The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JAN ITARY 'l6, 1854.

A.RICET NE WS-(THIS DA Y.

SHARE MARKETS.-(THLS DAY).

100 Aberdeen
100 Do., No. 2, 7 p. c...
30 Blyth & Tyne 10 pei
ct. pref. (iss. at.£so;
100 ristol & Exeter 4pi
cent., 5t0ck..........
5 Do. Do., shares

BRITISH RAILWAYS.

Paid) RAILWAYS.

'Closing Prices
Saturday.

Basinessdone I St.
this day.

.

b: 100 'Aberdeen ..... 19.
0 4Ambg. Nottng. Bost
Eastn. June.
0 all Belfast & Ballymena
4 all 'Birmug. Wolverh.
Stour Valley
1 28 IBirkenhd. Lanesb. &
Cheshire Junct
7i all Do. Chest'. & Birk.,
£5O & £25 Cons._
2 18i Do., £2O
5 30 Blyth & Tyne original
£25 (iss. at £45)
L. 100 Bristol & Exeter
t. 100 ,Caledonian.
0 all ,Chester & Holyhead
0 all Cork and Bandon
0 all 'Cork, Black. & Pass
0 12 'Cornwall
0 45 iDublin&BelfastJunc
5 all Dundee Perth &Aber-
deen Junction . .
5 all pc). New
5 all 'East Anglian (£25 L.
& E. & L. & D.).._
g all Do., (£lB E. & HO_
0 all ,Eastern Counties
ft. 100 EasternUnion,A.stk.
It. 100 IDo., do. B
5 82 Do.NewA(lateThirds)
100 'East Lancashire
-
100 Edinburgh & Glasgow
0 3a Edinh. and Peebles_
>t 100 Edinb.Prth.&Dundee
1 Forth and Clyde June.
100 !Glasgow & S. Western
100 'Great Northern Stk..
100 IDo., A. Stock
\
100 IDo., B. Stock
100 :Gt. Sth.&West.(lre)
100 (Great Western.._„,
11 Irish South-Easters.
all Lancaster &Carlisle..
11 Do., Thirds ~
100 Lancash. &Yorkshire
17A Do., Fifths
111 Do., Wst. Riding Un
all Leeds Northern
all Liv.Crsby.&Southpt.
all London & Blackwell
Lond. Tilb. & Stheud.
100 Lond.Bright&S.Cst.
100 London &N. Western
12 Do. Fifths
1 D0.,16/.5h.,M&8...0
22 Do. Eighths
100 London & &Western
411 Do., £50........
34 Do. £40........•
all Ludndrry.&Coleraine
all Lndndrry. & Enuisk.
100 Mancla.Shef.&Lineln.
4 Do., Man. &Lin. Un.
100 Midland
100 Do. Birmin,g & Derby'
47 AlMidland G. West. (Ir. )
17 Do. 2 Shares
all Newcastle & Carlisle..
100 Newmarket...
5 Do. Bury Extensions
172 Newpt.Aberg.&Htfd
7 Newry & Enniskillen,
all Newry Warreupointl
& Rostrevor
100
3 Northn. Counties Un
100 North British .....
16 North Devon, No.l
11l Do., No. 2 •
all Dc., 2 A Deferred...
8 Do., B Guaranteed
all North London .....
1.1 N. & S.Wstn., Hamp-
stead, and City Jn..l
172 North Staffordshire..
all North Western........
10 N. &S. Westru. June
1 Nuneaton, Hinckley,
and Leicester
100 Oxford Worcester &
Wolverhampton
2.2 Portsmouth
100 Scottish Central
100 Scottish Midland
100 Shrewsbury & Birmg
100 Do., L. &N. Westu
Guaranteed Stock
10 Shrewsby. & Herold.'
all Shrewsby. & Chester'
(Nor. W. Min.)
all Do. Halves, do
all Do. Gswestry .........
6i Shropshire Union....
Do. A, B,C, &D, fully'
paid up at per cent.
all South Devon
00 South Ea5tern.........
all SoulL Wales
15 S. Yorksh. River Dun
5 Do.
2.2 Staines,Wok.,SzWok
all Stockton & Darling
16i Stockton & llartlepl.
100 Taff Vale
8 Do. £lO shades
1.00 Do. Pref., No. I_,
20 Thames Haven Dock
and Railway.— .....
17 Vale of Neath.........
all Waterfa. & Kilkenny
all, Waterford&Limerick
14 West Cornwall.. 1
1 West End of London
and Crystal Palace..
all West London
51s. Wmbledou &Croydon
100 York Newctl. &Berw.
20 Do. Extensions.......
hlz Do. G.N.E. Purchase
100 York '& N. Midland..

