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

ti,birotaff kJ'
ix

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1814.

No ibrtsiness of the slightest importance took place
in the Tlouse, o£' Lordly, if we except the motion for
the third.reading ,of the notorious Bill of the Bishop
01' BxuTea. Lord FOLEY moved that it be read a
Vaircriinf6 that day six months. The Duke of WEL-
. •
3lNG•ror..cpncurred in the motion, as her MAJESTY'S
GOvorrimunt had informed themselves on the subject,
:Ind at a future period bring in a Bill on the
tultjz.et:''. We 'doubt the statement. The Bill was
ivitharawn, and the House adjourned.
The4liinsse met again at six o'clock, when argu-
rion's •svere heard in reference to the Irish State
Trials. It is understood that judgment will be given
in this monster trial in the course of this day.
In tho Commons, after the presentation of peti
Eons, Mr. WALLACE gave notice, that when the.
louse divided on the Railways Bill, the names of
Zlembers interested in railways should not be received.
Mr. T. DuNcomnu moved for copies of the cor-
respondence which had taken plaoe betwan the Home
Fecietary and the Governor of Guernsey relative to
Vie late disturbances. Sir J. GRAHAM said the sub-
j-ct would, in a few days, come before the Privy
Council, and it would, tberefore, be better to post-
pone the motion. Mr. BUNCOMBE assented, and post-
poned his motion for a fortnight.
The Irish- Presbyterian Marriage Bill was read a
first time. •

Mr, CHRISTIE; then brought forward a motion on the
3 )apish Claims. This is no new motion. The question
Lis been discussed and decided several times, and, we
1, lieve witibonly one exception, the decision has been
favour of the claimant:;. Indeed, so far did the
j Loose of Commons admit the justice of the claims,
that they drew up an address to her Majesty in fa-
your of the claimants, and that address was graciously
responded to ; the Whig Government, however, re-
si,ted the decision of the House of Commons, and con-
trived some new scheme to defeat the petitioners,'who
have now for nearly 40 years been denied justice. The
Tory Government have unfortunately imitated their
example: They mustered all tha forces they
eltild last night to defeat Mr. CHRISTIE'S
motion. It was a desperate run, . and the
Covernrnent carried their point, only by a ma-
ji-rity of four. Is not this a most disgraceful
rttOde or conducting public business? A Commission of
Inquiry bad been appointed by the Treasury to inve-sti-
gate the claims—that Commission reported favourably
--the House of Commons sanctioned that Report over
and over again, and yet both Whig and Tory Cabinets
have resorted to the most contemptible shifts to

deprive men of their just claims for no reason that
any man can see but to have command of more
money. They will, however, be compelled to
yield. The speech of the Premier was a jesuitical
display of misrepresentation and trickery, and that of
Mr. GOULBURN a violent tirade of fallacies. It is
really monstrous to hear this latter gentleman laying
some stress on the amount required to pay the
claimants, although it has actually been found by
Government Commissioners to be due to them, when
at the same time himself and his relations have sacked
more of the public money during his career in mono-
poly than the whole sum required to indemnify these
parties. Another argument used against the claim-
ants was, that they had solicited Members to support
their case—nothing could be more disgraceful than
this charge, when the Government whipper-in was in
the door-way canvassing every Member who came in
and went out. It is therefore surprising what the
claimants have been able to accomplish. This proves
the justice of their cause, and it says much for the
honour and independence of the Tory Members who
supported the case. The claimants may be considered
as having gained another victory, for the Government
majority of four is virtually a defeat, and they have
only to persevere, and justice must ultimately triumph
over cruelty and oppression. We wish Mr. GOULBURN
joy of the majority of four, on a question which had
repeatedly been decided by the Commons in favour
of the claimants.
The House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

The Committee for Privileges of the House of
Lords yesterday, announced their decision on the in-
teresting and important claim of Sir AUGUSTUS
D'EsTE to th 3 title and honours of the Dukedom of
Sussex. The Committee was very fully attended,
and, upon the answers of the Judges, as delivered by
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, to the case referred to
those learned functionaries by the Committee, we
lament to find that the latter have determined " that
the claim of Sir AUGUSTUS D'EsTE has not been
made out."

