without any hesitation proposed the health of the sheriffs with three times three-ay, and it was drunk too with great applause.

There is no doubt that the public feeling was excited very strongly against the course pursued by the house of commons, and the utmost sympathy was shown for the situation of the sheriffs. The streets of London had placards on the walls expressive of the popular indignation on the subject, and the press almost without exception loudly denounced the proceedings of the house as unconstitutional and tyrannical.

On the following day (February 18), the sergeant-at-arms announced that Mr. Thomas Howard, jun. was in attendance, and he was placed at the bar.

The attorney-general moved that he had been guilty of a breach of privilege, upon which Mr. Duncombe moved an amendment to the effect that it is expedient that a joint committee of both houses of parliament shall be appointed for the purpose of considering the best mode of securing to both houses the privilege claimed. This amendment was seconded by Mr. Leader, the member for Westminster, who said that up to a recent period he had voted with the noble lord (lord John Russell) on all those questions of privilege, but he must say that public opinion was not with them on this occasion. He would assert, that one could not meet with any persons out of that house except the hangers on of government, who did not say that this house was acting tyrannically, and that it would be beaten at last.

Sir Robert Peel said, that if there was no other remedy against these actions both during the re

cess and the session, than by consuming the public time day after day, he should say that the time was come when it would be perfectly consistent with a due regard to their own dignity and the public interests, if they attempted to find a substitute by enactment, at the same time reserving to themselves, in case that enactment should fail, the power they now exercised of vindicating their privileges by their own proper and intrinsic powers.

The motion having been carried, the attorney-general moved, that Thomas Howard, jun. be committed to the custody of the sergeantat-arms. This was carried by a majority of 93.

Thomas Pearce was then called to the bar, and being examined by the speaker said, that he was but a mere copying clerk in the service of Mr. Howard, and that his family would have no means of support if he were committed to prison by order of the house. The solicitor-general, however, moved, that he having been guilty of contempt, be committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. This was carried by a majority of 80.

On the 3rd. of March, viscount Mahon stated to the house, that Mr. Freeman, the medical attendant on Mr. sheriff Evans, had informed him that the life of that gentleman would be in danger from further confinement. He moved that Mr. Freeman be called in and examined.

Mr. Freeman was accordingly called in and examined, and the next day viscount Mahon said, that Mr. sheriff Evans had that day received a professional visit from Dr. Chambers, who was then in attendance. After some opposition from lord John Russell to the

could not by legislation relieve themselves from the embarrassments in which they were involved -that they had no resource but in a firm reliance on their own power and authority-on the ground that the bill, while it would relieve them from some of their difficulties, would greatly increase others and create new ones; he submitted to the house that it was inexpedient to attempt meeting those difficulties by legislation.

Lord Stanley, sir W. Follett, and sir Robert Peel spoke in favour of the introduction of a bill; and lord John Russell replied to some of the arguments which had been advanced in opposition to his motion. He denied that there was any thing in his bill that went to confirm the judgment of the court of queen's bench. The preamble of the bill stated that it was necessary that the house of commons should have the power of directing the publication of their own papers and proceedings, and it then provided that those publications should not be questions in the courts of law. He thought that the whole argument of his hon. and learned friend the solicitor-general was founded on this, that by introducing a bill and consenting to legislate at all upon the subject of any privilege, that privilege would be thereby impaired and destroyed. If that argument were true, then both the privilege and the liberty of speech, and the power of the speaker to act as the officer of the house, without being questioned, would be impaired if not destroyed; because with respect to those privileges, the house had consented that there should be decisions of the house of lords:-they had asked the house of lords to assist them when any particular case VOL. LXXXII.

seemed to require the intervention of the legislature. He should have stated that he had inserted a clause in his proposed bill to put a stop to the proceedings which were now pending against the officers of that house connected with the case of Stockdale and Hansard.

The house divided, and the motion of the noble lord was carried by a majority of 149. The Ayes being 203; Noes 54.

Immediately after this division, sir James Graham rose, and after prefacing the motion by a few remarks relative to the state of health of Mr. Sheriff Evans (the only sheriff remaining in custody), moved a resolution to the effect that the sergeant-at-arms should be directed to take bail of Mr. Sheriff Evans for his attendance in the house of commons during the present session of parliament whenever he should be thereto required by any order of the house.

Lord John Russell thought that it would be better to discharge the sheriff for the present, and for a limited time fixing a day-say three weeks hence, for his return, on the ground of the evidence which had been given by Dr. Chambers, than to adopt the motion of sir J. Graham.

Upon this sir James Graham asked permission to withdraw his original motion, and to substitute another to the effect, "that in consideration of the evidence of Mr. Freeman and Dr. Chambers with respect to the state of health of Mr. Sheriff Evans, he be discharged from the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and directed to attend at the bar of this house upon Monday, the 6th of April."

The house divided on the question, that the question as amended by sir James Graham be put, and

[E]

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 1000/

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, 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,