their lordships had witnessed hitherto. Ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF COMMONS. ARIGNA MINING COMPANY-PETITION OF ROGER FLATTERY.] Mr. Alderman Waithman said, he had a petition to present to the House, which was of great importance to the public, and involved also the honour and independence of the House, The petition was from Mr. Roger Flattery, of Dublin, who was formerly a civil engineer in the employment of government, and whose name must be familiar to many gentlemen present, as connected with the Arigna Mining Company. The petitioner complained of a variety of grievances which he suffered in consequence of his connexion with that mischievous and ruinous undertaking. It appeared that Mr. Flattery had sold his interest in the Arigna mines to the undertakers of that scheme, for the sum of 10,000l., reserving to himself one fifth of the profits thereof, making his interest in the company to amount to 25,000l. Ofthat sum, however, he complained that he had. been unjustly defrauded, in consequence of the malpractices of the directors of the company. The petitioner therefore prayed the House to take the conduct of those persons into consideration, and also to institute an inquiry with respect to the part which some honourable members of that House had taken with regard to that concern. The worthy alderman said, that the presenting of this petition had, in some measure, anticipated his intention of bringing the whole of the proceedings of the Arigna company before the House, some day in the next week. With respect to an hon. gentleman, whose name was connected with the company (Mr. Brogden), he should certainly have fulfilled his intention of bringing forwarded to the notice of the House the conduct of that gentleman, and it was his fixed determination to have shown that he could not, consistently with the dignity and honour of parliament, have filled the situation to which he had been appointed. That hon. gentleman, however, having declined to act as chairman of the committees of the House, he would not have felt himself called upon to proceed any further at present, nor did he wish to bring forward charges either against the hon. gentleman or against any other individual, but that facts had lately come to his knowledge which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House on an early óccasion, and he hoped that a committee would be appointed to whom the case would be referred, and that that committee would be composed of gentlemen who were not interested in companies of this decription. With respect to the present petitioner, he could assure the House that he had never seen him until that day, nor had he ever had any connexion directly or indirectly with him. The worthy alderman concluded by moving that the petition be brought up. The Speaker wished to ask the hon. alderman whether the petition implicated any member of that House by name. Mr. Alderman Waithman replied, that it did not. "It merely prayed for an inquiry into the conduct of the persons connected with a certain company. The petition, which ran as follows, was then brought up and read :-. "To the Right Honourable and Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of Roger Flattery of the city of Dublin, Civil Engineer, formerly in the employ of his Majesty's government, "Showeth, that your petitioner having read in The Times,' and other newspapers, reports of the proceedings in your honourable House on Tuesday last, the 22nd November instant, when mention of your petitioner was made by name, and the conduct and character of one or more of the members of your honourable House were, in the opinion of your petitioner, justly called in question, your petitioner humbly hopes that your honourable House will be pleased to accept a short detail of facts at the hands of your petitioner, whereby the conduct of certain members of your honourable House may be investigated, and justice rewarded. "Your petitioner finds that the fact of a certain sum of money, 15,000l., having been unjustly taken and secreted by certain individuals, acting as directors or otherwise, of the Arigna Iron and Coal company, is happily made known to your honourable House; and while the distress and ruin which have spread over different parts of the United Kingdom, from the many fraudulent schemes and joint stock associations, either concocted by, or having esq., M. P., and John Dunston, esq. the patronage of, members of the legisla-deponent, a few days afterwards, signed ture, cannot be unknown to your honour- a deed, acknowledging to have received a able House, your petitioner humbly trusts sum of 25,000l., and gave up his deeds. that a full inquiry will be forthwith in- The trustees in the deed, then executed, stituted; and with reference to the Arigna were P. Moore, esq. M. P. Barrett, Iron and Coal Company, your petitioner humbly prays the attention of your honour-This deponent saith, that he signed the able House to the contents of the following affidavit, sworn by your petitioner before the lord mayor of the city of London :In the matter of the Arigna Iron and Coal Company. said deed in a full reliance on the honour of the parties, was then hastening to Ireland to go to the works, but did actually receive at the time only 1507. in earnest. 