The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-09-14 00:00:00

WHIG-RADICAL CORRUPTION.

[FROM BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE.]
(Concluded from our last.)
The patronage of a Ministry consists not, however, princi-
pally in places, however important—for honours, peerages,
promotions, and ribands remain to be noticed. The Whigs
are very fond of charging upon Mr. Pitt and his party the
heinous offence of having so increased the peerage between
1780 and 1823, that it was augmented in that time from 225
to 378 persons. Lord John Russell, in the essay from which
we have quoted our motto, makes a great point of this matter.
Now, we admit 150 peers is a large number to have been
created iu 40 years; but at the same time, it is but fair to
add, that the period to, which we allude, though compara-
tively short, was the era during which this country made
greater strides than she had ever accomplished before, and
during which the opulence and grandeur rose to au unexam-
pled pitch. Three hundred and seventy-eight peers, in 1823,
bore a less proportion to the number of influential proprietors
in the country, than 235 did in 1789. Moreover, it must be
remembered, when Lord John Russell brings forward this
charge, that several of these new peerages were Whig cre-
ations, prior to 1784, when Mr. Pitt came into office, and,
in 1806, when all the talents reigned; and also, secondly,
of the number of elevations during the glorious 40 years, a
very large number were made for public services, without
any, the slightest reference to political opinions. Such was
the case with the peerages of Nelson, Collingwood, St. Vin-
cent, Duncan, Wellington, Comberrnere, Lynedoch, Aber-
cromby, Beresford, Hill, Hutchinson, Rodney, Hood, Keith,
Gardner, Gambier, Exmouth. and many more. Taking
these circumstances into account, it will be found that, during
the sway of the Tories, from 1784 till the time the Whigs
came in separately in 1800, the number of peerages made,
with a view to political purposes, was singularly small and
limited. What, then, shall be said of the Whig-Radicals,
who, after deploring the increase of 150 peers in 40 years,
although scarcely 50 were elevated for mere Parliamentary
purposes, have not allowed eight years, since 1830, to pass
without creating upwards of 60 new peerages for th-eir par-
tisans? On looking over a list of the Whigs in the House
of Lords, who do not altogether number more than 140
(minors included), we find the following connected with the
administration, or bound to it by important obligations. We
beg our readers to notice that these are exclusive of peers
who have relatives in the ministry, as the Dukes of Bedford
and Norfolk, the Marquis of Anglesea, Lords Roseberry,
Seaford, Besborough, and Carlisle; and to remember also
the vast influence of many of the noblemen whom we shall
mention.-2an influence, in the lower house, far more impor-
ant and more destructive of the independence of parliament,
Iran their own votes in the House of Linde.-
PLACEMEN.
Earl of Albemarle, Master of the Horse.
Duke of Argyll, Lord Steward.
Lord Auckland, Governor of India.
Lord Byron, Lord in Waiting.*
Marquis of Conyngham, Lord Chamberlain.
Lord Cottenbam, Lord Chancellor.
Earl of Durham, Dictator of Canada.
Earl of Errol, Master of the Buckhounds.
Lord Erskine, Ambassador to Saxony.
Lord Falkland, Lord in Waiting.
Lord Foley, Captain of Gentlemen-at-Arms.
Lord Gardner, Lord in Waiting.
Earl Granville, Ambassador to France.
Marquis of Headfort, Lord in Waiting.
Lord Holland, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Lord Howard de Walden, Ambassador to Lisbon.
Earl of Ilchester, Captain of Gentlemen Pensioners.
Marquis of Lansdowne, President of the Council.
Duke of Leinster, Chief Commissioner of Irish Education
Earl of Lichfield, Postmaster-General.
Viscount Duncannon, Lord Privy Seal.
Viscount Melbourne, First Lord of the Admiralty.
Earl of Minto, First Lord of the Admiralty.
