Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, 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. Of that 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 for 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 148 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 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 Speakerwished to ask the hon. alderman whether the petition implicated any member of that House by name.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanreplied, 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 149 the patronage of, members of the legislature, cannot be unknown to your honourable House, your petitioner humbly trusts that a full inquiry will be forthwith instituted; and with reference to the Arigna Iron and Coal Company, your petitioner humbly prays the attention of your honourable 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.
§ 'Roger Flattery, of the city of Dublin, civil engineer, formerly in the employ of his Majestys 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.; this deponent was introduced by sir W. Congreve to John Schneider, esq., a respectable merchant of the city of London, and this deponent had for some time reason to believe that a sum of money sufficient for his necessities would be advanced to him by that gentleman, but about that period there existed so strong a 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 deponents 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 determined on being directors in the proposed company, the said John Schneider declined to act. Sir W. Congreve then authorized Henry Clarke to raise a sum of money in aid of the works, until he, sir W. Congreve, then on the continent, on the concerns of the Gas Association, should be able to return to form the company. This deponent met the said Henry Clarke on the 30th of October, 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 150 deponent, a few days afterwards, signed a deed, acknowledging to have received a sum of 25,000l., and gave up his deeds. The trustees in the deed, then executed, were P. Moore, esq. M. P.—Barrett, esq., M. P., and John Dunston, esq. This deponent saith, that he signed the 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 150l. in earnest. This deponent saith, that the said Henry Clarke and others, having thus possessed themselves of this deponents deeds and writings, then immediately formed a company. In the months of December and January following, this deponent received a sum of 3,750l. in cash, and had also 1,250 shares allotted to him, to make up the sum of 6,250l. 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 January aforesaid, was from the sale of shares. This deponent also saith, that he has only about 10,000l. in money shares, instead of the sum of 25,000l. which this deponent signed. And this deponent verily believes, that the sum of 15,000l., being the difference between the 10,000l. paid to him and the 25,000l. 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 agent in the company; and the sum of 1,000l. to H. D. Branbirn, agent to the company, and brother-in-law to sir W. Congreve, making up the said sum of 15,000l., which this deponent considers the shareholders in the Arigna Iron and Coal company to have been unjustly deprived of. And this deponent further saith, that he verily believes a sum, exceeding 30,000l. was also gained by the directors of the Arigna Iron and Coal company by trafficking in and on premiums upon the shares of the said company. And this deponent holds at the present, moment from 500 to 600 shares of the said company, which are to this deponent quite valueless.
151§ "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. Wynnsaid, 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 Speakerwas 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 Waithmansaid, 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 152 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.