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

The County Rates Bill was then read a third time.

PORTSMOUTH ATMOSPHERIC RAILWAY.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved the re-committal of
the Portsmouth Atmospheric line of railway.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON opposed the
motion.
The Earl of DEVON supported the amendment.
Lord LOVELACE opposed it. He did not think that
after this Bill had been two months before the other
House of Parliament—after an enormous sum of money
had been expended in bringing it forward—he did not
think it right at this time to come forward with the
amendment of the noble Duke's, and to recommit the
Bill, which would have exactly the effect of throwing it
back to another session.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he regretted as
much as the Noble Lord opposite that
not been taken of this Bill, but when errioerns
sitting
on
eat Tier nboatidcebletaend
when
bound to
committed Committees, by
he t,Membershoug thought
to
tfh:t,htattheHhoiwuoasuess e
Portsmouthw asany
irlol
the
rr
ceoemtimfyittthedenbLy
theN
had been. He thought they had
He thought that there _
ocwo themt
Committee
questionup on
done sof Because, as they stated
why had they not.
not taken into consideration
commonttihoen,litnheesceoemmepdettinogbleines; and
themselves, a portion o
to both companies, and they must necessarily have
amalgamated before such a state of things could possibly
be, They therefore went on the supposition that the
parties must have been received. He (Lord Wicklow)
maintained that the fact that for a portion of the line
the ono party was identical 1% ith the other did not nega-
tive the right of entering as a competing line. He con-
tended therefore that the Bill should be recommitted,
inasmuch as the Committee had contravened the printed
instructions which ought to have guided them.
The Earl of HARD WICKE, as chairman of the Com-
mittee appointed on the Bill, said that, to the best of
their ability, they had examined into the merits of the
Bills laid before them on the table. He would venture
to call their Lordships' attention to some of the clauses
in the Bill, with the view of showing the opposing parties

bad. to a eartaira der** aileast, muaigaimisitia• fro bad
no doubt that, finding that the decision of the Committee
was adverse to the claims set up, the adverse party had,
by the advise of counsel, adopted this method with the
view of overturning that decision. He should first direct
their Lordships' attention to the 38th clause in the Bill,
which recognised the expediency of a junctiun at Godat.
ming. If the opposing party objected, why did they net
refuse this joint station?
The Earl of DEVON—What' paper is that you re-
fer to ?

- The Earl of HARDWICKE—He was looking at the
Bill itself. Then, if their Lordships would examine the
37th clause, they would find an arrangement for the
fares of passengers. Why did they not take their stand
on these fares, which would have been a fair and tangible
opposition? Then, in the 3Gth and 28th clauses, it was
the same, but he had proved enough. Their Lordships
would thus see that certain clauses in the Bill justified
the Committee in their decision. But if their Lordships
were of opinion that they had gone into error, he hoped
that, for the guidance of future Committees, they would
take care that the standing orders be sufficiently expla-
natory.
Lord BEAUINIONT said, that though there had been
originally two competing lines, yet one of these had been
evidently withdrawn, and, therefore, if they adopted the
motion of the Noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond),
they would be, instead of confirming the standing
orders, establishing a gross absurdity, by allowing parties
to appear both in the character of promoters and oppo-
sers of the Kane measures. Ile wished to say one other
word. If they did not pass this Bill, he thought the
House was bound to take measures to facilitate its passing
at some later period this session.
Lord REDESDALE said, that as the person who had
moved that the evidence on this Bill be printed, he felt
it necessary to call their Lordship.' attention to what
had passed on the last occasion, when the Noble Duke
had moved the recommittal of this Bill. The motion at
that period seemed to convey a slur upon the Committee,
and it was with the wish that they might have that on
which to. found a decision, that he had moved that the
evidence be printed. He thought that while 'the House
should repose confidence in their Committees, they should,
at the same time, take especial care that the rights of in-
dividuals did not suffer by their decisions. He would
support the motion of the Noble Duke.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON explained.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that the Bill
should be suspended until the allegations contained in it
should be examined into.

The Earl of HADDINGTON wished to know
whether the petitioning parties had made any compro-
mise or not ?

The Duke of RICHMOND denied that any compro-
mise whatever had been made.

The Duke of GRAFTON defended the course taken,
by the Committee, and said he thought that the opposi-
tion now made by the Noble Duke should have been
made on the first or second reading of the Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND replied, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l3
Against it ll
Majority
The amendment was carried.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that a Committee
be named by their Lordships.
The Marquis of 'NORTHAMPTON reminded the
Noble Duke that one most material party in the ques-
tion was out of the country.
After some desultory conversation, in which Lord
Redesdale, the Marquis of Northampton, and Lord Mont-
eagle took part, the motion was withdrawn.
LONDON AND YORK BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a pe-
tition from certain parties, complaining that more than
half a million of the capital purported to be subscribed
for on the London and York line, had been fraudulently
and fictitiously subscribed. The Noble Marquis hoped
that their Lordships, who had proved themselves so sen-
sitive on the peculiarities of other bills, would institute
a rigid inquiry into these alleged frauds.
VALUATION OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord STANLEY moved the second reading of this
bill.