100 'Caledonian £10......
all Chester & Holyheac
Guar. 5. per cent...
6,1 Cork&BandensAp.c
all DundeePerth&Aber.

- ...
100

- 94

all Ideep Junction
EastA nglian (£3los;

Ca
4
5} 5

10 d

6 per cent ..
all Do. (,1;5) 7 per cent..
2 Do. (£7l7s) 7 p. ct..
all Eastern Counties Es•
_ _

18
5d

tension, 5 p. c. No.l
all Do., No. 2.............
all Do., New 6 p. c. St..
all Eastern Union, Scrip
Guar. 6 per cent....
all Do. £lO Deben. Sh...

lh - 130
lh -
13 - 144

96
53
—15 a
15

100 EastLancash. 6p. et&
all East Sr, West Yorksh
_ _ _

- ...
- 45

Junction Fifths
all Edinb.Prth.&Dundee
4 per cent.
100 Glasgow & S.Western
guar. 5 per cent.
100 Great Northr 5 p.c.
100 Do. sp. c.,Redeem.,
at 10 p. c. prem
10 Do. 4 percent. Scrip
4 Gt.N. of Scot. ,lst Pre
all Gt. Southn. &Westn.

2i -

1118 - 120

108 - 110
P

(Ireland) Eighths...
2 Do. 4 per ct. pref. St.
6 Gt. Westu. (Berks &
Hants Ex. 5 p. c.)..
100 Do. con. & red. q p.c
100 Do. do. 4 per cent...
100 Do. irredeena. 4 p. c.
6 Lan. dr York. F. £2O?
100 Do., 6p. e., Stock... 1
13 Leeds Nn. 6p. c. No. 3
9 Do. Quarters,lB4.B...
100 London and;Brighton
Guaranteed 5 p. c...
100 Do. Pref., sp. c. St.
all Do. Convertible, sp.
c., 1852 ......
100 Do. New Guar. 6 p.c.
• 100 Loud. & N. W., Coy.
& Nun., 5 per cent.
5 London &S. Western,

8 - Si

6i -- 7
101 -- 103
95 -- 100
98 -- 100
id -- par
140 -- 142

2i - 3

121 12
7i
10
par

140 - 142
-

•1/

23 :-- ii

100 - 102 1
' II - i P
..9,i - 7:0

15 - 161
- 101
12 - 14
d- iP

23 - 24
17 - 19
1i - t 1
94 - 97
3t -

Agua Fria ...
Anglo Austrin. Gold
Anglo Californian
Australasian

Australian
Australian Cordillera
Australian Freehold
Ave Maria
Baden (Gd. Duchy of)
Blmnarvon Iron and

Coal
British Austrin. Gold
British Iron
Brazilianlmp. (issued
at 25 pm
Do. Cocaes & Cuiada ''
Do. St. John Delßey :.
Carsons's Creek
Cobre Copper 9
Colonial Gold
Copiapo
Copper Min. of Eng. I
Do. Pref. 71 p. cent.
2
English and Austin.
Copper Smeltg. Co.
General..
Gt.NuggetVeinScrp
Do. Registered
Great Polgooth
Lake Bathurst
Liberty
Linares
Lond. &Californ. Gold
Quartz Crush. Co
Dlariquita
Mexicau&S.Amerien
New Granada
New Linares Mining
and Smelting Co
Nouveau Mondo
Pontgiband Silver
Lead Min. & Smelt
Port Philip
Quartz Rock ,
Rh ymney Iron
Do. New
Santiago de Cuba
South Australian
Tin Croft ...... ....... ,
United Mexican •
Waller
West Granada
West Mariposa
'Worthing Mining o:
Australia
Yuba

St.
10
St.
25

FAIR PLAY FOR PRINCE ALBERT.

