feeling indeed continued, to all appearance, in full force, till Napoleon took pains to remove it by his own folly. Such an engouement for the person of a tyrant was quite inconsistent with a thorough and deep felt liberality. During the struggle with France, the state of Europe favoured and required the fullest development of liberal principles; and the emperor professed, and probably felt them in all their purity. But they did not prevent him, at the peace, from sanctioning the outrage of the partition of Poland, and disturbing the balance of power in Europe by annexing that country to his dominions, granting it indeed at the same time a constitution, nominally liberal, but which, from the social condition of Poland is and can be nothing but a name. And we now see that all his liberality and magnanimity have not prevented him from supporting the most wanton and violent aggression on the liberty of Italy, and from frowning severely and portentously on that of Spain, Germany, and probably France; indeed, by his public documents and official declarations, from disowning and blaspheming all intelligible and honest notions of freedom in general.

All these circumstances argue either great insincerity, (a supposition, which the known personal character of the man renders improbable,) or a weak and wavering mind, incapable of reasoning and acting with

consistency, or of resisting in practice the seduction of immediate interest. They argue a wonderful aptitude for self deception; and in the private life of this monarch we see a combination of exalted sentiments and dissolute morals, which results from the same general cause. It is usual to allow to sovereigns an exemption from certain restraints, which public opinion imposes upon the rest of mankind; and I have no disposition to be more rigorous than others in this respect. But I may be allowed to observe, that the union of voluptuousness with mystical devotion proves a weak head, as well as a warm heart: and these appear to be the two prominent points in the emperor's character, public and private. When, therefore, Mad. de Stael told him, that his character was a constitution to his empire, and his conscience a sufficient guarantee of it, she was acting, perhaps unconsciously, the part of an elegant flatterer. Prudence, says Rousseau, with singular acuteness and precision, consists in avoiding the occurrence of difficult cases, and virtue in doing your duty when they happen. Without exacting of the emperor the more than human prudence, that would have been required to keep clear of difficulty in the times in which we live, it is evident enough, that he has but small claim to the praise of virtue, when thus understood. A few grains of common honesty and

common sense would have taught him, that a son was not at liberty, in any circumstances, to dethrone and assassinate his father; that it was neither just nor generous to ravish from a brother-in-law in distress a third of his dominions; that an emperor of Russia had employment enough at home, without undertaking to govern Poland, and control the politics of all the independent nations in Europe; and, finally, that a friend of liberal principles was very inconsistently employed in attempting to put these principles down by force of arms, wherever they make their appearance.

I reserve for a separate chapter on the balance of power, the consideration of the extent and influence of Russia in the general politics of Europe.

Of Sweden and Denmark it is unnecessary to speak in much detail in so general a sketch as this. Denmark has long been wholly passive in its politics, both foreign and domestic; although it has possessed, in the family of Bernstorff, a succession of the ablest and most enlightened ministers, that have ever presided over the destinies of any European kingdom. Its fortunes, during the late war, were similar in this to those of the United States, that it was at times the object of the unjust attacks of both the great belligerent parties; but Denmark was not, as we were, in a situation to oppose a manly and

effective resistance to their insolent pretensions. Her capital was bombarded, as ours was burned, in defiance of the civilized modes of warfare, and common humanity; but with us this outrage only roused the indignation of the people, and led to a more vigorous and successful conduct of the war ;* while Denmark was compelled to sign an ignominious peace by the light of her burning palaces, and upon the ruins of her shattered monuments of art. At a later period, she lent her flag to France, as an instrument of aggression upon neutral commerce, and in particular upon that of the United States.

* The author of a work lately published in England, entitled 'a Narrative of the British campaigns at Washington, &c. by a British officer,' has undertaken to represent this outrage, as a just retaliation upon the Americans for the murder of Gen. Ross' horse, shot, as he says, from a window in the city of Washington; observing at the same time, that all the persons found in the house were previously put to the sword, as a sacrifice to the manes of this implacable animal. A British officer has other things to study beside the law of nations; and this writer may not be aware, that if Gen. Ross himself had been shot from a window, instead of his horse, these proceedings would not have been a whit more justifiable, either in right or usage. But any man of common humanity, however ignorant of law, would have revolted at the idea of immolating a household of innocent people, and burning down several magnificent public buildings, to expiate the death of a quadruped. This would be something worse than the madness of the Roman emperor, who appointed his horse consul. There is reason to believe, that the motive assigned by the British officer' was not the real one; but as he has undertaken to justify the measure on this ground, he is entitled to an equal degree of credit for good sense and good feelings, whether his account be correct or not.

As a punishment for having been, during the preceding struggles, the weakest and most unfortunate of the European powers, she was despoiled of half her territory by the congress of Vienna, in order that Sweden might obtain an indemnity for the loss of Finland. It would seem that Russia could better have afforded to restore Finland, than Denmark to surrender Norway; and it is worth remark, that Russia, in order to add to her immeasurable territory this little corner, was thus guilty of a double robbery; first by plundering Sweden of this province without the slightest pretence of a claim; and secondly, by plundering Denmark of Norway in an equally unjustifiable way to indemnify Sweden; for, although the honourable task of starving the Norwegians into consent devolved upon the British fleet, the obstinacy of Russia in retaining Finland, without regard to the great services and just pretensions of the king of Sweden, was the real cause of the dismemberment of Denmark.

This act of injustice has somewhat embarrassed the internal politics of Sweden since the peace, notwithstanding the great talent and truly generous spirit of the present administration. The reluctance of the Norwegians to perform the part which devolves upon them, in satisfying the pretensions of Denmark under the treaty of cession, made it extremely diffi