The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-10 00:00:00

administered by the Head of the Royal House. The
Queen no doubt is empowered by the act to give her
sanction to such a marriage as is proposed ; but that
sanction is plainly intended to be the exception and
not the rule, and so the act has been interpreted
ever since it was passed. And as another method is
at the same time provided for taking the sense of the
nation on the subject, there is some reason in the
Queen's refusal to exercise by herself a dispensing
power which has never been exercised before. So
the question, in one shape or other, still comes hack
to the public, and if the match of the Princess and
the Peer is finally broken off, it will be because the
public voice insists, or is supposed to insist, on that
result. The public ought therefore to look at the
matter thoroughly, and decided deliberately on what
it thinks fit to be done. The Royal Marriages Act,
the 12 Geo. 111., c. 11, upon which this question
turns, is very broad and very simple. It enacts that
no descendant of George 11., male or female (other
than the issue of princesses marrying into foreign
families), shall be capable of contracting marriage
without the previous consent of the Sovereign, sig-
nified under the Great Seal and declared in council,
and that every marriage without such consent shall
be null and void to all intents and purposes what-
soever. But there follows a proviso that in case any
such descendant of George 11., being above the age
of 25 years, shall persist in his or her resolution to
contract a marriage dissented from or disapproved
of by the Sovereign, then he or she may, on giving
notice of such intention to the Privy Council, con-
tract such marriage on the expiry of 12 months after
notice given, and the marriage in that case shall
stand good, unless before the:expiry of the 12 months
both Houses of Parliament shall expressly declare
their disapprobatiou of such intended marriage. It
may be observed in passing that these rules may
have some curious effects on the status in English
law of not a few foreign princes. The exception
in favour of the legality of marriages without
consent under the first clause applies only to
the issue of princessesimarried to foreigners, and
it does not extend to princes who may reside
abroad, even though they become sovereigns in their
own right. It was decided in the Duke of Sussex's
case, in 1844, that the fact of the marriage being
abroad does not render it valid, if without consent.
So all the descendants of male members of the House
of Hanover will be, to the last generation, bastards
in the eyes of the English law-makers ; they are the
issue of marriages to which the assent of the Crown
of England has not been duly given under the Great
Seal. So also Prince Alfred, when he comes to the
ducal throne of Saxe-Coburg, must still take care
that he has his marriage duly approved of in Eng-
land, or his sons and daughters will certainly in-
herit nothing over which English courts have con-
trol. These instances are, however, not merely
curious, they are instructive. They show the re-
markable results to which family pride will lead
when it blindly pursues its object. George 111. did
not contemplate the severance of Hanover from the
British Crown, nor the establishment of principali-
ties in the person of his great grandchildren. But
if these are instances that would have been ex-
cepted, if foreseen, because of their importance, may
it not be very fairly pleaded by the Princess ary
that her case is one that would have been excepted
because of its unimportance ? For it was not for his
cousins that George 111. so urgently desired to legis-
late. The occasion of the act was the marriage of
two of his brothers to private ladies—the Duke of
Cumberland to Mrs. Horton and the Duke of Glou-
cester to the Dowager Lady Waldegrave. Mere
family pride was the avowed reason that-moved the
King. There is a letter to Lord North, in which he
says, " I expect every nerve to be strained to carry
this bill. It is not a question relating to adminis-
tration, but personally to myself ; therefore I have
a right to expect a hearty support from every one in
my service, and I shall remember defaulters."
When the bill was in committee, he desired the
Minister to furnish him with a list of those who
voted for its amendment, or stayed away, " which
will be a rule for my conduct in the drawing-room
Jo-morrow." But undoubtedly it was not the
gratification of this personal feeling that was the
reason assigned by the supporters of the measure
lin Parliament. Their argument was that it con-
cerned the nation that no hasty or improper match
should sully the stock whence its rulers might spring.
And therefore, whether we take the Royal object of
preventing the introduction to Court in the position
of near relatives of persons of too humble birth for
that honour, or the public object, of preventing the
degradation of the throne by the mesalliance of one
who might conic to it, the Princess might reasonably
urge that her case is beyond the intention of the act
and the purpose of its promoters. She stands but in
the relationship of cousin to the Crown, and she has
no human chance of being the mother of sovereigns.
This she might plead even if her lover were of family
less distinguished that that of the gallant admiral
who won his peerage in the service of his country.
