Chapter XI: Front Matter (11)

Indeed, a man such as he is, when he looks back upon his past life, and forward to the future, must needs feel, that his fate and his fortunes, his fame and his ambition, are connected throughout with the fate and the fortunes of the constitution of his country. He is the child of our free institutions. None other could have produced or reared him;--none other can now sustain or advance him. From the days when, amidst the fastnesses of nature, his young feet with difficulty sought the rude school-house, where his earliest aspirations were nurtured, up to the moment when he came forth in triumph from the senate-chamber, conscious that he had overthrown the Doctrines of Nullification, and contended successfully for the Union of the States, he must have felt, that his extraordinary powers have constantly depended for their development and their exercise on the peculiar institutions of our free governments. It is plain, indeed, that he has thriven heretofore, by their progress and success; and it is, we think, equally plain, that in time to come, his hopes and his fortunes can be advanced only by their continued stability and further progress. We think, too, that Mr. Webster feels this. On all the great principles of the constitution, and all the leading interests of the country, his opinions are known; his ground is taken; his lot is cast. Whoever may attack the Union on any of the fundamental doctrines of our government, he must defend them. _Prima fortuna salutis monstrat iter._ The path he has chosen, is the path he must follow. And we rejoice at it. We rejoice, that such a necessity is imposed on such a mind. We rejoice, that, even such as he cannot stand, unless they sustain the institutions that formed them; and that, what is in itself so poetically just and so morally beautiful, is enforced by a providential wisdom, which neither genius nor ambition can resist or control. We rejoice, too, when, on the other hand, a man so gifted, faithfully and proudly devotes to the institutions of his country the powers and influence they have unfolded and fostered in him, that, in his turn, he is again rewarded with confidence and honours, which, as they can come neither from faction nor passion, so neither party discipline nor political violence can diminish nor impair them. And, finally, and above all, we rejoice for the great body of the people, that the decided and unhesitating support they have so freely given to the distinguished Senator, with whose name "this land now rings from side to side," because he has triumphantly defended the Union of the States and the principles of the Constitution;--we rejoice, we say, _for the people_, because, such a support given by them for such a cause, not only strengthens and cements the very foundations of whatever is most valuable in our government; but at the same time, warns and encourages all who would hereafter seek similar honours and favours, to consult for the course they shall follow, neither the indications of party nor the impulses of passion, but to address themselves plainly, fearlessly, calmly, directly to the intelligence and honesty of _the whole nation_, "and ask no omen but their country's cause."

[Footnote 5: These are the last words of the speech; and the sentiment they contain in favour of a navy and naval protection, has been maintained with great earnestness by Mr. Webster for nearly thirty years, on all public occasions. In an oration delivered July 4th, 1806, and printed at Concord, N. H., he says, "an immense portion of our property is in the waves. Sixty or eighty thousand of our most useful citizens are there, and are entitled to such protection from the government as their case requires." In another oration, delivered in 1812, and printed at Portsmouth, he says, "a navy sufficient for the defence of our coasts and harbours, for the convoy of important branches of our trade, and sufficient, also, to give our enemies to understand, when they injure us, that _they_ too are vulnerable, and that we have the power of retaliation as well as of defence, seems to be the plain, necessary, indispensable policy of the nation. It is the dictate of nature and common sense, that means of defence shall have relation to the danger." These doctrines in favour of a navy were extremely unwelcome to the nation when they were delivered; the first occasion referred to, being just before the imposition of the embargo; and the second, just before the capture of the Guerriere. How stands the national sentiment now? Who doubts the truth of what Mr. Webster could not utter in 1806 and 1812 without exciting ill-will to himself?]

[Footnote 6: North American Review, 1821. Vol. xii. p. 342.]

[Footnote 7: See the beautiful passage respecting the fortune and the life of John Adams at p. 44.]

[Footnote 8: In an able article on the battle of Bunker's Hill, which is found in the North American Review, 1818, VII. 225-258, and is understood to have been written by Mr. Webster, he says,--"In truth, if there was any commander-in-chief in the action, it was Prescott. From the first breaking of the ground to the retreat, he acted _the most important part_; and if it were now proper to give the battle a name from any distinguished agent in it, it should be called, Prescott's battle." We have no doubt this is but an exact measure of justice to one of those who hazarded all in our revolution, when the hazard was the greatest. The whole review is strong, and no one hereafter can write the history of the period it refers to, without consulting it. The opening description of the battle is beautiful and picturesque.]

ART. VIII.--POLAND.

1.--_Histoire de Pologne par_ M. ZIELINSKI, _Professeur au
Lycee de Varsovie_. Tome premier, pp. 383. Tome second, pp.
422: Paris: 1830.

2.--_Polen, zur Zeit der zwey letzten Theilungen dieses
Reichs: Historisch, Statistisch, und Geographisch
beschrieben, &c. &c. Poland, at the time of the two last
divisions of this kingdom; Historically, Statistically, and
Geographically, described, with a map, exhibiting the
divisions of Poland, in the years 1772, 1793, and 1795_: pp.
551.

3.--_Histoire de l'Anarchie de Pologne, par_ M. RULHIERE.