'This deponent saith, that the said Henry Clarke and others, having thus possessed themselves of this deponent's deeds and writings, then immediately formed a company. In the months of December and January following, this deponent re'ceived a sum of 3,7501. in cash, and had also 1,250 shares allotted to him, to make up the sum of 6,2501. more. This deponent saith, that a pledge made by the said Henry Clarke to advance money Roger Flattery, of the city of Dublin, 'civil engineer, formerly in the employ of 'his Majesty's government, maketh oath and saith, that having certain mineral 'properties, situated in the counties of Roscommon and Leitrim, suitable for the 'manufacture of Iron, in aid of the works ⚫ on which this deponent wanted a loan of money, this deponent came over to London in May, 1824, and shortly afterwards made "the acquaintance of sir W. Congreve, bart.;was not fulfilled, and that the money 'this deponent was introduced by sir W. paid to deponent in December and Ja'Congreve to John Schneider, esq., a re- 'nuary aforesaid, was from the sale of 'spectable merchant of the city of London, shares. This deponent also saith, that ' and this deponent had for some time rea- he has only about 10,0007. in money 'son to believe that a sum of money suf-shares; instead of the sum of 25,000l. 'ficient for his necessities would be ad-which this deponent signed. And this 'vanced to him by that gentleman, but 'deponent verily believes, that the sum of ' about that period there existed so strong a15,000l., being the difference between 'bias in favour of Joint-stock associations, 'that this deponent was induced to listen to the representations of sir W. Congreve ' and others to some plans for forming a 'Joint-stock company, in aid of this de'ponent's iron works. While the plans 'for forming a company were maturing, it 'was understood that this deponent should have a temporary advance of 3,000l. from the aforesaid John Schneider; but two individuals, named Henry Clarke and Joseph Clarke, brothers, having de-agent in the company; and the sum of the 10,000l. paid to him and the 25,0007. charged to the shareholders of the Arigna Iron and Coal company, was taken and shared in manner following, and such division was made by the said Henry Clarke-viz. the sum of 5,000l. to himself, Henry Clarke, a director; the sum of 5,000l. to Joseph Clarke, a director; the sum of 3,000l. to sir W. Congreve, a director, and chairman of the company; the sum of 1,000l. to John Hinde, an termined on being directors in the pro- 1,000l. to H. D. Branbirn, agent to the posed company, the said John Schneider company, and brother-in-law to sir W. declined to act. Sir W. Congreve Congreve, making up the said sum of 'then authorized Henry Clarke to raise a 15,000l., which this deponent considers 'sum of money in aid of the works, the shareholders in the Arigna Iron and until he, sir W. Congreve, then on the Coal company to have been unjustly de'continent, on the concerns of the Gasprived of. And this deponent further 'Association, should be able to return to saith, that he verily believes a sum, ex"form the company. This deponent metceeding 30,000l. was also gained by the the said Henry Clarke on the 30th of Oc-directors of the Arigna Iron and Coal 'tober, in the same year, who undertook to company by trafficking in and on prelet this deponent have a sum of money inmiums upon the shares of the said comthe early part of the following month,pany. And this deponent holds at the and to send over a captain Vivian, with full powers for carrying on the works upon a large scale. On this understanding present moment from 500 to 600 shares of the said company, which are to this deponent quite valueless.' "Your petitioner humbly prays the attentive consideration of your honourable House to his peculiar case; for, in consequence of the delusions practised, neither royalty nor product has ever been paid to your petitioner, notwithstanding the large sums of money taken from the pockets of the public, and the works are in a perishable state. "Your petitioner now humbly throws himself on your honourable House praying that the conduct of those members of your honourable House who have been engaged in the affairs of the Arigna Iron and Coal company may be investigated, for your petitioner has suffered great losses by the peculations committed, and will be obliged to file bills in the court of chancery, in Dublin, for the recovery of his property. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray." Mr. Wynn said, it was contrary to all rule that the House could entertain this petition. Besides other obvious objections to its being received, the petition referred to certain debates which had taken place in that House, and hon. gentlemen must be aware that such a proceeding was highly irregular. The Speaker was of opinion, that the petition was one which the House could not with propriety entertain. In the first place, if the petitioner complained of the conduct of certain hon. members by name, it was but just and reasonable that those members should have had due notice of the charge against them. If, in the second place, the petitioner made a general complaint, how was it possible to say which of the 658 members were meant to be accused? The petition, moreover, referred to certain unauthorized reports of the proceedings of the House, which could only find their way to the public by a breach of privilege. An affidavit was also referred to by the petitioner; but, could the House depart so far from its established usage as to admit affidavits in one shape and not in another? Under all the circumstances, he was of opinion that the petition was one that could not be received by the House, and he therefore recommended the hon. alderman to withdraw it, and, if he pleased, to bring it forward in an amended form. Mr. Alderman Waithman said, that seeing the disinclination of the House to entertain this petition, he felt it to be his duty to yield to the suggestion of the Speaker, and withdraw it. At the same time he thought it necessary to state, that the petition did not accuse members of that House generally; but only those members who were connected with the company to which the petitioner