mittee. The hon. Member who brought | dence before the Committee, that the part forward this Motion has told the House taken by Mr. Bonham was taken without that he had no acquaintance with Mr. any reward or promise whatever; and the Wray, nor any knowledge of him previous opinion of the Committee to that effect is to the investigations which took place be- set forth in the Report as clearly as it is posfore the Committee. Now, it so happens sible to make any kind of statement. But, that, notwithstanding I have been in office then, it is asserted, that the alleged offer during a period of four years, I never yet made to Mr. Bonham was made at the sugcame into personal contact with Mr. gestion of Mr. Wray. The witness Sewell Wray. He is to me a perfect stranger; I said it was made principally at his suggestion therefore cannot have been influenced to--that is, at the suggestion of Mr. Wray. wards him by any favourable feeling. I can most truly state that until I wrote the letter which has been brought under the notice of the House, I never had any intercourse with Mr. Wray, nor have I ever received any application on his behalf from any friend of his, nor have I been solicited with reference to him in any form whatever. When I wrote to him, therefore, I felt myself perfectly free to take a dispassionate view of his case. The hon. Gentleman has expressed strong regret that he should have been under the necessity of bringing forward the Motion upon which the House now finds it necessary to decide. I confess I feel some surprise that, as he did consider it his duty to make this Motion, he should have thought proper to make it at so late a period of the Session. I must say I think it very unfortunate that these Resolutions were not proposed ten days ago. Looking round me, I do not at present see any Members of that Committee, excepting the hon. Gentleman, who presided over its deliberations, and one other Member. [Mr. Hawes There are three Members of the Committee present.] Well, admitting that there are three present, three out of fifteen is a very small minority. But, setting aside questions so comparatively unimportant, I proceed to call the attention of the House to this--that the matter really at issue is, have I or have I not fulfilled the recommendations of the Committee? Now, for that purpose, I repeat that I used my best endeavours. I think I have been fortunate enough to render those endeavours successful; but before I enter into the discussion of that point, there are two or three circumstances to which I wish to advert, and it appears to me that those circumstances ought not to be lost sight of. The hon. Member for Lambeth says that Mr. Wray bribed a Member of this House, and by the bribe which he gave him purchased his co-operation. What is the fact? It was distinctly shown in evi- I

Now, I fearlessly state, that in this matter I can have no favourable feeling towards Mr. Wray, for he is unknown to me--while, on the contrary, I have long been acquainted with Mr. Bonham, and I am proud to call that gentleman my friend. He has committed a very grave error, and Mr. Bonham never dissembled the extent of that error. I regret that he should have been betrayed into it, but he still is my friend, and I shall continue to call him my Friend; but, though Mr. Wray is not even known to me, I still am bound to do him justice. From the evidence, or at least from a part of it, it would appear that Mr. Wray had some peculiar and personal objects in making the offers which were said to have been made to Mr. Bonham-that, in fact, he was a creditor of Mr. Bonham, and expected to receive the amount of his debt out of the proceeds of such advantages as were expected to accrue from these railway transactions. But these assertions have been altogether disproved. Nothing can be more clear than that Mr. Wray did not touch a single farthing of the money which came into Mr. Bonham's possession. My prejudices, as I have already said, are against Mr. Wray, and in favour of Mr. Bonham, and I wrote to Mr. Wray under the influence of those impressions. Mr. Wray, when he came before the Committee, was told to bring his private account which he had at Drummonds'; but the Committee did not examine that account. And Mr. Elgood was also in attendance, but he was not called in by the Committee. From Mr. Wray's account at Drummonds', it was clear enough that neither directly nor indirectly did he derive any benefit from these railway transactions. To say thus much, is due in common justice to Mr. Wray. The hon. Member for Lambeth says, that I have not referred to the payments made to Mr. Bonham by Mr. Wray; but these were payments made long anterior to the period into which it was the duty of

the Committee 'to inquire. That which I framed by the Chairman, did not stop at wished to do was, to notify to Mr. Wray the words “serious animadversion;" but my strong disapprobation of the course that there was added to that expression a pursued, and I did notify my disapproba - sentence, to the effect that “the attention tion of the whole transaction. My wish, of the Secretary of State for the Home as I have already said, was to give effect | Department ought seriously to be called to the Repurt of the Committee, and I to the conduct of Mr. Wray.” I was, Sir, think it important that any hon. Member assured that these last words were, after a should notify wherein 1' failed to give discussion in the Committee, deliberately effect to that Report; and I think I have withdrawn, and that there was no division succeeded in causing such measures to be upon them. That circumstance, when it taken as should meet the exigencies and came to my knowledge, did most maequity of the case. With respect to Mr. terially influence my conduct in the steps Higuett, I can of course have no hesita- which I took with respect to Mr. Wray. tion in saying that his conduct was proved If the words originally contained in the to have been such that it became neces- Report had been retained there when it sary he should be removed from the place was presented to this House, I should he held in connexion with the Board of have thought that the Committee deemed Ordnance. As to the conduct, however, it necessary for me to adopt some exof Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero, il tremely stringent measures with respect was shown that their conduct was not so to Mr. Wray, and I should have acted acculpable as that of Mr. Hignett; but yet cordingly. [Mr. Hawes: The right hon. it was the opinion of the Committee that Gentleman has not told all that passed they should withdraw from the service of with regard to Mr. Wray.] I am quite the Crown, and that their conduct was sure that I am stating correctly the facts inconsistent with the strict impartiality that were narrated to me by the noble which should characterize officers of Go- person who formed one of the Comvernment Departments and Members of mittee ; and the observation of the hon. this House. So soon as Mr. Bonham and Member confirms me in the opinion Captain Boldero learned the decision of which I have already expressed as to the Committee, they tendered the resigna- the disadvantages of discussing a question of their offices, and those resignations tion like the present in the absence of were accepted. At page 13 of ihe Re. those hon. Members who were port the Committee say

