Home

 

Click for header

Friday 22^nd January 1836

 

Duke of Cambridge v. Duke of Brunswick

 

Royal Court - sittings of   January 9th and 16

 

The court was occupied on these days in hearing the cause of "The Duke of Cambridge against the Duke of Brunswick".  The general facts will be learnt from the pleadings.

M. Duvergier appeared for the Duke of Cambridge, as guardian of the Duke of Brunswick. He reminded the court that, after the revolution of September 1830, Duke Charles of Brunswick was obliged to take refuge in France, and Duke William was invested with the sovereignty of the States of Brunswick, with the consent of the King of England, and his brothers, the Dukes of Cambridge, Sussex, and Cumberland, which given in February 1831. The Diet of Frankfort also gave its approbation to this arrangement in May 1831.  Duke Charles protested against it to the King of England, his uncle, expressing fears for the preservation of his patrimony, and the King of England replied to him in the following letter: -

"Brighton,  Dec 24, 1830

I have just received your Royal Highness's letter of the 14^th; and am obliged to refer you to the communications which I made to you during your last stay in England, in order to express to you my unwillingness to pay any further attention to the steps you take with me, and to the assurances which you continually give me of your wish to accommodate yourself to what I desire. I owe it to myself and to the sincerity with which I have treated the arrangements between yourself and your Duchy, arrangements which unfortunately have been the inevitable consequences of your extraordinarily conduct, to declare to you that I have lost all confidence in your word, and that I will do nothing more for you. Your Royal Highness has thought fit to act for yourself; you must submit to the consequences; at the same time, however, I must observed that I shall adopt suitable measures against you, if you endeavour again, as you lately done, to disturb the peace and repose of my German possessions, and principally of the Duchy of Brunswick, by exciting a revolutionary movement in Germany.

As for your enterprise, and what passed during your stay at Osterode, I have received official reports from his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge; and I am bound to say that these reports are very different from what you have written to me upon the subject. It appears that your Royal Highness took a needless alarm, and that the care of saving your person occasioned your precipitate flight from Osterode, leaving to the mercy of the inhabitants your equipage and your effects. In the meantime the authorities have had them sent to his Royal Highness and the Duke William.

"William, Rex"

M. Duvergier went on to say that the facts of the case became so important, that the near relations of the Duke's family were obliged to interfere. The Duke not only dissipated considerable sums of money, but also meditated an expedition, and even a naval one, for the recovery of his estates. The King of England found his interdiction to be necessary, and he placed the Duke under the guardianship of the Duke of Cambridge, who was authorised to charge one or more persons with the administrative management of all the goods of Duke Charles, as guardians. The official notice of this act was communicated to the French government, and signified to Duke Charles by the Procureur du Roi. The interdiction was attempted to be rendered executable in France; the cause was tried before the First Chamber of the Tribunal de Première Instance, and on the 24th January 1833, a decree was given against the Duke of Cambridge; the interdiction being considered by the court to be a political act, and not a legal judgement. The learned counsel contended against this decision of the inferior court; showed that the interdiction was made in conformity with legal practice of Germany; that similar acts had,  in other cases, been allowed to stand good in France: and that it was an act of moderation and foresight, dictated in the interest of Duke Charles by his nearest relations. The purity of the intentions of the King of England was most clearly proved by a note addressed to M. Duvergier himself by the Chargé d'Affaires of His Britannic Majesty the King of Hanover, and that of the government of Brunswick. The learned advocate concluded his pleadings by entering into some minor points.

M. Comte (for the Duke Charles of Brunswick) prayed the Court to confirm the decision of the Court of Première Instance, and to grant Duke Charles damages for the losses he had suffered from the different persons who had detained his property. Before proceeding with his pleadings he begged that the Duke of Brunswick might be heard upon particular facts.

The President granted permission, but said it might be revoked if abused.

