MR. EDWARD BULWER'S PAMPHLET.

THE interest of the week is political : its literary curiosity is the appearance of EDWARD BULWER as a pamphleteer, and the pub- lication of a third edition of his Letter to a Late Cabinet Minister, within two days of its first issue. To this fact—which beats the ever memorable instance of Ccelebs in Search of a Wife—some other cause must be assigned than the merit of the performance alone. The reputation of the author—the known opinions of the man—and the idea, perhaps, that in these times of tergiversation on the part of the Gentlemen of the Press, one amongst them would at all events speak honestly—have had munh to do with it. The absorb- ing interest of the subject (though we were told the public was in a state of apathy) has perhaps had more. The pamphlet is well- timed ; and, according to CICERO, to speak aptly is one third part of an orator.

It would seem that Mr. BULWER was well adapted for a pam- phleteer—using the word, of course, in no derogatory sense. The want of breadth, warmth, and manly energy of manner, which de- tract from his effect as a Parliamentary speaker, are unseen in the printed page. The impatience, the dislike of labour, or the in- capability of sustaining it, which might hinder his production of a long and equably-finished work, are no drawbacks where the whole is struck oft' at a few heats. Nor has the fact disappointed the Ii priori conjecture. The Letter to a Late Cabinet Minister is one of the best pieces of fugitive political writing we have read for many a day. What is more, the literary characteristics are origi- nal : the author is rid generis ; he has more points of contrast than of comparison with his great predecessors. He has none of the concentrated energy, the disdainful and withering sarcasm, the deadly bitterness of JUNI us, or of that wit which like light- ning Bashed and 'scathed at the same time. He wants the unbounded richness of imagery and illustration, the extent of knowledge, the depth of view, the finish, the method, and the philosophy of BURKE. Neither can he vie with his living rival (in this department of letters) MACAULEY, in the neatness, num- ber, and succession of his epigrammatic points and paradoxes. But he has still distinctive marks which separate him widely from the common herd of pamphlet mongers, and from the demi-official twaddlers upon the" Reform Ministry and the Reformed Parlia- ment: The points of the question he has chosen are well selected, and admirably brought out. The satire is delicate, yet pungent; the burlesque polished, yet sufficiently broad. The illustrations from history are striking, and introduced with a simi- lar effect to that which results from a coup (fetal. The advice is good ; the views are sound ; and if they err in exaggeration, they are on the safe side. The feeling is ardent; the execution throughout animated and sparkling, and at times distinguished by some of EDWARD BULWER s happy and brilliant eloquence. The pamphlet opens well. We have first a brief and pointed comparison between WELLINGTON and MARLBOROUGH, and some sarcastic touches on the backsliding of the Tories from the true Conservative faith; with some covert but indignant hits at the invisible, untraceable, yet real intrigue.

There are two propositions which i hold to be incontestible : first, that the late resolution of the King, if sudden in effect, was the result of a previous and secret understanding that the Tories would accept office' and that his Majesty never came to the determination of dismissing my Lord Melbourne, until he had ascertained, mediately or immediately—(it matters not which, MIS how long ago)—that the Duke of Wellington was not only prepared to advise the King as to his successor, but could actually pledge himself to form a Mi- nistry. I grant that this is denied by the Conservative journals; but to what as alternative would belief in that denial reduce us! Can we deem so meanly of the Royal prudence, as to imagine that the King could dismiss one Government, without being assured that he could form another? In what an awful situation would this empire be placed, could we attribute to his Majesty, with the Tory tellers of the tale, so utter a want of the commonest resources of discretion, so reckless and improvident a lunacy! But it may be granted, perhaps, that the King was aware that the Duke of Wellington would either undertake to form a Cabinet, or to advise his Majesty as to its formation' whenever it should please the King to exercise his undoubted prerogative in the dismissal of Lord Melbourne, and yet be asserted that neither that understanding nor that dismissal was the result of intrigue. Doubtless! Who knows so little of a Court as to suppose that an intrigue is ever carried on within its precincts? Is not that the place, above all others, where the secret whisper, the tranquil hint, the words that never commit the speaker, the invi- sible writing and automaton talking of diplomacy, are never known ! It is never in a Court that an intrigue is formed; and the reason is obvious—because they 'nave always another name for it. There was no intrigue then. Why should there be one? The King might never have spoken to the Duke of Wellington on the subject; the Duke of Wellington might be perfectly unaware of what time or on what pretext Lord Melbourne would be dismissed; and yet the King might, and must, (for who can say a King has not common sense ?) have known that the Duke would accept office whenever Lord Melbourne was dismissed; and the Duke have known, on his part, that the King was aware of that loya determination. This is so plain a view of the case, that it requires no State explanations to convince us of it, or persuade us out of it." The Cabinet assure the King of their power and willingness to carry on the Government ; the House of Commons, but recently elected, supports that Ca- binet by the most decided majorities ; the Premier. not forced on the King by a party, but solicited by himself to accept office ; a time of profound repose ; no resignation tendered, no defeat incurred ; the revenue increasing ; quiet at home —peace abroad ; the political hemisphere perfectly serene ;—when lo, there dies a very old man, whose death every one has been long foreseeing; not a Minister, but the father of a Minister ; which removes, not the Premier, but the Chan.. cellor of the Exchequer, from the House of CommOns to the House of Lords ! An event so long anticipated does not confound the Cabinet. The Premier is not aghast ; he cannot be taken by surprise by an event so natural, and so anti- cipated (for very old men will die!) ; he is provided with names to fill up the