Committee, and who would be able, if “ Your Committee cannot conclude without present, to state the facts better than I calling thc attention of the House to the evi- can do. The real question which is before dence given by Mr. Wray, the Receiver Ge. the House is, whether in fulfilling the neral of Police."

functions of the high and responsible That evidence is fully set forth in the office which I have the honour to hold, I Report, and nothing can be more clear have acted fairly and with strict regard to than this, that no payment was made to justice and impartiality ? I contend, Mr. Bonham. I am called on to give my therefore, that I have a right to enter into opinion as to the punishment that ought to a consideration of what took place in the be inflicted on Mr. Wray. I find that Coinmittee; and I do assert that the immediately after the passage I have just knowledge on my part of the fact that the quoted, the Committee gave it as their words which I have repeated were proopinion that the conduct of Mr. Wray posed to be inserted in the Report and called for very severe animadversion. were deliberately left out, did most maLooking, then, at the Report of the Com- terially and justly weigh with me in mittee, and at the fact upon which it is writing the letter which it became my founded, I still hesitated before I made up duty lo address to the individual whose my mind on this question, whether or not conduct was referred to in that part of I should dismiss Mr. Wray; and before I the Report. All the individuals implifinally decided I inquired of more than cated in these transactions, have, in so far one Member of the Committee--since it as Her Majesty's Government had it in was not a private Committee-as to what their power, been punished. Mr. Hignett occurred with respect to the part Mr. was dismissed from his situation as Solicitor Wray took in the transaction. I was told to the Board of Ordnance. Two others, one that the part of the Report, as originally a Member of this House, and the other a

"

on the

Member of the Government, offered their with a noble Lord a Member of the Comresignations under the most painful cir-mittee, and Lord Ashley was the only cumstances. Mr. Wray, whose position is inferior to that of the gentlemen in question, has been severely censured by me; and I must now say, that, on the whole, though I may be held to have been wrong in what I did, I should under the same circumstances, do the same again that I have done; and I say that every dispassionate man, on reading the Report of the Committee, would come to the same conclusion that I have done with respect to the precise amount of blame which is attached in the words of the Report itself to the conduct of each of the individuals implicated in the transactions inquired into. It will, therefore, be for the House to determine the question upon the grounds which I have now laid before it.

noble Lord to whom the description could apply. He could not help, however, thinking it rather extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should not have consulted the chairman of the Committee as to a fact in which the chairman was principally concerned. The draft of the Report was furnished by the chairman m the performance of his official functions as head of the Committee. Certain alterations were made in it: but would it not have been the regular course, in inquiring into these alterations, to have sent for the individual with whom the Report had originated? The right hon. Baronet stated, that he had not written this letter in a careless, hasty mood, but that, on the contrary, he had well weighed its every Mr. Hawes, in explanation, would state expression-every phrase. Now, that beto the House the facts relative to the al-ing the case, it was curious that he should teration of the Report, without making have omitted from the letter to Mr. Wray any comment. The original draught of all mention of the principal charge the Report, as framed by himself in his brought against him. The Report of the capacity of Chairman of the Select Com-Committee made a distinct specification mittee, said, with reference to Mr. Wray, of that particular charge. Let the House that "such conduct deserved the imme-listen to the concluding paragraph of that diate notice of the Secretary of State for part of the Report which referred to Mr. the Home Department." Some objection Wray:was taken by a Member of the Committee to the introduction of the mention of the Secretary of State in the Report. It was urged that the duty confided to the Committee was to examine into the matters referred to them, and to report the facts to the House; and it was then proposed that, in lieu of drawing the attention of the Home Secretary to the conduct of Mr. Wray, the words "serious animadversion" should be substituted. He confessed that he was of opinion at the time that this expression was far more severe than that which he had originally proposed, but at the same time he did not think it was more severe than the circumstances called for.

