The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-12 00:00:00

EirrtNlNG,

- • --
THE SOUTH-EASTER :1 -RAILWAY
AND ME BOARD OF- ORDNANCE.
The fdlowing is the report of the Select Committee ap-
point: . impire into the allegations of the petition of the
South:F.astern Compar.y relative to the conduct cl
Mr. Ilignett, of the Board of Ordnance, and Captain
Boldero and Mr. :Bonham. Several letters and extracts of
evidence, i:-.cludc.d in the report, we are obliged to postpone,
but indeed they are not very material, as the report itself
embodies the substance of them. The Committee consisted
of Mr. Hawes, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Roebuck, Lord Worsley,
Mr. llayter, Mr. Tapered, Mr. T. Duncombe, Lord Ashley,
Mr. Pakington, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Vernon, Mr. T. Egerton,
Sir R. IL Inglis, Mr. Liddell, and Sir C. Douglas. After
giving the petition at length, and Mr. ilignett'a letter to
Mr. Whitehead, which has already appeared in The Sun,
and which led to the investigation, the report thus pro-
ceeds :

From this petition it appears to your Committee that the allega-
:ions or charges mace by the South-Eastern Railway Company are
.ht se :

The fast is a charge made directly against Mr. Hignett, the so-
licitor to the Board of Ordnance, that he had written a letter to
the secretary of that Company on the 3d of F,bruary last, suggest.
ing that shares in the South-Eastern Railway Company should be
sent under cover, marked " private," to two members of the Board
of Ordnance, Mr. Bonham and Captain Bolder(); and further, that
he had solicited similar shares for himself from that Company, and
had offered to tell the parties interested " whom to call to give evi-
dence" calculated " greatly" to assist the promoters of the Bill
then before Parliament, on behalf of that Company.
The second charge is made, though indirectly, against the
Board of Ordnance, and is t., this effect :
That the petitioners had "reason to apprehend that undue in-
fluence may have been used by the solicitor of the Board of Ord.
naoce in Lvour ci:the Lon:don, Chatham, and North Kent Rail-
way, to the prejudive of the petitioners," that the "interests of
their proprietary and the public may have been compromised by
the corrupt influence of the said J. Hignett at the said Board of
Ordnance; or that the documents bearing the sdgoature of the said
J. Hignett may not have had the proper and full consideration and
sanction of the said Board of Ordnance "

The petitioners, therefore, prayed the House "to institute an
inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and into the bona fides,
and expediency of the arrangements between the London, Chat-
ham, and North licit Railway and her Majesty's Board of Oid-
nance on beha f of the public service."

In reference to the first charge, your Committee examined Mr.
John \Vhiteheatl, who was for several years, and until the 27th
of February last, the Secretary to the Company, and to whom the
letter of the 3d of February last, referred to in the petition, was
addressed; Mr. John Peter Fearon, who is the solicitor to the
Company, and who has held that office from the period of the for-
mation of the Company to the present time ; and Mr. Hignett
himself.

Mr. Hignett admitted that he had written and sent to Mr.
Whitehead the letter in question of the 3d of February. He
considered it a private and confidential communication, but ac-
knowledged that he understood that its contents were to be com-
municated to one or more leading directors, and that it could only
be acted upon with the full knowledge of the directors.
Though, however, Mr. Hignett admitted that he had written the
letter referred to, he declared to your Committee that when he
wrote it he had no authority to use the name of either Mr. Bonham
or Captain Boldero, that " he had no conversation whatever with
these gentlemen upon the subject," and that he used their names
considering that it would " give weight to" his application for the
shares he was soliciting from the Company. Mr. Hignett further
declared that the statement that he had spoken to Mr. Bonham
was" untrue," and that the pri.sumption intended to be raised by
this use of the names of influential members of the Board, that the
demands of the Company on the Board might be assisted by the
course suggested by the letter, was without foundation, as " they
had not the power to further the objects of the South-Eastern Com-
pany," the questions at issue being deemed of a purely military
nature, and the decision upon s uch questions resting solely with
the Mostar-Genera land not with the Board.
Tour Committee also gather from the evidence, that Mr. Hignett
h.d frequently corresponded privately with the secretary of the
South- Eastern Company, who states that " the general character of
the correspondence was suggesting to the South-Eastern Company
the course which they should take in order to bring their project
under the notice of the Board of Ordnance, with the ♦iew of secur_
ing their assent to it;" that it "all had reference to the South_
Eastern North Kent of Line Railway and the other North Kent
Line."

