OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.
The report of the Select Committee on the petition of the South-eastern Rail- way Company issued on Saturday. It begins by reciting the petition; from which we gather these facts. The South-eastern Railway Company submitted projects to Parliament involving a capital of 6,000,0001. The London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway Company, had projects in competition. Lord Bloomfield and other officers of Woolwich gave evidence respecting difficulties in the part of the project of the North Kent Railway where it was to pass near Woolwich; but when counsel urged those difficulties before the Committee, they were met with a letter signed by Mr. John Hignett, Solicitor to the Board of Ordnance, and dated June 9th 1843, signifying the assent of the Board ; which was given under certain conditions. Mr. Hignett, however, had previously carried on a private correspondence with Mr. J. Whitehead, Secretary to the South-eastern Railway Company, and his successor, Captain O'Brien which had fallen into the hands of the Directors. In the course of this correspondence, Mr. Hignett wrote a letter to the Secretary, on the 3d February last, suggesting 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 Boldero and far- ther, soliciting similar shares for himself from that Company, and offering to tell the Parties interested "whom to call to give evidence" calculated "greatly" to assist the promoters of the bill then before Parliament, on behalf of the Company. In subsequent letters, Mr. Hignett urged the Secretary (Mr. Whitehead or Captain O'Brien) to invite his assistance in furthering the objects of the Company: on the 3d March, for instance, he writes—"I have great personal influence at Green- wich and Woolwich, and also at Rochester and Gravesend; and with the well- known great it desire I have always felt and shown to serve the South- eastern line, t is inconceivable why I was not looked to for assistance." When the Company learned that the decision of the Board had been given in favour of the rival project, their attention was turned to this correspondence, and they pre- sented their petition demanding mgniry Mr. Hignett was examined before the Committee. He admitted that he had written the letter of February 3d to Mr. Whitehead—" Though, however," " says the report, "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 conadering that it would give weight to' his application for the shares he was soliciting from the Company. Mr. Hignett farther declared, that the statement that he had spoken to Mr. Bonhamwas untrue'• and that the presumption in- tended 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 Company,' the question at hone being deemed of a purely military nature, and the decision upon such questions resting solely with the Master-General, and not with the Board. " 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 Company, 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 December of that year." Among other "transactions," forty shares in the French Northern line were presented to Mr. Hignett by Mr. Whitehead, " in the hope of thus obtaining the benefit of that gentleman's interest for the South-eastern Railway Company." The shares were then at a premium of 11. or 2L; but they were given to Mr. Hignett at have on his paying the deposit of 4L At a later period, Mr. Flignett appears to have purchased shares on speculation on his own account, as well as on account of a member 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. On the 15th April, Mr. Hignett again purchased eighty shares for himself; and on the 19th June, he bought fifty more shares for himself, at 21. premium, which he held at the period of giving his evidence. These were scrip transactions, 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, however, 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 acquaintance 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 after he had become a purchaser of eighty 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 amation of interests." He said that he did this without expecting any personal advantage to himself; and that throughout lie was onlyactuated by a de- sire to forward an important public work. " 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 confidential 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.
The report next enters upon the case of Mr. Bonham, the Storekeeper-General of the Ordnance. In 1836, Mr. Wray, who was then Receiver-General of the Police, and has since become also Receiver-General of the Police Courts, was interested in the passing of the South-eastern Railway Company's bill through Parliament : Mr. Bonham, who was then in Parliament, and was under obligations to Mr. Wray, gave the bill a general support; in return for which, Mr. Wray first presented Mr. Bonham with some shares in the Company; and afterwards he sold them on account of Mr. Bonham to whom he handed over 3001. as the realized proceeds of the transactions. Recently, Mr. Bonham purchased one hundred and five shares in the North Kent Railway, which he sold at a profit of 2s. 6d. or 58.; and subsequently, he bought one hundred shares more, which he still held at the time of his examination: they did not stand in his own name, and were bought by a person totally unconnected with the Ordnance department.
