The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-25 00:00:00

IPSWICH ELECTION.

Mr. FRE SHFIELD moved the Order of the Day for re-
suming the adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Clip-
erton be called to the bar and discharged.
LOrd J. RUSSELL understood that the motion was to

have been postponed until the evidence taken before the second
Select Committee had been printed.
Mr. WYNN made a few observations, which were inaudible.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the Hon. Member 'could
not argue upon the evidence until it had been printed.
Mr. WYNN hoped that the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man (the Attorney-General), would turn his attention
to the evidence, when it was before the House.—( Hear.)
The evidence of Mr. Clipperton, was to the effect that
being the professional agent of the party, he was justified in
taking every means in his power to pretect the interest of his
employers. Upon this matter he (Mr. W.) would give no
opinion himself.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt great delicacy in in-
terfering in the case of those whom he had been directed to
institute proceedings against by order of that House, but as
there was no intention to adopt any further proceedings against
Mr. Clipperton, he should be prepared on Monday to give his
opinion on the evidence.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Montgomeryshire would also be prepared
to give his opinion with respect to what the Parliamentary law
was on the subject. He (Lord J. Russell) understood that in
the Grampound case the Right Hon. Gentleman had carried
a contrary doctrine to a very great extent.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought the question for the
House was whether Mr. Clipperton had or had not been suf-
ficiently punished ; and in his (Sir E. K.'s) opinion he had.—
If this Gentleman had been guilty of any misconduct before
the Committee, he would then stand in a different light—
( Hear, hear, from Mr. Wason)—but if not, then surely there
was no reason for keeping him till Monday, when it was agreed
upon all hands that the evidence went to quite adifferent point.
Mr. HAWE S was very sorry to appear to act harshly
against any individual who was in custody. but the fact was
that he for one could not sanction the discharge of Mr.
Clipperton, because he had refused to tell the Committee the
nature of the contents of those important documents which ho
had destroyed—the very fact of his destroying them proved
them to be very important ; and until Mr. Clipperton either
put the Committee in possession of the nature of those docu-
ments, or gave a good reason for his destroying them, he did
not think the House would do right in parting with him.
Mr. ROEBUCK did not see any distinction between the
case of this party and that of another criminal who was taken
up and kept sometimes six months before his trial. Mr.
Clipperton must wait till-the House was in possession of the
evidence upon his case.
Mr. ROBINSON protested against the Gentleman being
kept in custody after the others had been discharged.
Mr. FRE SHFIELD would venture to assert that no ques-
tion had been put to Mr. Clipperton which he would-not have
been prohibited from answering at the bar of that
House, upon an appeal to the Chair. Mr. Clipper-
ton was not connected with these proceedings till he had
been employed professionally to go to Ipswich to collect evi-
dence. It was his duty as a professional man not to disclose
anything that came to his knowledge in his professional capa-
city. He hoped that the House having vindicated its autho-
rity, would not press upon this individual.--( Hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON hoped that this subject would be
adjourned to the earliest day, in order that Members might
have an opportunity of reading the evidence.
Mr. A. TREVOR hoped that that the House would not
adjourn this question any longer. Whatever the offence
might have been, and many men had committed the same
offence to a greater extent, and had escaped at a much
cheaper rate, he hoped the House would feel that this individual
bad suffered sufficient punishment.
Mr. SCARLETT would assert that this individual was
bound, not only as a legal man but as a gentleman, not to
answer the questions that had been put to him.
Mr. HARDY did not think the conduct of Mr. Clipperton
was so excellent as had been represented by the Hon. Member
who had spoken last. In his (Mr. Hardy's) opinion,
the conduct of Mr. Clipperton was any thing but
that of a gentleman : for, not satisfied with refusing to answer
questions himself, he prevented Mrs. Clipperton from answering
those put to her relative to whether Pilgrim had been at her
House on a certain day. He thought if Mr. Clipperton was
relieved from his imprisonment at the present moment, then
Mr. Sparrowe, who was only liberated yesterday, had been most
hardly dealt with.
Lord J. RUSSELL had not heard anything to induce him
to alter the opinion he had formed the other day, that the House
oughtnot to liberate Mr. Clipperton, till it had seen the evidence.
That evidence was not ready to-day, and it could not be ready
before i‘londay. He did not think there were any extraor-
dinary circumstances in the case of Mr. Clipperton to induce
the House to relieve him from custody to-day.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided
on the question of the postponement of the subject till Mon-
day, when there appeared—
For the Postponement B3
Agairfst it
Majority for the Postponement
The disca.:sion was therefore postponed till Monday.