A painful sensation has been caused by the action brought
in the Brussels Law Courts by Princess Louise of Coburg and Princess Stephanie (Countess Lonyay) against their father, the King of the Belgians. The case has been forced on by the action of Princess Louise's creditors, owing to the King's interpretation of his daughter's rights as legatee under her mother's will The King holds that the diplomatic settle- ment of 1853 provides for separate estates between the con- tracting parties, while counsel for the creditors contend that the Belgian law enforcing joiet partnership must subsist. M. Janson, for Princess Stephanie, read a declaration whichitated that not only had she been prevented from benefiting under her mother's will, but that her allowance had been withdrawn. He also read the Queen's will, in which she stated that though she never spent a farthing of her own dowry, all her efforts to trace it remained fruitless. M. Ninauve, for the creditors, contended that by his action in making over most of the Royal domain to the nation, and utilising the revenue of the domains privg in the Congo for private building speculations, King Leopold had partially disinherited his own children, and deprived them of their lawful patrimony. H. Janson, while admitting that the late Queen misunderstood the terms of her marriage contract, and that she had been allowed £6,000 a year in respect of her dowry, declared that the King could not escapejle judgment of public opinion and history for his harsh, szstifiable, and unnatural conduct to his daughter, whioh he'lliuntrasted with that of the Emperor of Austria, her fatber-in-law. The action of the King in allowing his own daughter to sue him in Court for alimony is very generally and adversely commented on, the only explanation offered being that he preferred such a scandal to the fear of continual pressure from his daughters and their creditors.
