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

Consul. Admiral Willaumez acted in concert with
the French Consul, and, having heard of the mar-
riage, he wrote a letter to tke Minister of Marine,
dated January 18, 1804, in which he informed him
that he had just heard that Jerome Bonaparte was
married to Miss Paterson, that he had done all
in his power to dissuade him from it, and hoped
he had succeeded, but after an interval of two
months he learned that the marriage had been solem-
nised. The Admiral concluded by expressing his
fear that the First Consul, as well as the Minister of
Marine, would be dissatisfied at Jerome's conduct.

Such being the facts, M. Allou contended that if
ever there was a clandestine and fraudulent marriage
it was that of the 24th of December, 1803. He then

Produced the registry of Jerome Bonaparte's birth,

- -
which stu7ed that he was born in 1784, and was
years of age at the period of
consequently under -h‘.
his marriage. M. Allow next sL..ted that since the
.
last sitting of the Court a letter had been i:ceivcd by
Prince Napoleon from Mr. Gould, formerly secretary
to the American Embassy in London, which threw
further light on the question. M. Gould stated that
having observed during the pleadings in the Pater-
son-Bonaparte case that certain importance was
attached to the presumption that the marriage of
his mother had the sanction of the lex loci, and
that an act valid where it was consummated is
valid everywhere, on the contrary, at the period
of the marriage its validity was doubted by
the most eminent jurists in the United States.
His father's opinion, whose reputation as a jurist
was of the highest, was asked at the time of the
marriage, and he said, without any hesitation, that
such amarriage might satisfy the conscience and the
reputation of the bride, but that its legal validity
was doubtful, inasmuch as the husband was a
foreigner (not having even a domicile), that he was
a minor, that he had not obtained the consent either
of his guardian or of his family, nor had he per-
formed any one of the acts or formalities necessary
to legalise his marriage in his own country. It was,
consequently, the opinion of M. Gould's father,
and several other American jurists, that if the mar-
riage were not legalised and ratified in France it
could not secure for Miss Paterson or for her chil-

dren any right of legitimacy or of inheritance on

the side of her husband. Moreover, it was well
known in the United States that all these argu-
ments were submitted to the consideration of Miss
Paterson herself, and that she knowingly incurred
the risk of finding herself at last only a morganic
wife, in order to enjoy the chance of the exalted
position to which she might pretend as a legitimate
wife. It is openly said in America that she played
for a high stake, and that she must take the bad
luck with the good. Such is the substance of M.
Gould's letter, on which Prince Napoleon's advocate
dwelt at some length. He then remarked that his
adversary had passed over in silence the will of
Miss Paterson's father, and that mournful look cast
by the father of the family on the disobedience and
misconduct of his daughter. The separation of the
young people was the act of the father ; their fac-
titious union the act of the daughter. So much for
the character of the marriage. The next point to
be considered is the absence of publication required
by the 170th Article of the French Code. With
regard to the decree Meyer, relied on by the
counsel for M. Paterson-Bonaparte, M. Allou op-
posed to it the judgment pronounced by M. Delangle
on the 9th of July, 1858, in the case of Dubonchage.
The law says that when a fraud is committed out of
France, whether with premeditation or not, to
which is added the want of consent of father or
mother, there is no mode of supplying the want of
consent by prescription,- A marriage celebrated in
a clandestine manner remains clandestine, It is no
longer, as Daguesseau remarked, a private injury,
hut a public offence. M. Allou then argued that
Miss Paterson never obtained the rights of a French
woman, Having arrived at Lisbon she and her hus-
band separated, never to see each other again. So
much for the mother. Now, with respect to the son,
can ho pretend to have been treated as a legitimate

son because he has received letters which were read
in court from the true wife, the Princess of ),.Vur-
temburg ! It is the kindness of the legitimate wife

to the child who is not that is disclosed by these
letters. M. Allou then replied to the legal objection
raised by the opposite counsel to the validity of the

decree of the 30th Ventese, year 1:3, in consequence

of the word projet having been endorsed on it. He
read a letter from Count de Laborde, Director•
General of the Archives of the Empire, which ex-
plains that the word pre jet was endorsed on the
draught of the decree, which subsequently became
definitive. He then continued—

" While listening just now to the impassioned
language of my contradictor—"
" M. Berryer, interrupting—No ; I have no pas-
sions.

