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

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 Soath-Eastern Rtil-say Coin-
pany's petition, that Mr. Wray, the Receiver of the
Metropolitan Police District, was, in the year 1836, the
retained arid 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 •
dente referred to, addressed a hitter 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 3001., 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 Honourable 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 he 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 se•sion
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 let ter 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 befbre 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
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 h*,(l been
engaged canvassing Members of Parliament to support
the Bill for which he was retained, and on one occasion
he paid 300 L 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 subject,
and they all expressed their indignation at the circum-
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 pa) ing 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:-L-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 crone 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 corn
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 say hisconduct
had been such as ought not to be passed over by that House.
He took this money to Mr. Bonham, whose services he
tad purchased.—(Cries of "No, no,”) He said he took
this money to Mr. Bonham, Mr. Bonham 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. Wray, 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 entity-
tained doubts as to the course he was pursuing in hisofficial
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 lay in the narrowest possible compass.
He should not, therefore, discuss the constitutional doc-
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 had
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 wrote the letter, from
no friend of Mr. Wray, and from no individual what-
ever did he receive any application concerning him.
(Hear, hear.) He was, therefore, solely responsible for
tae 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 foward this question at that late
period of the session. He (Sir James Graham) re-
gretted that he did not bring it forward a week or ten
days ago. There were only three out of the
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 had 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
ce, was distinctly shown by the evidence,
and admitted in the report, that the part taken by Mr.
Bonham, as a Member of that House, was taken without