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

THE StiN, LONDON. TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1840.

The separation of the parents of Augustus of Este,
during which Document E was written, continued
until the year 1799, when they again came together
at 3erlin, and lived together as man and wife ; the
honoured mother of Augustus of Es received from
visitors, and from all the members of the household,
the title which was consequent upon tier being the
acknowledged legal and equal wife of the Electoral
Duke.

Shortly after their meeting at Berlin, they removed
to London, where they continued to live together as
man and wife until the end of 1800, when, in con-
sequence of asthma, the Duke was obliged to go to
Lisbon for milder air.

Whilst at Berlin his Electoral Highness executed
Document F, a holograph will and testament, which he
revoked by Document G, also a holograph will. They
are both nearly word for word the same, and both con-
tain the following passage :
" Whatever unforeseen events may yet follow; and in
discharge of that duty which I feel incumbent on me, I
think it requisite and just for me to declare, in this my
last will, that I was solemnly and duly married to Lady
Augusta Murray, second daughter of the Earl of Dun-
more, on the 4th day of April, in the year of our Lord
one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, at the
city of Rome, and in the Inn commonly known by the
name of Sarniento, where nay aforesaid wife then re-
sided with her mother and her sister Lady Virginia
Murray. And also that. for greater security, and not
from any apprehension of the first being insufficient, I
again performed the ceremony of marriage with my
said wife, at the Parish Church of St. George, Han-
over-square, in the county of Middlesex, by virtue of
banns published in the said Church, on the fifth day of
December, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-three."
We also find in the same Documents F and G the
following words :
" I consider, and ever shall acknowledge, our son
Augustus Frederick, who was born after both these
marriages, as my true, legitimate, and lawful son,"
&c. &c.

In January 1801 his Electoral Highness addressed
Document H to his son, a letter, from its piety and
paternal solicitude, highly to the honour of tha illustri-
ous writer. The letter is thus addressed :--
" To

My dearly beloved Son,
Prince Augustus Frederick,
No. 40, Lower Grosvenor-street,
Grosvenor-square, London."

Before concluding the present case, Augustus of
Este begs to inform the Learned Counsellor that not
only was his late honoured mother, until the year 1801,
always called by the titles which were hers as the ac-
knowledged legal wife of his Royal father, but that he
has also a great many letters horn the Duke Augustus
to his honoured mother superscribed both in English
and French—

A son Altesse Royale
La Princesse Augustus Frederick ;"
and in English also—

" To H. R. H.
The Princess Augustus Frederick."
The opinion of the Learned Counsellor is requested
upon the following questions :-
Ist. Taking into consideration that the mother of
Augustus of Este (who was the daughter of a Scottish
Earl, which Dignitaries are Princes, and when formally
addressed by their Sovereign are called Cousins), was
thrice descended from the same common ancestors as
was her Royal husband, two of which were Kings.
2dly. Bearing in mind that she descended in the male
line from the actually reigning Sovereign of the Island
of Man, a State completely indepen7lent at the time
when the Dunmore branch left its elder line ; taking
these circumstances into consideration, was not the birth
of the mother of Augustus of Rite such as fully to en-
sure to the union between her and the Duke Augustus
Frederick of Hanover, its being held an equal (stan-
desmassig) marriage
2d. In case that the Royal father of Augustus of
Este should die, would the written contract of mar-
riage (Document A). in conjunction with the
other documents, and more especially together with
the parochial certificate of the marriage solem-
nized in London, be considered by the law-courts of
Hanover a sufficient proof of marriage to secure to the
children of this marriage the right of succession?

3rd. In case that the two preceding questions
should be answered in the affirmative, is there any
law whatever of force in the kingdom of Hanover, which
could rob Augustus of Este of those rights, which are
consequent upon his being the son of an equal mar-
riage—(standesmassiger Ehe ?)

The following paper may be considered as a post-
script to the preceding case ; it was written by me some
months later.