4.--SPITTLER'S _Entwurf der Geschichte Polens, Miteiner
Fortsetrung bis auf die neuesten Zeiten verslhen von_ GEORG
SARTORIUS, _in Spittler's Essay at the History of the
European States_. Vol. II. pp. 460-546: Third edition:
Berlin: 1823:

We venture to invite public attention to a review of the history of Poland. The subject excites a deep but melancholy interest; we dread to hear the result of the glorious but unhappy conflict, in which that devoted country is engaged. We know, indeed, that the Poles will be faithful to their cause; we know, that they are encouraged by the sincere prayers of all who desire the permanent and extended welfare of the world; we know, that though single-handed, hemmed in by hostile powers, and all unprovided as they are with the means of conducting war, they will sustain the terrible struggle with fearless intrepidity. But Warsaw, like the Carthage of old, must fall at last; though the excited spirit of patriotism may cover its fall, with a glory which will not fade. But we fear almost to read of partial successes. The generous enthusiasm of the Poles for political independence, is identified with the best interests, the security and permanent repose of Europe; it has not failed to achieve brilliant actions in its contest against the fearful odds of an immense empire; it may perform yet more honourable deeds upon the great theatre of the contest; but all these temporary advantages fail to excite in us a thrill of triumph. We fear for the result. The brave opposition which has been made, displays the more fully the merits of the nation which is doomed as a victim, and we almost shrink from admiring the gallantry which will eventually render more bloody and more severe the sacrifice that must at last be offered on the unholy altars of despotism. The nationality of Poland has excited the struggle; has animated her sons to battle; and has armed them in the panoply of an heroic despair. That nationality will be utterly destroyed by the impending successes of Russia. The alarum was rung too late for the devoted people; they rallied to the watchword of liberty, but their glory and strength were already departed. Its name will be erased from the list of nations; and the beautiful plains on which the proud cavalry of its nobles used to assemble in the haughty exercise of their elective rights, will be confounded with the great mass of lands, which constitute the vast empire of the North.

Before our remarks can meet the eyes of our readers, perhaps, this result will have been accomplished. There was a short interval in the history of our age, when the monarchs, in their resistance to Napoleon, made their appeal to their people, acknowledged the power and aroused the enthusiasm of the many, and seemed inclined to give durability to their institutions by conciliating the general good will. It was during that short period, that the residue of Poland, having by the fortunes of war become occupied by Russian troops, was annexed to Russia, not as an integral part of its empire, but as a coordinate and independent kingdom. No such system had ever before been pursued; but Alexander was for a while seized with the general love of constitutions, and believed them still consistent with his independent sway. In consequence, Poland, that is, the small remaining portion of the ancient kingdom, received its separate existence, and under a free constitution. But the absolute politicians soon discovered that this would prove in their doctrines an anomaly. It soon became evident that the liberties of Poland were inconsistent with the abject submission of Russia; and since we cannot hope, that the latter will as yet claim a change in its government, it seems assured, that the Poles will be compelled to submit to the same servitude. Such appears to us the necessary issue of the present conflict; Polish nationality will be entirely subverted; and the kingdom of Poland be merged in the consolidated empire.

We regard such an issue, as one deeply to be deplored. The favorite poet of Italy, in searching for objects to illustrate the general decay of human affairs, and to pourtray the insignificance of personal sufferings, as compared with the larger proofs of the instability of fortune, exclaims with pathetic truth;

"Cadono le citta, cadono i regni
E l'uom d'esser mortal par che si sdegni."

Of the ruin of a realm, we have a most appalling example. In the places of many of the old Polish cities, it is said, that dense forests have now sprung up; that the traveller, as he makes his way through their interminable shades, finds the pavement of streets and the relics of deserted towns in the midst of a lifeless solitude. And now, that the sum of evils may be full, the nation of the Poles seems destined to a fall, from which there will be to them no further resurrection.

Yet the former history of Poland hardly palliates the position which the sovereigns and states of Europe have assumed towards her. In the days of her republican pride, was she not the chosen ally of France and the rightful mistress of Prussia? The crowns of Sweden and of Bohemia have at separate times been worn by her kings; the Danube was hardly the limit of her southern frontier; the coasts of the Euxine were hers; and when Vienna itself was about to yield to the yoke of Turkish barbarism, it was a Polish king that stayed the wave and rescued Christendom from the danger of Turkish supremacy. If France had on the one side saved Europe from the Saracens, Poland had in its turn protected it against the Turks; and John Sobieski alone deserves to be named with Charles Martel, as the successful defenders of Christendom in the moments of its greatest danger.

But in the foreign politics of European powers, generosity and gratitude have usually prevailed no more than other moral considerations. The interests of the state have sometimes disputed the ascendency with the intrigues of courtiers, or the cabals of ecclesiastics; but the voice of justice has rarely been heard in its own right. Political vice has usually been counteracted by political vice; and if the right of the stronger has been sometimes resisted, it was only from the multiplication of jealousies. Thus, we shall see, that the crisis of Poland was delayed, not by its intrinsic strength, but by the collision of foreign interests.

A consideration of the revolutions in Polish history is full of instruction for our nation. The inquirer finds, that the causes of the decline of that unhappy country were deeply rooted in its constitution; that it yielded to foreign aggression, only because it had been reduced to anarchy by the licentious vehemence of domestic feuds. The Poles themselves struck the wounds of which their republic bled; and their efforts at resistance would have been ample and effectual, if they had not continued their factions till the ruin was complete; if the alarums which aroused them to united action, had not been the knell of their country.

