be appointed to examine these petitions, and gravely consider these subjects, as by far the most important and pressing business of the present time. And he will ever pray."atalyn Ordered to lie on the table. CORN LAWS.] Mr. Hume said, he held in his hand a petition from the incorporation of guildry of the city of Brechin, praying for a speedy revision of the Corn-laws. The petition stated, that the admission by ministers of foreign grain, was a measure of prudence and necessity, and the petitioners were unanimous in their expression of that opinion. The concluding part of the petition prayed the House not to adopt half measures with regard to the Corn-laws, but so to deal with them as to remove the necessity of ministers having again to claim an indemnity from parliament for effecting a public good. The hon. member then claimed the indulgence of the House while he referred to a report in a daily paper, tending, as he said, to injure him in the eyes of the country. He was well aware of the malice and inveterate rancour pursued towards him by some individuals connected with the public press, who gave publication to a series of calumnies that seriously affected his character. He hoped, however, that the time was not far distant when the imputations under which he laboured would be satisfactorily cleared up, by a full explanation of the circumstances which had given rise to them. The hon. member then said, in alluding to the report in question, that at the close of his observations respecting the corn question, a few nights ago, when he called upon ministers not to postpone the consideration of that important measure, as the peace of the country and the interest of the people at large would not admit of delay, it was asserted that he was coughed down. Had such been the case, it would certainly not have been the first time that the House had signified a wish that he should not say more; but he begged to state, that his meaning on the occasion alluded to was only partly given, and to say that he experienced in that House such treatment was only adding to the calumnies with which he was constantly assailed. He had too much confidence in the indulgence of the House, and the favour of the Speaker, to suppose that Buch treatment would have been pursued towards him. He stated then, and he now begged leave to repeat the sentence, which at the time he delivered it, did not appear to have been understood. His words were, "The broad principle of the Corn-laws involved not only the interest of the people, but the peace of the country," and that, therefore, the considera tion of that question could not with safety be postponed." The latter part of that sentence was not given, and he felt it a duty to himself that his meaning should not be withheld. He regretted that he did not see the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, as he wished to have asked the right hon. gentleman whether it was the serious intention of government to postpone the question of the Corn-laws. It was notorious that the country was labouring under the greatest distress; and if any serious mischief should arise from an over pressure of calamity, that mischief might fairly be attributed to the postponement of this most vital question. So earnestly did he feel the necessity of an early consideration of the Corn-laws, that if ministers should determine to defer its discussion, he would himself endeavour to induce the House to bring in a bill for the admission of foreign corn. The hon. gentleman proceeded to contend, that the fears of the country gentlemen were con siderably over-stated with reference to the corn question; and nothing, he maintained, but a fair and full discussion of the subject could bring its bearings fairly before the public, with a view to the interest of all classes. He hoped the observations which he threw thus loosely together, would not be lost upon the House; and that it would not separate for three months without coming to some decision bona question of such paramount importance as the Corn-laws. Mr. Hurst said, he could assure the House that the landed interest did not by any means feel the alarm on the subject of the Corn-laws which was attributed to them. He for one had a full confidence in the wisdom of the House, and was satisfied that it would not proceed to legislate on such a subject without maturely weighing the interests of all parties concerned. It was desirable that it should be soon disposed of, as landlords at present were embarrassed upon what terms to let their lands.joutiq gd brod Ordered to lie on the table. To mortiloda B S gif bus dad barrell browns 924919 HOUSE OF LORDS. •ped won jon bib Tuesday, November 28. in soliw iH bootersbut 1000 BVBE SCORN-LAWS ]b Lord King said, he had several petitions to present on the subject of the Corn-laws and he was very sorry, on that occasion, that he could not follow the recommendation of the noble and learned earl on the woolsack, who had stated its to be more conformable to parliamentary usage to present petitions without any comment. If it were his wish to perpetuate all kinds of abuses, he certainly would follow the prudent example which the noble and learned lord had set; but his object being the direct contrary, he should take the liberty of now making a few observations. The first petition which the should present, was one from the Meavers of Carlisle, which he had selected on account of its importance and the sufferings which the petitioners had endured at Those sufferings would be an ample excuse for the language which they had used. It was, indeed, most extraordinary, that so large a number of the king's subjects should put their names to a petition containing these words; namely off that thousands, and probably hundreds of thousands, frequently addressed each ether, coolly inquiring whether it was not as well to die on the scaffold as of hunger?" Excuse for this was alone to be found in the extremity of their sufferings. He had inquired of gentlemen capable of giving the best information on the subject, and he found that the petitioners had given but too true a picture of their sufferings. Nothing but great suffering could have induced such language, and the petition might, therefore, be regarded as displaying the feelings of the people. The petitioners prayed for the abolition of the Corn-laws; sand, as drowning men catch at straws, they prayed besides for an appropriation of that property called church property, to the payment of the national debt, and alsob for 5 al reform in parliament. The petition was worded with all proper exopressions of humility to their lordships. 110 90 The Earl of Lauderdale supposed this to be a petition for the repeal of the CornHaws; but he now found that it was one for the confiscation of church property, and for reform in parliament. 