21 JANUARY 1854, Page 16

Ittttro In tot Cahn.

THE QUEEN, THE WIFE, AND THE NATION.

Sin—The English nation just at this time is placing itself between the horns of a dilemma. Religion teaches us that the relation between husband and wife should be that of mutual confidence advice, and assistance to the best of their mutual abilities. Yet in the highest example of all, that of the occupants of the Throne, it is held to be a high crime and misdemeanour that this confidence should exist. It is gravely assumed that in this case the relation of husband and wife should cease to exist in the most important circumstances, and in which wise or unwise conduct may be pregnant with benefit or mischief to millions of human beings. It is quite true that the marriage injunction is, that the wife shall abandon father and mother and cleave only unto her husband, and, vice versa, the husband shall cleave only unto his wife; but, practically, mothers and fathers and friends are not abandoned, and it would be held as a reproach to children thus acting. The intimate domestic relations existing between the Queen and her husband have been one large source of their popularity in very contrast with former occupants of the throne ; yet these in their highest confidence are required to be suspended at a moment's notice, and a system of reserve set up, because it is supposed probable or possible that the business of the nation may be- come known to connected Continental families ! A Christian duty is to be broken through in deference to a supposed evil. An impossibility is re- quired. It is demanded that the husband of the Queen shall be excl'ided from the presence of his wife while she transacts public business with the Mi- nisters or Council, for fear lest he should communicate it to his foreign friends. Just as if he could be prevented from acquiring the information by other modes than listening to the speakers, if so disposed. In the first place, it is not to be supposed that a gentleman would betray a secret confided to him. In the next place, there ought to be no secrets to betray. But for this odious system of secret diplomacy, the reputation of princes could not be subject to attack either by malevolence or by mistake, and it would be impossible for them to be placed in a sinister position. Our Kings and Queens are prohibited from intermarrying with their own country- women and countrymen from a traditional allegation of its being a sovereign specific against civil war, and they are thereby subjected to the imputation of being affected by other than English interests. The policy of a nation is surely not a matter requiring secrecy. Rather should it be a matter of open discussion and proclamation. Only thus can the nation be united in its purposes. And it is only the policy of private council which can be the object of private information with a view to thwart it. A policy openly proclainied by a government and sanctioned by a na- tion would cease to be a back-stairs affair, subject to all kinds of misinterpre- tation. It was the secrecy and treachery in the opening of important post- office letters that caused the scandal, not the fact ; for assuredly it is compe- tent to a nation to take into custody an enemy's letter, just as well as an enemy's person, though the betrayal of unfortunate exiles to foreign despots by such means is abhorrent to English minds. A policy regulated by the laws of universal justice never needs concealment. The execution of that policy is another matter, and it may be convenient to conceal the time and manner till it is achieved. In our treatment of thieves we make no secret of our policy under the laws we have enacted—we mean definitely to punish the thief; but as a step to the execution, we do not tell the specific thief ex- actly when and where we mean to take him into custody. Potentates breaking the laws of nations are robbers, and no terms should be kept with them. If the great council of the nation (which should not be privy) determines that they are robbers, there can be no harm in the whole world knowing it; and from robbers the power of doing mischief should be taken. In the matter of Turkey the Emperor of Russia is a robber —raptor, a taker by violence of what is not his own ; and security should be taken against his repeating the violence. If his friends give him informa- tion of England's policy and will, with a view to patch up a peace by the restitution of the spoil, while he keeps the exclusive possession of the Euxine as a scene for future violence, they are no friends to England. As we did by China, throwing it open to the commerce of the whole world as a compensation for much less wrong than has been perpetrated by Russia, so should we now do—throw open the Euxine to the commerce of the world, and make of the Danube a public highway, with no barrage of its mouth. Only thus will the Principalities be secure against the future attempts of Imperial Russia.

It is to be hoped that when Parliament meets this question of secret diplomacy will be handled in debate with a view to its extinction, and the removal of all future temptation to thwart the national will, and the promul- gation of unfounded rumours. We are not Venetians, but Englishmen- singleminded, and not duplex ; and we shall best baffle diplomatic despots, by outspoken truth, which they, cannot understand, though their peoples may. Cosmos.