said, I wish to call the attention of the House to the situation in which it is now placed for the first time. I feel it to be my duty thus to arrest the course of its business; but when I have stated the cause of my having done so, it will be for the House to decide what course it will pursue. The reduced list of eleven Members in this Election Committee has now been returned to this House. The Act states, that these eleven shall be embodied into a Committee, and before it proceeds to any business shall be sworn at the Table. One of the Members so returned, the House has decided to be competent to discharge his duties as a Member of the House on making his affirmation. But the question for the House now to consider is, whether that decision necessarily comprehends the duty to be performed by a Member of this Select Committee under a special Act of Parliament. Can the hon. Member sit in this Committee without taking that oath, or doing something else which the House shall decide to be synonymous, and equivalent to taking that oath? In other words, is the affirmation upon which the hon. Member performed the duties of a Member of this House to be considered equivalent to the oath directed to be taken by this separate Act of Parliament?

I rise to move, that the affirmation of the hon. member for Durham be taken as equivalent to the oath required by the Act to be taken by the members of Election Committees. The principle on which we formerly decided that the hon. Member could take his seat, on making his affirmation, clearly governs this case. That decision of ours rested upon the constructions of various Acts of Parliament, enabling the people called Quakers to make an affirmation instead of taking an oath. Those Acts do not expressly contemplate the case of a Quaker becoming a Member of Parliament; but the House considered it to be implied, and the implication seems of necessity to follow in the present case. The principal Act of Parliament referred to substitutes an affirmation in all cases, with three exceptions—any case not excepted comes of course more strongly within the general rule, and this is not an excepted case.

What are the excepted cases?

The excepted cases are, the giving evidence in criminal cases, the being upon Juries, and the holding of emolumentary offices under the Crown. Now certainly this is no office under the Crown. The Committee is not a Jury; nor is it a criminal case that is to come before it. I therefore beg to move, that the affirmation of the hon. member for Durham be received instead of his oath.

I am persuaded, that no Member in the House, not even the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed it, will conceive that I was improperly actuated in bringing this matter forward. I am sure he will pardon me also, for my, perhaps, rather disorderly calling upon him to state the exceptions. Of course, the third exception—that preventing the affirmation of Quakers being taken upon entering into any office of emolument under the Crown, never came across my mind. What did occur to me was, whether it was possible any analogy might be thought to exist between this case and that of serving upon Juries, or giving evidence in criminal cases. The hon. Member is of opinion, and probably the House will be of opinion that the case before us comes within neither exception, but looking to the criminal consequences that might occur to parties interested, I feel it to be my duty to bring the fact before the House.

I trust the Chair did not so misunderstand me as to suppose I could say anything that did not recognise, I hardly like to say the propriety, for it is too weak a word, of its interference; for I felt, in common with every Member of the House, that what was done by you, Sir, was perfectly consistent with the whole course of your conduct, and was distinguished by strict impartiality, and a love of justice. It is impossible to doubt the fitness of your calling the particular attention of the House to this case, being the first time of its arising. I have now the Act of Parliament, containing the exceptions lie-fore me, and I find them to be what I stated. Having allowed the hon. Member to make the affirmation on becoming a Member of this House, it would be an anomaly, indeed, for the House to decide that more than his affirmation should be required of him to discharge one of its incidental duties.

said, that the anomaly might exist, and required to be removed by an Act of Parliament. He did not think the decision they had come to in the former case necessarily governed this, which rested upon an Act of Parliament passed subsequently to the Quakers' Relief Act. He considered, however, that this Committee did not come within either of the three exceptions in that Act; and that, therefore, the hon. Gentleman might be allowed to make his affirmation.

begged to refer the House to the 22nd Geo. 2nd, c. 46, wherein it was enacted that, in all cases wherein an oath was required by an Act of Parliament already passed, or thereinafter to be passed, the affirmation of a Quaker might be received.