energetic self-command, than we have a right to
expect from the husband of the Queen of England.
And why should not we, too—the public—bide our
time ? We write on the 16th of January. We
know that, in fifteen days more, the great Inquest
of the Nation will assemble. Six hundred and
fifty-four persons of every imaginable variety of feel-
ing and opinion, will then meet to deal with any
and every matter of public interest as duty and
inclination may prompt them. Surely, if there be
so much as the shadow of a shade in these charges,
some one of them will then find it out. Possibly,
we may then, too, discover what " M.P." is made
of ; and somebody, we doubt not, will be there
to hang a calf-skin on his recreant limbs. But as-
suredly, *and at all events, these charges, if they
live so long, will then come to their trial. If the
gauntlet be thrown down, the Ministers must take
it up—the truth must be known. Why not wait
until Tuesday, the 31st ? Justice asks it ; and pa-
tience will not be severely taxed.

( From the Morning Chronicle.)
Twelve months ag6, nothing could be more bril-
liant than the popularity of the Prince Consort.
At the present moment, it seems, so far as the pub-
lic journals afford a criterion, to be overcast. Was
the vane right then, and is it wrong now ? or wrong
then, and right now ? or right, both then and now?
That is to say, has the Prince deserved both our
admiration and applause then, and our dislike
now?

The censures in which some of our contempor-
aries have, for the last fortnight, been dealing so
liberally, purport to be founded on certain allega-
tons, to which they have as liberally given cur-
rency. Some of these allegations have been to the
following effect :—That the Prince occupies a seat
at the Council-table of the Queen ; that he is com-
monly present when the Ministers have audience
of her Majesty ; that he is by birth a foreigner ;
and that he has relatives abroad, with whom he
corresponds. Of these propositions, some are
known to be true ; and with respect to the rest,
we are tempted to ask whether, if they are true,
they constitute a ground of charge against him ?
Let us pluck up our courage, and look at them one
by:one.

PRINCE ALBERT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,---Some member of the Carlton Club has put
forth a laboured argument to prove that his Royal
Highness Prince Albert is legally incapable of being
a Privy Councillor, and he further seems to lay some
stress on the fact that the Prince was never sworn.
As I happen to know something of these matters,
I wish to prevent any misconception, on this point
at least, from taking root in the public mind. AR
attentive examination of the quotations from dif-
ferent statutes brought forward by the Caritonian
critic will satisfy any one that they prove the case
against himself. I will endeavour, nevertheless, to
make it still more clear. The acts for naturalising
Prince Albert were copied word for word from those
for naturalising Prince Leopold when he married -
the late Princess Charlotte, in virtue of which he
was made a Privy Councillor on the Ist of July,
1816, with the sanction of Lord'Eldon, then Lord
Chancellor. By the Ist George I. it is directed
that no person shall be naturalised unless in the
bill for that purpose a clause is inserted declaring
that such person shall not thereby be enabled to be
of the Privy Council, &c. In the case of Prince
Leopold and Prince Albert, respectively, bills were
first brought in, enacting that acts 'for their natu-
ralization, without the clause or particular words
directed by the statute of George I. to be inserted,
might be exhibited and brought into Parliament.
The way being thus cleared, subsequent acts were
passed in the case of each Prince, enacting that he
should "to all intents and purposes whatever be
deemed, taken, and esteemed to be.a natural born
subject of this kingdom, as if he had been born
within the realm, any law, statute, matter, or •
thing to the contrary notwithstanding." The
question then reduces itself to this,---whether a
person born out of the realm may be made a Privy
Councillor ? In the case of Prince Leopold, Eldon
was Chancellor, and Garrow and Shepherd, Attor-
ney and Solicitor General ; in that of Prince
Albert, Lord Cottenham was Chancellor, Lord
Campbell, Attorney, Lord Truro, Solicitor Gene-
ral. The opinions of the whole Carlton
Club would hardly prevail against such a
legal array as I have quoted ; and those
who might question the authority of the great
Whig lawyers will hardly refuse to defer to that of
Lord Eldon. With regard to Prince Albert not
having been sworn, the person who made the remark
is no doubt ignorant that members of the royal
family are introduced into the council, and are not
sworn. I have some doubt whether such has been
the usage with regard to every member of the royal
family, but it certainly has been as to the sons of
the sovereign, and to her consort, when a queen
has been on the throne. The precedents of Prince
Leopold (though the Princess Charlotte was only
presumptive heiress), and of Prince George of Den-
mark were followed in the case of Prince Albert,
both of whom were introduced, and took no oaths.
The late Duke of Sussex, whom I consulted (in refe-
rence to Prince Albert's being made a privy coun-
cillor), informed me that the usage was to consider
the King's sens as being Privy Councillors from
their birth, to be introduced into the Council when
the King thought fit; and that they were never
sworn ; but that more remote relations were sworn
like other Privy Councilors, and that he was him-
self introduced in his father's lifetime, and took no
oath ; but subsequently, on the accession of his bro-
thers, George IV. and William IV. (when the whole
Privy Council was re-appointed), he had taken the
usual oaths. I myself administered the oaths to
him and the Duke of Cumberland on the accession
of Queen Victoria, but I am not satisfied that I was
right, according to use, in so doing.
I am, Sir, yours obediently,
C. C. GREVILTM.

