TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE STATE AND PROSPECTS OF PARTIES.

IT is difficult to take a correct view of the state and prospects of parties without frequently glancing heels. The true beginning

of what is now called Reform, occurred when Lord LIVERPOOL-

" opened" the Catholic question. WELLINGTON, be it remem- bered, obtained the character of a slashing Reformer. It was

because WELLINGTON declared against Parliamentary Reform, and because the Whigs declared for it, that Lord GREY became Prime Minister in 1830. The GREY Ministry was destroyed by its Anti-Reform tendencies after the Reform Bill had become law. The first MELBOURNE Ministry was accepted by the Re- formers upon trial—for the chance or with the hope that it would seriously endeavour to bestow on the country the natural conse- quences of Parliamentary Retort. But the trial was not al- lowed: the Tories, who had the chance, and might therefore

entertain the hope that Lord MELBOURNE would imitate Lord GREY in treating the Reform Bill as a final measure—the too impatient Tories dismissed Lord MELBOURNE, " pfematurely," as they now acknowledge; which means, without giving him an opportunity to fail in that trial of his disposition and power as a

Reformer, for which the Reformers were patiently waiting. This folly of the Tories acted like proof of Lord MELBOURNE'S Re- forming tendencies: the country concluded that he would not have been so dismissed if he had not been a sincere Reformer; and this belief at once brought about the Whig-Radical union. The Whig.. Radical union stopped the Tories, notwithstanding their erophatie professions of Conformity. Turned out of office by a Whig-Radical majority in the Commons, then it was that they began to talk with regret of their " premature" dismissal of Lord MELBOURNE. The blow bad missed, and then they wished that it had not been struck—that they lied allowed Lord MELBOURNE that trial of

his Reforming tendencies which might have ended in a complete rupture between Whigs and Radicals. However, discouraged by

their defeat and embarrassed by their recent professions of Con-

formity, they fell back into a state of inaction such as that which had preceded their " premature" assault upon Downing Street; and they permitted the session of 1835 to produce English Muni- cipal Reform, which has added incalculably to the power of the Reforming masses. At the beginning of the last session (1836),

the state of the Tories appeared utterly hopeless. The Whig Ministers had proposed measures of Reform sufficient to content the Rad:cals; and the Whig-Radical union, which had turned out and confounded the Tories, was as perfect as ever. It' the Whig- Radical union remained complete, there was no chance whatever for the Tories. So things continued until the Easter 11013-days.

Then it was that LYNDHuRsm—a bold and able man, no doubt, and

one fertile in resources—devised a method of breaking up the Whig-Radical union. He cast away Conformity, resumed the most unqualified Toryism, and persuaded a majority of the Lords to follow him in this desperate course. It not unfrequently happens in the world, that desperation effects what cautious painstaking has failed to accomplish. So long ago as in May last, we pointed out, under the head of "Tory Tactics," that the new policy of the Tories was calculated to weaken, if not to destroy,..

the Whig-Radical union ; and from that time forth, we have never

ceased to urge upon the Whigs the adoption of a new policy suited to defeat the new policy of the Tories. And now, even at the- risk of tiresome repetition, we find it necessary, for a reason which will appear presently, to state over again, though briefly, our view of the subject.; which, justified by events, is at length shared by many even of the least observant amongst Radicals, Whigs, and Tories.

There were two parties, of course, to the Whig-Radical union. There was a conzfact, though Mr. SHEIL would call it a compact union. Virtually, if not in so many words, the Radicals, without requiring the smallest share of official power, agreed to support the Whigs in office, and to leave in abeyance those questions of organic change which belong to the Radical faith. The Wigs, on the other hand, promised to effect such reforms, not being organic, as should from time to time content the Radicals. In 1835, both parties were satisfied : the Whigs were steadily sup- ported by the Radicals, without being asked to promote any organic change; and the Radicals obtained the important but not organic change of English Municipal Reform. Each party re- ceived the consideration, to use a legal phrase, for which it had signed the contract. Both parties again were satisfied with the programme or promise of this year's proceedings. no Radical pressed any orgaffic change upon the Whigs; no Whig but as- sured the Radicals, that with hearty Radical support, the Whigs would do "justice to Ireland." But what has been the result? The Whigs have received all that they ever stipulated for—the Radicals absolutely nothing. " His promises," says Lord LYND- HURST, speaking of Lord MELBOURNE, "were, as he then was, mighty ; but his performance, as he now is, nothing." The Tory leader openly boasts of the success of his plan for putting an end to the Whig-Radical union. There can now be no doubt that, as we said at the time, he formed the plan deliberately with a view to the aim which it has all but accomplished. Ile might well be sure, that the Radicals would not/or nothing support the Whigs in office, and cease to demand organic changes which they have at heart. To the organic questions of Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, and a larger Suffrage, he has added that of' Peerage Reforms There are now four great organic questions on which the Ras heals differ from the Whigs quite as much as from the Tories, and which Lvmoe yaw may well be sure that the Radicals will not give up to the Whigsfor nothing. Why should they? why should they give up any thing for nothing Durinz a whole session, the Whig performance of promises to the Radicals has been—nothing. All turns upon that word : the new policy of the Tories has consisted in reducing to nothing the consideration for which the Radicals consented to support a Ministry opposed to all organic change. Opposed, just like the Tories, to all organic change, and prevented by the Tories from effecting any other reforms, the Whig Ministry had no longer cny the slightest claim to Radical support. So far LYNDHURST s bold plan was eminently successful. But he had set the Whigs an example, by following which they might have entirely defeated him. By a little boldness on their part, they might have preserved the Whig-Radical union, and placed it on a foundation unassailable by the Tories. If the Tories had deprived the Radicals of their old motive for supporting the Whigs, still the Whigs might easily lutee furnished the Radicals with a new motive for supporting them. LYINDHunsr's new policy depended on Lordly opposition to all measures of Reform : a suffi- cient counter-policy would have been any plan almost for over- coming such opposition. Full evidence of a determination on the part of the Whigs not to submit tamely to the Lords, would, at the time, have been plan enough. Such evidence was called for at the time, and by none more earnestly than ourselves; who then fore- told, as the alternative, what has now happened. For want of a counter Whig plan, the new Tory p'an has succeeded. As the dissatisfaction of the Radicals at Whig supineness be- comes more and more confirmed, the difficulty increases of re- storing that Whig-Radical union which might have been easily preset ved, and which alone, we are firmly convinced, can keep the Tories out of power. Still, at present, the Radicals ask so little of the Whigs, as the basis of a new and secure union, that Whig pride or stupidity will be solely to blame if the Whig-Radical dis- union and apathy should last long enough for Tory objects. We repeat that, as respects organic change, all which the Radicals ask of the Whigs is, that they will cease to be Tories,—not that they shall make Ballot, or Short Parliaments, or Extended Suf- frage, or Peerage Reform, a Cabinet question; but that, on these four points, they shall observe a strict neutrality as between the Country and the Tories. This granted, the remaining terms of a new Whig-Radical union would be easily settled. This granted. with no more perhaps in addition than a Whig-Radical instead of a Whig-Tory use of the Executive power, and some other admi- nistrative reforms, which, though of great importance, depend not at all upon the Lords, but wholly upon Ministers,—this would reestablish the Whig-Radical union, and upon a basis which, being consistent with the mixed nature of a union between Whigs

