don a portion of her Polish territory to Russia, she will feel that her real enemy and spoiler is France, and that with France is her true and genuine quarrel. Admitting, therefore, that the conduct of Buonaparte towards Austria at the peace of Vienna, was a stroke of policy well calculated to forward his immediate views, we may still venture to doubt the permanency of its effects; and, without following this course of reasoning into detail, we do not think that there is any thing in the present state of Europe which renders it improbable that Russia will sooner or later throw off the yoke of Buonaparte, and assert her native strength with vigour and success. That strength may indeed have been shaken, and even for a time impaired, in the late tempestuous struggle: but is it therefore gone for ever, or has it necessarily been followed by irremediable debility and decay? The branches of the tree may have been shattered, but the trunk and the root remain uninjured, and the sap still moves on in its regular course with healthy and undiminished circulation.

We will now endeavour to lay before our readers a view of the work itself. It is divided into two parts; viz. remarks upon the character and composition of the Russian army, and a detailed account of the campaigns in which it was engaged. These divisions are however preceded by a preface, which contains some matter not to be passed over without notice. We have already expressed our approbation of the motives which led Sir Robert Wilson to undertake this publication, and our general coincidence in the vindication of the Russian character; but there is one part of the preface which we cannot look upon as entitled to the same assent: we mean that which relates to the partition of Poland, and in which Sir Robert endeavours, as it appears to us, to palliate that atrocious transaction. We really do not think that it was at all necessary, with a view to defend the present state of Russia from the aspersions thrown upon it by Dr. Clarke and others, to advert to this subject; nor does the author appear to have succeeded in his attempt. Our readers, however, shall judge for themselves. After quoting various state papers in order to show that Russia was not only not guilty of religious persecution in Poland, but that, on the contrary, her object was to secure the most perfect toleration, he adds,

'Persecution (speaking here of the persecution exercised by the Polish government against the Dissidents) went on, and Poland was partitioned, so as to render her a less formidable agitator to the neighbouring States. The erasure of Poland from the list of States has ever been deemed an atrocious outrage, but certainly Poland had abused her independence. For nine hundred years this fine country (with very little intermission) had been the prey of faetions and disorder, which had kept VOL. V. NO. IX.

E

the

the bordering States in continual inquietude, whilst they desolated and degraded the people.'

And again

If the government of Poland had not been vicious, if the state of society had not been depraved, twelve millions of people would have found means to preserve their independence, when the inclination to become a nation was so prevalent; nor would ambition have projected the subjugation, or could Catherine have been enabled before the last partition to reply to a prelate of Poland, who was endeavouring to convince her that his country was a Sovereign State, independent of all other earthly power, and that there was an injustice in her Majesty's proceeding towards it-" Reverend Father, if Poland was an independent State, you would not have been here to intercede for it; as it is, you can give me no security that your country will not fall under the dominion of those who may one day attempt to disturb the happiness of my people. To care for the present, and provide for the future safety of this empire, the Almighty has imposed on me the heavy duty of a Sovereign and to the accomplishment of our divine mission all earthly considerations must give place."

Now upon these passages we have to remark, that admitting (as we do) the accuracy of Sir Robert Wilson's account of the government and institutions of Poland, we cannot see in them any justification of the partitioning powers. They had not a right even to interfere with, much less to dismember, the territories of Poland, unless they could clearly and distinctly show that the anarchy which prevailed in that country was dangerous to the security of their own States. They did indeed pretend to justify their conduct upon this principle; but to us it is manifest that the radical vices of the Polish constitution, and the perpetual confusion which they introduced into every part of the country, so far from being a cause of jealousy and alarm, were guarantees to the neighbouring States of her inability to do them mischief; and Sir Robert Wilson himself confirms this opinion, when he says in the preceding extract, 'that if the government of Poland had not been vicious, if the state of society had not been depraved, twelve millions of people would have found means to preserve their independence; for if these causes rendered them incapable of defending themselves, how could they give them the means of endangering the safety of others? If they were so weak at home, what strength could they display abroad? Upon the ground therefore of self-defence, we think the palliation fails entirely; and we are really surprized that the author should have introduced into this justificatory part of his preface the speech of Catherine, in which she affects to consider her career of injustice towards Poland, as a duty imposed upon her by Providence for the security of her own subjects. She did

indeed make all earthly considerations give way' upon this occasion; but they gave way not to the mandates of heaven, but to the violence of inflamed ambition. In short, if there existed no other records of the partitions of Poland, than the manifestos by which it was attempted to justify them, we should still say that they were conceived in injustice, and executed with every mark of insult, and in defiance of every principle of generosity or honour.

With regard to what Sir Robert Wilson says of the general conciliatory disposition of the Russian government towards its subjects, we are disposed to allow due weight to the following

statement.

'Public documents will authenticate, that so far from any existing desire to impose the shackles of slavery, extraordinary encouragements are given to the progress of freedom; and that the total abolition of slavery is the principle of the Russian government, which indefatigably pursues this difficult but noble object, and for which purpose a committee is at this very time sitting, under the superintendence of the Emperor.'

This undoubtedly is highly satisfactory, and most gratifying to every lover of rational liberty; and we certainly think that the tranquillity which Sir Robert afterwards represents as having prevailed in the distant and conquered provinces during the late war, when no troops were left to overawe them, may fairly be viewed as tending still farther to establish the general fact of the conciliatory character of the Russian government. We are at the same time not without our fears, that in a country of such vast extent, and still labouring under so many defects in its political institutions, there must be, at least in its extremities, many instances of individual oppression.

