CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. ON THE FOREIGN RELATIons of the British EMPIRE, with EUROPE.-Russia.—Prussia.—Belgium.— Spain. Isthmus of Darien.-The Pacific and its Winds, 22 CHAPTER III. SPEECH DELIVERED FROM THE CHAIR OF CHAPTER VII. DRAMATIC CRITICISM.-Kean in Richard III.-Kean in Reuben Glenroy.-Kean in Hamlet.- Hamlet.-Kean in Othello.-Kean in Luke.-Kean in Macbeth.-Kean in Zanga.-Kemble in Julius Cæsar.- Kemble in Cato.-Kemble in Coriolanus.-Kemble in Lear. -Warde in Julius Cæsar.-Warde in Othello.-Warde and Green in the Provoked Husband.-Johnson in CHAPTER I. ON THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE WITH EUROPE. THE FOLLOWING LETTERS ON THIS SUBJECT WERE ADDRESSED TO EARL GREY, BY THE AUTHOR, IN THE YEAR 1831. LETTER I. RUSSIA. HAD Nicholas of Russia the energy and character of Peter the First, or Frederick the Second, his conduct to the rest of Europe would resemble that of Philip of Macedon to Greece. If Poland sink again in this conflict with her oppressor, the independence of Europe may endure, until among the quick passing crowd of short lived Czars, the stratocracy shall elevate a soldier of ambition: but that independence must be deeply endangered by such an event. In this lottery of sceptres, working its evolutions with such rapidity and restless variety, what security can we have that no such character will arise? How reasonably may we look for such an appearance? And should he come-behold the figure shadowed by the finger of the Prophet; behold him hunting the flying nations of the earth with the velocity of the leopard, and the ravenousness of the evening wolf, clothed in a vesture steeped in blood, and on whose head are many crowns. Is this apprehension reasonable or otherwise? was it not expressed by a witness who knew the strength of Russia, and position of her Czar? Has not Napoleon B bequeathed it as a warning to posterity, on that occasion when man speaks truth-when he saw the grave yawning before him, and the world and its vanities fading from his view? But did we require any one to tell it? Is not this lesson distinctly told or repeated in every stage of the growth of this empire? What are the stages of her growth, but the stages of her aggression? Has she not appropriated seriatim and uniformly, the territory of every power who had the misfortune to be her neighbour? Is there any denial of this observation, or any exception to it? Is it not proved by her lawless occupation of the Crimea, Courland, Poland, Finland, Turkey? Did she not, like Philip of Macedon, first obtrude her guarantee of their independence, and interfere to embroil the factions of her neighbours; and after having approached as a friend and protector, reduce them by main force to the condition of her slaves? If this has been the uniform course, heretofore, what reason is there to infer that it should not be the course hereafter, when this colossal empire shall have acquired a head capable of wrestling with Britain and Gaul? Therefore, let Britain and Gaul be wise and beware. Poland having expiated the follies of her discords, by the severity of her sufferings, seems to interest the mercy and the favour of Providence. Man's extremity is God's opportunity; and the enlightened minister, who now guides the councils of Great Britain, will not permit the extermination of the Polish race-the ancient and habitual guardians of Christendom. The question is exactly come to this: for all Poland will resist, like one desperate man, and among the nations of the earth, they have but one enemy. Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just, And he but naked, tho' lock'd up in steel, LETTER II. PRUSSIA. NON-INTERVENTION means neutrality, or nothing. The king of Prussia says it does not mean neutrality, and that he does not intend to be neutral, although he intends to adhere to the principle of non-intervention. I say, and the world will say, that when he breaks the engagement of neutrality, he breaks the engagement of non-intervention in the better part of it. What difference does it make to say that he will not aid his son-in-law against the kingdom of Poland with men; men are the material which Russia does not want; in her dominion, where every thing is cheap, nothing is so cheap as men. Her soldier does not cost her a penny per diem, and her Cossaque costs her only the license to plunder, or leave to sell their property to its owners. Therefore how does this king maintain faith with his allies, in declining to give Russia that which is not wanted, and how can he be "inactive," as he says, in this contest, when he supplies Russia with "munitions de bouche et de guerre,' the only material which, in fact, she requires, declining that which she does not require. But let us try the matter by this test: Prussia, with the aid of Russia, has taken from Poland every port on the Baltic. Will Prussia permit to Poland, from Great Britain or France, the like aid as Prussia concedes to Russia? Did Great Britain give no aid to Austria, Russia, or Prussia, because she sent no troops to Austerlitz, Auerstadt, or Jena, or was she "neutral" for that reason, or was she "inactive" on those oceasions? Miserable must be the councils of this king of soldiers, when he has the courage to address to the judgment of Europe, such an argument for such an act. It is, however, in the true spirit of the Catharine policy, and, per |