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

THE BONAPATE FAMILY.

The proceedings in the matter of the Bonaparte
Marriage have exactly confirmed the view taken
•f the subject in these columns a few days ago.
As the chief points of the case must be fresh in the
public memory, a very brief recapitulation will
sufficd 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 fz4th of December in the year
aforesaid. In due course he brought his wife to
Europe ; but the fortunes of the Bonaparte family
were rapidly culminating, 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 solemniseda 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 wiih 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 cuuld 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 (led the vital interests
of millions. He could show that such stability was
only to be secured by alliat.ces befitting the dignity
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 Pope 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, 31, L.
IF. C. I. S.
between 8 and B. E. M.
9 a.m.
- ------60 -------W. ---3 -6
T. -
Nairn--
29/2 51 S.S.W. 3 6 0. 3
Aberdeen-- 29/6 50 Ix S. 8 9 r.
Greenock 29'78 S.l 48 W.S.W. 2 6 C. 4
Berwick 29 132 gi 50 S. 6 3 O.
Portrush ....• 29'65 2 51 S. 85 85 00.. 7
Galway 2n,,66 457 40 S.W.
Hull 3" '' 50 43
Liverpool•—• •
._... _ ~...
m..e. gooloo 42 41
Yarmouth.• • • S.W. 5 8 f.
411=t:itaow..n.: :
33007;01
.. .
:41
........4_o S.S.E..±_ ...5...
_B_
c.
30
S.S.W. 2 6 C.
S.W. 1 9 r•
NDL
loc.
ognvhedtroenx .t
r.
e.
30'24 39 38 S.W. 2 5 ra• —.,
Portsmouth
PlymouthPzace : ..: : , 330499 E. 3 sm. 2
10 :97 P.S.W. j____._______7 0. 6

EXPLINATION.—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
(1 to 9). I. Initials :b , blue sky; c., clouds (detached) ;
f., fog. ; h,, hail ; 1., lightning ; n 1.9 misty (hazy) ; 0.,
overcast (dull) ; r., rain; a., snow • t., thunder. A letter
repeated augments—thus, r.r., Aucla mint S. Sea distwb-
ance (1 to 9). ~.