9 Lord King said, the petition was for the abolition of the Corn-laws, though it suggested other measures in addition to that pe abolition. He had another petition to present on the same subject. It was from the royal borough of Arbroath.orThe titioners highly approved of the measure adopted by ministers for the introduction of foreign grain. And prayed for a revisal of the Corn-laws. He should not then trouble the House with any more petitions, as it appeared that their lordships did not wish to have too many at a time. The Earl of Lauderdale wished to observe, that he never remembered to have seen the House in the situation in which it appeared to be placed at present. To be sure the noble earl on the woolsack and another noble earl opposite (Westmorland) were in the House; but these were not the usual persons of whom answers to any questions which their lordships might have to put were expected. He should much wish to have the opportunity of seeing another noble earl (Liverpool) in his place, as he had a motion to submit to the House, which he wished to make when the noble earl was present, and he knew that other noble lords were equally desirous of seeing the noble earl in the House, to eve The Earl of Westmorland believed it was the usual practice for noble lords to give notice of any motion of importance which they might intend to bring forward. He was confident that, if his noble friend, were made acquainted with the wish of any of their lordships to see him in his place, he would not fail to attend. odst CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.] 290 Earl Spencer presented a petition from the county of Mayo, praying for Catholic Emancipation. Emancipation. The noble earl said, he entirely concurred in the object which the petition had in view. Ever since othe Union of the two kingdoms, which was now upwards of a quarter of a century, he had never altered his opinion on the subject of the Catholic claims. On the contrary, every year tended more and more to add to the conviction he entertained, that neither the interests of strict justice, nor of sound policy could be duly regarded, until those claims were conceded. In fact, without concession there could be no hope of peace or security for the empire, and he felt persuaded that continued resistance to those claims must ultimately be attended by some tremendous disaster. He trusted, however, that when the question should again be brought forward, the result would be different from that which their lordships had witnessed hitherto. 8 Ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, November 28, 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 10,000%, 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 occasion, 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 pre sent 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 Honour able the Commons of the United King dom 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,f "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 con duct of certain members of your honour able 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 cer tain 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 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 esq., M. P., and John Dunston, esq. humbly prays the attention of your honour-This deponent saith, that he signed the able House to the contents of the following 'said deed in a full reliance on the honour affidavit, sworn by your petitioner before of the parties, was then hastening to Irethe lord mayor of the city of London :- 'land to go to the works, but did actually In the matter of the Arigna Iron and 'receive at the time only 150l. in earnest. Coal Company. This deponent saith, that the said Henry Clarke and others, having thus possessed themselves of this deponent's deeds and 'writings, then immediately formed at company. In the months of December and January following, this deponent re"ceived a sum of 3,750l. 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 was not fulfilled, and that the money. paid to deponent in December and Ja 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 ofsir W.Congreve, bart.; 'this deponent was introduced by sir W. Congreve to John Schneider, esq., a re-nuary aforesaid, was from the sale of spectable merchant of the city of London, and this deponent had for some time rea C shares. This deponent also saith, that he has only about 10,000%. in money the 10,000l. paid to him and the 25,000/. charged to the shareholders of the Arigna 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 '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 Iron and Coal company, was taken and and others to some plans for forming a 'shared in manner following, and such 'Joint-stock company, in aid of this de-division was made by the said Henry ponent's iron works. While the plans Clarke-viz. the sum of 5,000l. to himfor forming a company were maturing, it'self, Henry Clarke, a director; the sum of 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 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 15,000%., 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 decontinent, 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 met 'cceding 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 let this deponent have a sum of money in the early part of the following month, and to send over a captain Vivian, with full powers for carrying on the works upon a large scale. On this understanding "Your petitioner humbly prays the at- I tentive consideration of your honourable House to his peculiar case; for, in consequence of the delusions practised, neither foyalty 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. RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO COMMITTE "Your petitioner now humbly throws TEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.] Mr. Littlehimself on your honourable House praying ton rose for the purpose of submitting 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, 25 The Speaker was of opinion, that the petition was o 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 pétition was one that could not be received by the House, ise, and he therefore recommended the hon. alderman to withdraw it, 'and, if he pleased, to bring it forward in an amended form. DMr. Alderman Waithman said, that seeing the disinclination of t the House to entertain this petition, he felt it to be his duty to yield to the suggestion of the 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 n 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 sional men, who felt their character at stake by the course they had advised" in the prosecution of those measures. Still, 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 e straight line of their duty. This undoubtedly was ap evil, and an evil for which it was as Hedessary 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 |