An interesting point of French law, which remains controversial in Roman and Scottish law, according to the authority of Lord Mackenzie, is that which decides the ineligibility of a child _conceived_ in adultery to be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents, even though at the time of such child’s birth the parents were free to marry. There are other little differences between the French and Scottish laws relating to legitimation. On the whole, Scotland is well equipped to deal with all such questions. It remains for England to follow suit. There is no conceivable room for doubt that if a man wishes his natural children to become legitimate, he should have the power to make them so, without the considerable formality of an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament is of course a perfect means of accomplishment in the sense that it is a law unto itself, but the expense and difficulty of obtaining such an instrument put it on an impracticable plane, beyond the reach of nearly all. Though the interest of many people in legitimation may be merely abstract, the subject is of some marked importance. The laws of any country are incomplete without reasonable provision for _legitimatio per subsequens matrimonium_. Interesting cases such as the recent Sackville peerage claim and the earlier claim by “Viscount Hinton” to the peerage of Lord Poulett, whom he alleged to be his legitimate father, if one may turn a phrase, come from time to time before the English courts. Neither of the two claims mentioned was successful, but there appeared to be little doubt that the claimants in both cases were the offspring of the peers in question. To fall at random upon history one remembers that William the Conqueror was a natural son. The Duke of Monmouth, who married the Countess of Buccleuch (in her own right) was a natural son of Charles II., like the ancestor of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the ancestor of the Duke of Grafton, and the ancestor of the Duke of St. Albans, among others. The absence of a legal tie does not prevent the perpetuation of blooded stock, though convention and policy have made the tie a very necessary formality. FOOTNOTES [32] See Appendix E. [33] Mr. Chester’s italics. NOTE IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEXT CHAPTER. At the moment of going to press, a singularly strange case is reported in which a convicted murderer, Charles Ellson, has had his conviction quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, irrespective of the question of his guilt. The report in outline is as follows: “The first successful appeal made by a person convicted of murder since the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal was decided yesterday by that tribunal, which quashed the conviction of Charles Ellson for the murder of Rose Render in Clerkenwell. The man, who was present in court, was immediately released.