Lord MONTEAGLE said he never rose with a
greater sense of responsibility in expressing his con-
viction that no more rash course could be taken than the
passing such a Bill under such circumstances a
Bill affecting the relations -of Ireland, affecting
the stability of her social prosperity, and the
character and existence of the British Government. It
was a measure which threatened to overthrow the tenure
of property, to change the entire principle of subdividing
land, valuing the soil, and the arrangement of all taxa-
tion. They now stood upon the 4th day of August, in.
the presence of five Members, four of whom were Peers
of Ireland, the remaining Peers of England, and a Bill
like this was brought forward, and forced upon the
House, to commit the grossest injustice upon Ireland,
which the Government would not have dared to have
proposed for England. If he could not appeal to the
wisdom of the Government he could appeal to their com-
passion, and implore them to reconsider their measure,
a measure which, he repeated, they would not dare in-
troduce fur any metropolitan parish of this country.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that to listen to the
speech of the Noble Lord, one would imagine that this
Bill was a crude emanation from the Government ;
but it must be remembered that a report was submitted
from a Committee of the House of Commons, in the
last session of Parliament, before whom the most able
Witnesses Were examined, and among other Mr. Griffiths,
and it was also to be remembered that the Bill had be en
amended in its passage through the House of Commons_
He would venture to say that a majority of the Irish
people, and of the Irish representatives, were in favour
of the measure. The moment this Bill would come into.
operation, the heartburnings and the jealousies which, at
present existed on the subject of valuation for poor-rates
and other taxes would be removed ; for the high cha-
racter of Mr. Griffiths as a valuator would place the
operations of the Bill above suspicion. Ile had no wish
to limit the right of Noble Lords to express an opinion
upon any Bill haviug reference to the country with
which they were immediately connected, but ha did.
certainly think it hard that on a Bill which bad rzaeived
the sanction of the House of Commons, any Noble Lord
should turn round and rate the Government for
what he might esteem the evils of the Bill. He would
repeat that the ratepayers of Ireland would find the
Bill a great benefit, and he was sure that his Noble
Friend behind him (Lord Stanley) would be prepared
in Committee to defend—and defend successfully—the
provisions of the Bill,
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that the 11,auise
ought to have time to consider an important Bill of this
kind, for it was a most unprecedented thing matt Minister
of the Crown to move the second reading of such a mea-
sure on the same day that the papers relating to it were
laid upon the table. It had been stated that the leading
Irish Members were.in favour of the measure. This was
somewhat different from the representations he had seen.
in the daily papers, There it had been represented that
a most determined stand had been made against the grin-
' ciple of the Bill. He wished to know how the Govern.
ment could reconcile it to their consciences to pass this
measure without consulting the opinions of the few Irish.
Members who were in that House?

Lord STANLEY said that he brought forward this
measure with a full sense of the inconvenience of its
being brought on at this period of the session. He felt
it was inconvenient in bringing it forward at this late
period of the session. His Noble Friend said that he
had not had time to hear the objections which might be
made by Noble Lords, but the Noble Lord must know
that they had an opportunity now of stating their opi-
nions. A great objection existed against postponing it
till next session, as it would have to come before the
House of Commons again. That would be very inju-
rious as they would be postponing the amendment of thee
existing system, which was on all sides alleged to be a
bad system. The only objection he had heard made by
Irish Gentlemen was the postponement. As their Lord-
ships were not generally in favour of this. Bill, he would
not, at this period of the session, press the further pro-
gress of the Bill.
After a few words from the Marquis of CLANnrc.kanE
and Lord MoisirEAGLE,
The motion was withdrawn.
On the motion of a NOBLE LORD, the Commons'
amendments to the Slave-trade (Brazil) Hill were con-
sidered and agreed to.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Half-past Ten.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Aug. 4.
WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS said that, seeing his Right lion.
Friend the Fiwt Lord of the Treasury in his place, he
wished to know what the intention of her Majesty's
Ministers were respecting Westminster Bridge? The
llouse 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 lastyear, the majority concurring in the recommendation
of the Committees report. Last winter the injuries
which the bridge received in the autumn of 1843 had.
been very much increased. He would, therefore, ask ig
her Majesty's Government had any course under consi-
deration, and also what alterations they intended to
make? The expense already gone to was enormous;
by the
einlalnosuwsee.rinlgltahte
Com-
mittee, and yet all had been ineffectual in making the bridge.
pEradotiilien:sa.enaetdiivdooifibciti
efficient.
nt‘s
aieStarti
lrerlae
majority
tanOt BtohereE
CommitteeßtyhTet
pullingh PeaaxpEtas
ques-
tion, he would remind the House of what was done by
the
ec
evidence
present
wastens ce decidedsnstenbso,rtidge,
as
sufficientbtyh
et
y:
thought it might be repaired at a moderate expense.
There had been two estimates for rebuilding the bridge
placed before the Committee, one fur 260,0001., and
another a much larger sum, be believed 350,0001. 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 under consi-
deration ; and he begged to inform the Hon. Gentleman
that, the whole subject would undergo the fullest ex.s-
arnination. Ile (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 or
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

