Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Brunswick (Duke of) v King of Hanover

State Trials Cited authorities 20 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date31 July 1848
Date31 July 1848
CourtState Trial Proceedings
7 Ann. c. 12. The Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1703
THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK against THE KING OF HANOVER. CHARLES, DUKE OF BRUNSWICK - Plaintiff AGAI NST ERNEST AUGUSTUS, KING OF HANOVER, DUKE OF CUM- BERLAND AND TEVIOTDALE IN GREAT BRITAIN, AND Defendant. EARL OF ARMAGH IN IRELAND - PROCEEDINGS IN THE ROLLS COURT BEFORE LORD LANGDALE, M.R., ON DEMURRER TO ” BILL IN EQUITY, NOV. 1.5, 21, 22, 23, 1843, AND JAN. 13, 1844. (Reported in 6 Beay. 1, 8 Jur. 253, 13 L.J. N.S., Ch. 107.) JUDGMENT OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON APPEAL FROM THE ROLLS COURT, JULY 25, 27, 31, 1848. (Reported in 2 H.L. 1.) General demurrer to a bill filed by Charles, Duke of Brunswick, against Ernest, King of Hanover, as Duke of Cumberland and a British subject residing within the jurisdiction, claiming an account of property received by the defendant as the plaintiff”s guardian, under a settlement effected in 1833 by King William the Fourth and William, reigning Duke of Brunswick, purporting to act as the legitimate agnati of the plaintiff, and in pursuance of authority entrusted to them by a decree of the German Diet. Proceedings against Foreign Sovereign, who is also a British subject. Held by Lord Langdale, M.R.- (1.) A foreign sovereign coming to England cannot be made responsible in the courts here for acts done by him in his sovereign character in his own country, even though such sovereign be also a British subject, residing within the jurisdiction.(a) (2.) Such a foreign sovereign being a subject of the Queen, is liable to be sued in this country in respect of any acts done by him as a subject, but acts done out of this realm, and doubtful acts, are to be attributed to his sovereign character, and it is for the plaintiff to show that the act complained of was done in the character of a subject. The House of Lords affirmed (1), and did not express any opinion on (2). (a) See Munden v. Duke of Brunswick (below, p. 403), 10 Q.B. 656, 16 L.J., Q.B. 300 ; De Haber v. The Queen of Portugal, 17 Q.B. 196 ; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Q.B. 171; Magdalena, S.S. Co. v. Martin, 2 E. & E. 94 ; Gladstone v. Muslims Bey,1 Hem. & 495 ; Gladstone v. Ottoman Bank, 1 Hem. & Mil. 505 ; Prioleau v. United States of America and Andrew Johnson, L.R., 2 Eq. 659 ; United States of America v. Wagner, L.R., 3 Eq. 724, 2 Ch. 582 ; Smith v. Weguelin, 8 Eq. 198; Republic of Peru v. Weguelin, 20 Eq. 140; Strousberg v. Rep. of Costa Rica, 44 L.T. 199 ; The Charkieh, L.R. 4 A. & E. 59; Twycross v. Dreyfus, 5 Ch. D. 605 ; Vavasseur v. Krupp, 9 Ch. D. 351 ; The Constitution, 4 P.D. 39 ; The Parlement Belge, 5 P.D. 197 ; The Newbattle, 10 P.D. 33 ; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, 1894, 1 Q.B. 149. This case came on upon general de- i murrer for want of equity and jurisdiction to a bill filed by Charles, Duke of Brunswick, against Ernest Augustus, reigning King of Hanover and Duke of Cumberland, in the peerage of England. The bill, which is more particularly set out in the judgment of Lord Langdale, M.R., alleged that in September 1830 the plaintiff was the sovereign reigning Duke of Brunswick; that a revolutionary movement broke out on the 1st of September in that year, by which the govern.ment was overthrown; that on the 2nd of September the Germanic Diet passed a decree inviting the plaintiff”s brother, William, Duke of Brunswick, to take upon himself provisionally the government of the duchy, and leaving it to the legitimate agnati of the plaintiff to provide for the future government of the duchy ; that in February 1831 King William the Fourth and the said William, Duke of Brunswick, claiming to be the legitimate agnati of the plaintiff, issued a decree purporting to depose him, and declaring that the throne 35] The. Duke of Brunswick against had passed to the said William, Duke of Brunswick,who had since exercised all the rights, powers, and authorities of sovereign Duke of Brunswick ; that in the year 1833 King William, the Fourth and the said William, Duke of Brunswick, promulgated a further instehment, by which the Duke of Cambridge, Viceroy of Hanover, was appointed the plaintiff”s guardian, on the alleged ground that the plaintiff was wasting his fortune on dangerous and impossible enterprises ; that such instrument, as the plaintiff was advised, was void and of no effect, but that nevertheless the Duke of Cambridge accepted the appointment of guardian, and took possession of the real estates to which the plaintiff was entitled in his private capacity in Brunswick, and of all such personal property belonging to the plaintiff in Brunswick or elsewhere as he could discover, to the amount of several hundred thousand pounds, a large part of which remained unaccounted for ; that after the death of King William the Fourth on 20 June 1837, the defendant became King of Hanover, and was appointed to succeed the Duke of Cambridge as guardian of the plaintiff”s property by some instrument to which the defendant was a party, and which was signed by him and by William, Duke of Brunswick; that the Duke of Cambridge had accounted to the defendant for