The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-31 00:00:00

TILE BOIVAPATE FAMILY.

The proceedings in the matter of the Bonaparte
Marriage have exactly confirmed the view taken
of the subject in these columns a few days ago.
As the chief points of the case must be fresh iu the
public memory, a very brief rec.tpitulation will
sufi•"ice at present. In the year 1803 M. Jerome
Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon 1., at that time
First Consul of the French Republic, was domiciled
for some months at Baltimore, in the United States
of America. He there became attached to Miss

Elizabeth Paterson, daughter of a most respectable
inhabitant of the city, and to this lady he was
married on the "z4th of December in the year
aforesaid. In due course he brought his wife to
Europa ; but the fortunes of the Bonaparte family
were rapidly culmirating, and Napoleon contem-
plated other and very different alliances for the
members of his House. Accordingly, Jerome was
desired to repudiate his wife, and to consider the
American marriage as null and void. With these
requisitions he ultimately complied, and was a
second time united to a more suitable bride in the
person of a Princess of Wurtemburg. Out of these
transactions arose a question, long debated and re-
cently revived, as to the comparative validity of
the two marriages. Napoleon had alleged that the
first was illegally contracted, and he enforced that
opinion by an Imperial decree distinctly declaring
its nullity. The Paterson family, on the other
hand, including the issue of the Baltimore mar-
riage, strenuously contested these assumptions,
and maintained that matrimony had been lawfully
and duly solemnised. We observed upon these
arguments that each was sustainable upon its own
ground ; that the first marriage might undoubtedly
be reputed both lawful and complete; but that, as
it had been declared void upon grounds and by
authority recognised in parallel cases as sufficient,
the second marriage might be reputed valid also.
M. Jerome Bonaparte, in short, having been once
divorced had been married twice over.

In this view of the case we are entirely confirmed
by the voluminous pleadings now reported from
Paris, where the very lady of whom M. Jerome
Bonaparte became enamoured in 1803 is now assert-
ing her rights under the marriage. Unfortunately
in this instance, as in the similar story of King
Henry. VIII., the argument against the first mar-
riage is based not so much upon the effect of a
divorce as upon the essential invalidity of the ori-
ginal contract. Prince Napoleon, the issue of the
second marriage, contends not only that his father
was married to the Princess of Wurtemburg, but
that he was not married to Miss Paterson. He not
only cites the ordinance of the Emperor annulling
the ceremony, but appeals to the pretexts on which
that ordinance was founded, as if Napoleon I. had
been merely putting the law into execution instead
of declaring it. Precisely in the same manner did
Henry VIII. bewilder himself and his counsellors
with an infinity of insoluble questions touching the
lawfulness of his marriage with Queen Katharine,
to the prejudice of the only real argument which he
could produce—viz., that arising from the obliga-
tions of his position and the necessities of the State.
It was by this course of proceeding that he so em-
barrassed the Pope. So entirely did Clement VII.
recognise the exigencies of the case itself that he
was actually willing to permit the King to have
two wives at once, if he would only dispense with
being divorced from one of them. He acknowledged
that Henry, in the interests of his kingdom, might
ask for a second wife, but he could not sanction
the assertion that he had never been really married
to the first. Henry took a different view of the mat-
ter, and kept his real justification in the background,
while relying upon pretensions which could never
be sustained. Exactly thus proceeds Prince Napo-
leon's advocate, and in this part of his case he fails
accordingly. It is perfectly absurd to argue that a
marriage was null because the bride was 23 and the
bridegroom only 19. or that it was " clandestinely"
celebrated, when it is well known to have been per-
formed with the proper civil license in the cathedral
of Baltimore by the Bishop of the diocese. There is
not the slightest probability that any doubt would
have been thrown upon the validity of this cere-
mony, except for the change in the relative posi-
tions of the contracting parties which afterwards
occurred. On that point we retain our conviction
entirely, but we retain it also on the other, and are
still of opinion that the act of Napoleon annulling
the marriage is defensible by the precedents in
such cases established.

