The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-26 00:00:00

I

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY 1..

about equally to slavery and to its abolition r
the slavery they detested on political grounds—it
interfered with the rapid development of the States,
and caused the South to aim at universal domina-
tion. But abolition threatened Northern money-
dealers, and might bring into the Northern States
a host of free negroes, whom they viewed with
abhorrence. Soon, however, the question may lie
between abolition and hopeless defeat ; and very
obviously it will soon lie between using the negroes
to pat an end to the war, and sustaining for an in-
definite time a heavy load of taxation. When this
becomes painfully clear, then at length the North
may feel that, if Abolition be distasteful, it is
sweet compared with heavy and protracted taxa-
tion, and the continued disgrace of its arms.
Looking at the struggle as a purely military one
along the whole line from East to West, it seems
more hopeless than ever. The question of emanci-
pation by means of Northern arms seems, therefore,
to be that on which all hangs.
Indeed this is the case in a twofold point of view,
as Slave and Free States amalgamation again in
one Union will plainly be impossible. Slavery, the
cause of the whole quarrel, will be a more better
source of disagreement than ever—it is only by all
being Free States that re-union is possible. If the
South become free it will then not only be more
like the North, but will be glad of Northern
strength to guarantee the whites against the gradual
supremacy of the blacks in the districts where they
are most numerous. Looking to the future, there-
fore, as well as to present success, we in England
can easily see that all depends on the North hoisting
at once the Abolition flag.

We have on several former occasions expressed
our entire disapprobation of the Royal Marriage
Act, and the necessity of an unconditional repeal
of that iniquitous measure. We allude to it now,
more particularly, because it is well known that in
the course of a few short months another of our
Princesses is to be married to a Foreign Prince.
Now assuming that the aforesaid Prince is the young
lady's own choice, no one, whether an upholder of
the Royal Marriage Act, as some are, or strongly
opposed to it like ourselves, has any right to object
to the intended marriage. But we are, and always
have been, opposed to the principles of the aforesaid
Royal Marriage Act. In the first place it is an
unjust interference with one of the choicest pri-
vileges of civilized humanity—that of choosing one's
own partner for life. It may here not be amiss to
revert to the causes which led to the introduction
of this tyrannical measure. It was passed in the
reign of a virtuous and well meaning, but self-willed
and obstinate Monarch. Various reasons have been
assigned, but those which have always been popu-
larly believed to have been the main cause of the
measure were, that the Dukes of CUMBERLAND and
GLOUCESTER, King GEORGE the Third's brothers,
contracted marriages with people not of Blood
Royal. This was said to have so highly incensed the
KING that he sent a message down to the two
Houses of Parliament recommending the introduc•
tion of the Royal Marriage Act, having, as it was
well known, for its object the prevention of similar
alliances in future, or, to speak more correctly, the
prevention of members of the Royal Family marry-
ing any one not of Blood Royal. As much popular
ignorance prevails on the subject, the general im-
pression being that members of the Royal Family
are compelled by law to marry foreigners, we will
just mention the exact state of the law'as fixed by the
said Royal Marriage Act.
The Act 12 George 111., cap. 11, prescribes
that, "No descendant of the body of King
GEORGE the Second (with the exception of
the issue of Princesses married or who may
hereafter marry into foreign families), is cap-
able of contracting matrimony without the
previous consent of the King or Queen for the
time haing• aitsuided under the Great Seca, cud a❑y
marriage contracted without such consent is void.
Provided that such of the said descendants as are
above the age of twenty-five may, after a twelve-
month's notice given to the King's Privy Council,
contract and solemnise without the consent of the
Crown, unless both Houses of Parliament shall,
before the expiration of the said year, expressly
declare their disapprobation of such intended mar-
riage. And all persons solemnising, assisting, or
being present at any such intended marriage, shall
incur the penalties of the Statute of Preemunire.°'
This is the law on the subject, whereby, as will be
seen, it is not absolutely compulsory upon any mem-
ber of the Royal Family to marry a German, or
foreigner ; but it makes all their marriages illegal,
unless oontracted with the consent of the Sovereign
or two Houses' of Parliament for the time being.
But is not this prohibition of matrimony, without
the consent of a third person, to any one who has ar-
rived at years of maturity, an unjust violation of the
rights of the subject, not to be tolerated by modern
civilisation ? It would indeed be an endless task were
we to go over the miseries and wretchedness occa-
sioned to the different members of the late Royal
Family by this most unfortunate of all unfortunate
pieces of legislation. This was the cause, in a great
measure at any rate, of preventing several of the
six Princesses, daughters of GEORGE 111., from
marrying at all, and those who did marry were in
consequence compelled to wait until a very late
period in life, and were said, when they did enter
into wedlock, to make unfortunate and by no means
happy unions. It likewise caused no small misery
and unhappiness to the sons in the late Royal
Family ; we might name many, but we will con-
tent ourselves with naming two, as most prominently
brought before the public. We of course allude to the
respective marriages of GEORGE IV., when Prince of
WALES, to his cousin the Princess CAROLINE of
BRUNSWICK, and of the late Duke of SUSSEX to
Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY, mother of the late Sir
AUGUSTUS D'EsTE and the present Dowager Lady
TRURO. The former marriage was very nearly the
cause of involving us in all the horrors of civil war,
and the latter marriage having been declared null
and void by act of Parliament, in consequence of
the Royal Marriage Act, inflicted most cruel hard-
ships and injustice upon the two above named chil-
dren of the late Duke of SUSSEX and Lady AUGUSTA
MURRAY, to say nothing of the cruelty and injus-
tice of puffing asunder those who had been, accord-
ing to the moral law at any rate, joined together.
And this last named marriage all but led to a dis-
puted succession, and would most infallibly have
done so had the late Duke of KENT and King of
HANOVER died without issue. And when the event
happened, now more than forty years ago, which all
England CO deeply deplored, and threw a gloom over
the country which no one who was living at the time
can ever forget, the evils of the Royal Marriage
Act became very apparent, from the difficulty there
was, or appeared to be at the time, in finding a suc-
cessor to the throne, owing to the fact that none of
the living Princes or Princesses, children of the then
reigning Monarch, had any issue living who could
succeed to the throne.

