Billeder på siden

All these charges are entirely new, and all, with very many more that might be named, go to the payment of new placemen. We find an annual grant in the estimates of this year of L.50,000 for the purposes of Irish Board of Education; in 1836, the sum voted was only L.35,000. Another charge of a peculiar nature is L.13,000 for Law Expenses, which appear to have increased L.3000 in a single year; while Lord Palmerston's official charge is an increase of L10,000 on the charge of two years back. The expenses of Canada are increased exactly L.500,000, while the grant to the church in that colony is reduced by about three thousand pounds. Some of the usual miscellaneous estimates against which the Whigs used formerly most loudly to protest, are now under their superintendence raised to an extraordinary height. The Consular department for 1838, is L. 107,993; the repairs of palaces, gardens, and public buildings, L.74,986; the convict establishment in New South Wales L.235,000; the charge for printing L.197,796. Many other charges to which Mr Hume and the rest of the Whig-Radicals used to object altogether, are continued by the present ministers, contrary to their repeated professions and promises. What has induced them of late to acknowledge the propriety of a grant of L.35,900 a-year for secret service money; and what has caused their opposition to cease to that large vote of nearly 70,000 a-year to Irish charities which the much abused Tories used regularly to obtain? These miscellaneous estimates have been rapidly on the increase from the day Lord Melbourne came into office, and have placed immense means in the hands of the Ministry for corrupt purposes. They have increased, because the influence and patronage of the Government has been widely extended under all sorts of pretences, and in every possible direction.

In the colonial department, Lord Glenelg has the patronage derived from the new magisterial system in the West Indies to which L.69,000 is annually voted; he has the appointment of the managers of the L.30,000 a-year voted for negro education; the patronage of a few snug foreign jobs like the Malta commission; the appointment of the new chaplains and

schoolmasters to New South Wales and Canada; the appointment of placemen in all new settlements, as South Australia, Graham's Town, New Zealand, &c., the management of the emigrant agencies, for which Parliament votes nearly L.2000 a-year, and the patronage of the whole establishment at St Helena, which the Government of this country has recently taken from the hands of the East India Company. All this patronage is new, and now for the first time enjoyed by a colonial secretary, in addition to the patronage of the West Indies, Canada, New South Wales, and all our other colonies as before.

At home, the Whigs have had an increase of patronage to an immense extent from their Factory, Poor Law, Municipal Corporations, Registration, Tithe, Prisons, India Charter, Bankruptey, Imprisonment for Debt, Irish Constabulary, Irish Poor Law, Criminal Court, and Real Property Acts. The system of centralization has been carried out to a very great extent, and at every step of its progress fresh patronage has been thrown into the hands of the Government. In Ireland especially, jobbing of the grossest description has been carried on, and in all parts of the United Kingdom money has been squandered on commissions of heterogeneous characters. Not content with his share of this patronage, the Marquis of Normanby has thought proper to assume the office of appointing the Sheriffs at his own discretion, in direct contravention of the law. Revising barristers, commissioners, either hand-loom or educational, or ecclesiastical, or municipal, or boundary; inspectors of prisons; superintendents of factories; assistant poor-law commissioners; registrars of marriages and deaths; paid recorders; official assignees, now appear in every corner of the country, and increase and multiply with alarming rapidity. Next year we are to have a rural constabulary force, with some thousands of new places, and, if possible, a new mode of managing counties, and a complete tribe of stipendiary magistrates. So numerous indeed are the placemen in these pure, no-patronage days, that, as Mr Sydney Smith sagely declares, the onus of proving he is not one now rests upon every honest man; and seriously, this is not so very much exaggerated, when it is considered that

in addition to all these new places, the Customs and Excise still remain with their 16,000 places. In olden times, ministries were quite content with these sources of patronage, and with the army, navy, and colonies; but now things are quite altered; commissions, and all the other new places we have named, have sprung up to keep these liberal and enlightened reformers in office. At the present moment our army is larger than it has been for years; our navy employed is very much augmented; and yet neither nor both satisfy the Whig-Radicals; they go on creating place after place, and with a sinking revenue increasing considerably the public expenditure.

The patronage of a ministry consists not, however, principally in places, however important-for hohours, 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 forty years; but, at the same time, it is but fair to add that the period to which we allude, though comparatively short, was the era during which this country made greater strides than she had ever accomplished before, and during which her opulence and grandeur rose to an unexampled pitch. Three hundred and seventy-eight peers, in 1823, bore a less proportion to the number of influential proprietors in the country, than two hundred and twenty-five did in 1780. Moreover, it must be remembered, when Lord John Russell brings forward this charge, that several of these new peerages were Whig creations, 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 forty 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 Vincent, Duncan, Wellington, Combermere, Lynedoch, Abercromby, 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 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 forty years, although scarcely fifty were elevated for mere Parliamentary purposes, have not allowed eight years, since 1830, to pass without creating upwards of sixty new peerages for their partisaus? 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, Bessborough, 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 important and more destructive of the independence of Parliament, than their own votes in the House of Lords.


Earl of Albemarle, Master of the Horse.

Duke of Argyle, Lord Steward. Lord Auckland, Governor of India. Lord Byron, Lord in Waiting."

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 became an author; he has done damage to no one but his publishers and himself.

Marquis of Conyngham, Lord Cham- Bishops Durham, Chichester, Salisberlain.

[blocks in formation]

Marquis of Lansdowne, President of the Council.