The meetings of Council, at which the Queen is
present, are attended by Cabinet Ministers and by
the Prince ; but not by Cabinet Ministers and the
Prince alone. All Privy Councillors newly sworn,
though not confidential advisers of the Crown, in-
variably remain during the transaction of business ;
and the officers of the Household, when Privy
Councillors, are also present. And certainly it
does not seem wholly irrational that, if the relation
of a Chamberlain or a Vice-Chamberlain to the
Queen's person is such as to bring these function-
aries into the Council Chamber, the Queen's hus-
band should likewise be found there. But, when
there, does he take part in the deliberations ? Does
he know the secrets ? As much as the Prime Mini-
ster—that is, not at all ; and for the simple reason
that there are no secrets and no deliberations. If
our contemporaries wish us to march two centuries
backwards, we shall find that the meetings of the
Council in the presence of the Sovereign had a real
and material bearing on the affairs of the country ;
and we have read, in the writings of Mr. Anstey,
pious longings for the revival of such a state of
things. But, as a matter of fact, these meetings
are now meetings of pure form, without either de-
bate or conversation and the business transacted
at them is never confidential, but open to the pub-
lic eye-4-commonly before, always immediately
after, the proceedings. And yet upon this airy
basis the ingenious hands of certain journalists have
contrived to raise a pretentious fabric of misstate-
ment against the Prince, and of delusion in the
public mind.
But then it is said, the Prince is present when
the Queen sees her Minister in private. Let us
assume—for there is not evidence of the fact before
us—that this is true. If true, is it, or is it not,
matter of blame ? Consider the position of 'Queen
Victoria as a woman and Sovereign. At any time
she may be required, in consequence of votes of
Parliament which she cannot influence, to part
with advisers whom she may have long and inti-
mately known and to take to her daily councils,
on points the most vital to herself and to her
people, a body wholly, or almost wholly, composed
of entire strangers. This is no extreme suppo-
sition. The case has happened within the last two
years—it may at any time happen again. Well,
our Queen is married. We desired that she should
take a husband who should be virtuous, prudent,
and intelligent. She took one who was also ac-
complished, informed, able, and energetic, in a
degree which, whatever his original sphere of
life, must have raised him to distinction. We
speak the simple truth, which hundreds can at-
test, when we say that, in Prince Albert,
high natural abilities have been improved by sin-
gularly careful and assiduous culture, to a rare
point of excellence ; and the public has always
believed that the conscientious activity of his
character was tempered by a prudence no less
remarkable. Is it right, then, is it natural, is it
possible, that a wife so charged with labour and
with care should debar herself from the assistance
of a husband so endowed ? We are certain that
the voice of England will answer in the negative.
And if the Queen is not to be shut out from her
husband's aid, we ask, with equal confidence,
whether it is Letter that such aid should be given
by one who has no direct cognizance of the advice
tendered by a Minister, and who declares his own
opinions when that Minister is absent—or, on the
other hand, that what he suggests or asks should
be suggested or asked before the man who must
answer to Parliament for his acts, and who also
knows himself to be backed by the full power of
Parliament in making good his ground, even in the
presence of the Sovereign? We pretend to no
special information on this or any other of the
points to which we are alluding. We do not raise
the question whether, if the Minister thinks it
right to communicate with the Sovereign alone, he
is not entitled to demand a private audience.
But we unhesitatingly assert that, if the Prince
is present when the Queen confers with her ad-
visers, and if his presence is found to be disadvan-
tageous to the public interests, we are not left
without a remedy ; for the Minister is as distinctly
responsible for the safety of those interests in this
as in any other matter, and he is bound, on his
responsibility to Parliament, to decline compliance
even with a personal wish of the Sovereign, when
