The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-26 00:00:00

PRINCE ALBERT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
MR. EDITOR,—In your Paper of yesterday
afternoon is a long article, in which is announced
the approaching marriage of our youthful Queen.
nearly three hundred years since a reigning
The novelty of such an event (for it is now
Queen
of England selected a husband for herself ), has
given rise to various questions. Some have asked
if the Queen can dispose of her person in marriage
according to her own will and pleasure. Others
have inquired whether her husband must abjure his
own religion, and adopt that which the English
Parliaments have established. Others, again, have
impugned the suitableness of the marriage service
to the occasion, inasmuch as the Queen will have
to promise obedience to one who must obey her in
the character of subject. The above, Sir, are
curious questions. There is, however, one other
question which I should like to put, in order that
some of the Church of Englandists may be induced
to take it into their most religious consideration,
and favour your readers with their sentiments upon

it. Indeed, it is a question of so grave a nature,
as to be deserving of the particular attention of the
entire Episcopal Bench ; and, if not to be deter
mined by the Bishops in Committee, worthy of
being submitted to the whole body of the Convo-
cation. This question is—Ought the Sovereign of
these realms to be allowed to marry a person who
belongs not to any Christian Church ? Such, how-
ever, is the orthodox doctrine of our Bishops, and
of the religious establishment to which they be-
long. Prince Albert's sect or religion is devoid of
Episcopacy, therefore, devoid of what is termed
" Apostolical Succession," and, consequently, not
a Church.

Should there be any absurdity in what is here
noticed, the blame must rest, not upon me,
who has pointed it out, but upon the wiseacres
who set up that absurd and untenable doc-
trine ; according to which, our youthful Queen
will bestow her hand upon an infidel, unless
he shall first abjure the errors of Lutheranism,
and receive baptism from an Episcopal minis-
ter. Surely, Mr. Editor, you will admit that
this is a most important subject ; for when our an-
cestors established the Protestant succession, in
order to oust the Church of Rome, they never
imagined the possibility of the head of the Church
of England espousing a person belonging to no
Christian Church at all ; otherwise, we may pre-
sume that a provision against it would have been
introduced into the same statute which prohibits
the Sovereign's marriage with a Papist. I beg,
therefore, to submit to the consideration of her

_Majesty's advisers the absolute necessity of having
his matter examined thoroughly before the solem-
nization of the intended nuptials ; for it is one
which concerns most closely both our national reli-
gion and the religious feelings likewise of every
sincere member of the Church of England.
I beg leave to subscribe myself, Mr. Editor,
Your most obedient Servant,
ONE OF THE MULTITUDE.

London, Nov. 24, 1839.
[We apprehend that the Prince will conform to the
English Church, which will at once insure him all those
privileges which, according to our correspondent, do not
belong to a Lutheran.—En. Sust.]

THE RECEPTION OF THE PRIVY

COUNCILLORS.

Sir Alexander Grant has written a letter to the
Times, as " the most efficacious way of contradicting
the calumny of the Government press," relative to
the conspicuous part which he took in identifying,
the Members of the Council, and conveying infor-
mation on that point to the assembled multitude ;
and really he does not at all mend the matter.
The Sun stated that he "signalled the populace as
to what parties they should cheer or groan." Sir
Alexander admitted he was there with the Marquis of
Downshire, anxious to identify the carriages as they
came up, and when asked by a bystander the name
of any member of the Council he did not hesitate to
give it. Of course not. It would have been very
rude for one who knew them all so readily to re-
fuse, but there are many ways of doing a thing,
and the tone in which a name is pronounced may
be as good a signal from a gentleman as a groan or
a cheer. Of course the late Chairman of Com-
mittees did not bawl out like a coalheaver. A
toastmaster has no occasion to cheer ; he has
only to give the word, anti this Sir Alexander
'did; •' By the .way, would the denial not have
vbeen moue' 'convincing if the other parties had
ibined ,him in contradicting the " calumny." The,
monk and the nun contrived to pronounce a very'
bad word by what political economists call a divi-
sidi of tabour, and might not the five have taken
it a: paltiy way of evincing hostility," and Sir
Alexander be still perfectly correct in his explana-
tion ? This is a new mode of annoying the Queen
and her Ministers, invented by the Conservatives,
or rather, we believe, by a Tory Whig, Sir James
Graham, and we regret to see respectable, consistent
Tories, in the company, too, of a converted Whig
Peer, follewing so bad an example.