The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-10 00:00:00

°.,~~~
y~, ~ ~~~
/~z

No. 12,270:

/2

c-c---- .6c_---=;i

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 10, 18327_

TRIBUNAL OF FIRST INSTANCE.

Feucheres wishes to go with you.' I evinced my
surprise that Madame de Feucheres, who had so
many carriages at her command, should have any
wish to ride in my cabriolet. The Prince an-
swered me, That signified nothing; there is a
quarrel between her and all my household, because
she wishes to make me do something which they
do not advise. But you must not speak of the mat-
ter to her.' _ _

SUIT FOR ANNULLING THE WILL OF
THE DUKE OF BOURBON.

THE PRINCES DE ROMAN V. THE DUKE D'AUMALE AND

TILE BARONESS DE FEIJCHERES.
SITTINTG OF THE 6th OF JANUARY.

M. Lavaux, the Counsel for Madame de Feu-
cheres, resumed his discourse.

" Gentlemen," said he, " we now approach the
termination of this unfortunate trial. Hitherto you
have beheld me animated only by the desire of bring-
ing before you truth unembarrassed by the artifices
of eloquence. The advocate disappeared in order
to allow facts to speak for themselves, and these
facts have been all powerful.
" If a calumny be too easily propagated, yet the
result of our judicial discussions, and a sentiment of
natural justice in the hearts of men, has had the
effect of cautioning the public against yielding too
readily to first impressions. There was a desire to
hear the accused. She has spoken, and while she
was heard, I with pleasure beheld prejudices dissi-
pated, doubts give place to benevolent and conso-
latory confidence, and the justice of public opinion,
indignant_at having been deceiver', has made us for-
get our griefs and our tears.
" Before you, gentlemen, the question is one of
law, and it would be an insult to suppose that the
law of the case was unknown to you. The prin-
ciples, also, with respect to wills are so constantly
applied, that I could not understand the labour and
research which were exhilettd by our opponent until
I perceived that he was unwilling to take notice of
the modifications of the ancient laws which have
been effected by modern legislation•"
After these preliminary observations, Psl. Lavaux
proceeded to consider the question whether the will
of the Prince of Conde could be annulled on the
ground of suggestion and circumvention. "By the
civil code," said he, " only one thing is necessary
to establish the validity of a will,—namely, that the
testator shall have been of sound mind. Sugges-
tion does not vitiate a will according to our existing
law. M. de Malleville, one of the authors of the
civil code, felt it his duty to lay down this principle.
'ln principle,' said he, it is allowable for any one
to obtain bequests by caresses, by services, by en-
treaties. It is only fraudulent endeavours, and ca-
lumnies against heirs, which can be condemned by
justice and morality. All that is necessary is to
know that the testator, at the time of making his
will, was not imbecile, and that his inclination
was free.'

" Q. Did not the Prince charge you not to quit
Madame de Feucheres—not to let her commit any
imprudence ?—A. Yes, that is true.
" Q. The Prince, then, evinced before you the
tender interest he felt for Madame de Feucheres ?
A. Yes, Sir.
" And it is in the face of thisiedaration that it
it is pretended that a feeling of terror took pos-
session of the Prince when he thought of Madame
de Feucheres, or was in her presence.-
" Let us pass on to a serious charge. It is al-
leged that M. General Baron de Feucheres, who
was well acquainted with his wife, had said before
many persons that it would be well to distrust the
Baroness, for that he thought her capable of any
thing. Hear, upon this point, the deposition of a
grave personage, M. Paul de la Roch Aymon, a
Peer of France I was at a party upon an occa-
sion, the date of which I cannot fix precisely, but
which was some time in November, 1830. One of
the persons present, whose name I do not recollect,.
said that Courtois, coach-maker, having come RI
settle his account, was speaking with regret of his
master's death, and that he added, that he was not,
however, astonished at it,—that M. le General Baron
tie Feucheres having called on him some years before
about the Prince's carriages, had declared that the
Prince was very unhappy ;—that he would perish
only by the hand of Madame de Feucheres, or that
she would be the cause of his death.'

