[The following article was in type last week for publication

in the gpeetritor, hut has been unavoidably postponed. It now apples without the alteration of a single letter. Flattered as we are by the Examiner's very particular thin to 114. we conclude that it will not -escape his notice. Will he be so good as to compare it with his own article, which, written at the same time, were- print to-day ? Thus learning how we were occupied at the moment when be was praising, us for agreement with himself in recommending the Whigs to perse- vere in their Toryism on organic questions, perhaps he will oblige us by with- drawing a panegyric which lie must now see that we do not in the least deserve. The difference between the Examiner and the Spectator on the subject in ques- tion, is broad, marked, and irreconcilable.

That subject surpasses all others in present importance. To our own readers, thei chirp, we do not hesitate to Say that this postponed article merits, on account of the now published pamphlet which has furnished its matter, the first place amongst the Topics of the Day.] "WHAT IS TO BE DONE?"

A PRINTED copy has been sent to us of a letter on the present state of parties, addressed by Mr. HENRY BULWER. to one of his constituents.* This tract, or rather pamphlet, makes its appear- ance most opportunely, and will, for several other reasons, obtain general attention. Mr. SUMER represents one of the largest, if

not the largest constituency in the kingdom : in office under the present Ministry, lie is also attached to the Whig party by early political associations, and to many of its members by personal

regard : lie is a man of the world too, free from narrow prejudices, and disposed to take a practical view of men and things; but, above all, the question which lie examines on the present occasion is one suggested to every Reformer by the actual state of affairs— viz. " What is to be done ?"

The very terms of the question, when used by a Reformer, im- ply that the cause of Reform is in danger. According to Mr. Burwell, and, let us add, to the Spectator almost weekly since last May, the cause of' Reform is endangered by that new policy of the Tories which threatens to produce, or actually has pro- duced, disunion amongst Reformers. The policy which the To- ries adopted after the Easter holydays, is pure Toryism as distin- guished from Conservatism er Conformity. The Tory Lords, by defy lug and insulting the Reformitys' House of Commons, have effected two objects of great value to themselves : they have united and stiinelated their own party, awl have caused disunion and dejection amnngst their op, onents. Months ago, under the head of " Tory Tactics, ' we foretold as a result of time new Lyme,- nutter policy, those differences amongst Reformers which have now broken out in the shape of a controversy between Whigs and Radicals. Lord LYNDHURST is the original author of Mr. Hurr's and Sir W. MOLESWORTH'S letters to their constituents, of Mr. O'CoNNELL's last letter to the Spectator, of Mr. B A I NES'S and Sir G. SeRrettlesszn's Anti-Radieal speeches at Leeds, and finally, of Mr. BULWER'S ramphlet. Mr. BuLwER's object is to propose to the Reformers a new policy, which shall defeat the new policy of the Tories. He establishes by a set of undeniable propositions, that ever since the Easter holydays the Tories have deliberately and steadily sought to return to power with a majority in the House of Commons, by means of creating disunion and apathy in the Whig-Radica! ranks ; he shows very clearly that the Tory aim will be accomplished, unless measures be adopted for re- storing hope, union, and energy to the Reform party ; and defines the immediate aim of hts Van, which is to keep the Tories out of • "The I wes, th. Governmetv.atul th Country" . A Letter to n Coastituent ox the Present State 01 AiLiri. ise Briny Lytton Bidets, Esq., M.P. Published by Saunders anti Utley. power, On behalf of such of our readers as are Radicals, we radly accept a proposal which cannot be unacceptable to any Whig.

But, the object defined, now comes the question of means. What is to be done in order to keep the Tories out of power ? In other words, what is to be done in order to revive the Whig- Radical union and restore its energy ? With that apparently intuitive tact which really arises from knowledge of the world, Mr. BULWER sees that something must be done—that the new Whig-Radical policy must be, not of a negative, but of an active character.

"Mere passive union is not a thing easy to maintain ; there must be some energy, some living principle as it were, infused into a body, the different parts of which are, for any length of time, to act and move together. "A few gentlemen have already begun to say, ' We cannot go on so'-4 We cannot come up to Parliament to carry measures, by our diligent support, which are afterwards to be carelessly or contemptuously rejected.'

