should strenuously support the Motion of his hon. Friend. MR. CORRY would confine his remarks within the narrowest possible compass, and restrict himself to a defence of the Board with which he had been himself connected. The whole conduct of that Board showed that they had unremittingly, and not unsuccessfully, directed their attention to the improvement of shipbuilding. He was satisfied that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was as unnecessary as his censure was undeserved. He believed he spoke the general opinion when he said that Captain Symonds had rendered great and important services-had broken through the trammels of ancient prejudice-and had introduced various classes of vessels which were an improvement on the old construction. At the same time it was the general opinion of that Board that his system was not without its imperfections, and that his vessels, particularly those of a larger class, required to be tested before the principle on which they were built was generally adopted. With that view the Admiralty determined to test the quality of the ships both as to their power of sailing and carrying guns. They, therefore, appointed the squadron to sail on an experimental trip in 1844; but the result threw very little light on the question-what was the best principle on which ships could be built because it turned out that vessels of a totally opposite principle of construction were found to be on a perfect equality as to their sailing powers. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon then proposed that for the purpose of aiding the Admiralty in this branch of their duties a committee should be appointed consisting of one gentleman of high scientific attainments, another practically skilled in shipbuilding, and a third a naval officer. This committee acted on perfectly independent views; and the Admiralty could not in his opinion have adopted any course more likely to secure the object of the hon. Member for Montrose thrn its appointments. It was the fashion to cry down the Surveyor's ships as though they were good for nothing; but the House would find on referring to the official reports made to the Board of Admiralty that distinguished officers in the naval service gave a very different account of them. In attestation of the truth of this assertion, he would take leave to read some passages from the report in question. The hon. Member read extracts from the reports of the officers who were in command of the experimental squadron, in which was found the general statement that the Queen, the Albion, and other vessels of that class, were excellent ships, and acquitted themselves most creditably. The general result of all the reports made to the Board was to attest the superiority of the Surveyor's ships; at sea the only fault that could be alleged against them being that they were subject to a quick rolling motion. The new ships were not worthy of the sweeping condemnation dealt against them; nor were the old ships entitled to all the commendation bestowed upon them. He did not think that the Board of Admiralty were liable to the charge of having squandered the public money in ordering the works of the Surveyor's ships to be resumed, for they had only done so in compliance with the official reports and recommendations which were presented to them. He disclaimed the charge of having on his own responsibility ordered the works on those vessels to be resumed. He had not done so without the entire concurrence and the full authority of the Board. With respect to the four steam guard-ships, they were altered not rashly nor inconsiderately, but in compliance with the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the best way to defend the dockyards. The late Government had applied the public money the best way they could; and they had, at all events, the satisfaction of knowing that they had handed over the Navy to their successors in a fit state to defend the interests and honour of the country. MR. HUME replied: After the speeches they had heard, he was more than ever convinced of the necessity of inquiry. He was sorry that Government would not grant the Motion, but nevertheless he would persist in it, and take the sense of the House upon it. The House divided:-Ayes 13; Noes 66: Majority 53. Borthwick, P. Brotherton, J. Bunbury, W. M. Martin, C. W. Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Rumbold, C. E. Cowper, hon. W. F. Price, Sir R. Craig, W. G. Rice, E. R. Cripps, W. Rich, H. Dalmeny, Lord Ross, D. R. Dundas, Adm. Dundas, Sir D. Rutherfurd, A. Somerville, Sir W. M. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Stanton, W. H. Strutt, rt. hon. E. I he was confident that, when the facts were laid before them, they would be anxious that the abuse of which he had to complain should be put a stop to. By the Act of Union, sixteen Peers of Scotland were fixed as the number to represent the Scotch Peers in the United Parliament, and these were to be elected by the whole body of the Peers of Scotland, their heirs and successors. It, therefore, became necessary to ascertain of whom the body of Scotch Peers consisted; and, in 1738, Sir James Murray brought a list of the Peers before the House of Lords. In obedience to the Orders of that House, that list remained as the basis of the Union Roll. At the election at Holyrood House, the names and titles that still remained on the Union Roll were called over; the oaths were then administered; the clerk then asked those Peers who had answered to their titles for their votes, which votes were immediately recorded. If any one claimed to be a son, grandson, or descendant of any of the titles on the Union Roll, it was impossible for the clerk to question the claim; he must record the vote, although, if any Peer ob House adjourned at a quarter past One jected, the vote might be recorded under o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, protest. There was no writ or previous form requisite, so that if any person chose to go into the room at Holyrood House, and declare himself to be the son, grandson, or lineal decendant of any Peer on MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-3 and passed:-Prisons (Ire- the Union Roll, his vote must be received. land); Commons Inclosure (No. 2). PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Medway Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement, and for the Substitution of a Union Settlement in lieu of a Parochial Settlement.-By the Bishop of Oxford, from Rep ton, and Banbury, in favour of the Government Plan of Education.-From Dunbar, in favour of the Conservancy of Tidal Waters. - From Haddington, for the Abolition of the Legacy Duty, and Inventory Stamp Duty, or to subject Real Property to a corresponding Tax.-From a great number of persons employed in Factories, for Li This evil had been on former occasions so strongly felt, that the House of Lords had appointed Committees to inquire into the subject. In 1822 a Committee was appointed, a report was made, and resolutions in pursuance of that report were passed, one of which was to the effect that no person should be entitled to vote at the elec miting the Labour of all Females and Minors to Ten tion of a Representative Peer of Scotland Hours. ELECTION OF SCOTCH REPRESENTA TIVE PEERS. The EARL of EGLINTOUN rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring before their Lordships a subject of abuse which had from time to time occurred in the election of the Scotch representative Peers. He regretted that the duty had devolved upon him, in consequence of the absence of the Earl of Rosebery, who had long since turned his attention to the subject; at the same time, he did not hesitate to invite their Lordships to take the matter into consideration, inasmuch as he thought some legislative interference was necessary; and other than the son, grandson, or other lineal descendant of a Peer of Scotland whose title was set forth in the Union Roll, or, on any objection being made, until his right should have been admitted by the House of Lords. Either this resolution was not sufficiently stringent, or it had not been put in force; at all events, it had not had the effect of preventing the malpractice of which he complained. Another Committee was appointed in 1832 to reconsider the subject; they sat; resolutions were passed; but, from some cause or other, nothing was done upon them. A short Bill was brought in by Lord Rosebery, but it did not pass into a law. Since then the circumstance had occurred out of main resolution of the Committee of 1831, and this was objected to by many Scotch Peers; it was a question, however, whether their Lordships had the power to issue such an order, which did not follow because the Committee had passed that resolution. The Speaker of the House of Commons had no power to issue an order to the sheriff to allow particular persons to vote for a Member of Parliament. This difficulty was felt in the Committee, and he mentioned this as an excuse for the House not acting upon the resolution. The Committee felt the evil most strongly, and were of opinion that the plan proposed in the resolution would afford an effectual remedy. which the complaint he was anxious to provide a remedy for had arisen. In consequence of the death of Lord Rollo, and pursuant to Her Majesty's Proclamation, there was a meeting in Edinburgh, on the 17th of March last, to elect in the room of the deceased nobleman a Representative Peer for Scotland. On that occasion, on the Union Roll being called over, a person was present who claimed to be Lord Colville, of Ochiltree. The Earl of Selkirk was present and protested; at the same time, the vote of Lord Colville was received. At the election of 1788, a person voted with that title, and attempted to establish his claim; but after evidence was entered into, his counsel abandoned his case. Such occurrences as this all their Lordships must be as anxious as he (the Earl of Eglintoun) was to prevent, as they brought discredit, not only upon the Scotch Peerage, but upon the Peerage of England; and nothing, in his opinion, it was incumbent upon them to guard with more watchful care than their honours. It was necessary that their Lordships should uphold the character which they still bore in the country, and prevent any one coming amongst them who had no right to the distinction of the Peerage. He moved— "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into Consideration the existing Laws and Regulations which relate to the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland; to consider what Steps should be taken to prevent Persons from voting at such Elections who are not entitled