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.

The period, during which a diet might legally continue, having expired,

a new one was convened December 16th, 1790. It consisted of all who had

been members of the former diet, and of an equal number of additional

members. The new infusion increased the strength of the patriotic party.

In January, 1791, they voted the punishment of death against any who

should receive a pension from a foreign power; in April, they extended

the right of citizenship to mechanics, and all free people of the

Christian religion;--a _habeas corpus_ act was passed, protecting all

residents in the cities.

Finally, on the 3d of May, 1791, the long desired new Polish

constitution was promulgated. The king repaired to the cathedral, and,

at the high altar, swore to maintain it; the illustrious nobles imitated

the example,--all Warsaw celebrated the day as a memorable festival.

The new constitution made the Roman Catholic religion the ruling

religion in Poland,--but conceded full liberty to other forms of

worship. It confirmed the privileges of the nobility, and the charters

of the cities; it gave to the peasantry the right of making compacts

with their over lord, and placed the inhabitants of the open country,

under the protection of the laws and the government. Poland was called a

republic. The supremacy of the will of the people was distinctly

recognized; but, for the sake of civil freedom, order, and security, the

government was composed of three separate branches. _The legislative_

was divided into two chambers,--that of the deputies and the senators;

the former, the popular branch, was esteemed the sacred source of

legislation; the latter, under the presidency of the king, could accept

a law, or postpone its consideration. The decision was according to a

majority of voices. The _liberum veto_ was abolished; confederations

were prohibited as inconsistent with the genius of the constitution; and

it was provided, that, after every quarter of a century, the

constitution should be revised and amended. _The executive_, composed of

the king and his cabinet, was bound to carry the laws into effect; but

it could neither number nor interpret them, nor impose taxes, nor borrow

money, nor declare war, nor make peace, nor conclude treaties

definitively. The crown ceased to be elective, and was declared to be

hereditary in the family of the elector of Saxony. _The judiciary_

shared in the general improvement.

The majority of the nation loudly applauded the results of the diet, and

the western cabinets of Europe were satisfied. The British Parliament

was eloquent in the praises of the new order of things, and Austria and

Prussia united in negotiating with Russia for the recognition of the

constitution, and the indivisibility of Poland.

Catharine II. preserved an ominous silence, till the peace of Jassy was

concluded, and her armies were ready for action. She then rejected the

interference of the two powers, who had attempted to check her

career,--and, listening to the requests of a few factious and misguided

members of the ancient Polish oligarchy, she proceeded to denounce the

spirit of revolutions. The Polish diet rejoined with dignity and

moderation, expressed its intentions of peace with respect to the rest

of Europe, and published its determined resolution to maintain the

independence of its country, and its new form of government. It then

applied to the neighbouring powers for assistance;--but Lucchesini, the

Prussian envoy, gave evasive answers to all questions respecting an

impending war, and especially avoided all written communications; and

the elector of Saxony, after some wavering, declined the intended honour

of the Polish crown for his family.

Meanwhile the war of Austria and Prussia against France had begun; and

now the way was open to Russia to invade Poland, Lucchesini, the

Prussian envoy, declared, May 4th, 1792, that his king had not

participated in framing the new constitution, and was not bound to its

defence; while, on the 18th of the same month, Catharine censured the

new government "as adverse to Polish liberties," and declared that she

made war "to rescue Poland from its oppressors." While a confederation

of factious refugees was made at Targowitz, according to the ancient

usage of the anarchy, the Russians precipitated themselves upon the

distracted kingdom in two great masses. The Poles, under Joseph

Poniatowski and Kosciusko, fought with undaunted valour, but

unsuccessfully. On the 30th of May, King Stanislaus ordered a general

levy of the population. On the 4th of July, he expressed his

determination to share the fate of the nation, and to die with it if

necessary, rather than survive its independent existence: and oh! the

misery of a gallant nation, with a pusillanimous chief, on the 23d of

July he declared his adhesion to the confederation of Targowitz. A

vehement scolding letter from Catharine had effected the change in his

heroism. The movements of the Polish army were stopped by his order;

while Joseph Poniatowski and Kosciusko resigned their places. The

leading patriots poured out their souls in eloquent regrets at the last

assembly of the diet, and travelled abroad.

The innocent confederates having, after the king's adhesion, added many

names to their former number, were now assembled at Grodno, fully

relying on the magnanimous clemency of Catharine, to maintain the

integrity of their state. Just then the German army was returning from

its excursion in Champagne, where it had won no laurels; and Prussia,

having obtained the reluctant assent of Austria, claimed, as a

compensation for its ill success against France, the privilege of a new

inroad upon its neighbour; and in January, 1793, its army took

possession of Great Poland, under pretence of keeping the Jacobins in

order.

The confederates rubbed their eyes and began to awake; but it was only

to read the Prussian note of March 25th, 1793, declaring the necessity

of incorporating about 17,000 square miles of the Polish territory with

Prussia, "in order," as it was kindly intimated, "to give to the

republic of Poland limits better suited to its internal strength." Two

days after the publication of this note, Dantzig was seized, to check

the progress of a dangerous political sect. Two days more, and Russia

declared its willingness to incorporate into its empire about 73,000

square miles of Poland, and three millions of inhabitants. The diet at

Grodno showed some signs of obstinacy; but was obliged to assent to the

terms dictated by their ally and their protector. The confederation of

Targowitz was now dissolved; it had done its work.

The anger of the Poles was frenzied. They were indignant at every thing;

but to them it was the bitterest of all, that Frederic William should

have had a share in the plunder.

There now remained to Poland about 76,000 square miles, and between

three and four millions of inhabitants. The neighbouring powers

generously renounced all further claims, became joint guarantees of the

remainder, and promised that now the diet might make any constitution it

pleased. How far the good pleasure of the diet was independent, may be

inferred from the treaty concluded in October with Russia; of which the

conditions were, that Poland should leave to Russia the conduct of all

future wars, allow the entrance of Russian troops, and frame its foreign

treaties only under the Russian sanction. The diet of Grodno signed this

treaty November 24th, 1793, and adjourned. Igelstrom, the general of the

Russian army, was constituted the Russian ambassador in Poland. It is

evident, that Catharine proposed no further _division_ of Poland; she

intended to lay claim to the whole that remained; and as a preparatory

step, caused a large part of the Polish army to be disbanded.