"New it is quite clear, that if these gentlemen do not come up and carry their measures, the Lords will, even in the Commons, carry theirs. Therefore this is saying little more than 'We have engaged in a difficult contest, and have not the heart or the time to fight it properly out.' This would be a grave error. True, but I admit with you that human nature is human nature, and will com- mit errors. Men may grow disheartened, and, if they do, they will act con- trary to their interest, like disheartened men. " This is why I said we have got equally to guard against apathy and against disunion. When you ask me, then, what is to be deue? I look out for popular acts, that will establish union and prevent apathy."

How often have we, during the last few months, urged the Whigs to adopt a plan of action calculated to maintain union amongst Reformers, and so to defeat the new tactics of the Tories? In so addressing the Whigs rather than the Radicals, we did but anticipate Mr. BULWER. Of necessity he applies to the Whigs for that " living principle" of union—for those "popular acts" which, by inciting and stimulating the Reformers, would keep the Tories out of power.

" That there are Whigs and Radicals supporting a Reforming Government, is only a natural occurrence, and can occasion no dangerous division ; but for

the Government to be wholly Whig and a great part of its supporters to be wholly Radical, though any quarrel would be fatal to the interests of both parties, may possibly, as you say, occasion quartel.

"I will not deny, therefore, that the Government might stand more firmly, and consequently act more boldly, if, supported by Whigs and Radicals, it were more completely the representative of Radicals and Whigs.

" Including, as it does include, both parties, (for what are Sir J. Hubliouse, Mr. Poulett 'Thomson, Sir II. Parnell ?) it might find it advantageous to admit, neither party making a sacrifice, the principles of both parties. "1 have said in another part of this letter, that the very nature of Reform is to beget divisions. It might be well, therefore,for a Reforming Gorern,nent to have a basiscongenied with its nature, and calculated to be as little shaken as possible by those circumstances which are inherent in it. " When the Tories first set up fut Reformets, they found the necessity of this; for their long Administration could not have lasted a day, but for the Catholic question being considered an open question.' This was the fundamental ques- tion of Reform on which they differed amongst themselves, and therefore they declared that their opinions on the question should not be considered ferenees.'

" The great question of Reform on which they were at variance was left open by the Tories. "The great question of Reform on which we vary might be left open amongst the Liberals. 'What 'Catholic Emancipation' was to them—' an open ques- tion '—Ballot and Triennial Parliaments might be to us—open questions. There would then be no longer a party in a party. One gentleman would not be called the leader of the Radicals, nor another of the Whigs. Lord Mel- bourne, equally liked by both, would be the leader of Radicals and Whigs."

We have placed this extract here, with a view rather to the agents than to the means of Mr. BULWER'S proposal. It is the Whigs alone who can furnish the " living principle" of Whig- Radical union and energy. They must take a step—the step, as we said last week, not of becoming Radicals, but, negatively, of ceasing to be Tories on certain questions. The Radicals, on the other hand can do nothing; they have only to forbear. If the Whig maximum come up to the Radical minimum of "popular a point of utiiutt—ull that is desired—will be attained. If the Whigs give enough for Whig-Radical union, let not the Radi- cals require one atom more. Let the Whigs, in adopting a maxi- mum, have regard to the minimum of the Radicals ; let the Radi- cals, in adopting a minimum, endeavour not to surpass the probable maximum of the Whigs. And here Mr. BULWER, who is neither a mere Whig nor a mere Radical, but a Whig-Radical or Radical- Whig, addresses both parties with great skill and. effect. He compares political reform to religious liberty ; showing that, in both cases, from the moment when opinion breaks the chains of authority, there must be endless differences amongst those who agree in the main principle of innovation. He therefore concludes that Reformers, whether in religion or in politics, have no means of union but in the plan of give and take. We said as much last week, and therefore refer with pleasure to Mr. BULWER'S view of the subject as enforced by comparing Reform to the Reformation. "If Whigs and Radicals are to form one party next session, they must give and take." This, our own expression, would have been a suitable motto for Mr. BULWER'S pamphlet. Let us yet hope that the principle thereby indicated may become the means of a new Whig-Radical union.

