The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-07 00:00:00

THE CHILDREN OF THE DUKE

OF SUSSEX.

(From the Sheffield Iris.)
The newspaper press, both metropolitan and pro-
vincial, have recently taken up this subject with a zeal
and determination which must ultimately have consi-
derable influence in obtaining for the children of the
Duke of Sussex that position in society which their
birth entitles them to claim. The Royal Marriage
Act which George 111. caused to be passed for the
purpose of preventing his family from marrying with
commoners, has entailed an incalculable amount of mis-
chief upon the morals of society, by the princes of the
blood Royal contracting private marriages—in too many
cases for the mere gratification of a brutal passion,
the victim of which they could easily get rid of
when they became satiated with enjoyment, or when
some fresh object engaged their attention. What the
princes so openly practised, the aristocracy were sure to ;
imitate, till by degrees the moral pest spread throughout
society, and libertinism and debauchery became fashion-
able accomplishments. Could we but catalogue the
number of families whose peace and fireside happiness
have been irremediably ruined, the broken hearts of
many fond parents, the shame and misery through which
the unfortunate victim has passed till she has sunk to
the lowest degree of degradation, and the stigma which
has stuck through life to the offspring of her misplaced
passion, then might we have some idea of the evil in-
fluences of bad example from those whose birth places
them in high rank in society.
Sir Augustus 'D'Este, and his sister, or as we shall
prove they ought to be designated, Prince Augustus
and Princess Augusta of Sussex, are • the children of
the Duke of Sussex and Lady Augusta' Murray, who
were married twice, once privately, and subsequently
publicly, in order that the Duke might thereby entitle
her to all the honours and privileges, which, as his wife,
she was entitled to claim. For some time they conti-
nued to rank as his children, and to receive those
marks of respect whiCh' their parentage warranted
them in claiming, but at length the Duke, appnrently
without any just cause; turned coldly round upon
them, and, by treating them with contempt, en-
deavoured to depose them from that status which
during their' mother's Ife time had been, partly
from the Duke's own acts, conceded to them. Un-
der any circumstances such unnatural conduct would
merit public reprobation, but when we consider the ex-
alted rank of the Duke, the high birth, and the accom-
plishments and amiability of his wife, wit 'a the hopes
which were early instilled into his offspring, we think
that the nation ought to demand that the Duke restore
them to the rank of his own family, or should he still
decline to do them that justice, that Sir Augustus him-
self should come forward and remove the stigma which
their present treatment entails upon their mother's me-
mory, by insisting upon the Government granting
them a restitution of those -rights to which they have
sufficient evidence to prove their just claim. So:nc
attempts have been. made to throw doubts on the
validity of the marriage ; but such paltry expe-
dients have not even had the effect of creating an
intEfference to the subject in the public mind, because
they hold, as we do, that from the condition in which the
Dube of Sussex and Lady A. Murray lived, as husband
and wife, for so many years, even if the children had not
a legal claim, they had an equally strong one both na-
turally and, morally. But the.,doubt of. the legality of
the marriage was speedily dispelled by " Confirmation,
strong as proofs of Holy Writ.'—The marriage contract
was produced, duly signed and attested, and the cir-
cumstances of their birth were so clear as to leave no
doubt of their identity. In addition to this, the Duke
himself has furnished us with evidence of his own indif-
ference, and unnatural conduct, which was incontro-
vertible, being that of the most sacred document to
which a man can append his signature, viz., his last will
and testament, from which the following t xtract will
prove the justice of our position, in demanding for Sir-
Augustus D'Ette and his sister the rank accorded to
the children of the Duke of Sussex _ _

.....
[Here follows an extract from the will of his Royal
Highness, which has already appeared in The Sun.]
This was written at a time when the Duke was ex-
pecting to be shortly called to render an account in
another world of the acts which he had committed in
this ; and we may justly infer that it was done for the
purpose of securing beyond the possibility of cavil, for
his wife and son, those piivileges to which, but for
such a document, some demur might hare been raised.
Why has the Duke taken away frcra them that rank
and advantages which, had he been dead, they wou'd
have been in the enjoyment of? We are sincere ad-
mirers of the Duke's consistent and liberal conduct in
public matters, and consider it the proudest ainoc.g his
titles, that he merits the appellation of the Fricild of
the Peop!c ; but such admiration does not blind us to
such inconsistency as he has been guilty of, in adve-
eating
the cause of civil and religious liberty out of
doors, while he has acted so cruelly to his own family.
Ho has had many opportunities of doing them justice,
which he has neglected, but we trust that he will not
suffer so odious a stigma to be affixed to his Cha-
racter ranch longer. It he does, the nation bill cer-
tainly assist Sir Augustus in any steps he may take to
recover his proper position for himself and sister.
(From the Hull drivel user.)