" To enlighten justice with respect to this testi-
mony, what was to be done ? Why, to examine
Courtois himself. He was called before the officer
who was charged with the duty of taking the depo-
sitions, and here is what he said :
" I have not been at St. Leu since the death of
the Prince. I had been sent for to St. Leu by M.
de Flassan, to receive the Prince's orders with re-
spect to repainting his armorial bearings, which,
however, was not done.'

" Q. Did you never say that you were not sur-
prised at the death of the Prince ? Did AI. de
Feucheres never say to you that the Prince would
not perish but by the hands of Madame de Feu-
cheres, or that she would be the cause of his death ?
A. I recollect nothing of such language having been
addressed to me by M. de Feucheres ; I was not suf-
ficiently acquainted with him for him to talk to me
about such things. M. de Feucheres commissioned
me to sell his cabriolet, which he had no longer any
occasion for, having quitted the service of the Prince.
He counselled me to continue the same zeal for the
family of the Prince, of whom he spoke in the
highest terms.'
" Observe, that the question does not by any
means involve an improbability : it was with refe-
rence to Madame de Feucheres that the Baron de
de Feucheres was compelled to quit the service of
the Prince : it would not, therefore, be extraordi-
nary that in a moment of excitement, and being re-
duced to sell his cabriolet—(A laugh)—he should
permit himself to give way to expressions natural
under the circumstances of the case.

" The President Favard de Langlade, and M.
Toullier, maintain the same doctrine. They agree
in declaring that there is nothing vicious in sugges-
tion ; that the proof of circumvention cannot be ad-
mitted except in cases where deceit and fraud can
be established, or where it can be proved that an-
nother intention has been substituted for the inten-
tion of the testator.

" Now, what are the scandalous manoeuvres of
Madame de Feucheres ? Has she caused the legiti-
mate heirs to be passed by ? Did she irritate the
Prince's mind by perfidious insinuations ? Nowhere
is proof of these facts to be found.
" In a word, what is there to reproach her with?
You have, throughout a voluminous correspondence,
beheld the Prince eager to heap favours on Madame
de Feucheres. You have seen her, anxious above all
things for the Prince's honour, go so far even as to
hurt him sometimes by the sincerity of her counsels;
and as to the Prince himself, how has he been de-
graded before you! In what colours has the under-
standing of.the old mar es. painted to you, whilst,
iafead of such being the true picture, every thing
shows him to have been of delicate and enlightened
judgment, perfectly sensible of the difficulty of his
situation; and, in the midst of greedy persons, all
of whom strove to force upon him the gratification
of their own individual views.

" Do you understand that question, exclaimed M.
Lavaux ? Is it not without parallel in the annals of
criminal proceedings ? M. the Conseiller-instruc-
teur, because, forsooth, M. de Feucheres was obliged
to sell his cabriolet, thinks that in a moment of
excitement the Baron was very likely to give utter-
ance to the language reported by a Peer of France
—M. La Roche Aymon. Courtois, gentlemen, in-
variably answers, 1 I recollect nothing of the sort.'
" Then you have never said to any person what I
have endeavoured to remind you of 7—A. No, Sir,
no. The confidence which his Royal Highness was
pleased to repose in me—in all that related to his
carriages—(A laugh)—made me entirely attached
and devoted to him."

