THE QUEEN AND PRINCE ALBERT IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. [From the Atlas.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume V, Issue 377, 14 March 1849, Page 4

THE QUEEN AND PRINCE ALBERT IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. [From the Atlas.]

A fact has come under our notice, to which we attach more importance than to the ordinary news. It is not often that Royalty has occasion to appear in the" courts of law or of equity. There can he no doubt but that, as laid down in 'Bldckstone,' the sovereigns of this country cau sue as plaintiff in the courts, in respect of private aud personal rights, because they have these rights as individuals and not jure corona. But although such a \ right iiodoubedly exists — and it is part of the pride and the privilege of Englishmen that it should exist — the instances of its exercise are Tare. When the right to be asserted by the sovereign must be enforced by a court of equity, a difficulty arises ; because an injunction iv Chancery (in vacation) must be obtained oo petition and affidavit, and there would be a contradiction in the sovereign Himself petitioning the Court of Chancery. In the case to which we refer this difficulty has been got over by an arrangement quite legitimate. There are cases, we believe, on record, where Prince George of Denmark was a suitor in the courts; though we are not aware that he ever sued in his capacity of husband of Queen Anne. A prince consort, however, can initiate proceedings in Chancery on behalf of the sovereign which could not, without an apparent contradiction, commence •from the crown. Prince Albert has stepped .forward as the legal champion of the Queen. Her Majesty and the Prince are well known ,as patrons of the arts.. They are not " patrons" in a merely vulgar sense, but themselves follow art in various branches with a pure love not often manifested by royal persons. 'Our readers may remember to have read an . account, not long since, of various drawings and etchings which have been -executed by her Majesty and Prince Albert, and which excited a deserved admiration in those who were so favoured as to be allowed to inspect them. These drawings, or etchings, or copies_pf them it seems, have by some scandalous turpitude, been abstracted from the palace without authority. They were taken to a publisher in Paternoster-row, who proceeded to advertise them for publication, with a u . descriptive catalogue." It was not to be supposed that this piracy could be allowed to pass. That the parties aggrieved were our gracious Queen and her censort, was no reason why punishment should not follow the offence. Accordingly, it was resolved that proceedings should be taken to restrain the individual in question from proceeding with his threatened publication. It was necessary that Prince Albert should make an affidavit, which he did. We subjoin an abstract of it :— The deponent describes himself as " Albert, Prince of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, Consort of her Majesty the Queen," and maketh oath and stith :— " Th»t be has looked, through

the book intituled * A Descriptive Catalogue of the Royal Victoria and Albert gallery of Etchings.* That there are such etchings made by her Majesty and himself respectively ■< -therein mentioned — that the same were so made for the private use of her Majesty and himself and not for publication. That they lind a private press, from which they occasionally took impressions of the etchings, and that the plates were and are kept locked up by her Majesty, in order to prevent the same becoming public ; but that copies are left in some of the private apartments, and in such private apartments only. Thai there are various family portraits and etchings from old and rare engravings in the possession of her Majesty, and several from such original designs as in this catalogue mentioned, and that amongst such etchings are several portraits of the Princess Royal, and such scenes in the royal nursery as in the catalogue mentioned. That such etchings were; intended for the private use of her Majesty and the deponent only. That although some of such etchings have been given occasionally and very rarely to the personal friends of her Majesty, yet the deponent says, speaking positively for himself and to the best of his belief ior her Majesty, that no such collection as that advertised for exhibition was ever given away by them or either of them, or by their or either of their permission. That no such collection could ! have been formed except by impressions surreptitiously and improperly obtained, and believes that the defendant or the person or persons in the possession of the collection advertised for exhibition must have obtained, and did obtain the same from some persons surreptitiously. That by whatever means the same were obtained, the exhibition of the said etchings, or any of them, is without the sanction and against the wish of her majesty and deponent, and believes that such catalogue could not have been compiled or made except by possession of the several impressions of the said etchings so surreptitiously obtained. That the deponent's first knowledge of the existence of such Catalogue of Etchings was on the 11th of October, instant, when it was given to deponent by G. E. Anson, Esq., as a parcel which had been left at the palace, directed to her Majesty, and opened by him as her privy purse, and deponent thereby learnt, for the first time, that it was intended to submit them to public exhibition, and he believes on the same occasion, and at the same time, her Majesty first became aware of the existance of such catalogue, and deponent immediately desired the said G. E. Anson, Esq., to write to the private solicitor of her Majesty on the subject." Upon this affidavit an injunction was granted to restrain the publisher in question from proceeding further in the business. The application was made, and the injunction granted. It appears that in a legal point of view the question is a new one. The case of piracy of drawings not intended for publication does not appear to have come before the courts in any previous instance. The nearest case to it, in which an injunction has been granted, was where the application was to restrain the publication by a piratical bookseller of Archdeacon Paley's MS. sermon after his death. We rejoice that Her Majesty and her husband should have stepped down from their altitude thus to defend their personal rights. It is time that Royalty should be more effectually protected against intrusive vulgarity. But we rejoice also at this fact, because it gives so unquestionable an evidence of the healthiness of our institutions, and the absolute tranquillity of our condition. While other Sovereigns of Europe are fugitive or trembling on their thrones, the chief anxiety of the Queen of England (apart from those great duties which she transacts with her ministers) is to protect herself from the annoyance, which a natural modesty as an amateur artist no (ISubt exaggerates, of having her drawings executed in the leisure of domestic relaxation, and only communicated in the sacredness of private friendship, published without authority to the world, for the mere gratification of an idle and prurient curiosity.