The Poles are a branch of the great Slavonian family of nations. No history reveals, no tradition reports their origin. The plains upon the Vistula were at a very early period the seat of their abode; and when, in the seventh century, the Bulgarians excited movements on the Danube, new tribes crossed the Carpathian mountains, and perhaps contributed to the development of the political condition among their brethren whom they joined.

The name itself of Poles, does not occur till the end of the tenth century; but fable has not omitted to lend an aspect of romance to the early fortunes of the nation. Shall we repeat the wonderful tale of the hospitable peasant Piast, who is said have been chosen in 840 to be the Polish king? His descendants are said to have been kings in Poland till the time of Casimir III.; and so late as 1675 were princes in Silesia. It was owing to the virtues of this plebeian monarch, that the natives among the Poles, when elected to be kings, were called Piasts.

The German kings were zealous to diffuse Christianity beyond the Vistula; and Mjesko, who was baptized in 964, was the first of the Polish chiefs who embraced Christianity, and at the same time became the vassal of the German king. Yet it is hard to assign a fixed character to the government during this earliest historical period. As Poland is a plain, its natural aspect invited aggressions from all sides; and it was in its turn fond of war as a profession. Its limits were uncertain, and the power of its chiefs ill defined. Nor was its relation to Germany established. International law was but faintly developed; nor could it be said, whether the masters of Poland did homage for the whole, or only for a portion of their territory. Indeed, it was sometimes utterly refused. To the peremptory demand of tribute, on the part of the Emperor Henry V., the Polish Duke replied, "no terror can make me own myself your tributary, even to the amount of a penny; I had rather lose my whole country, than possess it in ignominious peace." Unsuccessful in the field, the emperor relied on his treasures to make his supremacy acknowledged. "See here," said he to the Polish deputation, opening his chest, "the resources which shall enable me to crush you." A Polish envoy immediately drew from his finger a ring of great value, and throwing it in, exclaimed, "add this to your gold."[9] Venality was not in fashion in those days, and the emperor suffered a complete overthrow.

So it was, that for the four first centuries in Polish history, prowess in the field rendered the nation glorious and passionately fond of war. The pressure of external force at last led to the formation of a permanent territory, and an acknowledged form of government, after a long subdivision of the country among various chiefs, and a confused political condition, eminently favourable to the leaders of a barbarous aristocracy.

The first permanent mass that arose out of the chaos of separate principalities, was Great Poland, on the Wartha; and this was at last united under the same master with Little Poland, on the Vistula. The nation desired a king, as their only refuge from anarchy and invasions. The Pope John XII. had been desired to appoint the king; he pleaded the principle of nonintervention, and bade the nation execute its own laws and its own will. In consequence, Ladislaus was crowned with great solemnity at Cracau, in 1320, and the series of Polish kings is from that time uninterrupted. But the period of aristocratic anarchy had impressed a character upon the government and the nation. There existed no established laws, no rising commerce, no pure religious worship. The bravery of the Poles in the field was brilliant, but barren. Their enthusiasm won victories, but could not turn them to the advantage of the country. And when, at the epoch we have named, a king was chosen for the whole state, his power was already limited, not by a fair representation of the interests of the nation, but solely by the high aristocracy. Without their consent no laws could be established, nor wars declared, nor government administered, nor justice decreed.

And yet the ensuing period of Polish history is that of greatest national prosperity. The vices of the constitution were not fully developed till the close of the sixteenth century. Indeed, Casimir the Great, the immediate successor of Ladislaus, was able, like Augustus of Rome, during a reign of thirty-seven years, to establish something like justice and tranquillity in his kingdom. If he lost territory on the one side, he gained large provinces from Russia on the other. But his greatest merit consisted in his functions as a law-giver. His code was written in the Latin, expressed in neat and clear language, and was favourable to the industry and prosperity of the country. The Polish historians delight to recount the magnificence which his economy enabled him to maintain; and applying to him what used to be said of the Roman, declare that he found Poland of wood, and left it of brick.

But the seeds of evil were also planted by him. According to his desire, Lewis, the king of Hungary, was elected his successor. The consent of the nobles could be purchased only by concessions; and in order to secure the royal dignity in his family to one of his daughters, he was compelled to enter into terms with the oligarchy. Freedom from taxation was the great point demanded and promised. All towns, castles, and estates, belonging to the nobles, were freed from taxation forever; and no services of any kind were to be required. In case of war, the nobles were to take the field on horseback, for the defence of the country; but if necessity required the employment of troops abroad, it was to be at the charge of the king. Thus the paternal ambition of the king, uniting with the avarice of the nobles, laid the foundation of anarchy and weakness, by concessions wholly at variance with the existence of an equitable liberty. The people, having no means of making their rights heard, were abandoned entirely to the tyranny of their immediate masters. Such was the origin of the _pacta conventa_, and such the first venal bargain, by which the energies of Poland were bartered away, and aristocratic tyranny made the basis of the constitution.

