it was carried in the affirmative hon. baronet said, that if the by a majority of 82. On the question that the resolution be agreed to, Mr. T. Duncombe moved as an amendment, that the words directing the attendance of the sheriff on the 6th of April next be omitted; but this amendment was negatived by a majority of 87; and the sheriff was ordered to be discharged and to attend at the bar of the house on April the 6th. On the 12th of March, the sergeant-at-arms appeared at the bar, and informed the house that notices of action had been served by Thomas Burton Howard on several officers of the House (who had been engaged in the endeavour to apprehend Howard in pursuance of the speaker's warrant, and had entered and searched his house for that purpose). Lord John Russell moved, that the subject should be taken into consideration to-morrow (March 13), when the noble lord moved the same resolution as had been agreed to on the 17th of February, with the alteration only of the circumstances suited to the present case. This resolution was carried by a majority of 65. On the same evening (March 13) lord John Russell had previously moved the order of the day for a committee on the printed papers bill, when after considerable discussion, and the adoption of several amendments, and rejection of others, the bill was agreed to. On the 17th of March, sir Robert Inglis presented a petition from the printers of the Times and the Morning Post newspapers, praying that such protection as the house thought it necessary to give to their own printer and publisher, might be extended to them. The house gave protection to their own printer, it was hard to refuse it to those who merely transcribed portions of what was printed and published by him. Afterwards, on the 20th of March, on the motion that the printed papers bill be read a third time, Sir R. Inglis moved the insertion of a clause to the effect, "That any printer, publisher, or proprietor of a newspaper, against whom an action should be brought for the publication of any of the proceedings of the house might apply for a certificate (from the speaker, or lord chancellor) stating that the proceedings in question were published by authority of the house of lords or house of commons, as the case might be; and having obtained the same might apply to a judge at chambers or elsewhere, and obtain from him an order to stay any civil or criminal process which might have been issued against such individual for such publication in his newspaper." The hon. baronet finding that this proposition met with little or no support, withdrew the motion. The bill afterwards in the course of the evening passed. On the 31st of March, the sergeant-at-arms appeared at the bar and acquainted the house, that on Saturday last the assistant-sergeant and four other officers of the house had been served with notice, that an action had been commenced against them in the court of Queen's Bench at the suit of Thomas Burton Howard. The damages in this action were laid at 10007. The attorney-general rose and said, the question involved in this case was, whether the officers of the house had been guilty of any excess in executing the warrant of the house; and this was a question which the house, and the house only had a right to enquire into. The hon. and learned Member then instanced the analogous case of the Court of Chancery, where one of its own officers was charged with excess in the execution of his duty. He thought, however, that as the privilege of the house had not been called in question by the plaintiff in this action, that the house should resolve that the servants of the house, being the defendants in this case, should be allowed to appear and defend the action. He thought there must certainly be a verdict for the defendants. He should therefore conclude with a motion to that effect. Viscount Howick protested against what he called "this humiliating and injurious course;" and the solicitor-general said, that it was a duty which he owed himself, to give his unqualified and utter dissent to the course then pursued by his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general. He did so with regret; but he did it from a sense of paramount selfjustice. The motion was carried in the affirmative by a majority of 91. The Ayes being 142; Noes 51. The bill was afterwards sent up to the house of lords; and on the 6th of April it was there read a second time. On that occasion the duke of Wellington said, that he hoped, that in the committee on the bill, some means would be found of leaving the publication by sale in the state in which it was by the common law previous to the resolution of 1835. What he insisted on was, that that house and the other house of parliament should not become libellers by the authorised sale of their papers. He would vote for the second reading of the bill and go into committee upon it with a view of amending it. Afterwards, when the report on the printed papers bill was brought up by lord Shaftesbury, lord Wynford proposed an amendment to prevent the sale of papers by the house of commons. This caused much discussion; and the duke of Wellington said, that their lordships might decide as to them seemed best, but he thought, that the house should adopt some measures to prevent the house of commons from becoming the only authorised libellers in the country. Lord Melbourne, Melbourne, however, strongly pressed upon their lordships the consideration that the effect of the amendment would be to censure the house of commons, and would destroy the great end and object of the measure; namely, a termination of the unfortunate collision of authorities which had occurred. Lord Wynford afterwards withdrew his amendment. Some amendments were made by the house of lords in committee, and the bill was sent down to the commons, where, on the 13th of April, after some discussion, the amendments of the lords were agreed to; and on the 14th of April the royal assent was given by commission to the bill. On the 15th of April, sir R. Inglis moved, that the order for the appearance of Mr. Sheriff Evans at the bar of the house be forthwith discharged, which was agreed to; as also were motions for the release of Mr. Howard, jun., and Mr. Pearse; but when sir R. Inglis moved the discharge of Thomas Burton Howard, sen., this was negatived by a majority of 20; the Ayes being 22: Noes 42. A similar motion, with respect to Mr. Stockdale, was negatived without a division. Afterwards, however, on the 15th of May, Mr. T. Duncombe rose to move for the discharge of J. J. Stockdale and T. B. Howard from the custody of the gaoler of Newgate, and the motion was