It is said by the upholders of the said
Royal Marriage Act that were this law repealed
we should have no end of jealousies from the diffe-
rent members of the Royal family marrying and
intermarrying with the families of the nobility, or
marrying with people beneath themselves, and a
return to a similar state of things which existed
during the wars of York and Lancaster that the

true dignity of Royalty could never be preserve, II
unless we had some such barrier as the Royal
Marriage Act. It is not, however, by such arti-
ficial fences that the true dignity of Royalty is
preserved. Compulsory restrictions upon marriage
are always dangerous to the public peace and to
public morality. Here, especially, where those on
whom they are imposed are persons in all other
respects even mischievously secure from contradic-
tion—persons whose foibles are studied, whose
whims are indulged, whose passions flattered by
those around them—we may safely conclude that
few will not rebel against a law which they see to
be peculiar and feel to be unjust and unnatural.
For the most part the feeling against mesalliance in
us is quite strong enough. Princes do know who
they are, and, if left to themselves, will not choose
their wives from those with whom it is a degradation
to be connected. Princes sufficiently estimate, nay,
have been too slavishly obedient to the supposed
necessity of adapting their marriages to some
imagined State policy. From these causes we have
had too much, far too much, of domestic alienation,
of Court profligacy, and we may add, in some in-
stances, of physical degeneracy. They require to
be watched and corrected rather than aggravated
by fresh restrictions, which can only issue, as in
fact they have issued, in fresh rebellion. Minds,
of course, there are who will resign themselves to
anything; but too many of those who find them-
selves thus jealously fettered on the point most im-
portant to their own legitimate happiness, will think
themselves thereby excused in anyisort of lawless
indulgence. Not to be allowed to choose our own
footman would be a privation to which fe iv of us
would submit with equanimity. We can hardly
wonder, though we may well lament, that men
educated t• self-indulgence consider themselves as
privileged libertines when they are forbidden to
choose their wives. They find their happiness
mercilessly committed to chance, and avenge them-
selves on the laws of their country by breaking
those of a higher authority. We hope a time is
approaching when a truer policy will remove this,
with other cognate laws, not only from our statute-
book, but what is more important—from the cus-
tomary code of the nation.