The Sun. — London, England, 1861-02-04 00:00:00

BONAPARTE V. PATERSON, PARIS, SATURDAY. The proceedings in the case of M. Jerome Bona parte and Miss Elizabeth Paterson against Prince Napoleon was resumed at half-past 10 o'clock yes tetday in the Court of /first Instance. M. Benoit Champy presided, assisted by eight judges. The hall in which the sittings were held is small, and gives accommodation to very few persons besides the members of the bar, the great majority of whom attended as simple spectators, and had no priority in place over the rest of the auditory. A small number of persons belonging to the magistracy had seats allotted to them on the platform behind the judges, and those who obtained tickets by the courtesy of M. Benoit Champy were placed on the benches close to the leading counsel on both sides. A newly-appointed judge to some other court having been sworn in, and some few formalities having been gone through, Monsieur, or rather Maitre Berryer (for such, according to the etiquette of the French courts of law, is the designation of a member of the bar), rose to reply to the speech of M. Allan, counsel for P,rince Napoleon at the last sitting. He observed that the system of defence adopted by the opposite party, the document which he had Produced since the last sittin g , w oul d prevent him from being as brief as he desired. Nevertheless, he should endeavour to be as rapid as possible without omitting anything important to his case. He alluded to the remark that he had pleaded in this case simply for the sake of pleading, and without the hope of a favourable decision ; that he had pub lished an impassioned memoir, and that his plead in gs had excited the passions of the public. To all that he had nothing to say, because it was to the judges that he addressed himself. His adversary thought himself authorised to look upon the mar riage of M. Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte with Miss Paterson as a romantic legend—a chimera—a vague story floating in the air ; yet he could not deny that it was to destroy this romantic legend, this chi maera, that a powerful Emperor had employed the irregular arms which his absolute power furnished him with. He could not again go over what had been said on the other side touching the manners of the country of which Miss Paterson was a native— the description of these voluptuous climes—the en chanting banks of the Potomac, of the stream which flows 30 leagues from Baltimore—of the character of the populations of the Southern States, so diffe rent from those of the North. He would not remind them that Baltimore is to the north of the grave of Washington, that Maryland is to the north of Vir ginia, and that Virginia itself is not in the south. He would omit all this display of geographical science, which was only fbr the purpose of injuring the reputation of her for whom he appeared. The very age of Miss Paterson had been altered. She was born on the Gth oP Feb, 1785; she was, then, on her marriage not 21 years, as had been said, but 18. This was important, because this young lady,. the child of honourable parents, had been repre sented to the Court as one born under a corrupting climate, with light and easy morals, impassioned, and exposing herself to every risk; and words had been attributed to her which could only be put in the mouth of the most abandoned ; words attributed to the woman who had selected this Court as her judges, a woman who at the age of 75 had crossed the ocean to claim from the bench protection for her honour. " Yet," cried M. Berryer— "My adversary ht:s been forced to deny, as it were, his own words, and pay a striking homage to my client—Madame Paterson, he admitted, had re signed herself with, dignity when the days of en chantment had fled. She cherished the sacred me mory of the past. Since she could not be the wife of Jerome Bonaparte, she would be thz, wife of no one ; and when sh a regained her freedom by the American as well e$ the French law, she remained alone and respected, sharing her existence with her child. This is wha,:t you have been forced to admit —this young woreran of 18, abandoned at 20, re mained all her li tc, in virtuous celibacy ; she re mained the object .of general respect ; and this is the person you he'd the courage to outrage. Yet she had suffered t )ao long and too much not to see herself exposed, i a the presence of French judges, to the moat insult zing imputations. Why is it that the beauty, the character, the morals, and the purity of my client have - thus been degraded by you? It is because it was absolutely necessary to establish that the marriage had ;not been contracted in good faith." M. Berryer then referred to a letter emanating from a Mr. Goold, of the Rue Neuve St. Augustin, 33, who placed himseilf at the disposal of Prince Napo leon, in order to j u Fairy the respectful desire he had to give the Princ 3 information about the marriage at Baltimore. IL, says that in that country the mar riage was not con s Here(' serious; that it was a popu lar tradition in I .4.aryland that Miss Paterson had run the risk of filing herself at the end only a morganatic wife. What this obliging gentleman implied the court might guess. The other side had tried to show that the young naval officer had been the victim of a kind of violence ; but M. Berryer maintained that the marriage was contracted in good faith, not on ly by Miss Paterson but also by M. Jerome Bonailarte. Miss Paterson, born in 1785, was 18 years old. The marriage took place after a correspondence c rintinned for months; it was the Spanish Ambassador who demanded the hand of Miss Paterson, and it was Mr. Paterson who ledhis child to the altar.. The French Ambassador was in vited to the cere:mony; he did not attend, but the reason he would 'explain. The marriage was cele brated in the cathedral; the nuptial benediction was solemnly pronounced by the bishop in presence of the French consul. r.he act was inscribed in the public records. Could the good faith with which the mar riage was contrasted be doubted after that ? It was accompanied with all the guarantees and with all the solemnities required by the laws of the country. Even before the marriage, care was taken to pro duce before the cTtrk of the county the license— that is to say, the document showing that all pre liminary conditio as the law required had been satis fied. So much fccr the good faith of Miss Paterson. He should show that the same good faith existed on the part of M.. Jerome Bonaparte: Jerome Bona parte had been ehttrged with forcing Mr. Paterson to consent, with having seduced M. Sottin, with having paralysed M. Pichou, the Ambassador and Consul of France. Be had left France in 1802. He declared, and the documents laid before the Court proved, that he was 21 years old. He proved his age by his rank as an officer, which he could obtain only at that age. I Lis commission specified 22 years. When he embark ed for America the law of 1792 was in force; and that law permitted children to contract marriage without the consent o f th e i r parents when they had attained 21 years. A t this epoch of legislative transition, that M. Pichou should have discovered tho existence of a new law prescrib ing new conditions for marriage, and that, never theless, Jerome Bonaparte and the Paterson family should have sincerely thought that the civil code was not yet obligatory for a Frenchman who, leav ing France while a different law prevailed, found himself in another hemisphere, I easily understand, and do not mean to say there was a calculation which would be odious on the part of Jerome Bona parte. Him good faith was established, and the proof was to be found in the correspondence of M. Pichou himself. Before the marriage was cele brated on the 24th of December many letters were written by him, extracted from the archives of the Foreign-office, and of which he had copies. The ' real explanation was to be found in a book pub lished by him, and ii which are contained some important facts. It appeared that a warm alterca tion had arisen between Jerome Bonaparte and him ; and M. Pichou accused Jerome with having, denounced him. Ire mentions that he had ex pressed in presence of Jerome Bonaparte his disap proval