for Montrose. He
recollepted the case of the Durham election, on which a
Committee of that House sat, and though there was no
evidence adduced that Lord Dungannon had used cor-
rupt means to influence the voters, yet as money had
been used by the agents engaged in the election in some
form, so as to give a colour to the suppositiob that the
electors had been unduly influenced—he wee unseated.
This was an analogous case. Mr. WI ay had been the agent
of the company conveying money trim that company to
Mr. Bonham. He was surprised that this extraordinary
fit of generosity should now be shown in favour of Mr.
Wray which on other occasions had been denied to other
parties. It was imperatively necessary to preserve
honesty and integrity in those who held public offices,
when such excitement prevailed in the money market.
He should support the motion of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. WART ; said he would troble the House with
few words. This was not a question whether the letter
of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Home Secre-
tary was perfect, but whether by affirming the last reso-
lution proposed by the Honourable Member for Lambeth
they would inflict utter ruin on the party referred to.
Nothing, he admitted, could be less a..rinionious than the
tone and observations of that Hon. Member, yet they
ought to bear in mind the palliating circumstances con-
nected with this case. The House ought to recollect
the bad practices which prevailed in 1836, when there
west not fifty Members in the House but what wcra mixed
up in railway matters to a much more questionable
extent than Mr. Wray. At that time it was impossible
to carry a Bill through the House without doing what
had been charged against Mr. Bonham. He believed
that Mr. Bonham had never applied a farthing of the
money to his own use, and as far as Mr. Wray was con-
cerned it had yield, dno advantage to him. There had
been no previous undertanding between them as to what
was then done ; for the offence the suff,ring had already
been great, and as Mr. Wray had a large family de-
pendent on him ho hoped the House would not act
harshly and run down such small game. To pass such a
resolulon as that proposed by his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Hawes) would be utterly to destroy and ruin a man who
had already greatly suffered.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel PEEL considered he was perfectly quali-
fied to give an opinion disinterestedly in this
question as he had never held any railway shares
lin his life. The Gallant Member, though in a very
inaudible and rapid tone of voice, went through the
leading particulars of the transactions involving Mr.
Wray, Captain Boldero, and Mr. Bonham, contending
that none of the gentlemen had been influenced by cor-
rupt or pecuniary considerations in the course they had
taken. • •

Sir J. EASTHOPE differed with the Gallant Colonel
and the Hon. Member for Sheffield. Mr. Wray he did
not know, but one of the Hon. Gentlemen he did know,
Captain Boldero ; and he was pleased that he had been
acquitted of all dishonourable motives or practices by
the general sentiment of the House. With regard to
Mr. Wray's case, he thought something more should be
done. What would the public think if they went out of
the usual course to screen this party, while on humbler
persons they inflicted the full rigour of punishment. He
should vote with the Hon. Membr for Lambeth.

Sir H. INGLIS said that being originally one of the
Committee, he might he allowed to say a few words, He
had not attended the first day's sitting, but he had after-
wards carefully attended to the case, and carefully exa-
mined into, day by day, the report of the evidence ad-
duced. He then thought the case was pressed too
heavily against the three gentlemen ; and if he
thought so then, he must view the case of the Hon-
ourable Membox for Lambeth with much -less favour
now. Ile considered the punishment had already
been too much, and he hoped the Hon. Member for
North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) would withdraw his
amendment of the previous question so as to give a
direct negative to the motion. He hoped that the House
would negative the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman,
and thus testify their respect for the House and their
confidence in the conduct of the Secretary of State.

Mr. MITCHELL said those who Inidrisen to defend
Mr. Wray had only induced him to depsrt from his
original intention of not voting at all aid of voting for
the motion of the Hon. Merd9cr. if Mr. Wray was to
retain his situation, why did they accept the resignations
of Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero ?
Sir J. GRAHAM hoped the Hon. Member for North
Lancashire would persist in his motion. Mr. Wray was
not placed in so responsible a situation as either Mr.
Bonham or Captain Boldero ; but nevertheless he would
not defend his conduct.

Mr. B. ESCOTT held that Mr. Bonham and Captain

Boldero were honourable men, and that Mr. Wray, who
had offered money to Members of that House, was the
guilty party, and ought not to be allowed to escape. He
should vote for the motion of the Hon. Member.

Mr. HAWES then replied, and said that the Com-

mittee considered that their resolution would have the
effect of leading to his resignation or dismissal. Their
words in the report to Mr. Hignett were not so distinct,
yet he was dismissed, and then with respect to Messrs.
Boldero and Bonham, why did the Government accept
their resignations if they did not intend to dismiss or.
Wray? The Hon. Gentleman had not condescended to
allude to the standing order of that House, which ren-
dered it a breach of privilege to offer a bribe to a Mem-
ber of that House. With respect to the time he should
have breught forward the motion, he held that as lung as
the Parliament sat he was at liberty to do so, and he
was not to be prevented from doing so, because other
Hon. Members neglected their duty, or because the time
did not suit the Government.
The 'louse then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against it —63
INCOME-TAX COMMISSIONERS.

On our return to the gallery we found
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explain-
ing to the House that it had been found impossible to
obtain the precise return, which related to the pro-
ceedings of the Income-tax Commissioners, moved for
by the Hon. Member for Rochdale, and ordered to be
made a few evenings ago.
After a short discussion the modified return was or-
dered to he made, and the remaining orders of the day
having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a
Quarter past Eleven o'clock.