(Here are inserted letters, showing the general character of the cor-
respondence of Mr. Hignett with the Company )

These letters, addressed from time to time to the secretaries of
the Company by Mr. Hignett, were, it appears, handed over to
their solicitor, Mr. Fearon.
But other letters of an earlier date, having refer once to shares,
Mr. Whitehead states, were afterwards disposed of, and were
placed in the hands of Mr. M`firegor of Liverpool, one of the Dine.
tors of the Company.
It appears in evidence that Mr. Hignett had frequently speculated
in the shares of the South-Eastern Railway Company. During
the last two years, or thereabouts, he states that he has had forty or
fifty transactions in the shares of that Company, and that in the
autumn of 1844 he was the proprietor of seventy shares in the Com-
pany, which he had bought as a speculation and not as a permanent
investment; but that he parted with all his shares in this Company
in Deceinber of that year.
In his character of a proprietor of the South-Eastern Railway
Company, Mr. Hignett was entitled, it would appear, to a certain
number of shares in a French northern line of railway, and that
eight shares were consequently allotted to him, which he received
as a matter of right, and not as a favour. This transaction is re-
ferred by Mr. Big, ett to some time about the end of the year
1844. But there seems to have been a subsequent transaction
between. Mr. Hignett, Mr. Whitehead, and one of the Directors
of the South-Eastern Railway Company, and which, as detailed in
the evidence, assumes a questionable character. Subsequently to
the 3d of February, 1845, Mr. Hignett states that he had business
to do with Mr. Whitehead, and that at an interview with that gen-
tleman Mr. Whitehead said, " Mr. Hignett, I have these shares to
hand to you ;" " but," Sir. Hignett acids, " nothing further passed
between us as to the shares." In the course of his explanation of
this transaction, Mr. Hignett adds, " We had been discussing
about some difficulty that occurred to their line, and just as he was
going away he said that he had those shares to hand to me."
Upon being asked whether these shares, being 40 shares in the
French Northern live, included the eight shares to which he was
entitled of right, he replied, " No, they were distinct. I dare say
they were Mr. M`Gregor's shares which you allude to; but I did
not receive them from Mr. M'Gregnr." This conversation, your
Committee may add, has reference to a statement previously made,
that the 40 shares in question were part of a number alloyed to
Mr. M`Gregor, one of the Dirt store of the South-Eastern Railway
Company, who afterwards, at the suggestion of the their secretary,
gave them to Mr. Hignett, in the hope 05 thus obtaining thebenerit
of that gentleman's influence.

