The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-06 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MARCH 6, 1858.

ies and connections expire, like " flies of a
summer," in the American States that the
Livingstone are the only one of these three
political families that last. It is said here' of
Aaron Burr :

For some years after coming to New York, Colonel
Burr held aloof from these factions. Absorbed in the
practice of his profession and the education of his family,
he was not reckoned among the politicians. And when,
at length, he entered the political field, it was not as an
ally of either of the families, but as an independent power
who profited by their dissensions, and wielded the influ-
ence of two to crush the more obnoxious third. He had a
party of his own, that served him instead of family con-
nections. Gradually certain young men of the town, who
had nothing to hope from the ruling power, ambitious,
like himself, were drawn into his circle, and inspired with
his own energy and resolution. They were devoted to
their chief, of whose abilities they had an extravagant
opinion. lu every quarter, they sounded the praises of
the man who, they said, was the bravest soldier, the ablest
lawyer, and the most accomplished gentleman of his day ;
endowed with equal valour and prudence ; formed to shine
in every scene, and to succeed in every enterprise. Burr's
myrmidons, these young gentlemen were styled by General
Hamilton. The Tenth Legion they were proudly called
by Theodosia, the daughter.

The impression left upon the mind of an
impartial reader of this biography is that
Aaron Burr was like a triple combination in
one person of the qualities conspicuous in
Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Roebuck, and the late
Feargus O'Connor. Nearly seven hundred
close pages are d' voted to the elaborate deli-
neation of this strong specimen of a violent
politician.
The incidental admissions and statements
about American statesmen are of interest and
value. For example, Washington is described
in the following way :

Many were, therefore, appointed to high posts in the
army because they were persons of importance in civil
life; they gave their names to the cause. Among the
reasons which made Washington the most complete
exemplification of " the right man for the right place,"
that history exhibits, one was that he was a great Virginia
gentleman, who had vast plantations, hundreds of slaves,
a fine mansion, and rode about in a chariot and six.
" One of the finest fortunes in America," John Adams
exultingly exclaims, in mentioning his acceptance of the
command. And his exultation was just; for such things
have not merely a legitimate influence in human affairs,
but the fact of such a fortune being freely risked in the
cause, showed the faith the owner had in its justice, im-
portance, and chance of success.

Just so; Washington was not a " Democrat "
or a " Radical" either in his principles, man-
ners, or habits. He was like an eminent Eng-
lish country gentleman settled in the pro-
vinces. A " Republican " must not neces-
sarily be confounded with a Democrat; and
Washington had birth, fortune, and hereditary
position.
Of tile gains at the American Bar, it is here
said :

At the present day, a lawyer is considered to he in good
practice who has a clear gain of four thousand dollars a
year. Ten thousand dollars is thought a very large
revenue : it is questionable if there are one hundred law•
yers in the United States who earnlo much. An average
income of twenty thousand is as great as the half-dozen
leading lawyers of the country can boast; though, occa•
sionally, a lawyer will make that sum by a single case, or
even twice as much. In early times, professional incomes
could scarcely have been as large as they are now.
Among the letters of Alexander Hamilton there is one
from a New York merchant, retaining the services of
Hamilton in any suits the merchant might have for five
years. Inclosed in the letter was a note for a thousand
dollars, payable at the end of the five years, with interest
at five per cent. Upon the letter is an indorsement, in
Hamilton's hand, to the effect that the note had been
"returned, as being too much." Certainly the present
leaders of the New York bar would not take so modest a
view of the value of their services. William Wirt, of Vir-
ginia, a very brilliant and successful lawyer, practising in
the dominant State of the Union, mentions that in 1802
he had an income of twelve hundred pounds a year, A
few years later, while passing through New York to try a
cause in Boston, he visited some of the New York courts,
and inquired respecting the fees of the lawyers. He was
astonished at their smallness, and said a Virginia lawyer
would starve on such fees. From such indications as
these, it is perhaps safe to infer that Hamilton and Burr
may have had professional incomes of ten thousand
dollars a year, but not more, on an average. Burr used to
say that he had made forty thousand dollars from one
cause, but whether it was as a lawyer or a speculator
that he gained so much, is not clear.

