destinies of a nation, ought not to pass by unnoticed. Stanislas stands in the usual predicament of kings and prominent personages, between flattering admirers and severe detractors. The usual course, in such a case, is to measure the evil with the good and take the mean between them; but this, though the readiest mode of arriving at a result, is not the surest, since it proceeds on the presumption of the truth both of the favourable and unfavourable statements. In the present instance the estimate need not be merely speculative, since there are abundant data on which to calculate. The warmest panegyrists of this unfortunate king venture no further in their praises than to give him credit for good intentions in policy, and to plead his patronage of learning and the arts as a palliation for his political errors. With regard to the first excuse, it may be remarked, that moral weakness or imbecility is no more admissible as an excuse for error, than recklessness of character, since the latter is equally constitutional as the former. The second plea requires more investigation. It is customary to attribute to Stanislas the advance in learning and education which decidedly evinced itself in his reign; but while we admit his talent and taste for the trifles of literature and art, which is the utmost that can be proved, we must observe that the grand impetus to intellectual improvement was not given by Stanislas. He certainly spent, not only his revenue, which was considerable, but contracted great debts, which were twice paid by the state; but it was mostly on frivolous writers, bad painters, and no loose women, that those sums were expended. The progress of education and liberal enquiry is to be attributed to Konarski and his coadjutors, and the commission of education also, which was appointed by the diet, comes in for a share of the credit. Poniatowski, indeed, patronized great men in literature and the arts; but the effect of such patronage is at best of doubtful benefit; and the merit of the patron is of a negative character, being so mixed up with vanity and love of notoriety. It has been said by Rulhière, who has been pronounced "one of the most interesting and sagacious of modern historians "*, that " magnanimity; no strength appeared in his character; that he only thought of becoming a patron of all the arts of luxury, and particularly to cultivate little objects of this nature, to which he attached the highest consequence." His panegyrist could only assume that he was not one of the chief causes of his country's annihilation, but cannot deny that no monarch could have been more suited to produce such an unfortunate effect; and though his censor might admit the truth of his assertion, "I have always wished for the happiness of my country, and I have only caused it misfortune!" he would remind the royal criminal that even "hell is paved with good intentions." * Edinburgh Review, January 1814. + Oginski's Mémoires. Vol. II. p. 327. CHAPTER XII. Polish Patriots at Paris and Venice.-The French Directory promise assistance.-Polish Confederacy at Paris.— Oginski sent to Constantinople.-Buonaparte's Letter to Oginski. Polish Confederacy in Walachia broken up.The Emperor Paul, on his Accession, liberates the Polish. Captives.-Kosciusko.- Polish Legions; in Lombardy; at Rome.-Suwarow in Italy defeats the Second Legion.— Battle of Novi.-Legion of the Danube.-Legions perish in St. Domingo.-War declared between France and Prussia. -The French enter Warsaw.-Treaty of Tilsit.—Grand Duchy of Warsaw.-Frederic Augustus.-New Constitution.-Diet of 1809.-War with Austria.-The Austrians enter Warsaw. - Prince Poniatowski invades Gallicia.Retreat of the Austrians.-Part of Gallicia, &c. added to the Grand Duchy. NEVER was there a period in modern history when the door of hospitality was so sternly closed by most European nations against the unfortunate sons of liberty, as when the Polish patriots of the revolution of 1794 were exiled from their homes. The abuses of the French revolutionists had brought their cause into discredit, even among those who had at first been their most zealous defenders; and as the generality of mankind take impressions for opinions, and accidental associations of ideas for reasoning, they began to annex an opprobrious meaning to the very name of liberty. Many Englishmen, who had lately been so warm in their admiration of the Polish pa triots, began to think, and even argue, that it was better for them to enjoy peace under any yoke than to prolong the struggle for independence. England too soon followed in the path which had been marked out by Frederick William, the Emperor of Austria, and the Duke of Brunswick to chastise the stubborn recusants of legitimate monarchy. France was almost the only government where liberty was heartily cherished; for in spite of all the jacobinism, bloodshed, and anarchy, the spirit of independence retained its existence there. It must be remembered, however, to use Buonaparte's words, that that nation "had eighteen ages of prejudice to conquer", and such a victory was not to be gained without great sacrifices and much revulsion of feeling. To France then the expatriated Poles looked for aid; the country which had "promised assistance to all nations which revolted to obtain liberty and equality "+ could not turn a deaf ear to those who had such strong claims on their protection. All the Polish nobles who had escaped the dungeons of the three partitioning powers, hastened either to Venice or Paris. Francis Barss, the Polish agent, employed in the capital by the late government, was still resident there, and by his means a confederacy was formed, which maintained a regular correspondence with a similar society at Venice. The * See the Declaration addressed by the Duke of Brunswick to the people of France.-Ségur's Decade Historique, Pièces Justificatives. Vol. II. p. 358. French ambassador at the latter place assured the Poles of the protection of his government, and even offered them a room under his roof for their assemblies. The treaty of peace which was signed on the 5th of April, 1795, at Bâle, between France and the King of Prussia did not augur any great sincerity on the side of the French ministers in their assurances to the Poles. They persuaded Barss, however, that it was only temporary, and that no mention of Poland being made in the treaty, they did not give their sanction to Frederick William's usurpation. The confederacy at Paris, with the advice and protection of the French ministers, commissioned Count Oginski to proceed to Constantinople to negotiate with the divan in favour of the Poles, in conjunction with the French ambassador *. The confederates appointed a commission of five persons to transact their affairs, and obtained a promise from the minister at Paris to furnish the Poles with arms, and use his influence to raise a loan at Constantinople of fifty millions of piastres. In the beginning of 1796 they sent emissaries into Lithuania and Gallicia to form new confederacies to co-operate with that at Paris. The inhabitants of Gallicia had already drawn up an act of confederacy, on the 6th of January, 1796, which they forwarded to France. Above 2000 Polish sol The instructions to Oginski were formally signed by twenty of the principal confederates at Paris. Their meetings were held at the Hôtel Diesbach. |