INVITATION
TO USE THE CERTIFICATE OF ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH,

LONDON.
Should the Learned Counsellor of State consider it
desirable to have yet further proofs of marriage beyond
the sponsalia, and the reiterated accounts of the Rc-
man marriage, given by my Royal Father (reiterated
at different times within the space of seven years), I
venture to suggest that the certificate of the marriage
solemnized at St. George's Church, London, may fur-
nish the additional proof required, for the following rea-
sons :—When the British Empire offered their different
crowns to the Elector of Hanover, they were accepted
by him, he retaining all the privileges and immunities
of a German Sovereign. These privileges and immuni-
ties are possessed fully by his descendants. George
the Third was King of England :—but he did not for-
feit thereby his right to be considered, in London, also
as a foreign visiting Sovereign sojourning in that ca-
pital.
It is clearly laid down in the law of nations, that
the privileges and immunities of Ambassadors arc fully
participated in by their wives and children. By so
much the more must the wives and children of those
Sovere'rans, who send these Ambassadors, be entitled,
when abroad, to equal advantages as are enjoyed by
the wives and children of Ambassadors.
Further—Suppose a son of the King of Denmark
(being a sojourner in London) to have been enamoured
of, and to have married by banns (proclaimed on three
different Sundays) the daughter of a British Earl—
would such marriage not have been good in England ?
There can be no doubt upon the subject.
To those acquainted with the laws of Continental
Europe, it is well known that the same personage may
possess differen characters or personalities in law, and
that acts which may be unlawful to the said personage
in one character, may be perfectly lawful to him in his
other character ;—thus, supposing for one moment,
that it was unla‘aful to my Royal Father, in his cha-
racter of a Prince of England, to contract matri-
mony in London, without observing certain legal
forms, yet in his character of a Hanoverian Prince so-
journing in the British capital, it was perfectly lawful
for him to marry without observing such legal forms.
Mr. O'Connell is of opinion that, as an Irish Prince,
my Royal Father could, legally, contract marriage in
Rome. As an Electoral Prince of Hanover could he
not legally contract marriage in London?
From the arguments which have been adduced, with
deference, 1 venture to submit that the parochial cer-
tificate of the marriage solemnized in London would
be held a sufficient proof of marriage by the law courts
of Hanover for all the purposes of ensuring the right of
succession to my sister and to myself, should it be consi-
dered desirable that proof beyond the espousals (Do-
cument A) should be furnished.

OPINION OF JOHAN LUDWIG KLUBER,
OF FRANKFORT.
FINAL RESULTS.
Translation.
From the preceding disquisition concerning rights in
regard to the German Empire, and in regard to Hano-
ver, it results :-
Ist. That the marriage of his Royal Highness Duke
Augustus Frederick of Sussex, at the time of the said
marriage an Electoral Prince of Brunswick, therefore a
Member of one of the Sovereign Houses of the Empire
(sonach aus einem Reichstandischen Hause entsprossen
Herrn), with the Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of
an Earl and Peer of Scotland, is a valid marriage, and
NOT a mis-alliance ; consequently that it is FULLY ope-
rative in law. Nay more, that_ it is AN EQUAL mar-
riage, and one (wofur ohnehin die Rechtsvertuuthung
streitet) which affects both the contracting. parties them-
selves and their children with the legal consequences
resulting from marriage.
end. That the children of this marriage, namely, the
son Augustus Frederick, and the daughter A ugusta, are
not only the leaitimate children of the Duke (or children
born in wedlock), but that THEY ARE EQUAL TO THEIR
FATHER IN BIRTH AND THE SAME IN STATION (ehen-
burtig oder standesgleich), and therefore that they are
to all intents and purposes MEMBERS of the Sovereign
House qf Brunswick. That the said children, as Mem-
bers of one of those reigning Houses, which are part and
parcel of the empire, belong in the empire to the high
nobility, and to the class of the imperial immediates (der
' Reichsunmittelbaren Erlaucten). Further, that the
said children (in consequence of their equality to their
father in birth, and of their being actual Members of
the United Families of Brunswick), arc entitled in the
United Families of Brunswick, CFpecially in the kingdom
of Hanover, to the full enjoyment of all rights belonging
to their class of non-reigning Members of the House, to
wit, to the use of the family name, titles, armorial bear-
ings, and all other rights. Further, that they are enti-
tled to succeed (successions fahig) their father in his
political,fanzily, and private rights, whensoever the line
of succession opens to them.

OPINION OF DR. K. S. ZACHARIA, OF
HEIDELBERG.
FINAL RESULTS.
(Translation.)
I now proceed to condense the result of the prece-
ding treatise into the following sentences, which con-
tain my opinion, an opinion which has been weighed
with great care, upon the five great questions submit-
ted to me for answers.
No. 1. The case now under consideration is not to
be decided according to the laws of Great Britain, es-