But we will not suppose that she will acknowledge
there would be question of any mjsalliance in her
case, and it is far from our intention to suggest that
there is. after all, indeed, the question is not his-
torical, • but personal and present. What George
111. meant or wished, or what induced the Parlia-
ment of 1772 to pass the bill, does not in the least
absolve us from considering it as if it were fresh
and new. There is no prescription il.2t runs in
favour either of expediency or wrong, and we /I:l2st
account the Royal Marriages Act to be both right
in itself and expedient at this day before we can be
justified in either enforcing or maintaining it.
THE " EXAMINER" ON FUGITIVE FACTS.—There
was some time ago a very amusing account of a
journey in quest of Hicks's Hall, the standard from
which miles were measured on the north-east road.
A hundred miles off every one knew all about
Hicks's Hall, what sort of a place it was, what its
style of architecture, and where it stood, but exactly
in proportion as the inquirer made his approaches
he found less and less known about Hicks's Hall,
the knowledge diminishing with the distance, and
when he got within ten or twelve miles of the place
he found the most complete ignorance of Hicks's
Hall, and on the spot itself, where it should have
stood, not a trace of its existence. The search for
Hicks's Hall illustrates the evasiveness of facts com-
monly called stubborn, but which better deserve the
name of slippery things, We know all about a
thousand things while we are all a long way from
them, and credit distant report ; but as we get
nearer the certainties disappear, and at last, as with
Macbeth and the air-drawn dagger he attempts to
grasp, we have often to come to the conclu-
sion " there's no such thing." How well we
all once knew our Roman History, when there was
no question about dates and no close and narrow
investigation of alleged facts resting •on tradition.
But what is our knowledge now ?—how reduced,
and how much uncertainty about the little left.
The inquirers are exhausting everything. How
pleasant was the stow of William Tell, the tyran-
nical Gesler, the apple on the boy's head, and all.
Well, Tell is dismounted from his historical pedes-
tal, where he stood so long and so honourably, and
served to point so many a moral, and he is remitted
to the realm of fable. And events the most recent, -
and which would be thought the most susceptible of
easy and positive proof, are matters of dispute.
For instance, where did the Duke of Wellington
and Blucher meet after the battle of Waterloo ?
What fact can be simpler and more strongly
marked for remembrance ? There are three or
four different accounts of the place of meet-
ing, and the Duke's own account does not'
settle the question. With the wonders of
nature a similar process of destruction is
going on. Where are Scylla and Charybdis with
their poetic dangers so agreeable to the, imagina-
tion ? Where are the sterner and mightier horrors
of the Maelstrom whose roar could be heard twenty
miles off, and from whose whirlpool no ship ever:
escaped which had once been drawn into the vortex?'
The Maelstrom is a humbug, and not half so for-
midable as Portland or Alderney race. It is simply
a quick tide at certain hours, with a ground swell.
While long established facts of good repute are
vanishing, or changing into fiction, the world is
getting smaller and smaller, so that before long the
range of belief will be most limited and meagrely
furnished. For there are no new crops to supply
the place of the destroyed. We are making dis-
coveries of our ignorance which threaten to leave us
little or nothing else. The credulity of people is,
indeed, in such want of food that it snatches at
spiritualism faute de mieux. We want a Columbus
to find a new world for us, but apropos of that great
man the most extraordinary part of his discovery
was that he did not discover his own discovery. He
believed he had got to India in some strange way
without passing China, and he always mistook the
main land of America for an island, and the islands
for the main land. And from the error of Columbus
the primitive natives of America bear the name of
Indians. How difficult, indeed, it is to grasp a fact
even when it is as big as the American continent.
The much respected and lamented Sir George Lewis
was a great searcher and destroyer of received be-
liefs. He sifted and winnowed history with such
success as to reduce to a mountain of chaff what
had passed for precious grain. And he was always
after some Hicks's Hall. He went in search of
advanced ages, and found them not, , or found them
dark ages. ad he lived he would have explored
young ages with the same result. Young or old,
there is no truth in ages. The Dowager Lady Cook,
who remembered Johnson, and was, as a woman of
wit, justly proud of recording his speech to her,
"Molly; dear, you are a fool,"—this lady, who died
of dissipation at ninety-five, used to complain of the
world's injustice to her age, for " when I was
young," said she, " they would not believe how
young I was • and now that I am old, they will not
believe how old I am." And we have not a doubt
+hat Sir George Lewis would have shaken her last

pretension, and left her not a leg of longevity to
stand upon. There are many stages of untruths
about age. Boys and girls try to make themselves
out older than they are. Young men and young
women, and the middle-aged of both sexes, fib in
the opposite direction. The aged do the same till
they come to a certain pass, when they begin to
bounce about their long recollections, and to clap
some ten or twenty years on their grey heads. There
seems to be no exactly, truthful period about ages.