The party of the patriots determined upon one final effort; and a new

confederation was made at Cracau. Its aims extended to the establishment

of the internal and external independence of their country, and the

restoration of its ancient limits. Kosciusko was called from his

retirement at Leipzig, to be the generalissimo of the Patriot army. A

supreme council was established, with plenary authority, till the

national independence should be recovered; and then a representative

constitution was to be formed by a general convention. The movement was

national; the Poles were invited to rise in the defence of their

country; and those between eighteen and twenty-seven years of age were

to serve in the armies; the elder men to constitute the militia.

Success beamed upon the first efforts in the field; and the victory of

Raclawice, April 4th, 1794, breathed inspiration into every heart. The

Prussian armies continued their encroachments; the Austrians offered no

hope of succour; and the king had declared in favour of the Russians.

But the victory of Kosciusko inspired such hopes, that, just as

Igelstrom was preparing to exile twenty-six men, whom he could not bend,

and to disarm the Polish garrison, the people of Warsaw rose in arms.

The Russians were defeated; more than 2000 fell; an equal number were

made prisoners; Igelstrom, with the remainder, fled from Warsaw. Thus

was Good Friday celebrated in Poland, in 1794.

It was ominous, however, for the eventual success of the patriots, that,

though they were joined by Lithuania, the dismembered provinces made no

movements towards an insurrection. In the Prussian, a strong military

police maintained military quiet; in the Russian, there was still less

room for hope, since the peasantry knew nothing about politics, and the

nobility having lost nothing in the exchange of allegiance, remained

contented. Secret cabals were also active in gaining partisans for the

foreign powers; some tendencies to the licentious influence of the

passions of the multitude, were observed with apprehension; and the

spirit of faction had not yet learnt to yield to the exalted sentiment

of general patriotism.

The supreme national council, now established in Warsaw, had neither

money nor credit. Cracau surrendered to the Prussians; Lithuania was

given up after a hard struggle; and though the Poles could have coped

victoriously with the Prussians, yet the advance of Suwarrow seemed to

portend a fatal issue. On the 10th of October, the last battle in which

Kosciusko commanded, was bravely contested; but in consequence of the

faithlessness of one of his generals, Poninski, the Polish cavalry

yielded. Kosciusko rallied them, was thrown from his horse, grievously

wounded, and made a prisoner by the Cossacks. FINIS POLONIAE, was his

exclamation as he fell.

The contest now centered round Praga, which was defended by a hundred

cannon, and the flower of the Polish army. Suwarrow, whose name is

unrivalled as the ruthless stormer of cities, commanded the assault. It

ensued on the 4th of November. The bridge over the Vistula was

destroyed; more than eight thousand Poles fell in battle; more than

twelve thousand inhabitants of the town were murdered, drowned, or

burned to death in their houses. On November 6th, the capitulation of

Warsaw was signed upon the smoking ruins of Praga.

The third division of Poland was complete. No permission was asked. The

three powers signed the treaty of partition, and promised each other

aid, in case of attack; but no formal communication of the procedure was

made to any foreign country. A declaration only was presented to the

German diet. Napoleon could, therefore, truly say, in 1806, that France

had never recognised the partition of Poland.

And King Stanislaus? He was angry, and wept, and took up and threw down

the pen, and fainted, and wept again; and January, 1795, signed the

document of abdication. They agreed to pay him 200,000 ducats a year. It

was more than he merited. He would have made a very charitable almoner,

a very liberal patron, to second rate artists and men of letters. But

excellence of heart, when coupled with debility of purpose, is but a

sorry character for every day concerns; in a ruler it becomes the most

deadly pusillanimity. And now for the romance; for Catharine loved

romance. The letter of abdication was forwarded to St. Petersburg by a

courier, who arrived on the very birthday of the empress, and in the

midst of the festival, presented it to her in the form of a bouquet.

What a commentary on despotism! A nation struck out of existence to

grace a gala! If men may thus be sported with in masses, if the

concentrated existence of a people may be made the pastime of a woman's

fancy, well did the ancient exclaim, how contemptible a thing is man, if

we do not raise our view beyond his deeds!

The result of what we have written, established the truth, that the fall

of Poland was an event which destiny had been preparing for centuries.

In an age of barbarism, a great nation had become resolved into separate

principalities, and an aristocracy, not definitely limited, if not

absolute, had sprung up. The family of the Jagellons came to the throne

by a compromise with that nobility; at the extinction of that family, a

tumultuous mob exercised tumultuously, by a sort of general enthusiasm,

the privilege of electing a monarch; enthusiasm declining, a faction of

the high oligarchy succeeded in the election of Sigismund III.; with

Michael, the inferior nobility came into power; with Sobieski was

introduced the influence of the high nobility, and of female intrigue;

with Augustus II. came the reign of gross and undisguised venality; with

Augustus III. the controlling presence of a foreign army and domestic

anarchy; with Stanislaus the wild fury of religious bigotry, in

collision with the treacherous liberality of foreign influence. Every

thing had had its day but the real nation; of them no notice had been

taken; and though Poland was called a republic, it was a republic

without a people. The royal power, the tumultuous patriotism of a

nobility, the oligarchical feuds, the democracy of the nobility, the

high aristocracy, downright bribery, the direct presence and

interference of foreign troops, each had had its period; and is it

strange that the anarchy of Poland had become complete? There was not

only no government virtually, but even the forms did not exist, by which

a government could be effectually set in motion. Is it strange, then,

that the party of the patriots was unable to triumph over the obstacles

in their path, since they had to contend with the strongest foreign

powers, with a domestic political chaos, and with a destiny, which had

for ages doomed their country to destruction? The Russians and their

coadjutors could never have accomplished their purpose, if the ancestors

of the Poles had not themselves prepared the way.

The world would have heard no more of the Polish state, but for the

simultaneous revolution in France. There the issue was as different, as

the abuses which required remedy, and the instruments which could be

applied for their correction. In Poland there was no middling class; in

France the revolution sprung from the middling class; in Poland the

contest was against the anarchy of an oligarchy; in France against the

impending anarchy of superannuated absolutism. Both nations were fertile

in great men; both had patriots disciplined in the school of America;

both suffered from internal dissensions; both were attacked by the

refugees from their own country, under the banners of foreign monarchs;

both suffered from the hesitancy of inefficient kings; both contended

with the greatest financial difficulties; but in France there existed a

free yeomanry, a free class of mechanics, a free, numerous, and

cultivated order of citizens; while in Poland, there was almost no

intermediate class between the nobility and the serfs. In that lies the

secret of the different issue of their struggles. Poland was the victim

of the American revolution; France its monument. Poland was erased from

among the nations of the earth; while France put forth a gigantic

strength in the triumphant defence of its nationality. Poland, brightly

though it had shone for ages in the eastern heavens, was blotted out,

while the star of France, rising in a lurid sky, through clouds of

blood, was at length able to unveil the peerless light of liberty, and

lead the host of modern states in the high career of civil improvement.