rejoiced at the unexpected occurrence which had taken place, as he had a notice on the books which he trusted would remove all difficulties like the present.

thought, that as the House had already decided that the Act of Parliament did not prevent Quakers from taking their seats in the House, the same rule should apply in the present instance.

said, that he had only done what he conceived to be his duty in calling the attention of the House to the subject. As the House seemed to feel so strongly, and to concur so unanimously in the reception of the hon. Member's affirmation, he would suggest that the affirmation be received with the consent of the House, but without the formality of putting the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that the subject of the Motion he was about to submit to the House—namely, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the laws relative to the passing of Irish vagrants—was one which intimately interested the whole community; and when it was considered how deeply affected many of the counties in England were by the operation of the existing laws, he thought it would not be held undeserving the attention of the Government and the House. The extreme expense attendant on passing the Irish poor from one country to the other was well known, and had frequently been brought under the notice of the House. In 1828 a Committee was appointed to investigate the subject, and that Committee made a report which it was thought would have provided for the expenses of various kinds incurred by the passing of the Irish labourers in that year; but after the presentation of the report, the Bill had been withdrawn. A Bill on the same subject had also been introduced during the last Session of Parliament, but he was not aware that it had passed the House. In order to show with what a degree of pressure these charges weighed on the different counties in England, he would refer to the returns, which showed the number of persons passed during the last five years, and he was very sure that when the House heard the statement they would come to the conclusion that some legislative measure ought to be adopted with regard to this subject. In the county of Berks alone, for the last five years, the number of Irish labourers passed rose from 2,272 to 4,559, and the expenses incurred by that county for this purpose rose also from 815l. to 1,135l. annually. These returns showed an annual increase in the number of persons passed since 1828. In the county of Wilts a similar increase was observable, while in Gloucestershire the expenses varied from 1,200l. to 1,400l. annually. Without detaining the House by any further detailed statements, he would just quote what were the average expenses incurred by a few of the English counties during the last five years. In Hertfordshire, 783l.; in Northamptonshire, 756l.; in Warwickshire, 958l.; in Staffordshire, 1,687l.; in Cheshire, 900l.; in Berkshire, 855l.; in Wiltshire, 1,000l.; in Gloucestershire, 1,285l.; and in Lancashire, where the Returns were only reckoned for the last four years, 1,689l. It had been ascertained, that almost all the individuals thus passed had come from London. Now, admitting the influx to be unavoidable, many questions would arise as to what was the best mode of preventing the great expense thus created. He had no hesitation in saying, that the cheapest possible mode, provided it were an efficient one, ought to be adopted. By the 59th Geo. 2nd, c. 12, power was given to Magistrates to remove Irish paupers, and that Act specified the manner in which they were to be removed, which was in the mode required by a former Act, the 17th Geo. 2nd, c. 5. But Magistrates acting under those Acts had no power to remove Irish paupers in any other mode than the way specified in them, or to charge the expenses of the transportation in any other manner than that pointed out. He thought the noble Lord would agree with him as to the expediency of altering the laws on this subject altogether. He could see no reason why a person born in Ireland should, by the mere circumstance of a six hours' sail, be placed in a different position as to his claims on society; or why his means of support should be so greatly altered. He believed the House would agree with him in the view he took of the matter, and would concur in the propriety of appointing the Committee of Inquiry; which inquiry should be taken up from the period of the existence of the last Committee, in 1828. He proposed that the inquiries of the Committee should be directed to ascertain the best mode of altering the laws to which he had referred. If, however, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would promise to take the matter into his serious consideration early in the next Session of Parliament, with a view to an alteration, he would not at the present moment press the subject further than moving the appointment of a Committee, which he believed, under the circumstances, to be the best course he could follow. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a "Select Committee to inquire into the law relative to the passing of Irish vagrants, with a view to its Amendment, and to report their opinion thereon to the House."

had no objection whatever to the appointment of a Select Committee, but would not at present pledge himself to any particular course.

