The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-28 00:00:00

documents speak so plainly, tell the sad tale of the

deeply injured individual to whom they refer so
simply yet so forcibly, that, independently of their
legal character, they cannot fail to strike the heart
and awaken the sympathies of-every person whose
heart is in the right place, and whose sympathies
are not dead to the calls of suffering merit.
We have seen already that, in the opinion of two
of the ablest lawyers in England, AuGusTus of
ESTE is the legitimate son of the Duke of
SUSSEX, and, consequently, a Prince of the Blood
Royal of England. The most eminent lawyer in Ire-
land has declared his most decided opinion that the
marriage of the Royal Duke contracted at Rome in
1793, was perfectly valid as regards Ireland, and
that the son of that marriage is, in virtue of his
birth, a Prince of that kingdom, clothed with all
the rights and privileges of that character. We
have to-day the further evidence of two of the
most celebrated jurists of Germany, KLUBER of
Frankfort, and ZACHARIA of Heidelberg, that
whether the marriage of his Royal Highness
at Rome, or that which was subsequently solem-
nized in London, be adopted as the test of the le-
gitimacy of AUGUSTUS of ESTE, he is, to all in-
tents and purposes, by the rules of German law,
and by the usages of the House of Hanover, an
undoubted Prince of that kingdom. We venture
to assert that there never was a case of this nature
more strongly supported by law, by reason, and by

justice.
Of this truth the people of Great Britain are
more and more convinced every day, and their
powerful influence will soon be thrown into the
scale of justice, should it be rendered necessary by the
continuation of injustice. One of their noblest
characteristics is that unconquerable love of fair
play, which prompts them almost with the quick-
ness of instinct, to range themselves on the side
of the injured. Let it but be made to appear that
innocence is in danger, that justice has been with-
held where it was due, or that oppression has been
exercised by the powerful over the weak and the
defenceless, and their sympathies are roused at once;
they feel the cause to be their own ; they enter
into it with all their heart and soul, and never rest
satisfied, never relax their exertions, until they have
averted the threatened evil, or redressed the in-
flicted wrong. This is a good-I;ke quality, and of
itself sufficient to stamp the Briton with a superi-
ority over the other tribes of mankind.
It may also be remarked that the power of
this generous feeling, wben it is manifested by the
people generally, is all but irresistible. Even in
our own times we have seen it triumph over the
power of the Crown, wielded neither by a weak
nor a scrupulous hand. What was it but the
sympathy of the people, that made GEORGE IV.
quail and desist from his purpose, when he had
determined to sacrifice a Queen whom he
hated with an intensity proportionate to
the injuries which he had heaped upon her ?
And what was the consequence of the persecution
which he had set on foot and carried on against
her ? Popular hatred of her persecutor. We do
not hold this out as a threat to the parties who have
it in their power to place the son of the Duke of
Sussex in the position which he ought to occupy.
We merely state it to illustrate the fact that there is
no rank or station in life which can either exempt
the possessor from the performance of high duties,
or protect him from the consequences of neglecting
them. One of these consequences is the alienation
of the 'affections of the people.

We have received the following letter, which we
insert, as it affords us an opportunity of correcting a
mistake into which other persons, besides our cor-
respondent, may perhaps fall. We beg leave to
asseire our correspondent that there is nothing in
the
,Ohjection started by him to the validity of the
Duke of SUSSEX'S first marriage. By the common
law of England minors may contract marriage ; but
the 26th George IL, c. 33, commonly called the
Marriage Act, took away that right. That Act
however was confined strictly within the limits of
England. English minors may go to Scotland—as
they frequently do—and contract marriage, which
will be good in England. Besides, the Royal
Family are expressly excepted from the operation
of that statute. Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY'S na-
tive domicile was Scotland, and therefore the pater-
nal consent was not necessary to render her mar-
riage valid. By the canon law, which is the rule
of marriage at Rome, paternal consent, though held
to be decent and proper, is not deemed essential.