After the victories of Napoleon over Prussia, the peace of Tilsit

restored a portion of Poland to an independent existence as a Grand

Dutchy. The loss of national existence, and the disgust at submitting to

foreign forms, had excited discontent; and the race still lived, which

had witnessed the two last partitions of their country. Napoleon's

answer to the Polish deputies, "that he was willing to see if the Poles

still deserved to be a nation," resounded through the provinces; and

troops assembled hastily between the Vistula and the Niemen. But in

Posen, the French emperor set Austria at rest as to Galicia; and when he

became the personal friend of Alexander, nothing could be wrested from

Russia. Thus the relations of Napoleon enabled him to dispose only of

Polish Prussia; and of that, Bialystock was ceded to the Czar, while

Prussia still retained a territory sufficient to connect East-Prussia

with Brandenburgh. Thus the new Grand Dutchy of Warsaw, under the

hereditary sway of the Saxon king, and constituting a portion of the

French empire, contained but less than twenty-nine thousand square

miles, and less than two and a half millions of inhabitants. Its

constitution was given, July 22, 1807. Slavery was abolished, and

equality before the law decreed. Two chambers were created, and a diet

was to be convened at least once in two years, for fifteen days. The

_initiative_ of laws belonged to the Grand Duke; the chamber of deputies

was to be renewed, one-third every three years. The code of Napoleon was

made the law of the land.

In the peace of 1809, the Grand Dutchy was increased by further

restorations from Austria; though Russia took advantage of that

emergency to demand from its Austrian ally, also a territory of great

value, with a population of four hundred thousand souls.

The great expedition against Russia, in 1812, was called by Napoleon his

second Polish war. It was his professed object to restrain Russia, and

to circumscribe her limits. A proclamation to the Poles promised the

restoration of their state, with larger boundaries even than under their

last king; and the Poles rose with their wonted enthusiasm. It was a

point of honour with their young men to serve in the army; the middling

class would accept no pay, while the rich lavished their fortunes, and

the women their ornaments, for the defence and restoration of their

nation.

Yet, when in June, Napoleon entered Wilna, the Lithuanians showed little

disposition to unite with their brethren of Warsaw; and the emperor's

answers, as to the future condition of Poland, were too vague to inspire

confidence. The eventual defeat of Napoleon, brought the Russians into

the pursuit, and the Grand Dutchy was occupied by their armies.

In the close of 1814, the fate of Poland was at issue on the

deliberations of the congress of Vienna. While Prussia demanded the

cession of all Saxony, Russia claimed Poland, including Austrian

Galicia. Encountering strong opposition, the emperor Alexander in his

turn formed a Polish army, and issued a proclamation to the Poles,

inviting them to arm under his auspices for the defence of their

country, and the preservation of their political independence, while

Austria, Great Britain, and France, formed a treaty for resistance. But

for the return of Napoleon from Elba, the congress of Vienna would

probably have issued in a war between its members. A compromise ensued,

it conformity with which, Russia retained nearly all which in had gained

of Prussia in the peace of Tilsit, and of Austria in 1809, and further

acquired all the Grand Dutchy of Warsaw, except Posen, which fell to

Prussia, and Cracau, which was left in neutral independence.

Constitutions were promised to the respective parts, and have been,

after a manner, conceded.

The constitution issued for Poland, November 27, 1815, by the emperor

Alexander, was an attempt to conciliate the liberal sympathies of the

people. Religious equality, freedom of the press, security of personal

liberty against arbitrary procedures, the responsibility of all

magistrates, and an assurance of all civil and military offices in

Poland to Poles, were the leading features of the compact. The power of

making treaties, of declaring war, of controlling the armed force, and

of pardoning, was assured to the king; but all his commands were to be

countersigned by a minister, who should be held responsible in case of

any violation of the constitution. The diet, composed of two chambers,

was to be assembled once in two years; the king had the _initiative_ and

a _veto_.

At the opening of the diet, April 27, 1817, Alexander declared his

intention of gradually introducing into his immense empire, the salutary

influence of liberal institutions; and promised security of persons, and

of property, and freedom of opinions. "Representatives of Poland," said

he, "rise to the elevation on which destiny has placed you. You are

called upon to give a sublime example to Europe, whose eye is fixed upon

you." The Poles have in this latest period of their existence, shown no

reluctance to be true to themselves and to the world; but the revolution

of Spain, and Naples, and Greece, struck terror into the cabinet of

Alexander, and led him to abandon the sympathies which he had professed

for ameliorated forms of government. Accordingly, by an arbitrary

decree, February 13, 1825, he abolished the publicity of the assemblies

of the diet, and taught the Poles the true value of an apparently

liberal form of government, of which the fundamental principles might be

altered according to the caprices or the fears of an individual.

We have thus endeavoured, by a careful reference to numerous and exact

authorities, to which we have had access, to give some historical

explanations of the present Polish question. It seems plain, that there

is little room to hope for the re-establishment of Polish independence.

The provinces belonging to Austria, have most of them been under the

Austrian rule for nearly sixty years; and so, too, a large portion of

Polish Prussia has belonged to the Prussian monarchy, since 1773. The

still larger parts, which have been incorporated into the Russian

monarchy, seem to have learnt acquiescence in their condition. A kindred

dialect, and a sort of national relationship, have always rendered

Russian supremacy more tolerable to the Polish provinces, than that of

the dynasty of Hapsburg, or the court of Berlin. It is only in that

portion of Poland, where, by the establishment of the Grand Dutchy of

Warsaw under Napoleon, and by the erection of a nominally independent

kingdom, a spirit of irritation and change has fostered the honourable

passion for national existence, that the present revolution has been

supported with enthusiasm. The world will do honour to this last effort

of determined patriotism; but the liberties of Poland will be

reconquered only by the gradual progress of the moral power of

free-opinions, which is advancing in the majesty of its strength; over

the ruins of centuries and the graves of nations.

[Footnote 9: The emperor in no wise confused, is said to have replied,

"much obliged to you," and retained the present.]

ART. IX.--_A Historical View of the Government of Maryland,

from its Colonization to the present day._ By JOHN V. L.

M'MAHON. Baltimore: 1831. Vol. 1. pp. 539.

