have £6000 instead of £7000 a year. He proposed that the
two new judges should bo on the same footing with
respect to salary as the Master of the Rolls, each
receiving £6000 a year. The increased expense would
thus be £12,000 with a saving on the other hand of
£5000 He regarded it as impossible, with benefit to the
public, that the Lord Chancellor should continue to
perform the whole of his present duties, and anticipated
that the result of the change would be advantageous,
both as regarded the Court of Chancery and the general
business of the country. He proposed that the new
judges should be members of the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, and that three, instead of four,
should be a quorum of that tribunal, hoping thus to
obviate the difficulties which had been experienced
under its present constitution.—Mr. J. STUART thought
they had arrived at a period of the session when it was
impossible that this measure could receive such a degree
of consideration as would enable them to pass it. The
Court of Chancery had been, for the last twelvemonth,
in a peculiar and extraordinary state, and it was to be
wished that time had been given to the judges to acquire
habits of transacting business, as well as to others to
accommodate themselves to them. It was worthy of
consideration whether a great portion of the present
business of the court could not be conveniently and
properly transferred to other courts, where the judges
complained of want of business.—Mr. BETHELL earnestly
hoped the house would not think it too late to entertain
a measure of so much importance during the present
session. The bill provided effectually for the relief of
the appellate tribunal, in which it was impossible that
business could be despatched with speed and certainty
whilst there was but one judge, who was unable to
attend regularly. Another advantage was the doing
away with appeals from one single mind to another
single mind.—Mr. WALPOLE thought the bill would
effect a great improvement on the present system, and
should most willingly give it his cordial support.—After
a discussion, in which Mr. Ellice, Mr. Horsman, Mr. R.
Palmer, Mr. Henley, the Solicitor-General, Sir H.
Willoughby, the Attorney-General, Mr. Hume, Mr. J.
Evans, and Mr. Mullings, took part, the motion was
agreed to.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, leave was also
given to bring in a bill to regulate the salaries of the
Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.

Sir L. O'Brien called the attention of the house to a
petition presented from the late guardians of the
Ennistymon Union (in Clare), and moved that a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the causes assigned
for their dismissal, and the administration of the affairs
of the union.—Sir W. SOMERVILLE opposed the motion,
on the ground that the responsibility of the Poor Law
Commissioners had been properly exercised in the case.
—After a few words from several hon. members, the
motion was negatived, and the house went into
committee of supply.The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved a grant of £300,000 for the purpose of
defraying the expenses of the Kaffir war, over and
above the ordinary charge of the army and ordnance
departments. The original estimate had been for a sum
of £400,000, but he was led to believe that the sum he
proposed would be adequate. There were 30,000 men
receiving rations or allowances in the month of April,
but from the strict regulations for enforcing economy
which the Governor had made in the commissariat
department, the profuse expenditure of the former war
would be avoided, and there was reason to conclude
that the amount needed up to the end of July would
not exceed £212,000.—Mr. ADDERLEY thought the
Chancellor of the Exchequer drew far more satisfactory
conclusions than there was any ground for. The
experience of the former war showed that unbounded
peculation had prevailed. If the Cape had its constitution,
they would hear no more of the. expenses of the war;
if it had not its constitution, the house would probably
be called on for a much larger sum. The hon. gentleman
having detailed the grievances of the colonists in
respect to the withholding a constitution, maintained
that the last despatches from the seat of war showed
that there was no prospect of its being terminated for
months, and that the immediate grant of a constitution
was urgently necessary.—Lord J. RUSSELL said there
was no reason at all to suppose that if a constitution
were granted to the colonists they would undertake to
defray the expenses of the Kaffir war; indeed, the
language held by many would lead to a different conclusion.
A constitution had already been sent out, but the
colonists had disagreed as to the details of the plan,
and it therefore fell to the ground. Government was
quite prepared to give them a constitution whenever
circumstances allowed, but it was impossible during the
absence of the Governor.—Mr. Hume contended that
the present war had been caused by the oppressions
exercised on the native tribes. He objected to giving
this money as encouraging robbery, and aggression.—
Mr. HAWES defended the policy of the Government,
and contended that the war was just and unprovoked.
—Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Bright, Mr. Labouchere, and
others, having addressed the committee, the vote was
agreed to.

On Monday, Juno 16th, Mr. J. STUART inquired
whether it was the intention of the government to
suspend the proceedings of the University Commission
until a decision should be pronounced by the proper
tribunal on the petition presented to her Majesty in
council by the University of Oxford, complaining of the
illegality of the commission.—Lord J. Russell stated
that the Government had no such intention.

On the motion that the Customs Bill be read a second
time, Mr. DISRAELI intimated that he should propose
an amendment to the motion for going into committee
on this bill. The house having limited the income tax
to one year only, it was obvious that the country was
placed in a different position as regarded its financial
policy from that in which it stood when the Chancellor
of the Exchequer brought forward his budget. He
thought it right, therefore, that the house should
consider whether, with so large a portion of the revenue
granted only provisionally, it would be advisable to
abandon other sources of revenue. If the committee
were fixed for Monday, he would communicate the
terms of his amendment on an intervening day.—The
bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed
on Monday—the day for the discussion of the amendment
to be fixed in the interim.

The house then went into a committee of supply.—
On the vote of £23,239 for public buildings in Ireland
being proposed, Mr. SPOONER moved, as an amendment,
to reduce the amount by the sum of £1230 10s., set
apart for the Repairs of the Maynooth College Buildings.
—After some discussion, the committee divided, when
there appeared—for the amendment, 119; against it.
121; majority against, 2.

On Tuesday, June 17, the report from the select
committee upon the petitions of Messrs. Bradford and
Strutt, relative to the Late Aylesbury Election Petition.
was brought up for consideration. The report stated
that the name of Thomas Hughes Bradford had been
improperly fixed to that petition by two individuals,
named Strutt and Cunningham, who had thereby been
guilty of a breach of privilege.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
moved that the report be adopted, and the parties
in question taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
This was done accordingly, and the two individuals
were brought up to the bar, when they received a reprimand
from the Speaker, and were then ordered to be
discharged on the payment of the customary fees.

Mr. SPOONER moved that Henry Edwards, who had
been nine weeks in custody for offences against the
privileges of the house, in connexion with the St. Alban's
election, should be this day brought up to the bar and
discharged. Mr. Hume and the Attorney-General
briefly contended that the motion was premature.—The
house divided—for the motion, 4; against, 133: majority
against, 129.

Mr. BASS moved a resolution, declaring that one half
of the existing Tax on Malt should be repealed on and
after the 10th of October, 1852. He contended that the
reduction of this duty would relieve the producer of
barley and the consumer of beer without entailing any
serious loss to the exchequer. After some observations
from different members, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER reminded the house that they had already