ADJOURNMENT. (Hansard, 31 March 1817)

Mr. Ponsonby
could not avoid observing, that the House was now separating after the royal assent had been given to the last of a series of coercive measures— measures which, it was true, were rendered necessary by the public distress, which had produced the immediate cause for them; but parliament was about to adjourn without having done any thing but enact those coercive measures. He hoped therefore, that before the House met again his majesty's ministers would have taken some step towards the alleviation of those distresses. He did expect much from the exertions of the committee that was sitting; and he hoped that, on the return of the House, his majesty's ministers, and the committee together, would be able to state that something had been done. He should not have objected to a longer adjournment if such a hope were held out; and even if it were not, the state of the Speaker's health would prevent him from opposing the motion.

Mr. Canning
trusted that the right hon. gentleman would not be disappointed in his expectation as to the attention which the committee and his majesty's ministers would bestow on the subject before them; but if the right hon. gentleman laid in his claim for a sudden and complete removal of all the distress of the country, he claimed what it was beyond the reach of ministers to effect. In making such a demand on the limited powers of the committee, he feared the right hon, gentleman's speech could only tend to excite or increase the public discontent. He was certain there would be no want of attention on the part of the committee, and he hoped that some plan for practical relief, to a pertain extent, might be found; but he should be sorry to excite such exaggerated expectations as the right hon, gentleman had held out, of the removal of evils which it was beyond the power of human wisdom to prevent, or human legislation to remove.

Mr. Ponsonby
expected no complete or 1304 sudden removal of the evils alluded to; but, hitherto, no step had been taken.

§ Mr. Brougham
complained, that the right hon. gentleman had, in his usual way, not only imputed to his right hon. friend what he did not say, but motives by which he never could have been actuated. He put it to the House, whether a more temperate address had ever been made within those walls. His right hon. friend had only expressed a hope that something would be done to alleviate the distress of the people. For his part, he was not so sanguine as to the labours of the committee as his right hon. friend: for he well recollected, that the appointment of the committee was not conceded as a boon by ministers, but extorted in consequence of a notice given from an hon. friend of his, that such a committee would be moved for. He must say one word, too, on a disappointment of another kind, which he foresaw must occur. He was afraid, after all the pains that had been taken to prevent the people of Westminster from meeting, that if the House expected no meetings would take place within a mile, they would be grievously disappointed. For in the hurry in which the bill was passed, it had entirely escaped the notice of ministers, that there were two flaws that rendered the bill altogether nugatory. The first was that a meeting might be held in Palace-yard or elsewhere, for the purpose of addressing the Prince Regent or the Crown, for the removal of his majesty's ministers: because, by the clause in the bill, the meetings were prohibited from considering the alteration of any thing in church or state; but the removal of ministers was not any alteration in church or state. In the next place, the object of the bill was, to protect Parliament from the vicinity of the Westminster meetings, and they were not to be held within a mile of the door of Westminster-hall; but there was nothing to prevent a meeting in the hall itself; and one of the largest meetings he ever knew had been held within that building: so that all the citizens of Westminster might, for the consideration of any subject whatever, meet in Westminster-hall, within a pistol shot of Parliament.

§ Mr. Bathurst
believed the courts of justice had the power of preventing meetings in Westminster-hall during the time they were employed there; at all events, Mr. Fox had on one occasion submitted to their authority on such an occasion. 1305 Notwithstanding the defects of the bill, which were no secret to ministers, he deemed it a salutary measure. It was true, that the prevailing distress was the cause of the measure, for that distress had laid the people open to the arts of designing men. It was impossible to hope that any measures could entirely remove that distress; but every exertion would be made with the hope of alleviating it.

§ Mr. Curwen
said, that the country did expect much from the labours of the committee. He hoped something would be done to excite the hopes of the people, and to retrieve the character of the House.

Mr. Ponsonby
was confident of the propriety of his own motives, and should treat the insinuations against them with perfect contempt, from whatever quarter they came.

§ Sir J. Newport
said, that the language of Mr. Canning was most dangerous, as being calculated to produce despondency, when the spirits of the people ought to be kept up. If ever there was a period where the people had exhibited the most patient endurance under every calamity, it was the present. If ever they deserved an alleviation of their sufferings, it was at this moment. Till that alleviation was effected the least ministers could do was to hold out an expectation that something would be effected by their efforts. Certain it was, that the distress of the nation would not be relieved by high-sounding words or coercive measures.