Journals of every shad; of political opinion continue
to agitate the question arising out of the silence of the
Duke of Sussex concerning the claims of his children.
That such a matter shouid become the theme of news-
paper comment is to us, we must confess, a source of
regret and mottification--not, assuredly, from an in-
difference on our part to the rights of Sir Augustus and
Mademoiselle D'Este—rights which, hallowed by Na-
ture and the solemn obligations of Christianity,
every true-hearted Englishman will rejoice to uphold
—but because, entertaining, as we hate done,
a deep respect for the public character and per-
sonal worth of the Duke of Sussex—regarding hint,
also, as a veteran chief among British Liberals.-
-we cannot help feelic.g that, in adopting a course of
seeming apathy in regard to the appeal for justice to
his legitimate offspring, he is not only mates ially lessen-
ing his own moral dignity, but, in some degree, entail-
ing a scandal upon the liberal cause. That our appre-
hension with respect to the latter point is not ground-
less is demonstrable from the fact of the Standard and
other papers of the same party, having, on the discus-
sion of the Regency question, stigmatised the Illustrious
Duke as unworthy of being called to so high a trust,
in consequence of his abandonment of his parental du-
ties. What reply can the most anxious well-wishers
of his Royal Highness make to this bitter censure from
party hostility ? So long as Sir Augustus D'Este and
his sister are left to bear the ills of unmerited neglect,
no reply can be given —none.

The equity of the case of the children of the Duke
of Sussex by his first wife, Lady Augusta Murray,
must be transparent to the comprehension of every
Englishman whose mind is swayed by sentiments of hu-
manity and justice.
In the year 1793, the Duke of Sussex was privately
married at Rome, by a clergyman of the Church of
England, to Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the
Earl of Dunmore. It was a union of affection, in which
the Duke was wholly uninfluenced by any interested
" management " on the part of the lady or her relatives.
To obviate the chance of " any difficulty being made
as to the legality of his child's birth," the Duke
caused himself to be married a second time in
London, at the close of the same year, previous
to the birth of his son. In a holograph will
executed at Berlin, 15th September, 1799, the circum-
stances of the double marriage, in Rome and in Lon-
don, are solemnly recited by his Royal Highness, with
this express declaration :—" 1 consider and ever shall
acknowledge our son Augustus Frederick, who was
born after both these marriages, as my true, legitimate,
and lawful son." Fifteen months afterwards, and nearly
eight year: subsequent to the marriage of His Royal
Highness,another will, containing the same emphatic de-
claration, was—" for more sure and certain effect"—exe•
cuted in London. In both these instruments, the tes-
tator prays his Royal brothers, the Prince of Wales and
the Duke of York, in the event of his demise, to main-
tain and support the rights of " his child, as his
lawful and legitimate son, and to superintend and under-
take the care of his education, which be wished to be
the best and most liberal possible." In 1801, his Royal
Highness, writing to his son, addresses him as his
" Dearly Beloved S'in, Prince Augustus Frederick."
We have here the most absolute proof of the complete
conviction on the mind and conscience of the Duke of
Sussex as to the character of the ties, legal and natural,
which subsist between him and his children by Lady
Augusta Murray.
According to the deliberate. opinion of Dr. Lushington
and other eminent, authorities, the law of the land inter-
poses na ohstacle to the Duke of Sussex in rescuing his
children from the cruel humiliation of their present ano-
rnAus PoSition--the Royal Marriage Act not extending
to.— marriages ~contracted and solemnised out of
Great Britain. But even if that arbitrary act were of
technical force as against the marriage of His Royal
Highness, still it. could not divest the union of one jot
of its intrinsic sanctity or binding power, or eitherjustitv-
or palliate tht;_ shadow of- parental indifeeence to the
fate and fortunes of the innocent fruits of a contract *Lily
solemnized according to the rites of the Protestant
Church. On the contrary, if the title of the children
to the honours and advantages of their birth were im-
perfect, by reason' of any informality, or any technical
defect; it:. became doubly obligatory on the hither to
strain every nerve to redress the wrong which his own
iridiscretion, or precipitancy, hid occasioned.
tln.• Duke of Sussex, whose name is identified with the
cause of htinian improvement and the progress of gene-
ral, philanthtopyr should have failed in this essential
particular, is a mystery leading to canclusioni injurious
to himself ilnd painful to his friends.
It can hardly be said diet the Illustrious Duke is so
barren of influence in the highest quarter as to despair
of bin beard as the appellant for justice to his legiti-
mate cffspring.- Licly. Cecilia Under-
wood to the rank of a' Duchess is too recent and too
remarkable to allow of such a supposition. The ad-
vancement of this lady—the wife of the Duke by a
private ma.eriage, solemnised in England only—offers,
indeed, an unaccountable cotorast to the treatment vx-