said, he had to present Petitions in favour of the Bill now before the House, for effecting a Reform in the Representation, from Haddington, from the Incorporation of Hammermen in the borough of Dundee, (who stated, that though this Bill would deprive them of certain rights, still, as it would produce great practical good, they would willingly resign those rights), and from the Royal burgh of Kinghorn. It was (the gallant general said) a sufficient answer to the observation, as to "corporation robberies," which had been made some evenings since by the learned member for Boroughbridge, to state, that the corporations in Scotland were generally in favour of this measure.

.—Do not those corporators take oaths to defend those corporate rights, which they now wish to abrogate?

.—I do not know what oaths they have taken; but if they have taken such oaths, the sooner they break them the better.

.—Those persons cannot have taken any oath that can bind them to oppose the law of the land—to set themselves in array against an Act of Parliament. When that which they swore to defend was removed by law, the oath they had taken ceased to operate.

said, he could not remain silent when he heard so Jesuitical a definition of the obligation of an oath, as that which had just been given. He could not allow such a demoralizing principle to go forth unnoticed. He knew very well, that if the law removed a previously existing right, he who had sworn to defend it was absolved from his oath, because that which he had sworn to defend no longer existed; but no man was justified, when no law of abrogation had been passed, in taking steps, of his own accord, to subvert a right which was in full force. It had been understood in this country, up to the present time (and it would continue so to be understood until men's consciences were reformed as well as the Constitution), that a man who took an oath to defend certain privileges, violated that oath when he attempted to overturn them.

was perfectly convinced, that the learned Gentleman did not know anything about the oaths which were taken to support corporate rights. So far as the preservation of the right to elect mayor, sheriffs, &c, was concerned, an oath was taken; but were individuals, on that account, to be prevented from stating their opinions, when a system of Reform was proposed—were they to be told, if they expressed that opinion, that they had violated their oaths?

said, he believed that in these corporations no oath was taken, except to be faithful to the public good. These petitioners, he maintained, were not abandoning their corporation rights. The corporations would remain, with respect to their privileges, as they were at present; but those individuals wished no longer to be self-elected bodies. He here wished to state, that he was instructed by his constituents to contradict the assertion made by the learned member for Borough-bridge, on a former evening, with respect to a naked woman having been paraded through the streets of Nottingham, as the representative of the Goddess of Reason, some years ago. He was informed that no such circumstance had occurred.

said, he never asserted that a naked woman was paraded through the streets of Nottingham; but that ft strumpet, representing the Goddess of Reason, and dressed in a particular manner, was carried about seated On a chair; which was the fact. He begged leave to observe, that he had not obtruded himself upon the attention of the House on this occasion. The challenge had come from the gallant General, who had coupled his name with the presentation of a Scotch petition. He had, he was aware, used strong language, when he heard the gallant General say, that "the sooner a body of individuals broke their oaths, the better." It was the gallant General, and not he, who was accountable for his warmth; and he would say, that if he again heard similar observations, he would not hesitate to use equally strong language in repelling them.

assured the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, in referring to him, he had not the least idea of offending him, or of exciting his irritability. He admitted that he had, perhaps, gone too far, when he said the sooner these oaths were broken the better.

said, that the learned Gentleman was misinformed as to the exhibition of a female, representing the Goddess of Reason, at Nottingham, during the election in 1800. It was stated to him that no such thing had occurred. He must also observe, that the petitioners had not violated their oaths.

insisted, that such an exhibition as he had alluded to did take place at Nottingham in 1800. Why, he had himself sat in the chair in which the representative of the Goddess of Reason had been carried. He could explain the circumstance. The Committee appointed to try the merits of the election for Nottingham, in 1800, sat in the Court of Chancery, and the chair to which he had referred, ornamented with ribands, &c, was produced before that Committee. It was afterwards placed in a corner of the Court, and the individual who then addressed the House, had actually sat in it.

said, that if the definition given of the obligation of an oath were, as the learned Gentleman asserted, "Jesuitical," the answer which had been given to it appeared to him to be "bigoted," and he by no means wondered at that circumstance, when he recollected the quarter from which it came. Those who would willingly deprive their fellow-men of their best rights, would not, of course, hesitate to use libellous expressions. He, however, had long been accustomed to treat such expressions with perfect indifference.

having presented a Petition from an individual, complaining of the operation of the Irish Bankruptcy Laws,

asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), whether it was the intention of the Government to redeem the pledge given last Session with respect to these laws; and whether it was their intention to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland, on the subject of Bankruptcy?

replied, that he had quite enough on his hands already, and he did not think himself bound by all the pledges of the former Government; but he believed the Bankrupt-laws were under the consideration of the Irish Attorney General, and that some measure on the subject would be brought in as soon as possible.

said, he had lately had some conversation with the Solicitor General for Ireland on this subject, and could say, that it was the intention of that hon. Gentleman to propose the assimilation of the laws of England and Ireland.

said, that every Session there was promising, but never performing. He had expected something better,

suggested to the hon. member for Middlesex, whether it would not be better to wait a little while, to ascertain the extent of the alterations about to be proposed in the Bankrupt-laws of this country, before they attempted to alter those laws for Ireland, otherwise they might alter this year, only to alter more extensively the next. He was, however, as much in favour of the principle of the alteration as the hon. Member himself.

presented a Petition from a Parish in Ireland, against the Irish Vestry Act, and took occasion to observe, that the new bill, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley), so far from being an improvement, was merely an alteration of details, which were a matter of indifference, while, in everything that was really important, it aggravated, to a most painful extent, the mischiefs which the Irish complained of, and which formed the continual source of uneasiness and discontent.

denied that the bill was open to this imputation, as the hon. Member would find, when he had examined it attentively, for he could not believe that he had done so, when he heard such observations respecting it. He conceived, however, that the proper course would be, to discuss the principle when they came to the second reading, and he would not, therefore, enter into its details on the presentation of a petition.

said, that the object of the bill was, to throw the burthen on the property of the landlords, and take it off the poor tenantry. That was the intention of the bill, and of its framers, and if they had not succeeded, the hon. Member could exert himself when the Bill came into Committee, to make it effective for that purpose.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Laws affecting the importation and sale of Coals in London, and the districts adjoining.

took that opportunity to ask the noble Lord (Althorp), whether it was his intention to make any distinction between the duty laid on the exportation of small and large coal?

replied, that it was the intention of Government to propose a duty of 2s. on small coal, and of 3s. 6d. on large coal.

wished the hon. Gentleman would make his Bill general, so that the people might receive all the advantages intended for them by the late repeal of the coal duties.

must decline acceding to the right hon. Baronet's wishes; what he had undertaken was quite enough for an unsupported individual like himself to perform; and were he to extend his Bill, in conformity to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, he should only mar his own object.

hoped, that no compensation would be given to the meters, who were parties to the most dishonest transactions; and he trusted that they were now to be got rid of.