The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-30 00:00:00

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 30, 1833.

The Church Temporalities Bill has passed
through another stage in the House of Lords.
The report of the Committee on the Bill was
last night received and agreed to by a majority
of 68 to 38. The Earl of WINCHILSEA was

the only Peer who put himself prominently
forward in opposition to the further progress of
the Bill. He acknowledged, most frankly, but
strangely, that lie had not followed this Bill into
Committee, so that not having attempted to
improve the Bill because it was so bad (a
reason, we should have thought, for making
the attempt) he was bound in consistency
to move that the report be received that
day six months. The Noble ELrl, with his
usual good fortune, stumbled upon a mare's
nest of no small beauty. He had been informed
that the surplus which would have arisen
under the 147th clause, had been offered to the
Catholic clergy, and had been refused by them.
Lord GREY thought it worth while gravely to
contradict the truth of this extraordinary dis-
covery. His Lordship did not, however, en-
deavour, as it was reported would be the case,
to overturn the amendment carried by the Arch-
bishop of CANTERBURY in Committee. Se-
veral minor amendments were threatened at future
stages of the Bill, but none of much interest
were carried last night. At the instance of the
Duke of WELLINGTON, a clause was introduced
requiring a declaration from the Members of
the Commission of their belonging to the Esta-
blished Church—a meaningless amendment,
which Government paid the Noble Duke the
equivocal compliment of agreeing to. We
presume that the Bill will be read a third time
by a triumphant majority, if indeed after the
division of last night the Tories think it discreet
again to divide the House.

The report of the Liverpool Select Committee
on the corruption of the freemen, is most cre-
ditable to the Members of the Reformed Par-
liament. For three years, Mr. BENETT, the
independent representative of South Wiltshire,
has been making head against the old corrupt
House of Commons, who stifled all real in-
quiry, and opposed every proposition of legisla-
tive remedy. Even in this, the first session of
the Reformed Parliament, there was a minority
opposed to " inquiry" and to the appointment
of the Special Committee. To the honour of
some Members of the Government, Mr. ELLICE,
Lord DUNCANNON, and Mr. CHARLES
WOOD, supported the cause of Reform by their
votes in favour of the investigation ; while Mr.
STANLEY and Lord PALNIERSTON opposed

it ! The result must be as satisfactory to the
former as humiliating to the latter; and we
trust that the exposure of this foul heap of
election corruption will shew to some Members
of the " Liberal Administration" the expe-
diency of the principle of backing their
friends and repulsing their political enemies.
These are not times in which public men can
afford to discount their political reputation, and
we do not doubt that the Ministry and Lord
JOHN RUSSELL—par excellence an election re-
former—will now support the disfranchisement
of the corrupt portion of the constituency of the
borough of Liverpool. Such a report, emanat-
ing from a Commons' Committee, partly com -
posed of Tories, must be founded on undoubted
and powerful proofs ; and when the evidence is
printed, we shall dissect the whole subject of
putrid corruption. The report states that there
are now on the Liverpool register of voters
eighteen hundred and eighty electors attainted
with bribery in the year 1830 ! Are the future
returns of Members to the British Legislature
for the important commercial interests of Liver-
pool to be influenced by the continued electoral
rights of these infamous voters—men who, like
ESAU, would sell their country for a mess of
porridge ? Will a Reformed House of Com-
mons sit in company with any two repre-
sentatives of such evil-doers ? Not only
must the corrupt Freemen be disfranchised,
but the whole system of statute law, affecting
bribery and treating, must be revised and re••
formed. The fountain of this shameful common
sewer of corruption is clearly the existence of a
close corporation and local nuisance which push
into civil power men least entitled to possess it,
• and exclude from the administration of the