Mr. BULWER sees that there are some other conditions of a powerful Whig-Radical union, besides those which would take the shape of Whig neutrality on certain questions or Radical forbear- ance on others. It is necessary to encourage as well as to unite Whigs and Radicals. When the Whigs use their official power in favour of Tories, they not only discourage their friends, but they encourage their enemies.

"Well, suppose Ballot and Triennial Parliaments open questions, what else it to be done? You ask me how a wise general usually combines and cheers the forces he commands? You bid me remember that this was Cwsar's great art, and also Napoleon Bonaparte's; and you say that their science consisted in a very simple rule, uniformly practised, that of favouring and promoting those who served under them. Nay, lest I should not be swayed by heathen or mili- tary examples, you point even to the Church. You ask, how Protestantism was founded? how maintained? Low Christianity itself was adopted by Constantine, and our churches spread over the Eastern empire ? I re- cognize the argument, and admit its force. I am not one of those who see no talent and no merit out of my own political circle. There is no man in the House of Commons who feels a sincerer respect for Sir Robert Peel than I do ; I do justice to his talents, his eloquence, his indefatigable in- dustry. I repeat, no person admires more sincerely, and yet no person has opposed him more.steachly. Why ?—Because I differ from his opinions. I carry out this rule, then to men whose abilities are less and whose senti- ments are the same ; mid, keeping Sir Robert Peel from office, I woulu not advance his adherents to place. It is not that I love exaggerated sectarian and party zeal. In ordinary times, I might, in favour of a particular class of eminent persons, whose connexions give them naturally sonic political bias, but whose nature and whose lives distract them from favour of such men I might, in ordinary times, be loth to enforce that general rule of official exclu- sion which I think should prevail against political opponents. But in times like the present, when two parties, professing two perfectly distinct creeds, are struggling for power, there never has been, there never can be, any other policy, in order to maintain your own credit and weight and respectability with the public, than to advance your own friends alone. For many years persons pro- fessing Liberal ideas were marked men ! I remember seeing a letter when on the Consular Committee, from Lord Castlereagh, in which he says—all persons even filling the subordinate and professional office of Consul should be well- known for their opinions.' Well, Lord Castlereagh and his opinions are gone by ; Liberal ideas and the persons representing those opinions have now their turn. Not to employ men who coincide with those opinions, and who have been excluded for them, is to betray a want of confidence in the ability of your own adherents, or a want of courage in braving your opponents. Either case is a manifestation of weakness. I adopt, then, without any disrespect to Tory talent or respectability, in the very strongest sense, the doctrine which I see pretty generally advocated as to the conduct that should be pursued by the Re- forming Executive in the distribution of its patronage and employments."

" It may therefore be requisite for the Ministry now to exercise their executive right with a vigour proportionate to that with which the Lords exercise their legislatorial rights. The Commons have placed them in power, and are at war with the Lords. The Government may say, ' we cannot force the Lords to pass your laws ' • ' but then the Commons may reply, you can prevent the partisans of the Lords from having any of your patronage. " Since a party policy and a decided policy is pursued against the Govern- ment, let a party policy and a decided policy be pursued in the Government. No favour is to be expected from the Lords : all power should be taken from the Tories."

Though Mr. BLTLWER does not say so in precise terms, yet we imagine that he mentions Ballot and Triennial Parliaments as examples only of those questions which, for the sake of Whig. Radical union, ought to become " open ;" that be would not ex- clude any one from office under a Whig-Radical Government, who can never vote against an Extended Suffrage or Peerage Reform. If so, we think that he has acted wisely, with a view to getting his principle of Whig-Radical union understood and approved, in avoiding any specification of the terms of a new Whig-Radical compact. If the principle should ever be agreed upon, the terms will be easily arranged; and there may be a better chance of agreement upon the principle, if neither party put the cart before the horse by beginning I with details of execution. We there- fore consider it a merit in Mr. BULWER, that he dees not treat Peerage Reform as (to use our own term last week) "a practica- ble measure." Taking this course, however, be is naturally led to tax his ingenuity for some plan by which a Whig-Radical House of Commons should be able, without Peerage Reform, to overcome Lordly opposition to all measures of Reform. And here again he contents himself with an example.