trusted, that in any law which should be proposed to the Committee, due consideration would be given to the situation of the persons spoken of. The people of Ireland were left comparatively destitute of food, although their country furnished two of the largest counties of England, Yorkshire and Lancashire, with great quantities of provisions; regard should therefore be had to the circumstance, that Ireland sent much of her subsistence to England; and it ought to be remembered, since Ireland sent so much of her food to England, that great consideration was due to those Irishmen who came to England in search of food. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer), seemed to suppose, that the burthen of passing Irish paupers fell principally upon the counties and agricultural interest. He verily believed, that more of the burthen fell on the single parish of Kensington, containing 14,000 persons, than on the whole county of Berks. That was not the case of Lancashire, a manufacturing county, which paid more than the seven other counties through which the road to Liverpool passes. In that county the towns of Manchester and Salford paid more than the whole county of Bedford. The towns he believed bore the principal part of the burthen.

said, a great part of the evils complained of arose from the application of the Vagrancy Act to casual poor in the metropolis and other places. The parishes, in order to relieve themselves from the expense of passing them, described them as vagrants, and thus saddled the counties with the expense. The short remedy would be to make the parishes remove their own Irish and Scotch paupers, and that the natives of the three divisions of the kingdom should be placed on the same footing.

said, it was a great hardship to send the Irish poor over to a country where they had no means of relief but by begging their way through their own country or returning to this. He agreed with the hon. member for Oldham, that great consideration ought to be given to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland.

said, that so long as the Parliament of this country oppressed Ireland as they had done, so long must the people of Ireland hate and detest it; and certainly no Parliament that had ever existed in England was deserving of more indignation and hatred on the part of Ireland than the present, which had done so much against and so little for that unfortunate country. Until justice instead of injustice was done to Ireland, the account between the two countries could not be settled; and unless something was done to ameliorate the condition of the Irish people, the Government might rest satisfied that Ireland would never be other than a source of daily embarrassment to them. In England the population had increased, between 1821 and 1831, at the rate of fifteen per cent, while in Ireland the increase for the same period did not exceed eight per cent. Much had been talked about a superabundant population in Ireland, but he was prepared to show, that instead of an increase there had been in many places, a considerable diminution in the population of that country. Like the negroes of the West Indies, the Irish people had decreased in point of number, and although this was an unpalatable doctrine, it was nevertheless the true one. Ireland was capable of maintaining a population of 19,000,000; but until the proprietors of the soil were identified with the country, it would be hopeless to look forward to anything like real prosperity. In the time of Edward 3rd an ordinance was issued, prohibiting persons from holding land in England and also in France; and without some such law was adopted with respect to Ireland, there was no possibility of escaping from the evils of absenteeism and non-residence. He should propose that English proprietors should give their Irish possessions to their younger sons, or have the option of selling them; and although he admitted the difficulties in the way of such an arrangement to be almost insuperable, still he saw no other way of rescuing Ireland from the thraldom and misery in which it was placed. It had been said, that the introduction of Poor-laws would afford employment to the Irish poor, but this he denied. Poor laws might, to be sure, give them food, but it was his opinion that such a system would not only render them idle, but take away from them the means of labour. No less a sum than 8,000,900l. was annually expended for the support of the poor in this country. The Government, including all persons paid out of the public purse, from the King on the Throne down to the lowest constable, only cost 16,000,000l. so that a sum equal to half the amount of the whole public expenditure was lavished upon the poor without either, as far as he could see, bettering their condition, increasing their comforts, or promoting their happiness. But the expedient of Poor-laws for Ireland might lead to a species of litigation between the countries which was little dreamed of. Suppose, for instance, an action was brought by an English parish against an Irish parish, in an Irish court of law, what was likely to be the result? The agents and counsel on both sides would no doubt be benefited; but what would the proceedings cost the parishes? Why it might so turn out, that the transmission of a single pauper would cost more in law expenses than would be sufficient to support the poor of cither parish for a whole year. He would not oppose the appointment of a Committee, but he was convinced, that its labours would not be attended with any useful or practical result.