The history of Maryland under the proprietary government is little

known, says our author, even to her own people. Yet, as that government

was the mould of her present institutions, the school of discipline for

her revolutionary men, it is to its history we must go back for just

notions of both. The revolution was not wrought by a few master minds,

miraculously born for the occasion, but was the natural development of a

train of causes which leave us less surprised at our ancestors' manful

and accordant resistance of usurpation, than at the strange ignorance of

them which seems to have begot the unwise designs of the mother country.

Montesquieu has observed, with his usual antithesis, "In the infancy of

societies, it is the leaders that create the institutions; afterwards,

it is the institutions which make the leaders." Perhaps, the former

event has in truth happened less often than received history would

persuade us. The more dim the dawn of tradition, the oftener we find

ascribed to the Lycurguses, the Numas, the Alfreds, either such original

establishments or such fundamental changes as would seem to have created

the civil or religious polity of their people anew. We know not how much

they were indebted to precedent and concurrent circumstances; and thus

obscurity may magnify their renown, as distant objects, according to a

figure of our author's, are exaggerated to the eye in a misty morning.

The vulgar, who do not trouble themselves with cavils, resolve the

result they perceive into the effort of some moral hero, just as the

Greeks referred to Hercules the feats which transcended the ordinary

limits of physical prowess.

The same thing takes place in a less degree, at periods whose history is

more authentically written. The leaders of revolutions may transmute, so

to speak, into personal merit, some of the results which, more narrowly

considered, are referrible to the pervading spirit and general movement

of the occasion. To weigh justly these elements of their renown, is not

invidiously to derogate from it, but only to vindicate the truth of

history. It still leaves them the highest merit to which, perhaps, the

leaders in any kind of reform can truly lay claim, that of seizing the

spirit of their age, and employing and directing it with a just energy

and discernment. As it has been said that Luther might have

ineffectually preached the Reformation in the twelfth century, and

Napoleon, if he had not been, in fact, but "the little corporal," might

have been no more than a leader of _Condottieri_ in the fourteenth; so

our revolutionary sages could hardly, in the circumstances of the

crisis, and amidst the men of the age, have been other than what they

were. Though they fought in the van of the war, they had, however, their

_Triarii_ to sustain them, a nation, namely, accustomed to the

discipline of liberty. The wave of opinion rolled high, and they had the

praise of launching their barks on it, with strength and skill indeed,

but yet with a propitious gale and a favouring current. The notices in

the volume before us, of the character and history of the colonists of

Maryland, show how the principles of liberty which they brought with

them to "this rough, uncultivated world," (such is their own description

of it,) they maintained with a uniform constancy and understanding.

Though colonial dependence has seldom been less burdensome in point of

fact than in their case, the abstract doctrines of political right were

not on that account guarded with the less vigilance. Thus, in our

author's language, "they were fitted for self-government before it came,

and when it came, it sat lightly and familiarly upon them;" the first

moments of its adoption being marked with little or none of that anarchy

and licentiousness which mostly deform political emancipations. Their

institutions had moulded them; a conclusion not more apparent from our

colonial and revolutionary history, than apposite for estimating at

least the immediate results of revolutions effected under moral

circumstances less propitious. The political structure has often, as in

our own case, been pulled down by an excusable impatience of the people;

but seldom has it been repaired with such solidity, and just adaption to

their wants.

We have said that the obscurity of history may have magnified the

pretensions of some of its heroes; it is certain that it quite quenches

the light of others. The state whose early transactions our author

records, furnished its full share of the intelligent minds that

contributed their impulse to the general movement of their time; and as

the execution of his task has led him to a closer contemplation of their

influence on its issue, he laments the comparative obscuration of

merited fame, even in this brief lapse of time, in individuals who were

the theme and boast of contemporaries. This is the law of our fate. As

the series of events is prolonged, the greater part of the actors in

them sink out of their place in the perspective, though their lesser

elevation might be scarcely observable to their own age. In the twilight

which falls on all past transactions, the rays of national recollections

fade from summit to summit, and linger at length only on a few of the

more "proudly eminent." Our author sketches some of these forgotten

worthies in the melancholy spirit of a traveller who finds a stately

column in the desert. With the reverence of "Old Mortality," he

re-touches the inscription to the illustrious dead, that they may not

wholly perish.

The first volume of the present work, the only one yet published, brings

down the history of Maryland to the establishment of the state

government. Besides a historical view of the transactions preceding this

era, it contains, in an introduction, a view of the territorial limits

of the colony as defined in the first grant to the proprietary, and of

the disputes with neighbouring grantees by which they were successively

retrenched. Two other chapters of the introduction are occupied with a

sketch of the civil divisions of the state, and an essay on the sources

of its laws. Appended to the historical sketch is a view of the

distribution of the legislative power, of the organization of the two

houses of assembly, their respective and collective powers, and the

privileges of their members. This plan involves a critical inquiry into

the political laws of the state, and a laborious examination of its

records. The diligence with which the writer seems to have executed his

task, is a voucher of his accuracy; and the body of information thus

collected with painful research, will probably establish his work as one

of authentic reference. This original collation of the materials from

which history is _distilled_, includes a labour, and deserves a praise,

which readers can hardly estimate competently. The writer's style is

vigorous, but wants compression; he is occasionally inaccurate, but is

often lively and striking; his scriptural phraseology is superabundant.

As he understands the period and the men he describes, his views and

reflections are just. The narrative would have been enlivened by a

little more individuality in the portraits of the actors; but though

some of the materials for this were probably at his command, at least as

to the more recent ones, we are aware of the reasons which impose on

this head, a partial silence on the historian of an age not remote. It

is respecting its personages that Christina's saying of history is more

emphatically true;--"_Chi lo sa, non scrive; chi lo scrive, no

sa._"--"The one who knows it, does not write; the one who writes it,

knows it not." It was this Mr. Jefferson meant, when he said the history

of the revolution had never been written, and never would be written. On

the whole, Mr. M'Mahon's is a valuable contribution to an interesting

theme, and we must increase the obligations we are under to him, by

borrowing the copious materials he supplies, for a hasty sketch, or

rather some selections of the colonial history of Maryland, in which we

shall take the liberty to make, without scruple, free use both of his

language and thoughts.