to do so; and to inquire into and report upon the Proceedings which took place at the Election of Lord Gray, on the 17th Day of March last." LORD BROUGHAM said, the noble Earl had complained of an individual having voted for a Representative Peer of Scotland who had no title to vote; but, unfortunately, there were no means of establishing his claim, unless he came before that House. One of the resolutions of the Committee, which had been referred to by the noble Earl, had pointed out a remedy. It proposed that those persons who, in consequence of their titles being upon the Union Roll, had voted, and whose votes had never been disputed since 1801, should be allowed to vote without any qualification; but that no other persons should be suffered to vote; and the clerk registrar was required not to receive their vote, unless they produced a writ of qualification, in the shape of a certificate from the Speaker of that House, the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Keeper. That was the The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE was understood to offer no objection to the appointment of the Committee. LORD CAMPBELL said, it had come to his knowledge that, by the existing state of the law respecting Scotch Peerages, tradesmen had suffered grievous losses. Let a person merely say he was a Peer, and he had unlimited credit. Not only the public suffered by this, but the individuals themselves. He knew a case in which a respectable individual had been told that he was entitled to a Scotch Peer age, and unfortunately, from that moment, he abandoned all he had in this country; his family, thinking they had acquired this distinction, followed the same unfortunate course, and were utterly ruined and undone by the notion. He was only sorry that the noble Earl had not gone a little further, and extended the inquiries of the Committee to the abuses as to the assumption of English titles, from which similar misfortunes had happened both to individuals and to the public. Motion agreed to. House adjourned. 3o and passed:-Naval Prisons. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bouverie, from Society for the Abolition of Ecclesiastical Courts, for Alteration of Law respecting those Courts.-By Mr. Rumbold, from Norwich, for Alteration of the Law of Marriage.-By Mr. T. Mackenzie, from Members of the Synod of Ross, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.-By Mr. O. Morgan, from Monmouth, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. By Mr. Chute, from Norfolk, for Repeal of the Duty on Malt.-By Mr. R. Trevor, from Llandilo (Carmarthen), for Regulating the Qualification to become Chemists and Druggists.-By Mr. O. Morgan, from two places in Wales, against, and by Lord John Russell, from several places, in favour of the Government Plan of Education; and by Sir W. Molesworth, from Liverpool, for Alteration of the same.-By Lord E. Bruce, from Marl- Dennis Le Marchant, from Worcester, in favour of the Masters, and Matrons of numerous Workhouses, for a Bill. THE WINCHESTER SESSIONS. THE FACTORIES ACT. SIR W. JAMES wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department-a question respecting which he had taken the liberty to give him notice. He did not know whether it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had in the early part of the present Session put a question to the right hon. Baronet similar to the inquiry which he now proposed to address to him. In the early part of the present Session he inquired if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the amendment of the Factory Act, with reference-1st, to the education of children in printworks; 2nd, with respect to the regulation of silk mills; and, 3rd, as regarded the casing and guarding of machinery. When he put the question upon a former occasion, the answer which he received was, that two of those subjects would be taken up by the Government; but the right hon. Gentleman was silent with regard to the silk mills. They had all, he thought, agreed that the question should as soon as possible be brought to a final settlement; but he regretted to say that it still remained untouched. MR. ESCOTT rose to put a question to the right Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, respecting the administration of justice in the city of Winchester. The information upon which he proposed to put this question was derived from intelligence which he had seen in the newspapers. The Times of that morning contained a paragraph, which doubtless had been copied from the Hampshire Independent. The paragraph stated, that the Recorder of Winchester had resigned his office; that no successor to that learned person had been appointed; that therefore the trials, which ought to have come on at the Easter sessions, had been infinitely postponed; and that the prisoners whose cases ought to have been disposed of still remained untried. He wished, in the first place, to know if a new Recorder had been appoint-ready been granted to the Factory Commised, and, if not, whether the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department was prepared to suggest any means by which the existing inconvenience could be remedied? SIR G. GREY said, that he also had seen the paragraph to which the hon. Member referred; but as to the facts he possessed no information beyond that