referred. The petition was then withdrawn. RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.] Mr. Littleton rose for the purpose of submitting to the House certain Resolutions on the subject of Committees on Private Bills. They were, he observed, the same as those which he had submitted in the last session of the last parliament. It was not his intention, at present, to propose that they should form part of the standing orders of the House; but merely that they should continue in force during the present session, by way of experiment. If, at the end of that time, they should be found to have answered the object in view, it would be for the House afterwards to decide whether they should be enrolled amongst its general standing orders. As there were many members in this parliament who, he supposed, were not acquainted with the reasons which had urged the introduction of those resolutions in the last session, he would briefly state, that it had in that session been found necessary to provide some remedy for what was admitted to be an evil in the mode of carrying private bills through the committees. Complaints had been unsparingly made against the conduct of many members; and it was alleged, that very many of them had voted on committees where their own interests were concerned. He was aware that most of such complaints rested on very weak foundations; that they were frequently made by parties who had been foiled in the prosecution of improper projects; and sometimes were urged by professional men, who felt their character at stake by the course they had advised in the prosecution of those measures. however, it could not be denied, that there were some instances in which members, either by the influence of personal interest, or by other causes, had suffered themselves to be warped from the straight line of their duty. This undoubtedly was an evil, and an evil for which it was necessary that some remedy should be provided. A private bill, it should be recollected, called for the suspension of some general law in a case alleged and presumed to be Still, tee would be satisfied with their decision? To avoid any inconvenience from such a cause, his resolution would propose that one hundred and twenty members should be chosen on a committee; of these sixty should be chosen from the county and its vicinity immediately connected with the object of the bill, and sixty more from distant parts of the kingdom. This would secure an impartial committee. He would now propose the following resolutions: "1. That the present distribution of Counties in the several Lists, for the purpose of forming Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, and on Private Bills prepared under the direction of the Speaker some years ago, has, from the great in tained in such lists respectively, and from other causes, been found not to answer the object for which it was framed. for the public good; and it therefore re- | had a direct pecuniary interest in its sucquired the particular attention of the cess. What chance could there be that House, in order that no measure should the parties coming before such a commitobtain its sanction which was not clearly proved to be for the public advantage. The measures which he should propose were [Here the hon. member went over the leading points of the resolutions with which he intended to conclude.] He then went on to observe, that, after the experience of the last two sessions, it could not be denied that some measure of the kind now proposed was absolutely necessary. He was aware that two other modes of remedy were preferred by some hon. members. One was, to refer each private bill to a select committee; and the other, to allow each case of abuse to be brought forward for a particular remedy. He did not think that either of those modes would correct the evil complained of. With re-equality of the numbers of members conspect to select committees on which it would be obligatory on the members chosen to serve, he thought it would be impossible to secure the attendance of a sufficient number of members, particularly where many members might be required. Some would be prevented by their professional pursuits, others by their official duties, and many by their age; but on the whole, so many causes would daily operate against attendance, that it would be almost impossible to make that mode of deciding of private bills effective. With respect to the other plan, of leaving each case of individual abuse to its particular remedy by the House, he thought it would be inefficient, as this plan had hitherto been followed, and yet, in the last two years, they had found the number of complaints daily increase. Should the course which he pointed out be adopted, no complaint of injustice could be without its remedy, for the party making it would have the power of appeal, and the case would be decided by the select committee, who would be acting in the nature of a jury, and in their decision the utmost impartiality must be expected. According to the present mode of making out the lists of persons to serve on private committees, there were two kinds of lists. Some consisted of fifty or sixty members, while others contained as many as two hundred. What was the cause of the discrepancy he could not state, but it was one which required amendment. He had known instances where a majority of the members in a committee on a private bill "2. That, with a view more nearly to equalize members, and to correct too strong a prevalence of local interests on committees on petitions for private bills, it is expedient that a new distribution of counties should be made, containing in each list, as nearly as may be, one hundred and twenty members; one half only, or thereabouts, to be taken