The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-02 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAt.
(From the Chronicle.)
The Times returns again and again to the departure 1
from precedent in the Royal declaration, announcing
her Majesty's intended marriage. " The terms of Queen
Victoria's declaration," we are told, " afford just cause
for public alarm. They violate precedent, and under
circumstances calculated to excite a general suspicion
that purposes not entertained before by any British Go-
vernment for at least 140 years are connected with the
peculiar form of this recent declaration in the minds of
those who have officially framed it." And we are again
favoured with the declaration made by George 111. to
his Council :-
1‘ Having nothing so much at heart as to procure the
-welfare end happiness of my people, and to render the
'same stable and permanent to posterity, I have ever
since my accession to the Throne, turned my thoughts
towards the choke of a Princesscciu fora consort
hsotrta, after
;tandl
now, with great satisfaction, acquaint
the fullest information and mature deliberation, I am
come to a resolution to demand in marriage the Princess
Charlotte of Mecklenburgh Strelitz--a Princess distin-
guished by every eminent virtme and amiable endowment,
whose illustrious line has constantly shown the firmest zeal
for the Protestant religion, and a particular attachment to
my family. I have judged proper to communicate to you
these my intentions, in order that you may be fully ap-
prised of a matter so highly important to me and to my
kingdom, and which, I persuade myself, will be most ac-
ceptable to all my loving subjects."
It would seem, from the care with which this declara-
tion is placed before the public, that the terms of it,
mutatis mulandit, must be inflexibly adhered to in all
cases. "No departure" is to be as much the watch-
word as the "No surrender" was in the sister island.
The Times marks with italics the words, " whose il-
lustrious line has constantly shown the firmest zeal
for the Protestant religion," as if to mark that
no Protestantism will go down which is not inhe-
rited in an unbroken descent from the very com-
mencement of the Reformation. German nobility
would be satisfied with nothing short of six-
teen quarters ; but for the Protestantism of an English
royal marriage, sixteen quarters will not do. It must
be shown that the illustrious line has constantly shown
the firmest zeal for the Protestant religion. Another
passage is not marked by the Times with italics ; but
that we suppose is an oversight. George the Third
says, " I have ever since my accession to the throne
turned my thoughts towards the choice of a Princess
for a consort ;" and, of course,lour Contemporary would
have Queen Victoria declare, that " ever since my ac-
cession to the throne, I have turned my thoughts to-
wards the choice of a Prince for my consort." Such
an avowal, it is true, might seem not very recon-
cileable with the modesty becoming the sex and age
of our Sovereign. But what is the violation of mo-
desty, compared with the violation of precedent ? No.
thing will satisfy the Tories but a declaration from the
Queen that her thoughts have been running constantly
on a husband—that this consummation has been the
subject of her daily med.tations, and of her nightly
dreams. Such aro the absurdities in which we should be
involved by an adherence to precedent. The people of
England and Scotland are strongly attached to the Pro-
testant religion, and firmly impressed with the belief
that that religion would be in danger were a Roman
Catholic on the throne, or a Roman Catholic the Con-
sort of the Sovereign. Were they to see the slightest
ground for doubting the sincerity of the Protestantism
of her Majesty's Consort, they would be justified in
giving expression to their apprehensions, that the danger
might be averted while it was yet time. But they are
fully aware that, in this case, ground for doubt or sus-
picion there can be none. The Protestantism of Prince
Albert, and his illustrious line, is as much a matter of
notoriety as the sun at noon-day. Prince Albert is not
only a Protestant, but directly descended from the first
Protestant Prince. His ancestor, John Frede-
rick the Great, Elector of Saxony, secured to
Europe the blessing of the Reformation. The family
fought for the Protestant religion, and, having lost their
dominions in that great cause, the constant spectacle of
a Catholic Prince ruling over Saxony was not calculated
to moderate their zeal for Protestant or their repugnance
to Catholicism. In fact, even when the fortunes of the
Cobourg branch were at the lowest, and necessity com-
pelled members of the family to seek employment under
Catholic Austria, there is not an instance of a change
of religion ; though conversions from Protestantism to
Catholicism have been by no means unfrequent with the
German Princes. But we are told to " look at the
qnestions of mixed marriages, and the education of chil
dren the issue of mixed marriages, throughout the
Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and Russia.
Do not the discussions of these questions threaten
with danger the Protestant interests in Europe ?"
