Lords Sitting of 27 April 1830

MINUTES.
The Haymarket Removal Bill and the Four per-Cents Bill were committed.
Petitions presented. By Earl FITZWILLIAM, two from the Inhabitants of Places in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, praying that the Assizes might be held for that part of the County at Wakefield, By the Duke of SOMERSET, from Tomes?, in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews. Praying for the Abolition of the Punishment of Heath for Forger)', by Lord VERNON, from Derby:—By the ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY, from Margate:—And by Lord DURHAM, from Stockton-upon-Tees, and from Darlington. By Lord HOLLAND, from the Magistrates of the County of Lancaster, praying that the Imperfections of the Welch Judicature might be improved, but that its frame might not be destroyed. By Earl STANROPE, from Hastings, against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter; and from the Agriculturists of Cireneester, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. And by the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Dalkeith Farmers' Society, against the additional Duty on British Spirits.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Earl STANHOPE, Account of the Exports of British Manufactures, from 1798 to 1814, and from 1814 to 1830:—Also of Foreign and Colonial Produce:—Also similar Returns from Ireland:—And also Accounts of all the species of Imports during the same period:—Particular Accounts of the Imports and Exports of Cotton during the same period:—Account of the Money paid and payable to the Bank of England for the management of the Public Debt in 1829:—Balance of
68
Public Money in the hands of the Bank:—Advances made by the Bank to Government:—And Bank of England Notes in Circulation each year, from 1819 to 1830.

EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Witnesses were examined at great length on this Bill. The cross-examination of one witness by Mr. Stevenson, who was (with Mr. Adam and Mr. Alderson) counsel for the petitioners against the Bill, occasioned
The Lord Chancellorto object to a third counsel being employed, it being contrary to the general practice and rules of the House to allow more than two counsel to be engaged on a side on any private bill.
On this question a conversation of some length ensued.
The Marquis of Salisburysupported the same view as the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Durhamsupported the propriety of allowing the third counsel to be heard. This was a Bill of Pains and Penalties; it had assumed a great degree of political importance, in consequence of having occasioned a division of the Cabinet; it was supported by several of the Cabinet Ministers, and therefore he thought it was the duty of their Lordships to relax the rule, even if it were a rule which they generally followed. He did not know that the rule had never been deviated from; and in a case like that, it would be proper in their Lordships to give the petitioners a more than usual latitude. If he were to consent to Mr. Adam's pursuing that cross-examination, which Mr. Stevenson was conducting so ably as to call the attention of their Lordships to him, he should recognise the principle, that only two counsel could be employed. He would therefore move that their Lordships should then adjourn the further consideration of the question, in order to give time to examine whether or not it were a general rule of the House that only two counsel should be heard.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that he had no objection to the greatest latitude being given; all that he was afraid of was, the longitude of the case.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in the cases of Penryn, Grampound and Barn-staple, two counsel only had appeared at the Bar of that House. He would move that only two counsel on behalf of the petitioners against the Bill should be heard.
Lord Durham Lord Durham moved, as an amendment,

69
that the further consideration of the question should be adjourned.
The House divided—For the Lord Chancellor's Motion 10; Against it 3—Majority 7.