vacant posts of Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Com- mons. He both feels and declares himself equally strong as ever ; he submits his new appointments to his Majesty. Let me imagine the reply. The King, we are informed, by the now Ministerial organs, expresses the utmost satisfac- tion at Lord Melbourne and his Government ; he considers him the most ho- nourable of men, and among the wisest of statesmen. Addressing him, then, after this fashion-

" Ile does not affect to dissemble his lore. And therefore he kicks him down stairs."

"My Lord—you are an excellent man, very—but old Lord Spencer—he was a man seventy-six years old ; no one could suppose that at that age—an Earl would die ! You are an admirable Minister—I am pleased with your measures: but old Lord Spencer is no more. It is a sudden, an unforeseen event. Who could imagine he would only live to seventy-six ? The revenue is prospering, the Cabinet is strong, our allies are faithful, you have the House of Commons at your back ; but alas ! Lord Spencer is dead ! You cannot doubt my attach- ment to Reform, but of course it depended on the life of Lord Spencer. You have lost a Chancellor of the Exchequer ; you say you can supply his place-.-- but who can supply the place of the late Lord Spencer ? You have lost a Leader of the House of Commons ; you have found another on whom you can depend ; but, my Lord, where shall we find another Earl Spencer, 80 aged, and so important as the Earl who is gone? The life of the Government, you are perfectfy aware, was an annuity on the life Of this unfortunate nobleman—he was only seventy-six! My love of liberal men and -liberal measures is ex- ceeding, and it was bound by the strongest tie—the life of the late Lord Spencer. How can my people want Reform now Lord Spencer is dead ? How can I support Reforming Ministers when Lord Speucer has ceased to be ? The Duke of Wellington, you must be perfectly aware, is the only man to govern the country, which has just lost the owner of so tine a library and so large an estate. It is true, that his Grace could not govern it before, but then Lord Spencer was in the way ! The untimely decease of that nobleman has altered the whole face of affairs. The People were not quite contented with the Whip, because they did not go far enough; but then—Lord Spencer was alive ! The People now will be satisfied with the Tories, because they do not go so far, for—Lord Spencer is (lead! A Tory Ministry is necessary; it cannot get on without a Tory Parliament, and a Tory Parliament cannot be chosen without a Tory People. But Ministry, Parliament, and People, what can they be but Tory, after so awful a dispensation of Providence as the death of the Earl of Spencer? My Lord, excuse my tears, and do me the favour to take this letter to the Duke of Wellington."

