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

INDIAN CORN.

Mr. ESCOTT begged to give notice, that he would,
next session, move that all Indian corn imported into
all ports of the kingdom be admitted free of all duty.—
(Hear, hear.)
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Sir R. PEEL begged to give notice that he would,
to-morrow, move that the House, at its rising, do ad-
journ till Friday.
COAST OF PORTENDIC.

Mr. SMYTHE said he would postpone until next ses-
sion his motion for a Select Committee to consider the
report on the papers laid on the table of the House relative
to the claims of her Majesty's subjects, arising out of the
measures adopted by the French Government is the
years 1834 and 1835, on the coast of Portendic.
WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

Sir R. IL INGLIS said that, seeing his Right Hon.
Friend the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, he
wished to know what the intention of her Majesty's
Ministers were respecting Westminster Bridge? The
House would recollect that last year a Committee was
appointed to inquire and to collect evidence. Mr.
George Rennie, Mr. Cubitt, and Sir John Rennie, with
two other eminent engineers, concurred in the opinion
that it was highly desirable to rebuild Westminster
Bridge ; while Mr. Walker, the engineer. and Mr.
Cubitt, the builder, considered that it might be repaired
in a manner to make it efficient for all public purposes.
The Committee did not concur in the opinion of the three
engineers, and preferred to spend a large sum in repairs.
Under these circumstances,. the House separated last
year, the majority concurrmg in the recommendation
of the Committee's report. Last winter the injuries
which the bridge received in the autumn of 1843 had
been very much incretised. He would, therefore, ask if
lraelatdeyrat goneiou s they
to
was
intended
enormous; ended to
her Majesty's Government had ally course under consi-
deration,make?Tabned
eaxlspoen us'eh aat
and yet all had been ineffectual in making the bridge
efficient.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that, in answering the ques-
tion, he would remind the House of what was done
,by
the Committee appointed by the House. That Com-
mittee, after the examination of witnesses, decided by a
small majority that the evidence was nut sufficient to
warrant the pulling down of the present bridge, as they
thought it might be repaired at a moderate expense.
There had been two estimates for rebuilding the bridge
placed before the Committee, one for 260,0001., and
another a much larger sum, he believed 350,000/. This
was independent of approaches. Since that time fresh
inquiries had been made, and fresh evidence received.
. On this evidence the reports had been founded, which
had only been sent to the Board of the Treasury
three days ago. These reports were now tinder consi-
deration ; and he begged to inform the Hon. Gentleman
that the whole subject would undergo the fullest exa-
amination. lie (Sir Robert Peel) was not prepared to
offer any further information at present.
THE CONDEMNED PIRATES.

Mr. CHRISTIE. who spoke amid so much confusion
in the House that his first sentences could not be dis-
tinguished, said in reference to the late trials at Exeter.
for murder on the high seas, for which seven men were
condemned to death, that the judge on the circuit, Mr.
Baron Platt, had refused to entertain a point in arrest of
judgment moved by the counsel for the defence, and
under these peculiar circumstances, and knowing that
the lives of seven of their fellow-creatures, and those

Were foreigners, were at issue, knowing too that the
counsel on both sides were not prepared with authorities
upon the point—under these circumstances he hoped
that the Right Hon. Baronet would advise that these
unfortunate men should have the benefit of these
appeals.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the question put by the Hon.
and Learned Member was one of the highest importance.
He had, beard the particulars of the case, and after
giving the matter every consideration he had communi-
cated wijh the learned judge who had presided over
those trials, and he had consented to reserve the point.
NEW ZEALAND. _ _

Mr. P. HOWARD unshed to ask the First Lord of
the Treasury whether he was prepared to state if any,
and what, arrangements had been come to with the
New'Zealand Company, as it was important that the
House and the country should have every information
an the subject?
Mr. G. W. HOPE said that he had to inform the
Hon. Gentleman opposite that a suggestion had been
made by the New Zealanj Company to the department
of Government in which he had the honour to serve,
and he had had an interview with a deputation from
that Company. Communications were still passing be-
tween them.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND DOVER COMPANIES-
- ACCIDENTS.

