IPSWICH—CASE OF MR. CLIPPERTON. (Hansard, 24 July 1835)

§ Mr. Freshfield
moved, that John Clipper-ton be brought to the Bar and discharged.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that when this question was before the House on a former occasion, he had understood the debate to be adjourned until the evidence was printed, in order that hon. Members, before deciding on the case, might know the facts of it. It now appeared that the evidence would not be printed so soon as the hon. Member for Montgomery shire anticipated. He should, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned till Monday.

§ Mr. Williams Wynn
said, that on inquiry at the printing-office this morning he had ascertained that the press of business there was so great, more particularly in consequence of the printing of the evidence on Orange Lodges, that there was no chance of the evidence in this case being printed just yet. When Mr. Clipperton was before the Committee he had refused to answer certain questions, claiming the protection of his profession. He (Mr. Wynn), in common with the other Members of the Committee, had conceived that such a claim was not tenable: but he had since read a judicial decision given by Lord Brougham, from which it would seem that the protection to be claimed by an attorney in virtue of his office went much beyond what he imagined. He hoped that when the evidence was printed, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would give his opinion how far the witness had been justified in his refusal to answer the questions put by the Committee.

§ The Attorney-General
said, that as no further proceedings were, he believed, to be instituted against Mr. Clipperton, the delicacy which he should otherwise have felt was removed, and he should, therefore, most certainly give his opinion on the case on Monday.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that he hoped on the same occasion the right hon. Gentleman opposite would give his opinion as 1076 to the law of Parliament in this case. A great many years ago, a witness in the Grampound case had refused, under similar circumstances, to answer questions, and the right hon. Gentleman then expressed so strong an opinion that he (Lord John Russell) moved the House not to press the question further.

§ Sir Edward Knatchbull
conceived, that Mr. Clipperton had already suffered enough in being confined for six weeks, at a season of the year when such confinement was peculiarly injurious.

§ Mr. Hawes
was sorry that he could not discharge his duty and Mr. Clipperton at the same time. He was not disposed to show him mercy until the prisoner was ready to show his papers, or give a sufficient reason for having destroyed them.

§ Mr. Roebuck
dissented from the doctrine that an attorney so circumstanced was privileged on the ground of professional confidence.

§ Mr. Freshfield
maintained, on the authority of the case decided by Lord Brougham, that Mr. Clipperton could not, as a man of honour, or as a professional man, answer the questions put to him, and he hoped to be able to convince the House that he had only done what was his duty.

§ Mr. Scarlett
thought, that Mr. Clipperton ought not to have been called upon to divulge the secrets of his client. He considered him an honest straightforward man, incapable of a dishonourable act, but he admitted that his knowledge of him was not great.