We have not space, however, to follow Mr. BULWER in this manner step by step; or even to turn aside with him (for he is not always political) to his impressions of Lord MELBOURNE from youth- ful reminiscences; or to his skit of Sir ROBERT on receiving the news, and the "solemn swiftness" with which he will obey the call. We must disregard the author's order, and take up only the more striking points; such as are worthy of "much meditation," or can be turned to a practical use as a guide or as a warning. Here is a passage which settles the public morality of the Duke with the " Peel and Dawson crew" as a Reforming Ministry. It may be deemed by the liberal, that he is over nice, and every one is aware that the old-fashioned mouthing about apostates and renegades is somewhat of the stalest. For many years of the Brueswick dynasty, a gentleman was bound to his party as a matter of personal honour, and his desertion of it rendered him infamous. The story—perhaps apocryphal—that the new Lord BATH was shunned by the very blacklegs on the course, as if he would contaminate even them, conveys an idea of the feeling. When politics took higher ground, in appearance, than a mere scramble for place, and certain fundamental principles were talked about, a man might reasonably claim a right to change his opinions on a question of something like science, when be had seen or found reasons for the change. Within these last few years, the" pressure from without" has induced so many to trim a little, that "practicability" and " existing circumstances" are allowed as excuses for any decent turning. But the change of the Duke—if he has changed—is not even decent. Hear why and wherefore, from the Member for Lincoln.

There are some persons simple enough to imagine that though the Tory Go- vernment may imply Tory men, it does not imply Tory measures; that the Duke of Wellington, having changed his sentiments (no, not his sentiments—his ac- tions) on the Catholic question, will change them again upon matters like the reform of the Protestant Church, the abuses of Corporations, perhaps even Triennial Parliaments, and the purgation of the Pension List. There are men, calling themselves Reformers, and blaming the Whigs as too moderate in re- forms, not only vain enough to hope this, but candid enough to say that a Go- vernment thus changing—no matter with what open and shameless profligacy, no matter with what insatiate lust of power, purchased by what unparalleled epos. Some I assages on the possibility of military force being dreamt of follow, which seem to have been struck out on the principle of that rule in advocacy, always to look at your own case in the worst point of view, and prepare for all that can be brought against it. He then comes to the true cause of the dismissal—the Courtly fear of a real collision—the terror that the Reform of the Lords was at hand; and concludes, that in the next election this is the question to be tried, "ARE THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND TO BE GOVERNED ACCORDING TO THE OPINION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, OR ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THEIR OWN REFORM?" A supposed interview between His Most Gracious Majesty and the Prime Minister MELBOURNE follows, rich in the ridiculous, especially that ridicule wherein BULWER shines—the pushing an argument ad absurdissimum. tacy—that a Government thus changing, and therefore thus unprincipled, ought to receive the support of the People. They would give their suffrage to the Duke of Wellington upon the very plea that he will desert his opinions ; and declare that they will support him as a Minister, if they can but be permitted to. loathe him as an apostate.

My Lord, I think differently on this point. Even were I able to petsuade myself that the new Tory Government would rival or outbid the Whip

in popular measures, I would not support it. I might vote fur their measures, but I would still attempt to remove the men. What ! is there nothing at which an honest and a generous people should revolt, in the spectacle of Ministers sud- denly turned traitors by the bribe of office,—in the juggling by which men, op- posing all measures of Reform when out of place, will, the very next month, carry those measures if place depends upon it ? Would there be no evil in this to the morality of the People ? Would there be uo poison in this to the stream of public opinion ? Would it be no national niisfortune, no shock to order itself (so much of which depends oa confidence in its administrators), to witness what sickening tergiversation, u-hat indelible infamy the vilest mo- tives of place and power could inflict on the characters of public men? And to see the still more lamentable spectacle of a Parliament and a Press vindicata ing the infamy and applauding the tergiversator ! Vain for these new-light *inverts would be the cant excuses of " practical statesmen attending to the spirit of the age "—" conforming to the wants of the time "—" yielding their theories to the power of the People ; " for these arc the rery excuses of which they hare denied the validity. If this argument be good for them in office, why did they deny and scorn and trample upon it out of office ? far more strong and cogent was it when they had only to withdraw opposition to measures their theoties disapproved, than when they themselves are spontaneously to frame those measures, administer them, and carry through. There could be but one interpretation to their change—one argument in their defence—and that is, that they would not yield to reforms when nothing was to be got by it; but that they would enforce reforms when they were haul for it, that they would not part with the birthright without the pottage, nor play the Judas without the fee. I do not think so meanly of the high heart of England as to suppose that it would approve, even of good measures, from motives so shamelessly corrupt. And, for my own part, solemnly as I consider a thorough redress of her " mon- stergrivance " necessary for the peace of Ireland, a reform of our own Church. and our own Corporations, and a thorough carrying out and consummation of the principles of our Reform, desirable for the security and prosperity of Eng- land, I should consider these blessings purchased at too extravagant a rate if the price were the degradation of public men, and the undying coutempt for cousis- tency, faith, and honour, for all that makes power sacred and dignity of moral weight, which such an apostacy would evince. Never was liberty permanently served by the sacrifice of honesty.