It is curious that people are vainer of their age than
of their looks. In understating their years they
make themselves appear to wear ill, or to be old in
looks before their time. It matters not up to thirty
or thereabouts, but after that the looks are tell-tale,
and "faeies tea computat annos." A battered beau
used to wear a wig excellently imitating the head of
hair of a youth of twenty. The effect was hideous.
The wig and the haggard face were perpetually
giving the lie direct to each other. Some good
genius suggested to the old fellow that nature even
at three score and ten could not be mended by art,
and he left off his wig. There was then a consist-
ency, a harmony between his worn features and his
grey hair, and he appeared a really good-looking
old man. A learned German has written a book tO
prove that the natural age of a healthy well-con-
ducted man is five score, and Brodie maintained
that we were all made like clocks and watches, to
live a certain time, long or short, of course barring
accidents and disease. He attributed his own lon-
gevity to having always had a very small appetite,
but one of the most extraordinary old men of the
present•time is remarkable for a very great appe-
tite. Brodie, however, was small and slight,
and the gifted eater to whom we allude is
large and stout. But the German theory of
five score, which it would be so pleasant to
accept, encounters the usual scepticism, and
examples are demanded. And here we have Hicks's
Hall over again. Every one is ready to vouch for
some one or more of a hundred. Few villages are
without some old man or woman boasting five score.
But when it comes to proof, the evidences always
break down. We do not mean to deny that there
are ages of a hundred, some there must be and sus-
ceptible of proof, but most of them rest on evidences
which would not be admitted in a court of law ;
and for one true instance, to be made out or not,
there are a hundred feigned.
THE " SPECTATOR" ON THE LAUENBURG " PRO-
TOCOL."—The very curious document called the
" Protocol of the twenty-second sitting of the
Estates of the Duchy of Lauenburg," just published
in the Gazette of Ratzeburg, tells the world a good
deal. The' protocol" is really a formal report of
the results of certain interviews between the repre-
sentatives of Lauenburg, Herr von Bismark, and
the King of Prussia, to decide finally upon the dis-
posal of the Duchy, and is oddly frank in tone. The
Duchy, it appears, is willing enough to accept the
King of Prussia as Duke, but it had rather not be
absorbed in the general Prussian system, wishes a
guarantee for some of its privileges, and is exceed-
ingly averse to paying any taxes whatever for its
own " liberation" from the sway of the Danish
House. Of course the rulers of Prussia being be-
yond all things dynastic, and anxious for the
aggrandisement of the House of Hohenzollern, do
not object to the first of these requests. The King,
said the Prussian Premier, was not at all averse to
reign in Lauenburg, as he once reigned in Neufchatel,
by a separate title, the arrangement having the ob-
vious convenience that it places Lauenburg out of the
reach of people like Herr von Sybel. True, the Cham-
ber, which would have to find the money for the war,
might object to this disposal of the spoil, this stulti-
fication of the dream of Prussian aggrandisement,
or, as the draftsman mildly puts it, the " subject
might be brought forward in the Prussian Parlia-
ment," but Herr von Bismark sees " no reason to
fear opposition in that quarter," which must be
satisfactory to Prussian Liberals. This statement
was made on the 7th of November, and three days
after was confirmed by the Royal mouth itself. The
King told the Estates, though he was greatly sur-
prised at their confidence in himself, he was willing
to accept their allegiance, and thought that any
slight " diffiCulties, such as hereditary claims, or
protests from German or European States, would
be easily overcome." There was in fact only one
real obstacle, and that was the necessity "for coming
to an understanding with the Emperor of Austria."
