The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

the Government for having done their utmost to
preserve it.
Mr. H. Remus blamed ministers, not for seeking
to maintain peace, but for risking war and pledging
the blood and treasure of England to support a
traditionary policy and maintain the Turkish
empire iu all its integrity and all its deformity. At
best we could but postpone the dissolution of that
empire, and meanwhile were engaged in a dangerous
war, by whose result we might suffer severely,
though we could not control its events.
Mr. BLACKETT censured the foreign policy of the
Government on account of its secrecy, and remarked
that the expressions on the subject in the royal
speech were meagre and colourless.
Sr R. PEEL denounced the subtle hypocrisy of
Russia, placed great trust in the French alliance, and
drew a glowing picture of our general prosperity,
which he attributed, in great measure, to the policy
of ministers. He afterwards expatiated on the ha
portance of popular education.
Mr. HUME hoped that, before more money wAs
asked for army or navy, those services would be
rescued from their present state of extravagance and
mismanagement.
A miscellaneous discussion, turning suceessively
upon the different points suggested by the royal
speech, but of which Turkey formed always the
centrepiece, was continued by Mr. Liddell, Sergeant
Shee, Sir J. Young, Mr. Denby Seymour, and other
members.
Mr. DISRAELI followed with a speech whose topics
ran almost parallel and whose conclusions were
identical with those of Lord Derby in the Upper
House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied on some points, and
alleged reasons for reserving his reply on others.
He afterwards entered into explanations touching
the charge against the Prince Consort, a subject
which brought the debate in the Lower as in the
Upper House to a conclusion.

PRINCE ALBERT.
The first night of the session was seized upon by
the Ministerial leaders in both houses to vindicate
the Prince Consort from certain charges, or sus-
picions, which had been widely disseminated among
the public. These charges Lords ABERDEEN and
RUSSELL both characterised as " odious calumnies,"
but, for the sake of much " honest delusion " that
had arisen on the subject, they deemed it necessary
to enter into full explanations, and to meet the
allegations with a formal denial. We select the
vindication pronounced by the Premier before the
Peers
" I will for a moment advett to this odious charge, as
having assumed a sort of character of consistency which
calls on me to treat it more seriously than anything so
despicable ought to be treated. (Hear, hear.) I will just
recal to your lordships—what you have seen in the course
of the last few weeks—the persevering manner in which
these scandalous and groundless imputations have been
cast on the illustrious Prince to whom I refer. (Hear,
hear.) The house must know what are the constitutional
position and functions of this illustrious Prince ; that he
is the adviser of the Queen, in Lite capacity of her husband
and most intimate companion, is beyond all doubt. I will
not describe the manner in which this relation has been
maintained between these two illustrious persons, but I
will say that to propound that the husband is to remain
silent and see his wife in difficulty and embarrassment,
and not be allowed to give her a syllable of advice, is to
propound a very different state of that relation from what
I understand by it. (Hear.) It has been studiously
asserted that this is a novelty ; that it was Sir R. Peel who
introduced it, and that Lord Melbourne did not permit
his Royal Highness to exercise those functions which he
exercises now so advantageously for the country, for I can
only say it is always extreme matter of regret when his
Royal Highness absents himself from the Council. I
appeal to noble lords in this house, of whom there are
several who have had the means of knowing, of hearing,
of pmfitingby the wisdom, the prudence, the judgment of
his Figal Highness. I ask them to say whether, in all
they have seen or heard, a single syllable has ever emanated
from the Prince which has not tended to the honour, the
interest, and the welfare of this country ? (Loud cheers.)
It is quite possible that a person of the ability and
thought of the Prince may entertain opinions on particular
matters from which min:sters may differ: but recollect
that it is the minister only who is responsible ; and if
her Majesty should choose to follow the opinion of his
Royal Highness—which she has a perfect right to do—the
minister has his remedy ; he has but one—which is re-
spectfully to resign his position. In order to finish this
odious subject, there is one more topic on which 1 have
to dwell. What has been studiously circulated, and, I
think, more actively insinuated than any other part of these
accusations, is the interference of his Royal Highness with
the army and with the Horse Guards. Now, my lords, I
have to say, that so far from a shadow of foundation be-
longing to this accusation, it does so happen that—in the
year MO I think it was—it was a great desire of the
Duke of Wellington to make such arrangements at the
Horse Guards as would enable Prince Albert to succeed
him as Commander-in• Chief. The duke proposed various
arrangements which would, he thought, tend to render
sure his acceptance of that situation, and strongly recom-
mended it to the Queen, but his Royal Highness, with that
sound judgment which distinguished him, felt that it
. I would interfere with the duty he owed to his Sovereign and