Fatal as was this arrangement for the political progress of Poland, it was yet favourable for the extension of its territory. Hedwiga, the daughter of Lewis, succeeded to the throne; and by accepting for her husband Jagellon, the grand duke of Lithuania, she annexed that dutchy to Poland, and was the means of converting its inhabitants from paganism. It was in 1386 that the grand duke was baptized, and with him the celebrated family of the Jagellons obtained the Polish crown.

The Lithuanians were converted to Christianity, not by fire and sword, nor by any process of argument. It was the will of their prince; and besides, excellent woollen coats and leather shoes, were distributed to the neophytes. He who could repeat the _pater noster_ and the decalogue, was received as a Christian. They were a barbarous race,--yet, like the Poles, formed a part of the Slavonian family, and had gradually become an independent nation. The complete union of the two countries did not take place for nearly two centuries.

The family of the Jagellons, for seven successive reigns, extending through 186 years, obtained the throne. The praises of that period form the theme of eulogy among the patriotic writers of Poland. It was the period of the greatest harmony between the kings and the nation. They were admired for the fidelity with which they maintained their covenants; the crown of Sweden was repeatedly proffered to them,--and they had conferred on Poland, the lasting benefit of uniting to it a country, which before had been the theatre of constant hostilities. But yet so far as the sovereigns themselves are observed, not one of them displayed the highest excellence of a ruler. They were abundantly distinguished for the virtues which constitute personal worth; but they were not of the persevering energy, or prudent discernment, which could alone have given a sure foundation to the Polish government.

The first in the line, to secure the accession of his son, confirmed the privileges of the nobles. The peasantry was forgotten; the class of citizens hardly remembered, but the personal rights and the property of the nobles was sacredly assured. It was further stipulated, that none but natives should be appointed to the high offices of the state. A stipulation of that sort, would have rendered the genius of Peter the Great inadequate to the reforms which he planned and executed; the limitation in Poland undoubtedly retarded the progress of culture.

The second in the series, a minor at his accession, was elected king of Hungary also; and he had hardly begun to exercise his power and display his valour, before he fell in the famous battle of Varna, in the effort to save the Greek empire from the Turks. His brother and successor, Casimir IV., had two powerful enemies, the Teutonic knights, and the Polish nobility. The latter war was the more formidable,--for, as the power of his foreign adversaries compelled him to resort frequently to the diets, of which he convoked no less than forty-five, it is not strange, that the nobles wrung some new privilege from every occurrence, which rendered their co-operation necessary. At length it was established, that no new law should be enacted, nor any levy of troops be made, without the consent of the general diet. The custom of sending deputies now became prevalent, because the frequency of the diet rendered a general attendance troublesome. The number of delegates was at first fixed by no rule, and the whole form grew up as chance, as gradual usage prescribed; but, as the excessive power of the nobility increased, the rights of the peasantry were impaired. The code of Casimir the Great, had left the labourer the choice of his residence; it was now decreed, that the peasant should be considered as attached to the soil, and the fugitive might be pursued and recovered as a run-a-way slave. A third estate was hardly known; and, if the deputies of cities sometimes appeared in a convention, their chief privilege was to kiss the new king's hand, or sign decrees, on which they were not invited to deliberate. Polish politics established the rule, that none but nobles were citizens.

While the general diet thus received its character as the representation of the nobility, elected in the provincial assemblies, another body now gradually assumed an active existence. The highest civil and religious officers of the kingdom formed a senate; and they were constituted members, not because they were great proprietors, but in consequence of the office, to which they had been named by the king.

Casimir was succeeded by his three sons. Under the first, John Albert, the power of the oligarchy was confirmed, and not a semblance of an independent prerogative remained to the crown. Under Alexander, it was further decreed by the diet, that nothing should in future be transacted, except _communi consensu_. The nobility had already usurped all the sovereign authority; they now in their zeal to confirm their usurpations, introduced the ambiguous clause, which was afterwards to be perverted to their own ruin. A dismal inadvertence failed to insert, that the will of the majority should be binding; and hence it became possible at a later day to interpret the law, as investing each deputy with a tribunicial authority. Under Sigismund, the third son of Casimir, all attempts to restore the royal authority were futile. The equality of the nobles was established by law;--yet a portion of them already began to look with contempt on their less wealthy peers, and would gladly have separated themselves from the great mass of "the plebeian nobility."

With Sigismund Augustus, the son of Sigismund, the race of the Jagellons expired. At that time, Poland was still powerful; the Prince of Stettin and the Prince of Prussia were its vassals; the palatines of Wallachia and Moldavia owed allegiance to it; the Duke of Courland did it homage; Livonia was incorporated among its territories. Nothing but a government was wanting to render it one of the most brilliant states of Europe. Copernicus had already rendered it illustrious in science; and, in no part of Europe was the knowledge of the Latin language so generally diffused.

Now that the royal dynasty was at an end, the succession to the throne, which had hitherto been in part hereditary, became necessarily elective. But no forms had been prescribed for the occasion. It was not known who were the rightful depositaries of power during the interregnum, nor who were possessed of a voice in the election of king. At length the right of convoking the diet was assigned to the primate, and the elective franchise was decided to appertain in an equal degree to each of the nobles, without the intervention of electors.