Lord PALMERSTON said that he had bad a commu-
Ideation with the Directors of the South-Eastern and
Dover Companies, and they stated that the cause of the
late accidents was that the engines were toe weak for
the work required from them, and that the subject had
been fully considered by the Board of Directors. They
assured him that there was no mistake in the quality of
:the material, the mistake_ was in the calculation at the
time the engines were made. They also stated that the
party who were directors at the period he had alluded to,
were not directors at that time ; and, they added, that,
on the Ist of October last, when they found that the en-
gines were too weak, they gave fresh orders for engines
of gicater power. He did not, however, think that ex-
:planation was sufficiently satisfactory. He thought that
'when they found out that the engines were weak, they
ought to have proportioned the weight of the trains to
their capacity, and -instead of putting two weak engines
to a heavy train, they ought to have lighter trains to the
-weak engines. According to their own explanation they
.did not do so. They stated that it was only on one part
.af the line where the inclination was very steep that they
did put one engine before and another behind, and that
the trains in there cases did not go at a greater rate than
ten or twelve miles an hour. He was no engineer, and,
therefore, would not presume to say that his opinion was
entitled to any value, but it appeared to him that that
_pace was too great for public safety. He thought the
two engines ought to be in front ; but if the one were to
be in front, and the other behind, then, in his judgment,
four miles were amply sufficient.
E CASE OF JOHN MAYES.
Mr. TINFNELL put a question to Sir James
Graham respecting the imprisonment of one John Mayes,
who had been tried before Lord Chief Justice Tindal at
the Spring Assizes. and iu whose favour the judge,
sheriff, mad others, had declared themselves. The Hon.
Member was not distinctly audible in the gallery.
Sir J. GRAHAM said some delay had necessarily oc-
curred with respect to this case, but the individual was
only kept in prison until the opinion of the judge who
tried him (Tindal) was ascertained upon some documents
which had been submitted to him. It was believed the
party had not been guilty of the crime of which he was
convicted. He had been originally sentenced to trans-
portation for 15 years, which had been commuted to
seven years, and the sentence was ordered to stun* over
until acts, which had subsequently transpired, were in-
quired Mo. If the judge's opinion were favourable, he
would feel great pleasure in recommending her Majesty
-aLI grant him a free pardon.
TfIE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. MOFFATT asked when the new houses of Par-
_ainent would be finished. The noble lord opposite
• (Lord Lincoln) said in 1842, that they would be finished
in 1846 ; but there was now no chance of such a com-
pletion.—Would they be finished in 1847 ?
Lord LINCOLN said that Mr. Barry was doing his
utmost to' forward the building—that he could answer
for. No great national building of the same magnitude
had advanced so rapidly. Last summer some impute-
tong were thrown upon Mr. Barry, which had an effect
the reverse of what was intended, for it threw him into
a state of nervous anxiety, from which he was ill for
two months. He could only say that the Central Hall
would not be ready in the session of 1847. The Com-
mittee-rooms of both houses would be ready by that
session ; and it would be for the House to say whether it
would be more advisable to complete the other parts with
undue haste, or wait for another session.
SPAFIELDS INTERMENT NUISANCE.

In answer to a question froin Lord EBRINGTON,
,Sir J. GRAHAM, who, as well as the noble lord,
nes heard but imperfectly, said that measures had been
taken to abate the nuisance of the Spafields interment,
and to prevent the recurrences of the revolting transac-
tions connected with that place.
The louse then proceeded to the orders of the day.
BRAZIL AND BRITAIN.

