The Sussex Peerage
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1844 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 09 July 1844 |
English Reports Citation: 8 E.R. 1034
House of Lords
Royal Marriage Act - Evidence - Practice - Construction of Statutes.
Mews' Dig. v. 5; vi. 522, 536, 696, 813, 915; vii. 632; viii. 319, 320; xiii. 1883, 1888. S.C. 8, Jur., 793. Adopted (i.) as to admission of entry in Prayer Book in In re Lambert, 1886, 56 L.J. Ch., 122; (ii.) as to admission against interest, in Smith v. Blakey, 1867, L.R. 2 Q.B., 332; (iii.) as to expert evidence, in In re Coppin, 1866, L.R. 2 Ch. 53; and cf. Reg. v. Savage, 1876, 13 Cox. C.C., 178; In the Goods of Dost Aly Khan, 1880, 6 P.D. 6; and (iv.), as to construction of statutes, in Cargo ex Argos, 1873, L.R., 5 P.C. 133; River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1877, 2 A.C. 778; Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel, (1891), A.C., 543.
[85] the sussex peerage [May 23, June 13, ^5, and 28, July 9, 1844]. [Mews' Dig. v. 5; vi. 522, 536, 696, 813, 915; vii. 632; viii. 319, 320; xiii. 1883, 1888. S.C. 8, Jur., 793. Adopted (i.) as to admission of entry in Prayer Book in In re Lambert, 1886, 56 L.J. Ch., 122; (ii.) as to admission against interest, in Smith v. Blakey, 1867, L.R. 2 Q.B., 332; (iii.) as to expert evidence, in In re Coppin, 1866, L.K. 2 Ch. 53 ; and cf. Reg. v. Savage, 1876, 13 Cox. C.C., 178 ; In the Goods of Dost Aly Khan, 1880, 6 P.D. 6 ; and (iv.), as to construction of statutes, in Cargo ex Argos, 1873, L.R., 5 P.C. 153; River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1877, 2 A.C. 778; Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel, (1891), A.C., 543.] Royal Marriage Act-Evidence-Practice-Construction of Statutes. The Royal Marriage Act, 12 Geo. 3, c. 11, extends to prohibit the contracting of marriages, or to annul any already contracted, in violation of its provisions, wherever the same may be contracted or solemnised, either within the realm, of England or without. In a claim of Peerage, where the question was whether the deceased Peer, the father of the claimant, had been married or not, a Prayer-book, found after the death of the claimant's mother among her papers, was received, and an entry made in her handwriting, declaring the fact of the marriage, read from it, not as conclusively proving that fact, but as a declaration of it made by one of the parties at the time. (Infra [11 Cl. and F.], p. 98.) A will of the deceased Peer, made many years before his death, declaring, and in the most solemn form, his marriage, and the legitimacy of his son (the claimant of the Peerage), was proposed to be read as a declaration made by one of the parties; but it was rejected, because the date, and certain expressions in it, showed it to have been written after a suit to annul a marriage of the deceased Peer had been instituted by his father, and because there was nothing to show that that marriage was not the very marriage in question. (Infra 11 Cl. and F.], pp. 99 to 103.) The declarations of a deceased clergyman to his son, to the effect that he had 1034 SUSSEX PEERAGE CASE [1844] XI CLARK & FINNELLT, 86 celebrated a marriage between the deceased Peer and his alleged wife, are not receivable in evidence as the declarations of a deceased party made against his own interest; such interest not being an interest of a pecuniary nature. The law does not recognise the apprehension of possible danger of a prosecution as creating an interest which can bring these declarations within the rule in favour of their admissibility in evidence upon the ground of their being declarations made against the interest of the party making them. (Infra [11 Cl. and F.], p. 103 et seq.) A. professional or official witness, giving evidence as to foreign law, may refer to foreign law books to refresh his memory, or to correct or confirm his opinion ; but the law itself must be taken from his evidence. A Roman-catholic Bishop, holding the office of coadjutor to a Vicar-apostolic in this country, is, in virtue of that office, to be considered as a person skilled in the matrimonial law of Rome, and therefore admissible as a witness to prove that law. In a claim of Peerage, where evidence has been produced for the purpose of establishing a certain point, the party who has produced it will not, should the Crown call evidence of a contradic-[86]-tory kind, be allowed to produce additional evidence confirmatory of the first. Before the claimant's junior counsel summed up the evidence previously to the openirg of the case on the part of the Crown, the counsel for the Crown ware required by the Committee to declare whether they would or would not call evidence on a question of foreign law, so as to enable the claimant's counsel to determine whether they would then (as they could not afterwards) produce any additional evidence on that question. By the Judges:-The .rule for sthe construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are of themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do, in such case, best declare the intention of the Legislature. Soon after the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, in the year 1843, a petition was presented to Her Majesty by Augustus Frederick D'Este, claiming the honours, dignities, and privileges of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Inverness, and Baron of Arklow. This petition, stating the grounds (see Lords' Journ. for 22d August 1843) upon which the claim rested, was referred by Her Majesty to the Attorney-general to consider and report thereon. Evidence in support of the claim was laid before the Attorney-general. The facts, as they appeared from the petitioner's printed case, were these:-His late Royal Highness, Prince Augustus Frederick, was the sixth son of his late Majesty Geo. 3; in 1793 he went to Rome, and on the 4th of April in that year intermarried with Lady Augusta Murray, the second daughter of the Earl and Countess of Dun-more; that marriage was celebrated by a clergyman of the church of England, in a form as nearly as could be according to the rites of the church of England, an English Prayer-book being used upon the occasion; and it was contracted and attested by two papers [87] signed by his Royal Highness