That there are grounds on which man and wife
can be put asunder is notorious. Whether among
these grounds should be reckoned the political exi-
gencies of a reigning house may be a question for
casuists, but it has been practically resolVed in the
affirmative many times over, and we do not see why
the licence in which other monarchs have been
indulged should be denied to Napoleon. He was
the head of a dynasty. He might have pleaded
that the stability of that dynasty was necessary to
the tranquillity of France and the vital interests
of millions. He could show that such stability was
only to be secured by alliances befitting the digaity
of the family, and that old connexions, therefore,
must be dissolved to make room for new ones. We
understand very well how such pretensions could
be encountered, but the simple fact is that they
have been repeatedly allowed. When Mr. Fronde
recapitulates the enormous calamities which might
be awaiting the people of England if Henry VIII.
were prevented from contracting a second marriage,
he is merely exemplifying the principle on which
this privilege of royalty is founded. The theory is,
that the interests of a State overrule the interests
of individuals. It is not a question of contrast in the
abstract. Nothing short of a crown could have given
Napoleon the licence which he claimed. No mere
difference of position between husband and wife,
however wide, would have warranted a separation.
The Bonaparte family might have attained any rank
short of Imperial without becoming entitled to the
privilege in question. The whole doctrine turns
upon the assumption that when the peace and pros-
perity of a State may depend upon the position of the
family at its head, even the marriage bond itself may
be dissolved in deference to considerations so para-
mount and interests so vast. Napoleon could have
pointed to the annals of France since 1789, and
have asked whether it was not justifiable to nullify
a marriage, if by such an act the French people
could be saved from another 15 years of convulsion
and carnage.
We think the case of the second marriage, like
that of the first, has been sustained by the argu-
ments advanced. We believe it to be true, though
Prince Napoleon's advocate disputed the fact, that
the Pepe refused to pronounce a sentence of divorce;
but, considering that the second marriage was
solemnised with Royal pomp, according to the rites
of the Romish Church, and with the assistance of
many of its prelates and dignitaries, we do not see
how it can be denied that the Church, when so
sanctioning the second marriage, must have tacitly
accepted the nullity of the first. It appears to us,
also, that the consent of the Wurtemburg family
may be as fairly appealed to in one case as the con-
sent of the Paterson family in the other. The Ger-
man Prince was no .more likely to accept an
un•marriageable suitor for the hand of his daughter
than the citizen of Baltimore. Both, in their turns,
thought the offers acceptable. Mr. William Pater-
son believed the young French officer to be fully
competent to contract a marriage, and the King of
Wurtemburg believed the King of Westphalia to
be equally competent to contract a marriage over
again. It was precisely because the young officer
had become a King, and his brother an Emperor,
that such a proceeding could be admitted, and, if
precedents or arguments can be thought to establish
such an apparent contradiction, we think the pro-
ceeding was admissible. But it was admissible to
a certain extent only. In so far as the King of
Westphalia could be considered aman with different
obligations from those of M. Jerome Bonaparte, he
might undo what M. Jerome Bonaparte had done.
He could not, however, make unlawful that which
had been lawful. The first marriage might be set
aside, but it could not be proved to have been
illegal so long as it lasted. Madame Bonapaate
ceased to be the lawful wife of Jerome ; indeed, she
herself alleges as much; but, for all that, she had
been his lawful wife once. It was simply a case of
divorce. The second marriage was warrantable,
but the warrant did not depend on any essential
invalidity attaching to the first.— Times.

THE WEATHER.

METEOROLOGICAL REPORTS.

Jan. 31,
F. C. jr* S.
.
between 8 and B. E. M.
____
D.
•
9 a.m.
Nairn 29.72 51 50 W. 3 6C.
Aberdeen 29.76 50 48 S. ;•11r. t 33 0. 3
Greenock
Berwick 4B W.sS: W. 2 6 Cr.. —4
Portrush
Galway
Hull ay. 30 02 4,7 4,6
S.S.E.
8, g 0: 7
Liverpool.-- 30 00 Jo 1,5 .. . , 8
C.
3
V.lentis .•• • • :::
Tiaremenosutan.: 30.21
41 40 s..—.w. I"
—f —6
-
Loudon
Night exti eine 30'19 39 ._.. S.W. 1 9 r.
gew....._., 30.20 40 30 S.S.W. 2 7 C.
Dover ... .
Portsmouth 30'21 ?
_... E. 3 5 m. 1
Plymouth
Penzance , 30'09 50 49 V.S.W. m. 2
.S.W. 4 7 0. 6
EXPLANATION.—TI 11.,..m.t.r corrected and reduced

ExPLANATIox.--B. Barometer, corrected and reduced
to 32 deg at mean sea level ; each 10 feet of vertical rise
causing about 1-100th of an inch diminution, and each 10
deg above 32 deg causing nearly 3-100ths increase. E.
Exposed thermometer in shade. M. Moistened bulb (for
evaporation and dew-point). D. Direction of wind (true__
not magnetic. F. Force (1 to 12—estimated). C. Cloud
I
(1 to 9). I. nitials :—b , blue sky; c., clouds (detached) ;
f., fog. ; h., hail ; 1., lightning ; m., misty (hazy) ; 0.,
overcast (dull) ; r., rain ; M. snow ; t., thunder. A letter
r.r., much rainy repeated augmenta-.-Alls) S. Sea disturb-
-1 um (1 to 9).

