ADJOURNMENT. (Hansard, 16 May 1839)

§ The Duke of Wellington
suggested, that it might be more convenient if some other course was adopted, instead of moving the adjournment for so long a time; and he submitted to the noble Viscount whether there might not be an understanding that no important business should be brought forward before the day mentioned, so that the House, if necessary, might continue its sittings on account of the judicial business, which would not then be delayed. He thought that such an understanding might be acted upon by all parties in that House. There was another thing which he wished to recommend to the noble Viscount; he had some concerns to attend to in another part of the town on the 27th of May, which, if he mistook not, would be Trinity Monday—[a laugh]—and he rather fancied that the noble Viscount also had business to transact in that part of the town on that night. He therefore suggested to him whether it might not be convenient to adjourn to the 28th.

§ Lord Hatherton
said, it would he necessary for the House to meet on the 27th, in order that witnesses on the Irish Committee might be sworn.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, that he had no objection to such an arrangement as that suggested by the noble Duke; but as to extending the period of adjournment, he thought that the House of Commons was in that particular state in which such an extension might he inconvenient in case any communication were necessary.

§ The Lord Chancellor
said, if the House were not to adjourn till the judicial business was terminated, it would never adjourn at all. Besides, when he was not employed in that House he was in the Court of Chancery, where the business was also very heavy; so that, taking the 1033 whole administration of the justice of the country together, it would not suffer at all by the adjournment.