The present state of Maryland is embraced within considerably narrower

limits than those described in the original grant. By the charter which

bears date the 20th of June, 1632, the province assigned to Cecilius,

Lord Baltimore, had the following boundaries. On the south, a line drawn

from the promontory on the Chesapeake, called Watkins's Point, to the

ocean; on the east, the ocean, and the western margin of Delaware Bay

and river, as far as the fortieth degree of latitude; on the north, a

line drawn in that degree of latitude west, to the meridian of the true

fountain of the Potomac; and thence, the western bank of that river to

Smith's Point, and so by the shortest line to Watkins's Point. These

limits, it is apparent, embrace the whole of the present state of

Delaware; they comprehend also that part of Pennsylvania in which

Chester lies, as far north as the Schuylkill, and a very considerable

portion of Virginia. It may not be uninteresting to trace the

controversies which resulted in this abridgment of territory, especially

as it appears from Mr. M'Mahon's deduction of that with Virginia, that

Maryland has a subsisting claim to a large and fertile portion of the

latter state, lying between the south and north branches of the Potomac.

The proprietary's first contest, was with a personage who makes some

figure in the early history of his colony, and who, though painted with

little flattery by its chroniclers, seems to have possessed some

talents, enterprise, and courage. This was the notorious William

Clayborne, who, before the grant to Baltimore was carved out of the

limits of Virginia, had made some settlements on Kent Island, in the

Chesapeake, under the authority of that province. Clayborne defended his

claims with pertinacity for several years, and was not brought to

submission to the new grantee, till he had harassed the infant colony

with commotions, and even prepared to make depredations. He subsequently

gratified his resentment by exciting a rebellion, and driving the

proprietary's governor to Virginia. That province also for some time

persisted to assert its dominion over Maryland, in defiance of the royal

grant; and, when that question was at length decided in the

proprietary's favour, it was next necessary to fix the actual boundary

between the two provinces, a matter not adjusted till June, 1668, when

the existing southern line of Maryland was finally determined.

The proprietary's next territorial controversy had a greater duration,

and a less fortunate issue, being prolonged nearly a century, and

resulting in the dismemberment of a portion of his fairest and most

fertile territory. It must be mentioned, that the charter of Maryland

extended its northern boundary to the southern limit of what was then

called New England. In the intermediate territory between the actual

settlements of the two, the Dutch and the Swedes had planted some

colonies and trading-houses on the banks of the Delaware Bay and river,

in what is now the state of Delaware. The Swedish establishments were

reduced by the Dutch in 1655, and appended, together with their own, in

the same quarter, to the government of New Netherlands; on the English

conquest of which, and the grant of them by Charles II. to his brother,

the Duke of York, the settlements on the Delaware became dependencies on

the government of New-York, and, though clearly within the limits of

Maryland, being south of the latitude of 40 deg., remained so until the

grant to Penn, and the foundation of Pennsylvania in 1681. The southern

boundary of Penn's grant, was somewhat loosely established to be "a

circle of twelve miles drawn round New Castle, to the beginning of the

fortieth degree of latitude." Penn was eager to adjust his boundary with

Maryland; but when it was found, on an interview between his agent and

Baltimore, at Chester, then called Upland, that Chester itself was south

of the required latitude, and that the boundaries of Maryland would

extend to the Schuylkill, he very earnestly applied himself, to obtain

from the Duke of York, a grant of the Delaware settlements mentioned

above. In contravention of the claims of Baltimore, a conveyance was

made to him in 1682, of the town of New Castle, with the district twelve

miles round it, and also of the territory extending thence southward to

Cape Henlopen.

Thus fortified, Penn was again eager to adjust the disputed boundary.

The negotiations for this purpose, proving fruitless, were referred to

the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, to whom Penn submits a case

of hardship, more _naif_ than convincing. "I told him, (Baltimore,) that

it was not the love of the land, but of the water;--that he abounded in

what I wanted,--and that there was no proportion in the concern, because

the thing insisted on was ninety-nine times more valuable to me, than to

him." It must be recollected, that this reasonable claim involved

nothing less than Baltimore's entire exclusion from Delaware Bay, and

greatly abridged his territory on the coast of the ocean. Another

objection was urged by Penn, which finally governed the award of the

commissioners, who, in 1685, decided that Baltimore's grant "included

only lands uncultivated, and inhabited by savages;" whereas the

territory along the Delaware had been settled by Christians antecedently

to his grant,--a decision, by the way, inconsistent with the previous

ejectment of Clayborne, and with the determination in Baltimore's

favour, of the jurisdiction claimed over his grant by Virginia. They

directed also, for the avoidance of future contests, that the peninsula

between the two bays, should be divided into two equal parts, by a line

drawn from the latitude of Cape Henlopen, to the fortieth degree of

latitude,--the western portion to belong to Baltimore, and the eastern

to His Majesty, and, by consequence, to Penn. This is the origin of the

eastern boundary of Maryland, which was thus cut off from the ocean, on

the greater portion of her eastern side.

Her northern boundary still remained to be adjusted; but the

embarrassments of both proprietaries with the crown, caused the

controversy in this quarter to sleep nearly half a century. The mutual

border outrages which meanwhile disturbed the debatable ground, led to

the compact of the 10th of May, 1732, between Baltimore and the younger

Penns, which provided, in the first place, for the extension of a line

northerly, through the middle of the peninsula, so as to form a tangent

to a circle drawn round Newcastle, with a radius of twelve miles. The

northern boundary of Maryland was also to begin, not at the fortieth

degree of latitude, but at a point fifteen miles south thereof; and in

case the tangent before described should not extend to that point, it

was to be prolonged by a line drawn due north from the point where the

tangent met the circle; thus was ascertained the eastern extremity of

the northern boundary line, which was thence to be extended due west.

New obstacles intervened, however, to the execution of this agreement,

which was subsequently carried into chancery, but on which no decision

was had until 1750; and in the interval, some frightful excesses were

committed by the borderers on both sides. The house of one Cresap, in

Maryland, was fired by a body of armed men from Pennsylvania, who

attempted to murder him, his family, and several of his neighbours, as

they escaped from the flames. In retaliation, a little army of three

hundred Marylanders invaded the county of Lancaster, and took summary

measures to coerce submission to the government of Maryland. These

mutual outrages occasioned, in 1739, an order from the king in council

for the establishment of a provisional line; and in 1750, Chancellor

Hardwicke pronounced a decree, which ordered the specific execution of

the agreement of 1732. But Frederic, Lord Baltimore, the heir of

Charles, with whom the agreement had been made, contending that he was

protected from its operation by certain anterior conveyances in strict

settlement, objected to the execution of the decree, until finally, and

pending the chancery proceedings, a new agreement was entered into on

the 4th of July, 1760, between himself and the Penns, which adopted that

of 1732, and also the decree of 1750. Commissioners were appointed to

run the lines accordingly, who in November, 1768, reported their

proceedings to the proprietaries, and definitively adjusted the eastern

and northern boundaries of Maryland, in the terms of the agreement

before described. The northern line, from the names of the surveyors, is

commonly known as "Mason and Dixon's line," so often referred to as the

demarcation of the slave states from the others.