from the county immediately connected with the objeet of the bill, and the adjoining counties; and the other half from other more distact counties of Great Britain and Ireland; and that the members serving for such counties, and the places within such counties, should constitute the committee on each bill. "3. That Mr. Speaker be requested to direct a new distribution of counties to be prepared in such manner as shall be approved of by him, conformably to the principle of the foregoing resolution. "4. That every committee on a private bill be required to report to the House the bill referred to it, with the evidence and minutes of the proceedings. "5. That a committee be appointed, to be called The Committee of Appeals upon Private Bills,' which committee shall consist of all the knights of the shire, all the members for cities, and such other members as may be named therein; so that the whole number appointed to serve upon such committee shall amount to two hundred at least. 66 6. That where any party interested in clerk of the fees, the sum of 5001., for the payment of such costs as may be awarded against him, her, or them." Mr. Yates Peel rose to second the resolutions, and observed, that great thanks were due to the hon. gentleman who had introduced them. If any member who was not in the last parliament had any scruple in private bill, who shall have appeared in support of his petition, by himself, his counsel, or agent, in the committee upon such bill, or where the promoters of a private bill shall be dissatisfied with any vote of the committee upon such bill, and shall petition the House, setting forth the particular vote or votes objected to, and praying that they may be heard, by them-voting for them, he could assure him that selves, their counsel, or agent, against such vote or votes, the House shall, if they so think fit, refer such petition, together with the report of the committee upon the bill, and the minutes and evidence taken before such committees, to a select committee of seven members of the House, to be chosen by ballot from the committee of appeals upon private bills, which select committee shall hear the arguments of the parties complaining of, and also of the parties supporting, such vote or votes, and shall report their opinion thereon to the House. 7. That whenever a petition shall be referred to such select committee, complaining of any vote of a committee upon a private bill, the House shall fix a day whereon to ballot for a select committee, to which such petition shall be referred, upon which day, at a quarter past four o'clock, or as near thereto as the question which may be then before the House will permit, the Speaker shall order the doors of the House to be locked, and the names of the members composing the committee of appeals upon private bills being written upon separate pieces of paper, and put into the glass, the clerk shall draw therefrom the names, until seven members of such committee who shall be then present, and who shall not have voted in the committee upon the private bill to which the petition refers, or shall not be excused by the House, shall have answered to their names; which seven members shall be the select committee to whom such petition shall be referred, and such select committee shall meet for business the following day at 11 o'clock, and continue to sit, de die in diem, until they shall have reported upon the same; and that only one counsel or agent shall be heard in support of the petition of any one party. any change in the mode of constituting committees on private bills must be a change for the better. It might be said, that it would be improper to prevent members from coming in to vote in a private committee in which they had not heard the previous proceedings, seeing that they were allowed to do so in the House on important questions. He did not mean to justify one course by citing the other, but there was this difference between the two cases. In the committee they voted on evidence; while, in the House, they voted on argument. He could easily conceive that a man might not like to sit out a long argument, or what was worse, a long speech without any argument at all; but he could not conceive the propriety of a member coming in and voting on the conclusiveness or inconclusiveness of evidence which he had not heard. Recollecting what had taken place in former committees, he was convinced that the course now pointed out would be a great saving of time and expense to parties connected with private bills, and he hoped the House would consent to it as an experiment. If it suc-' ceeded, the resolutions could be made part of the standing orders. If it failed, they would not be in a worse situation than they were at present. Colonel Davies admitted that great inconvenience arose from the former course with respect to private bills, but the one now proposed would, he thought, be much worse, and therefore he would give it all the opposition in his power. First, with respect to the hundred and twenty members to be on a committee, he thought it would be extremely difficult to obtain that number, unless they resorted to the former objectionable course of having members named on different commit"8. That no member of such select tees sitting at the same time. Last sescommittee shall absent himself therefromsion, there were thirty committees on priduring its sitting, without the permission of the House. "9. That the party or parties complaining shall, previously to the balloting for such select committee, deposit with the vate bills sitting at the same time. How could such a number be provided for in the mode proposed? The hon. mover seemed to think that it would be extremely difficult to get a select committee on each |