said, it was not intended that the Committee should inquire into the extent of relief that ought to be given to Irish paupers, but only as to the best means of providing for the expense of their removal.

observed, that although there could be no doubt that much exaggeration had taken place with respect to the value of the woods, forests, and land revenues, belonging to the Crown, yet that it was certainly desirable that an inquiry should be made into their state and condition, with a view that they might be rendered as beneficial and productive as possible. The course which he intended to pursue was, in the first place, to move an Address to his Majesty in answer to his Majesty's most gracious message, and afterwards to propose the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, thanking him for his most gracious message, and assuring him that the House would take the subject into immediate consideration."

said, he had always thought that the time of that House would be most economically and usefully employed by attending to one subject at a time. Very soon after he had become a Member of the House, he had adverted to the subject of the Crown Lands; and lour years ago had pressed the House to inquire into the real state and condition of the property in question, respecting which he had submitted to the House much information, acquired by considerable inquiry and labour. He was very glad to find that his Majesty's Government were now disposed to take up the question. He was personally glad on the occasion, because he had given notice of a Motion on the subject for next week; and he was happy, that he should be saved the trouble, and also that the time of the House would be saved. All that surprised him was, when he called to mind the surrender by his present Majesty, in the speech which he made at the commencement of his reign, of his interest in the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and of the manner in which that surrender had been dwelt upon by Ministers as a most liberal act, that two years and a half had been allowed to elapse without any step having been taken on the subject. It was, however, better late than never. There could be no doubt whatever that considerable advantage might be derived by the public from the investigation of the subject. The noble Lord thought that the value of this Crown property had been greatly exaggerated. It might be so. Where darkness was thrown over objects, it was difficult to ascertain their exact dimensions. But when he saw the magnificent establishment in Whitehall-place, when he saw the distinguished persons who presided over that department of the public service, when he saw that even the hereditary Counsellors of the Crown did not hesitate to become land-surveyors, and to cast their eyes over the royal territory and domains, he was compelled to believe that the matters to which such persons directed their attention must be of considerable importance. That the Aristocracy of the country had greatly diminished this property, since it was surrendered by the people to the Crown, in the reign of William 3rd he was quite aware. Some great families possessed at the present moment noble estates derived from it, for which they had given very trifling consideration. In truth a very small part of the revenues of the Crown lands came into the Exchequer. From the year 1794 to the year 1804, 580,000l. had been received, of which only 10,800l. had come into the Exchequer. From 1725 to 1826, 2,374,321l. had been received, of which only 8,760l. had come into the Exchequer. From the year 1826 to the year 1829, 1,500,000l. had been received, not a shilling of which had been paid into the Exchequer. If, therefore, there had been, as the noble Lord supposed, some little exaggeration in the value of these revenues, there was evidently a foundation for extensive and beneficial inquiry. When the noble Lord, the other night, had a difficulty to find five or six millions which were cut from under his feet by the partial repeal of the Malt-tax, and by the menaced repeal of the House and Window Duties, he might have found in the Crown lands an ample fund for meeting the chasm in his resources. He would only have had to go with the Act of Parliament in his hand into the Money Market, and he might have raised five or six millions on this property. There was another advantage to which this property was applicable; why not create ten or fifteen millions of notes, to be called Crown land notes, to be received and paid in taxes, but not to be convertible into gold at all? The noble Lord was about to appoint a Committee. He would not find that sufficient. Such a Committee would have to send individuals to make inquiries in every county in England, and in many counties in Ireland, and to call witnesses before them from all quarters, which it would be impossible to do without great delay and serious expense. He had no doubt that it would be found more expedient to appoint Commissions to go into every county, and find out all about this property. In the year 1786, several Commissions of this nature, composed of three or five persons each, were appointed, and made some most valuable and important reports. If those reports had been followed up, instead of the Crown property having been misapplied, it would now be worth double its present amount. What he suggested, therefore, was, the appointment of a Commission. He had paid a great deal of attention to the subject, and he was satisfied that the Crown lands might be judiciously, though gradually, converted into a sum of money that would not fall short of fifteen millions. He suggested as the best mode of facilitating the disposal of this property, that half the purchase money should remain on mortgage, at two and a half per cent. It was important entirely to get rid of the establishment attached to this property, and to the expense of the collection of its revenues, which amounted to twenty per cent. He had no doubt, if the subject were followed up as it ought, the property might be made one of outmost useful resources in time of need.