" M. Allou—Oh ! M. Berryer, whether you know
it or not, you are possessed of the oratorical passion,
which does honour to the advocate, and which I
would desire to find for a moment in order to reply
to you."
He then remarked that M. Berryer contested
the fact of the marriage of the Duke de Berry
with a Miss Brown in England. However that
may be, the right to annul such marriages
is monarchical, and accepted by all lawyers as
incontestible: It was by the same principle
adduced on the occasion of declaring null the
marriage of Gaston d'Orleans, that the Emperor
Napoleon annulled the marriage of his brother
Jerome. M. Allou then complained that in the
memorial presented to the Court it was stated that
a written opinion existed, given by MM. Troplong,
Baroche, and Abattucci at. a consultation, to the
effect that the marriage of 1803 is null, but that
the offspring of the marriage is legitimate. No
such opinion was ever given, as appears from the
following letter addressed by M. Troplong to
Prince Napoleon, and dated the 27th of January :
" Monseigneur,—l find no difficulty in declaring
by writing what I had the honour to tell you the
other day. Never did I take part in any consulta-
tion tending to establish the nullity of the mar-
riage of 1803, and the legitimacy of M. Jerome
Bonaparte-Paterson, the son. It was certainly in
consequence of incorrect information supplied to
M. Berryer that that lawyer wrote in his " Me-
moire" (page 76) that there existed in the hands of
his client a consultation, with reasons at full length,
signed MM. Abattucci, Baroche, and myself, and
thus summed up :—` Ist. NI. Jerome Bonaparte
ought to be considered a legitimate child in France.'
I repeat to your highness that this assertion is
false in every point, and nobody can place me in
contradiction with the definitive decision to which I
have conscientiously adhered. Your Imperial High-
ness may make what use you please of this letter.

TROPLONG:'
M. Allou concluded his able argument by obser-
ving that there could be no difficulty in deciding
between the two marriages—one contracted se-
cretly, and in violation of his promise, by a boy of
19 ; the other celebrated in the face of the world,
with all the formality of the law and all the pomp
of religion. _

The- Court adjourned at three o'clock until
Friday next, to hear the Imperial Advocate.

[ArvEirrisEmENT]—We quote a few more of the extra
ordinary cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's
delicious health-restoring Revalenta Arab-ice Food :
Cure No. 180.-25 years nervousness, constipation, indiges-
tion and debility, from which I have suffered great misery,
and which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been
effectually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time,
W. B. Reeves, 181, Fleet-street, London. No. 4208,
eight years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with
cramps, spasms, and nausea, for which my ser-
vant had consulted the advice of many, have been
effectually cured by Da Barry's health-restoring
Food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries.
Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Food
which, at a few pence per day, saves 5C times its cost in
other remedies, removing effectually, without purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure,
MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey; Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr.
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu-
rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of 45,000 against
Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; e-id the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Aral:ica Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false.
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, onthe seal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Picked in tins lib.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re.
gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbit,
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox-
bard-street ; 333 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate.
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co,
tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co. King William-street,
City; at 127, High Holborn; and all grocers,

FRENCH POLICY IN ITALY.

(From the Journal des Debuts.)