This controversy was not terminated in the north, when the proprietary

found new pretensions to combat in the west. These grew out of the words

of his charter, which described "the true fountain of the Potomac" as

the common _terminus_ of his western and southern boundaries. A

subsequent grant from the crown had conveyed to certain persons all the

tract between the heads and courses of the Rappahannock and Potomac, and

the Chesapeake Bay. This grant, which comprehended what was commonly

known as "The Northern Neck" of Virginia, and which carried only the

ownership of the soil, the jurisdiction remaining in Virginia, was

finally vested solely in Lord Culpepper, and from him descended to his

daughter, who marrying Lord Fairfax, the property in it passed to the

Fairfax family. As it called only for lands on the south side of the

Potomac, there was nothing on the face of it inconsistent with the call

of the charter of Maryland; but the under-grants from Fairfax were soon

pushed so far west as to raise the question of the true fountain of the

Potomac. Commissioners appointed by Virginia to ascertain, as between

that state and Fairfax, the limits of their respective ownership,

determined the North Branch to be the fountain of that river; whereas,

from information given to the council of Maryland, in 1753, by Colonel

Cresap, one of the settlers in the eastern extremity of the state, it

appeared, from its having the longest course, and from other

circumstances, that the South Branch was to be considered the principal

stream, and its source the true source of the Potomac. The British

council for plantation affairs had, as early as 1745, on the petition of

Fairfax, made a report, adopting the North Branch as such; but the

proprietary of Maryland, who viewed his rights as disregarded in this

decision, continued to assert his claim up to the first fountain of the

Potomac, "be that where it might." Various circumstances prevented his

bringing the matter before the king in council; and so the question

hung, till the Revolution substituted the _state_ of Virginia for the

British crown, as one party in the controversy, and that of Maryland as

the other.

In the constitution of the former, adopted in 1776, there is an express

recognition of the right of Maryland "to all the territory contained

within its charter;" but the actual boundary was not brought into

negotiation till 1795. New delays then interposed, and though Virginia

named commissioners in the matter in 1801, she restricted their powers

to the adjustment merely of the western line, unwilling to allow even a

discussion of her claim to the territory between the two branches. The

negociation consequently dropped for the time, and Maryland, wearied, it

would seem, with various efforts to reclaim the territory south of the

North Branch, agreed, at length, by an act passed in 1818, to adopt as

the terminus, the most western source of that stream. But a new

obstacle, interposed by Virginia, defeated the adjustment under this

concession. Her commissioners were instructed to commence the boundary

"at a stone, planted by Lord Fairfax on the head waters of the Potomac,"

being thus restricted to the old adjustment between Fairfax and the

crown; those of Maryland were directed to begin at the true or most

western source of the North Branch, be that where it might. Fairfax's

stone, our author says, is not planted in fact at the extreme western

source. The proffer of Maryland, by the act of 1818, to confine herself

to the North Branch, being thus rejected by Virginia, she is remitted

apparently to her original rights, which comprehend the sovereignty of

all the territory between these two streams of the Potomac, and call for

the South Branch as her south-western boundary in that quarter. In a

letter of Mr. Cooke, then a distinguished lawyer of Maryland, and one of

the commissioners named in 1795, to adjust the point, the territory in

contest is stated to contain 462,480 acres; and he remarks, that prior

occupancy gives, in such a case, no title to one party, and no length of

time can bar the claim of the other.

We have thus abridged the author's copious and distinct account of the

territorial wars, which resulted in the defeat of the proprietaries of

Maryland on two parts of their frontier, and have left a legacy of

debate on a third. We must now return to the era of the first grantee

and proprietary, and take up the line of the general events of the

colonial history.

Cecilius Calvert had no sooner obtained his grant, for which he is said

to have been indebted to the influence of his father, George Calvert,

who but for his death would have been himself the grantee, than he

prepared for the establishment of a colony. The expedition, which he

entrusted to his brother, Leonard Calvert, sailed from the Isle of Wight

on the 22d of November, 1633, the emigrants consisting of about two

hundred persons, principally Catholics, and many of them gentlemen of

family and fortune. They reached Point Comfort, in Virginia, on the 24th

of February following, and thence proceeded up the Potomac, in search of

an eligible site. Having taken formal possession of the province, at an

island which they called St. Clements, they sailed upwards of forty

leagues up the river, to an Indian town called Piscataway; but deeming

it prudent to establish themselves nearer its mouth, they returned to

what is now known as St. Mary's river, (an estuary of the Potomac,) on

the eastern side of which, six or seven miles from its mouth, they

disembarked, on the 27th of March, 1634. Here, near another Indian town,

bearing the uncouth name of Yaocomoco, they laid the foundation of the

old city of St. Mary's, and of the state of Maryland. The proprietary

had made ample provision for his infant colony, of food and clothing,

the implements of husbandry, and the means of erecting habitations;

expending in the first two or three years upwards of L40,000, and

governing, by all concurring accounts, with much policy and liberality.

The new colony seems to have been looked on a little coldly by Virginia,

her next neighbour in the great continental wilderness, and to have had

indeed more positive ground of complaint in the connivance given there

to Clayborne, who has already been mentioned as the colonizer of Kent

Island, and whose fancied or real injuries from the proprietary, made

him the persevering foe of the colony during twenty-five years. His

first essay was to kindle the jealousies of the natives against the

colonists, which, in the beginning of 1642, broke out into an open war,

that endured for some time, and was the cause of much expense and

distress to the province. The distractions of the great rebellion of

1642, which began at this time to involve the colonies, furnished him

the next pretences of disturbance, and with fit associates. Richard

Ingle, the most prominent of these, was a known adherent of the

parliamentary cause; he had before this time been proclaimed a traitor

to the king, and had fled the province. The insurrection promoted,

therefore, by these confederates and others, (commonly known as

"Clayborne and Ingle's rebellion,") was probably carried on in the name

of the Parliament; though the loss of the greater part of the provincial

records, anterior and relating to this period, the circumstance from

which it acquired its chief notoriety, leaves us little other knowledge

of the insurrection itself, than that it was attended with great misrule

and rapacity, that it commenced in 1644, and that the proprietary

government was suspended till August, 1646; Leonard Calvert, the

governor, being compelled meanwhile to seek refuge in Virginia. Quiet

was then restored by a general amnesty, from which only Clayborne,

Ingle, and one Durnford, were excepted. During two or three years the

province maintained this tranquillity, by pursuing a neutral course

towards the contending parties in England, varied by the single

unadvised act of proclaiming, on the 15th of November, 1649, the

accession of Charles II., Governor Stone being absent at the moment.

