stated with respect to Mr. Wilkes. Part of the judgment in that gentleman's case was favourable to him, namely, the reversal of the outlawry; but the sending him back to prison was very far from being a popular measure; therefore it was clear that some danger attached to the judge; and yet he threw open the doors and windows of the court.

Mr. Ponsonby was no more disposed than some gentlemen on the other side to defend the whole of Mr. Wilkes's political conduct: but he would venture to say, what in his heart he believed to be true, that Mr. Wilkes did deserve from the people of England the support which he received during a great part of his life. Could those who now heard him forget that Mr. Wilkes had put an end to the practice of general warrants? Could they forget, that Mr. Wilkes, on other occasions, had been the intrepid and successful defender of the constitutional liberties of the country? As to what the right hon. gentleman had said respecting the judgment of the court of King's-bench, he believed, that the judgment for reversing the outlawry was never disapproved of by any of the lawyers of that day, or since; but lord Mansfield was just as right when he passed sentence on the conviction, as when he reversed the outlawry. He also believed, that the great body of the people thought the court of King's-bench had discharged their duty faithfully. The right hon. gentleman, in the course of his speech, had made an allusion to jacobins, and demagogues, and incendiaries, and a great deal of other matter, that had nothing to do with the question. The simple point of inquiry was, had any danger really existed from these meetings? Sir, said Mr. Ponsonby, "I am surprised that none of us ever perceived the danger we were in. I am perfectly astonished that you, Sir, were never aware of this danger. I must conclude, however, that no danger whatever surrounded us, or you would have thought it your business to communicate our alarming situation to this House; and not have left it to the Lords to provide for our safety. What, are we so ignorant of the duties we owe to ourselves that the House of Lords must enact this clause for us, and send it down to us in a moment for our concurrence? I know not, Sir, why the House of Lords are to extend the shield over us for our safety, when we ourselves have not thought our safety in danger. I should be glad to hear any

gentleman on the other side get up, and state a case where the House of Lords have ever sent down a clause of this kind to be debated in one evening. I complain of this clause, Sir, not as an attack on our privileges, in the common and technical sense of the word, such as infringing the power we have over the public purse, or any of those things we justly call our privileges, but I complain of it as being like a new bill, and as being sent down to us to debate at once. I disapprove the connecting the courts of law with the proceedings of parliament. You talk of lord George Gordon and the corn-bill, but in none of those cases were there any meetings. What, then, have they to do with the question? It is idle to state, that the riots on the corn-bill, and in the case of lord George Gordon, can justify the House of Lords in sending down such a bill to us. If all public meetings are liable to abuse, we may as well enact at once that no meetings shall be permitted. Had any of those parliamentary reformers against whom this clause was levelled attacked the peerage? I have never heard that they have meditated the least attack on the House of Lords. It will not be asserted, that their lordships were in danger; neither, Sir, did you consider that we were in danger. I do firmly believe that no danger threatened us, nor is likely to threaten us; and therefore, considering this clause as an unnecessary violation of the liberties of the subject, I feel it my duty to oppose it.

Sir W. Burroughs declared his firm belief of the existence of a treasonable conspiracy against the government and the constitution, by mischievous leaders of the distressed people. No man could doubt this fact who had read the reports. The extent and nature of the danger were fully before us on unquestionable evidence; and every man who regarded the constitution ought to consent to strengthen the hands of government, that we may be defended against the projected mischiefs. He therefore approved of this bill, and those that had passed in connexion with it before he had a seat in that House, though not of the bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; but he was of opinion, that much of the danger was imputable to the neglect of ministers, who, knowing of the deep distress that pervaded the country last Autumn, had not called parliament together at an earlier period.

Mr. Wilberforce said, that having been

the clause itself: for it, 113; against it 30. A conference was then appointed with the Lords to-morrow, to procure their assent to the alteration made to the amendments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 31. ADJOURNMENT.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the House at its rising should adjourn till Monday se'nnight.

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 measuresmeasures 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.

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 Westminsterhall; 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.

however, that his health would, in the course of the week be so far established as to enable him to resume his office on Monday next.

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.

The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned till Monday se'nnight, the 14th of April.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, April 14.

INDISPOSITION OF THE SPEAKER.] The House having this day met, pursuant to adjournment, Mr. Dyson, the deputy clerk, stated, that it was with the deepest regret he was under the painful necessity of informing the House that he had that morning received a letter from the Speaker dated from Kidbroke, his seat in Sussex, in which the right hon. gentleman regretted he was unable to attend the House in consequence of severe indisposition. With the permission of the House he would read the letter [loud cries of Hear! hear!]. The letter stated the Speaker's wish, that the House should be informed that it was impossible for him to attend his duty that day, and his sincere regret at the inter

The Chancellor of the Exchequer regretted the painful circumstance which rendered it necessary for him to make the motion he was now to submit to the House. As that motion, however, would afford the House an opportunity of showing its respect for their valuable and excellent Speaker, he had no doubt it would be unanimously adopted. Of the important duties, both public and private, which the individual who at any time was called to fill that chair had to perform, and the qualifications necessary to a proper discharge of these, the House had no occasion to be reminded. Never had an individual performed those duties with more honour to himself, and more advantage to the House and to the public than the present Speaker had done. Those who had witnessed the period during which he had presided in the House, could not but admire and esteem him for the correct and accurate knowledge of parliamentary forms which he had uniformly shown, his indefatigable attention to the duties of his office, and his strict impartiality. Among his last attendances in that House, he had suggested a measure for regulating the printed votes, which had met their cordial approbation, and would be productive of great advantage. No doubt some interruption in the public business must be occasioned by this painful occurrence, but he was confident the House would see the propriety of an adjournment. The Speaker had stated his expectation of being able by Monday next to resume the chair. Happy indeed should he be, were this the case, but he was afraid this expectation was too sanguine, and was occasioned by the Speaker's anxiety no longer to postpone the public business. He thought, therefore, that the House could not discharge its duty better in the present instance, than by adjourning for two or three days longer than the period mentioned by the Speaker, because by this means the right hon. gentleman would have a further opportunity of reestablishing his health. He would therefore move, that the House at its rising do adjourn to Thursday se'nnight.

Mr. Ponsonby heartily concurred in the motion. He fully agreed with the right hon. gentleman in his opinion respecting