페이지 이미지

statuary which many of them contain paid for with the King's own money.

The canal which unites the Maine with the Danube, and thus creates an uninterrupted line of water conimunication froin Rotherdam to the black Sea, it is said, owes its origin to the King of Bavaria. His friends also claim for him the merit of having first conceived the idea of the Zollverein, which is usually attributed to the King of Prussia. He was the prime mover of the plan for the national rail-ways of Bavaria, and took a most active part in originating the company for running steam boats from the highest navigable point of the Danube above Donanwerth, down to Regensburg. He also introduced, for the benefit of his people, the Landrathe system, under which the actual cultivator of the soil is protected in his independence and is no longer the trembling slave of despotism. Under this system he may obtain from the state, on fair and moderate terms, the money necessary to improve the land and carry on his farming operations to advantage. It is true, he must pay an annual rent for the land ; but his condition as tenant is accompanied with the privilege of becoming the absolute owner of the fee-simple by the payment of a certain number of years' rent in advance.A few years' labor enables the tenant to become the owner.

The King came to the throne filled with the most liberal ideas. He was about to admit his people to a very large share of political freedom, but he became suddenly alarmed by the revolutionary movements of 1830 and took to his counsels the Jesuits. Whether from the dictates of his own altered mind, or through the influence of those counsellors, it is not our purpose to enquire, but it is alleged that his government degenerated into a low, petty tyranny, under priestly influences, accompanied with a rigid censorship of the press; and it became intolerable to all but the favored few.

In this stage of Bavarian affairs Lola Montes made her appearance. She obtained permission to dance upon the theatre at Munich. Her beauty and distinguished manners attracted the notice of the King. On further acquaintance with her, he became enamored of her originality of character, her mental powers, and of those bold and novel political views which she fearlessly and frankly laid before him. Under her counsels, a total revolution soon after, took place in the Bavarian system of government. The existing ministry were dismissed ; new and more liberal advisers were chosen; the power of the Jestiits was ended; Austrian influences repelled, and a foundation laid for making Bavaria an independent member of the great family of nations. These favorable results may fairly be attributed to the talents, the energy and the influence of Lola Montes, who received, in her promotion to the nobility, only the usual reward of political services. She became Countess of Landsfelt, accompanied by an estate of the same name, with certain feudal privileges and rights over some two thousand souls. Her income, including a recent addition from the King of 20,000 florins per annum, is 70,000 florins, or little more than £5000

per annum. In addition to which she has private property of her own in the English or French funds, a great portion of which it is said consists of shares in the Palais Royal at Paris, lefther by Dujarier in his will.

It is alleged that relations other than political exist between this extraordinary female and the King of Bavaria. The fact is too notorious to be denied; and the conduct of the parties in this respect must receive the condemnation of every friend to morality. The King is a married man, and nevertheless has improperly permitted himself to become passionately attached to the Countess of Landsfelt. This attachment enabled her to work out the great political changes which have taken place in Bavaria ; and it is but just to acknowledge that it is the political use she has made of her relations with the king, and not the immorality of that connexion itself, that has brought down upon her most of the vehement censures which the defeated party have bestowed, from time to time, accompanied by the bitterest calumnies. The moral indignation which her political opponents displayed was unfortunately a mere sham. They had not only tolerated, but PATRONIZED a female who formerly held the equivocal position which the Countess of Landsfelt recently held, because the former made herself subservient to the then dominant party. Give even the evil one his due. Let even Lola Montes have credit for her talents, her intelligence, and her snpport of popular rights. As a political character she held, until her retirement to Switzerland, an important position in Bavaria, besides having agents and correspondents in various courts of Europe. On foreign politics she has clear ideas and has been treated by the political men of the country as a substantive power. She always kept state secrets, and could be consulted with satety, in cases in which her original habits of thought rendered her of service. Acting under her advice, the King had pledged himself to a course of steady improvement in the political freedom of the people. Although she wielded so much power, it is alleged that she never used it eitlier for the promotion of unworthy persons, or, as other favorites have done, for corrupt purposes; and there is reason to believe that political feeling influenced her course, not sordid considerations.

For the foregoing facts in relation to the public merits of the King of Bavaria and the new Countess of Landsfelt we are indebted to an article in Frazer's Magazine.And we refer the professional reader to the Law Reporter of August 1846, for a more extended account of the trial of Bou vallon.


The final decision of this painfully exciting case, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, will be found in the present number of the Journal. A deep interest is felt in it throughout the union, on account of its connexion with the question of recaption of fugitive slaves, with the reputation of a distinguished Professor in a highly estimated college, and with the melancholy fate of a citizen of a neighboring state, who appears to have been deprived of his life whilst engaged in the assertion of a right of property recognized by the paramount law of the land. It will be perceived that the decision of the Supreme Court does not touch any of the questions agitated in the court below, except that which relates to the punishment to be inflicted for the offence, according to the existing law of the state. We rejoice to see that the Supreme Court, in reversing the judgment of the court below, for an error in this particular, assigned a reason for the discharge of the prisoners which implies a very proper assertion of authority to “minister justice," and not only to “reverse or affirm" the judgment of the court below, but to “correct all errors" and to "modify" the sentence according to law, in cases where the conviction is regular, and the error is only in the sentence.

It has been jocularly said of a distinguished Senator that “when he takes snuff, all South Carolina sneezes.” This remark is, to some extent, expressive of the potent influence which a mere dictum of Sir Edward Coke still has not only in England but in some parts of this country. We would not detract from his great merits as a jurist, but it must be conceded that his mind was only great in comparison with the lights of the age in which he lived ; and no one would be more astonished than himself, if he were now living, to see some of his hasty expressions attempted to be enforced as the settled and immutable doctrines of the common law. In 3 Inst. 210, Sir Edward remarked, in speaking of a writ of Error, that “if the judgment be erroneous, both that and the execution, and all former proceedings shall be reversed by writ of Error.”And this remark is copied by Hawkins and by other writers. -2 Hawk b. 2 c. 20 s. 19. So far from any decision being cited by either Coke or Hawkins in support of reversing “all former proceedings" for error in a matter subsequent, the supposed founder of the doctrine rests it entirely upon the derivation of the word judicium from the words a jure and dicto. How this derivation goes to support Sir Edward's position, as recently understood and applied, we are at a loss to perceive. On the contrary, the very reasons given by that great jurist, as they do not tend, in the slightest degree, to sustain such a position, show that Lord Coke never meant to assert any thing so at variance with the right reason of the Common Law; and the rule, on the reversal of an outlawry, after conviction of treason or felony, is directly the other way. 4 Bl. 392, 2 Hale 209, 1 Chit. C. L. 369.

In 1823, in the case of Rex. v. Kenworthy 1 B. & C.711, in a case where the court below had ordered the prisoner to be transported, omitting the formal words “it is considered,” and also omitting the other punishment required by law, the court of error awarded a procedendo to the court below, and refused to discharge the prisoner on Habeas Corpus. Abbott, C. J. on that occasion remarked that " there is no doubt that at common law, where the punishment is not discretionary, the record of an inferior court may be removed into this court, and we may pronounce judgment.But in 1826, in Rex v Ellis 5 B. & C. 395, and in 1838, in Rex v. Bourne 7 Ad. & Ellis 53, it was held, on the authority of Sir Edward Coke's remark, that upon the reversal of a judgment for error in the sentence, as

« 이전계속 »