On the reading of the order of the day for bringing
..tip the report on the Exchequer Bills (49,024,900) Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON took the opportunity of pressing
upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
me.nt the necessity of taking into consideration the pre-
sent position of British subjects resident in Brazil. It
appeared, previous to the expiration of the treaty in
1844, they had the privilege of disposing of their pro-
perty by will, and also certain personal privileges, of
which they were now deprived, although other foreigners
possessed them. Thus the property of the British in that
country was placed in great Jeopardy. The Brazilian
•Government had also imposed a differential duty of 20
land 30 per cent. on cotton goods, the manufacture of
this country, over and above the duty upon other foreign
manufactures. It was, however, intimated by the
Brazilian Government, that the differential duties against
us a ould be continued no longer than we continued to
proscribe their sugars. On these grounds he did not
:think he would be warranted in allowing this oppor-
tunity to pass without endeavouring to impress this sub-
ject upon the attention of her Majesty's Government.—
(Hear, hear.) All these unpleasant circumstances and
differences had been owing to the unfortunate policy of
the Government of this country in reference to Brazilian
sugar.—(Hear.) He would riot now say a word about
slave-gown sugar, or the itnioolicy of the mode in which
.slave-grown sugar was admfrted into this country feem
;Brazil ; but, in consequence of the mode in which that
measure had been allowed to exist, and the monopoly of
labourers exercised by the producers of slave-grown
eueesr, he would wish to ask whether any steps had been
-taken' for the immigration of labourers into the interior
of the West Indies, in order to meet this alleged dearth
of labour?, He had understood that a measure was in-
tended to be proposed by which to procure funds to
.carry on this bettnigration, He would say nothing now
.on the policy or .!inpolicy of the other measures of the
Government on this subject ; but he trusted he might be
allowed to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary
for the Colonies, whether hny such loan had been asked
for or guaranteed ; and if not, whether any steps had
been taken in reference to the dispatches laid upon the
table, of this House in reference to the subject.—(Hear.)
Mr. HOPE said the state of the ease was simply this,
that a loan ordinance had been proposed, by which to
raise the means of defraying the expenses of the immi-
gration, and had not been objected to ; .but at the same
.time other parties not connected with the Government
had declared their intention of raising a fund for the
purpose, indepeedent of the loan ordinance.
telt R. PEEL said, lie stated at an early period of the
session that plenipotentiaries had been appointed to ne-
gotiate a treaty with the Brazilian Govornment on this
subject, with a view to conferring on British subjects all
the privileges in respect to this question, which the sub-
jects of other nations possessed.—(Hear, hear.) The
last accounts received from Brazil stated, that a change
lad taken place in the Brazilian Government, and that
;fie Secretary of state had been removed from office ;
but it would be seen from the report, that the Minister
at the Court of Brazil had said nothing in reference to
she /fon. Me mber's question.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

Mr. HUME said he had delayed, until this late
period of the session, asking the Right lion. Gentleman
opposite, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to take any steps for discontinuing the fee
mow 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 Sly all foreigners visiting the Abbey, on their return
toeleir own country, knowing; as they did, that nothing
.of tee sort was known on the Continent. The Hon.
iMember concluded by reading his motion, as follows, but
did not press it :—" To call` the attention of the ouse
tv .the practice of exacting fees or receiving gratuities
fr(la the public as the conditions of their admittance to
ea,thedrals 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 said he had always expressed an opinion
in favour of free admission to all the public institutions of
thit. country, in so far as was consistent with the safety
of the work of arts, for he conceived that nothing
exeresed n more beneficial effect on the minds of the
people than being permitted to have free admission to
.such piacos.—(Hear.) He should here add that no-
thineecould. he more exemplary than the conduct of the
working claSses at those places, for instance, during
their free admission to the cartoons at Westminster
Bet then due caution was necessary to
be exercised iu ordev to guard against such oceurrence.;
,as had token place, in reference to the destruction of
*works of art, as the case of the Portland vase. The
Bight Flon. Baronet then rear: a letter, which he said be
h.eo received upon this subject; in which the writer
Ste ted that measures had already been taken whereby to
effect a change in the charge now made for the ad-
mitts Ace of strangers to Westminster Abbey. The
.substance of whieli was, that, in future, strangers were to
-the admitted to the nave, and the choir, and the north
send south transepts, without any charge ; in fact, there
wag to be free admittance to all persons to the body of
te4 ohnreh,—(Hear, bear.)
Ate WM. COUPER said that it afforded him very
great geatification to have heard the statements of the
Bight Hon. Baronet, for he did conceive it was a great
scandal to the church that such exaction should ever have
beer made ; and be doubted very much whether the
Dean and Chapter had ever any right to make any such
charge.--
(Hear, hear.) He trusted that this change
a eould prove to be but the forerunner of a total removal
at' the exaction of any fee whatever.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr.WILLIA MS concurred with the Hon. Gentleman
why had just eat down, and said that this was the only
country in Eurols in which the clergy exacted such