But what have we to do with the question of mixed
marriages ? Mixed marriages have taken place in
Germany, ever since the peace of Westphalia.
under various arrangements. Till the late mis-
understanding between the King of Prussia and
the Archbishop of Cologne, princes and subjects ap-
peared to have laid aside all jealousy on account of re-
ligion. The Protestant people of Saxony have, for
nearly three hundred years, been under a Catholic
Prince ; and the Catholics of Silesia have always been
among the most faithful subjects of Prussia. But, in
England, the intended marriage is not mixed ; and,
whether the people of the Continent do well or il ie
tolerating mixed marriages in Royal houses, the case
does not affect us. The Protestantism of both parties
is beyond even the breath of suspicion. Are we to frame
our Roy al declarations, net with reference to our own
affairs, but the affairs of other countries ? What ground
can there possibly be for suspicion that any purposes
were contemplated by the declaration to which an ex-
ception may be taken by the most rigid Protestant 's
But it is not enough that Prince Albert is a Pro-
testant, and that the line of descent from the Re-
formation downwards has been uninterruptedly Protes-
tant ; it is necessary that none of his relations should
ever have changed their religion, or suffered their
children to be educated in another. "Oa the part of
the family. it would be desirable to have their assur
ante that they were one and all attached to the Pro-
testant interest ; that in case any mixed marriagesibad
been made by them, there has beon no surrender of
conscientious Protestant scruples either to convenience
or ambition respecting the education of the issue of
such marriages." This is carrying jealousy a great
way. We fear there are few princely families of Europe
who could comply with this new Tory test. The en-
forcing such a test would literally debar Queen Victoria
from marriage altogether. It used to he said of the Ger-
man Princes, that, in order that religion might be no bar
to disposing of their daughters, they taught them no re-
ligion whatever, so that they might adopt the reli-
gion of any husband, whether Catholic or Protestant.
There has, at all events, been a great interchange be-
tween the Catholic and Protestant Princes in the way
of marriage. so that there is hardly a Prince who could
show that every branch of his family has either pro-
fessed the same religion, or entered into no marriage in
which the children were brought up in a religion diffe-
rent from his own. But really this is sad cavilling. The
intended husband of our Queen is a Protestant, and the
nation knows that he is a Protestant ; and the most
determined Protestant can have no ground for appre-
hension from the marriage. Of what earthly consequence
can it be to the people of Britain, as far as the security
of Protestantism is concerned, whether the religion of
the intended consort is alluded to or not ? The Royal
declaration would neither have added to nor strengthened
the security which depends exclusively on the religion of
Prince Albert, and not on the declaration itself. That
declaration leaves the religion of the Prince where it was.
(From the Times.)
Ever since the publication of Adjutant-General Sir
John Macdonald's letter of the 20th of November,
conveying from Lord Hill, as Commander-in-Chief, a
sharp reproof to Colonel Thomas and the other officers
of the army who attended the dinner of the Conserva-
tive Association at Ashton-under-Line, we have been
waiting, not without curiosity, to see what correspond-
ing manifesto would be issued by Lord Minto for the
guidance of the navy. Observe the tenor of Sir John
Macdonald's missive. He addresses it to Sir Charles
Napier, the Major-Gen. commanding the district in
which Ashton is situate, and desires him to convey to Col.
Thomas and the other officers present at that meeting
the expression of Lord Hill's "most pointed and de-
cided displeasure, reminding them, that as military
servants, they are bound to confine themselves to
their military duties, and that when they thus ven-
ture to connect themselves with any party associa-
tion, under any circumstances or upon any pretence
whatsoover, they incur a heavy responsibility, and ex-
pose themselves to the heaviest blame." Lord Hill
thinks it scarcely necessary to add, that the prohibition
to attend party meetings, in their military capacity
(except when on duty and in aid of the civil authorities
of the country), applies to the officers of the army at
large." We entertain no manner of doubt that the at-
tendance of officers of the army, of a
oranybody else,
at any Conservative meeting, is very disagreeable to
the Ministers, and very unsatisfactory to the Court
But, if the practice be a dangerous and unconstitu-
tional one, how is it that Government themselves had
thought proper to take the benefit of it not one fort-
night before the Ashton meeting! Ay, the Ashton
meeting, at
3whtihe h
of Coloneloeetbe r
;Tahnodm
onlyas attended,before took
place on the 30th
imt,eounththdn
einl7etrh,
price
ofthe3.
verys6 d
~ samehe l
dm
,o,nftohr,
the
at
wPeofretis,-.1
purpose of celebrating the return of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer at the late election for Portsmouth,
and of enabling the Reformers of the town to demon-
strate their attachment to the cause of progressive re-
form," there were present, aiding and abetting the pro-
ceedings, as a Baring partisan, and a .` progressive re-
former" that distinguished naval champion of old Eng-
land's lwanhda'tsev weoroodtehne W higgery, Admiral Fleming. There lie
1 was, helping down
ietaheeiesshtheeeplisbehreaalidst;
eafntdhe totreoetntterrase, o:
may have furnished to his three-and-sixpenny custo-
mers, and returning thanks to the company for their
" compliment to that service in which he had spent
the best part of his life "—an ambiguous expres-
sion, which, in that Whig-Radical society, answered
quite as well for the electioneering as for the naval