STATE OF PARTIES AND THE MORNING POST.
THE Morning Post has a notice, smart but sore, upon our last week's estimate of the State of Parties. The soreness has arisen from our expressed opinion that the Tories do not stand so well as they did; increased, it would seem, by a passing comment on the Post itself. The criticism is based upon the idea that party esti- mation, like the matter of the universe, can suffer no diminution of positive weight, but that whatever evaporates from one fitction must of necessity be gained by some other. This Tory philoso. pher has doubtless heard that matter is indestructible ; that such as was the weight of the globe at its formation, such it is nosy; that though the caprice of tyranny or the violence of passion may destroy life, and insure the decomposition of the carcase—though the necessities of man may burn coal, reducing part of it to ashes, part of it to smoke, and so forth—yet the essential material of our planet is still undiminished, the form alone being changed, the sub- stance remaining. " And surely," argues our Conservative friend, confbunding analogies, "if the Whigs and Radicals are worse than they were, the Tories must be better." " The Ministry arc declared to be weaker than they have been ; the Tories do not stand so well as they did ; the Radicals stand very badly—, in the lowest deep, till they open for themselves a lower.' The state of parties is (according to the ,`■pcetator) that they are all in a worse position than they were. This may be very profound, but it is not very intelligible. We doubt not, however, since our contemporary has said it, that it is capable of explanation, and may be shown to be something superior to common sense."
So fir front being incapable of explanation, it appears to us to require no explanation for "common sense." We beg to assure the Post, that the laws, of matter and the laws of faction are quite distinct in their nature. It is very possible that Radicalism should be extinct in Parliament, or even it) the country, and yet the Whigs be weaker and more distrusted, the Tories weaker and more odious ; or the three factions might all exist, and yet be equally the objects of contempt. We speak not here either of Parliamentary votes, (though we shall come to them anon,) or of mere party politicians—of Mr. O'CoNNEra:s constituents, who order him to support the Queen ; of men like Mr. Baansualv, who spout in their cups in Bajazct's vein ; or of military Tories, who talk as if they would revive the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the Manchester Massacre, and all the other atro- cities of the times of CASTLEREAGII. We speak of men who were urged to demand the Reform Bill by a practical pressure, and who regarded it as a means to an end,—that end being more attention to business in our legislators ; an improvement not only in the spirit but in the mode of our legislation; a reduction in the public bur- dens ; and an earnest attempt to improve the material condition of the people. As regards all these there may have been grievous dis- appointment : the bulk of this class—indifferent to party names, and learning by bitter experience to distrust politicians' professions— may have been perfectly willing to give a fair trial to a Conservative Ministry, since they could get nothing from a " Reform" one. Yet it is possible that the violence of the Tory Ultras, and the folly of the Tory organs, may have alienated this body of men—a large portion, we believe, of the British middle classes. These may still distrust and despise the Whigs, but they may think it better to endure their weakness than to sqfer from the Tories. It is quite possible to prefer King Log to King Stork, without any ardent admiration for a block of wood.
In all that concerns the Ministry, the Post admits we are "true," " luminous," and " correct." We have also "a sensible and lucid interval" during the earlier part of our criticism on the debate. The " first symptom of raving," he says, is our description of PEEI:s object " as being not only that of attacking his adversaries, but of lecturing the indiscretion of his friends." This is a question of fact, to be judged of by the speech' itself. No one, we presume, will deny that Sir RoBERr's outline of his policy was very dis- similar in tone and spirit to the notions of Mr. BRansitaw, Colonel THOMAS, et id genus omne ; or to the Saints, whether lay or "eccle- siastic," who poured forth upon Ireland and Popery during the recess. Well, what was this but a lecture ? It might be termed, and truly, a rebuke, with a warning threat intermingled. " I have no such affection for office that I will consent to retain it, and be the instrument for effecting other men's opinions. My ambition is of another kind ; it is not for any personal object ; 1. want not office, I want not the dis- tinctions which office brings with it. I am content with the power which I exercise, and with the confidence which I enjoy; mid I never will consent to hold office upon any terms which I think dishonourable or inconsistent with the constitutional functions of a Minister ; nor will I consent to hold office ray own opinions are (wanted, and those mho are to be nip supporters will end Mr their adherence on no other terms than that I ShOdfl C11017111 10 theirs. -Whether these opinions arc capable of being reduced to practice, I will not pre• tend to declare : they are not avowed for the purpose of conciliating such a degree of support as shall enable me to reduce them to practice. They are those on which I mean to act in office and out of office ; perli!etly content to remain out of office when it shall be proved that they are impracticable."—Sir Robert Peel's Speech, Times Report.
The following, and more in a similar vein, must be intended for a joke ; but it is too sore to be a very vivacious one.
