—Lord John RUSSELL, just before the division, threw
in the remark that the simple question was, should the
duty on Irish and Scotch spirits be lowered? He must
say that the duties on spirits were not the kind of tax
which he specially desired to reduce. On the division
the numbers were equal—159 to 159; and the Speaker
gave his casting vote, according to custom, in favour of
the motion for going into committee. The preliminary
motion having thus passed in the affirmative, the question
that the Speaker should leave the chair was proposed.—
Mr. ROEBUCK remarked upon the anomalous position
of a ministry who retained their offices, though they
had lost the reins of government. He advised Lord J.
Russell, out of regard to his political character, to resign
his functions, rather than continue to live in parliamentary
minorities.—Lord J. RUSSELL declined to entrust
his character to another man's keeping. Referring to
various occasions when the administration had risked
their official existence upon a division, and would have
retired if left in a minority, he claimed their right to
judge for themselves the fitting time, and the subject of
sufficient importance on which a change of ministry
ought to be staked upon a casual vote of the house.
Of the four divisions that had gone against the government
during the present session, the noble lord argued
that not one involved a vote of want of confidence, or
decided any point of consequence grave enough to justify
a resignation.—The motion being then agreed to, the
Speaker left the chair, and the house went into
committee. A resolution, embodying the proposition of
Lord Naas, was then put from the chair, and a division
immediately called; but, after some confused discussion,
it was agreed that the further discussion was to be
postponed; and the chairman, therefore, reported progress,
with leave to sit again.—Mr. E. ELLICE, after a detailed
statement of the proceedings held before the St. Alban's
Election Committee, of which he was chairman, moved
for leave to bring in a bill for appointing commissioners
to inquire into the existence of bribery in the borough.
After a short discussion, leave was given to bring in the
bill.

On Wednesday, May 7, on the motion for going into
committee on Mr. Locke's Railway Audit Bill, Mr.
LABOUCHERE stated that he should not offer any
opposition to the committal of the bill, in order that its
clauses might be considered; although he entertained
little hope that an effective audit of railway accounts
could be provided under the system adopted by the
framers of the measure. He recognised the extreme
importance of the subject, but exonerated himself from
the responsibility of undertaking to legislate upon it by
the overpowering influence of the railway interest
within the house, against which he could not look for
support from the apathetic public out of doors.—A
discussion ensued, in the course of which Mr. Locke
defended his bill, and Mr. Chaplin, who opposed it,
moved that it should be committed that day six months.
The house divided: for going into committee, 72; for
the amendment, 49—23. The house then went into
committee on the bill. The first clause, by which the
principle of the measure was set forth, was opposed by
Mr. B. Denison, who moved its excision, and divided
the committee, when the clause passed by a majority of
81 to 60—21. The consideration of the subsequent
clauses of the bill occupied the committee the rest of
the sitting.

On Thursday, May 8, Mr. Cayley moved for leave
to bring in a bill for the Repeal of the Malt Tax. The
debate consisted chiefly of a repetition of the old arguments
on both sides; and the motion was negatived by
258 to 122.—Mr. COWAN moved for leave to bring in a
bill to regulate admission to the lay or secular chairs in
the Scottish Universities.—Mr. E. Ellice and Mr. F.
Maule supported the motion, which was opposed by
Sir R. Inglis, upon the ground that it would overturn
a wholesome system, and leave the youth of Scotland to
be educated by professors of any religion or of none.—
Lord J. Russell cordially approved of the bill; for
which leave was given.

The nomination of the select committee on the relation
of the Caffre Tribes with this Country gave rise to a warm
discussion respecting the appointments of select committees
in general. Col. Dunne, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr
Keogh complained that Irish members were systematically
excluded.—Mr. HOBHOUSE declared his opinion
that the constitution of the house, as regards the appointment
of commmittees, is the most unjust that has ever
been recognised in any legislative assembly: he should
bring the question before the house. "The whole
system (he said) of appointing these committees is
devised in order to blind the country. They are settled
by a certain number of gentlemen on the ministerial as
well as on the opposition side of the house, who, no
doubt, compare lists; and we frequently find that some
of the best, ablest, and most enlightened members of
the house are excluded. Some hundred members are
supposed to be ubiquitous, and appointed to almost all
committees. One member is placed on a committee
because he is connected with 'the leading journal of
Europe.' We often find gentlemen, indeed, who have
not yet displayed any particular talent or ability, or
attained any position in the house, employed on
economy committees; and then they were enabled to
go down to their constituencies and say, 'See what I
have done; I have been the means of reducing these
salaries and abolishing these places,'—thus obtaining a
popularity from which other members are excluded. I
do not say those gentlemen are not men of great ability
and talent, but they have not yet exhibited their talents
to the house. We ought to adopt the French system
of dividing ourselves into bureaux."—Mr. BRIGHT said
that experience had led him to believe that nine out of
ten committees were "shams." Ultimately the
committee was nominated.

On Friday, May 9, in answer to questions from Mr.
Urquhart respecting the Evacuation of the Danubian
Principalities, and the Detention of the Hungarian
Refugees, Lord PALMERSTON stated that the Russian
troops had commenced the evacuation of Wallachia on
the 17th April, and were expected to be entirely gone
in a fortnight: that, to his sorrow, the endeavours of
the governments of England and France to obtain the
liberation of the remaining Hungarian refugees had as
yet not been successful—the Turkish government had
not at the date of the last advices determined on the
release of the refugees: that the occupation of Rome
by France was undertaken on her own discretion, and
had not, he grieved to think, established good
government;  but the evacuation of Rome by France might
lead to the entry of another power, and we had no right
to restrict France in the full exercise of her own discretion
as to when she shall retire from an occupation
not intending any territorial acquisition. The internal
condition of Rome and the Roman States was certainly
such as must be painful to every well-wisher to the
people of that country.

In answer to questions from Sir De L. Evans and Mr.
T. Duncombe respecting the continued practice of
Internments in London, Sir G. GREY stated that the Board of
Health had endeavoured by private arrangement to
obtain possession of some of the cemeteries established
by companies, in which case the board would have
been enabled to close the private burial-grounds most
requiring interference, but that they had failed in
making any private agreement of that kind. Notice
had now been given to some of them, with the sanction
of the treasury, with a view to having the value settled
by arbitration, or by a jury. Meantime the board were
in negotiation for the purchase of ground, and as soon
as they should be in possession of it they would be
prepared to close under the Act of Parliament those grounds
which most required the exercise of the power to that
effect. They were using the utmost diligence to
accomplish the object in view. The act required an annual
report to be made up to the 31st of December of the
cemeteries closed and new burial-grounds opened, and
other points; but nothing of the kind had been done,
he believed, which could form the subject of report at
the end of last year. He had, however, in consequence
of the previous inquiry, requested the board to address
to him a letter stating the measures they had taken in
1850 and when he received it it should be laid on the
table.

The Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER announced his
intention to introduce into the Income-tax Bill a clause
giving to tenant-farmers the power of making appeal