was glad that the subject was to be inquired into, and hoped it would be extended to Ireland and Scotland.

said, it had occurred to him that the House would prefer having the question referred to a Committee in the first instance, but if a Commission were then found necessary, his Majesty's Government would not object to it. The hon. member for Colchester had stated, that large sums had come into the Treasury of the Woods and Forests, from 1826 to 1830, which had not yet been brought to the public account. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that a heavy debt had been contracted under the authority of Parliament, which must be paid before the money could be made available for other purposes. He believed the whole amount was 1,500,000l. Last year a sum of 250,000l. was paid towards it, and in the present year another 100,000l. would be appropriated to the purpose. With regard to the expense of collection the hon. Gentleman was misinformed, for it did not exceed half the sum which he had stated.

thought, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had done very wrong in wasting all this property in beautifying streets, and building houses and fine palaces in the metropolis. Of all the mistakes ever fallen into by the Government, none was greater than that of expending large sums of money on this particular spot. Instead of accumulating and adding to the crowd of idlers in London, it ought to be the object of Government to diminish the attractions of the spot. As it was, however, something was taken away from every part of the country, in order to enlarge London. The building of the Penitentiary was a most unwise measure. It cost a million of money, and a number of persons were brought up to London to assist in its erection. What he rose, however, to observe was, that as soon as possible, efforts should be made to recover Crown property which had unjustly got into other hands, in order to enable; the Treasury to take off some of the taxes. The hon. member for Colchester valued the property at 15,000,000l. He (Mr. Cobbett) was more sanguine. He had known a trifle paid for a very valuable estate. Now, they all knew that when a steward had unjustly disposed of his master's property for a small consideration the landlord's remedy was in the Court of Chancery. In the case of the Crown lands the country should have its Court of Chancery—namely, that I louse. The leases, fines, and all other circumstances ought to be strictly inquired into, and if it were found that Crown property had been sold or let for less than its value, the agreement ought to be cancelled by Parliament. Fraudulent contracts ought not to Le permitted to endure. He was born on the borders of a royal forest; and he well remembered, when he was young, that it was full of fine and lofty timber. Many thousands of acres of trees were, however, struck down, lopped, barked, and then disposed of; and it was not improbable that Government had been treated on that occasion as Lord Peterborough had been treated by his steward, who knocked down his house, sold the materials, and then brought in his Lordship a bill for repairs. There had been enough wood cut down in that forest of Holt to have supplied the Royal Navy for several years. He hoped that the hon. member for Colchester would be a member of the proposed Committee, and that the Committee would go into the consideration of the subject honestly, without any respect to persons, and with a determination that the public should have justice done them.

rose to defer the third reading of this Bill until to-morrow, not being completely prepared to announce all the alterations that might be desirable in-it.

expressed his disapprobation of these Savings' Banks. He believed they were instituted by the late Lord Liverpool and the Government at the time, not for the good of the people, but for three different purposes. The first was to draw capital to London, in order to bolster up the funds; the second was, to give the Government the power of putting their hands into the pockets of the people; and the third, to enable them to scourge the people. ["Oh! Oh!"] Hon. Members might express disapprobation as much as they pleased, and the noble Lord might laugh, but his firm belief was, that the great object of Lord Liverpool in this transaction was to get a claw on the people.