Duke Charles (who stood at the bar with a voluminous speech and the large role of papers in his hands), after expressing much regret at being obliged to reveal the motives which he said influenced his uncle the King of England, went on to say, "My adversaries have endeavoured to intimidate me by spreading the report that the boldness of my speeches would be an excuse to them with the French Government for seizing upon my person. The King of England would have been glad to find in my former words a motive for obtaining my expulsion. An answer was given to him, that the cause was pending before the French tribunals, and that complaints must be addressed to them. In consequence, of this my adversaries have made an appeal; they wished to tear me away from my asylum, and to force me to have recourse to their protection and their pity. This is what I never will do; death would be a thousand times to be preferred. The principal object of my adversaries is to make me quit France and Europe, in order to throw me into the first madhouse which they may find at their disposal. After the revolution of July, when I was obliged to quit my states, France gave me an asylum. As yet there was no question raised about taking away my property. I went myself to England and to Brighton to reclaim what belonged to me. The King, my uncle, assured me that I had nothing to fear for my property in England; and that if what I had left at Brunswick were touched, he should consider it an act of spoliation. Since that time this language has been changed; I have been dragged before courts of justice, and my defence has been exclaimed against as insulting to the King of England; it might as well be said that a stag insults a pack of hounds in wishing to escape from them. The usurper of my states has arrogated to himself a right in flagrant contradiction with the fundamental laws of the Duchy of Brunswick. There, as elsewhere, Sovereigns are responsible to the tribunals; if, therefore, I had been a subject of the Duke of Brunswick, I should have been responsible to the Brunswick tribunals, not to him.  It has been asked why I did not address myself to these tribunals; and the example of Charles X has been cited, pleading before the tribunals of France. There is a great difference, gentlemen, in our positions; Charles X had abdicated; I have not. It has been asked why I did not protest to the Frankfort Diet; here is the protest, which I lay upon the table. It has been asked why I did not protest to other Powers: here are these numerous protests, which I am going to lay before you."

These documents were, by the permission of the President, added to the other documents in the case.

The illustrious Duke then went on to answer many of the allegations made against him. He contended that his threat of attempting to recover his territory by a naval expedition was not an idle or absurd one;  that, though the state of Brunswick was not in any part open to the sea, yet an expedition by sea might land near Bremen, and crossing the Hanoverian territory (which he contended he would be justified in doing in retaliation for the violation of his territory by the troops of the King of Hanover), it could soon arrive at Brunswick. After other remarks not quite relevant to the point at issue, his Serene Highness denied that he had ever received the letter said to have been written to him by the King of England. He next said that he should have little honour left if he entered into relations with felons, traitors, and incendiaries (alluding to his late subjects).

(Here he was called to order by the President, and desired to abstain from all violent expressions).

He next went on to contend that his uncle, the King of England, though his Guardian during his minority, had no right to alter the constitution of the state, but was bound to deliver it up as he had received it. After complaining of the harassing conduct of his adversaries, and of the great pecuniary losses he had sustained through it, he concluded by throwing himself on the justice of the Court, and by declaring that he fully accepted of French judges as arbiters between himself and the King of England. At the conclusion of his speech the Duke took his seat beside his advocate.

M. Comte then pursued his pleadings, and observed that many of the acts of the Duke were to be attributed to a set of intriguers, by whom he had been surrounded. He claimed damages for his client.

M. Duvergier opposed the demand for damages.

M. Berville, First Advocate-General, remarked to the Court the flattering testimony borne to its impartiality by two Sovereign Princes appealing to its jurisdiction; stated the question for its consideration was that of the validity of a personal statute in France made in a foreign country; and concluded by calling upon the Court to confirm the decision of the inferior court, and to reject the appeal with damages.

Messier Comte said that 100,000 francs had been deposited as caution-money by the Duke of Cambridge.

The Court retired at half past 2 o'clock to deliberate, and at a quarter to 4 returned, when the President pronounced the following decree, confirming to the decision of the Court of Première Instance, but upon other grants:-

"Considering that the act of the 6^th of February and 14^th of March, 1833, by its form, by the authority from which it proceeds, by the person to whom it refers, by the circumstances in which it interferes, and by the motives upon which it is founded, is essentially a political act, the effects of which cannot be regulated by civil law; considering also that an act of this nature cannot affect the civil capacity of a foreigner in France, and cannot be put into execution there; with regard to the present appeal, considering, that by the effect of notifications and oppositions made at the request of the Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of Brunswick has suffered a loss which the Court cannot yet estimate; the Court sets aside the appeal and the subject of it, inasmuch as it has not accorded damages to the Duke of Brunswick; amending it in this respect, it condemns the Duke of Cambridge to the payment of damages to be paid into the court, and orders that the sum of 100,000 francs, deposited as caution-money, shall remain so until the payment of the damages, after deduction shall have been made at once and for the costs of the trial in Première Instance and the appeal. This decision to have effect immediately.