The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-30 00:00:00

an Hon. Member, one of a Noble Scotch family, had suffered an
equal punishment, because he had refused to submit to the
degradation of going upon hisknees, and asking pardon of that
House. The fact was, that this individual should be struck off the
roll of attorneys, and he (Mr. R.) was sorry to find an Hon.
delicacy should have suggested its being
:;;;,ether of the same profession volunteering to bring forward
this que5...7.;-'
with the. Hon. Member for
the smaller offender
left in other hands.
:4-lear, hear.)
Southwark, in not being disposes 1.7 ;‘" ";14
when the greater ones were allowed to escape.—
If there ere no receivers of stolen goods, there would tst4
feivef offewlerg ; ead if there were no persons to bribe, or no
persons who With professiena; tact, manceuvring, and dexterity,
could shelter themselves from the coni:Nuences of their offences,
there would be less corruption in the represe,:tation of the people.
Was it proper in that House for persons to gel: up a.nd. take
advantage of the temporary absence of seine
Members of that House, who took more interes: to
the question than he did—as if that because there were a few ,
moments pause.in the proceedings of the House it was to be
taken advantage of for such a purpose as this. If lie was
to be brought up to the Bar and be discharged with a
reprimand, as others had been, then where was he
most likely to go to ? Why, to Ipswich, where there was no
doubt he would be received as others had been, as a trium-
phant victim—(Laughter)—of a course which had escaped
condign punishment.—( Laughter.) If such a party were
to be passed over lightly, it would neither be for the benefit of
the House, or of the pure principles of Reform Election. Was
he to be dealt with more lightly, merely because some parties in
that House called him a gentleman ; but was that any reason why
he should be treated better than the guard of a coach.
Was it possible that the Judges—was it possible that there
were persons on the sacred bench of justice who could allow
such parties to practise in their Courts either as barristers or
attorneys ? He hoped there were not, and that the House
would not agree to tlie motion.
Major BEAUC LE RK differed from his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Ruthven) on this subject. It should be recollected, that this
individual was not the chief culprit.
Mr. POTTER objected to the discharge of this man. He
had refused to answer several questions that were put to him.
—(Hear.) He recollected the case of a woman who had de-
clined to answer some questions before doe Liverpool. Election
Committee, on the ground that she was afraid that on her return
she would be ill-treated. Yet this unfort:.!nat: woman
was compelled to answer the questions put tct her at
the risk of having her domestic peace invaded, tind
surely this individual ought also to answer such questioi:s
as had been put to him. It was proved that it was at
this man's house the escape of Pilgrim was arranged, and
that it was from thence that money was sent to Pilgrinr to de-
fray his expenses.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division. when there
appeared—
For the motion
Against it ..
Majority —22
On our admission into the Gallery, we found
Mr. WA SON accounting for his absence during the debate
by stating that he understood it was not to take place
place till five o'clock. He likewise believed that the Hon.
Member for Middlesex, who was then absent, was in a similar
situation.