" Let us now come to the will of 1829, and see
whether it can be attacked on the principles which
our adversaries have laid down. You know that,
in 1827, Madame de Feucheres bad acquainted
Queen Maria Amelie with the steps she projected
to take with reference to the Prince of Conde; you
have heard the letter which the Queen wrote to
Madame de Feucheres on this subject, in 1827; you
have seen later that passed between General
Lambot and Charles X. upon this matter; you
have seen the order issued by Charles X.; and the
appointment by that Sovereign of Madame de
Feucheres, as mediatrix with the Duke of Bourbon
(comme intermediare aupres du Due de Bourbon.)
" The order of Charles X. was fulfilled ; the let-
ter of the 2d May, 1829, was written by Madame
de Feucheres, which letter she communicated to
the Duke of Orleans. The will of 1829 was drawn
up by M. Surval from the instructions of the Prince.
The latter himself delivered his will into the hands
of M. Robin, the notary. The notary, aware of the
importance of the deposit thus placed in his custody,
requested the Prince to write a superscription on his
will, and the Prince wrote with his own hand,
' An important deposit, delivered by me to M.
Robin, notary.'
" From that time did the Duke of Bourbon ever
change his intention ? You know the contrary. I
am afraid of fatiguing you by reading a corres-
pondence subsequent to the will, which proves an
invariable affection on the part of the Prince towards
Madame de Feucheres."

After dwelling upon other details, from which he
drew the conclusion that in the antecedent facts there
was nothing which could at all militate against the
assertion that the will was freely made, M. Lavaux
proceeded to examine the subsequent facts. He re-
jected, as contrary to the truth, the statement of the
dentist Hostein, of the woman Gouverneur, and of
others, with respect to the blows the Prince was said
to have received on the 10th of August, as well as
the testimony of M. de Surval, relative to an inten-
tion on the part of the Prince to flee from Madame
de Feucheres.

" I think myself in a condition to assert," conti-
nued M. de Lavaux, " that if after these develope-
ments Alsdame de Feucheres should be heard here,
her whole defence might be found in these simple
words I counselled the Prince to fulfil a sacred
duty. I obeyed the wish of the King. I suggested
to the Prince as his heir, a member of the noble fa-
mily whose chief has since been charged with the
destinies of France. The Prince made his will
freely. The Princes of Rohan have shamefully ca-
lumniated me. They have accused me of foul as.
sassination. Nothing could console me for the pangs
they have excited but the consciousness of having
consecrated my remaining energies in the defence of
a will which I regard as one of the acts most ho-
nourable to the Prince.'"

M. Lavaux, then entering into the examination
of the facts which he had already laid before the
Court at the preceding hearings, divided them into
two classes—namely, facts cotemporary with the
will, and facts posterior to the will, although the
latter might be put out of consideration as foreign to
the complete execution of the will. He likewise
divided the entemporary facts into two sections, and
laid aside the articles founded either on the word of
the Prince, or on the declarations of M. de Surval.
" The expressions attributed to the Prince," said
he, " can have no value, for there are no means of
replying to them by counter-statements. The Prince
is not here to deny those expression!, and those
speeches which certain personages, and particularly
his dentist, have attributed to him.
" With respect to the testimony of M. de Surval,,
of what value is it ? M. de Surval has accepted
the office of executor; that is, he has accepted the
office of superintending the execution of the will.
From the moment in which he accepted that charge,
he was bound in duty and honour to see that the
will was faithfully executed. Indeed, he ought to be
here with us, so as to afford the defence the advan-
rage of his assistance ; but if he has joined himself
to our opponents, we feel that we have a right to
protest against his declarations.
" I shall have to give an explanation by and by
respecting a letter which N. Surval has thought
proper to address to me, and which lie has subse-
quently had printed for sale at Denter's (the book-
seller). I cannot positively take it upon me to say
that the publication is to be had there for sale, for I
have not myself purchased a copy. I have been
favoured with a copy of it for nothing.
" M. Surval has said that many circumstances
tend to show that the Prince had for a long time
entertained a feeling of aversion towards Madame
de Feucheres. Let us see how this tallies with
what the physician Bonie relates of a conversation
which he had on the 29th of July, 1830, with the
Duke of Bourbon. These are the words of his de-
position On the 29th of July, during the
troubles in Paris, private business requiring my pre-
sence in the capital, I informed the Prince of the
circumstance. He said to me, Madame de