of the rupture of the Peace of Amiens, and he adds, " M. Jerome Bonaparte, directed no doubt by those who accompanied him, denounced me on leaving my house." Jerome Bonaparte wrote to the Consul from New York en Nov. 18,1803, explain. ing what he had written to the French Govern ment. The letter contained the following c • ;mous passage : " Those remarks are reduced to three statements which you made to me. The first is that if R e had war it was because the first consul desired to reven ge himself for the insulting language of the English papers against him. To the second you replied to General Barbell, who was watching you, that this country w mieful fin p military 11111 A to be I* quainted with, because no one knew what might happen, and that the First Consul had enough to do to govern his own country without seeking to govern others. The third was that the Fre! ch were more enslaved than ever, and that neither civil nor military rights existed is France. This, citizen, is what I represented to the Consul, and t I is is what you said to me in the carriage in pre nce of Gen. Burbell and of my secretary. I now ask you if you would not have acted as I did ? I ask you, more over, if you would have been as moderate, for you must remember that I did not answer a word ? I speak to you of this affair, citizen, only to let you know that I have only done my duty." The fact was, M. Pichou thought that after his marriage with the daughter of so respectable a citizen of the United States M. Jerome Bonaparte might desire to have the post of ambassador to the United States, and, what would be more unplea sant, General Smith, the brother-in-law of Mr. Paterson, might want for himself that of ambassa dor of the United States to France, and that incon venience would result from the family alliance between the representatives of the two Powers. Hence the objections of M. Pichou. M. Pichou's correspondence showed that M. Jerome Bona- parte was presented to the President Jefferson on the 23d of October. The marriage was fixed for the following week, and there could be no doubt that he informed the President that he was en the point of marriage with a citizen of the United States. M. Pichou had promised to be present at the marriage, and it was only after having dis covered the number of the Moniteur announcing the promulgation of the Code Civil that he wrote to M. Bonaparte and Mr. Paterson the letters of which use has been made. The presentation to the President, the communication of his intended marriage to the authorities, the invitations to the French functionaries, the Consul, and the Ambas sador, preclude the idea of a clandestine marriage. The Ambassador declined the invitation, but the Consul attended. M. Bonaparte had no wish to evade the French law, and the correspondence of M. Pichou proved nothing against his good faith, and could notprove that anything clandestine was even intended. He had already shown that the marriage had been known in France more than a [ year before the protest of Madame Letitia—the mother of Jerome—the only thing which implied an attack. The papers produced observed that the marriage had been known in France; consequently the door was closed to all pretext for annulling it. M. Berryer maintained that the possession of the "civil condition" of Madame Paterson was amply proved. It was no matter where she and M. Jerome Bonaparte lived as husband and wife. In the United States or elsewhere was a matter of indifference; and the fact of Madame Paterson having lived as the legitimate wife of Jerome was not less certain. That possession of " civil condition" lasted to 1806 ; she was always considered by Jerome as legitimately united to him. His whole correspond ence proved the fact, and he repeats to her that for nothing on earth would he abandon her ; that either wealth, nor fortune, nor crowns would tempt him to renounce her. The strange argument put forward on the other side—namely, that the second marriage of Jerome was the negation of the first, was untenable. The violation of the rights which resulted from the first marriage could not be a negation of those rights. Jerome Bonaparte had for three years treated Madame Paterson as his legi timate wife, and, forsooth, because he himself was afterwards faithless to his oaths, to his own letters, to his affection for the mother of his son, his own faults could affect the possession of her civil condi tion ! Such an argument was monstrous. The pos session of the civil condition of the wife was per petuated by the civil condition of her son, and the legitimacy of the latter profited his mother. With respect to the son the law was most positive, and no body could dispute the condition of legitimacy of him who proved the possession of condition caa formable to his certificate o' birth. He showed that in tl.e case of Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte (the son) the legal conditions of such a possession were never more complete. He showed from the voluminous correspondence with all the members of the Bona parte family that from the moment of his appear ance he was treated as the cherished child of the family, that when he married his wife was received as a new member of the Imperial family, and his son again treated as the nephew and grandson ; and Cardinal Fesch, the uncle of Napoleon 1., left him a legacy by his last will. Even after the disappear ance or death of many of the family, the surviving members did not cease to treat him with the same regard and affection. In 1854 the present Emperor informed M. Jerome Bonaparte, his cousin, that the French laws recognised him us legitimate, and that he informed his uncle (Prince Jerome) that he (the Emperor) could not consider him in any other light. M. Berryer held the certified copy of a con sultation, specifying that his client bad appended a note to the copy, to the effect that when the Emperor handed him the consultation, his Majesty named MM. Troplong, Baroche, and Abbatucci as the per sons who had deliberated. M. Troplong, it was true, now pretended that he had never signed it, and he (M. Berryer) was bound to believe his word. The original was daily expected from America, and they should then, from the handwriting, know who really had signed it. Be this as it might, the son of M. Jerome Bonaparte, his client, had obtained rank in the French army by reason of his relation ship to the Imperial family—an exorbitant privi lege which a private citizen had never been able to obtain, and which could be explained only by that relationship. Prince Napoleon wrote to his client in July, 1854, as follows : "My dear Jerome,—l have received your letter with great pleasure, as well as the few words added by your son. How I regret not to be at Paris ! During the 14 years that we have not seen each other fortune has brought a great change in my existence. I have passed through many situations, but I am happy that our friendship continues the same. It is with real satisfaction that those family feelings and personal sympathies are cherished. I appreciate them all the more that such is not the case with all my relations, especially with my sister, whom I only see as a stranger. These sad reflections should not issue from my pen at a mo ment that I feel so much joy in recalling our fra ternal recollections. "I do nc,t know NI hat the effect of this war (with Russia) reserves for me; I hope that before winter something will be decided. A thousand love's to your son, whoml embrace and love already for all the good things they write me about him, " Your affectionate brother, " NAPOLEON BONAPARTE." M. Berryer read, commenting on certain passages, the letter written by the late Prince Jerome to his nephew, the present Emperor, complaining that, as he now called them, " the son and grandson of Miss Paterson," the same whom in his former letters he designated as " Madame Bonaparte and M. Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte," had come to France in order to throw doubts on the legitimacy of his children by his second marriage and to prepare a scandalous lawsuit at the opening of his will. M. Berryer showed there was no danger whatever of any rivalry as to succession to the crown of France. No one disputed the legitimacy of the children of the second marriage. The present snit was simply about a question of inheriting a share of the property left by the deceased Prince—nothianegkmowrele.dTghede by y gh h t is s of the defendants were openly no clients. The Princess of Wurtemberg's father and uncle may have been deceived, even setting aside the political circumstances which attended the marriage, but the perfect good faith of that princess could not be called in question. M. Berryer entered into a legal argument to show that the juridical theory of the counsel on the other side as to the consequences flowing from the defect of previous publication in France of the marriage of Jerome Bonaparte and Miss Paterson was erro neous, and that it did not produce nullity of the marriage. It was meant to inform the family of the parties, to appeal to all whose consent the law required. If the required consent was not forth coming it was a nullity which a certain delay would cover ; and when the principal nullity was covered, was it meant that defect resulting from the want of the necessary formality should subsist and not be covered ? The year which elapses since a marriage is brought to the knowledge of the head of the family covers as well the want of publication as the want of consent, and this opinion was proved by a decision of the Court in the Mayer case in May, It 30• Ie examined. At length the imperial decree of) Ventose, year XIII., regulating the marriage of the princess of the Imperial family. That decree was in itself null and of no effect. The Senatus-Consul tum of the year XII. gave him no right on a mar riage concluded in 1803. And, moreover, Jerome Bonaparte, though brother of the Emperor, did not belong to the Imperial family ; and as for the legis lation of 1805 and 1800, it was impossible it could confer on the head of the family a retroactive power over:a union formed by a brother who was not called to succeed to the throne. The decree of the 26th Ventose was not countersigned by the Secretary of State, Maret, as all other decrees were. It was not inserted, as the law required, in the Bulletin des Lois, and in point of fact it was merely a project of decree, and not a decree, and could not have the effect of law. After dwelling on this point at some length, M. Berryer referred to an incident men tioned by Prince Napoleon's counsel at the first hearing of the case, and which produced the only manifestation of unrestrained feeling from the audience during the day. M. Allou, the Prince's counsel, had referred, in support of the right of the head of a reigning family to annul the clandestine marriage of one of its members, to a marriage said to have taken place between the Duke of Berry (father of the Count of Chambord) during his emi gration in England, and the presence of the chil dren of the issue of that marriage at the moment the Prince was dying from the wound he received from the dagger of Louvel at the Opera House on the night of the 13th February, 1620. When M. Berryer touched this point every one could perceive the deep feeling under which the great orator laboured. His voice, ever clear and melodious, and audible even in iN lowest tones, trembled with emotion. The Duke of Berry, in the agony of death, summoned his two illegitimate daughters to his side, and recommended them to the Duchess, his wife, who knelt weeping by him. " You have reminded us," said the orator," rais ing his voice, and turning to his adversary, while the deepest silence prevailed,— "You have reminded us of the noble conduct of the Duchess of Berry, who embraced the children of her husband's youth, and who said to them (you yourself have repeated the words), Come to me, my children; here is my legitimate daughter; embrace your sister.' Yes, when I recall that scene, I cannot help thinking of that last will and testa ment in which Prince Jerome forgot both wife and child, and in which he had not a single word for either. You say that the Duke of Berry married in England. It is false ; there was no marriage. What authority have you ? You say that in 1834 a lady of the name of Brady, who had composed romances, published in the Encyclopedic des Gens do 2Wonde a biographical article, in which these words appeared—' It was then that he married a young Englishwoman.' You quote M. de Lamartine who wrote in 1552 that in London the Duke of Berry had lived in the mystery of a lasting union with a person by whom he had two children ; and finally, you quote the biography of M. Didot, in which it is said that the Duke of Berry married in London a young Englishwoman whom he abandoned. It is utterly false ! You say that there are certificates of birth; that people went to Lon don to inspect the marriage registry of 1806, and that the catalogue refers to a great registry, page 37 ; and that the page was wanting, and conse quently that the entry was removed." M. Berryer said, that the chaplain of the French chapel had written him two letters, to the effect that the Chancellor of the French Embassy, after having carefully searched the registry, had not dis covered the slightest trace of a marriage, or of a baptism, Ferdinand or Brown. He added that the registry was intact, and that the page 37 had not been - disturbed, and it attests the marriage 1821 of one William Brown with a certain Dalila Sailly, of Etaples. A second letter from the same chaplain says,— " I have just seen the Chancellor (of the French Embassy); he regrets that 111. - .. adverse party had not profited by the last clear information he had ,3e et in order to rectify the mistake of a too hasty search in the registry." After showing that there was no foundation whatever for the statement that the Duke of Berry had married in England, he said— " My opponent has not hesitated to tell you that if the children who w ero the issue of this illustrious origin came here this day to claim their rights as legitimate I should be in his place to reject such pretensions. Well, then, I believe I have the right to reply that there is no human being on earth, however high he may be placed, who would ever expect from me such condescension. No act of my life could ever have exposed me to a reproach of this kind; and permit me to tell you that I may unburden my heart and finish with the unhappy resemblance you have attempted—that if the Count of Chambord himself had ever penned letters like some of those which Prince Napoleon has written to his brother, he would not have dared to call to this bar any one to support such a repudiation of relationship." A burst of applause, with clapping of hands, and cries of " Bravo!" from the lower end of the hall, followed this declaration, delivered as it was in a voice of thunder and with uplifted arm. It lasted some minutes. When silence was restored the presiding judge ordered that the court should be cleared from the third bench to the door. The officers on duty ex pelled a few persons, and order, which W4B not again interrupted, was soon restored. M. Berrycr resumed his argument, which he con cluded with these words : "My case is whole and entire. I maintain that it is good, sound, incontestible, in law and right, in all points. My opponent has said that there had been in this cause a change in jurisdiction, but not in justice. Gentlemen, when jurisdiction is changed there is no longer justice. It is you, our judges, who contribute justice; justice there is none but yours. It is to you alone I appeal--to you alone, and the opinion out of doors, however favourable that opinion may be to my cause." M. Berryer'e speech lasted more than two hours and a half. When he concluded the judges retired for about a quarter of an hour. At two o'clock the hearing was resumed, and the presiding judge called upon M. Allow, advocate for Prince Napoleon, to reply. M. Allou commenced by stating that the expla nations he had to offer to the Court should be extremely concise. In fact, a few words would be quite sufficient to give a true signification to the circumstances under which the marriage was con tracted. The opposite counsel relied on the pub licity which attended the marriage solemnized in the cathedral of Baltimore by the bishop, the parties being a young girl of 18 years of age, given away by