To maintain religious peace was the next concern. The reformation had made its way to Poland,--but not merely under the forms of Calvinism and Lutheranism. The Socinians existed also as a powerful party. Those who were not Catholics, were at variance with each other; the diet, therefore, with great consideration, decreed, that no one should be punished or persecuted for his religious opinions. The term, _dissidents_, was originally used of them all, as expressing their mutual differences; in process of time, it was, however, applied exclusively to those who were out of the Roman church.

At length the day for the election arrived. The Polish nobility, each on his war-horse, appeared at the appointed place in countless troops, and it seemed as though an army had been assembled, rather than an electoral body. The candidates were proposed,--the ambassadors of the leading foreign powers admitted to address the electors, and freedom given to any Pole to offer himself as a candidate, for the suffrages of his countrymen. Yet, before proceeding to the election, a constitution was formed, embodying all the privileges of the oligarchy, and conferring on that order, the unequivocal sovereignty. After this work was accomplished, the vote was taken, and Henry of Anjou was chosen king.

It was wise for the nation, which showed a spirit of religious tolerance, to exact of their new king, a pledge in favour of religious peace. An oath was not too strong a guarantee to be required of him, who was a leader in the massacre of St. Bartholomy's night! It was wise, also, to require money and other advantageous stipulations of France. But the Poles felt still greater satisfaction in the law which was now established, prohibiting the choice of a successor, during the lifetime of the king.

The Duke of Anjou left the siege of Rochelle for the Polish crown; and four months after his coronation, he fled from Poland by night, as a fugitive, on horseback, accompanied by seven attendants. The Poles, dismayed and humiliated by the procedure, fixed a limit for his return, and when that period had expired, they declared the throne to be vacant, and proceeded to a new election.

Stephen Bathory, the duke of Transylvania, was the successful candidate. Under his short reign, Poland saw the last years of its prosperity; and from the epoch of his death, the spirit of faction prevailed over every sentiment of justice or patriotism. The king had no further authority to concede; and internal feuds, sustained by the most bitter passions, now divided the nobility.

It was in 1586 that king Stephen died. At that time Poland extended from Brandenburgh and Silesia to Esthonia; its power along the Baltic was undisputed; and the shores of the Euxine had as yet submitted to no other dominion. Wallachia and Hungary were its southern limits; while, in the east, it still contended with Russia for an extended frontier. Its soil was productive of the most valuable returns; its plains were intersected by navigable rivers; its population amounted to sixteen millions, and its resources seemed to promise the means of easily sustaining more than three-fold that number. The principle of religious equality was recognized by its law; and it believed itself to possess a greater degree of liberty than any nation of Europe. How could such a state, so magnificent in its resources, so commanding in its actual strength, so celebrated for daring valour, sink into the gloom and debility of anarchy? How could such a nation in its glory submit to unconnected activity, and, like the fabled Titan, suffer the birds of prey to gorge upon its vitals, without one effectual struggle in self-defence?

The wildest spirit of party was displayed at the next election of a king. The factions were respectively led by two powerful and ambitious families; and to the former evils in the state were now added those political feuds, fostered by the passion for aggrandizement, and rendered virulent by the excess of personal hatred. The dominant party declared Sigismund III. to be elected the king of Poland.

The new king was, unluckily, first, an imbecile and narrow-minded man, with all the obstinacy belonging to weakness; next, he was heir to the Swedish throne; thirdly, he was a bigotted Catholic; and, lastly, and for Poland the saddest of all, he lived to reign forty-five years. His blind stupidity left the storms of party to rage unrestrained, and the usurpations of the nobility to proceed unchecked: his hereditary claim on Sweden, which wisely rejected his right, and preferred Gustavus Adolphus, led to a war, in which Poland was the chief sufferer; his bigotry prevented him from healing the intestine divisions by wise toleration; and, finally, his long life gave almost every one of his neighbours an opportunity of aggrandizement by aggressions on his realm. The dismemberment of the Polish dominions began. The Porte secured Moldavia; the Swedes took possession of Livonia and Courland; and, though the short anarchy in Russia led to some success in that quarter, it was a greater loss that the Elector of Brandenburgh, contrary to the stipulations of ancient treaties, claimed and obtained the succession to the fief of the Prussian Dutchy. In short, the reign of Sigismund was marked by deadly errors of policy, and foolish obstinacy of character. The continued oppression of the peasantry, and the constant recurrence of eventual losses in wars, were in no degree compensated by the display of warlike virtues on the part of a democratic nobility.

It was of little advantage to the Poles, that Ladislaus IV., the son and successor of Sigismund, was a man of distinguished merit. At his accession the nobles devised a new condition. Hitherto they had guarded themselves against taxation; they now proceeded to tax the king. For a long period, one quarter of the income of the royal domains had been set apart for the military service, especially for the artillery; they now demanded a concession of a full moiety. But, it may be asked, what was done for the people? The answer would be, absolutely nothing. It did not seem to be imagined, that the labouring class had any rights; not a law was proposed for the benefit of the millions, who cultivated the soil. Even the peasants on the estates of the king were equally oppressed;--why? It was the nobles who farmed the royal domains.

Every thing stagnated. Every thing, do we say? The natural instinct of freedom in the Cossacks could brook their abject servitude no longer. They reclaimed their partial independence, complained that their rights were infringed, and found demagogues, who were desirous and were able to lead them.