he believes that his assent would be injurious to the
country. Let us add that the self-proclaimed foes
of secret influence are, in our judgment, really doing
all they can to bring that monster into, active
vitality. What state of things can possibly go so
far towards rendering secret influence a mischievous
necessity as that which the authors and abettors of
the present outcry appear to desire ? Practically,
what they insist upon is, that the able and highly-
gifted man whom the Queen has chosen as her Con-
sort shall advise and influence her exclusively at
times when no one of the guardians of the Consti-
tution, made by law responsible to Parliament,
shall be present to watch, to measure, to compre-
hend—ay, and, if necessary, to counteract and to
set aside—that influence. •
But the allegations to which we have adverted
are not the only ones now current. It has been—
not boldly, indeed, yet broadly—stated, that the
Prince either thwarts the Ministerial counsels, or
impresses on them an anti-English character; and
that, by his correspondence with relatives and
friends abroad, he employs British influence apart
from, and contrary to, the decisions of the Queen's
advisers. Theie are very grave charges. And the
first question that naturally arises must be, What
is the evidence for them ? who is it that makes
them ? The evidence is singular—it is, it seems,
non-contradiction erected into an entity. The
chief accuser is, indeed, a formidable person—it is
some one who signs himself " M.P." at the foot of
a letter in a daily newspaper. 'But why does not
the cowardly and skulking penman of that letter—
if he has truth, or what he believes to be truth, to
tell—authenticate it by his name ? He writes,
forsooth, to recommend an English policy ; yet we
doubt if he can be an Englishman, and we are
certain he does not belong to the illustrious
assembly whose distinctive mark he thinks fit
to assume. Unless, indeed—but we forbear.
It is enough to say that charges made ,by anony-
mous or irresponsible writers, as
are if they
were made by nobody—or, rather, they are worse,
because they are made by those who are afraid or
ashamed to stand by their own assertions.
But then these accusations have not been contra-
dicted. Is there, however, a better established
rule among statesmen who care for their characters
thsn this—that, when charges are made against
them by irresponsible persons, without substantive
presumptions of
evidence, and contrary to
iiuncntradicke
truth, such charges ought to ref;
aah r n-eqo.uires defence
and that the reputation whic
against such miserable slander is not worthhas
tdneofteh,nda-ing t
? Is there one of our puobuliscamcceunseargams w em
some foul-mouthed anonym
one time or another, launched the most opprobri-
thereone among them
em
opprobri-
ous imputations of
loikfecraud Is , falsehood, corruption,
perjury, and t
who has ever P
stoo ed to reply ? If
such
is the
rule which self-respect dictates for them, and which
is sustained by public approval, can any reasonable
man say that Royalty is to come down from its
high eminence to contend with those whose prowess
impels them resistlessly to fight, but to fight only
in, and under cover of, the dark ?
VVe make an appeal, in a few closing words, to
those sentiments and • piinciples which are held to
be peculiarly English
; and we do it with the less
fear because this • journal has never been charged,
even by its worst foes, with subserviency to the
Court, and because, on the particular question
out of which these most discreditable imputations
have grown, we have pursued a course as remote
as possible from the anti-British feelings imputed
to the Prince Consort. We say, then, simply,
that, among Englishmen, in whatever rank, a
man who has earned a character by his good
conduct is entitled to the full benefit of it,
until some evidence of misconduct is produced
'against him—or, at the very least, until some re-
sponsible person is found who declares that he is
ready to produce such evidence. Now, Prince Albert
did earn such a character ; and no such evidence,
no such accuser is before the world. Had liis
Royal Highness—who, we doubt not, like every
other gentleman, feels a stain as if it were a wound—
sought, with quick impatience, to vindicate himself
against the extravagant and monstrous assertions
of nameless accusers, it would have been a proof
of a less masculine tone of character, and a less