The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-13 00:00:00

sinuation was, that I was not so worthy of belief as the
noble lord. That insinuation, in deference to you, Sir,
and your position, I must treat as you direct ; but out of
this home the noble lord knows how I should treat it.

The SPEAKER—The hon. gentleman speaks in lan-
guage quite parliamentary when he defers to me because
of my position, and in the exercise of the duty pertaining
to it, I call upon the hon. member to explain what he
meant when he first used language most unparliamentary,
and then threw out an ambiguous threat, which he must
be aware this house will not suffer to pass unnoticed.
Mr. WASON—I shall state what I did say. I did not
say, Sir, that I objected personally to you; I never made
that statement, and I am sure you attribute it to me ans-
takingly.
The SPEAKER—The hon. member must go further.
He must express what he did say, and explain what he
meant by the ambiguous phrases which he uttered.
Mr. WASON—Thst is not the point which I—(Cries
of " Older, order; Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER—I call the hon. member to older._

—..—.-- ...
Mr. WASON—I throw myself on the house. The
hon. member for Northampton may in tbat cheer cry
" Chair." If called to order, what am Ito do? I was
about to explain and repeat as closely as I can, the words
I uttered, and the hon. member calls " Chair, chair."
The SPEAKER—That is not the question ; I have
called upon the hon. member to repeat and explain ; I am
sure he will not resist the call. If he do, I shall feel my-
se!f bound to name him to the house, and the hon. mem•
ber is aware of the course the house will then feel it its
duty to pursue. The hoc. member says lie throws himself
on the house. It is through no personal motive, but in
the fulfilment of a duty, that I interfere. 1 he hon. member
has undertaken to interpret the language of another hon.
member, and states himself convinced that an insinuation
against his honour was intended by that language. That
interpretation has been contradicted.—(" No, no ; Order,
order.") lam glad to see the hon. member (Mr. Wason)
prepared to rise. I heard the noble lord express the ne-
gative. The hon. member has repeated the same thing
again, and concluded in ambiguoua terms, by alluding to
the course he would take out of the house. I call upon
the hon. member to explain in both cases.
Mr. WASON—I now understand the position in which
lam placed. I did not understand it before. I did not
hear the noble lord deny that he intended to make the im-
putation ; but if he rises in his place, and as a gentleman
says he did not mean the imputation, I shall apologise.
Lord SANDON being appealed to, would use the words
he used before, and leave the matter to the opinion of the
house, whether or not they would bear the construction
put on them. To the best of his recollection what he said
was, that he would leaveit to the house to decide which of
the two, from experience, would be likely to be most can.
tioua in making assertions.—(,\o. no.) These were the
words to the best of his recollection. He alluded in them
to the observations made by the hon. gentleman on a for-
mer occasion, in reference to the mayor and town clerk,
and thought the insufficiency of proof on that occasion was
not such as should induce the house to believe the hon.
member's statement in preference to his (Lord Sandon's).
WASON—The noble lord has not yet said to the
house that he did not mean to convey the insinuation.
Every word of what I said on the occasion alluded to, 1
am ready to repeat whenever and wherever called upon.
Mr. BULLER explained the noble lord's meaning to be
such, as that whatever c, her interpretation may be put
upon his words, they were not meant to convey t:.e insult
imputed to them; with which Mr. Wason appearing satis-
fied, the matter dropped. Strangers were ordered to with-
draw; hut we understood there was no d►vision, and on
our return to the gallery, we found the house in committee
on the bill.

Lord SANDON objected to the statement in the pre-
amble, that bribery and corruption had existed in Liverpool
for a long period, and moved the omission of the word
" long." The declaration was inconsistent with the state-
ments of the report itself.
Mr. BENETT opposed the amendment, and referred to
the report and the presentment of the grand jury in 1827,
to prove the truth of the statement.
After a few words from. Dr. Nichol!, Mr. M. Phillips,
and Mr. Aglionby,

Mr. ROTCH insisted that the long standing corruption
of Liverpool wls perfectly notorious in his own recolle:..
tion. He remembered when placards were stuck upon the
walls naming the price which would be given for votes,
and every low fellow whom you met in the town would at
once name the current price.
Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE challenged the hon. and
learned gentleman to name any time when such a circum-
stance took place. He never recollected nor heard of it.
lie believed systematic corruption existed in Liverpool be-
fore 1830. Several persons who had supported the present
Lord Chancellor bad certainly come forward to prove that
there was great corruption amongst his party ; but he
denied that either the Canning or Huskisson party had
practised anything like systematic bribery. As for the
presentment of the Grand Jury, it had a very imposing
sound ; but the Grand Jury was composed of inhabitants
of Liverpool who were subj,et to strong political feelings;
and the last Grand Jury had made a presentment, which
ought to be equally imposing, deprecating this measure.
After some further discussion, the amendment was ne-
gatived without a division.
Dr. NICHOLL moved, as an amendment in the pre-
amble, to omit the words " or hereafter," for the purpose
,f inserting the words " save such freemen as have been
admitted subsequently to the let January, 1831."
After a discussion, in which Mr. Mark Phillips, Sir

H. Willoughby, Mr. 13tnett, Mr. Jamts, Mr. H. Hughes,
Lord Molyneux, Mr. 0 Dwyer, Mr. Hodgson, and Lord
Sandon participated, the amendment was negatived with-
out a division.

The preamble was then agreed to, the Speaker resumed
the chair amidst loud cheers, and the report was ordered
to be received this day.

JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The report of the Juries (Ireland) Bill was brought up
and agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be read a third
time this day.