charges.
Mr. P. BORTIMICK quite agreed with the Right
ET.onourable Baronet at the head of the Government, that
it was better this thing should be carried out by the good
will an concurrence of the clergy,. than by compulsory
enactment. Still he thought all those public building's

ought to be opened without any tax whatever. English-
men ought to be at home in their own 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. He 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
MR. WRAY. _ _

Mr. HAWES rose to move the following resolutions
of which he had given notice :—" That it appears from
the report and evidence laid before this House by the
Select Committee on the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany's petition, that Mr. Wray, the Receiver of the
Metropolitan Police District, was, in the year 1836, the
retained and paid agent of a private Company, to pro-
mote the success of a Bill introduced'into Parliament on
their behalf. That it also appears, from an address of
this House, that the Secretary, of State for the Home
Department has, in consequence of the report and evi-
dence referred to, addressed a letter to Mr. Wray, ex-
pressing his strong disapprobation of Mr. Wray's con-
duct. That it appears to this House, upon a reference
to the evidence, that Mr. Wray, on behalf of the South-
Eastern Railway Company, paid the sum of 300/, de-
rived from the sale of railway shares, to Mr. Bonham,
for his services as a Member of this House, and as a
Member of a Select Committee, to which the Bill of this
Company was referred ; a circumstance to which the
Secretary of State has not adverted in the letter ad-
dressed to Mr. Wray. That, in the opinion of this
House, such conduct deserves not only the serious ani-
madversion of the House, but disqualifies Mr. Wray
from holding an office of trust and responsibility under
the Crown.' The Honoutable Gentleman said he
regretted to call the attention of the House to
the subject, as he had hoped that the conduct
of the Government would have spared him the
necessity. He had no personal ill will towards Mr.
Wray, but ha thought it was perfectly impossible for
the House to pass over the subject in the way the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Home Department
had done. It was no doubt a late period of the session
for him to introduce such a motion, but in justification
of that he would call the attention of the House to the
fact that the report of the Select Committee, that sat to
inquire into -the allegations preferred against certain
Members of that House in relation to the South-
Eastern Company, was not laid on the table till the
12th July. After that, it was not till the 19th, that
the Honorable Gentleman at the head of the Home
Department addressed the letter to Mr. Wray,
in reference to his conduct,and it was not till the 22d that
it was printed. It was, therefore, impossible to have
brought it before the House on an earlier day. What
was the conduct of this person, as shown in the report
unanimously agreed to by the Committee, not one part of
which but what was sustained by the evidence adduced ?
Mr. Wray was a public officer, holding an important
and responsible situation, and a person who from his
office held large sums of public money in his hands.
In 1837, while holding this situation, he allowed himself
to become the paid agent of a private company, in
order to promote a private Bill through the Legislature,
and it had been clearly shown that in that capacity,
while fulfilling engagements that were strictly private
and confidental on behalf of this company, he hod been
engaged canvassing Members of Parliament to support
the Bill for which he was retained, and on one occasion
he paid 3001. to a certain Member, in order to obtain his
assent to the Bill, that Member being one of the Select
Committee on the Bill. This could not be considered
professional conduct. He (Mr. Hawes) had conversed
with most respectable legal gentlemen on this subjects,
and they all expressed their indignation at the circum-s,
stances, and condemned the conduct of Mr. Wray as
altogether unprofessional. The Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of the Government had given permission to Mr.
Wray to follows his private business. But proceedings such
as these could not be considered a legitimate following out
of private business. Here was a public officer becoming
the paid agent of a private Company, and in that capa-