Upon pressing the examination further upon this point, it was
admitted by Mr. Hignett, that the 49 shares so handed to hint by
Mr. Whitehead were accepted by him from the South Eaetern
Railway Company "as a matter of favour, and not as a matter of
right." It a'so appeared that these shares were then at a premium
of from 11. to 21. per shale, and that they were given to Mr. Hig_
nett at par, on his paying the deposit of 4/.
At a later period Mr. Hignett appears to have purchased shares
on speculation on his own account, as well as on account of a mem-
ber of the Board of Ordnance, Captain Boldero, in the North Kent
line, the line then competing with the South. Eastern North Kent
line before the Select Committee, and in several other companies.
The first of these transactions is dated the 7th of March, 1845,
when Mr. Hignett purchased 100 shares for Captain Boldero, which
he subsequently sold for the account ot, and with the knowledge
of, that gentleman. On the 15th of April Mr. Hignett again pur-
chased 145 shares in the same line, 70 of which were for Captain
Boldero, 25 for a friend of his, and the remainder for Mr. Hignett
himself; and on the 19th of June Mr. Hignett bought 50 shares
for himself, at 2/. premium, and which he held at the period of
giving his evidence. The last-mentioned were all scrip transac-
tions, and meant not for investment, but for speculation. It also
appears that Mr. Hignett speculated to a considerable extent in the
shares of other lines, both French and English. He states, how-
ever, that in reference to the lines the proceedings as to which he
was required officially to watch, excepting those of the •South-
Eastern and North Kent Companies, neither he nor any friend of
his, nor any member of the Board of Ordnance, nor any acquaint-
ance of his, had held any shares whatever.
Independently of the transactions thus specifically referred to, it
appears by the correspondence to which your Committee have
already directed attention, that Mr. Hignett, a few days suer he
had become a purchaser of 145 shares in the North Kent line,
suggested a compromise between the South-Eastern Company and
the party advocating the North Kent, a competing line, and offered
to become the agent of this compromise or amalgamation of bite-
rests. He proposed to the secretary of the South Eastern Rail.
way Company, if he were authorised, " to communicate with their
opponents teem that subject privately, and let him know what the
answer was, stipulating that whatever passed should be private and
confidential." Mr. Hignett states that lie did not think such a
proceeding inconsistent with his public duty ; but that he volun-
teered his mediation, to relieve the Board of Ordnance from the
applications of both parties.
He states that he expected neither shares nor other compensa.
lion on becoming the aibitrator between the rival companies, but
to act only as the mutual friend of the parties.
Mr. Hignett also states that in his letters to the South. Eastern
Railway Company, offering advice, assistance, and support, he was
actuated only by a desire to premote an important pu' lic work,
and that he had " never afforded them any assistance except in a
regular way." He admits, however, that if he "h. el been ieimi-
cat to the line he might have hung back, arid have hampered them
with delay," but " that he did not do so ;" 'hat " lie always
transacted the business with as much alacrity as he could," and
cam " went out of his way to do so."
Upon reviewing this portion of the evidence, it clearly appears
that Mr. Hignett was a considerable speculator in the shares of one
of the competing lines then before a Committee of this House, and
which immediately affected property placed under the charge of
the Board of Ordnance, and the proceedings as to which it was his
duty, as a public officer, to watch, in order to protect the interests
of the public; and also that he entered into private and confiden-
tial communications with both of the parties promoting these
lines before the Committee, without the knowledge of the Board
of Ordnance, of which he was the paid servant and legal adviser.
With reference to the second charge, your Committee proceeded
to examine Mr. Bonham and Captain Bolden), in consequence of
the use made of their names in Mr. Hignett's letter to the Secre-
tary of the South- Eastern Railway Company, of the 3d of Fe.
bruary last.
It was the wish of your Committee that each of these gentlemen
should, before his examination, have had in his hands a complete
copy of the previous evidence; mote especially in the case of Mr.
Bonham, as it had been stated in the evidence, that on the passing
of the Bill in 1836, a sum of 300/. had been paid to Mr. Bonham,
support he had given the Bill
as a remuneration for the "general
in Parhament," Mr. Bonham being at that period a Member of the
House of Commons; mid, as it appears by the records of the House
(to %bleb you'Committee have referred), also a member of the
ds
Committee upon that Bill. Mr. Bonham reeteatly attended the
Committee, and voted.
Mr. Bonham, however, decl
desirous
ut ahvea lh t ovfe,thaendadsvigarsidtfiaegde
which your Committee were d
his wish to be examined, and to make an explanation to the Com-
mittee without delay.
On your Commi'tree proceeding with his examination accordingly,
he denied that Mr. Hignett was in any way authorised to use his
name as it had been used in the letter set forth in his petition.
It appears, further, from the testimony of
se Bonham himself,
that he held and still holds shares in the North Kent Company.
No evidence was called or tendered on behalf of the London and
Chatham Ncrth Kent Railway this summary
Your Committee having given summary of evidence which
was brought before them,
proceed to state to the House the con-
elusions to which tLey have come, both with reference to the
charges contained in the petition of the South-Eastern Railway
Company, anti to the conduct of the parties implicated in the trans.
actions disclosed in the evidence now presented to the House.
Your Committee feel it to be their duty, in the first instance, to
state that nothing which has transpired leads them to suppose that
the decisions of the Master-General upon any of the questions
brought before him by
the parties promoting either the South-
Eastern North Kent, or the London, Chatham, and Kent lines of
railway, were influenced by any other than strictly public con-
siderations. Nor has your Committee any reason to suppose that
any act of the Board of Ordnance was affected or influenced by the
conduct of Mr. Hignett; however well calculated that conduct was
to suggest the sus
picions expressed in the petition of the South-
Eastern Railway Company.
Your Committee entertain
no doubt that the decisions of the
Master-General and the acts of the Board of Ordnance, in reference
to these railway companies,
were the result alone of a desire to pro-
tect public interests, and to efllird consistently with them a reason-
able and ;Toper accommodation to the public in the districts
through which it was proposed that these railways should pass.
But they are of opinion that throughout these transactions Mr.