The immediate result of our present interregnum, or the mode in which that result will be brought about, no one can very clearly foresee. We are optimists, and hope it will end, quickly and peaceably, in strengthening the popular power, and advan- cing the reform of " proved abuses." Its speculative tendencies, or at least one of them, Mr. BULWER thus states—

There are some men," says Bacon, " who are such great self-lovers, that they will burn clown their neighbour's house to roast their own eggs in the embers." In the present instance, their neighbour's house may be a palace ! For this is the danger—not (if the people be true to themselves) that the Duke of Wellington will crush liberty, but that the distrust of the Royal wisdom in the late events, the feeling of insecurity it produces, the abrupt exercise of one man's prerogative to change the whole face of our policy, domestic, foreign, and. colonial, without any assigned reason greater than the demise of old Lord Spencer—the indignation for the aristocracy, if the Duke should bead it against Reform—the contempt for the aristocracy if the Duke should countermarch it to Reform—the release of all extremes of more free opinions, on the return which must take place, sooner or later, of a Liberal Administration ; the danger is, lest these and similar causes should in time, when all institutions have lost the venerable moss of custom, and are regarded solely fur their utility, induce a desire for stronger innovations than those merely of reform.

"Nothing," said a man who may be called the prophet of revolutions, "destroys a monarchy while the people trust the King. But persons and things are too easily confounded, and to lose faith in the representative of an institution. forbodes the decease of the institution itself." Attached as I am, by conviction, to a monarchy for this country—an institution that I take the liberty humbly to say I have elsewhere vindicated, with more effect, perhaps, as coining from one known tu embrace the cause of the People, than the more vehement declamations of slaves and courtiers—I view such a prospect with alarm. And not the less so, because Order is of more value than the Institutions which are but formed to guard it ; and in the artificial and complicated affairs of this country, a struggle against monarchy would cost the tranquillity of a generation. e are standing on a present, surrounded by fearful warnings from the past. The dismissal of a Ministry too liberal for a King, too little liberal for the People, —is to be found a common event in the stormiest pages of human history. It is like the parting with a common mediator, and leaves the two extremes to their own battle.

One of the most important passages regards the conduct to be observed both by electors and candidates in the ensuing election. It is a piece of advice which should sink deep ; for we must all remember that the Duke neither can nor will give any thing. From him we shall get nothing that we do not take, and that too on the stand-and-deliver principle. Reform will be the price he pays for honour and for office. Let him have the power of deny- ing it, and who but one of your "confiding" day-dreamers can suppose that he will be permitted to yield if he would ? The re- commendation for both parties to go upon a defined understanding, is excellent.

We must not forget that we are about, in the approaching election, to have not the expectation of good government, but the power of securing it. We must demand from the candidates who are disposed to befriend and restore you, not vague assurances of support to one set of men or the other, to the pnnci- pies of Lord Grey, or those of Lord Melbourne, but to the principles of the People. Your friends must speak out, and boldly ; they must place a wide distinction, by candid and explicit declarations, between themselves and their Tory antagonists. Sir Edward Sugden said at Cambridge that be was disposed to reform temperately all abuses. The Emperor of Russia would say the same. Your partisans must specify what abuses they will reform, and to what extent they will go. The People must see, on the one hand, defined Reform, in order to despise indefinite Reformers on the other. Let your friends come forward man- fully and boldly, as befits honest men in stirring times ; and the same people who gave the last majority to Lord Grey, will give an equal support to a Cabinet yet more Liberal, and dismissed only because it was felt to be in earnest.

But even the pause in the progress of Reform is a slight matter to the possibility of reforming backwards. And now, looking only to ourselves, is there nothiug critical in the state of England?