was astonished that the hon. Member, in addition to these three charges, had not made another, and imputed to Government the introduction of the Savings' Banks Bill, because they wished to realize profit by means of the fractional parts, which could not be taken into account in every money transaction. When the hon. Member imputed to Government three motives for establishing Savings Banks, he might have smiled, but certainly it was not on account of the originality of the hon. Member's ideas, because he had heard something like the same topic urged some nights ago. He was, indeed, quite astonished to hear such arguments coming from the mouths of hon. Members. So far from being an injury to the people, he believed these banks conferred on them the greatest advantages; and, so far from affording the Government the means of trampling on the people, and scourging the people, as the hon. Member expressed it, they had the very contrary effect. Their evident effect was, to render the people independent; and, surely, persons of that description were not the most likely to be trampled on.

could not help expressing his astonishment at the expression made use of by the hon. member for Birmingham. The hon. Member, he believed, had the kindest intentions towards the poor; but he must say, he took the strangest way of showing those intentions by prejudicing the people against disposing of the little spare money they had in a way which was most likely to render them independent and comfortable. He was opposed to the Poor-laws; the hon. Member he believed was in favour of them, and he would just leave it to himself to say which of the two systems were the most likely to cherish independence.

thought, that nothing showed more the good sense and proper feeling of the lower classes than the preference they gave to Government Securities over country bankers. The hon. Member had probably heard the story of Franklin about the two sacks. The empty sack, he said, fell to the ground, but the full sack stood upright. Surely the more property the people had, the more likely were they to be independent. He was happy to find that, though during the crisis of last Session the amount of deposits had diminished, they were now daily increasing.

said, that, he was decidedly opposed to the plan of throwing the expenses of the office of Sheriff upon the county rates. There was now an understanding between the Sheriffs and Under-sheriffs, the latter of whom agreed to bear the expense; and there were fees of office which enabled them to do so. The expense might always be limited, at the pleasure of the person who held the office, and it would be hard to make the farmer and the occupier pay expenses incurred at the discretion of an individual.

perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn.

said, that if the expense amounted to 600l. now, it would amount to 6,000l. if the charges were paid out of the county rate. It was an office of honour, and should continue to be so.

trusted, that no expense would be thrown upon the counties connected with the office of Sheriff and if Gentlemen of suitable fortune were appointed, there could be no necessity whatever for so doing. He agreed with several hon. Members that respectable attorneys in some counties were anxious to undertake the office of Deputy, and free the High Sheriff from all charge. In the county he was connected with (Lancashire), it was well known that, on a gentleman being appointed to the honourable and ancient office of Sheriff, there were always numbers of most respectable solicitors eager to become the Sheriff's Deputy, and free him from all expense whatever. In ordinary times the gain to the Under Sheriff was generally about 1,000l. He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Oldham, that if the expense was to be paid by the counties, instead of its costing 600l. or 700l., the charge in time upon the counties would be as many thousands.

said, in the county which he represented, the expenses of the Sheriff were never less than 1,500l., and very frequently amounted to 2,000l., which was a very serious expense to fall suddenly upon any gentleman. He did not say, that these expenses were necessary, but they were customary, and had so long been customary that it was impossible to avoid them. The javelin-men, who had been so frequently mentioned, were in ancient times a sort of military body absolutely necessary to escort the Judges through every county: because, in early periods, the entrance of the Judges into a county town was often attended with considerable danger. That danger, by the progress of civilization, had passed away; but the custom and the expense bad continued. Parliament might, now that the necessity for their existence had ceased, very properly interfere to abolish them. Though he did not exactly approve of the Bill itself, as it was now framed, he thought, that the hon. Member who had introduced it deserved great credit for having brought before the House a subject of much abuse.

had not brought in the Bill upon his own responsibility, but at the recommendation of a Committee previously appointed to examine into the subject. Many of the abuses now relating to the nomination of Sheriffs would be done away by the bill, and on the whole he thought it would be a benefit to country gentlemen.