The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY,

THE DUKEDOM OF SUSSEX—COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
Their Lordships sat to-day in a Committee for Privileges,
for the purpose of further considering the claim of Sir
Augustus D'Este to the Dukedom of Sussex. The judges
were also in attendance. Among the Peers present, we
noticed the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord
Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Langdale, the Duke of
Hamilton, Lord Beaumont, Lord Cloncurry, Lord Denman,
Viscount Strangford, Lord Redesdale, Lord Wrottesley, the
Earl of Devon, the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Colville, and the
Duke of Richmond; and among the judges, the Lord Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the
Exchequer, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Patteson, and
Mr. Justice Williams.
Counsel being called in, Sir T. WILDE proceeded to call
the following witnesses.
Augusta Emma D'Este, the sister of the claimant, proved
the death of her mother and the finding of various corres-
pondence, after that event, between the late Duke of Sussex
and her mother. She also proved and produced the Prayer-
book by which Mr. Gunn married her mother to her father.
The marriage took place at Rome.
Lady Virginia Murray—Was the daughter of the Earl of
Dunmore, and sister of the mother of the last witness. His
late Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex visited their family
when at Rome, and paid sreat attentions to her sister.
Heard of their marriage at lorence. Re'collects her sister
being confined in Lower Berkley. The present claimant was
the child that was then born. The late Duke of Sussex and
Lady Augusta lived together as man and wife. The claimant
was called the little Prince, or Prince Augustus, and the
claimant's sister was called ie Princess Augusta.
The Right Hon. Dr. Lushington was then called, and
stated that he was very well acquainted with his late Royal
Highness the Duke of Sussex. He constantly conversed
with witness on matters upon which he took -a deep inte-
rest, and several times on the subject of his marriage. The
particular period at which he conversed was when his Royal
Highness was at Halcombe, about 182.5, 1826, or 1827. rlis
Royal Highness took witness into his private apartments
and detailed the facts of his marriage. The conversation
lasted four hours.
Mr. RULE—Did he state the name of his wife?
Loid CAMPBELL objected to the evidence altogether, on the
ground that there might be some Hs mote.
Their Lordships, after some discussion, decided on reject-
ing the evidence, and Dr. Lushington withdrew.
Sir Robert Stopford was called, and proved bringing his
late Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, in 1793, from Leg-
horn to this country, and in 1794 taking him back again to
Leghorn, where they arrived in March of that year.
Dr. Nicholas Wiseman resided twenty-two years at Rome.
Was Coadjutor of the Bishop of Rome there. Was aware
of the law at Rome usually called the Council of Trent. By
the law there, a marriage to be valid must take place before
the parish priest and two witnesses. All Catholic marriages
must be according to the provisions of the Council of Trent.
The witness was then examined at some length as to what
the law was in Reme with respect to marriage, and several
books were referred to, written by the Popes themselves on
the subject.
Some discussion then took place as to the manner in which
evidence should be given of what a foreign law was ; whether
it should be by witnesses or by books.
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham thought they
should examine some skilful person, while Lord Campbell
thought they might rely on learned books.
Lord DENMAN said there could be no difficulty on the
subject, because they had both books and learned individuals
present.
Lord LANGDALE said the only question was how the wit-
ness was to be examined. He believed the course pursued
was the correct one.
Dr. Wiseman was then re-called—He was clearly of opinion
that a marriage at Rome between two Protestants before a
Protestant clergyman would be considered in that country
as valid, the children legitimate, and any property they
might have would descend fa' their children; and such
marriage would not be subject to ecclesiastical censure.
The witness then proceeded at considerable length to
state the effect of the Council of Trent with respect
to marriages in the Holy See, in the course of which he re-
ferred to several eminent text writers on the subject, which
caused some discussion as to whether the witness could refer
to them in evidence ' • or, in fact, whether his evidence could
be further proceeded with, it appearing that he had not suf-
ficient legal knowledge of the law of marriage in Rome.
Sir T. WILDE and Mr. ERLE submitted that the witness
was a competent one.
After examining Dr. Wiseman as to what his jurisdiction
was as coadjutor Bishop in this country,
The ArronsEir-GENEEAL then addressed their Lordships,
and the Committee decided in favour of the admissibility of
the evidence.
The examination of the witness was then resumed.—lf the
marriage was brought before any of the Roman tribunals the
marriage would be considered legal, and the children would
inherit. It is the opinion of theologians and lawyers that
where Protestants are married according to their own form,
even where the Council of Trent has been promulgated, are
married. Pope Benedict XIV. issued a bull declaring the
validity of such marriages, and stating his reasons for de-
ciding that such marriages had all along been legal.
Lord BROUGHAM—Has any thing ever been done since at
Rome to vary the construction you have put upon it? Wit-
ness—There has not.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Have you ever known a case
where the validity of a marriage between two Protestants has
come under the consideration of the courts at Rome ? Wit-
ness—Not since then.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL--A parish
priest could not marry a Roman Catholic and a Protestant
without leave, because it would require a dispensation. If he
were to do it it would be invalid. He;would.not:marry two
Protestants, but supposing he were to do so, the mar-
riage would be valid. It would not be right for the
parish priest to do it, but if he were to do so it
would be valid, supposing it was performed in the
presence of witnesses. If it were performed by a priest
without the presence of witnesses, it would be void, because
it would be against the decree of the Council of Trent. If
Protestants are married by a Catholic priest, they submit
themselves to the Catholic law. If a marriage between
Protestants is contracted, according to their own religious
forms, then the Church acknowledges that marriage.
By Lord CAMPBELL—If a Presbyterian man and a Presby-
terian woman were married at Rome by a Presbyterian clergy-
man, that would be considered a valid marriage by the laws
of Rome.
By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL--The law of Rome would not
recognise the validity of the marriage of a Catholic priest, al-
though it might be valid in this country, because it would be
contrary to his vow.
Sir T. WILDE then stated that he had intended to call as
a witness a very learned gentleman, a Catholic priest, but he
doubted whether after the last decision the House would
think his evidence admissible. Ire would however call him.
The gentleman in question was then called, and exa-
mined as follows :—Had studied at Rome, and went
through a full course of theological education—that! includes
studying the law of marriage. I am what is called a pro-
fessed father of the Order of Jesuits. lam connected with
Stonyhurst. The law of marriage forms an essential part of
those laws which I had to study.
By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I have no judicial functions
to perform connected with marriage. My studies were merely
to qualify me for performing the functions of a priest of the
Catholic Church.
By Lord BROUGHAM—I am a regular priest, not a secular
priest.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (after a short consultation with
the Judges and the Law Peers) announced, that in the
opinion of their Lordships the evidence of the witness
was not sufficient. Some member of some tribunal
at Rome, or some lawyer practising at Rome,
ought to be called and examined on the subject, or
certainly there would be considerable difficulty in inducing
their Lordships to take the same view of the subject as Sir
Thomas Wilde. He did not wish to dictate to Sir Thomas
Wilde, but he threw out the suggestion. Ina question of
such vast importance it was necessary that their Lordships
should be in possession of the clearest evidence.
The Committee then adjourned sine die, in order to afford
time to Sir Thomas Wilde to procure additional testimony in
support of the claim. When he is prepared, he will com-
municate with the Lord Chancellor, and a day will be ap-
pointed for the further consideration of the subject ; the Lord
Chancellor reminding Sir Thomas Wilde of the necessity of
procuring this additional testimony before the Judges went
on circuit.