her father in the presence of the French Consul, the bridegroom a naval officer of 22. The opposite advocate forgot, however, the letters of M. Pichou, the French Consul, and of Admiral Willaumez. • They both declared that they repeatedly warned young Bonaparte and the Paterson family of the illegality of the marriage. These were facts not to be overlooked. The advocate of the Paterson family insisted on the fact that Jerome Bonaparte was presented to President Jefferson, and received by him, as the promised husband of a young Ame rican lady. The date, however, of the interview deprived it of any importance. M. Jerome Bona parte arrived Oct. 23, and on the 24th he was pre sented to the President. But it was not until the afternoon of the 25th that the French Consul was apprised of the intended marriage, M. Allou ba gged particularly on this point, inasmuch as the remonstrances of the French Consul produced a rupture between the parties, which was communi cated by Mr. Smith, an American senator, brother in-law of Mr. Paterson. Counsel then read a letter from M. Pichou, the French Consul, to Jerome Bonaparte, dated 27th of October, in which he o proposed told the y oung o ffi cer that by the law of France the firs t obtained ro P mthaerricaognesentof would h b i s e mother, illegal unless as h a e matter of courtesy, that of his brother, the First Consul; M. Pichon again wrote to him two days subsequently, telling him that he had assured himself that the French law requires a son to have attained the age of 25 years in order to marry without the consent of his parents, and that even in that case he should prove that he had demanded it. Two months then elapsed. The young people consented to separate. Having, met again, how ever, a marriage was hastily concluded. The French Consul gave evidence of that fact. It was insinuated that M. Pichou feared to be replaced in his employment by Jerome Bonaparte. That was a trick played by Mr. Smith, who, wishing to be come ambassador to the French Republic, forwarded the marriage in, order to become allied to the Fiat TEE SUN, LONDONI MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY f 4, 1861. Consul. Admiral Willaumez acted in concert with the French Consul, and, having heard of the mar riage, he wrote a letter to the Minister of Marine, dated January 18, 1804, in which he informed him that he had just heard that Jerome Bonaparte was married to Miss Paterson, that he had done all in his power to dissuade.. him from it, and hoped he had succeeded, but after an interval of two months he learned that the marriage had been solem nised. The Admiral concluded by expressing his fear that the First Consul, as well as the Minister of Marine, would be dissatisfied at Jerome's conduct. Such being the facts, M. Allou contended that if ever there was a clandestine and fraudulent marriage it was that of the 24th ofDecember, 1803. He then produced the registry of Terome Bonaparte's birth, which showed that he was born in 1784, and was consequently under 20 years of age at the period of his marriage. M. Allen next stated that since the last sitting of the Court a letter had been receivedby Prince Napoleon from Mr. Gould, formerly secretary to the American Embassy in London, which threw further light on the questign M. Gould stated that having observed during the pleadings in the Pater son-Bonaparte case that certain importance was attached to the presumption that the marriage of his mother had the sanction of the lex loci, and that an act valid where it was consummated is valid everywhere, on tie contrary, at the period of the marriage its validity was doubted by the most eminent jurists in the United States. His father's opinion, whose reputation as a jurist was of the highest, was asked at the time of the marriage, and he said, without any hesitation, that such a marriage might satisfy the conscience and the reputation of the bride, but that its legal validity was doubtful, inasmuch as the husband was a foreigner (not having even a domicile), that he was a minor, that he had not obtained the consent either of his guardian or of his family, nor had he per formed any one of the acts or formalities necessary to legalise his marriage in his own country. It was, consequently, the opinion of M. Gould's father, and several other American jurists, 'that if the mar riage were not legalised and ratified in France it could not secure for Miss Paterson or for her chil dren any right of legitimacy or of inheritance on the side of her husband. Moreover, it was well known in the United States that all these argu ments were submitted to the consideration of Miss Paterson herself, and that she knowingly incurred the risk of finding herself at last only a morganic wife, in order to enjoy the chance of the exalted position to which she might pretend as a legitimate wife. It is openly said in America that she played for a high stake, and that she must take the bad luck with the good. Such is the substance of M. Gould's letter, on which Prince Napoleon's advocate dwelt at some length. He then remarked that his adversary had passed over in silence the will of Miss Paterson's father, and that mournful look cast by the father of the family on the disobedience and misconduct of his daughter. The separation of the young people was the act of the father ; their fac titious union the act of the daughter. So much for the character of the marriage. The next point to be considered is the absence of publication required by the 170th Article of the French Code. With regard to the decree Meyer, relied on by the counsel for M. Paterson-Bonaparte, M. Allou op posed to it the judgment pronounced by M. Delangle on the 9th of July, 1858, in the case of Dubonchage. The law says that when a fraud is committed out of France, whether -With'premeditation or not, to which is added the want of consent of father or mother, there is no mode of supplying the want of consent by prescription. A marriage celebrated in a clandestine manner remains clandestine. It is no longer, as Daguesseau remarked, a private injury, but a public offence. M. Allou then argued that Miss Paterson never obtained the rights of a French woman, Having arrived at Lisbon she and her hus. band separated, never to see each other again. So much for the mother. Now, with respect to the son, can he pretend to have been treated as a legitimate son because he has received letters which were read in court from the true wife, the Princess of Wur temburg ? It is the kindness of the legitimate wife to the child who is not that is disclosed by these letters. M. Allen then,replied to the legal objection raised by the opposite counsel to the validity of the decree of the 30th Ventese, year 13, in consequence of the word projet having been endorsed on it. He read a letter from Count de Laborde, Director- General of the Archives of the Empire, which ex plains that the word projet was endorsed on the draught of the decree, which subsequently became definitive. He then continued— " While listening just now to the impassioned language of my contradietor—" " M. Berryer, interrupting—No ; I have no pas . sions. " M. Allou—Oh ! M. Berryer, whether you know it or not, you are possessed of the oratorical passion, which does honour to the advocate, and which I would desire to find for, amoment in order to reply to you." He then remarked that M. Berryer contested the fact of the marriage of the Duke de Berry with a Miss Brown in England. However that may be, the right to annul such marriages is monarchical, and accepted by all lawyers as inconteatible: It was by the same principle adduced on the occasion of declaring null the marriage of Gaston d'Orleans, that the Emperor Napoleon annulled the marriage of his brother Jerome. M. Allou then complained that in the memorial presented to the Court it was stated that a written opinion existed, given by MM. Troplong, Baroche, and Abattucci at a consultation, to the effect that the marriage of 1803 is null, but that the offspring of the marriage is legitimate. No such opinion was ever given, as appears from the following letter addressed by M. Troplong to Prince Napoleon, and dated the 27th of January : " Monseigneur,-4 find no difficulty in declaring by writing