agreed to. Thus terminated this much agitated and deeply important question. It will be seen, that the opinions of the ablest lawyers in the house were in favour of the particular privilege of free publication claimed by the house, as essential to the due discharge of its functions as a constituent branch of the legislature; but many of them dissented from the doctrine that it was a breach of their privileges to bring them under the cognizance of a court of law; and above all they thought that having once submitted the case to the court of Queen's Bench, by pleading in the action, they were bound to respect the judgment pronounced by that court; and if they considered it erroneous to bring it under the review of a court of error in the legal, and constitutional mode, and not proceed by arbitrary imprisonment against officers who merely acted in their ministerial capacity; and who would have been exposed to the process of attachment, if they had refused to obey the writs which the court called upon them to execute. CHAPTER IV. Want of Confidence in Ministers-Sir J. Yarde Buller's Motion Riots at Birmingham and Newport-Mr. Owen's introduction at Court-Alderman Thompson-Sir George Grey attacks the Opposition-The Speech of Mr. Dawson at Devonport-Want of unanimity among the Tories-Mr. Colquhoun-Mr. Gisborne-Mr. D'Israeli -Mr. Litton-Lord Howick's Explanation of his Reasons for leaving the Administration-Eloquent Speeches of Sir J. Graham and Mr. Macaulay-Mr. Fox Maule-Mr. Ward-Lord Stanley-Financial State of the Country-Lord Morpeth-Reduction of Troops in Ireland-Mr. O'Connell---Sir Robert Peel states the grounds on which he would act whether in Office or in Opposition-Lord John Russell.-Majority against the Motion. N consequence of the evenly In of eve, to ing the two preceding years. ers had nurtured and fostered dur which we have before referred, the greatest possible interest was felt throughout the country, respecting a motion of want of confidence in her majesty's ministers, of which sir John Yarde Buller had given notice at the commencement of the session, and, indeed, excepting the discussions which took place on the privileges of the house, the debate to which this motion gave rise, was the most important, and the most protracted, which occurred during the whole period of the session. Sir John Yarde Buller, in his opening speech, on the 28th of January, assigned as the chief ground on which he refused his confidence to the government-the disturbed and unsatisfactory state of the country—a state which he mainly ascribed to the system of popular agitation which the minis tor example, he cited the riots in he Bull-ring, at Birmingham, and the armed masses of the people at Newport, marshalled and led by a magistrate appointed by the government. In Ireland, for several years, a similar system had been pursued and so far were the Ministers from checking or discouraging the chief author of these most unconstitutional proceedings, that his family and connections had been placed in situations of emolument, and he had himself been received as a guest at the lordlieutenant's table. Another ground which rendered her majesty's ministers, in his opinion, undeserving of the confidence of the country, was their apparent coalition with those who had pursued an uniform line of hostility to the established church of this realm, in bringing forward a measure in which they plainly entered into the views of the party to which he had referred, and the object of which was to deprive the church of the funds necessary for the maintenance of its fabric. Sir J. Y. Buller next called attention to their conduct in reference to the patronage at their disposal. On first taking office, they had declared, that they were to put an end to all pensions and sinecures, and they had endeavoured to bring all former governments into disrepute by denouncing their corruption and extravagance in these matters. They also passed a resolution, that 1,2001. a-year, was the whole amount which her majesty could distribute among her subjects to encourage literary attainments, improvements in art, and discoveries in science. And yet, in spite of all their professions, they have really made a more corrupt use of the patronage of the crown, than any of the governments which preceded them. Only the other day, they granted 1,000Z. a-year as a pension to a gentle man who retired from a sinecure office, in order that he might be succeeded by the retiring chancellor of the exchequer. Another ground of complaint, was the uncertainty attending all their measures. The noble lord (lord J. Russell) voted last session against the introduction of the vote by ballot, and regretted, that the hon. member for Edinburgh should not have more maturely considered his opinions on this subject. And now, what was the case? The hon. member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) was actually secretary at war, and a member of the cabinet. There was another point of some importance to which the hon. baronet called the attention of the house before he concluded, which was the recent introduction to the queen, by lord Melbourne, of Mr. Owen, an individual of infamous notoriety, on account of the pernicious doctrines which he had been the means of disseminating among the people. At the meetings of this person and his associates, our readers are perhaps aware, the most immoral and baneful principles had been openly avowedprinciples, indeed, which struck at the root of all social order and happiness. It could not, therefore, in our opinion, be otherwise than highly censurable at all times for a minister to have given countenance to the authors of such opinions, but, surely, it was peculiarly so in the prime minister of a young and virtuous queen just about to enter the holy state of matrimony. Such a presence was the last which should have been contaminated by the introduction of the originator of these detestable theories. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That her majesty's government as at present constituted, does not possess the confidence of this house," and the motion was seconded by alderman Thompson, who spoke from his personal knowledge of the districts in which the late serious outrages among the chartists had taken place, and which he had no hesitation in attributing, in great measure, to the continued tampering of her majesty's ministers with the constitution, by which that respect for established institutions, and that reverence for authority which formerly existed, had been altogether annihilated. So far was it from being true, that there was a want of employment in those districts, |