At this crisis the king died, and his brother, John Casimir, a man tried by misfortunes, who, having been the inmate of a French dungeon, afterwards, from disappointment and chagrin, became a Jesuit and a Cardinal, was elected his successor.

The powers and the revenues of the king had been plundered; one thing more was alone wanting to give full development to the Polish constitution. In the year 1652, a diet was dissolved by the opposition of a single deputy; this was remarkable enough; but it was still more strange, that what had been once effected by passion, should remain an acknowledged right; and that while the country rung with curses against the deputy who had set the example, the power should still have been claimed as a sacred privilege. No redress could be obtained except by confederations; and it was now the height of anarchy, that public law recognized these separate assemblies. Indeed, the days of the _liberum veto_ were necessarily the days of legalized insurrection. It was a sort of dictatorship, invented for the new contingency. Only the misery was, that there could be as many confederations as there were separate factions.

Poland had, all this while, formidable foreign enemies to encounter. The Swedes, the Czar, the Porte, were all greedy for aggrandizement. This was no time for domestic dissensions. The only wonder is, that the nation could have resisted its enemies at all. As it was, several provinces were lost; in 1657, the Duke of Prussia seized the opportunity of freeing himself altogether from his relation as vassal to the Polish crown.

The melancholy Casimir could not endure all this. He held a diet in 1661, and told the deputies plainly: "First or last, our state will be divided by our neighbours. Russia will extend itself to the Bug, and perhaps to the Vistula; the Elector of Brandenburgh will seize upon Great Poland and the neighbouring districts; and Austria will not remain behind, but will take Cracau and other places." The prophecy was uttered in vain; and a few years after, the philosophic monarch, having buried his wife, for whose sake alone he had been willing to reign, resigned the crown, and removed to France.

This was a new state of things. A diet of election was convened, and the decree ratified, that _henceforward no king of Poland should be allowed to resign_. One would think the decree very flattering to the nation!

The next object was the choice of a king. We have seen, that the Poles had usually elected a member of the previous royal family. They had adhered to the Jagellons, and now also to the Sigismunds, until the families were extinct. The field was therefore open; and this time the division lay, not between contending factions of the high aristocracy, but between the high aristocracy, on the one hand, and the "plebeian nobility," on the other. The party of "the many" prevailed; and the electoral vote was given to Michael Wisniowiecki, a man of great private worth, poor, as to his fortunes, modest, and retiring. The joy of the inferior nobility was at its height; and the shouts of the noble multitude, and the salutes from the artillery, proclaimed aloud the triumphs of equality. Poor Michael declined the honour, in vain. He entreated, with tears in his eyes, to be released from it. His tears were equally vain. He made his escape from the electoral field on horseback; the deputies pursued him and compelled him to be king.

From the commencement of his reign the faction of the high aristocracy opposed him. The first diet which he convened was broken up; the senate was openly discontented; the enthusiasm of the nobility grew cool; and it was found that a mistake had been committed. The Cossacks were tumultuous; the Turks pursued a ruinous war, terminated only by a disgraceful peace. The nation was indignant; a new war was decreed; when, fortunately for himself and the state, the king died. John Sobieski, the leader of the aristocracy, succeeded.

The relief of Vienna, in 1683, is the crowning glory of Sobieski. His subsequent campaigns were unsuccessful; for he had neither sufficient troops, nor money, nor provisions, nor artillery. Nor was he happy in his family. The great champion of Christendom was governed by his wife, and the nation sneered at his weakness. His ambition as a father led him to desire, during his lifetime, the election of his son as successor. Unable to accomplish this, he took to avarice, not a very respectable passion for a private man, but a very dangerous one for a prince. But in avarice he had able auxiliaries in his wife and the Jews. Every thing was venal; and the king grew rich, without growing happy. As a last resort, he tried retirement and letters. But the pursuit of letters, in itself intrinsically exalted, must be chosen in its own right, if happiness is to be won by it; to the disappointed statesman it is but a mere shield against despair; a sort of philosopher's robe to hide the ghastliness of sullen discontent. Sobieski found in the Latin classics, which he diligently read, no healing "medicine for the soul diseased;" and the atrabilious humours of his wife, and the torment of his station, and his mental discontent, all combined to hasten his death. He passed from this world on the same hour and the same day as his election.

We have traced the progress of the infringements upon the royal authority; we have seen the election of the king decided by a faction in an oligarchy, by a rabble of noblemen, by the high aristocracy; the next election was decided by bribes. Two strong parties only appeared; the French, which declared for Conti, and the Saxon, which advocated the interests of the Elector Augustus. But the French ambassador had distributed all his money, while the Saxon envoy was still in Funds. So each party chose its own king; each made proclamation of its sovereign; each sung its anthem in the Cathedral; but the French party subsided, as soon as the primate, its chief support, could agree upon his price.

Thus the Saxon elector prevailed. He was one of the most dissolute princes of the age; and an unbounded luxury and abandoned profligacy were introduced by him among the higher orders in Poland. The morals of the nobility now became nearly as bad as their political constitution. What need have we to dwell on the personal war which Augustus II. commenced against Charles XII. of Sweden; the defeats he sustained; his forced resignation of the crown; the appointment of Stanislaus in his stead; and his own restoration after the battle of Pultawa? The leading point in his history is this: that with him the Russian ascendency in Poland was established. All the rest of Europe was rapidly advancing in culture; the only change in Poland was the predominance of Russia.