city paying sums of money to Members of that House
in order to obtain a favourable result to his measure.
Yet the House would be surprised that the Right Hon.
Baronet the Home Secretary, in his letter to Mr. Wray,
had not made a single allusion to that remarkable oc-
curence. There was no fact in the case which had not
been developed in the admissions of Mr. Wray, in the
evidence he had given before the Committee. But it
would be important to learn what the House had done
under similar occurrences in former times, in order to
see whether the House could agree with the slight man-
ner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home
Secretary had passed over the conduct of Mr. Wray,
who had evidently committed a breach of the privileges
of the House. In 1695 serious abuses and corruptions
were brought before the House of Commons, affecting
certain Members. The inquiry took place, and the re-
sult of this inquiry, and exposure of the transaction, was
the passing of a general resolution to the effect:—That
all offers of money or other advantages to Members of
Parliament, in order to obtain any legislative
advantage, or to forward any Bill, was a
high crime and misdemeanour, and subversive
of the Constitution of the country.—(Hear, hear.) After
that resolution was passed, a certain individual commit.
ted the identical offence, a Mr. Bird, and he was in con-
sequence summoned to‘the bar of the House, and repri-
manded by the Speaker for having offered a certain re-
muneration to a Member of that House. He (Mr. Hawes)
called the attention of the House to these precedents,
that Hon. Members might see how such transactions
were dealt with in former times, in order to guide them
at the present time—a time which never had its equal
for a disregard of honesty and fair dealing, and for over-
looking all prudential considerations. But the House
had another case much clearer to assist them. He
would give the opinion of a former House on public com-
panies that tampered with the honesty of Members. The
South Sea Bubble Companies employed large sums of
money for that purpose, which were distributed among
public officers and Members of Parliament. In conse-
quence of this, the House passed a resolution that the
taking in, or the holding of stock by Members without
giving in exchange any valuable consideration, or pay-
ment in money, were infamous and disgraceful practices.
He gave this to show the opinion of Parliament at
that time. Under these circumstances, he thought
the House ought not to pass over that delin-
quency of Mr. Wray ; nor should they be content
with the weak and unsatisfactory letter of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. Considering
the important admissions of Mr. Wray, he could not be-
lieve the House would pass the matter over with the re-
proof of the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was right to
make a stand on the part of the public, and for the cha-
racter of the Government, against such malpractices. It
was especially necessary that the Government should
hold up the purity of its subordinate departments, and
show its decided repudiation of such conduct. It was
of no little importance that that House should look to
the character and proceedings of those who held offices
of trust under the Government; and hence it was that
he brought the motion under the consideration of the
House, as he had no objection to Mr. Wray on private
grounds. He had avoided saying anything harsh or un-
kind respecting that gentleman,but he must sayhisconduct
had been such as ought not to be passed over by that House.,
He took this money to Mr. Bonham. whose services he
had purchased.—(Cries of No, no,") He said he took
this money to Mr. Bonham Mr. Benham being under
obligations to him. He did not say this to the dis-
paragement of Mr. Bonham—his observations were
directed to Mr. Wray. He should have been the last
man to solicit his services, and if Mr. Bonham unhap-
pily lent himself to Mr. Wrav, he said Mr. Wray was
to blame. Such conduct in one holding a public office,
like Mr. Wray, could not be too highly censured. He
(Mr. Hawes) had discharged a painful duty in bringing
the subject before the House. In the expediency of
bringing it forward he was borne out by the judgment
of those most competent to judge. He should therefore
leave to the House, and to the Hon. Gentleman, to de-
cide what course they should take ; for himself, he
should divide the House on the motion he had made.