Duke of Leinster, Chief Commissioner of Irish Education.

Earl of Litchfield, Postmaster-General.

Viscount Duncannon, Lord Privy Seal.

Viscount Melbourne, First Lord of the Treasury.

Earl of Minto, First Lord of the Admiralty.

Marquis of Normanby, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Lord Plunkett, Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

Lord Ponsonby, Ambassador to Turkey.

Viscount Torrington, Lord in Waiting.

Marquis of Winchester, Groom of the Stole.

[blocks in formation]

bury, Hereford, Norwich, Litchfield, Ripon, and Ely. These also can have no great hostility to the Melbourne Government. Here, therefore, are thirty-six Whig-enlightened Liberals accounted for; the subjoined lists will go far to make up the sum total of Whig-Radicalism in the House of


Whig-Radicals who have received promotion in the peerage since 1830:

Marquis of Ailsa.

Marquis of Breadalbane.
Earl of Camperdown.
Duke of Cleveland.
Earl of Ducie.
Earl Granville.
Earl of Zetland.
Earl of Durham.
Earl of Effingham.
Earl of Lovelace.
Earl of Litchfield.*
Duke of Sutherland.
Marquis of Westminster.
Earl of Yarborough.

Whig-Radicals who have been elevated to the British peerage by the Whigs. Some of these had Irish peerages before.

Lord Bateman.
Lord Belhaven.
Lord Brougham.
Earl Bruce.
Earl of Darlington.
Lord Carew.
Earl of Charlemont.
Lord Cloncurry.
Lord Cottenham.
Lord de Manley.
Lord Denman.
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.

One or two peers are mentioned twice, first as placemen, and afterwards as having received promotions in the peerage, or elevation to it. But this is merely done for convenience' sake, and only shows that there are scme held by a double bond-both of interest and gratitude.

[blocks in formation]

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 all 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 considercd independent in their support of Lord Melbourne'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 August, the House of Lords divided on Lord Fitzgerald's amendment to the Irish Tithe Bill.

The number of Conservatives was seventy-eight, of Whigs thirtyseven, and there paired off in favour of the minority seventeen; making a total of fifty-four 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 independent men; and even of these the

Sutherland. Leinster.

NORFOLK. Argyle.




Conynghame. Clanricarde.















[blocks in formation]

Here, then, are fifty-four noblemen voting on an important question, and only nine of them are not dependent for favours or place; only six even of that number being completely free! How earnestly desirous these Whigs have proved themselves not to swamp or degree the peerage! How chary of using "the influence of the Crown!" They have only made sixty peers in eight years; they have only pitchforked that moderate number to swell their miserable minority. We question much if without those sixty men in buckram, their largest minority, on the most important divisions in the Upper House, would be forty; and we own, when we consider the vast

machinery and means of corruption now in use, and in unscrupulous hands, we feel that the House of Lords has a high title to credit; seeing that despite all temptation to tergiversation and to submission to the Whigs, the independent unpaid Conservative majority, so far from dwindling away, is increasing year by year. Whatever may be done in the House of Commons by baronetcies, ribands, commissions, peerages, exorbitant estimates, domestic or colonial jobs, and augmented patronage, we cannot but rejoice, then, that we have yet a bulwark, and a remnant of an independent Parliament; and, therefore, though a minister like Lord Melbourne may be enabled to realize Lord John Russell's portrait, and compel the Sovereign to retain him by holding in terrorem the threat of a factious majority in the House of Commonsready one year to sanction and the next to abandon an appropriation clause there is at present no prospect of the same threat being employed 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 remains for the people of the country to counteract the insidious 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 add. ing contempt to rejection in the case of every member who has sold his vote for a baronetcy, or his silence for a brother's promotion. Such men there may be, even in the Reformed Parliament; 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 Commons to cheer a demagogue like O'Connell, or to support a Ministry that tempts 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 necessity, while we heartily despise the Ministers who will stoop to hold office on such mean and trembling grounds, that nothing but 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 country from unprincipled and corrupt rulers. 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 Goverument on pure principles, without patronage! These, too, are the Liberals, the men of purity and economy, the reformers of abuses, the opponents of corruption, peculation and intrigue. They have descended gradually downwards till they can exist only by pur chasing the smiles of a mendicant at the expense of the patronage of Ireland, and by widening the circle of Ministerial influence through every artifice the most corrupt Minister of ancient days invented or employed. To this have they come at last, with all their fine professions; their essays on English Government; their articles in the Edinburgh Review;' their motions on the influence of the Crown; and their calculations of the extent of patronage fresh in the recollection of the people they have deluded. Yet what care they for the memory of the past or the shame of the present hour, so long as they can cling to places and pocket pay? They have deluded the nation, but even more to that nation's disgrace than their own. What excuse has any man for allowing himself to be duped by a Palmerston, taken in by a Melbourne, or entrapped by a Glenelg ?

But then, perhaps, we may hear some Whig, blinded to all sense by party spirit, and ignorant of all necessary information, put in here a claim for mitigation of censure, by asserting that if hundreds of oflices have been created (as no one will ever deny), many have been abolished. It is sometimes the pleasure of Whig journals to prate boldly about reductions and retrenchments, and so forth. Now we are quite content to take the issue on this point, and to enquire into these boasted and patriotic proceedings. We hear of reductions made by the Whigs. We ask, what have they re

« ForrigeFortsæt »