The manifesto published by the Emperor on
opening the campaign of 1859, said, "Italy must
be free from the Alps to the Adriatic." This pro-
gramme could not be entirely carried out. The
Emperor himself, at St. Cloud, expressed his regret
on that account, and admitted that many generous
hopes lityd been disappointed. Yet it was not in
vain that the purest blood of France flowed on the
battlefields of Marignan, Magenta, and Solferino.
If the war did not free Italy from the Alps to the
Adriatic, it nevertheless effected a great result—
greater, perhaps, than was believed. France restored
to Italy self-consciousness and freedom of move-
ment ; it burst the bonds that held her
captive, and bade her rise and walk.
Such is the way in which the programme of
1859 has been carried out further than is thought.
if the war has not liberated the whole of
Italy in a direct way, it has pxt her into a condi-
. ;nr liberating herself, and in the month of
ton the Emperor could say in his message,
March, 18o,„
"Italy is on the :ve :of freely constituting herself."
The programme of rll llafranca was quite different.
_
It was a project of Italian t: onfederation, of which
presidency, and
the Pope was to have the honoraL7
into which Venetia was to enter. This project
at that period might appear specious enough.
In the opinion of many persons Italian unity slue
a chimera; the Italians were still enjoying that
ancient reputation, according to which they are
only fit for devouring one another, and in virtue of
their history they were not deemed capable of any-
thing but forming a collection of petty nationali-
ties, each of which required a foreign protector.
Italy has preferred being one great nation; she has
triumphed over her reputation, her history, forgot-
ten her old divisions, sacrified even her dearest his-
torical traditions, and the particular nationalities
have preferred abdicating freely into the hands of
an Italian King than retaining a nominal indepen-
dence, which made thorn the prey of every foreign
intervention.
Since that time, it is the unity which has become
a reality, and it is the federation that has become
a chimera. This federation we believed an impos-
sibility when it was proposed ; it is sufficient to say
what we think of it now. Yesterday it had reason
against it ; to-day it has against it both reason and
events.
An Italian confederation would be at once con-
trary to the interests of Italy and those of France.
A confederation to which Austria would have free
entrance through the means of Venetia under the
hybrid form of an Austro-Italian State, and in
which it would be sure through its alliances of
having the preponderance, would create for Italy a
state of things ten times worse than she was in
before the war. For if, before the war, Austria was
paramount at nearly all the Italian courts, that was
not merely through family alliances or in virtue of
those treaties of 1815, which France was obliged to
submit to, but also through private treaties or
secret ones, to which Europe had given no legal
sanction. In a federation sanctioned by treaties, by
public European right, she would have been, she
would be, the fatally preponderant power of Italy.
She would enter it not only with her own strength
and fortresses, but also with the powers which the
princes, her allies, her vassals, her satellites, almost
her subjects, would hasten to place in her hands.
So that Piedmont, which before the war was alone
but free, would be after the victory annexed to an
Austrian diet and swamped in a ioreign majority.
The same reasons that are valid for Italy are
good for France. In the present state of things,
when Austria, a foreign power, wishes to meddle
with Italian affairs, France has the right of oppos-
ing it, or at all events of taking her own guaran-
tees against this intervention; but if Austria, an
Italian power, were to cause such or such policy to
prevail in an assembly recognised by Europe and
prance henelf, where would be France's right ?
Where would be her remedy P And such would
be all that Piedmont and France would have gained
by the war—Piedmont to find herself with one
vote against four or five in a Germano-Italian diet,
and France to have confroLiting her a new Germanic
confederation, under the honorary presidency of
the Holy Father, and the virtual presidency of his
apostolic Majesty. It is only needful to put the
question to obtain its solution.
If, then, this project of confederation was thought
of elsewhere, it would not be France that would
have to be charged with its realisation, but Austria.
And in fact we quietly see plans set forth, the ten-
dency of which would be nothing less than to make
Austria an instrument of general restoration in