UNION HALL.-(THIS DAY.)
Several men were brought up from Lambeth workhouse
for destroying their clothes, and amongst the defendants was
a young man named Mills, who, in answer to the interroga-
tories of the Magistrate, said that he was an attorney's clerk
at Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; that there being a scarcity of em-
ployment at that place, he came up to town to seek a situa-
tion ' but, failing in his endeavours, was reduced to his pre-
sent destitute condition.

Another of the defendants said that he was a country
labourer, and that he came up to London for the purpose of
enlisting in the East India Company's service, but that, being
unfortunately half an inch under the standard height, he
was rejected. Owing to that circumstance, he was also re-
duced to destitution.

Mr. CorriNGHAm said that the spirit the young man ex-
hibited, in wishing to enter her Majesty's service rather than
be idling about, deserved a better fate ; and he was of opinion
that a fine, healthy-looking young fellow like him, would not
have his services rejected in other regiments. The Magis-
trate added, that as the defendants were proved to have de-
stroyed their clothes, he must be under the necessity of com-
mitting them for seven days each.
The unfortunate defendants appeared thankful for being
sent to gaol.

CLERKENWELL.-(THIS DAY.)
A man named Lee was charged with assaulting another
mechanic named Barrett.

The complainant lives in Baldwin's-place, Baldwin's-gar-
dens. On the previous night, between eleven and twelve
o'clock, a dispute took place between them. 'When Police-
sergeant 3 G came up at one o'clock this morning, he saw
Barrett bleeding profusely from the right eye, anti his arm
was dislocated. He took bee into custody.
The prisoner's defence was, that he had been acting the
part of a friend to the complainant, by furnishing him with
tools and money for sonic time past, and this the complainant
admitted to be true.

➢ir. BROUGHTON said he could not pass over the prisoner's
conduct. He would fine him ten shillings, or a fortnight's
imprisonment in the House of Correction.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
(THIS DAY.)
George Roach, a young man in the garb of a sailor, was
charged with the following outrage :—Mr. Henry Zachariah
Jervis, of 1, Bedford-terrace, New Kent-road, solicitor, stated
that between 12 and 1 o'clock this morning, as he was pro.•
ceeing along Oxford-street, in the direction towards Holborn,
he saw the prisoner standing against a post near St.Giles's,
and, as he was prssing him, he put out his foot and nearly
threw prosecutor down. He asked him what he did it for,
when he attacked him in a most violent manner, and struck
him several heavy blows. Jones, police-constable of the E
division, came up, and took the prisoner into custody, but he
broke from them, and again violently assaulted witness.
After great resistance he was secured.
Four police-constables preferred several charges of assault
against the prisoner. Ile had bitten the fingers of one of
them most severely. Five or six fellows were standing about
when the prisoner commenced his attack upon the complain-
ants. They were no doubt accomplices, and their purpose
was robbery.
Mr. MALTBY said it was a very gross outrage, and asked
the prisoner what he had to say ?
The prisoner, with a careless air—Nothing at all. What's
the use of my sayinc, anything?
Mr. MALTBY—Then I fine you 5/., or commit you for two
months to hard labour.

Being unable to pay the fine he was sent to gaol.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(Prom the Votes and Proceedings of the House()) Commons.
MONDAY, JUNE 24.
POST-OFFICE.

Petition of Charles Stolzman, alleging that Letters ad-
dressed to him are secretly detained and opened at the General
Post-office, and praying for inquiry, brought up, and read:
Motion made, and Question put, " That the said Petition be
referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of inquiring
into the circumstances under which Letters have been secretly
opened, delayed, or detained, at the General Post-office, since
the Ist of January last; also, into the form in which warrants
for that purpose have been issued, and the mode in which they
have been executed and obeyed ; the said Cominittee to report
thereupon to the House, together with their opinion as to the
expediency of making any alterations in the Law under which
the secret opening, delaying, or detaining of Post Letters is
conducted :' The House divided :