This procedure was followed by very ill consequences to the proprietary.

The Parliament, now triumphant, issued a commission for the subjugation

of the disaffected colonies, of which, ominously, for Maryland,

_Captain_ Clayborne was named one, and which, after reducing Virginia,

demanded of Stone, the Governor of Maryland, an express recognition of

the parliamentary authority. Delaying compliance with this demand, he

was threatened with the deprivation of his government; but it was

arranged at length that he should continue to exercise it, till the

pleasure of the commonwealth government could be known. This trust he

seems to have discharged with due fidelity to the Parliament. He

required, indeed, the inhabitants of the province to take the oath of

allegiance to the proprietary government; an act which does not seem

inconsistent with his engagements. It was alleged, however, to be an

evidence of disaffection; and as intentions, says our author, are always

easy to charge, and difficult to disprove, he was in the end compelled

to resign his office to a commission named by Clayborne and his

associates. Stone now attempted resistance; but an engagement taking

place near the Patuxent, his small force of two hundred men was entirely

defeated, and himself taken prisoner. He was condemned to die; but he

had, like another Marius, inspired, it seems, such respect and affection

in the soldiery, that the party intrusted with his execution refused to

proceed in it. A general intercession of the people procured a

commutation of his sentence to imprisonment, which was continued, with

circumstances of severity, during the greater part of the protectorate.

With him the proprietary government fell for the time.

The occasion was seized by Virginia, to urge with the Protector, her old

claim of jurisdiction over Maryland. The proprietary's charter was

assailed, and the story of Clayborne's wrongs, pathetically told at

length. The fanaticism of the Protector was approached, by objecting the

religious toleration, which, much to the honour of the proprietary, had

consistently characterized his government. The union of the two

provinces was urged, among other reasons, on the score of its preventing

"the cutting of throats," and restraining the excessive planting of

tobacco, thereby making way _for the more staple commodities_, such as

_silk_. Cromwell, however, who could lay aside his fanaticism on

occasion, but who, on the other hand, probably sought to keep the

proprietary in his interests, by holding his rights in suspense, made no

decision in the case; and the latter, who at first expected a speedy

result in his favour, seems to have resolved at length to regain his

province by force. His government had fallen without a crime, and,

besides, the pretensions of Virginia had roused the pride and

indignation of all parties. He had thus many adherents, among the most

conspicuous of whom was Josias Fendall, who having, with a consistency

that merits remark, signalized by treachery every measure he was

concerned in, played for some years a part in the transactions of the

colony, worthy of versatile politicians on a more extensive theatre. He

is brought to our notice in 1655, when he was in custody before the

provincial court, on a charge of disturbing the government, under a

pretended power from the late governor, Stone, and was imprisoned. Being

discharged, probably on taking an oath not to disquiet the government,

he nevertheless appeared soon after as an open insurgent, acting under

the proprietary's commission as his governor. We are uninformed of the

particulars of his operations against the commissioners. During a part

of 1657 and 1658, there seems to have been a divided empire in the

province, the commissioners administering theirs at St. Leonard's, and

Fendall and his council sitting at St. Mary's. An arrangement between

the proprietary and the Virginian commissioners, then in England, at

length put an end to these divisions. The latter ceased to push the

claims of Virginia, and it was agreed that his province should be

restored to the proprietary. On the 20th of March, 1658, it was formally

surrendered to Fendall as his governor, under a stipulation for the

security of the acts passed during the defection;--a stipulation which

the latter fulfilled, not only by declaring them void, but by causing

them to be torn from the records.

Clothed thus with authority, Fendall was enabled to play off a kind of

parody of Cromwell's proceedings, by "kicking away the ladder by which

he had mounted." At the next convention of the assembly, the lower house

transmitted a message to the upper, declaring itself the true assembly,

and the supreme court of judicature, and demanding its opinion on this

claim. The latter, not acceding with the required good grace and

promptness to this new doctrine, which involved a complete independence,

not only of itself, but of the proprietary, was visited in a body by the

lower house, and ordered to sit no longer apart, with the privilege,

nevertheless, of seats in the lower house. To the assembly thus

reformed, Fendall surrendered his commission from the proprietary,

accepting a new one from itself; and the inhabitants of the province

were required to recognize no other authority but that of this new

legislature, or of the king. The Restoration cut short the rule of this

commonwealth party in the province. Baltimore obtained the countenance

and aid of the new government,--and thus fortified, enjoined his

brother, Philip Calvert, as his governor, to proceed against the

insurgents even by martial law, and especially not to permit Fendall to

escape with his life. Fendall, accordingly, with one Hatch, was excepted

from the general indemnity, and proclamations were issued for their

apprehension;--yet, on a subsequent voluntary surrender, he found means

to be quits for a short imprisonment, with a disability to vote or hold

office;--a lenity not more impolitic in the government, than unmerited

by him, as he not long afterwards attempted to excite another rebellion.

An uninterrupted tranquillity of many years followed the commotions just

narrated. In 1675, died Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, the first proprietary,

leaving his estate in the province to his son and heir, Charles Calvert.

On a visit to England, the new proprietary found himself and his

government the subject of complaint to the Crown, from the resident

clergy of the Church of England, in the province. They represented that

the province was no better than a Sodom,--religion despised,--the Lord's

day profaned, and all notorious vices committed;--in short, it was in a

deplorable condition for want of an established ministry, the Quakers

providing for their speakers, and the Catholics for their priests, but

no care taken to build up churches in the Protestant religion. Baltimore

represented very honestly, that all religions were tolerated by his

laws, and none established,--and was dismissed for the time, with the

general injunction to restrain immorality, and provide for a competent

number of clergy of the Church of England. But the jealousy of popery,

now abroad in England, began to flame up in the colonies, and especially

in Maryland, which, peopled chiefly by Protestants, was yet under the

dominion of a Catholic. Complaints were poured into Charles's ear, of

Catholic partialities in the proprietary administration; and, in reply

to a communication from Baltimore, by which it was shown beyond doubt,

that his offices were distributed without distinction of religion, and

the military power almost exclusively in Protestant hands--"that

exemplary monarch," says our author, "gave his commentary on religious

liberty, by ordering all offices to be put into the hands of the

Protestants." With a singular ill fortune, which must be put to the

account of his tolerance, the proprietary, thus controlled by a

Protestant king, and menaced, besides, with that then formidable weapon

of royalty, a _quo warranto_, did not the less encounter an enemy in his

Catholic successor, by whom, in 1687, a _quo warranto_ was actually

issued. Before judgment was pronounced, indeed, the monarch himself was

an exile, by the judgment of his people; but the proprietary was now

attacked, on the opposite quarter, by the "Protestant Association of

Maryland," which succeeded in overthrowing his government. This

revolution marks one era in our author's historical narrative, before we

proceed in which, we must pause a moment with him, to mention the

condition of the colony, at the time this event occurred.