It will be in the recollection of our readers, that
the gist of the question propounded for the opinion of
the Judges, was this :—Evidence having been offered
to the Lords of a marriage solemnised at Rome, in
:.he year 1793, by an English priest, in holy orders,
of the Church of England, according to the ritual
of that Church, between A B, a son of his late Ma-
jesty King GEORGE 111., and C D, a British subject,
withoht the previous consent of his said MAJESTY,
according to the requirements of the " Royal Mar-
doge Act" (12th Geo. 111., yassed in 1772), would
such evidence, if held to establish the fact of such
marriage between the parties in question, indepen-
dently of the provisions or enactments of 12th Geo. 111.,
be adequate to establish the validity of that marriage
in a suit wherein the eldest son of A B claims, eo
Willi Ile, an estate in England by virtue of such mar-
riage ?—The Judges, admitting the rule of our
:ecclesiastical Courts, as illustrated by the luminous
judgments of Lord STOWELL, "that a marriage good
according to the forms of the country wherein it is
celebrated is good all over the world ;" and adverting
to the impOrtant fact, that evidence had been given
by qualified officers of the papal jurisdiction on ques-
tions of marriages, to establish the perfect legal vali-
fay in Rome, and throughout the limits of the Papacy,
4' the de facto marriage between A B and C D, re-
matk that "the rule of construction with regard to
any statute is, that it shall be construed according to
the intent of the Parliament which has passed it."
Now, inasmuch as the intent of the Parliament of
1772, in passing the Royal Marriage Act, is not any
matter of doubt—inasmuch as that Parliament clearly
aimed at prohibiting the marriages of any of the legiti-
mate descendants of GEORGE 111. without the Royal con-
sent previous!y obtained, and inasmuch as its enactments
were, therefore, as binding on A B, as " a Bri ish sub-
ject," whether in Rome or any other foreign dominion,
as if he were withi❑ the realm ; the Judges were
unanimously of opinion that under the circumstances
this had not been such a marriage as could enable
the eldest son of AB to make a good title to lands
or estate as heir to his father.
It is remarkable that the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord
BROUGHAM, Lord DENMAN, Lord CAMPBELL, and
Lord COTTENIIAM in delivering their judgments
seriatim, concurred unanimously in dismissing the
claim of Sir AUGUSTUS ; but each of these Learned
Lords also concurred in the sentiment that the most
cruel wrong had been inflicted on the parties before
their bar by the Act in question. Under that
statute there could be no doubt the marriage of his
late Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX with Lady
AUGUSTA MURRAY was invalid. Of the de facto
marriage between those eminent persons there could
be as little doubt. Lord BROUG HAM, in alluding to the
cruel position of the claimant, justly said" the feelings
of every one must revolt at the consideration of that
wrong. It appeared to him to be of the highest jus-
tice, of the first claim, of the slowest discharge of
public duty, that Parliament, which had such a law
as that which had been under the consideration of
heir Lordships—a law which ought never to have
been made—that that Parliament should give some
compensation, should make some reparation, to those
innocent parties who had been so injured by its ope-
ration."

Lord CAMPBELL concurredi 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
by evidence, of its having been celebrated by a law-
fully ordained clergyman of the Church of England,
and that there was further evidence of the mar-.
doge being valid according to the law of
Rome; and that Lord COTTENHAM'S opinion against
the 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 COTTENHAM observed, the Royal
Marriage Act incapacitated the parties from con-
tracting a marriage except upon certain conditions."
But we say that that Act was rizalum 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 \vas a tyrannous control, devised
and enforced beforehand, on the human affections as
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
so 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 conviction of its
legitimate and binding 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 documentary papers.
adduced, in his father's hand-writing, were like voices
from the tomb, conveying injunctions which he could
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
moment in the proper quarters. But the whole conduct
and deportment of Sir A. D'Esrr, 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,
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