NATIONAL PROPERTY, AND PROSPECTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

THIS production, which contains in a pamphlet the materials of a volume, has reached a second edition before we had found time to examine the first. We take up the new edition with its additions. The character of the pamphlet is soon told. It is very able, but

considerably Whiggish. The arrangement is excellent; there is much matter, and every sentence conveys an idea ; the opinions are expressed with strength and firmness, yet without violence; the sarcasm is keen, though polished ; the style buoyant, though weighty—that of a man whose studies have given him a mastery of language, though a knowledge of affairs has rendered words sub- ordinate to ideas. But "let the end try the man," and it will be found that his principles are those of a party whose fate is trembling in the balance ; that his opinions, with (practically) one

exception, are the same as a Tory, acting upon the theory of his party though not upon its practice, could work out.

The main divisions of the pamphlet are twofold. The author Erst considers National Property in reference to the Established Church, to Municipal Coroporations, and to the Dissenters' claims on the Universities. He then looks at the prospects of the WEL- LINGTON-PEEL Administration ; and seeing them sorry enough, proceeds to consider those of their successors. Upon the first point, he maintains that, provided we uphold the rights of the present incumbents, the Nation may apply the property of the Church and of the Universities to any purposes, if it does what is abstractedly best, and does not benefit itself at the expense of posterity. On the second, he considers all matters excepting those which the Whigs opposed when in office, and which after all are the real criterions of a Reformer.

The final test to which the writer subjects national property, is one that has prevailed in the practice of the courts. Whatever is directly touched, admits of a legal valuation, and would enable its possessor to recover damages, cannot be taken by the State unless the full value be paid for it. Thus the good-will of a shop that is to be pulled down must be bought ; any injury inflicted by the opening a new street, though equally ruinous with the razing of the premises, must be borne. The holder of an office must be remunerated; but no claim is admitted for the mere ex- pectancy of a place or a property, though the reversion should even admit of a sale. From all this the writer concludes, that the property of the English Church requires a new distribution : which the Tories are ready to grant in theory. The admission of Dissenters to the Universities he would also allow, on the same grounds : his opponents, by getting rid of the advantages that University degrees confer, would practically grant the same. To apply the funds of Corporations to their original purposes, and to give every inhabitant burgess a right of voting in matters of corporation government, might be enforced in a court of law, if the right were clearly proved and it had been exercised within legal memory : were Sir ROBERT PLAUSIBLE bard pressed, he would grant the same, and without violating principle or pledge. The only matter in dispute, then, between the possessors of and the aspirants for office, is the Irish Church. The writer on National Property, it seems, has heard that there is no surplus revenue as regards the parochial clergy. With re- spect to the bishoprics, he is decided " that the present endow- ment of the Protestant Episcopalian Church of Ireland exceeds the sum necessary for the spiritual wants of its members." He would therefore leave the surplus at the disposal of the State, for the purposes of national education. As the whole income of the Bishops is but 130,000/. a year, the gain here will not be very striking. The views on the present Prospects of the Administration and their Successors, have a greater passing interest—perhaps a more extensive reach. One of the incidental points for consideration here, is the propriety of Members of the House of Ceromons re- taining their seats on an appointment to office, and of Ministers changing their place; and the author determines that if certain offices are not to have seats ex officio, the holders of them should speak without voting. He holds that a future Ministry " must commute Tithes, relieve Dissenters from their scruples respecting the celebration of marriage, and, so far as justice re- quires it, [how far is this?] from the payment of Church-rates." He seems inclined to take away from Parliament the right of legislating for the Church, as it claims no power "over Jews, Quakers, Anabaptists, or Methodists ;" without reflecting that these are not endowed by the Nation or connected with the State. The Irish Catholic priests, he maintains, should be paid by the Government : but as he thinks that the property of the present Establishment shall not be applied in this way (even if there be a surplus), lest it should be taken as a triumph by the agitators, we suspect that he will find a difficulty in persuading Parliament to tax the people for any such purpose. He would allow Peers to be elected as Members of the Commons • but his instances for this innovation are not happy—they are Lord SPENCER and Lord BROUGHAM, who might in this way be restored to the popular assembly.

The best points this author handles arc the right of the Crown to dismiss a Ministry, and the propriety of reforming the Lords.