and by Lady Augusta, which papers were in the following terms: - " As this paper is to contain the mutual promise of marriage between Augustus Frederick and Augusta Murray, our mutual names must be put here by us both, and kept in my possession; it is a promise neither of us can break, and is made before God our Creator and all-merciful Father." " On my knees before God our Creator, I Augustus Frederick promise thee Augusta Murray, and swear upon the Bible, as I hope for salvation in the world to come, that I will take thee Augusta Murray for my wife; for better for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish till death us do part; to love but thee only, and none other; and may God forget me if I ever forget thee. The Lord's name be praised ! So bless me ! So bless us, 0 God ! And 1035 XI CLAEK & FINNELL7, 88 SUSSEX PEERAGE CASE [1844] with my handwriting do I Augustus Frederick this sign, March the 21st, 1793, at Rome; and put my seal to it, and my name. (l. s.) Augustus Frederick." " (Completed at Rome, April 4th, 1793.) " " On my knees before God my Creator, I Augusta Murray promise and swear upon the Bible, as I hope for salvation in the world to come, to take thee Augustus Frederick for my husband; for better for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish till death us do part. So bless my God, and sign this. Augusta Murray." There were duplicates of these papers; and in the first of them, the words " Married, April 4th, 1793, [88] Rome, 7 o'clock at night," were introduced in the place of the words " Completed at Rome, April 4th, 1793." The latter words were added on the day thus mentioned, in the handwriting of his Royal Highness. The petitioner's case further stated that the parties were again regularly married in England, and that the petitioner was born in the parish of St. Marylebone, in the county of Middlesex, on the 13th January 1794; and the petitioner was the only male issue of the marriage: That by letters patent, dated on the 27th November 1801, his Royal Highness, Prince Augustus Frederick, was created a Peer of the realm, by the titles of Baron Arklow, Earl of Inverness, and Duke of Sussex, with limitation to the heirs male of his body; and that his Royal Highness afterwards sat and voted in Parliament, and died on the 21st April 1843, leaving the petitioner his only son and heir male him surviving. The Attorney-general, on the 21st August 1843, made a report to Her Majesty, in which he said, " It appears to me, on the testimony laid before me, that it is established that the contracts of marriage above set forth were entered into by his late Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex and the Lady Augusta Murray, at Rome, on the 21st of March 1793; and I think it may be inferred that his late Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex and the Lady Augusta Murray considered that they stood in the relation of husband and wife." He then expressed his doubts of the fact of any marriage, valid by the laws of England, having been contracted, even independently of the Royal Marriage Act (12 G. 3, c. 11); and declared that he was not satisfied with the correctness of certain opinions which were laid before him, stating that Act to have no binding force on parties living out of England. He [89] therefore recommended Her Majesty to refer the petition to the House of Lords. Her Majesty was pleased to adopt this recommendation; and on the 22d of August the petition, together with the Attorney-general's report, was referred to the House of Lords, and by the House to the Lords Committees for Privileges. At the first sitting of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng
...in the light of s 9A of the Interpretation Act. Whereas the plain meaning rule as laid down by Lord Tindal CJ in The Sussex Peerage (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85; 8 ER 1034 requires one to expound the words of the statute in their natural and ordinary sense where the words are in themselves precise......
-
Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
...therefore not examine the purpose of this provision. She relied on the plain meaning rule laid down by Tindal CJ in The Sussex Peerage (1844) 8 ER 1034 where his Lordship said at p If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to e......
-
Portmore Citizens Advisory Council and Portmore Joint Citizens Association v Ministry of Transport and Works and Attorney General of Jamaica
...15Counsel for the Claimants submitted that the words are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning as was stated in the Sussex Peerage Case [1848–60] ALL E.R. Rep.55 where Tindal C.J. said at page 63: "If the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous then no more can......
- Malaysia Borneo Finance Corporation (M) Bhd v Malayan Produce Company Sdn Bhd
-
Pleading and proving foreign law in Australia.
...Group Lid (1995) 37 NSWLR 131, 148 (Sheller JA), referring to Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 75A(8). (109) (1844) 11 CI & F 85, 115; 8 ER 1034, 1046. But see below Part VI on the modern modes of (110) This point is significant in Australian migration law: see, eg, Singh v Minister for I......
-
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN SINGAPORE
...concerned. 131 To add more confusion to the situation, Selvam J cited a 19th century English decision, viz, Sussex Peerage’s Case(1844) 8 ER 1034 as overriding the application of a 20th century statute passed by Parliament. Thus, ironically, while the judge thought that “[t]he primary duty ......
-
The Race Power — Its Replacement and Interpretation
...1901, 1995 reprint) 284. 58 Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse Co Ltd [1897] 2 QB 242, 299 (Chitty LJ). 59 The Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85, 143; 8 ER 1034, 1057 (Lord Tindal CJ). See also Tasmania v Commonwealth and Victoria (1904) 1 CLR 329, 339 (Griffith CJ). 426 Federal Law R......
-
Table of cases
...1, 2002 SCC 1 ...........................................................................................272, 314 Sussex Peerage Case (1844), 11 Cl & Fin 85, 8 ER 1034 ..................................... 70 Symes v Canada, [1993] 4 SCR 695, 110 DLR (4th) 470, [1993] SCJ No 131..................