RESOLUTION FOR THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE COMMITTEES.
On the 19th of April, Mr. Littleton brought forward a series of resolutions for the better regulation of private committees on private bills, especially those relating to joint-stock companies. Great complaints had been made of the conduct of these committees; but Mr. Littleton observed that he believed they were generally ill-founded. It was certain, however, he continued, that the present constitution of committees rendered improper conduct perfectly possible; but this, the plan he had in view would prevent. The grand features of this plan were to remodel the list for the counties; to secure impartiality by taking only one half of the committee from the county in which the bill originated; to make attendance compulsory, and to prevent the chance of abuse by creating a standing committee of appeal. His scheme was embodied in eight resolutions which were adopted with the general approbation of the house. The only one on which a division took place was that which provided that every petition complaining of the decision of a private committee should be referred to a committee of appeal; and this was carried by a majority of forty-four against thirty-three.
MOTION TO HOLD PARLIAMENT OCCASIONALLY IN DUBLIN AND EDINBURGH.
On the same day that Mr. Littleton brought forward the resolutions alluded to, Mr. Pelham, made one of most extraordinary motions that ever was proposed within the walls of Saint Stephen’s. After adverting to the great increase of wealth and population in the principal towns of the kingdom, their distance from the seat of legislation, and the expense of sending witnesses and deputies to London whenever their interests were at stake, he gravely moved, “That it is expedient the imperial parliament should be occasionally holden in Dublin and Edinburgh.” The very idea of such a change was justly scouted by the house as unworthy their attention, and no one was found bold enough to second the motion: so St. Stephen’s was not yet to be deserted.
RESTORATION OF FORFEITED SCOTCH PEERAGES.
Acts were passed during this session for the restoration of five Scotch peerages which had been forfeited by rebellion in the last century. These were the peerages of the Earl of Carnwath, Earl of Airlee, Lord Duff, Lord Elcho, and the Baron of Threipland of Fingarll. The only person who opposed this measure was Lord Minto, and he avowed that his opposition was founded upon political sentiments. He asked, why should not a bill be brought in for the restoration of titles against all acts of attainder passed under the present and preceding dynasties? Why make a selection of forfeitures incurred for treason, not against the crown, but against the liberties of the subject? Why, for instance, was not the Duke of Buccleugh restored to the dukedom of Monmouth? He confessed that the selection which had been made was most unfortunate; and he was sorry that he had not stated his objections when the bills made their first appearance in the house. Mr. Peel replied by the simple statement that these reversals of attainders had commenced with that of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and that he himself had made the motion that the descendants of Lord Strafford should be restored to their family dignities.