In a democratic society of the American kind
lawyers will always exercise a disproportionate
influence. Their practised fluency and self-
possession must gain them great personal in-
fluence in a country ruled by public meetings ;
and the American lawyers have had the re-
putation of being addicted to speculations in
land—a sort of adventure in which their
knowledge of legal titles would be of great

personal use to them. These eminent mem-
bers, also, become a sort of professional anis.
tocracy.
As bearing on the refugee question, the
following assertions are interesting. Burr,
after a variety of adventures, and after bold,
daring attempts to bring about a revolu-
tion in Mexico, came to England in 1808, and
opened his proje(As to the English Ministers
of that time. The purport of his visit to
England is thus stated by his biographer:—
He came to Europe with the design of laying before the
Cabinet of England, or the Emperor of France, his plans
for the independence of Mexico, and of procuring at least
the authorisation of one of them for carrying out his
schemes of personal aggrandisement and elevation in that
country. But Joseph Bonaparte's assumption of the
Spanish throne was precisely the event, of all others con-
ceivable, to absolutely close the ears of both Governments
to such an application. England, before on ill terms with
Spain, promptly took the part of the dethroned king, and
sent the flower of her armies to the Peninsular war. Eng.
land was publicly and irrevocably committed to the cause
of the exiled monarch, and, of course, to the integrity of
his dominions. To ask Napoleon's consent to the inde.
Pendence of Mexico would have seemed something like
ioliciting his consent to the partition of the French empire.
Mexico was part of the kingdom which he ruled through
his brother Joseph. Mexico was his. If he had been
disposed to give it away, an adventurer from far.off
America would not have been the selected recipient ... . .
He proceeded immediately to business. He bad inter-
views with Mr. Canning, Lord Castlereagh, Lord Mul.
grave, and many other official persons, to whom his plane
were made known. He received not the slightest en.
couragement.

And we then are told further on:—
After a few weeks of active exertion in London, he
ceived one day, as he was leaving for the country, a very
pointed request from Lord Hawkesbury, one of the Secre-
taries cf State, that he should present himself forthwith
at the Home-office. He went. What transpired is not
precisely known. But his right to live in England was
so seriously called in question, that he was driven to
demand it on the ground that he was born, and still re-
mained, a British subject. Lord Hawkesbury pronounced
the claim monstrous. But Burr was the better lawyer of
the two, and knew well the peculiarities of British laws
respecting citizenship. The question puzzled the whole
Cabinet, was referred to the law officers of the Crown,
and was some months in arriving at settlement. Mean-
while, the claimant lived and wandered in England at his
pleasure. Such a claim from a man who had been for
four years in arms against the King of England, and
who had filled the second office in that victorious republic,
whose creation dismembered the British empire, was an
amusing instance of Burr's lawyerly audacity.
The whole facts, we surmise, are not set forth
as to Lord Hawkesbury's " request "—a word
which was not necessarily to be interpreted as
a command. From a variety of facts detailed
in this work, it may be inferred that Lord
Hawkesbury might have been anxious to dis-
countenance Burr, not on account of his
strange Mexican projects, but by reason of
the then critical minions between England
and America. Not long since the "Young
Irelanders " were received and harboured in
America after their attempts to excite a re-
volution in the Queen's dominions, but sub-
sequently a strong check was put by
American public opinion on their prac-
tices in making military and Roman
Catholic demonstrations in New York and
elsewhere ; and in plain English the American
public opinion " put down " the Young Ire-
lenders, when they attempted to be more than
American citizens. As to the point of law
pleaded by Burr, the biographer must surely
have made some mistake. After the Treaty
of Versailles in 1783, such a plea could not be
admissible in 1808.