Captain Boldero was next examined. He denied that he had given Mr. Hignett any authority to use his name in the letter of the 3d February; and he explained hew he came to speculate in shares. " Until the beginning of this year I never held a railway-share of any description. My first transaction in speculating a little in railways commenced thus. A friend of mine asked me if I would buy some shares in the Chester and Holyhead: I said, Yes, provided they are mode- rate in price.' It was finally agreed between him and me that I should buy twenty shares of him, and he would deliver them in the course of four or five days if I would give him a check for 1401. I sent for the newspaper, and I found the shares quoted in the market at 6fr: he said, Well, if you will give me a check for 1401., that will include brokerage and everything l: and I bought the shares. On the 10th March, I asked Mr. Hignett to buy me ninety shares more in the Chester and Holyhead. I knew no broker. I was never on the Stock Exchange, and I therefore asked him to buy them for me." Questioned by Mr. Pakington- " And you got those shares ?"— ' Yes-' he bought them for me, at my desire. On the 7th March, Mr. Hlgnett was at my room, and we spoke about the North Kent Railway: he said he thought it was a good speculation; the premium was very low: and I requested him to buy one hundred shares. He bought one hundred shares; and of course paid the premium, and paid the brokerage; and I paid him for them. I kept them for a short time, and sold them." " The whole business was transacted by Mr. Hignett ?"—" It was; he bought and sold them for me." Other "transactions occurred; and Mr. Hignett suc- cessively bought for Captain Boldero twenty shares in the Manchester and Leeds Railway, twenty in the North British, twenty in the Glasgow and Edinburgh, seventy in the North Kent, and twenty-five in the North Kent for a " connexion." Of all these, Captain Boldero had sold the Glasgow and Edinburgh and thirty of the North Kent, apparently on speculation; but on the 9th June he sold not only his own remaining forty in the North Kent, but also the twenty-five belonging to his " connexion? The reason why he sold on the 9th June he explained. "Finding that evidence was being received by the Committee contrary to the spirit and wishes of the Master-General, it struck me possibly that some question might arise in which I should be called upon to offer some explanation; and that induced me to sell." Mr. Duncombe—" Where did you expect that explanation would be called for ?"—" In the House. There might be some petition or discus- sion about it. I saw that, as the matter was going on, I had better be out of it. Bat previously to this, the Master-General having given his consent to the three competing lines, unqualified to one and conditional to the other, which conditions had-Wn accepted, I did not think it possible that any question could arise in the
went affecting the merits of either line; the Master-General having left it to arliament which of the lines was the best, his assent being given to all three."
The Committee also called attention to some passages in the evidence of Mr. Wray. Chairman—" Were you engaged in promoting the South-eastern Railway Bill m the year 1836?"—" Yes, I was; I was retained by the Company for that purpose, as barrister or professional man." "Were you not then the Receiver of the Police ?"—" Yes, I was; at that time I was not of the Police Courts." " When you say you were retained as a barrister, is the Committee to understand that it was strictly a professional engagement?"—"Yes, in this way: I retired from practice at the time of my appointment in 1839; but I had a good deal of busi- ness as arbitrator and referee; and the manner in which I acted for the South- eastern Company was this. I arbitrated a great many of the claims of gentlemen of landed property, and amongst the rest Lord Strangford's case; I settled and awarded him 3,0001. as compensation for his land, by which I saved the South- eastern Company a very large sum, for in point of fact they had given me authority for a great deal more? " What were the duties that you had to die-
charge as a barrister?"—"I had three or four references of that kind, and gene- rally promoting the interests of the Company; and of course I did every thing I twald to promote them." "Did you canvass Members of Parliament on behalf of the Company ?"—" Certainly." He was paid 2001 or 3001. for his services. The Committee state their conclusions on the evidence. They perfectly acquit the Master-General and the Board of Ordnance from all suspicion of having been influenced or affected by the conduct of Mr. Hignett. " 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 protect public interests; and to afford, consistently with them, a reason- able and proper accommodation to the public in the districts through which it was proposed that these railways should pass. But they are of opinion, that through- out these transactions Mr. Higcett corruptly used the influence of his official station for the furtherance of his private pecuniary interests, and has thereby rendered himself unworthy of confidence as a public officer. Your Committee, upon the evidence before them, cannot entertain a doubt that the paragraphs in Mr. Hignett's letter of the 3d February 1845, which refer to Captain Boldero and Mr. Bonham, are altogether false. But your Committee find that Captain Boldero and Mr.Bonham have trafficked in the shares of a Railway Company, the pmgress of whose bill depended upon the consent of a public board of which at the time they were members; and they are of opinion that such transactions are inconsistent with the maintenance of that strict impartiality of conduct upon all public questions which is to be expected from every servant of the Crown, and are calculated to impair the confidence of the public in the integrity of members of Government departments." Mr. Bonham's acceptance of 3001. in 1836 is men- tioned with regret : " but the Committee are bound, in justice to Mr. Bonham, 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. Your Committee cannot abstain from expressing their opinion that the part taken by Mr. Wray, the Receiver-General of Police, is deserving of serious animadversion. Your Committee also feel bound strongly to condemn the conduct of all those parties in connexion with the South-eastern Railway Company who participated in the transactions of the years 1836 and 1845, referred to in the evidence, as being in the opinion of your Committee highly reprehensible. Your Committee feel it to be their duty also to call the attention of the House to the practice of canvassing disclosed in the evidence. It appears to your Committee to be a prac- tice degrading to both parties, the party canvassing and the party canvassed; and to be calculated ultimately to destroy all respect for the decisions of the Ideate, especially in the case of private bills. Its obvious tendency is to cause those decisions to be regarded rather as the result of personal solicitation and private influence than that of an honest and impartial regard for the interests of the public."
Previous page