M. Lavaux then detailed and justified the conclu-
sions which he had adopted in the suppression of a
memoir published by M. llennequin. He cited
therefrom numerous passages in which Madame de
Feucheres was more or less charged with the as-
sassination of the Duke de Bourbon, and observed
that this memoir, edited and published in the teeth
of the sentence of the Chamber of Accusatibn,
which declared that there had been no assassination,
was a serious offence both against Madame de Feu-
cheres and against the Magistrates themselves.
" There remains for me, gentlemen, to say two
words which are required from my honour. I
wished to speak respecting an explanation which has
been demanded and provoked by the Archbishop of
Paris.—(Movement of attention and curiosity.)
" You have not forgotten (said the Advocate),
that in commencing my speech, I thought myself
bound, in order to prove the honourable connexion
of Madame de Feucheres, to read to you a letter
written by her to the Prince, in which she gives the
particulars of a visit she received at Florence from
the Archbishop of Paris. This Prelate has thought
proper to address a letter to the President of the
Court, which closes with the following passage:—
"' Sir,—Sixteen months had passel away without my
having even heard speak of Madame de Feucheres. In
June, 1825, I made a journey into Italy solely on account
of my health. In July I returned by Florence, where I
arrived on Sunday the 24th, at ten o'clock in the morn-
ing. I alighted at the Hotel d'lnrrilterra ; I there hired
an apartment on the second floor. I was accompanied by
my grand vicar, M. Borderies, now Bishop of Versailles,
and M. Desjardins, both privy to all my proceedings, all
my actions, and almost all my thoughts. 1 stayed only 24
hours at Florence. Madame de Choulot, who was born
at Chabannes, and was one of the great nieces of Cardinal
Perigord, my venerable predecessor, was the only person
who came to see me in the presence of my fellow-
traveller : she lodged on the first floor in the same hotel.
" After the first compliments, she informed me that
she travelled with Madame de Feucheres, and prattling a
little in favour of this lady, begged me to visit and receive
her. I refused ; but I did not think I ought to refrain
from returning Maclaine de Choulot's visit. Accordingly,
I went down to her apartments, along with'my grand vicar.
I there found Aladarne de Feucheres, whom I then saw

sci‘s 1,10

-%
li.

' ' -'' •' ' ' -`l'''. ' - 1 IX TV r:._•:...c,:7-e sitt I) nthi•r-2 •. . . .
.rolv.1130;4. Brit 1.) I,oit)q tod.tptt:
- - .".-;
- _'• ' • " vil.l 17.-E-ItN;to4.li if).-os4,u-e•
:P-fj,, . :4: 't": • ~ ,o,
- - ', 1,a110.11545at5#2.5'd.r14
,
, • -,
• filti • • ~'
_.. '''.•l'Al..
--e-.!---,...... - - '.. Alf.,/,
,
e•••• • b t
[4 it • • ~,,. • •,.„•115i• /
.•
(-: r' • '`.2...-"T -'''''(,;" ..
INIv,/‘.; --;
‘'
..) " ~ \`‘...-
• ' •
• • •\,' •• %,...,,,' -.....--- .
, • . ,:. ••• - '..,-- ••••' . , n.....n..
.._.....,•
-- •
Y 3,.. ( -t
;-----zv1,,.• ---i'4_ $ tiki.-' '• "%2,-t')•o4,- - / ,;-'44°11."11111101111111111-- •- . "414
T.,..... -„,...,;.•,, 7, -,, • .1.. -_,,,,...,,,,,,,it. • ; ,t) t- -
--, --'t.,•‘ - -7, wi+ -,-t.-V., ..,:;,--ertf4,, L Fgo: -' v.
._ • ...
;1,...,4.: ;., •
~....-_,.• ,41..„,./ ; ;3> t--, •
k 0 r 1',114',',7111

PRICE 7D.

for the first time in my life, and whom I have never seen
since. No second visit took place. Most certainly, I of-
fered no nosegay. This story and that of other circum-
stances are pure invention. After what had occurred at
Paris, who could be persuaded that I could possibly have
had such inconceivable ideas.

