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

16, 1854.

FAIR PLAY FOR PRINCE ALBERT.

( From the Morning Chronicle.)
Twelve months ago, 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,
wo 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.

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. Aud 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—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 ie 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
knowstimself to be backed by the full power of
Parliament in making good his ground, oven 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 no* 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. These arc 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 ho thinks fit
to assume. Unless, indeed—but we forbear.
It is enough to say that charges made by anony-
mous or irresponsible writers, are as 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 blished
contra-
dicted. Is there, however, a better ta
rule among statesmen who care for theiresharacters
made against
thin this—that, when charges are
them by irresponsible persons, without e
substantive
evidence, and contrary to fair. presumptionsd of
truth, such charges ought to remam unco n tra icted,
and that the reputation which requires defence
against such miserable slander is not worth defend-
ing ? Is there one of our public men against whom
some foul-mouthed anonymous accuser has not, at
one time or another, launched the most opprobri-
ous imputations of fraud, falsehood, corruption
One among then;
perjury, and the like ? Is there
who has ever stooped to reply ? If such is the
rule which self-respect dictates for them, and which
is sustained
that by public approval, can any reasonable
man say 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 ?
Wein al-
e an appeal, in a few closing words, to
those sentiments and principles 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 his
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 paasculine tone of character, and a lees