THE ROYAL JUILIT,4RY ACIDEJIY,

flr( °LIP ICI).

The following is the officiA list of successful
candidates for admission to the Royal Military
Academy, Woolwich, January, 1861. We cannot
undertake to insert any complaints made by the
conductors of educational establishments impugn-
ing► the accuracy of this statement;—

Total Marks.
Order of merit, 1. Index No., 174.—Westland,
James; Places of Education, University,
Aberdeen, and Wimbledon School 7,761
2 No. 10.—Rowe, Valentine F., Cheltenham Col-
lege
.. • • • • .. 5,819
3 No. 129.—Ross, William Gordon, Rev. J.
Brackenbury's, Wimbledon . • .. 5,550
4 No. 218.—O'Brien, Donatus, Mr. Hopkirk's,
Eltham 5,512
5 No. 178.—Browne, James H. G., private, and
Mr. Pritchett's, Old Charlton .. 5,490
6 No. 144.—Haydon, William Henry, Mr. Tay-
lor's, Woolwich, and private tuition 5,364
7 No. 235.—Hamilton Constantine Henry, abroad
and private tuition 5,3.,
8 No. 141.—Humphrey, James S., University,
Aberdeen, and Mr. Renet's . • • . 5,214
9 No. 156.—Fawkes, Frederick H., Eton and pri-
vate tuition 5,000
10 No. 213.—Shepherd, Frederick S., privately .. 4,887
11 No. 159.—Muir McKenzie, Cecil C., Clapham
Grammar School •• •• ••
12 No. 72.—Richmond, Henry D., St. Andrew's
College, Bradfield, and Rev. G. Frost's,
Kensington .. .. 4,809
13 No. 43.—Brinkley, Francis, Royal School,Dan-)
gannon, and Mr. De Burgh's, Dublin • • 4,797
14 No. 245.—Todd, Killingworth Rd., King's Col-
lege, London, and Mr. Pritchett's, Old
Charlton • • • • • • • • • • 4,777
15 No. 17.—Curtis, William Frederick De H., Mr.
Hopkirk's, Eltham •.. • • .. 4,633
16 No. 79.—Cambier, Ernest Frederick, Mr. Hop-
kirk's, Eltham . • • . 4,558
17 No. 164.—Rawle, Henry John, private, and Dr.
Bridgeman's, Woolwich .. 4,556
18 No. 61.—Legge, William Vincent, privately .. 4,490
19 No. 111.—Pratt, Cecil Cooper, privately .. 4,484
20 No. 105.—Beamish, Alton A. W., Cheltenham
College • • • • • • .. 4,407
21 No. 12.—Milman, Francis John, Marlborough.

.. 4,884

.. 4,394

College, and Mr. Fleming's .. ..
22 No. 177.—Graves, Henry Affieck, Kingstown School, Dublin ..
.. ..
.. 4,367
23 No. 87.—Holditch, Thomas Hungerford, Addis-

combo .. 4,361
21 No. 221.—Collen, Edwin Henry H., privately 4,337
25 No. 250.—M'Hardy, Alexander 8., University,
Aberdeen, and Mr Renet's, Aberdeen 4,325
26 No. 143.--Cole, Henry Hardy, University Col-
lege, Dublin, and privately
27 No. 187.—Saunders, Arthur A., Mr. Pritchett's,
Old Charlton .. . • .. 4,304
28 No. 59.—France, Henry H., privately .. 4,295
29 No. 162.—Edmondes, Francis Quintin, privately 4,231
30 No. 75.—Corbett, Richard, Cheltenham College 4,225
31 No. 223.—F0x, Harry Croaker, Bath Proprietary
College, and privately 4,218
32 No. 88.—IJanwaring, John Noble, privately and
Mr. Fleming's • • • .. 4,202
33 No. 131.—Price, Robert Locke, Kingstown

