Iv.—: Royal Household Appointments.

Jersey, earl of, lord chamberlain; son-in-law of lord Westmoreland.

Dorset, duke of, master of the horse; a bachelor.

Forester, lord, or lord Chesterfield, master of the buck-hounds.

Offered to, but refused by the former, and accepted by the latter, who had no objection to £3000 a-year.

Roden, earl of, lord steward.

Connected with a bishop of infamous memory. This, however, is nothing, since we are not responsible for relatives; the valid objection to placing lord Roden near the royal person is that he is an Orangemen as mad as colonels Conolly and Perceval. At a great protestant meeting held in Dublin, Aug. 14, 1834, speaking of the commissioners appointed to investigate the abuses of the Irish church, lord Roden said, ‘That in numbering the heads of the protestants of Ireland, they were at the same time numbering their lives!’

asterisks Since the publication of a former edition of the Appendix this appointment has been abandoned.

Castlereagh, viscount, vice-chamberlain; son of the marquis of Londonderry.

The last is the newly-appointed ambassador to St. Petersburgh; and to whom Mr. Liddell, the son of lord Ravensworth, is secretary.

Corry, hon. Henry, comptroller of the household.

Howe, earl, lord-chamberlain to the Queen.

Denbigh, earl of, master of the horse to the Queen.

After going through the above List, our indignation is renewed at the attempt made to palm it upon the country as a Reforming Ministry. It is, as before remarked, a complete revival of the No Popery—Six Acts—Corruption-worshipping faction. Shades of difference in political sentiment there are none worth remarking. They are all Tories, all anti-reformers, all men, save perhaps only lord Denbigh, who zealously opposed the Reform Acts; and this is the great distinction between them and their predecessors, who laboured for and accomplished the destruction of the rotten borough system.

The Address purporting to be from the ‘Merchants, Bankers, Shipowners, Traders, and others connected with the city of London,’ expresses attachment to our ‘mixed constitution of king, lords, and commons;’ and who assails them,—who wishes to re-model the form of government? The only destructives—the only assailants of public institutions—are the men who are covertly seeking to destroy the salutary amendments of the last four years. We are surprised at such weak subterfuges of the enemy.

What is the array of 5000 or 6000 signatures in the Address worth as an exponent of the political sentiments of this vast metropolis, collected, as they are, from a circuit as wide as the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court? Within much narrower local limits, taking only the two cities of London and Westminster and the suburban boroughs of Marylebone, Lambeth, Finsbury, Greenwich, and the Tower Hamlets, there are 122,879 £10 householders, which is twenty-four times the number of the Addressers. In the London Directory there are 80,000 names of merchants, bankers, shipowners, and others, of which, it seems, the city Tories have only been able to obtain 5000, leaving an overwhelming majority of 75,000 persons of another way of thinking. The Address and its ostentatious list of signatures establish incontestably the weakness of the conservative cause, and its publication can only be serviceable to the proprietors of the Times, who, by their own acknowledgment, pocketed 240 guineas for its insertion in a supplemental sheet of their journal.

It is not the only ray of light which will be elicited by the general election. The return for the metropolitan district, embracing a concentrated population of nearly two millions, of reform members, affords an indication of the state of public opinion that neither sir R. Peel nor the duke of Wellington can misunderstand, and by which, we doubt not, they will be admonished, unless they be as far gone in delirium as their Orange and high-church colleagues.