The SPEAKER having put the motion,
Sir J. GRAHAM said if the Hon. Gentleman enter.
tamed doubts as to the course he waspurauinginhisofficid

capacity with respect to Mr. Wray., he could not but
doubt that it was a painful duty which he had to dis-

charge. The case laysin the narrowest possible compass
He should not, therefore, discuss the constitutional doe-

trines brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman, who
rested his arguments on precedents and on the strong
declarations of that House in past time. There was not
a Member in it more anxious than he was to guard
its purity, especially at a time when it was exposed to
some danger by the wide-spread speculation of the pre-
sent moment—(Hear, hear)—as he considered that the
high character of the House should be steadily guarded
against its influence. With these general doctrines, he
would proceed to the question. He was not about to
extenuate—he was not there to defend the conduct of
Mr. Wray. To the best of his (Sir J. Graham's) judg-
ment he had endeavoured to do justice to that House, and
to give effect to what he thought was the wish of the Com-
mittee over which the Hon. Gentleman presided.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman said that he had no personal con-
nexion with Mr. Wray. It did so happen that in the
execution of his official duties with Mr. Wray he bad
never been called into personal contact with him, and
therefore he could have no favour with him. He might,
therefore, say solemnly that, until he a rote the letter, from
no friend Mr. Wray, and from no individual what-
ever did he receive any application concerning him.
(Hear, hear.) He was, therefore, solely responsible for
the letter, which was written by himself. After a dis-
passionate view of the circumstances of the case, that
judgment not being grounded on personal favour, either
one way or the other. The Hon. Gentleman regretted
that he had brought toward this question at that late
period of the session. He (Sir James Graham) re-
grettedrwoaurtd ao
fw
theeek ofirf t
et
ee
nn
days-ago. There were only
that he did not bring
t th
r fete'
Members to whom the question had been referred
present.— (Hear, hear. )
This showed that the subject did
not greatly interest those that were absent. After all,
the matter really at issue was—had he or bad he not
followed the recommendations of the Committee.—(Mi-
nisterial cheers.) He repeated that he had endeavoured
to carry out their recommendations to the best of his
ability. However there were two or three circumstances
which, before they could decide the question whether he
had fairly carried out the recommendations of the Com-
mittee or not, ought not to be lost sight of. The
Honourable Gentleman used 'the expression that a bribe
had been given to Mr. Bonham.—(Ministerial cheers.)
In the first place, it was distinctly shown by the evidence,
and admitted in the report, that the part taken by Mr.
Bpi:4ml as a Menaber of that 14011300 was taken without

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 tp Iylp. 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 4j4 not directly or indirectly receive any
benefit from the money, 41 gispod, 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 members of the Committee who were preseni to
state, whether be did not include, in the statement which
he had made to the ffeese, his strong disapprobation of
the conduct of Mr. Wray With regpect to Mr. fig.
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 paptain 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.) If 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. Ilignett 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 Borne Department." Some objection
was raised in the Committee to referring the subject to
the Secretary of Srate, 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. SHEIL said it appeared from the statement of
the Right Hon. 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,
,a.pid more consistent with the duty of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, to have sent fist the Chairman instead of en-
,teripg inW a eommunication with ore individual Member
of ,the committee. .At 'all events-,'lt'aPiteatiefriliat the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Depart-
ment did not write the letter in a hasty mood. Non, it
was singular that the Hon. Gentleman should have omit-
ted from the letter addressed to Mr. Wray all mention
of the most 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 Mr. 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. Now 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 referred 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 a juror,
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 statement given by Mr. Wray. Mr.
Bonham stated 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 Railwat, and he wished him to
give it a lift, and wished his advice upon some
points. He replied 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. Wrayisaid 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 300/. as a gratuity
fer 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 Honse, 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.

, W. PATTEN said, whatever might be his opinion
upon the conduct of Mr. Wray he could not but lament
that the Hon. Membar 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

points being entered into which were painful not only to
the House, but many individuals out of it. Upon two
inflicted
quite those individuals a punishment had been
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
B.. Hero's character remained perfectly unimpeached.
The honour of Captain Bolder°, they said, was unsullied
and untouched; and ho 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 au
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
House should entirely pass it by. The Hon. Gen-

.
dem= who moved the previous question, had said that
tie subject was a painful one, and involved the cha-
racters of individuals out of doors ; but because it was

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 ht•ing 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 giie 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 case. As for instance, in

