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

pecially not according to the Royal Marriage Act, but
must be judged according to the laws in force in that
German princely house, which is now thcreigning one
of the kingdom of Hanover. It is to be judged by the
special law of this house, and by the general law in
force in the Sovereign houses in Germany (dem gemei-
nen Deutschen Privet Fursten Recht.) For Prince
Augustus Frederick Duke of Sussex, at the period of
his, marriage with the Lady Augusta Murray, and still
is to be considered in law in two distinct qualities or
capacities—in that of a Prince of the Royal House
of Great Britain, and in that of a Prince of the formerly
Electoral, now Royal, House of Hanover. But in the
present case he is considered exclusively in the latter
quality, that is as a Prince of Hanover, and his mar-
riage must be decided upon solely and alone by the
laws in force in the reigning house of that kingdom.
Were it otherwise the kingdom of Hanover (a State
COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of Great Britain) would
be thrown eider the supremacy of British laws. Fur
the same reason the sentence concerning this marriage,
pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Court in London,in
consequence of tha Royal Marriage Act, cannot hare
the force of law in Hanover, nor can it be applied to
that house, now the reigning one of that kingdom.
No. 2. Prince Augustus Frederick has contracted
with the Lady Augusta Murray a marriage, which in
regard to its outward forms, can be proved to be valid ;
for the outward formalities attending any legal Act arc
to be decided upon according to the laws of that place
where the said Act has been completed, in accordance
with the rule " Locus regit actum." So in the first
place the stability in law (Rechtbestandigkeit) of the
marriage, which took place in London on the 4th of
December, 1793, is unquestionable, because it was at-
tended by all the formalities required by the laws of
England ; and for the fact of marriage, sufficient evi-
dence can be produced through the parochial certifi-
cate, proof sufficient, according to both German and
English law. But in consequence of the peculiar quality
of one of the parties, the marriage in question is like-
wise to be held valid in regard to its outward forms,
from the written promise of marriage given by Prince
Augustus Fredcric (bearing date the 21st of March,
1793) and followed by the cohabitation of the parties ;
also the said marriage is to be held valid in regard to its
outward forms from the holy rites which were solemnized
at Rome, on the 4th of April, 1793, because a Prince
of any of the German Protestant princely houses, accord-
ing to the German laws in force in the year 1793, was
entitled to marry, by a contract alone," Solo Consenszt,"
and ihis abroad as at home—evidence sufficient at
least, according to the German rule of Courts (Process-
rcehte) can be produced of each and of both these facts.
Na. 3. That Augustus of Este was begotten in wed-
lock can only be questionable in regard to the solemni-
zation of the marriage in London, on the 4th of Decem-
ber, 1793, but the German law, in consonance with that
of England, declares that every child, which is born after
the solemnities of matrimony, is the legitimate child of i
parents. . .

No. 4. According to the laws which must be
plied to this case, the validity of the marriage depends
neither upon the consent of the parents of the Prince,
nor upon his being of age. The Royal Marriage Act
cannot be viewed in the character of a law of the house
or family statute, and in such quality be brought for-
ward to oppose the validity of the marriage now under
consideration ; for the said Act, by the formalities
which it enjoins, and by the tenor of its words, can
only be applied to the re:gning family of Britain ; it has
never been published by t he King of Great Britain in his
character of head of the reip,ning family of Hanover, nor
has it through any particular declaration been
made qf force in regard to this House. Besides, ac-
cording to the German Privat Fursten Recht, Prince
Augustus Frederick cannot be considered as a minor at
at the time of his marriage. And according to the same
law, the parents of the Prince were those ALONE who
were competent in any way to impugn a marriage which
lead been contracted without their consent.

No. 5. According to the general law in force in the
Sovereign houses of the German empire, such marriage
is only a mis-alliance (missheirath) as has been con-
tracted between:a German Prince (Furst) the reigning
Lord, or a member of his family, and a consort who is
not of the nobility (mit einer Burgerlichen). But on
the other hand according to the said law, and according
to the most modern practice, such marriage is an equal
marriage (eine ebenburtige Elie), which has been con-
tracted between a German Prince and a lady who
des ends from old nobility, (Nobilitatis Avitee), UNLESS
an EXPRESS STIPULATION TO THE CONTRARY APPEARS
in THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Not only is there NO
DEPARTURE from the law by the especial ones FOR THE
HOUSE OF HANOVER, but it is actually CORROBORATED
by the marriage of Duke George William of Bruns-
wick Zelle, the father of the consort of George 1., of
Great Britain ; beyond all this the mother of Augustus
of Este, was of one of the most illustrious houses of the
high Scottish nobility, indeed, in relation to the Island
of Man, she was of a Sovereign house. The lineage
of the Lady Augusta can in every respect be compar,:d
to those mediatized families amongst the German
Princes, to which the Federal Act explicitly secures the
right of equal birth, Ebenburtigkeit.
From what has preceded, it directly follows that,
not only the status of a legitimate son of his parents,
namely, of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex,
and of the Lady Augusta Murray, belongs to Augustus
of Este, but also that he is entitled to claim the titles,
the dignities, aad the rights which belong to a son be-
gotten in an equal marriage al a Prince of that house
which reigns in the kingdom of Hanover. •

IN THE MATTER OF GOULD alias
NICHOLSON.

Ever since the acquittal of the above person at
the:late Central Criminal Court Session, upon the charge
of the murder of Mr. Templeman, inquiries are made
continually as to the probable destination of the paety.
We have• been incessant in our endeavours to ascer-
tain facts connected with Gould, but his case is in-
volved in considerable mystery, and some particulars
have been stated which at present we arc not at liberty
to divulge. Gould has been an inmate in the Giltspur•
street Compter ever since the verdict was returned in
his favour ; but he is not a prisoner, and might depart
at any moment he demaniled his liberty, as no detainer
of any kind is lodged against bins. After his trial,
it was considered, that as the public mind was ex-
cited against him, his person might be in danger
if he was turned destitute on the world,
hence the Sheriffs humanely offered him his present
asylum, which he gladiy accepted. It is not generally
known that Gould was an inmate of the Compter for six
months in the year 1838, upon the conviction at the
Old Bailey of stealing a sheep, or rather " a carcass of
mutton." Gould intimates that there are two persons
connected with the s inguinary deed, and he appears to
have a predilection in favour of one of them in pre-
ference to the other, because be has said that if he was
certain A. would split against 8., he (Gould) would
testify against the former, if he was sure that it would
not affect the latter. It is hoped, and some are sanguine
enough to believe, that eventually he will make a dis-
closure to satisfy the ends of justice, inasmuch as Lis
future destiny in a great degree depends on it.—Moni-
ing Herald.
In our paper of _last week was a paragraph stating
that Richard Gould, who was tried for the murder of
Mr. Templeman, was still detained in Newgate, on a
charge of having stolen a watch belonging to one of
the officers of the regiment to, which he belonged, and
that Government had offered not to press the charge
provided he would consent to transport himself from
this country to New South Wales. The fact is, that
Gould on leaving Newgate the day after his trial took
place, not having any home to go to, was, at his own
request, conveyed to Giltspur-street Compter, where
he has since found an asylum, and where he still re-
mains, with a view to a ship being procured for his
transit to another country. It is stated that this pro-
ceeding has taken place at Gould's own request, and
that Mr. Alderman Pirie has offered him a passage in
one of his ships. Numerous reports have been pro-
mulgated that Gould made certain communications
respecting the mysterious murder ; such, we can posi-
tively state, is not the case.—John Bull.