24 OCTOBER 1835, Page 16

WEALTHY LIBERALS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

IN making out classified lists, last week, of the Liberal Members who supported Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S resolution on the Irish Church Bill, we gave the names of twenty-one gentlemen who, we said, could not be considered "men of property." It would have been more correct, and would indeed have expressed our real meaning, if we had said that we were not aware of their being landed proprietors. We knew that they were not lawyers, bankers, manufacturers, or officers in the Army or Navy; and we did not know them to be landholders, though we by no means intended to intimate that they were penniless,—indeed, we men- tioned that, very likely, Mr. BAINES, Mr. Bases, and Sir S. WHALLEY, might possess more than a nominal qualification in laud. We now gladly take the opportunity of correcting some mis- takes in the list, which have been pointed out to us by correspond.. ents, and also some which have been noticed in a letter published in the Globe.

Mr. Tins, we are informed, on his coming of age shared with his father a property worth nearly 10,0001. a year ; and his son has property left him by his grandfather to the amount of nearly 100,0001.

The correspondent of the Globe says- " Mr. Baines is known to have realized no small fortune. Mr. Bich and Mr. Divett are both rich men. The two Messrs. Ilidwer belong to one of the wealthiest and most ancient commoner families in the country : the one in- herited a large fortune from his grandmother ; and the other is, i believe' the heir of one of the finest properties in Hertfordshire. Mr. Leader and Mr. Rutbven senior are men of fortune, far above the average of the younger sons of the Tory minority."

We are very glad to learn all this—it improves our case against the Tories. We had understood that the fortunes of both the Messrs. BULWER were contingencies; and we only spoke of ac- tual possessions or certain expectancies. We had also heard that Mr. RUTHYEN senior bad spent a good fortune in Irish elections. We are, however, well pleased to be told that in all these instances we have been in error.

By another species of mistake, the name of Mr. EWART, the very excellent Member for Liverpool, was omitted. There is no Member of the House whose position as a man of property, inte!- licence, and public-spirit, is better established than that of Mr. EWART.

Well—now our list is, we hope, pretty nearly correct. Do you like it any the better, gentlemen of the Tory party ? Is the " pickpocket " slander of Parson KING, or the elaborately-rounded defamation of the Standard, rendered more venial by the corrections ?