" Our contemporary tells us that the Tories do not stand so well 'as when they were tricked out of office by the Bedchamber intrigue.' He complains of the' dragooning doctrines' of the Duke of Wellington, of the' opposition to national education,' and of sundry other things, in 'which the wrong state of his mind is very apparent. At last lie rushes into absolute insanity, and at- tacks that which no man of reasonableness would dream of attacking, and which ought to be, if it is not, ' the envy of surrounding nations and the admi- ration of the world,' namely, the Tory press. The insanity of the following passage is evident ; Their organs, too, have done them (the Tories) had service during the recess, both In the choice and iu the treatment of topics. Instead of statesman-like views of the condition of allure, the Quarterly was exaggerating personal antipathies into impor- tance, and superadding elaborate dulness to impohey. 'Fhe Mummy Post was making furious attacks on the Cheap IN.stage, which was no more Whig than Catholic Emmet. patina was Tory. but was enforced by this united voice of the country. The Times was agains! aConnell, Ireland, ;tad Ireland's religion, iu a style which it would s O'Connell himself to equal. almost all their papers indulged in the insolent of contemptuous domination, which reminded men of the t Castle.tis style cruel, without the ability which then set it of " The remark on the Tory press is an opinion, which must go for what it. is worth. We may, however, ask our contemporary, whether he never surmised that the spiteful attacks on " cheap postage" were doing considerable injury to the Tory party ? People had begun to limey, that although the Conservatives would grant no organic changes, they would vigorously exert themselves in the way of ad- ministrative improvements—bidding high for public favour in prac- tical retiwnis. But when it was seen with what fierce opposition a great popular advantage was assailed, they began to doubt : and if, as our censor says, the Cheap Postage was an " impudent quackery," and a " criminal abandonment of the national revenue,' what are we to think of the patriotism of the Conservatives, who allowed crime and quackery to be established? If Tory constituents, compelling Tory Members to participate in crime, forced the bill through the Commons, why did not the patriotic majority in the Lords exert their power ? We did not advance any filets in support of our view of the con- dition of Toryism, because they did not seem to be required : nor were there any of so direct and immediate a nature as those which affected the Ministry. Some, however, do exist, tending to show that the party is not stronger. In May last, the Tories were in actual possession of the Government, the state of matters in the louse of Commons having impelled a resignation. Even when they were tricked out by the Bedchamber-women, the Whig Ministry were in such a state of ticklish convalescence, that any thing like a blow seemed certain to destroy them. Can the Tories take possession. now ? they have tried, and cannot. Could they carry a single election against their opponents ? they tried, and could not. Let us recur to Parliamentary numbers ; and in doing so, we think we can show, even to the comprehension of the Morning Post, how two antagonist parties can both get weaker. In the Confidence division in April 1839, the numbers were
Ministerialists 318 Tories 296 Majority 22
On the 1st instant, the numbers were
Ministerialists 30S Tories 287 Majority 21
Can our contemporary now see, that the Whigs could not bring up so many votes by ten, and the Tories by nine; being, by the rules of subtraction, a respective diminution qf party strength proportionate to those numbers ? It surely is plain enough, that haul the Tories been as strong as they were, the Ministerial ma- jority would have been only 12. For mere purposes of obstruction the Tory power is, probably, but little impaired—at least it is quite sufficient for its object. But what if the Whigs shall give the Tories no opportunity to exercise their vocation? What if the MELBOU R NE Ministr, trading upon " reconstruction," shall do nothing but carry on her Majesty's Government to the end of the session, and then try the effect of another " reconstruction ?" This course, as we last week pointed out, has its risks ; and accident, under any circumstances, may terminate the ricketty Ministers very speedily. They, poor devils! are in the plight of a patient, whose system is so weak and vitiated that the common nourishers of lite, air, exercise, and food, arc pregnant with disagreement and consequent danger. A wetting, damp feet, undue indulgence at a party, a draught of air at a courtly pageant, or the over-pressure of an inconsiderate crowd, may aggravate disease to death ; or the system may sink from its own weakness,—though, to say the truth, the tenacity of the vital principle is very great. But there is a proverb about waiting for dead men's shoes ; and surely the great Tory party has some better hope to feed its followers with, than the hope of a lucky turn-up. Yet, grant all—allow that the Whigs are to plan some new thing, and the Tories to obstruct it—can bow it' the Whig majority decline for four years in the same ratio as it has declined already, it will still be able " to keep out the Tories." Conservative prin- ciples, indeed—barring popular accidents—may still be upheld; and this may satisfy a few. The Duke of WELLINGTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Lord STANLEY, have an assured position, ample means, the importance of conscious power, and their tastes may not incline them to the poops and vanities of a court. This is all very well for the great captains, but how Ihre.s it with the subalterns and rank and file ? They endure the heart-sickness of hope deterred; no place, no pay, no patronage; no possibility of playing great men in a small way. The gracious condescension to subs and suitors sounding the very base-string of humility is not for them ; the swelling grandeur of official dignity is vested in their rivals. They cannot strut in court-pageants, and partake of the banquets that follow them ; they can oblige no friends with small ffivours, nor derive gratification from "the little things so great to little men." The power of obstruction fbrsooth ! " To lie in cold ob- struction, and to rot!" is not a pleasant state. Yet such is the Tory doom, until they are fitvoured by Fortune, or change their tactics. As we said last week—" 11 they want office they must work for it, and pay earnestmoney to boot. Let them stop jobs ; remedy blunders ; lick abortive measures into shape ; enforce eco- rmmy ; and, not content with these things, let them originate some measures of practical reform."
In conclusion, the Post puts a question which we candidly confess we cannot answer- " Will the Spectator be so obliging as to tell us tvhere men who wish well to their country are to look?—to whom are they to turn Jim that political leadership which will maintain the dignity and security of the Stale, and. above all, pro- mote the improvement of the physical and mental condition tf the MUSS of the people?"
Upwards of two years ago, we acknowledged that " the curse of feebleness has fallen upon this generation ;" and nothing has passed since to alter that humiliating conviction.
Previous page
