THE SUSSEX PEERAGE CLAIM. DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES ON JULY 9, 1844, AS TO THE CLAIM TO THE DUKEDOM OF SUSSEX AND THE EFFECT OF THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT (12 GEO. 3. c. 11.). (Reported in 11 Cl. & F. 85 and 8 Jur. 793.) On the death of the Duke of Sussex, fifth son of George the Third, Augustus Frederick dEste presented a petition to the Crown claiming the honours of the late Duke as the issue of a. marriage contracted at Rome in the year 1793, between the late Duke, then Prince Augustus Frederick, a minor, and the Lady Augusta Murray, according to the rites of the Church of England, but without the previous consent of the reigning Sovereign. The Crown referred the question to the House of Lords, and the House to the Committee for Privileges. Held by Lords Lyndhurst, L.C., Brougham, Denman, L.C.J., Cottenham, Campbell, and Langdale, M.R., in the Committee for Privileges- 1. Royal Marriage Act. Marriage contracted abroad. That 12 Geo. 3. c. 11. which provides that no person therein named shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, signified under the Great Seal and declared in Council," and that every such marriage without such consent first had and obtained "shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever " applies to marriages celebrated abroad. 2. Evidence. Declarations of deceased Persons : Declaration against interest. Foreign Law. --Witness peritus virtute officii. On a question as to the validity of a marriage, an entry of the marriage made by one of the parties in a Prayer-book is admissible as a declaration by one of the parties that there was a marriage, though not admissible to prove the marriage. A solemn declaration of the fact of his marriage and of the legitimacy of his son, made in a will by one of the parties after proceedings had been taken to annul the marriage, is inadmissible, as having been made post litem motam. A declaration by a deceased clergyman that he performed the marriage under circumstances rendering him liable to a criminal prosecution is not admissible as a declaration against his interest, such interest not being of a pecuniary nature. (Standen v. Standen disapproved.) A Roman Catholic bishop exercising jurisdiction in England is admissible as a witness to prove the matrimonial law of Rome in the year 1793, being peritus virtute officii. A Jesuit priest having received a similar training is not admissible. (Reg. v. Dent (a) disapproved.) (a) 1 C. & K. 97. The Duke of Sumac, fifth eon of George the Third, having died on April 21, 1843, shortly afterwards Augustus Frederick dEste presented a petition to the Crown claiming the dignities of Baron of Arklow, , Earl of Inverness, and Duke of Susses, as the lawful issue of a marriage contracted at Rome in the year 1793 between the deceased Duke, then Prince Augustus Frederick, a minor, and the Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the Earl of Dunmore, according to the rites of the Church of England, but without the consent of the reigning sovereign, as required by the Royal Marriage Act 12 Geo. 3. c. 11. The facts relating to the marriage(a) are stated (a) See also the privately printed " Papers elucidating the claims and explaining the proceedings in Chancery of Sir Augustus dEste,at length in the Case presented on behalf of the petitioner to the Committee for Privileges. Narrative. His late Royal Highness, the Duke of Sue-sex, then Prince Augustus, was sent abroad in the year 1786, at the age of thirteen, to Gottingen, for his education, and he continued on the continent from that time until the month of September in the year 1793, without visiting England, the marriage having taken place at Rome in the month of April immediately preceding. In the latter part of the year 1792, the Prince, who was then travelling for his health, 1832," which contain an opinion by Dr. Lushington favourable to the validity of the marriage. 81] The Sussex Peerage Claim, 1844. [82 went to Rome, where he was for the first time introduced to the claimants mother, then Lady Augusta Murray, who, with her sister, the Lady Virginia Murray, and her mother, the Countess of Dunmore, arrived there in the course of that autumn, and were at this time residing at the Hotel Sarmiento, which was not far distant from the residence of the Prince. Shortly after their acquaintance the Prince began to pay the claimants mother particular attention, and a correspondence ensued between them, which led to the growth of an honourable and very powerful attachment on the part of the Prince in the first instance, and which in a short time became mutual. A part of this correspondence, together with the journals kept by each of the parties for some time, came into the claimants possession upon the death of his mother, and these documents will be found faithfully to delineate the nature and course of that attachment. and the genuine motives which led to the marriage. After some weeks had passed, during which the parties met in society and corresponded daily, the Prince made proposals of marriage to the claimants mother, which were for some time rejected but urgent importunity, and the strong and often-repeated declarations of the most ardent affection, at length prevailed, and the proposal was accepted. This is mentioned by the Prince in his letter to the then Mr., and afterwards Lord, Erskine, dated 29th January 1798, of which the following is an extract: "After four months intimacy, by which I got more particularly acquainted with all her endearing qualities, I offered her my hand, unknown to her family, being certain beforehand of the objections Lady Dunmore would have made me had she been informed of my intentions. The candour and generosity my wife showed on this occasion, by refusing the proposal, and showing me the personal disadvantages I should draw upon myself, instead of checking my endeavours, served only to add new fuel to a passion which already no earthly power could evermore have extinguished." On the 21st of March a solemn contract of marriage was entered into between the parties in the following form: " 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 wit e ; 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 Lords Name be praised I So bless me I So bless us, 0 God I And with my handwriting do I, Augustus Frederick, thissign, March; the 21st, 1793, at Rome, and put my seal to it, and my name. (L.S.) " AUGUSTUS FREDERICK. (Completed at Rome, April 4th, 1793.1" " March 21st, 1793, Rome. " 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." The words " Completed at Rome, April 4th 1793," appear to have been subsequently added and are in the Princes handwriting. After setting forth extracts froth letters which passed between the Prince and Lady Augusta Murray dated March 25th and 26th, and extracts from the journal of the claimants mother of the same date, the Case proceeded After the parties had resolved to marry, and the Prince proceeded to carry that intention into effect, he learnt (as the fact is) that the law of Rome neither contemplates nor makes any provision for the marriage of persons professing the Protestant religion, and that a priest of the Church of Rome could not, according to the laws of that Church, assist in the marriage of Protestants ; and, in consequence, his Royal Highness made great exertions to discover some Protestant clergyman who would perform the ceremony with secrecy ; but all the endeavours and inquiries made by the Prince and the claimants mother, under his directions, for this purpose, proved ineffectual ; and a strict search in the American (Armenian) and foreign seminaries at Rome, and repeated applications made at Leghorn and other neighbouring places, met with no better success. In this difficulty the Prince at length determined to confide his secret to the Reverend William Gunn, a Protestant clergyman of the Church of England in full orders who was then resident at Rome, and to whom he had hitherto forborne to apply because he had been for some time personally known to him, and the Prince had anticipated the being able to procure someone to whom he was a stranger. The Case then set out extracts from letters showing the anxiety of the parties on the subject, and their views respecting the marriage ultimately wlemnized. No other clergyman having been found, the Prince at length made his contemplated application to Mr. Gunn on the 2nd of April. Mr. Gunn, who foresaw that the Prince by the proposed marriage would incur the displeasure of his Majesty,.used every argument to dissuade him from the step he was desirous of taking, but without success ; and, finding the Prince could not be induced to relinquish the marriage, Mr. Gunn, at the hazard of offending 83] The Sussex Peerage Claim, 1844. [84 His Royal Highness, refused to render his assistance, and the parties began to despair of his being able to induce him to marry them unless...