Here is his argument upon the former question ; whose direct or indirect consequences could never have been considered by the first ostensible mover in a matter which displayed more of animal humour than reasoning volition.

If the King is to he at liberty, merely because he thinks his Own opinion better than that of the Nation speaking through its Representatives, to dismiss a Government which enjoys the frill confidence of the House of Commons; if he is at liberty to do this at his own personal pleasure, this absurdity follows, that Isis Majesty can act without a responsible adviser on one point, and on one point only, that point being the most important one which he ever can have to con- sider. The question, who is responsible ?—for some one intht be responsible— for the sudden and total dismissal of a .Ministry, has not been decided since our Constitution assumed its present form, because in feet it has not been necessary to raise it. A Parliamentary vote or a resignation has preceded every previous change. It has now been raised, and, painful as the discussion is, it must be decided. It must be decided, not with reference merely to the present emer- gency, not as a party or temporary question, but as one of permanent constitu- tional law.

The King of course is not responsible. Royal responsibility is inconsistent with monarchical gore' nment. Of course, too, it would be absurd to fix the responsibility on those persons who may be supposed to have had private access to his Majesty's ear. The Country does not recognize such advisers, either for good or for evil. The domestic comfort and privacy of the Sovereign require tItat those who, filling no political office, are familiarly about his person, Amalfi be considered to be, as in reality it is their duty to be, uncounected with politics. The only persons on whom this responsibility can naturally, or usefully, or even practically fall, are those who are to profit by the act in question — the imme- diate successors of the dismissed Administration. If it be once understood that, whether really consulted or not, they are to be considered as having advised the measure which, by their acquiescence, they have adopted, and that no Adminis- tration fir whom a vacancy has been made by a court intrigue, or by mere per- sonal predilections or dislikes, or by caprice, or, in short, on any ground of which Parliament does not recognize the sufficiency, however personally eligible, will receive Parliamentary support, we shall return to out established system, and the events of last November will be only a warning. If, on the other hand, the present attempt is acquiesced in, it will be a prece- dent, and a precedent of more than even its apparent force. It will be a pre- cedent which will at least begin by bringing us back to the times of the Stuarts. The organs of the present Ministry have been forced to speak out on this sub- ject : they have been forced to declare, that "although before the Reform Bill, the House of Commons did in practice apparently exercise a veto on the ap- pointment of the Ministers of the Crown, the Reform Bill" (by diminishing the influence of the Crown and the Aristocracy in the House of Commons,) " has brought us back to the theory of the Constitution—the power of the King in choosing his advisers as unrestrained as Mat of the House of commons its arranging the order of its proceedings—the reciprocal independence of tire three branches of the Legislature."

This, then, is the manner in which the Tories propose to work the Reform Bill. This is Sir Robert Peel's "final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question." The influence given to the People in the House of Commons is to be neutralized, indeed much more than neutralized, by depriving

that House of all control over the other branches of the Legislature. The King is to have the same unrestrained, unquestioned power of appointing, dismissing, and changing the whole body of public functionaries, which the House of Com- mons has of deciding whether it will take motions or vetitions for its twelve o'clock sittings. We are to return to the reign of Prerogative. The King is, of course (for that is equally within the forms of the Constitution) to refuse his assent to any bill which may displease him. The Commons (for that is also the theory of the Constitution) are to commence the session by a statement of their grievances, and postpone the grant of supplies until his Majesty has been pleased to redress those grievances. The three branches are to act independently. The great edifice of Parliamentary government, which it has taken centuries to build lip, and which we fondly thought that the Reform Bill had rendered com- plete, but which even without that bill, was supposed to be, at least, secure, is to be destroyed, because that bill has diminished the influence of the Crown and the Aristocracy in the House of Commons. When the Anti-Reform ma- jority of the House of Lords allowed, by their secession, that bill to pass, E.

Standard, Monday, January 12, 18354 country little thought what was their mental reservation. Without relying much on their prudence, it still did not suspect them of so insane a scheme as that of making amends for the Reform Bill by setting up Prerogative against the People, and throwing us back, by a recurrence to what they choose to call the theory of the Constitution, to the state of things which preceded the events of 1648.