Everything else, including the opinion of Parlia-
ment, of the Diet, and of Louis Napoleon, was un-
important, but annexation must wait till " Austria's
consent has been obtained." As to the expenses,
the King said nothing about a matter so insignifi-
cant, but Herr von Bismark had previously informed
the Estates that they were at liberty to protest on
I that' head without being punished, which they ac-
cordingly have done, with great relief; let us hope,
to their minds, but we fear with no more subkantial
result. For, gracious as-King and Premier were,
they showed pretty clearly that they intended to
govern Lauenburg, and not simply to administer
the constitution of the Duchy. The Estates, some-
what timidly, as we guess from the way they have
worded the report, ventured to hint to Herr von
Bismark that they should like some kind of a
guarantee for their constitution and privileges, not
apparently attaching implicit faith to promises which
when made to Prussia itself had been so shamelessly
broken. Suppose, they hinted, the " new relations
of the Duchy" were placed under the guarantee of
German Diet. One can almost see Herr von
BismArl,;.'s face suddenly clouding over as he listened
to the unaecf.ntable proposition. Money is one
thing, though 13eiThi is thrifty and the Treasury by
no means too full, buy the Royal power is quite
another,—something which .states must not even
protest'? against. The suggesti(39, must be " defi-
nitively rejected, as his Majesty the King would
never submit to any such control." It might, who
knows ? be necessary for the King-Duke to enforce
in Lauenburg, as in Prussia, his pet dogma
that the " throne is the legal pivot of power,"
and to give the Diet the power of interfering with
absolutism, of interpreting popular rights, of
sitting in judgment on coups d'etat effected by
Kings and Junkers, was clearly impossible, and we
only wonder it was not pronounced sacrilegious.
The deputies retired, satisfied that the King of-
Prussia would graciously accept their country, but
doubtful about the constitution, and so uneasy about
the taxes' that they protested formally against any
future demand. This conversation establishes very
clearly the fact that the House of Hohenzollern, or
at all events its present head, is a great deal more
anxious for its own power, and dignity, and extent
of dominion than for the contentment of Prussia or
the unity even of Northern Germany under one
sceptre. There never was an arrangement made
more grossly unfair to a great people than this
transfer of Lauenburg to the King of Prussia. His
. people fought the battle, surrendering their liberties
to do it, in order first of all to liberate a German
race from what they believed to be thraldom ;
secondly, *to increase the power and territory of
Prussia ; and thirdly, to help forward as far as they
might the ultimate unity they desire. Those may
be bad objects or good objects, wise or foolish, but
they are those for which the people shed their blood
and spent their money. Yet . the moment they are
apparently attained the King" refuses to carry out
the popular will, and takes Lauenburg, not for
Prussia, not for that empire in which Prussia is one
day to merge, but for a personal appanage, giving
his people in return for their sacrifices nothing but
the reflection that their King is a little more inde-
pendent of them than he was before.
THE " UNION" UPON THE ENCYLICAL.—=We can-
not help feeling distressed in our inmost heart
at the position In which this circular places the
episcopacy, and indeed the whole clergy of France.
So far as we know, nothing of the kind has occurred
for 50 years. Several encyclical letters have been
published by the sovereign pontiffs ; some of them
were of a character identical, or nearly so, with that
of the Bth December—it will suffice, independently
of the apostolical letters and the allocutions of Pius
IX., to remember the encyclical Mirari nos of Gre-
gory XVI., in 1832. None have been the object
of such measures.. Hitherto, it appears to us alto-
gether without precedent that the publication of part
of an encyclical letter should be prohibited, the in-
terdiction of printing it should be notified to bishops,
and that precautions should be indicated against
observations alluding to it. As Catholics and citi-
zens we are unable to understand how the circular
of the hon. Minister can be conciliated with the
liberty of the Church and the free exercise of the
liberty of teaching guaranteed to the Catholic clergy
by the concordat of 1801, and by the constitution
of Jan: 15, 1852. Lastly, in a legal point of view,
as determined by the organic articles of the Year
X., we will merely observe, without forgetting the
protests of the Holy See, and the objections of the
bishops and juris-consults to that legislation, that
the only sanction of the provisions of Art. 1 of the
law of April 8, 1802' (18th Germinal, Year X.), to
which M. Baroche's circular refers, is the recourse
to the Council of State in the form of an appeal
against abuse of power. We will say no more.
The painful feeling which affects us need not be ex-
pressed. It will be more than justified by the re-
ception given to the circular by the journals which
we are accustomed to oppose, and from the present
moment it is already shared by all Christian con-
sciences.