what I had the honour to tell you the other day. Never did I take part in any consulta tion tending to establish the nullity of the mar riage of 1803, and the legitimacy of M. Jerome Bonaparte-Paterson, the son. It was certainly in consequence of incorrect information supplied to M. Berryer that that lawyer wrote in his" Me moire" (page 76) that there existed in the hands of his client a consultation, with reasons at full length, signed MM. Abattucci, Baroche, and myself, and thus summed up Ist. M. Jerome Bonaparte ought to be considered a legitimate child in France.' I repeat to your highness that this assertion is false in every point, and nobody can place me in contradiction with the definitive decision to which I have conscientiously adhered. Your Imperial High ness may make what use you please of this letter. " TROPLONCO M. Allon concluded his able argument by obser ving that there could be no difficulty in deciding between the two marriages—one contracted se , cretly, and in violation of his promise, by a boy of 19 ; the other celebrated in the face of the world, with all the formality of the law and all the pomp of religion. The Court adjourned at three o'clock until Friday next, to hear the Imperial Advocate, (AntnittisEnnsrl—We quote a few more of the, extra ordinary cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's delicious health , rostoring Revalenta Arabica Food Cure No. 180.-25 years nervousness, constipation, indiges tion and debility, from which I have suffered great misery, and which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time, W. D. Reeves, 181, Fleet-street, London. No. 4208, eight years dyspkoeia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, for which my ser vant had consulted, the adticie of Many, have been effectually cured uy Du Barry's health-restoring Food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries. Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlingtori Rectory`, Norfolk. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may bo avoided by using Du Barry's Food which, at a few pence per day, sates 50 times its cost in other remedies removing effectually, NI, .thout purging, constipation, Indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and liver oomplamts and all their consequences. Certificate No. 30,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure, MD., F.ILS., Dr llarvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Ara....ica Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must expect to be distrusted in all otters. Packed in tins 1113. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. lls.; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The M. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re- P - ent-str eet, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; Abbit, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox bard -street ; .330 and 451, Strand; 49 and GO, Bishopsgate street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement; Phillips and Co. tea-dealers; I 'etty, Wood, and Co. King William-street, City; at 127, AQINat and all grwerof ~~; FRENCH POLICY IN ITALY. (Front the Journal des Debuts.) The manifesto published by the Emperor on opening the campaign of 1859, said, " Italy must be free from the Alps to thr., Adriatic." This pro gramme could not be entirely carried out. The Emperor himself, at St. Cloud, expressed his regret on that account, and admitted that many generous hopes had been disappointed. Yet it was not in vain that the purest blood of France flowed on the battlefields of Marignan, Magenta, and Solferino.. If the war did not free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic, it nevertheless effected a great result— greater, perhaps, than was believed. France restored to Italy self-eansciousness and freedom of move ment ; it burst the bonds that held her captive, and bade her rise and walk. Such is the way in which the programme of 1859 has been carried out further than is thought. if the war has not liberated the whole of Italy in a direct way, it has put her into a condi tion for liberating herself, and in the month of March, 1860, the Emperor could say in his message, "Italy is on the eve of freely constituting herself." The programme of Villafranca was quite different. It was a project of Italian confederation, of which the Pope was to have the honorary presidency, and into which 'Venetia was to enter. This project at that period might appear specious enough. In the opinion of many persons Italian unity was a chimera; the Italians were still enjoying that ancient reputation, according to which they are only fit for devouring one another, and in virtue of their history they were not deemed capable of any thing but forming a collection of petty nationali ties, each of which required a foreign protector. Italy has preferred being one great nation; she has triumphed over her reputation, her history, forgot ten her old divisions, sacrified even her dearest his torical traditions, and the particular nationalities have preferred abdicating freely into the hands of an Italian King than retaining a nominal indepen dence, which made them the prey of every foreign intervention. Since that time, it is the unity which has become a reality, and it is the federation that has become a chimera. This federation we believed an impos sibility when it was proposed ; it is sufficient to say what we think of it now. Yesterday it had reason against it ; to-day it has against it both reason and events. An Italian confederation would be at once con-' trary to the interests of Italy and those of France. A confederation to which Austria would have free entrance through the means of Venetia under the hybrid form of an Austro-Italian State, and in which it would be sure through its alliances of having the preponderance, would create for Italy a state of things ten times worse than she was in before the war.. For if, before the war, Austria was paramount at nearly all the Italian courts, that was not merely through family alliances or in virtue of those treaties of 1815, which France was obliged to submit to, but also through private treaties or secret ones, to which Europe had given no legal sanction. In a federation sanctioned by treaties, by public European right, she would have been, she would be, the fatally preponderant power of Italy. She would enter it not only with her own strength and fortresses, but also with the powers which the princes, her allies, her vassals, her satellites, almost her subjects, would hasten to place in her hands. So that Piedmont, which before the war was alone but free, would. be after the victory annexed to an Austrian diet and swamped in a foreign majority. The same reasons that are valid for Italy are good for France. In the present state of things, when Austria, a foreign power, wishes to meddle with Italian affairs, France has the right of oppos ing it, or at all events of taking her own guaran tees against this intervention; but if Austria, an Italian power, were to cause such or such policy to prevail in an assembly recognised by Europe and ~ranee herself, where would be France's right? Where would be her remedy ? And such would be all that Piedmont and France would have gained by the war—Piedmont to find herself with one vote against four or five in a Germano-Italian diet, and France to have confronting her a new Germanic confederation, under the honorary presidency of the Holy Father, and the virtual presidency of his apostolic Majesty. It is only needful to put the question to obtain its solution. If, then, this project of confederation was thought of elsewhere, it would not be France that would have to be charged with its realisation, but Austria. And in fact we quietly see plans set forth, the of which would be nothing less than to make Austria an instrument of general restoration in Italy. The plan is simple. It is still agreed upon that the Italians will lie sure to ruin theinselvesby their own faults. They have done nothing,' yet that way, it is true, but the idea is deeply rooted in many minds, from which it can never be extirpated. On this hypothesis, Austria being provoked returns with all her forces into Italy; she takes care not to touch Lombardy, which