Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, he had to present Petitions in favour of the Bill now before 483 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.
§ Sir C. Wetherell.—Do not those corporators take oaths to defend those corporate rights, which they now wish to abrogate?
Sir Ronald Ferguson.—I do not know what oaths they have taken; but if they have taken such oaths, the sooner they break them the better.
§ Mr. O'Connell.—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.
§ Sir C. Wetherellsaid, 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.
Mr. Alderman Woodwas 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 484 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?
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, 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.
§ Sir C Wetherellsaid, 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.
Sir Ronald Fergusonassured 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.
The Attorney Generalsaid, 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.
§ Sir C. Wetherellinsisted, 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.
§ Mr. O'Connellsaid, 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.
§ Petition to be laid on the Table.