“If it should happen that a country in the possession of France were to be invaded by the enemy, and afterwards ceded to him by a treaty, would it be just to say to those of the inhabitants who might come to settle on the territory of the republic, that they had forfeited their rights as Frenchmen, for not having quitted their former country at the moment it was ceded; and because they had sworn temporary allegiance to a new Sovereign, in order to gain time to dispose of their property and transfer their wealth to France?”
In another debate on the decease of soldiers, some difficulties having arisen relative to those who might die in a foreign country, the First Consul exclaimed with vivacity;—"The soldier is never abroad when he is under the national banner. The spot where the standard of France is unfurled becomes French ground!"
On the subject of divorce, the First Consul was for the adoption of the principle, and spoke at great length on the ground of incompatibility, which it was attempted to repel.
“It is pretended,” said he, "that divorce is contrary to the interests of women and children, and to the spirit of families; but nothing is more at variance with the interests of married persons, when their humours are incompatible, than to reduce them to the alternative of either living together, or of separating with publicity. Nothing is more opposite to domestic happiness than a divided family. Separation had formerly, with regard to the wife, the husband, and the children, nearly the same effect as divorce, and yet it was not so frequent as divorce now is. It was only attended with this additional inconvenience, that a woman of bad character might continue to dishonour her husband’s name because she was permitted to retain it."
When opposing the drawing up of an article to specify the causes for which divorce would be admissible, he said; "But is it not a great misfortune to be compelled to expose these causes, and reveal even the most minute and private family details?
“Besides, will these causes, even in the event of their real existence, be always sufficient to obtain divorce? That of adultery, for instance, can only be successfully maintained by proofs, which it is always very difficult, and sometimes even impossible, to produce. Yet the husband, who should not be able to bring forward these proofs, would be compelled to live with a woman whom he abhors and despises, and who introduces illegitimate children into his family. His only resource would be separation from bed and board; but this would not shield his name from dishonour.”