she ceded to France,' and which is preserved by the treaty of Zurich. But she goes beyond; she re-establishes the Grand Dukes at Florence, the authority of the Holy See in the Roman States, and King Francis 11. at. .7. , Taples ; then, at the close of this brilliant cam paign, there is brought up on the green table of a a congress the project of confederation. And during that time what is France doing P France is collecting herself; as Russia said, France mounts guard for Lombardy, which is a pledge for the cession of Nice and Savoy, and quietly regards Austria manipulating the rest of Italy. First of all, there is in this hypothesis an error as to fact. The cession of Nice and Savoy to France was not a compensation for the cession of Lombardy to Pied mont. It was not by reason of the annexation of Lombardy, but that of Central Italy to Piedmont, that the Emperor demanded a re-establishment of the equilibrium of the frontiers. The Emperor said in his message last year on the Ist of March—" In the presence of this transformation of Northern Italy, which gives to a powerful state all the passes of the Alps, it was my duty, for the safety of our frontiers, to demand the French slopes of the mountains;" and, in the explanations exchanged on this head between the governments of France and England, M. Thouvcnel said to Lord Cowley, "It was possible that France and Sardinia had contemplated before the war, as the consequence of certain eventualities, the cession of Savoy and Nice to France, but that those eventua lities had not occurred at the conclusion of the peace." He added that enlarged alone by Lorn• bardy, and a member of an Italian confederation, Sardinia was not powerful enough to make France uneasy, but that since then everything had changed its aspect, and that as England herself encouraged the annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia, this annexation compelled France to rectify her fron tiers. If, then, people wish to talk about pledge, gua rantee, indemnity, it is not as compensation for Lombardy, but as a corollary to the annexation of Tuscany and the Romagna, that Nice and Savoy were ceded to France. But this is reducing a grand question of general policy to miserable proportions. To imagine that France is going to let Austria do all she likes in Italy on the simple condition of respecting Lombardy, is the same thing as to say that France waged the war of 1859 for the Platonic satisfaction of gratify ing Sardinia with anew province. What ! France has carried on the war, that great war, caused the death of thousands of men and shed her best blood, h as spo rt hundreds of millions, alarmed Europe, and conjured up the spectre of coalitions, merely for the sake of 1 -ing the leaf of the artichoke for the house of Savoy. '+s, other ideas, other No—there were other resu.,. -var. We have principles at the bottom of that • • -n not only already said it, that war was a revoluti... • ect in Italy's condition, but also in Europe's. Its - was, and so ought to be its result, to withdraw Italy from the exclusive domination of Austria. In Tuscany, at Parma, Modena, Bologna, Rome, Naples, everywhere except at Turin, Austria was all-powerful, and reigned by her vassals, great and small. The war of 1859 was made to liberate Italy; it was for these reasons of general policy, and not even for the secondary reasons of rectifying the frontiers, that France made the Italian campaign. The equilibrium of Europe, that equilibrium so much talked of, was vitiated by the exclusive pre ponderance of Austria in Italy ; the late war re stored the balance, and in this sense it was a mea sure of order. In delivering the Peninsula from foreign domi nation France did not wish to substitute another in its place. She does not wish Italy to remain an Austrian province, but she does not demand that Italy should become a French province. Let Italy be Italian, that is all that We require. But the work which France has inaugurated and Italy is accomplishing under her protection, this work would be destroyed if Austria were permitted to realise herself the programme of Villafranca. For the confederation could not be now established un less by the intervention of Austria. It is not France who will go and seek the Grand Dukes at Vienna for replacing them on their thrones ; it is not France who will send an army of occupation into the Romagnas to re-establish there a form of government and a legislation that have for ever fallen; it is not France that will conduct back the King Francis 11. to ,Naples. The confederation would now be merely an Austrian restoration effected against France, and which would make Austria twice stronger in Italy than she was before the battles that she lost. It was not for this that France gained, them. TUE ASSAULT AT CAMBRIDGE. The main facts connected with the assault recently committed by the Rev. J. Sumner Brockhurst, of Emmanuel College, upon the Rev. Edward Dodd, Fellow of Magdalen College and vicar of St. Giles's, Cambridge, have already been published. Mr. Dodd brought the matter before the Vice- Chancellor, who brought it forthwith under the cognizance of the University Court of the Sex Viri, before whom it came on for hearing . on Saturday last, in the Arts School. The Vice-Chancellor, so soon as the Court was duly constituted, inquired whether Mr. Dodd and Mr. Brockhurst were present, and being answered by those gentlemen themselves in the affirmative, addressed Mr. Dodd. The Vice-Chancellor said, that Mr. Dodd having put the Court in motion, the members were ready to hear any complaint he might have to prefer against Mr. Brockhurst. Mr. Dodd then, addressing the Court, said,—My duty, Mr. Vice-Chancellor and gentlemen of the Sex Viri, is very simple. lam here to complain of an outrage committed against the public laws of the University in the shape of a violent :personal assault upon myself. I hardly know how to shape my course of proceeding, but it appears to me that it would, perhaps, be the best method to read the letter of complaint I addressed to the Vice Chancel lor, and make that the basis of the proceedings. I think, too, that Mr. Vice-Chancellor has, in all probability, the original letter I sent to him, so that he can check me, and see that I do not vary from the original version of my complaint. Mr. Dodd then read what follows as the contents of his letter to the Vice-Chancellor :-- "Magdalen College, Cambridge, Saturday, Jan. 26. "Mr. Vice-Chancellor.—As a resident member of this University, I beg to draw your official attention to the fact that a violent personal assault, contrary to the peace and good order of the academic body, has been recently commit ted upon me by another resident member of this University, known to me by name as Mr. Brockhurst. During his fit of violence I kept still and motionless, and avoided giving him any provocation, either by word or gesture. Several College servants witnessed the assault, and they could re cite the circumstances better than I can. The said Mr. Brockburst struck me several times as I was informed, with a horsewhip, and then, flinging the instrument upon the ground, challenged me to do to him as be had done to me ; and I am told that outside the College gates he boasted of, and gave 'thanks to God for having horsewhipped Dodd.' I never, to the best of my knowledge, spoke to Mr. Brock hurst, or he to me, before that day. I have never wronged him or done him any harm. I never spoke disrespect fully or unkindly of him. I make this complaint with great reluctance, without any animus, and merely in dis charge of what I am told others hold to be a public duty incumbent upon me, to lay all the circumstances before you that right may be done." That, sir (continued Mr. Dodd), was my complaint to you as chief magistrate of this university ; now what am I to do ? That the implement Mr. Brock hurst struck me with was really a horsewhip I am not in a condition to say, because I thought it my duty as a member of the academic body to remain perfectly passive. I shall offer no evidence, but content, myself by saying that Mr. Brockhurst inflicted upon me one of the greatest indignities one man can put upon another. The Vice-daxicellor—Have you told all the facts you know ? The Itev,istrary—At 'what time was the assault committed ? Mr. Dodd—After I came out of Hall, or about a quarter to 6 o'clock, on last Wednesday week. If the College servants who witnessed the assault are in attendance I beg that they may be examined by the Court. The Vice-Char cellor (to Mr. Brockhurst)—You have heard the complaint. Do you plead guilty or not guilty ? Mr. Brockhurst—That I horsewhipped Mr.Dodd is certainly the fact. The question is whether in this court I may be allowed to bring forward the circumstances which appear to mg to justify me in the course I adopted. The Vice-Chancellor—ls the Court to understand you to say that you admit horsewhipping Mr.l)odd? Mr. Brockhurst—Undoubtedly. The Registrary—And I understand you to say that you are desirous of reciting previous occur rences which would account for you conduct ? Mr. Brockhurst—Allow me to say at once that I shall be glad it the Court will listen to my story. Dr. Geldart—You have been asked whether you plead " Guilty" or " Not Guilty," and you answer and say, " I admit the fact that I horsewhipped him." _ _ Mr. Brockhurst—Certainly. 