The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-29 00:00:00

twi4e told tale, at the same time that the repeti-

tion of the story in this place would clearly
be superfluous. Anyone who cares to re-
fresh his memgry in respect to any portion
of that melancholy narrative, may turn to
the masterly resume of it given in the
opening address of M. BERRYER at the trial still
undecided in the Imperial Court of Law in Paris.
A—reminder—will thus be afforded in regard to
every detail in that immense mass of turpitude.
It will be felt again, and, if possible, more
poignantly than ever, now that the history of this
transaction has been recounted by the burning
eloquence of a great master of forensic oratory like
M. BERRYER—it will be felt again how very base,
how very deplorable, how very despicable the
whole story is, when it comes to be stated in plain
i terms in the light of day. Reading the miserable
tale again, one marvels at the meanness of
JEROME in yielding up his young bride,
and the infant but newly born to them
in lawful wedlock, at his giving them up in ()heal-
, ence to the arbitrary will of his brother, that
young Consul, who was then meditating assuming
the purple and diadem of an Emperor ! It is
impossible, moreover, not tOptand aghast before the
lawless course adventured upon even then by
NAPOLEON, at that early period in his history !
His ruthless sacrifice of the sacred ties of marriage,
of all the tenderest of domestic affections, in the
instance of other members of his family, throwing
already a strong premonitory light forward, a lurid
glare only too clearly elucidating the basest incident
in his own personal history, namely, the eventual
repudiation of his own beloved and loving wife, the
Empress JOSEPHINE! That JOSEPHINE whose
flame (MONTIIOLON tells us—and MONTHOLON'S
hand was the one to close the eyes of the Captive of
St. He: ens) that JOSEPHINE whose name, tenderly
uttered, was the last word upon the dying lips of the
very man )crho had sacrificed her to his ambition ! It
was the same pitiless will, the same overmastering
ambition that lacrificed (years before the repudia-
tion of JOSEPHINE) the young bride of JEROME
BONAPARTE—tO J::ROME'S eternal shame, be it
said ! And that would, if such had been possible,
have simultaneously saer,ficed the lawfully wedded
wife of another brother—LrerEN—a brother (as
the event then proved) made at on ^e of gentler and
of "sterner stuff" than the pitiful :epudiator of
Miss PATERSON had been. Turning, ;„:Iwever,
from the circumstances of this most ,miserabi:
transaction—who can fail to recognise the glaring
fact that, PROVED, the marriage of JEROME BONA-
PARTE with Miss PATERSON, of Baltimore, the
offspring of JEROME by his Queen, nee the
Princess CAROLINE of Wurtemburg (.TERomE's
first wife being still alive), must, by necessity,
be branded with the shame of illegitimacy!
Now for the companion picture—as painted
by the skilled hand, not this time of M. BERRYER,
but of the opposing counsel, M. ALLOU. Let us
read what he says, this uncompromising M. ALLOU
—what he says simply as a case in point—but prov-
ing as clearly the illegitimacy of the Count DE
CHAMBORD, by reason of his father's marriage with
a young Englishwoman prior to his union
with the Count's mother, the Princess CARO-
LINE of Naples, the late Duchess DE BERRI.
M. ALLOU then observes in regard to this
equally nefarious transaction as follows :—" Three
years after the marriage at Baltimore, the Duke
DE BERRY, then a refugee in England, married an
English lady, Miss BROWN, and had by her two
daughters. When his exile ceased, the will of
Louis XVIII. broke the marriage, although cele-
brated according to the English law in a Catholic
chapel at London. Do you doubt my statement ?
Take the Encyclopedic des Gens du Monde, which in
speaking of the Duke says :—" He married at
' London a young English girl, but the head of the
family, Louis XVIII., not having given his con-
sent to the marriage, annulled it, and Miss BROWN
had not a motive of complaint." In the " Nouvelle
Biographie" of DIDOT, and in the " His toire de la
Restauration" of LAMARTINE, the same facts are
stated, and not in terms of dissent. On the con-
trary, the last-named historian adds :—" The
KING in 1816 married the DUKE to the Princess
CAROLINE, daughter of the Prince-Royal of
NAPLES, in order to consolidate the house
of Bourbon on the thrones which t'hey occu-
pied in Italy, Spain, and France." How-
ever put, the facts remain still the same.
In both instances—in the instance of the BOURBON
and in the instance of the BONAPARTE—there was
the earlier marriage lawfully solemnised and con-
summated, to be afterwards illegally set aside for
subsequent nuptials, the fruits of which were
necessarily illegitimate. A DOGBERRY even might
have wit enough to pronounce the verdict. For in
each instance it is clear Bigamy with its conse-
quences of flagrant Bastardy.

Later accounts from America give us the first
impressions made by Mr. SEWARD'S speech. It is
more important than the PRESIDENT'S second mes-
sage itself, as indicating the probable policy of the
incoming Administration. Mr. SEWARD, it is said,
spoke on his own responsibility, and Mr. LINCOLN
and the Republican party cannot be held answer-
able for the particular views expressed ; it is im-
possible, however, to believe, that immediately
after his acceptance of the highest office under Mr.
LINCOLN, he could have spoken otherwise than in
general accordance with his views. The great
efforts made to hear the speech, its length, its
elaboration, the immediate adjournment of the
Senate, the earnest canvass of its views by mem-
bers of all parties as they left the house, all shew
that it was regarded at Washington as a speech of
the highest national importance.
So far as can yet be ascertained, the extreme
Southerners shake their heads and say it will
not do for them. The out and out Republicans do
the same. The border States appear to be divided
in their views. All this is quite natural, as it was
both conciliatory and firm, and its few practical
recommendations were some of them concessions,
and some of them the contrary. The chief diffe-
rence, if we understand the two gentlemen rightly,
between Mr. BTJCHANAN and Mr. SEWARD, who
on this point surely would not differ from Mr.
LINCOLN, relates to the territories. Mr.
BUCHANAN adopts the most important of
of Mr. CIITTENDEN'S resolutions on this subject,
and recommends it to Congress in his second
Message. It is that, north of lat. 36 deg. 33 min.,
slavery should be absolutely prohibited ; but that,
south of that line, shivery should be permitted in
the territories, with no power in the territorial
legislatures nor in Congress to prohibit it. When,
however, any district became populous enough to
be formed into a State, it should then be optional
for the new State to enter the Union with or with- 1
out slavery. Mr. SEWARD, on the contrary, main-
tains the right of Congress to legislate without I
restriction in the territories. He says nothing,
therefore, of any boundary line between slave-land
and free-soil territory, and he doubtless adheres to
the Republican platform, of which the power of
Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories is the
vital point. Hence his willingness to concede a
Fugitive Slave Law, provided it be not a kidnap-
ping law ; and his readiness to insert in the con-
stitution a distinct denial to Congress of the right