The plan is simple. It is still agreed upon that
the Italians will be sure to ruin themselves by their
own faults. They have done neibiug yet that way,
it is true, but the idea is deeply roZ'ted in many
minds, from which it can never be extirp,:ed., On
this hypothesis, Austria being provoked ret:rns
with all her forces in to Italy; she takes care not
to touch Lombardy, which she ceded to France,
and which is preserved by the treaty of Zurich.
But she goes beyond; she re-establishes the Grand
Dukes at Florence, the authority of the Holy See
in the Roman States, and King Francis 11. at
Naples ; then, at the close of this brilliant cam-
paign, there is brought up on the green table of a
a congress the project of confederation
And during that time what is France doing ?
France is collecting herself; as Russia said, France
mounts guard for Lombardy, which is a pledge for
the cession of Nice and Savoy, and quietly regards
Austria manipulating the rest of Italy. First of
all, there is in this hypothesis an error as to fact.
The cession of Nice and Savoy to France was not a
compensation for the cession of Lombardy to Pied-
mont. It was not by reason of the annexation of
Lombardy, but that of Central Italy to Piedmont,
that the Emperor demanded a re-establishment of
the equilibrium of the frontiers. The Emperor said
in his message last year on the Ist of March—" In
the presence of this transformation of Northern
Italy, which gives to a powerful state all the passes
of the Alps, it was my duty, for the safety of our
frontiers, to demand the French slopes of the
mountains;" and, in the explanations exchanged
on this head between the governments of France
and England, M. Thouvenel said to Lord
Cowley, "It was possible that France and
Sardinia had contemplated before the war, as the
consequence of certain eventualities, the cession of
Savoy and Nice to France, but that those eventua-
lities had not occurred at the conclusion of the
peace." He added that enlarged alone by Loin-
hardy, and a meirt:r of an Italian confederation,
Sardinia was not po-.7erful enough to make France
uneasy, but that since then everything had changed
its aspect, and that as England herself encouraged
the annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia, this
annexation compelled France to rectify her fron-
tiers.

If, then, people wish to talk about pledge, gua-
rantee, indemnity, it is not as compensation for
Lombardy, but as a corollary to the annexation of
Tuscany ani the Romagna, that Nice and Savoy
were ceded to France.

But this is reducing a grand question of general
policy to miserable proportions. To imagine tbat
France is going to let Austria do all she likes in Italy
on the simple condition of respecting Lombardy, is
the same thing as to say that France waged the
war of 1859 for the Platonic satisfaction of gratify-
ing Sardinia with a new province. What ! France
has carried on the war, that great war, caused the
death of thousands of men and shed her best blood,
has spent hundreds of millions, alarmed Europe,
and conjured up the spectre of coalitions, merely
for the sake of plucking the leaf of the artichoke
for the house of Savoy.
No—there were other results, other ideas, other
principles at the bottom of that war. We have
already said it, that war was a revolution not only
in Italy's condition, but also in Europe's. Its object
was, and so ought to be its result, to withdraw
Italy from the exclusive domination of Austria. In
Tuscany, at Parma, Modena, Bologna, Rome,
Naples, everywhere except at Turin, Austria was
all-powerful, and reigned by her vassals, great and
small. The war of 1859 was made to liberate Italy;
it was for these reasons of general policy, and not
even for the secondary reasons of rectifying the
frontiers, that France made the Italian campaign.
The equilibrium of Europe, that equilibrium so
much talked of, was vitiated by the exclusive pre-
ponderance of Austria in Italy; the late war re-
stored the balance, and in this sense it was a mea-
sure of order.

In delivering the Peninsula from foreign domi-
nation France did not wish to substitute another
in its place. She does not wish Italy to remain an
Austrian province, but she does not demand that
Italy should become a French province. Let Italy
be Italian, that is all that we require. But the
work which France has inaugurated and Italy is
accomplishing under her protection, this work
would be destroyed if Austria were permitted to
realise herself the programme of Villafranca. For
the confederation could not be now established un-
less by the intervention of Austria. It is not
France who will go and seek the Grand Dukes at
Vienna for replacing them on their thrones ; it is
not France who will send an army of occupation
into the Romagnas to re-establish there a form of
government and a legislation that have for ever
fallen; it is not France that will conduct back the
King' Francis 11. to Naples. The confederation
would now be merely an Austrian restoration
effected against France, and which would make
Austria twiee sfror rin Italy than she was before
the battles that she lost. It was not for this that
France gained them,