1)r. Geldart—And now you ask to be allowed to state the circumstances which induced you to do so, by way of justification or alleviation ? Mr. B rockhurst—Undoubtedly. The Vice•Chancellor—You may do so. Mr. Brockhurst-s-I admit] the horsewhipping, and i 1 7lead such strong provocation as justified me, 9 ,„: an English gentleman but as a clergy not only man, in the coarse I pursued. I ask any gentleman, actuated by the _principles of honour and virtue, whether he would ne' t have acted as I did if the honour of his wife or :laughter had been brought into question ? H ow muc h more reason, then, had I for acting as I did when my' Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was insulted ? I say I. thank God I did what I did as a member of Christ's C hurch in the bosom of my Alma Mater. I had writte:a a volume on the subject of the Jew Code, and I think no one is present here but will admit that the admiss:ion of an unbaptised person into the Legislature of this country is contrary to that code, which says that Christ is Lord over all. I happened to call on Sun day fortnight on my respected friend—at any rate, up to this transaction—on my respected friend Mr. Reyner, of St. John's. Mr. Reyncr is a gentleman whose character, it is well known, stands unble mished. Mr. Reyner asked me to dine in Hall, and then we began talking about my unfortunate book. Incidentally Mr. Reyner asked me what I thought had been done at Mag dalen but the other day. I replied that I should not be at all surprised at anything in these days of innovation and change; and he said that a Fellow had actually omitted from the grace the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and had said, when asked for his reason, that it was on account of the pre sence of a Jew at the table. But Christ died for all men, and I say that the man who would omit the name of Christ in asking a blessing on a College dinner must be lost indeed, but when I found asat the omission was to please a wealthy fellow-com , moner I felt that matters had reached a point that a man, feeling the veneration I do for the Lord Jesus, must take notice of. Accordingly, I men tioned the matter to a distinguished member of the Church of England, omitting the names of persons and places, and his opinion was that no episcopal jurisdiction could touch the matter; that it was beyond the boundary of the Courts. With that opinion I agreed, and then I called on the Vice- Chancellor, still concealing the name of the person and his College. I stated that exposure , was men tioned for this blot of leprosy on the Christian Church, and the Vice-Chancellor reeommended a quiet method of arrangement. I said, " We require exposure on the one hand and private arrangement on the other ; that an apology shall be drawn up which will meet the gravity of the offence, that it shall be attested by proper witnesses, and then sent to the Queen, as the head of the Church on earth, and who I hope will pardon the offender." I hope you will think that this proves that the assault was not the result of any irascibility of temper or nervousness on my part, but that what I did I did of my own resolute determination. The Vice-Chancellor said the best way would be to call 'on the person, and I said I had called and could not make him hear ; then, about 20 minutes to 5, I went to Mr. Dodd's rooms and knocked, and who should come out but Mr. Reyner ? I waited for Mr. Reyner to go, be cause I considered that concealment was a part of the transaction ; that there was to be exposure to the Queen as head of the Church, but concealment of the name of the delinquent from the public. I said to Mr. Dodd, "I am a stranger, sir, to you, but permit me to ask whether on any occasion you ever omitted the name of the Lord Jesus Christ I from the college grace in the hall P" To that pies ,. the immediate answer was " Never." I then riot. Q +op a moment," and ran out to look for Mr. said, " 0. - -nuld not find him. All that took place Reyner, but t., in about three-qut,rters of a minute. I returned and - • Reyner said you did ; will said, " You say no ; MI. -moms ?" Mr. Dodd re you come to Mr. Reyner's 1, .4. think of such a , plied, " Oh dear, no, I should n 4,,.. ,_ or fuss about thing; why should we have thi s tale °that; it?" ?" or used an equivalent expression 4 " Why," said he," by saying more about it, bib 7 a hot coal between me and George Fearns Reyner, to whom I am under obligations ?" I said, " Allow me to say that c onsideration of that Saviour who died for all should exceed all consideration for indivi duals, what will unite or what will part them." I informed him of what had taken place between me and the Vice-Chancellor, and I implored him to consider the matter, that it might be arranged. He then adduced a precedent, saying, "The dean of so and so did so and so." I must say that was the only time I ever heard a person who denied an act adduce a precedent for it, and it seemed strange. Mr. Dodd then said that he was going into hall, and I went to St. John's. Communing with myself, I said, " Here is the statement of a man on whose truthfulness I would almost stake my life ignored by a man whom I have hardly ever seen before ; I will not insult my friend by telling him, I will go and do what is right." I went back. I had a horsewhip with me, concealed about my person. I sent a message into hall that a gentleman desired to see Mr. Dodd, and then sent in my name. The answer was, " Would not the morrow do ?" I thought not, so waited outside the screens in the second court, watching the entrance to the hall. t Mr. Dodd came out very soon after —at about 20 minutes to 6 o'clock, I followe alum, quicklyhrough Lk the screens, hailing him when about half-way through the quadrangle. I called his name, and that induced him to turn round, and I then said—all delicacy being, of course, flung ay—" Now, Sir, tell me which is the liar, you or Mr. Reyner !" The reply was, " Oh ! I can't talk about that; come to my rooms." I put it to any gentleman here, if any man with any respect for his own character for veracity would ask any person to go to his rooms who had just asked him whether he was a liar or some one else ? I then drew out the whip. His back was towards me ; but I did not want to strike him there, so struck him sideways on the arm. Of course I was prepared for anything that might follow, ex cepting what did follow—that the person I struck took little or no notice, but walked on. I have no doubt I repeated the blow, but how many times I can't say. When a man under such circumstanoes keeps his back towards youthere is no necessity for any delicacy, and I dispensed with that, which led me to strike him on the arm at first. The college servants came rushing out to my great regret, as I was afraid I should have to deal with them, and that their interference might prevent my giving him, what I was determined to do, a good thrashing. I admonished them. I said I was a University man, and they were not to meddle with me, which they were good enough not to do, but stood round in a sort of small semicircle while I administered 12 or 14 