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 consWered of themselves
what was the course, and they addressed the Crown to
dismiss Sir Jonah Barrington from his office. Tlie 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-
inittee.—(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 chitraoter elf the House.(Hear.) The offence was
that of ofking a bribe of £3OO to a member of that
House for services rendered to particular persons in his
capaoity of Member. What was the punishment inflicted
on him by her Majesty'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 elfice 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
electors.—(Flear, 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 back 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 not. 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 passed 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 300 l 'upon his vote, and the person who offered it
escaped with a mere reprimand.—(Hear, hear.) Taking
that view of the case, nothing should hinder him (Lord
J. Russell) from giving his vote to maintain the purity
of the House as much as he could.—(Cheers.) The
Right 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. Batainet flirther 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 was 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 what he had done.—(Hear,
hear.) The Government had not shrunk from 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. had 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, vet 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 hq
felt should actuate him, having seen the report of
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 of 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 affairlmight merit.—(Hear, hear.)
But let him ask, did his Hon. Friend's:conduct 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. a Well, then, this House took cog-
nizances 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 had corruptly
used the influence of his station, and was, therefore, un-
worthy 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, state 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 tbat they were una-
nimous. Why, that is the very thing that they at this
side of the House hid 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 respect to 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 cruise•
quence was, that they had tendered their resignations.—
(Hear, hear.) Well, then he came to the case of Mr
Wray; and what did the same tribunal of this House, that

pronounced Mr.. Hignett corrupt, say of Mr. *ray ?
Why this, that the conduct of Mr. Wray deserved the

most severe animadversion. Well, then, what had he (Sir
Robert 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 motion now before the House

with the recommendation of the Committee.—(Hear,
hear). The Committee, 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 party deserves " severe animadversion,"
while the motion before the House says that Mr. Wray
"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?—(Hear, 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,
hear). 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 ou 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,
hear.) And 'what was the object of punishment of any
sort, if it was not to deter others from similar courses ?

—(Elear, hear.) He would say then that, looking at the
whole of this case—taking into consideration the fact of

UST 5, 184

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 Uthers by punishment—surely be
(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 JudL e Bar-
rington, in the case of 1795, which had been referred
to. He blamed Mr. Wray for his indiseretion, but he
did not think he had been guilty of corruption. There
had been no evidence of that kind adduced before the
Committee. Mr. Wray had already suffered much ; he
had been severely punished in the publication of the
letter of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, which must operate
very severely on a sensitive mind. That, with the de-
bat© of to-night, he considered punishment sufficient.
Viscount EBRINGTON was surprised at the course
recommended by the Hon. Member for Montrose. He
recollected 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 supposition that the
electors had been unduly influenced—he was unseated.
This was an analogous case. Mr. Wray had been the agent
of the company conveying money from 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 necdssary to pre-erve
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. WARD said he would troble toe House with a
few words. This was not a question whether the letter
of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Home Secre-
tary WMI33 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 acrimonious 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
we,re not fifty Members in the House but what were 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 yielded no advantage to him. There had
been no previous undertanding between them as to what
was then done ; for the offence the suffering had already
been great, and as Mr. Wrisy had a large family de-
pendent on him he hoped the House would not act
harshly and run down such small game. To pass such a
resolution 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
in 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.
\'Tray, Captain Bolder°, 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. Member for Lambeth.
Sir H. INGLIS said that being originally one of the
Committee, he might be 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 Member for Lambeth with much less favour
now. He 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 had risen to defend
Mr. Wray had only induced him to depart from his
original intention of not voting at all and of voting for
the motion of the Hon. Member. 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 Mr.
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 long 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 House 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-
Cedings of the Income-tax Commissioners, moved for
by the lion. Member for. Rochdale, and ordered to be
made a few evenings ago.

