The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

ration."

Lord CAMPBELL concurrei most fully in the re-
gret which had been expressed that such a law was
in existence. He thought such a law ought not to
have been, passed, and he concurred in the opinion
that it ought to undergo some modification. In
these feelings and opinions we cordially participate.
When we find the LORD CHANCELLOR reminding,
the Committee that the marriage, in fact, was proved
evidence, of its having been celebrated by a law,
;idly ordained clergyman of the Church of Englant,
and that there was further evidence of the mar-
riage being valid according to the law of
Rome; and that Lord COTTENHAM'S opinion against
he claim " was founded solely upon the Royal
marriage Act, for that was the only point
which had been concluded before them,"
we are induced to press upon the attention of the
public the urgent merits of a case in which the ap
pellant is turned back upon a mere technicality.
True, as Lord COTTENIIAM observed, the Royal
Marriage Act incapacitated the parties from con-
tracting a marriage except upon certain conditions."
But we say that that Act was rnalum per se. It was
denounced and protested against, at the time it was
forced through the Legislature by the active and
indecent canvassing of the Crown—as a cruel and
impolitic and disabling statute—by some of the
best and wisest men, and highest authorities in
the country. It was a tyrannous control, devised
and enforced beforehand, on the human affections 83
they might develope themselves in the existing, or
the yet unborn, progeny of the Sovereign. The late
Duke in invoking the sanction conferred upon his
marriage with Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY, by the pre-
cepts of our religion and the ritual of our Church,
not unreasonably assumed that he' was pro-
tected and upheld by authority so solemn and
AO sacred, that it must override the enact-
ments of a vicious statute. No man, accordingly,
ever took more pains to recognise, by repeated and
spontaneous acknowledgements and declarations, the
fact of his marriage ; his own deep convietion cf its
legitimate and banding character; and his voluntary
call upon his family, his country, and the whole
world, to observe these his so remarkable acts of con-
firmation. What course remained to a gentleman of
high feeling and spirit and intelligence, like Sir
AUGUsTUS D'EsTE, but to reclaim the legacy of the
honours thus descended to him, and by such reclama-
tion to vindicate the honour of his mother, and
the legitimacy of another connexion not less dear
nor less immediate ? The documrntary papers
adduced, in his father's hand-writing, were like voices
from the tomb, conveying injunctions which he cou'd
not, and ought not, to resist. He was bound to assert
his position. He has done so, but necessarily at a
vast expense in the collection of evidence and papers.
In the amount of any such expense it is clear that he
ought to be immediately reimbursed. We trust that
so righteous a duty will not be neglected for a
morrient in the proper quarters. Bat the whole conduct
and deportment of Sir A. D'Es-re, throughout the try-
ing and spirit-wounding abeyance in which his
claim has been permitted to lie, and the protracted
period occupied in its formal preparation and trial,
j have been of a character beyond all praise for their
' moderation, constancy, and patience. We have no de-
sire to institute painful comparisons by invidious
reminiscences. But we should shrink from the dis-
charge of a public duty, if we forbore to eulogise the
dignified forbearance with which Sir AUGUSTUS has
, lived to ,see the illegitimate issue of his Royal uncle