<• r
~~

4.1

io-

i

''''set;tt rot:ttignere, 'were at home, knowing too that the
ottia4el Oh boils Sitieel were not prepared with authorities
upon the point—under these circumstances he hoped
`teat 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 heard the particulars of the case, and after
giving the matter every consideration he had communi-
cated with the learned judge who had presided over
those trials, and he had consented to reserve the point.
NEW ZEALAND.
• Mr. P. HOWARD wished 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
en 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 Zealan) 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 hes
twoen them.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND DOVER COMPANIES—
ACCIDENTS.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he had had a commu-
nication 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 greater 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
'of the line where the inclination was very steep that they
did put one engine before and another behind, and that
the trains in these 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.
IE CASE OF JOHN MAYES.
Mr. TOFFNELL 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 in whose favour the judge,
sheriff, aad 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 stand over
until Acts, which had subsequently transpired, were in-
quired riga). If' the judge's opinion were favourable, he
would feel great pleasure in recommending her Majesty
ors grant him a free par ion.
TEE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. MOFFATT asked when the new houses of Par-
_atnent would be finished. The noble lord opposite
(Lord Lincoln) said in 1842, that they would be finished
in 1546 ; but there was now no chance of such a com-
pleeion.—Would they be finished in 1847 ?
Lord LINCOLN said that Mi. 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 imputa-
tions 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.
SI'AFIELDS INTERMENT NUISANCE.
In answer to a question from Lord EBRINGTON,
• Sir J. GRAHAM, who, as well as the noble lord,
'eels 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 House then proceeded to the orders of the day.
BRAZ4IL AND BRITAIN.
On the reading of the order of the day for bringing
up the report on the Exchequer Bills (£9,024,900) Bill.
• Mr. M. GIBSON took the opportunity of pressing
upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment 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
posse4sed the:u. 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
and 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 would be continued no longer than we continued to
proscribe flair sugars. On these grounds he did not
'think he would be warranted in nllowing 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 Leen owing to the unfortunate policy of
the Government of this country in reference to Brazilian
sugar.—(Hear.) Ile would not now say a word about
slake-grown sugar, or the impolicy of the mode in which
slave-brown sugar was admiTted into this country kens
Braze; 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
sugar, 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 ? Ile had understood that a measure was in-
tended to be proposed by which to procure funds to
_carry on this immigration, He would say nothing now
on the policy or impolicy 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 any 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 case 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 ojected to ; but at the same
time other parties not connected with the Government
bad declared their intention of raising a fund for the
purpose, independent of the loan ordinance.
Stt R. PEEL said, he stated at an early period of the
session that plenipotentiaries had been appointed to ne-
gotiate a treaty with the Brazilian Government 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
had taken place in the Brazilian Government, and that
the Seeretery 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
the [lon. Member's question.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
Mr. HUME' said he had delayed, until this late
period of the session, asking the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to take any steps for discontinuing the fee
now exaoted from persons visiting Westminster Abbey ?
(Hear.) He should say it was extremely discreditable
to exact such tees, and it was the first thing complained
of Gy 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
01 not press it :—" To call the attention of the House
to the practice of exacting fees or reeiving 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-
- raittanco to cathedrals is highly improper, and ought to
be discontinued."
Sir R. PEEL saii lie 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 tree admission to the cartoons at Westminster
Hall.—(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 of art, as in the case of the Portland vase. The
Right Hon. Baronet then read a letter, which he said he
bad received upon this subject, in which the writer
stated that measures had already been taken whereby to
effect a change in the charge nos made for the ad-
.mittence of straneers 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
awl south transepts, without any charge ; in fact, there
was to be free admittance to all persons to the body of
the-church.—(Helr, hear.)
Mr. WM. COUPER said that it afforded him very
great gratification to have heard the statements of the
Right Hon. Baronet, for he did conceive it tvas a great
sandal to the church that such exaction should ever have
been made ; and he doubted very much whether the
Dean and Chapter had ever any right to make any such
chatve—(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 lion. 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 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 religions 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 •
dente referred to, addressed a letter to Mr. Wray, ex-
pressing his strong disapprobation of Mr. Wray's cca-
duct. That it appears to this House, upon a reference
to tho evidence, that Mr. Wray, on behalf of the South-
Eastern Railway Company, paid the sum of 300 L, 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 session
for him to' introduce such a motion, but in justification
I 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 had 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 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. Butproceedings 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.—(Elear, 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 thatgentleman,but he must say his conduct
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. 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 enter-
tained doubts as to the course he was pursuing in his official
capacity with respect to Mr. Wray, he could net 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 ho 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
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 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 fifteen
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 be 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 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