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

Cite Wink

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1844.

No business of the slightest importance took place
in the House of Lords, if we except the motion for
the third reading of the notorious Bill of the Bishop
• EXETER. Lord FOLEY moved that it be read a
• gird time that day six months. The Duke of WEL-
t .INGTON concurred in the motion, as her MAJESTY'S
qovcrnment had informed themselves on the subject,
aad would at a future period bring in a Bill on the
.'abjt•rt. We d,Jubt the statement. The Bill was
..;thdrawn, and the Howe adjourned.
The House met again at six oclock, when argu-
meres were heard in reference to the Irish State
'Trials. It i 3 understood that judgment will be given
in ibis monster trial in the course of this day.
In the Commons, after the presentation of peti
Cons, Mr. WrtarACE gave notice, that when the
House divided on the Railways Bill, the names of
Member interested in railways should not he received.

Mr. T. Descomn?, moved for copies of the cor-
respondence which had taken place between the Home
Secretary and the Governor of Guernsey relative to
the late disturbances. Sir J. GRAHAM said the sub-
ject would, in a few days, come before the Privy
Council, and it would, therefore, he better to post-
pone the m ,tion. Mr. DuNcomrsc assented, and post-
pned his motion for a fortnight.
The Irish Pre.sbyteran Marriage 811 was read a
first time.

• Mr. CHRISTIE thou brought forward a motion on the
Danish Claims. This is no new motion. - The question
has been discussed and decided several times, and, we
believe with only one exception, the decision has been
in favour of the claimintA. Indeed, so far did the
nonse. 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-
sisted the decision of the House of Coinmons, and con-
trived some new scheme to defeat the petitioners, who
have now for nearly 40 years been deniea ;justice. The
Tory Government have unfortunately imitated their
ea duple. They mustered all the forces they
could last night to defeat Mr. CHRISTIE'S
MG:1011. It was a desperate run, and the
Government carried, their point, only b a ma-
jority of four. Is not this a most disgraceful
mode of conducting public business? A Commission of
Inquiry had been appointed by the Treasury to investi-
gate the claims—that Commission reported favourably
V..-hili4.lkablibt Commons sanctioned that Report over
,-_aii4Witiii and yet bilth Whig and Tory Cabinets
ALIA f..:0041)4 o the KG 05t
)
contemptible shifts to

} .

`,
;~.:,/

xt a s

deprive men of their just claims for no reason that
any man can see but to have command of more
toomy, They will, however, be compelled tln
yield. The speech of the Premier \\ls .Pstkiti'Ctik
display of misreprestntalloh M liictffty‘ 'ON I tkV?4,t
Mr. GOULFSURIN A 401-...nt ttilcie of fallacies. It is
really monstrous to hear this latter gentleman
sonle stress on the amount required t. paY
tte
claimants, although it Ime attually been found by
Government cenlii.ssioners to be due to them, when
at tk t'arne time himself and his relations have*e_cli_rd
more of the public money duritaft 41'171 mono-
poly than the thole #43.M Mil-lied to indemnify these
parties, Aottliti argument used against the claim-
ant# that they had solicited Members to stiprett
their case—nothing could be tilerr.; 4it,gtieei'ul than
this charge, when thr Ci'3l:6llment whipper-iu was in
the door.lvoy nnvassing every Member who came in
ark went out. It is therefore surprising what the
claimants have been able to ace0m1)141.... ttll proves
the justice of their PAII4cI Mta it says much for the
honour and lmlependence of the Tory Members who
supported the case. The claimants may be considered
23 havina• 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. GOULnURN
joy of the majority of four, on a question whiAl had
repeatedly been dteided 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 the 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 sulemnis,d at Rome, in
the 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,
without the previous consent of his said MAJESTY,
according to the requirements of the " Royal Mar-
iage Act " (12th Geo. HI., ,passed in 1772), would
such evidence, if held to establish the fact of such
marriage between the parties in question, indepen-
lently 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
nomine, 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 rail-
lity in Rome, and throughout the limits of the Papacy,
,f the de facto marriage between A B and C D, re-
mark that " the rule of construction with regard to
:my 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
timed at prohibiting the marriages of any of the legiti-
mate descendants of GEORGE 111. without the Royalcon-
sent previously 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 within 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 COTTENHAM 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 BROUGHAM, 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
is 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-