You must remember, that whatever Parliament you elect will have the right of remodelling that Parliament. The same legislative power that reformed can unreforni. If you give to the Duk9 of Wellington a majority in the House of Commons, you give him the whole power of this empire for six years. If a Liberal House of Commons should ever go too far, you have a King and a House of Lords to stop the progress. If a Conservative House of Commons should go too far in the opposite extreme, who will check its proceedings? You may talk of public opinion—you may talk of resistance—but when your three branches of the Legislature are against you, with what effect could you resist ? You might talk vehemently, could you act successfully ; when you were no longer sup- ported by your Representatives, when to act would be to rebel ! The law and the army would be both against you. How can you tell to what extent the one might be stretched or the other increased? Vainly, then, avould you say, "In our next Parliament we will be wiser ;" in your next Parliament the People might be no longer the electors ! There cannot be adoubt but that, if the Par- liament summoned by the Duke be inclined to support the Duke, the provisions of the Reform Bill will he changed. Slight alterations in the franchise—raising It where men are free, lowering it where men can be intimidated, making it different for towns and for agricultural districts, working out in detail the prin- ciples of Lord Climbs, may suffice to give you a constituency of slaves. This is no idle fear—the Reform Transformed will be the first play the new company will act, if you give them a stage; it is a piece they have got by heart ! Over and over again have they said at their clubs, in public and or private, that the Reform Bill ought to be altered. They may now disavow any such intention. Calling themselves Reformers, they may swear to protect Reform. But how can you believe them ? "Abu Rafe is witness to the fact, but who will be wa- nes: for Abu Rafer By their own confessions, if they call themselves Re- formers, they would be liars; if they are false in one thing, will they not he false in another ? Are they to be trusted because they own they have they insincere? If we desire to know in what light even the most honourable Tories consider public promises, shall we forget Sir George Murray and the Dis- senters? Do not fancy they will not hazard an attempt on your liberties; they will hazard it if you place the House of Commons in their hands You may boast of the nineteenth century, and say, such things cannot happen to-day ; but the men of Cromwell's time boasted equally of the spirit of the seventeenth, and were equally confident that liberty was eternal ? And even at this day, have we not seen in France how impotent is mere opinion? Have not the French iust all the fruits of their Revolution ? Are not the Ordinances virtually car-

ried? and why Because the French parted with the power out of their own bands, under the idea that public opinion was a power sufficient in itself.

There are other points well worthy of consideration. The re- marks on the errors of the GREY Administration—the seemingly authorized account of the intentions of the MELBOURNE Cabinet— the obvious question, "If Reforms be intended, why was a Re- forming Ministry, willing to go on, dismissed by WILLIAM the Reformer, and an Anti-Reformer selected in their place ?'—and lastly, the observations on the probable effects of a Conservative Ministry on Irish, Colonial and Foreign affairs—are goad, but we must close our quotations.

It may be thought by some that the pamphlet ocessionally goes too far, in its tone, its determination, and its fears. We question whether resolute caution can be carried too far. The Reformers are opposed to an adversary', crafty, unscrupulous, dar- ing, and as a politician unprincipled,—one who carries into civil afiiirs the tricks and rases of military practice; having, ap- parently, by habit brought lihnself to think that tergiversation is merely a change of tactics, and treachery nothing but "masking your intentions from the enemy." his whole career as a soldier shows him to be accessible to " no compunctious visitings of nature;' his practice on the Test Acts, the Catholic question, and the Reform Bill, proves that no length of conduct, no spon- taneous and oft-repeated expressions of opinion, can safely be received as a guarantee—that neither declaration, nor pledge, nor "solemn league and covenant," can bind him. He is not trust- able. His liberal declarations—should he have made any—are most probably, like his celebrated Letter to Dr. CULTIS, a snare for the unwary. But if he is really about to reform—if the new light has actually dawned upon him at the eleventh hour and a half—if he can, like the fanacties of the seventeenth century, " define the moment of grace," and fixes it on the 15th instant— he will have no occasion to dissolve a House of Commons which has always been ready to run before the reforms of a Minister. Should he, under all these circumstances, "appal to the People," it must evidently be for their help. He will need an excuse to Ills backers for his backsliding—the prude will be inviting violence: or, to speak in another vein, his enemies had need be strong, for they will have to deliver him from his friends.