THE TURN OUT OF FACTORY OPERATIVES AT
BLACKBURN.—The strike of the weavers at Messrs. Spar-
row and Crankshaw's mill, on Thursday, which threw out
of work no fewer than 990 operatives, the spinners and
minders having been stopped by the firm, still continues,
though we are happy to state that there seems a disposi-
tion on the part of some of the men to resume work. Many
of the operatives deeply regret the step which has been
taken, and are anxious to commence work even on the old
terms and with inferior weft. If a majority of the weavers
resume work the works will be kept in full operation, and
if not they will be dined.

The Recent Murder at Aldershot,

Yesterday (Monday) afternoon, Thomas Dumphy, a gun-
ner in the 9th brigade Royal Artillery, appeared before
Capt. Newcome(chairman), F. R. Thresher, Esq., and Capt.
Birch, at the Aldershot Petty Sessions, charged with having
feloniously assaulted and murdered Daniel Burns, also a
gunner, belonging to F battery, 9th brigade Royal Artil-
lery, on the 31st December.
The first witness called was Frederick Gay, a gunner in
the same battery with the deceased, who deposed—About
half-past six on the morning of Dec. 30 I was engaged,,
along with the deceased, Daniel Burns, in watching the.
prisoner, who was not exactly right in his mind. The pri-
soner got out of bed and took up the poker, with which he
began beating the floor. Burns got out of bed, and went
over to Dumphy to take the poker from him, when Dumphy
raised it and struck Burns a blow on the side of the head
with it. He reeled, and Dumphy struck him again and
knocked him down, and before he could get up again struck
him with the poker. I was behind Burns, going over to
assist him, when Dumphy, seeing me, ran to meet me,
grinding his teeth at me. I then ran and made my escape
through the window. I alarmed the guard, and we went
and broke open the door, which had been locked so as to
prevent Dumphy from getting out, and we then found the
prisoner lying in Burns' bed, quiet. The deceased was
lying on the floor.
On being asked if he had any question to put,
Prisoner, in a loud voice replied, " No, sir, I do not. I
don't know what brought me here at all."
Mr.J. T. M. Symons, M.D., assistant-surgeon, D Battery,
R.H.A., deposed that he was called to No. 7 hut, Z lines,
South Camp, shortly before seven on the morning of Dec.
30. Ho found Burns on the floor with a pool of blood round
his head and shoulders. He was severely cut about the
head, his upper and lower jawbones were broken, and
some of his brains were scattered about the floor, and
blood was on the bed. He next saw the prisoner sit-
ting quietly in bed, and there being no straitwaistcoat
near, he had the prisoner, who looked deranged and rather
wild, handcuffed. Burns was insensible, and witness ad-
ministered stimulants, but he died in five minutes after
witness first saw him.
Mr. J. T. Faught, assistant-surgeon, E Battery, 9th Bri-
gade Royal Artillery, deposed that on the 28th December
he was called to see the prisoner Dumphy, who was in one,
of the guard-room cells, the men thinking he was intoxicated.
Witness found him kneeling on the floor, with his eyes
turned towards Heaven in a devotional manner. He had
to be spoken to several times before he would answer.
Witness, finding him insane, ordered hiM to be taken to
the hospital. Next day he was reported to witness by
another medical gentleman as doing favourably. On Friday
morning, the 31st, witness was called to see Dumphy soon
after the assault on Burns. He found him handcuffed as•
described by the last witness. A mark which was found
on the breast of deceased was probably caused by Dumphy
punching at him with the point of the poker as he lay on
the ground, and his jawbones were probably broken in the
same way. He believed that Dumphy was insane at the
time of killing Burns.
The prisoner, on being asked if he had any question to
ask the witness, again said, " I don't know what brought
me here at all."
The evidence having been finished, the usual caution w-Se
read over to the prisoner, to which he made no reply, and
was committed for trial at Winchester, to the gaol of which
city he was removed the same day.
The poker with which Dumphy struck the deceased was
exhibited in court, and looked a formidable weapon, being
immensely thick, and about 61bs in weight. It was some-
what bent, the curvature arising, as it was alleged, from
the force • with which Dumphy struck Burns. The
wounds on the head were such, as stated by both the
medical witnesses, as might have been caused by such an
instrument.