After a sllNrt discussion the modified return was or-
dered to be made, and the remaining orders of the day
having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a
Quarter past Eleven o'clock.

r ADVERTISEMENT.] —BRUSHES.---NEW INVENTIONS.
—The Triple flair Brush. One stroke of this is equal to the
effect of one penetrating, five small-tooth combs, and one even-
cut brush ; to be had in four sizes, No. 7, ss. 6d ; No. 8,7 s.
6d ; No. 9,9 s. 6d. ; No. 10, Ils. 6d. The Double Anti-
Pressure Nail Brush, which does not divide the quick from the
nail, no pressure being required, and thoroughly cleans and po-
lishes the nails in a tenth part of the time of any other me-
thod ; price in' bone, No. 1,2 s. ; No. 2,2 s. 6d. ; No. 3,3 s.
6d. ; No. 4, 59. ; and of all sizes and prices in ivory. The
New Tooth-pick Brush, which entirely enters between the in-
terstices of the closest teeth ; marks, full-sized brushes, No. 1,
hard ; No. 2, less hard ; No. 3. middling ; No. 4, soft. The
narrow brushes, No. 5, hard ; No. 6, less hard; No. 7, mid-
dling ; No. 8, soft, at Is. each, or 10s. per dozen in bone; and
2s. each, or 21s. per dozen in ivory, the hair warranted never
to come out. The Medium Shaving Brush, between the
usual badger hair and bristle brush, being a selection of the
strongest hair only from the badger skin, in a variety of sizes,
both in bone and ivory. The above articles are the inventions'
of Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, Londen,
and, being protected, any one imitating them will be proceeded
against.

ADVERTISEMENT.—Defective Sight and. Hearing
relieved. Instruments and spectacles sent into the country by
post.—The Eyes.-39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Optical
Improvements to enable persons at advanced age to read with
ease and to discrimivate objects with perfect distinctness.—
Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, have invented Spec-
tacle Lenses, &c., of the greatest transparent power, which
are patronised by his Majesty the King of Hanover, her
Grace the Dowager-Duchess of Bedford, their Graces the
Archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Dublin, the Dukes of
Devonshire, Norfolk, Argyle, Marlborough, and Manchester.
Bishops of Exeter, Lincoln, Cork, Elphin, and Kildare. By
this invention, imperfect vision is preserved and strengthened,
and very aged persons are enabled to employ their sight at the
most minute occupation, and can see with these Lenses of a
much less magnifying power, and they do not require the fre-
quent changes to further helps. Also, Achromatic Teles-
copes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, invisible, and all kinds of
Acoustic instruments for relief of extreme deafness. Caution

—Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, are not in any way
connected with a person of the same name, in their immediate
neighbourhood, nor in any part of the country. To prevent
mistakes, be cautions, and observe, only to be had at 39, Al-
bemarle-street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel.

[ADVERTISBMENT.]—Ladies, whether temporari
exposed to the scorching rays of the summer sun, or frequen
In' the crowded saloon, or close assembly, will find Rowland
Kalydor a most refreshing preparation and auxiliary to comfort,
dispelling the cloud of languor and relaxation from the com-
plexion, and immediately affording the pleasing sensation at-
tending restored elasticity of the skin. The numerous va-
rieties of cutaneous eruptions, sunburn freckles, tan, and dis-
eoloarations are pleasingly eradicated by the Kalydor, and the
skin rendered delicately clear and soft. Its purifying and re-
freshing properties have obtained its selection by the Court and
the Royal Family of Great Britain, and,those of the Continent
of Europe, together with the elite of the aristocracy and haut
ton. The high reputation it bears causes unprincipled shop-
keepers to offer their spurious Kalydors" for sale, composed
of the most deleterious ingredients, containing mineral astrin- '
gents, utterly ruinous to the complexion, and by their repel-
lent action endangering health. It is therefore imperative on
purchasers to see that the words " Rowland's Kalydor" are on
the envelope (an engraving of exquisite beauty, from a steel
plate by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon, and Co.) All others are
raudulent counterfeits.

The Earl of Denbigh, Master of ti,e Horse to her
Majesty the Queen Dowager, Lccompauied by his family, ar-
rived at Blackwall Pier yesterday morning by the General
Steam Navigation Company's steam ship Soho, from Antwerp;