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 in 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-
atious, prior to 1781, 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, Combermere 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 1781 till the time the Whigs
came in separately in 1830, 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 nut allowed eight years, since 1830, to pass
without creating upwards of 60 new peerages for their 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, Lorris Roseberry,
Seaford, Besborough, and Carlisle; and to remember also
the vast influence of many of the noblemen whom we shall
mention—an influence, in the lower house, far more impor-
ant and more destructive of the independence of parliament,
ban their own votes in the House of Lords.
PLACTZMEN.
Earl of Albemarle, Master of the Horse.
Duke of Argyll, Lord Steward.
Lord Auckland, Governor of India.
Lord Byron, Lord in Waiting.*
Marquis of Cunyngham, Lord Chamberlain.
Lord Cottenham, Lord Chancelliir.
Earl of Durham, Dictator of Canada.
Ear! 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 Arish 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 Normanbv, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Lord Plunket, Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Lord Ponsonbv, 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 placeinen, 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-
cued 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 Peer-
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 Litchfield:t
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 he-
re:— _ _ _

Lord Bateman.
Lord Belhaven.
Lord Broughain.
Earl Bruce.
Earl of Darlington.
Lord Carew.
Earl of Charlemont.
Lord Cloucurry.
Lord Cottenham. •
Lord de Manley.
Lord Dentuan.
Lord Dinorben.
Lord Duncannon.
Lord Falkland,
Earl of Fingal.
Lord Glenelg,
Lord Godolphin.
Earl of Gosford.
Lord Hatherton.
Marquis of Headfort.
Lord Howden.
Earl of Kintore.
Lord Kinnaird.

Lord Lismore.
Earl of Leicester.
Earl of Leitrim.
Lord Lovat.
Earl of Ludlow.
Earl of Meath.
Lord Methven.
Lord Mostyn.
Lord Pamnure.
Lord Poltimore
Lord Portman.
Earl of Ranfurley.
Marquis of Queensberry.
Lord Rossmore.
Duke of Roxburghe.
Earl of Sefton.
Lord Segrave.
Lord Strafford.
Lord Sudeley.
Earl of Uxbridge.
Marquis of Tavistock.
Lord Western.
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 thelpresent 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
interested in its preservation.

DUKES

SOMERSET.
Sutherland.
Leinster.

NORFOLK.
Argyll.

MARQUISES,

Lansdowne.
Conyngham.
Tavistock.

Head fort.
Clanricarde

Effingham.
Fingal.
Uharlemont.
Minto.
Meath.
Gosford.
THANET.
Uxbridge.

EARLS.
Albermarle.
SCARBOROUGH
Camperdowu.
Lovelace.
CARLISLE.
licbester.
Ducie.

CRAVEN

Melbourne.
Lismore.
Falkland.
Langdale.
Montfort.
Foley.
Cottenbam.
De Manley.
Gardner.
Holland.
Glenelg.
Poltirnore.
Howden.

BARONS
Vaux
Stafford
Methuen
Sudeley.
Mostyn.
SAYE AND SELE
Brougham.
Hatherton.
Plunket.
• VERNON.,
Wrottesley.
SEA FORD.
Lti.eoito.
Carew. Hereford.
Here, then, are 54 noblemen voting on an important ques-
ion, and only nine of them are not dependent for favours or
)lace; only six even of that number being completely free!
How earnestly desirous these Whigs have proved themselves
not to swamp or degrade the Peerage ! How chary of using
"the influence of the Crown !" They have only made 60
Peers in eight `ears; they have only pitchforked that mode-
rate number to swell their miserable minority. We question
much if without those 60 men in buckram, their largest mino-
rity, on the most important divisions in the upper house
would be 40; and we own, when we consider the vast machi-
nery and means ofcorruption now in use, and in unscrupulous
bands, we think the House of Lords has high title to credit;
seeing that despite all temptation to tergiversation and to
submission to the Whigs, the independent unpaid conserva-
tive majority, so far from dwindling away, is increasing year
by year. Whatever may be done in the uof e
xo
umrLni ot
anus ,t
by baronetcies, ribands,commissions,
peera,s a
estimates,e
u tr
oejc
r rejoice,
eth
colonialethat jobs, w
ande h
augmentedaveyet a
age, r o n
g: wecannot bbulwark,
tandhou ag
hremnantminister of d
like Le
pp
redn (I.deinetl
bPoaurrl inaem
mayent and
; be
enabledtherefo therefore,
realize Lord John Russell's portrait, and compel the so-
vereign to retain him by holding in terrorem the threat of a
factious majority in the House of Commons, ready one year
to sanction, and the next to abandon, an appropriation clause,
there is at present no prospect of the same threat being em-
ployed with reference to any man's power in the House of
Lords. But that this prospect continues to us, is no fault of
Lord Melbourne's, and is no oversight of the whig party.
Both have done their best to extend corruption into the Upper
House, but hitherto they have signally failed. It only re-
mains fur the people of the country to counteract the insidi-
ous and more successful attacks on the independence of the
House of Commons, by watching narrowly every job; by
rejecting every perpetrator at the poll; and by adding con-
tempt to rejection in the case of every member who has sold
his vote for a baronetcy, or his silence fora brother's promo-
tion. Such men there may be, even in the reformed Parlia-
ment; such men there must be, for we can never believe that
independent or honest men would go down night after night to
the House of Comincins to cheer a demagogue like O'Connell,
or to suppport a ministry that temps the scorn of Europe. We
can believe this of none but the venal, and, therefore, when we
discover whig-radical corruption, we easily account for its ne-
cessity, while we heartily despise the ministers who will stoop to
hold office on such mean and trembling grounds, that nothing
hut venality can uphold, and none but the selfish defend them,
Still more heartily do we despise these puppets of statesmen
when we find them, with an hypocrisy only. equal to their
avarice, pretend to a superiority of public virtue, and keep
more honourable men than themselves out of office, under
the fraudulent pretext that in so doing they are saving the
eciantry from untivinciplecl atisi-corrupt: rularg. Like-Judas,
they keep the bag, and they keep it for themselves. And
these, forsooth, are the men who prated about " the influence
of the crown," who deplored the increase of the peerage, and
who bragged that they would carry on the government on
pure principles, without patronage! These, too, are the
lillferals, the men of purity and economy, the reformers of
abuses, the opponents of corruption, peculation and intrigue !

• In bewailing the influence of the Crown, Lord John Russell
mourns the sad fate of a Lord of the Bedchamber, dismissed by the
Ministry, in 1822, for his vote on the malt tax. What will he say
now, having been a member of the. Cabinets that dismissed Lord
Howe from his office of Chamberlain to the Queen, and Lord
Charles Fitzroy from his place of Treasurer of the Household, for
no greater offence ? It is to be regretted that his Lordship ever be-
came an author; he has done damage to no one but his publisher
and himself.
+ One or two Peers are mentioned twice, first as placemen, and
afterwards as having received promotions in the Peerage, or eleva-
tion to it. But this is merely done for convenience sake, and only
shows that there are some held by a double bond—both of interest
and gratitude.