and Radicals, could not be shaken by any Tory manceuvre: this would be a sufficient plan for keeping the Tories out of power, and ler so stimulating the great body of Reformers throughout the country, as to force the Lords into submission to the national will.

But all this, though but little for the Radicals to ask, is too much, we fear, for the Whigs to give. They seem to understand "give and take," which is the only principle of a firm Whig-Ra- dical union, to mean that they should take every thing and give nothing. The plan, though it propose for the Whigs, on all questions of organic change, no other than a negative or neutral course, involves action or movement for the purpose of adopting that course : it is the "other step," the "fresh departure," the " new line," without which, as we have often said before, it will be

impossible for Lord MELBOURNE to maintain a Whig-Radical union against the new policy of the Tories; it is, to repeat terms

often used by us since the Easter holydays, "a plan of Whig- Radical action for overcoming Lordly opposition to all measures of Reform." Were it a plan of inaction, a do-nothing policy, it would apparently be more acceptable to the mere Whigs, or rather Tories in disguise, who incumber and seem to paralyze Lord

MELBOURNE.

4sOur elder brother, the Examiner, cannot or will not perceive the wide difference between a negative or a neutral course as to some particular questions, and a general policy of inaction. Nay, by separating a number of our expressions from the context with which they appeared, and giving them a new context by juxta- position with each other, he endeavours to make it appear that we have been "inconsistent" in urging the Whigs, first to adopt a plan of action, and then to pursue a course of neutrality.* Our defence shall be briefer than the charge. Whig neutrality, on certain questions as to which the Whigs now side with the Tories, would be action. The adoption by the Whigs of a neutral course, as between Tories and Radicals, on all questions of organic change, would be, for them, an immense move. Let us remind the Examiner, that, as respects these ques- tions, the Whigs are nothing but Tories. Now suppose them to say—" The new Tory tactics of unqualified opposition to all Re- form, compel us to revive the Whig-Radical union upon a new basis. Henceforth, though we cannot support, we will not oppose any motion for Ballot, Short Parliaments, Household Suffrage, or Peerage Reform. Though we cannot become Radicals, we will, on these Radical questions, cease to be Tories; in one word, we • Not to f, row the bad example of our contemporary in aeparating passages from theiseauteat, W.: have reprintai Ws accusation entire, Italics and all. will be WhirRadicals:' This would be a plan of perfeetimao- tion as to those questions; but it would also be a plan of vigimous and most effective action for restoring the Whig-Radical union, inspiriting the Reformers generally, and confounding the new politics of the Tories. The Examiner's charge against us, there- fore, is vi holly fallacious, resting upon a gross misapplication or perversion of terms.

That charge, moreover, comes with a very bad grace from him, who, :a Radical par excellence, has for months .past continually and earnestly deprecated any pressure upon /the Whigs for even so little movement as the adoption of a neutral,or Whig-Radical, instead of a Tory line, on organic questions. He says, that, with respect to Ministerial policy on the question of Peerage Reform, we, after an eccentric flight, at length agree with him. He has invented or imagined the eccentric flight, by keeping out of sight, or perhaps not seeing, the perfect consis- tency, or rather in this case identity, between neutrality on par- ticular questions and general activity. And as for present agree- ment with him, we should indeed be inconsistent with ourselves if we admitted it for a moment. For what does he propose ?—that the Whigs should continue their essentially Tory hostility to Bal- lot, Short Parliaments, Household Suffrage, and Peerage Reform. On questions of' organic change, it is not inaction or neutrality which be recommends to the Whigs, but a perseverance in Tory- ism. The value of our brother's labours as a writer in favour of organic change, cannot be overrated. He still writes on for Ballot, Short Parliaments, Household Suffrage, and Peerage Reform in the abstract, but has recently taken to encouraging the Whig. in their practical Tory opposition to all those measures. Their adoption of nothing but neutrality on those his faveurite quese flans, is a degree of Whig-Radical action which he thinks that the Radicals ought not to require of them. An out-and-out Radi- cal in principle, he yet, in practice, pets and patronizes the sanest Whiggery. He must excuse us for saying that we cannot parti- cipate in this new sort of Whig-Radicalism.