.. 4,319

School, Dublin • • • • • •
34 No. 126.—Ha11, John Grieve, Edinburgh Aca-
demy and Mr. Sherratt's, Battersea .. 4,179
35 No. 66.—Carey, Clement de Beauvoir, Chelten-
ham College and Mr. Fleming's .. 4,114
36 No. 116.—Watt, William, Mr. Taylor's, Wool-
wich, and Mr. Fleming's .. 4,101
37 No. 155.—Whatley, Herbert Hughes, Black •
heath Proprietary School, and Mr. Fleming's 4,097
38 No. 95.—Roberts, Francis, Kingstown School,
Dublin .. •.. 4,090
39 No. 120.—Sharp, William E., privately, and
Mr. Sherratt's, Battersea .. .. 4,032
40 No. 6.—Edwards, Fleetwood Isham, privately 3,990
41 No. 116.—Sorell, William Henry Frederick,
Elizabeth College, Guernsey .. .. 3,987
42 No. 181.—Knocker, Herbert Paget, privately,
and Dr. Bridgeman's, Woolwich 3,938
43 No. 216.—Georges, William P., Southampton
College, and Mr. Taylor's, Woolwich 3,912
44 No. 82.—Bisset, William Sinclair S. University,
Aberdeen, and Mr. Renet's, Aberdeen .. 3,881
45 No. 166.—Rudge, Samuel, King's College, Lon-
don, Rev. C. Hughes's, St. John's-wood,
and Mr. Taylor's, Woolwich .. 3,846
46 No. 71.—Williams. Richard F , Rossall School, •
and Mr. Fleming's .. 3,840
47 No. 27.—Plunkett, George, Cheltenham College 3,820
48 No. 130.—Gregory, William V., Dr. Bridge-

.. 4,193

man's, Woolwich .. .. .. .. 3,819
49 No. 200.—Hunter, John Muir, abroad, King's
College, London, and privately .. .. 3,793
50 No. 184.—Roberts, Richd. Thomas,Mr. Kieser's,
Blackheath .. .. .. .. .. 3,746
51 No. B.—Spaiwlit, William Fitz Henry, Kings-
town School, Dublin .. .. .. .. 3,716
52 No. 248.—Parry, Gilbert Sidney, Mr. Taylor's,

Woolwich .. 3,699
53 No. 220.—Downes, Edmund, Radley College .. 3,690
64 No. 121.—Empson, Charles Anglesea, abroad
and privately ..
55 No. 97.—Morgan, Harrison Ross L., Kingstown
School, Dublin .. 3,685
56 No. 138.—Gracey, Thomas, privately .. .. 3,677
57 No. 134.—Molyneux, Charles, Borman School.. 3,675
58 No. 182.—Barker, Francis William James, Mr.
De Burgh's, Dublin .. 3,663
59 No. 80.—Annesley, Oliver F. T., privately 3,660
60 No. 139.—Hawkins, George Walter, Brighton
College and privately .. 3,658
61 No. 81.—Will, George, privately and Mr.
Renet's, Aberdeen .. .. • . 3,637
62 No. 44.—Dodsworth, George Edward, privately,
St. Peter's Grammar School, York, Truby-

.. 3,687

house, and Mr. Fleming's .. 3,632
63 No. 29.—Graham,Charles Senhouse,Dr. Bridge-
man's and Mr. Fleming's .. 3,632
64 No. 84.—Bomford, Samuel S., Mr. De Burgh's,
Dublin, and Westbourno Collegiate School .. 3,592
65 No. 102.—Cooper, Beauchamp Astley, privately
and Rev. E. A. Claydon's, Lee .. 3,583
66 No. 28.—Ditmas, Francis Frederick, privately . 3,580
67 No. 47.—Bowen, Philip Henry, Cheltenham
College and privately 3,562
68 No. 22.—Akers, James Ramsay, privately .. 3,548
No. 232.=-Alleyne, 'Edmund Joseph, Chelten-
-69 ham Grammar School 3.536
No. 3—Walker, Herbert John 0., Rugby and
privately •• •• •• .• • . 3,53

T.HIS DAY'S MARKETS.

CORN EXCHANGE.

IMPERIAL WEEKLY AVERAGES. Wheat, 56s 7d;
barley, 40s 7d ; oats, 23s ld ; rye, 35s 10d ; beans, 428
5d ; and peas, 41s Bd.
THE SIX WEEKS' AVERAGES. Wheat, 55s 7d ;
barley, 40s Od ; oats, 22s 7d ; rye, 358 9d; beans, 43s 7d;
peas, 43s 7d
ENGLISH GRAIN SOLD LAST WEEK.—Wheat, 79,137;
barley, 89,178 ; oats, 16,625 ; rye, 123; beans, 4,086 ; peas,
1076 quarters.