We cannot conclude our comments upon Sir Robert Wilson's preface, without referring to his charge against Buonaparte for having poisoned his sick soldiers in Egypt, which he there renews. We shall however only observe, that we have not the smallest suspicion that he would have brought forward so grave an accusation without being himself thoroughly persuaded of the truth of the facts which he alledged; and that if he has hitherto failed in substantiating the charge, it is not so much from any improbability in the thing itself, as from the difficulty and danger of producing such testimony as would constitute a decisive proof.

We have detained our readers somewhat too long from a view of the main body of the work. It commences with a description of the Russian army, and Sir Robert points out with great minuteness and in a very interesting manner, the characteristics which mark the different parts of which it is composed. In his account of the infantry he represents them as possessing all the materials

requisite for forming complete soldiers; and he records a variety of anecdotes which confirm in a striking manner his general description of their character. We were particularly struck with the following instances of devoted intrepidity, one where the error of a commander had exposed his troops to inevitable destruction, and the other where the idea of gratifying their sovereign, and fulfilling his expectations, overpowered every other feeling.

"Comrades, go not forwards into the trenches," cried out a retiring party to an advancing detachment, "retreat with us, or you will be lost, for the enemy are already in possession."-" Prince Potemkin must look to that," replied the commander, "for it was he who gave

us the order.-Come on Russians!" and he and his men marched forward and perished.'

The other instance occurred at Eylau..

'General Benningsen ordered the village of Eylau, which had been: abandoned by mistake, to be recovered, and the columns were in motion, animated by an expression in the command, that the Emperor expected his troops to execute the orders; but afterwards thinking it advisable, as the enemy was greatly reinforced, to desist from the enterprize, he sent to countermand the service. "No, no," exclaimed every voice," the Emperor must not be disappointed."

These are noble sentiments, and the nation which is actuated by them, can hardly fail to be eminently distinguished in war. But we cannot forbear laying before our readers another trait which Sir Robert mentions, because it gives rise to some reflections not inapplicable to our own country.

'The Russian, nurtured from earliest infancy to consider Russia as the supreme nation of the world, always regards himself as a component part of the irresistible mass. Suwarrow professed the principle, and profiting of the prejudice, achieved with most inadequate means the most splendid success. The love of country is pre-eminent, and inseparable from the Russian soldier. This feeling is paramount, and in the very last hour his gaze is directed to its nearest confines.'

We have noticed this, because we think the feelings here described, are most worthy of our approbation, and because we have observed in some of our politicians, and in a certain class of writers who would sink all high-toned feeling in metaphysical refinement, a disposition to represent the love of country, (considered as a mere sentiment, and independent of the peculiar benefits which the institutious of a particular country may confer upon its inhabitants,) to be a sentiment worthy only of former barbarism and antiquated prejudice. Now we are thoroughly persuaded that this feeling is essential to the maintenance of national independence, and that those who calculate the value of their country, as they would the value of their estate, according to the degree of personal profit or enjoyment which they derive from it, will never be found firm and

constant

constant in its support. We appeal, in justification of this opinion, to the unyielding courage which marked the conduct of the Russian soldiery, and to the splendid and sublime heroism, which has prompted the persevering resistance of Spain and Portugal. These countries, particularly the two latter, were not blessed with a free government; they laboured under numberless abuses, and felt in every quarter the chilling influence of misguided despotism: but the people loved their country because it was their country, they fought for it because they loved it, and thousands of them have sealed by their death the sincerity and warmth of their affection. This may be romantic and unphilosophical, but it is generous, it is noble.

The account of the light infantry, the imperial guard, the cavalry and artillery, is well drawn up, and coincides in most particulars with other accounts which we have heard of them, although it may perhaps be thought that the partiality which gratitude excites in Sir Robert Wilson towards the Russians, has rendered the panegyric passed upon their military establishments in general, rather more warm than in strictness might be warrantable.We think however that the reader will be particularly interested with his account of the Cossaques and their mode of fighting, of which we have reason to believe the gallant officer was not an idle spectator. It is impossible indeed to peruse this detail without feeling the highest admiration for this singular race of people; singular at least in the present state of the world, whether we consider their form of government, their modes of life, their various virtues, although clouded by a certain degree of ferocity and a disposition to plunder when removed from their own country, or their activity and enterprize in war. The following extract will illustrate some points of this general description :

'When a British officer was observing the retreat of Marshal Ney from Güttstadt, his dress and telescope attracted the attention of the enemy, who directed some cannon at him: the first ball struck the earth under his horse, and covered the animal and his rider with sods: a second ball was fired with similar accuracy, when the attendant Cossaque rushed up to him with resentment in his features, and pointing at his helmet, desired him to change it with his cap; and on the officer's refusal, he attempted to snatch it from his head and substitute his own during this contest a shower of musket balls rendered the horses wild, and they flew apart. When the Cossaque was afterwards asked by the Attaman, with feigned anger, for his own explanation of such disrespectful conduct, he replied, "I saw that the enemy directed their fire at the English officer on account of his casque and plume; I was appointed by you to protect him, I knew you had marched with many Cossaques, but only one stranger; it was therefore my duty to avert mischief from him by attracting it to myself, and by so doing pre