Marquis of Normanby, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Lord Plunket, Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Lord Ponsonby, Ambassador to Turkey.
Viscount Torrington, Lord in Waiting.
Marquis of Winchester, Groom of the Stole.
The 50 members we mentioned in the House of Commons
as being placemen, only divided among them about £120,000
a-year; but here are no more than 28 " pure old Whigs,"
who receive the small sum annually of £lBO,OOO ! Who will
doubt the zeal of these noble lords in favour of the existing
government ? In addition to these 28 persons, the following
members of the right rev. bench in England have to thank
the whigs for their elevation. The Bishops Durham, Chi-
chester, Salisbury, Hereford, Norwich, Lichfield, Ripon,
and Ely. These also can have no great hostility in the Mel-
bourne government. Here, therefore, are 36 whig-enlight-
ened liberals accounted for; the subjoined lists will go far to
make up the sum total of whig-radicalism in the House of
Lords.
Whig-Radicals who have received promotion in the Pew-
age since 1830 :
Marquis of Ailsa. Earl of Durham.
Marquis of Breadalbane. Earl of Effingham.
Earl of Camperdown. Earl of Lovelace.
Duke of Cleveland. Earl of Litchfielckt
Earl of Ducie. Duke of Sutherland.
Earl Granville. Marquis of Westminster.
Earl of Zetland. Earl of Yarborough.
Whig-Radicals who have been elevated to the British Peer.
age by the Whigs. Some of these had Irish Peerages be-
'ore:—
Lord Bateman. Lord Lismore.
Lord Belhaven. Earl of Leicester.
Lord Brougham. Earl of Leitrim.
Earl Bruce. Lord Lovat.
Earl of Darlington. Earl of Ludlow.
Lord Carew. Earl of Meath.
Earl of Charlemont. Lord Methven.
Lord Cloncurry. Lord Mostyu.
Lord Cottenham. Lord Panniure.
Lord de Manley. Lord Poltinaore
Lord Denman. Lord Portman.
Lord Dinorben. Earl of Ranfurley.
Lord Duncannon. Marquis of Queensberry.
Lord Falkland. Lord Rossmore.
Earl of Fingal. Duke of Roxburghe.
Lord Glenelg. Earl of Sefton.
Lord Godolphin. Lord Segrave.
Earl of Gosford. Lord Strafford.
Lord Hatherton. Lord Sudeley.
Marquis of Headfort. Earl of Uxbridge.
Lord Howden. Marquis of Tavistock.
Earl of Kintore. Lord Western.
Lord Kinnaird. Lord Wrottesley.
Lord Langdale. Lord Vane.
To these we might add the Duke of Leeds, Earl Cadogan
and the Earl of Derby, who were elevated to the Peerage
previously to their accession to their present dignities; and
when to these we add also the Papist Peers in Parliament,
who are indeed the natural allies of the present Ministry, and
the minors, there remain very few Whig Noblemen who can
be considered independent to their support of Lord Mel-
bourne's cabinet. Still fewer are those giving a zealous or
constant support to it who can be considered unfettered. Some
may allow the Premier the sanction of their names and do no
more • others may remain neutral, and hesitate to declare for
the other side; but we repeat few, very few, are those who
are at once zealous and independent. We will illustrate this
fact by one instance of recent occurrence. On the 3d of Au-
gust, the House of Lords divided on Lord Fitzgerald's amend-
ment to the Irish Tithe Bill. The number of Conservatives
was 78, of Whigs 37, and there paired off in favour of the mi-
nority 17 ; making a total of 54 in favour of the Melbourne
Ministry. The following is the list of them,: those who are
not placemen, and have not received their Peerages from the
Whigs we print in capitals. There remain only nine inde-
pendent men ; and even of these the Dukes of Somerset and
Norfolk, and the Earl of Carlisle, have their sons in the Mi-
nistry, and thereby are bound indirectly to assist it, and are
nterested in its preservation.

DUKES.

SOME R SET.
Sutherland
Leinster.

NORFOLK.
Argyll.

Lansdowne.
Conyngham.
Tavistock.

Effingham.
Fingal.
Charlemont,
Minto.
Meath.
Gosford.
THANET.
Uxbridge.

Melbourne.
Lismore.
Falkland.
Langdale.
Montfort.
Foley.
Cottenham.
De Manley
Gardner.
Holland.
Glenelg.
Poltimore.
Howden.
Carew.