" But we have powers, if we mean to engage with the Lords, which are as completely in the hands of the Commons as the measures I have before spoken of are in the hands of the Government. We have powers which a majority of one will enable us effectually to use.

" The Lords, to avert the exercise of such extreme powers, have rarely used their own powers in any extreme way. They now choose to do so. They choose to refuse their sanction to all laws coining from the Commons, and they say they have a right thus to act. There is, by the by, a beautiful saying of Lord Bolingbroke, in respect to rights and powers, which I wish to call to their Lordships' attention.

"'Even the infinite power of God Almighty,' says Lord Bolingbroke, 'is limited by his infinite wisdom.' "So I say of all human yower ; it should be limited by its wise and dis- creet use, without which it has no divine sanction, and can have no long duration.

" The Lords, however, choose to use their rights violently and indiscreetly; they choose to maintain a species of government in Ireland that can only be up- held by the sword. This is their right. But what is ours ? Why, we, if we choose, can put the sword into the scabbard. " If they will not sanction those laws which serve to establish just and peace- ful government in Ireland, we may refuse that army which can alone support a government of injustice and force. " With the measures that are to procure permanent tranquillity, we may couple the appropriation of that part of our revenue which is now employed in maintaining the temporary dominion offorce. " Ilere we infringe no rights of the constitution, no rights of the Lords. We stand upon our own rights—handed down to us by our forefathers. Nay, we use against the Barons the very weapon which they, the Barons, formerly used against the Monarch. Neither would any shock be given to credit. The only thing stopped would be the payment of a military force for maintaining bud government in Ireland. We should only in fact be reducing our Army Estimates. I do not say that this is a thing lobe done without great caution on the one hand and great provocation on the other. It should not be at- tempted without a certain majority in this, and a greater majority in the next House of Commons. But this is a thing which can be done by our majority of the Commons alone, and might consistently be done in support of the measures which that majority have voted. I merely indicate one of their prerogatives—a specimen of the power which, for cases of extreme necessity, the Constitution awards to the National Representatives."

Hitherto all suggestions for stopping the Supplies, as a means of bringing the Lords to reason, have involved the anomalous proposal, that the Executive should, as it were, take part against

itself. But Mr. BULWER'S plan contains no such self-contradic- tion. Certainly, it would not ill become the King's Ministers to propose such a reduction of the army in Ireland, as should com- pel the Tories to consent to the government of Ireland by gentle means. The novelty of the suggestion consists in this, that it points out a way—perhaps the only way—by which the King's Ministers could take part in using the ancient and constitutional power of the Commons over the public purse as a means towards preserving the Constitution as it is. But all depends on the revival of the Whig-Radical union. In order to adopt this or any other plan for dealing with the Lords, Ministers must be the leaders of a thoroughly-united majority in the Commons. Without such a majority, they will soon be in a position under which there would be nothing inconsistent in their pursuing the old-fashioned methcd of stopping the Supplies. It is only as Ministers,—and unless they revive the Whig-Radical union, they must soon be in opposition,—that Mr. Be LWER'S plan can ever be of service to them. At this time every political speculation ends with the question—What is to be done in order to keep out the Tories ?

We have not room to notice several other points in Mr. But- Imes letter, which really deserve attention; but we may probably recur to them. There is one, however, on which we must find space to say a few words to-day.

Mr. BULWER, speaking of the Spectator, says, "I quote from a journal [we omit some merely complimentary expressions] which is the one that shows perhaps the least attachment to the existing Government." Then what does Mr. Bur.wzit show to the present Government? We look upon him as one of its best friends. Friends who warn of danger are seldom agreeable, but they are nevertheless amongst the best of friends. Mr. BULWER but re- peats and enforces the warning which we have urged upon Minis- ters ever since their danger, now seen by everybody, became apparent to us. The Whig-Radical union has now to be restored; some months ago it might have been preserved. If Mr. BULWER think that restoration will be as easy as preservation would have been, he may believe, not that our attachment to the present Go- vernment has been less ardent than his own, but that we showed it prematurely.