prosperous. On Lord
John Russell's resuming his seat, Viscount Sandon rose to propose a
resolution of which he had given notice.

Lord John Russell then moved _pro forma_ the resolution of which he had
given notice as an amendment to Viscount Sandon's; but it was negatived
without a division; and that of Viscount Sandon's being carried, the
house adjourned. After this defeat it was generally expected that
ministers would resign; but on the next day business was resumed,
and carried on as though nothing of importance had happened; and when
business was over Lord John Russell simply moved that the house at its
rising should adjourn to the Monday following. The Earl of Darlington,
on hearing this, said that he had been relieved of all suspense as to
the intentions of government: it was plain that they meant to stay in
office with a tenacity unparalleled in the history of governments,
and with the deliberate decision of the house of commons unequivocally
declared against them. He asked when Lord John Russell intended to bring
forward the question of the corn-laws. And his lordship replied, "On
Friday, the 4th of June;" but before that day arrived ministers had
suffered another signal defeat, and were compelled to postpone the
subject.

RESOLUTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

On the first day on which the house met after its temporary adjournment,
Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he should move, on the 27th of May,
this resolution:--"That her majesty's ministers do not sufficiently
possess the confidence of the house of commons to enable them to carry
through the house measures which they deem of essential importance to
the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such
circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the constitution." On
the day named the right honourable baronet introduced this resolution
with a speech of considerable length and ability. The debate which
ensued lasted five nights; in the course of which much was said for
and against the motion. The leading speakers in support of it were Lord
Stanley, Sirs James Graham and William Follett, and Messrs. Christopher
and Sergeant Jackson; those against it were Viscount Morpeth, Sir George
Grey, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley, Handley, O'Connell, and
Shiel. Towards the close of the debate, Lord John Russell denied that
the motion was in the spirit of the constitution, and ably defended his
own conduct and that of his