stripes. I can't say exactly how many—had you not better ask Mr. Dodd ? Having finished the in fliction I threw down the whip at his feet, and said " Now, sir, I have done that to you, take it up if you dare and do it to me." I then said to the by standers and college servants • after I had taken up the whip, " Go and tell all over the University that Mr. Brockhurst, of Emmanuel, has horse whipped Mr. Dodd, of Magdalen, for having been false to his Saviour and false to his friend." I made some observation to the crowd without the college. If I said, " Thank God," I pray to God to pardon me if I used his name irreverently, but I don't think I did. If I did, I did it in the cause of the.Savionr. I never said, as has been stated in some of the papers, " Take that" after every stroke ; you will see that it was not necessary for me to say it, it would have been surplusage, because he had already got it, I will say all I did say as the most straightforward way of meeting the case. I never applied any epithet but one of the grossest description, because that ap peared to me to best meet the class of men I had to deal with. I will not offend your ears with it, but you can form an idea of what it was when I say it was equivalent to this, that when his truth and honour went to the dogs perhaps his mother's fol lowed them. Mr. Dodd—Really, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, should that be allowed to go forth ? Mr. Brockhurst—lf not, if the reporters do not take it down, there will be a letter from me to set it right. Will you, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, ask the Vicar of St. Giles's whether I did make use of such an expression or not ? The Vice Chancellor—No. Dr. Geldart—Tnere is no evidence of the kind before the Court. The Vice-Chancellar—ls that all you have to advance ? Mr. Brockhurst—Perhaps not. There are other things to come out in my own justification. I have a right to adduce every exculpatory matter, how ever it may affect persons or parties. I say that no Court with the Vice-Chancellor at its head is an impartial one in this matter. If you wish to hear my masons I will give them. Tr.e Bishop of Worcester—lt is impossible for us to hear that. Mr. Brockburst—And equally impossible for me to submit to your decision when the Vice-Chancellor or any per son connected with Magdalen College 1 at the head of the court. The Bishop of Worcester—Not so. Sex viri are here in addition to the Vice-Chancellor. We cannot allow any aspersion upon, or allusion to the Vice- Chancellor ; but will hear all exculpatory matter. Mr. Brockhurst—Well, never a graver cause existed to excite one man to attack another. I may have erred in using the horsewhip, but I do not know what else I could have done, except I had hung up the charge against Mr. Dodd in illumi nated letters on the tower of St. Mary's or one of the minarets of King's. Whatever may be the decision of the Court, I think the general feeling of society will be with me, and if I do not receive a verdict of acquittal at your hands I shall still re main convinced that I have only done that which I ought to have done. If my statement is impugned in any way I will do my best to prove it, but at present will add no more. The court was then cleared for about 20 minutes. On our re-admission— The Vice-Chancellor (addressing Mr. Brockhurst) said, the Court have heard the complaint made against you by Mr. Dodd, of your commission of violent personal assault upon him, your admission, and your statement in attempted justification. The Court are of opinion that you have violated the statutes and discipline of the University by disgrace ful conduct, and that the reasons alleged in justifi cation are totally insufficient. The sentence of the Court is that you be suspended from all your de- . grees for the period of four years. (Then, turning to Mr. Dodd, the Vice-Chancellor said) :—Mr. Dodd, the Court think it right to express to you their opinion that your conduct under circumstances of remarkable provocation exhibited in an eminent degree the utmost Christian forbearance, and is deserving of the highest approbation. Mr. Brockhurst essayed to make another address, but the Court was declared dissolved. Mr. Dodd has received an address expreseive Of esteem and regard from his parishioners. COUNTRY MARKETS. LE ICE STE R—FRB. 2. The supply of wheat to-day was very good, with a fair attendance ; inferior sorts is lower. White, 728 to 7 8 ° —red, 65s to 70s per 36 stone; a very moderate sale for barley, grinding, 32s to 34e ; malting, 37s to 43e per oats, 24s to 38s per 24 stone. Beans—old, 56a to new, 38s to 40s per 38 stone. Fine flour, 50s Seconds, 47s J Thirds, 45s per 20 stone NORWICH—FEB. 2. At this market to-day wheat was in good supply, and last week's rates were fully realised for all descriptions.. White wheat 65s to 67s I Red wheat 56a to 62 4 Malting barley... .45s to 47s j Chevalier barley 41s to 4 41 Distilling d0......31s io 34s I Oats.. 216 s to 30 1 Flour, 42s to —s Od per sack from the miller. YORK- FEB. 2. The trade was tolerable, but wheat was in small show' A middling attendance of farmers and factors, and sale° were effected at previous prices. Wheat, red 4Bs to 58s I Oats.... White do .60s to 65s Beans .38s to 42s Peas ' to Malt, 70s to 72s per qr.; rye, 38s per qr.; 11 4248 0 55 u 5 r 4258661/: B to bOs per sack. STAMFORD—FEB. 2. A limited supply of wheat at market yesterday, which, sold at rather under last week's prices. Barley realis e( ' late rates for good sorts, but inferior samples were cheaper' Beans and oats supported late rates. Wheat COs to 608 I Oats.. 26s to White do 62s to 65s I Beans 44s to 47 1 Barley .. ..34s to 46s I Ditto, old ........61s to 60 THE AILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) .. Feb. 18. Do. (via Marseilles) Feb. 12• Brazil and Cape Verde Feb. 4. Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, &c. .. Feb. ---. Cuba and Mexico .. .. Feb. 13 Canada, &c. (via L'derry) .. Feb. 6. Cape of Good Hope, &c. .. March la China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) Feb. 18. Do (via Marseilles) Feb. 12. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. Feb. 10. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) Feb. 1.8 Do. (via Marseilles) Feb, 12. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. .. Feb. 10. Do. (via Marseilles) .. . . F e b. 4. Lisbon .. .. • . .. Feb. 1. Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. Feb. 10. Do. (via Marseilles) .. Feb. 4. Vigo, and Oporto .. Feb. 1. United States, California, &o. Feb, 6. Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffe ..`Feb. 10. West Indies and Pacific, Carthagena, Cuba. &c. Feb. 13. BIRTHS. BARNES.—On the 31st ult., at Pope's-wood House, Be field,lßerks, the wife of W. Black Barnes, Esq., of gb son. BAILLIE.—On the 24th ult., at Enniskillen, the wife o f Major Baillie, of a daughter. HAYNES.—On the 31st Jan., at Wimbledon, the wife of Freeman Oliver Haynes, of Lincoln's-inn, barrister - I W law, of a daughter. KtTt.—On the 31st ult., at Brighton, the Hon. Mrs. Iter, wife of D. S. Ker, Esq.„ of a son. MARRIAGES. SMITH—DENNISTOTIN.—On the 26th inst., at the British' Embassy, Stuttg art, John G. Smith, Es q ., fourth son ° William Smith, Esq., of Carbeth Guthrie, Stirlingshi r , 6 t o Penelope Campbell , eldest surviving daughter of 8 late J. R. Dennistoun, E sq . WELLS—PUDDICII.—On the 24th ult., at St. Magott,°' London -bridge , Mr. Samuel Wells, of Puddi ng-Is7; c ity, to Isabel, fourth daughter of the late Mr. W. fa dick, of Fish-street-hill, and Mitcham, Surrey. DEATHS. 4 he BERNARD.—On the 21 s t ult ,at Thornbury, co. Cork , v" lion. Charles Ludlow Bernard, brother to the Plerav for Bandon, aged 56. GREEN.—On the 30th ult., at Bath, Lieut. John Cr R.N., brother of the late Vice-Admiral Sir Au ur ' Green. Hosums.—On the Ist inst., at Broibourne Thomas Hoskins, Commander R.N., aged 84. sal SYKES.—On the Ist inst., at Sledmere , Yorkshire, Sykes, aged 63. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOB d, No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tim SUN Office, No 112,Strall, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County 9t..Bliddlo"l 3119A41 1 Y1 ifeigU&TY 4, POl. ,`'~ S . 1 • A