" know not, M. President, what was the intention
which dictated the letter with which the Court rang, or
that which gave it publicity. Justice and the good sense
of the public will know how to appreciate it. For my
own part, whilst I find myself forced to repel a calumny
which takes almost official and judiciary form, I would,
nevertheless, regard it as nothing more than another wrong
to forgive.
" I beg, M. President, you will recei►e the assurance,
&c. "' HYACINTHE, Archbishop of Paris.'
" The moment I was aware of this letter (ob-
served the Advocate), I conjured my client to recollect
herself, and the result of her reflections was the
following letter, written by her to the Archbishop
of Paris :

" Palais Bourbon, Dec. 29, 1831.

" Monseigneur,--Before M. Lavaux had communicated
to me the letter you have addressed to M. the President
de Belleyme, I had experienced the most painful senti-
ment in observing the appearance in the newspapers of the
lettert of my private correspondence with the Duke de
Bours,, lam happy that your Eminence gives me, by
your protest, the occasion of expressing my deep regret fur
all that relates to you in that publication. When the most
odious calumny was let loose against me, after the loss of
my august protector, I was bound, at the request of my
sputum( to entrust to him for my defence all my coffee-

" So long as the calumnies are directed against me by
unworthy persons only, I despised them, but when a per-
sonage of your holy character accuses me of departing from
truth, I may believe that your memory is not faithful, and I
ought (with all the respect due to you) to establish the fact.

Your Eminence must call to mind, as well as the two
respectable ecclesiastics who accompanied you into Italy,
that it was at my lodging, in my apartment, that you paid
me your visit at Florence, and not at the Countess of Chou-
lot's, who was my fellow-traveller, and who lodged with me.
" Your Eminence cannot, moreover, have forgotten,
that previous to quitting the hotel, you came to pay me a
second visit to take leave of us, and that then you pre-
sented to me a superb bouquet, white in silver, tied with
a white riband. This bouquet happened to be given you
in a convent.—(A laugh.) I attached so much value to
this present, that I brought it carefully to Paris, and I can
bring proof that it was given to a church.—(Another laugh. )
" As a Catholic, i ought, I admit, to have related the
circumstances °fele visit of your Eminence with less levity;
but I hope to find my excuse in the little importance I then
attached to letters written hastily, and which ought never
to have been given to the public.
" With respect to that part of your Eminence's letter i❑
which you say you have never seen me since, you must re-
member that I was intrusted to make the last collection at
the Palais Bourbon, fur the benefit of the small schools,
and that T bad the honour of paying in person to the Arch-
bishop the produce of this collection, and I have preserved
the receipt.—(Laughter.) I dwell upon these facts, Mon-
seigneur, although they are of little importance, not being
willing to suffer the semblance of a want of veracity to rest
upon me. I trust so much to your honour, Monseigneur,
as to beg of you-to recollect and confirm the truth of these
facts, that my Counsel may establish them; if, in spite Of
me, they become subjects of discussion.

" the Baroness de FEUCHERES."

After receiving this letter, the Archbishop of
Paris has thought proper to address me the follow-
ing :
"Sir,—ln reply to the letter I bad the honour to write
to you on the 24th of this month, in transmitting to you a
copy of that which I addressed to the President of the Civil
Tribunal, I have just received one from Madame de Pen-
cheres, who, believing my memory treacherous, appeals to
my recollection and my honour respecting the circutn-
stances of the visit I paid at Florence, not to Madame de
Feucheres, but to the niece of my venerable predecessor,
Cardinal Perigord, Madame de Choulot, who alone came
to call upon me. I have no need of further recollection,
in order to affirm the facts to be as I have stated them in
nay letter to the President de Belleyme, to which I refer in
all its parts, and which I have reason to hope will be read
to the Court. Receive, Sir, &c.
" HYACINTHE, Archbishop of Paris."
These, gentlemen, are explanations which do not
concern the cause, but which it was not possible
for me to refrain from giving.
M. Dupin, jun., Counsel for the Duke d'Aumale,
then commenced his speech. We shall give to-
morrow this truly remarkable oration, which was
overwhelmed with plaudits within the Court, and
destined to produce without a deep impression upon
every mind.