On the death of Augustus II. the majority of the votes was in favour of Stanislaus; but the vicinity of a Russian army sustained the pretensions of Augustus III. His reign, if reign it may be termed, extended through a period of thirty years. They were interrupted by no wars; not because the nation desired or profited by peace, but in consequence of the general inertness, the universal languor, the unqualified anarchy. The king possessed no power, except through the miserable expedients of an intriguing cabinet. The cities were deserted; the regular administration of justice was unknown; and the barbarism of the middle ages reverted. Nothing preserved Poland in existence, but the jealousies of surrounding powers.

The last king of Poland was chosen under the dictation of Russian arms, at the express desire of Catharine the Second. Stanislaus Poniatowski was crowned at Warsaw in 1764, and ascended the throne with philanthropic intentions, but with a feeble purpose. His reign illustrates the vast inferiority of the virtues of the heart to the virtues of the will. The difficulties of his position do not excuse his own imbecility; and while the paralysis of the nation was complete, he was himself deficient in the manly virtues of a sovereign.

Within nine years after his accession to the throne, the first dismemberment of Poland was consummated. The student of human nature might ask, by what mighty armies the division was effected? What overwhelming force could lead a nation of nobles to submit to the degradation? What bloody battles were fought, what victories were won in the struggle? It might be supposed, that all Poland would have started as if electrified; that the ground would have been disputed, inch by inch; that every town would have become a citadel, garrisoned by the stern lovers of independence and national honour.

The fall of Poland was ignominious. Not one battle was fought, not one siege was necessary for effecting the division. Anarchy, intolerance, scandalous dissensions, an imbecile sovereign, these were the instruments which accomplished the ruin of the state.

The personal adherents of Stanislaus had designed to change the form of government from a legal anarchy to a limited monarchy. This patriotic design of the Czartorinskis was defeated by the hot-headed zeal of the republican party, by the influence of Russia, and most of all, by the excesses of intolerable bigotry.

The dissidents had, in the early part of the century, incurred suspicion, as the secret adherents of Sweden. If in England, where culture had made such advances, the Catholics could be disfranchised, is it strange, that in Poland, a vehement party was opposed to the toleration of Protestants? In 1717, unconstitutional enactments had been made to their injury; and at subsequent periods, the religious tyranny had proceeded so far as to exclude the dissident from all civil privileges. They were excluded from the national representation, and declared incapable of participating in any public magistracy whatever.

On the accession of Stanislaus it was hoped that a more moderate and equitable spirit would prevail. Stanislaus himself favoured the cause of religious freedom. The dissidents made a very moderate request for the establishment of freedom of worship, without claiming the restitution of all their franchises. The zealots, strengthened by the opponents of the king, would concede absolutely nothing; and as in politics religious parties have always exhibited the most deadly hostility, so in this case Poland was more distracted than ever.

The Russian ambassador immediately seized the opportunity of making Russian influence predominant under the mask of protecting liberty of conscience. The empress demanded for the dissidents a perfect equality with the Catholics; and amidst scenes of tumultuous discussion and legislative frenzy, the demand was rejected. The highest religious zeal became combined with a detestation of Russian interference, and unbridled passion accomplished its utmost.

The dissidents, unsuccessful in their application to the diet, confederated under Russian protection; and as the proceedings of the king had excited a vague apprehension of some encroachments on the privileges of the nobles, the confederates were joined by the opponents of the king also. In this way a general confederation was formed agreeably to the established usage in Poland; but the whole was under the guidance and control of Repnin, the Russian ambassador.

When the general diet was convened in 1767, so large a Russian army was already encamped in Poland, that Repnin was able to dictate the petitions and the complaints which were to be presented for consideration. No foreign power interfered. France and Austria were exhausted; and Frederic was careful to preserve a good understanding with his great Northern ally.

But with all this, some refractory spirits appeared in the diet. No terrors could subdue the inflexible and impassioned spirit of Soltyk, Zaluski, and the two Rzewuskis. And what was done by an ambassador of the foreign power in the capital of a free and mighty state? Repnin ordered the resolute patriots to be seized by night and transported to Siberia. Horror chilled the nation at the outrage, and the rage of despair filled all but the partisans of Russia. The ambassador of Catharine was now able to dictate to the diet all the decrees relating to the dissidents, and all the other laws which were enacted at the session. It was plain, that he did not understand the wants of the dissidents; but he took care to render the continuance of Russian interference necessary for their security.

It was the misfortune of the Polish patriots, that the defence of their nationality became identified with the most furious form of religious bigotry. The diet had not terminated its session before a new confederation convened at Bar, and contending against the Russians on the one hand, attempted to depose the king on the other. But the confederation was easily dissolved by the Russian army, and its leaders were obliged to fly for refuge beyond the frontier.

Thus the cause of the Poles seemed to be abandoned by all the world. The efforts of the king were insignificant; the nobles were many of them in the pay of Russia, the rest of them divided by civil, religious, and family factions; and England and France were idle spectators of the approaching dissolution of the Polish state.