which the newspapers furnished. The Easter sessions had been appointed to commence on Easter Monday. Upon the 31st of March, a few days previous to Easter Monday, the late Recorder of Winchester sent in his resignation. During the interval which elapsed between that day and the time appointed for holding the sessions, it was evidently impossible to effect the appointment of a successor to the learned gentleman who had just retired from office. No reference had been made to him on the subject by the authorities at Winchester, but he should lose no time in making inquiries. SIR G. GREY replied, that with regard to the Bills which the hon. Member mentioned, the intentions of the Government had not undergone any change. There was a good deal of difficulty about casing and guarding machinery. Large powers had al sioners; but there were difficulties in carrying into effect the spirit of the recommendations made by the inspectors; and he apprehended that it would be necessary to make additional references to the inspectors before they proceeded further with their intended measures. At present those inspectors were out of town. THE POOR LAW. MR. FERRAND rose to advert to the extraordinary conduct of the Government with reference to the New Poor Law. Three months had now elapsed since the present Session of Parliament commenced, and yet the Government up to the present moment had not introduced their promised Amendment of the New Poor Law. would of course be recollected, that a Committee had been appointed in the last Session of Parliament; and on the 20th of August, 1846, that Committee reported in the following language—— It "That on a review of the proceedings of the Commissioners with respect to the Andover inquiry, and towards Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, it appears that they have been irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance with the Statute under which they exercise their functions, and such as to shake public confidence in their administration of the law." For more than eight months the Government had been screening those Commissioners; and since the commencement of the present Session the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department had promised the House a Bill for the Amendment of the New Poor Law. The right hon. Baronet had, as they all knew, placed a notice on the Votes of the House announcing his intention to bring forward such a measure; but, as far as he could see, there was not at the present moment the least probability of any such proposition coming under discussion. It was found impracticable to bring it forward last night; and now the right hon. Baronet placed it on the Votes for Monday next, when three or four other Motions would have precedence of it. If they intended to take any such step, he could not understand why they should not proceed with it immediately; why not fix it definitely for Tuesday next? He was anxious to obtain from the right hon. Baronet a clear and distinct pledge that he would bring forward his intended Bill on a Government night. What he thought the House and the country had a right to expect was, that the right hon. Baronet should place a notice on the books with respect to his measure, arranging that it should have precedence of all other business, but yet fixing such a time for its discussion as would give those hon. Members who were interested in the proceeding full notice that they might be able to attend in their places. He hoped that this would be done, and that the right hon. Baronet would not go on night after night postponing the measure, and giving no opportunity for its discussion. The opponents of the proposed Bill had behaved towards the right hon. Baronet in the fairest and the handsomest manner. He had only to add, that unless some early day were appointed for proceeding with the Bill, he should himself make a Motion upon the subject on reading the first Order of the Day. He now wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would fix a day for proceeding with this Bill? SIR G. GREY, in answer, observed that he had put his notice of moving for leave on the Paper for last night, thinking that other business might be over sufficiently early to enable him to make his statement. He had not anticipated that merely moving PIERS, HARBOURS, AND RAILWAYS (IRE- MR. ROEBUCK said, it was with great reluctance that he addressed the House for the purpose of submitting a Motion for their consideration. He begged, in the first place, to assure noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, that the question which they were called on to debate, was itself fairly bafore the House, and he was anxious to take the first favourable opportunity of engaging in its discussion. It was said, that he too frequently yielded to a disposition to cavil at the measures brought forward by Her Majesty's Government; and it was true that he frequently found it necessary to make them the subjects of censure and animadversion; but he denied, that in pursuing that course he was destitute of support out of doors; and he could sincerely say, that he never opposed anything which he conscientiously believed the exigences of the country required. By the present proceeding, what was the House asked to do? They were asked to go into a Committee of Supply, for the purpose of doing that |