§ SIR J. GRAHAM, seeing the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Evelyn Denison) in his place, would take the opportunity of 963 making an explanation to him on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman had lately brought under the notice of the House the conduct of the Solicitor of that Commission, who had circulated a paper with reference to a discussion in a Committee of this House, which he had the high authority of the Speaker for saying was a breach of the privileges of the House. He was, however, directed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to express their regret, that their Solicitor should have violated the privilege of the House—a regret which they felt the more deeply, inasmuch as the document contained comments on the conduct of hon. Members which were quite incorrect and unfounded.
§ MR. J. E. DENISONsaid, that the intimation was perfectly satisfactory. When he had ascertained the contents of the letter in question, he had written to the Earl of Besborough, who was to preside at a meeting of the Commission the following morning, stating that the document was inconsistent with the privileges of the House, and not the less so, because the statements it contained were incorrect. He had further stated in this communication, with regard to Mr. White, the writer of the letter, that all he had done before the Committee, was done with propriety and ability. He trusted that the explanation which had been now given would set him right with all parties; he had every disposition to put a favourable construction on Mr. White's motive.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that had he been aware at the time, which, from the noise in the House, he was not, that the hon. Member for Maldon was making some disparaging observations on the conduct of the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission, Mr. Murray, he (the Attorney General) would not have lost the opportunity of declaring, that from Mr. Murray's high character, a character earned by thirty-five years' experience in a public capacity, nothing was more unlikely than that any step officially taken by that gentleman would be of such a nature as to require such animadversion. [Cries of "Order!"] He thought he should have been allowed to rebut a personal accusation, which had given great pain to an individual.
§ MR. HUMEI move that the Paper said to be an invasion of the privileges of the House be put in, thus giving an opportunity for discussion.
The ATTORNEY GENERALresumed. 964 The first charge made against Mr. Murray was, that he was a dealer in railway shares to the amount of 260,000l. The facts were, that Mr. Murray, in 1844, became a director of an established company—the South-Eastern Company. Finding, however, that the Commissioners objected, his name was immediately withdrawn. But while he was a director, it was proposed to extend the line, and it became necessary that another subscription contract should be deposited, in order to satisfy the Standing Orders. The shareholders being very numerous, and it being quite impossible to collect them in order to obtain their signatures, it was proposed by the solicitor that a certain number of the directors should sign the contract as trustees for the general body; and in the character of trustee only did Mr. Murray sign it. The liability was now finally put an end to, the responsibility being taken by the directors in a different form. He did not think any blame could be attached to Mr. Murray on this head. Now, as to the other charge. It appeared from a statement made to him, that a gentleman, the son of a clergyman, was employed by the Eastern Counties Railway, not as one of their servants, but in a confidential business which they were anxious to transact; and it being very desirable that he should have a second room, where he could have his papers under lock and key, Mr. Murray gave him the accommodation in Whitehall Palace, and that was the sole ground of fastening on Mr. Murray the charge of having used his office for the purposes of the South-Eastern Company. He should add, that Mr. Murray performed very responsible duties with the strictest honour and integrity, and that he believed he might in all respects be relied upon.
§ MR. J. E. DENISONThe very singular and remarkable indiscretion of the Attorney General compelled him to enter a little further into a matter which, so far as he was concerned, he should willingly let drop. As to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was incorrectly informed as to their conduct, and it was of course unnecessary to enter into explanation on that head. He should like to ask the House whether they would take the assurance of the Attorney General, or the opinion of four selected Members, and of seven Members from the Speaker's list, who, one and all, expressed it as their decided opinion that the prayer of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be 965 heard in opposition to the preamble of the Bill was not well advised, and should receive the animadversion of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman said that he had used a strong expression with regard to Mr. Murray. That remark was, that a highminded man, having an immense amount of property passing through his hands, and having public interests of the gravest moment submitted to his consideration, would not have acted as Mr. Murray did. In justice to himself, he was compelled to give the House some further information as to this gentleman. When he spoke of Mr. Murray on a former occasion, he merely referred to two matters which forcibly came under public notice; first of all, the subscription to the railways; next, that his whole time was not given to the public service; and, lastly, he touched on the proceedings before the Committee. But the Attorney General had compelled him to state a circumstance which was very painful to allude to, but which he must divulge in justification of himself. It happened to him, about six weeks ago, to be admitted to an audience in explanation of a business which had been some years before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On that occasion, a report was to be read for his information. Every member of the Commission had that report in his hand, and was completely conversant with its contents. Mr. Murray was desired to read it. In a part of that report a passage occurred, in which the surveyor of the Commissioners recommended them not to sell a certain property, because its retention would give considerable political influence. Mr. Murray dropped the word "political," and read great influence; on which the Bishop of London, sitting near him, said, "read fully or fairly"—he could not say which—"it is political influence." Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman if a counsel in a court, or any individual of character, was asked to read a public document for the information of the court, and that such officer was to omit the word which gave the whole point to the sentence, he asked whether such a man would come under the denomination of a highminded gentleman? He saw one of the Commissioners present who heard what took place. And he now asked the House this—when he was compelled by a sense of duty to animadvert on the public conduct of Mr. Murray with regard to matters before the House, and when, though he communicated some other circumstances to the right hon. Gentleman, 966 he refrained from stating them to the House—he asked whether he was disposed to deal harshly with this gentleman; and, further, whether he was not justified in the remarks which he now made under a sense of public duty?