Yet one power there was, whose ancient maxim would not allow a Russian army in Poland. While all the Christian monarchs neglected or joined to pillage the unhappy land, the Porte declared war against the aggressor. The issue of that contest is well known; and the power of Russia was but the more confirmed by her entire success in the war. Russian ascendancy in the North and East became established, and the last hope of Poland was removed.

When at length the three principal powers invaded Poland, and published their manifesto, proclaiming its dismemberment, the nation submitted almost without a struggle. The blow came as upon one in a lethargy. The revelries of the wealthy nobility, the feuds of the great families, and the wretchedness of the peasantry, continued as before.

It may be asked, who first planned the partition of Poland? We believe it was Frederic. Austria was indeed the first to advance her frontier; but every thing tends rather to show, that the Austrian cabinet insisted upon its share, only because the robbery was at all events to be committed; and Russia had no interest in proposing a division, for she already virtually possessed the whole. Frederic, on the contrary, was earnestly desirous of consolidating and uniting his kingdom, of which the parts were before divided by Polish provinces.

Previous to this first division in 1773, Poland had possessed a territory of about 220,000 miles; her neighbours now left her about 166,000. Prussia and Austria would gladly have taken more; but Russia protected the residue, as prey reserved for herself.

Or rather, the Russian ambassador in Warsaw, was from that time the real sovereign over the land. A secret article in the treaty with Prussia guaranteed the liberties and constitution of Poland, that is, stipulated that the state of anarchy should continue.

And yet it seems surprising, that a nation of fourteen millions, and of proverbial valor should have submitted without a blow. The result can be explained only from the abject state to which the peasantry had become reduced, and the immense gulf which separated the nobility from the people.

But a new epoch was opening in the history of the world. The United States of America had achieved their independence, and established their liberties. The impulse was instantaneously felt throughout Europe, and it extended to Poland. The relative position of the Northern European powers was also changed. The alliance between Russia and Prussia had expired in 1780, nor had the Empress been willing to renew it. On the contrary, the alliance of Austria was preferred, and the new associates combined to engage in a war with the Porte. The purpose of dismembering the Turkish state was avowed, and the Poles foresaw full well, that their own territory would next be coveted. They therefore determined to shake off the intolerable yoke of foreign interference, and, observing that their constitution was absolutely in ruins, they ventured to attempt a reconstruction of their state.

The condition of the public mind in France had its share of influence. The Polish nobility had long been partial to the language and manners of France. Nor were the two countries in situations wholly unlike. Both states were disorganized; one was suffering from anarchy, the other tending to it; and both needed a renewal of their youth. On the Seine and on the Vistula, a new order of things was demanded. The United States had been the first state in the world to introduce a written constitution; Poland was now the first country in Europe to imitate the example.

It was in October, 1788, that the revolutionary diet assembled at Warsaw. It assembled tranquilly: for Austria and Russia were at war with the Porte, and Sweden had also threatened St. Petersburg from the north. Its first decree abolished the _liberum veto_. Henceforward, the will of the majority was to be the law.

But even yet the spirit of faction was unsubdued. A Russian party,--a minority, it is true, yet, under the circumstances, a formidable one, introduced divisions into the diet. The king himself had not lofty independence enough to join heartily with the patriots, but still continued to hope for the political safety of his country, from the clemency of Catharine.

A treaty of alliance with Russia against the Porte, was proposed to the diet and rejected, in part, through the influence of Prussia. It was next voted to raise the Polish army, from 18,000 to 60,000; and, if possible, to 100,000 men. To effect this object, the nobility and clergy voluntarily submitted to taxation. The control of the army was entrusted not to the king, but to a special commission.

Some foreign support was next desired; and the political position of Prussia, gorged though she had been with the spoils of Poland, seemed yet under the reign of its new king to offer a safe and resolute protector. The court of Berlin published to the world its determination to guarantee the independence of Poland, and to avoid all interference in its internal concerns.

Stanislaus wavered, and evidently leaned to the Russian side. The decision of the diet at length won him over to the party of the patriots;--and he agreed to assist in expelling the Russian army from the Polish soil, in forming a constitution, and in soliciting the concurrence of other nations in repressing the unmeasured aggrandizement of Russia. These proceedings were not without effect;--in June of the following year, the ambassador of Catharine announced that her army had left Poland, and would not again cross its boundaries.

The diet now advanced to the work of framing a constitution; while the representatives of the third estate were, in the meanwhile, admitted to a seat in the assembly.

The alliance with Prussia was, however, delayed, partly by means of Russian intrigue, but still more, because Frederic William demanded the cession of Dantzig. On this point, divisions ensued, which were never reconciled. But, in March, 1790, a treaty of peace and alliance between Poland and Prussia was signed, containing a guarantee of each other's possessions, and a mutual pledge of assistance, in case of an attack from abroad. Should any foreign nation attempt interference in the internal concerns of Poland, the court of Berlin pledged itself to render every assistance by means of negotiations, and, if they failed, to make use of its whole military force.

But, alas, for the plighted faith of princes! The time of this treaty was a very critical juncture. Joseph II. of Austria was dead; Prussia was in alliance with the Porte, and of course exposed to a war with Russia; and the negotiations for a general peace in the congress of Reichenbach, were not yet begun. At that congress, Prussia revealed its will to become master of Dantzig and Thorn; and it was not deemed an impossible thing to induce King Frederic William to be false to his word, which had been plighted to the Poles.