This naturally leads to the important question, What is to be done with the Lords? Upon this ground the writer is bold ; and he answers distinctly, Reform them. We take some passages from his argument; for it is a subject that cannot just now too clearly bc borne in mind, that the first demand which a Reform Minister must niche from WILLIAM the Reformer, is the power of carrying on the Government. When private men send for an engineer to drain a mine, or to effect any other object, he requires the necessary means to be placed at his disposal; if they are refused, be declines the employment. Is a surgeon sent for to a case where an operation is indispensable, and he is forbidden the use of the knife, he remonstrates, rejects all responsibility, and withdraws. In short, in private life, wherever folly requires impossibilities, it is left to accomplish them by itself. Our author clearly sees, that to carry on a Reforming Government with the present House of Lords, is impossible. Listen to his opinions

ON WHAT TERMS CAN THY NEXT MINISTERS TAX! OFFICE.

It is obvious that they cannot accept it simpliciter, without pledge or condi- tion, subject to be summarily ejected, while apparently possessing the full confi- dence of the Crown and of the People, without even a pretext that will bear a moment's discussion. Some pledge must be given, and It must be more than a mere nominal pledge ; it must consist of something more than mere words, which four months after may be forgotten, or explained away, or disavowed. It must be a pledge deriving its force, not from the giver, but from the thing Riven. It must be a pledge, not merely promising the means of good govern- ment, but actually affording them. Our readers must at once acknowledge, that only one such pledge is possible; and that is, a majority in the House of Lords. It is now admitted, indeed it has long been obvious to every impartial observer, that ever since the passing of the Reform Bill, the hostile Majority in the Lords has been the great obstacle to measures of improvement, and even of safety. While that Majority continues virtually impregnable, it is the master of the Administration, the House of Commons, and the Country. Even Sir R. Peel, attire late Mansionhouse Din- ner, promised the redress of only those abuses which can be remedied, "con- sistently with the independent action of the House of Lords." Of what use Is the expensive farce of elections, debates, and votes, if a small, compact, irre- sponsible, and practically unalterable body, can oppose, and for ever maintain,

• peremptory veto ? if the House of Lords is the ultimate court of appeal, not only on civil but on political matters, before whose tribunal the Commons are allowed indeed to debate every question, but without power to influence the judgment ? • • •

But how is this change to be effected ? Of course, in the first instance, by the use of that sole safety-valve now afforded by the Constitution—the creation of Peers. It may be saul that such a creation, though it might relieve our pre. sent difficulties, would create a permanent evil by the large increase of the titled Aristocracy. The obvious remedy is, that the new Peers, or a portion of them, should be created only for life. It is strange that a peerage, not of in- heritance, should be considered an anomaly or even a novelty. Without recur- ring to the cases of the Scotch and Irish Peers, or to the English Spiritual Peers, who sit only while Bishops, we may recall to the reader's recollection the ease of the Irish bishops, who sit only in every sixth session. Express crea- tions of English peerages for life occur in our earlier history ; and it appears that they may he legally created for even a shorter period. \Then a peerage is created by writ, it is said, indeed, to confer by law an estate of inheritance; but when it is created in the usual mode by patent, the duration of the grantee's Interest depends not on any general rule of law, but simply on the words of the grant. If a peerage be ,granted to a man and his heirs, it will descend to any of his relatives, male or female, lineal or collateral. If it be granted, like the Devon earldom, to him and his heirs male, it will embrace all his relatives, lineal or collateral, of male descent. If it be given to him and the heirs of his body, it will vest in any of his posterity, male or female; or if it be given in what is now the more usual form, to him and the heirs male of his body, it will descend only to his male posterity. If it be given to him indefinitely, without any mention of his heirs, it will cease with his life. And it has been laid down Sn the House of Lords, and by the highest legal authority, that if a peerage be granted to a man during the life of another person, it will cease on the death of that other person.

Notwithstanding the praise with which we introduced this pamphlet, we are not sure but that our analysis of its contents may give a depreciating notion of its literary merits. This we cannot help; for in a work of reasoning, the great matter, after all, is the truth of its general principles, and the practical sagacity of its views; and, tried by this touchstone, we are inclined to limit the value of the pages before us to the points on which we have -quoted it.