Mr. Sheil said, that the statement of the right hon. Baronet was, that he had given to the composition of the letter to Mr. Wray the utmost care and attention -weighing, in fact, every expression employed in it. He admitted that he had sent for a noble Lord a Member of the Committee-Lord Ashley, he presumed [Sir J. Graham: I did not say so.] No, but he was justified in assuming that it was the noble Lord, as the right hon. Gentleman had been in communication

"Your Committee feel the greatest regret in being obliged to direct the attention of the House to a circumstance which has been disclosed in the course of this investigation, viz., that Mr. Bonham received from the South Eastern Railway Company in the year 1836, of Commons, the sum of 300l. This sum appears to have arisen from the premium upon the sale of 100 reserved shares, which were, subsequently to the passing of the Bill, appropriated to Mr. Bonham, and disposed of for his benefit, and was paid by a check to Mr. Bonham, through Mr. Wray, as a gratuity for Company, both in and out of Parliament, and

at which time he was a Member of the House

the services which he had rendered to that

as a Member of the Committee on the South
Eastern Railway Company's Bill. But the
Committee are bound, in justice to Mr. Bon-
ham, to add, that they received no evidence to
show that such gratuity was the result of any
previous arrangement between Mr. Bonham
and the Company."

Here then (said the right hon. and learned
Gentleman) is a fact—a most material fact

selected by the Committee, dwelt ou by the Committee with more distinctness, and in a spirit of more specific reprehension than any other, and one in reference to which, as the immediate antecedent (you will excuse the legal expression), the Com

mittee reported they could not abstain | hear the statement made by Mr. Bonham, from saying that "the conduct of Mr. whom the Committee reported to have Wray was deserving of serious animadver- regularly attended and voted on the Comsion.' It is to that what shall I call it? mittee of the South Eastern Railway -most unfortunate transaction, in which Bill:Mr. Wray and Mr. Bonham were both implicated, and with respect to which, if Mr. Bonham is criminal at all, Mr. Wray is far more culpable, that the Committee directed the special attention of the House. And yet that is the very fact which the right hon. Gentleman, I will not say studiously omitted, but which, after mature deliberation, he neglected to notice. I turn from one part of the conduct of Mr. Wray noticed by the Committee, to the other reprehended in the letter of the right hon. Gentleman, and which really was not adividually to assist Mr. Wray in the object he serious charge that this Gentleman was the paid agent of a Company at the same time that he was a paid officer of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman

"It now becomes my duty to convey to you my strong disapprobation of the course which you thus pursued. I do not think it necessary, on the present occasion, to express any opinion whether the due performance of the duties of Receiver General of Police might or might not have been, in the first instance, compatible with private practice as a barrister; but I can entertain no doubt that your interference, especially as a paid agent in canvassing Members, must tend to weaken the confidence of the public in the impartiality of the Government, whose officer you are, and materially to impair your efficiency in the performance of the official duties which are entrusted to you." Now, I must say, with reference to this part of the reprimand of the right hon. Gentleman, that to canvass Members of Parliament in that lobby is one thing, and to apply to an individual Member of a Select Committee to use his influence to pass the Bill which was referred to that body to solicit his sustainment of a measure, in reference to which he stood in a fiduciary and, I may say, judicial capacity is quite a different thing. Now,

"In the early part of the Session of 1836, obligations (it is not necessary to state them Mr. Wray, to whom I was under considerable with explicitness), came to me and said, 'I am very much interested in the success of the South Eastern Railway, and I wish you would give us a lift; and I want your advice upon some points.' I said, 'My dear Wray, I owe very great obligations to you, and I will do should be very much obliged to you if you anything I can to serve you,' He said, 'I would.' And upon that, I have not the least hesitation in stating that I did all I could in

had in view; that is, in plain terms, I did what I could to assist him in passing that Bill, both in and out of Parliament. Mr. Wray never held out to me one word, nor did any conversation ever take place, as to any advantage of any kind or sort that I was to derive from it. I considered it a great personal advantage; I mean personal, with reference to the debt of gratitude that I owed him." Now, I think, it will be admitted that Mr. Wray, being the creditor of Mr. Bonham, and having the power of dictating, as has been said by a high authority, "in all the obsequious forms of peremptory submission," his application on the Bill referred to was something very different from what we understand as the canvass of Members of Parliament. [Sir James Graham: Read on.] I shall read that part to which the right hon. Gentleman seems to refer :-

"I can only state again that, as to the transaction itself, there was never, at the time I assisted them, the smallest expectation on my mind of deriving any advantage from it; and of course, when I state this, the Committee will most naturally and properly take care to ascertain that fact from other quarters." Now, I will say more. I have read the evidence carefully, and I have not found an insinuation, even in the shape of an intelligible inuendo, that any arrangement was previously entered into with Mr. Bonham that he should vote in a particular way. That the communication was understood by Mr. Bonham to be in the shape of a bribe, is what by no circumlocution, or by the most malignant paraphrase, can be inferred; but what the meaning of Mr. Wray's offers were, can be best interpreted by his own evidence. Here it is :

"CHAIRMAN: Were you not appointed | self implicated in this case; and of a sin to confer with Mr. Bonham upon the mat- of omisson I think he has proved himself ter? - An offer of 100 shares was made through me to Mr. Bonham. When did you make the offer to Mr. Bonham?-Subsequently to the passing of the

Did they receive any money?—I do not know; I am not in the least aware. But he was an active Member of Parlia-matter. Not one of the Committee had ment, and paid for his activity?—He was an active Member of Parliament, and paid in that

The right hon. Gentleman says he is him- Wray. He must, therefore, repeat his