Memoirs of the Queens of Prussia. By Emma

Willsher Atkinson. London : Kent and Co.
PRUSSIA has been more fortunate in her
queens than her queens have been in Prussia.
Out of the six whose lives are hero given us
by Miss Atkinson, three were very much
above, and the other three not below, the
average, not only of royal persons, but of the
female sex in general. Yet not ono of the
whole can be called happy, and the least
wretched of all was she to whom her husband
was only contemptible. Such at least is the
picture presented to us by Miss Atkinson.
But a little reflection will convince us that it
is probably overcharged. Even admitting all
her facts to be correct—and we cannot under-
take to rebut them—her conclusions aro not so
legitimate as they appear at first sight. The
education of royal personages in the last
century was such as to mako them feel loss

acutely many of the mortifications which Miss
Atkinson so pathetically laments. When mar-
riages of convenience were universally recog-
nised, the coldness of a husband, and his
absorption in political duties, could scarcely
have caused so much misery as is here repre.
sented ; while certainly the tone of morality
in those small German Courts from which the
Prussian princes drew their brides must have
tendered them tolerably familiar with a lax
estimate of wedlock. We cannot therefore
suppose that their fate broke upon them with
that sudden and overpowering anguish which
similar revelations produce under different
circumstances. Times are altered now. The
life of Courts is purified, and marriages of
affection are not deemed incompatible with
the highest political interests. The marriage
of Queen Victoria, of the Emperors of Austria
and France, and the recent auspicious union
which has filled two nations with rejoicing,
are examples of this happy change. But in the
days of which Miss Atkinson treats, a faithful
husband was an exception among kings, and
domestic happiness an exception among courts.
While we admire the womanly sympathy
which Miss Atkinson exhibits towards her
heroines, we sincerely trust that some of it is
superfluous, and that the Queens of Prussia
(lid not suffer all that mental and moral agony
which a lady of the present day not perhyps
unnaturally attributes to them. Considera-
tions of this nature are exclusively regulated
by custom, and the most highly gifted or most
virtuous woman suffers no more than the most
ignorant or indiscreet from the infidelities of
a husband.

As none of the Prussian queens were chosen
from the great ruling Houses of Europe, they
were but littlA mixed up with dynastic quar-
rels, and their careers are comparatively barren
in events of public interest ; but their private
life has been depicted by Miss Atkinson with
great literary ability, and forms one of the
most amusing volumes we have recently met
with. The propriety, however, of exhuming
all these skeletons of past scandal is more
than dubious. No moral lesson is conveyed
thereby ; nor are any important passages of
history elucidated. The persons and events
described may be thought too remote to give
any pain to the present generation ; yet one of
the principal characters introduced by Miss
Atkinson died as lately as 1840, and much of
the contents of her volume relates to person-
ages with whom living men must have been
well acquainted. This, however, is a matter
of taste. But we shall confine our own quota-
tions to the earlier portions of Miss Atkin-
son's work, in which some very diverting
anecdotes are scattered up and down.
The first Queen of Prussia was a grand-
daughter of Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter
of King James I. She was named Sophia,
after he, mother, the Electress of Hanover,
upon whom the English crown was settled at'
the (Revolution. She was a woman of more
than ordinary Dowers of mind and unusually
advanced education. She was devoted to
literature and philosophy, tabooed card-play-
ing, corresponded with Leibnitz, and puz
zled more than one wise man of the period by
the extent of her acquirements. Her husband
was not formed to appreciate these sort of
attainments. A coldness sprang up between
them, and on ono occasion she expressed her
sentiments on the subject with the true Stuart
wit:—" When Leibnitz had sent her a
" Paper upon les infinimcnt petits,' she
"is said to have exclaimed, Does ho think
' that the wife of Frederic I. can need a
"dissertation upon " infinite littleness."'"
Shc, however, as we have said, is little to be
pitied in comparison with the ladies who suc-
ceeded her. The wife of Frederick William I.
and mother of Frederick the Great was sub-
jected to corporal inciignities and physical
hardships. She seldom had enough to eat—
she was liable to the infliction of the monarch's
cane—and on one occasion that puissant
prince gave her a black eye and kicked his
daughter out of window at the same time.
This latter circumstance has been omitted by
Nliss Atkinson, but is told with some gusto in
Johnson's memoirs of his son. It was indeed
this prince who was the principal cause of the
paternal ferocity. The future hero hated drill