The two hundred original settlers were increased as early as 1660 to

twelve thousand, and in 1671 to nearly twenty thousand; their exact

number at the protestant revolution is unknown. The settlements had

extended from St. Mary's a considerable distance up the Potomac, and all

along the Chesapeake Bay on both sides, and were seated chiefly on its

shores, and around the estuaries of its rivers. Excepting St. Mary's,

there appears to have been no place entitled to the appellation of a

town, unless, says the author, we adopt the same number of houses to

make a town, which it requires persons to constitute a riot. The _city_

of St. Mary's, which numbered fifty or sixty houses in two or three

years from its planting, never much exceeded these humble limits. The

colonists were almost universally planters of tobacco, and each

plantation, according to an early writer, "was a little town of itself,

every considerable planter's warehouse being a kind of shop," where

inferior planters and others might obtain the necessary commodities.

Tobacco supplied the purposes of gold and silver; but as this currency

was in some respects inconvenient, the lords proprietaries struck coin,

and imitated more powerful sovereigns by attempting,--and, as may be

supposed, with the like success,--to circulate it at a rate beyond its

intrinsic value. The act of 1686, making coins a legal tender at a

certain advance beyond their real worth, deserves mention as

establishing the provincial currency in lieu of sterling. There was also

at this time a printing-press and a public printer; a circumstance

peculiar to this colony at that early period. _Toleration was coeval

with the province._ The oath of office prescribed by the proprietary to

his governors, recognising the freedom of religious opinion in the

amplest manner, "is in itself a text-book of official duty," and ought

to be remembered to the honour of Cecilius Calvert, "when the lustre of

a thousand diadems is pale." For the only two departures from this

principle, the proprietary government is not responsible. An ordinance

of Cromwell's Commissioners prohibited the profession of the Catholic

religion; and the unscrupulous Fendall, at another time, banished the

Quakers for refusing to subscribe an engagement of fidelity to the

government. We are to seek, therefore, other causes than the intolerance

of the proprietary for the Protestant revolution which we are now to

notice.

A chasm in the colonial records, from November, 1688, to the beginning

of 1692, leaves us without accurate information of its reasons and

progress. Apparently, the alarm of Popery then general through the

empire, was the true cause, and some indiscretions of the proprietary's

governors the pretence. The government was at this time in a commission

of nine deputies, who by summoning the lower house of assembly to take

an oath of fidelity to the proprietary, were deemed to have committed a

breach of its privilege. The president of the deputies was a Mr. Joseph,

whose address on the opening of the assembly, being a very quaint but

clumsy exposition of _jus divinum_, and of its derivation to himself,

cannot claim the praise of a happy adaption to the humour of the moment.

The house refusing to take the oath, the assembly was prorogued. News

now came of the expected invasion of England by the Prince of Orange;

and, without any fixed views probably, even as to their own course in

the existing distractions, much less against the Protestants of the

province, the deputies awaked jealousy, and gave rumour wings by

ordering the public arms to be collected, and attempting to check

reports which might beget "disaffection to the proprietary government."

The whole colony resounded with the cry of a Popish plot; and as a

treaty long subsisting with some Indian tribes happened to be renewed

about this time, the plot thus engendered by the deputies was to be

accomplished, it was asserted, by the aid of the savages and the French.

An accidental delay of the proprietary's instructions for proclaiming

William and Mary, heightened the alarm, or increased the exasperation;

and at length, in April 1689, an association was formed, styling itself,

"An Association in arms for the defence of the Protestant Religion, and

for asserting the right of King William and Queen Mary to the province

of Maryland." The deputies took refuge from the storm in a garrisoned

fort at Mattapany, by whose surrender, in August 1689, the Associators

gained undisputed possession of the province. The articles of surrender

have preserved the names of the leaders, at the head of which is that of

John Coode, another personage of colonial celebrity.

The first measure of the Associators was to summon a convention at St.

Mary's, which transmitted to the king an exposition of the motives of

the recent revolution. Their charges against the provincial government

are so much at war with the tenor of its history, under both Cecilius

and George Calvert, that we can in reason only impute them to popular

exaggeration. It was alleged that all the offices of the province were

under the control of the Jesuits, and the churches all appropriated to

the uses of popish idolatry; nay, that under connivance, if not

permission of the government, all sorts of murders and outrages were

committed by Papists upon Protestants. Another topic, not less

prevailing, was the reluctant and imperfect allegiance of the

proprietary rulers to the crown, which they accordingly solicited to

take the province under its immediate guard and administration, William

gratified his own wishes as well as theirs, by arbitrarily depriving the

proprietary of his province, without even the usual forms of law, and by

sending out, in 1692, Sir Lionel Copley as the royal governor. We blush,

says our author, to name Lord Holt as having given the opinion, behind

whose high authority the crown intrenched itself in this summary

procedure. The new governor's message to the assembly, recommending "the

making of wholesome laws, and the laying aside of all heats and

animosities," was responded to by an act, the second passed after its

meeting, "for the service of Almighty God, and the establishment of the

Protestant religion in the province." By this act, the Church of England

was made the established church, and a poll-tax imposed of forty pounds

of tobacco on every taxable, to build churches and support ministers.

But the new church was not only to be encouraged; penalties were to be

added for the suppression of others. Under the act of 1704, "to prevent

the growth of popery," Catholic priests were inhibited by severe

penalties from saying mass, or exercising, except in private families,

other spiritual functions, or in any manner persuading the people to be

reconciled to the Church of Rome. Protestant children of Papists, might

also compel their parents to furnish them adequate maintenance. The

Quakers, too, shared these persecutions for a time; but the toleration

of Protestant dissenters was established some years after; and thus, "in

a colony founded by Catholics, and which had grown into power and

happiness under the government of Catholics, the Catholic inhabitant was

the only victim of religious intolerance." The next attempt was against

the revenues and land rights of the proprietary; but these were

sustained by the crown.