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

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
yghhtiss
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 young officer that by the law of France
thefirs t obtainedroP mthaerricaognesentof
would
hbi
s e
mother,illegal unless
ashae
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