his receipts and payments, and paid him the balance ; that the defendant had taken possession of the plaintiff”s property, and received large sums of money on account thereof, but that a very large balance to the amount of several hundred thousand pounds remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and that the defendant refused to comply with the plaintiff”s application for an account thereof. The bill prayed a declaration that the instrument of 1833 and the appointment of the Duke of Cambridge as guardian of the plaintiff”s property, and the appointment of the defendant to succeed him, were void; and that the defendant might account to the plaintiff for the property possessed by him, or by any person by his order, &c., since his appointment, including that which bad been accounted for to the defendant by the Duke of Cambridge, and that the defendant might pay to the plaintiff the balance found due from him on taking such account, the plaintiff thereby offering to make the defendant all due allowances. The defendant whilst residing in England was served with a letter-missive,(a) (a) 1 Daniel, C.P. 5th Edit. 366-9. Before the Judicature Act, peers were entitled to be in formed by a letter-missive from the Chancellor that a bill had been filed before being served.the King of Hanover, 1843-8. (36 whereupon an application was made to the Lord Chancellor to discharge it. Lord LYNDHURST, L.C. : The application is informal, the petition not being intituled in the cause, and on this ground I might dismiss the application. But upon the main point, whether a letter-missive ought to have been issued in this case, the defendant is a peer of the realm, has taken the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, and his seat in the House of Peers, and at present is resident here. I am of opinion therefore, without reference to the more general question, that the letter-missive was in this case properly issued. My attention was directed to the bill in this case, but I do not think I can look at the nature or subject of a suit in deciding a question respecting the regularity of a process issued for the purpose of obtaining an appearance. Sir Charles Wetherell, Pemberton Leigh, (a) and Elmsley, in support of the demurrer. The defendant, who is a recognised independent sovereign, is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The law of nations, founded on principles of public policy, grants a sovereign whilst in a foreign country immunity from process. Mattel, who treats of this subject, says : (b) "It is asked, what are the rights of a sovereign who happens to be in a foreign country, and how the master of the country is to treat him ? If that prince be come to negotiate or to treat about some public affair, he is doubtless entitled, in a more eminent degree, to enjoy all the rights of ambassadors. If he be come as a traveller, his dignity alone, and the regard due to the nation which he represents and governs, shelter him from all insult, give him a claim to respect and attention of every kind, and exempt him from all jurisdiction. On his making himself known, he cannot be treated as subject to the common laws, for it is not to be presumed that he has consented to such a subjection, and if a prince will not suffer him in his dominions on that footing, he should give him notice of his intentions. But if the foreign prince forms any plot against the safety and welfare of the state, in a word, if he acts as an enemy, he may very justly be treated as such. In every other case he is entitled to full security, since even a private individual of a foreign nation has a right to expect it." " A ridiculous notion has possessed the minds even of persons who deem themselves of superior understanding to the common herd of mankind. They think that a sovereign who enters a foreign country without permission may be arrested there ; but on what reason can such an act of violence be grounded”.” The absurdity of the doctrine carries its own refutation on the face of it." Though a foreign sovereign may sue as plaintiff in the courts of this country, the (a) Afterwards Lord Kingsdown. (b) Bk. 4. ch. 7. s. 108. 37] The Duke of Brunswick against the King of Hanover, 1843-8. [38 general proposition that he may be sued has never been laid down. The dictum in Calvin”s case,(a) the case in Selden,(b) and the case of Hallett v. The King of Spain,(c) which will he thud by the plaint;IT, do not warrant the proposition. In Calvin”s case, it is said that a foreign king shall sue and be sued by the name of a king ; but no instance is given of a sovereign being sued, except that of Baliol, King of Scotland, who was feudatory to the King of England, and so liable to the jurisdiction of his acknowledged superior lord. Calvin”s case shows that a king carries with him to a foreign country all his privileges. It is said "And hereof there is a notable precedent in Fleta, lib. 2. c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Wadsworth v The Queen of Spain
    • United Kingdom
    • State Trial Proceedings
    • 28 May 1851
    ...(a)6St.Tr.N.S.33;6Beay.1. (6)GurneyattendedonbehalfoftheCityofLondontowatchtheproceedings,lestthecustomofforeignattachmentshouldbeinfringed.Seetibove,p.53n.intheplaint.Theaffidavitisnnnecessary,andnopartoftheproceedingsintheCourt.Banksv.Self(a)andHattonv.Isemonger.(b) LordCAMPBELL,L.C.J.:Th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT