institutions, is rarely, if ever, the national one. They represent a sect, often a very influential and respectable sect, but they do not represent the country; and therefore their opinions as to the prospects and condition of their own land are seldom reliable. On the other hand, an Englishman is remarkably apt to make acquaintance with this pro-English party, and adopt their views and sentiments as being those of the country he is visiting. Unless we are mistaken, Mr. Sutherland Edwards has fallen a victim to this common mistake. Apparently, during his sojourn in Poland, he became intimate with the small section in that country who represent the Anglo-loving community, and has been indoctrinated by them with their peculiar views. Unfortunately, in this instance, the error was a serious one. By this time the notion that England is likely to interfere actively in behalf of the popular cause on the Continent is pretty well exploded. The party therefore in Poland who favour the English in preference to the French alliance are virtually advocates of moral intervention in preference to physical. Now as the most enthusiastic of Poles scarcely believe it possible that Poland can overthrow the dominion of Russia without the aid of foreign arms, this preference is tantamount to an acquiescence in the supremacy of Russia. In other words, the pro-English Poles consider that the best chance for their country lies in coming to terms with the Czar, not in attempting to dissolve the partnership by force. This opinion may possibly be a wise and just one, but it is not the national opinion of Poland; and the views based upon it are likely to mislead the readers of The Polish Captivity.

What renders this bias of Mr. Edwards the more unfortunate is, that the peculiar tenets of his Anglo-Polish informants happened to tally exactly with his personal prejudices. We never met with a writer who had a greater number of partisan animosities. It is hard to say whether he dislikes the French or the Germans, the Manchester party or the European democrats, more cordially. Mr. Carlyle is an antipathetic-in Italian phrase-to him, as Mr. Cobden and Frederick the Great and the first Napoleon are the objects of his indiscriminate abuse. As far as we can understand the author's views, he would sooner see Poland amalgamated with Russia than emancipated by the aid of French armies; and indeed the brightest prospect he can look forward to for that unhappy country is, that the Czar should recover her lost provinces from Austria and Prussia, and incorporate the whole into a Russian dependency. Throughout the book, amidst much generous and what is more-much genuine sympathy for the Poles, there runs a strong undercurrent of pro-Russian sentiment. moral of the work might be conveyed in the proverb, which the author remarks could be applied appropriately to the relations between Russia and Poland, "Nec sine, nec cum te vivere possum.' It is clear that, in despite of his conservative prejudices, he believes the inexorable logic of facts to have decided the fate of Poland. She is henceforth bound to Russia, and the only thing she can do is to make the best of an indissoluble union. There is a story told of King Victor Emmanuel in whose moral Mr. Edwards would heartily coincide. At the outbreak

The

of the Polish troubles, somebody spoke to his majesty on the subject. The king twisted his moustache, and remarked, "If I were Czar of Russia, I would end this difficulty at once: all I should say to the Poles would be, 'Soyons amis, annexons la Prusse."" Of all their persecutors, the Poles, in our author's opinion, dislike the Russians the least, and would gladly combine with them in an attack on Austria and Prussia. Mr. Edwards, therefore, is disposed to look leniently on the errors of the Marquis Wielopolski and other pro-Russian Poles, and to believe that their policy was in itself the wisest for their country. We are by no means clear that these views are mistaken ones, but we dispute the accuracy of receiving them as the populár opinions of educated Poles.

Disagreeing, as we do, with Mr. Edwards' political sentiments, we yet wish to render full justice to his literary merits. In the first place The Polish Captivity is a very readable and pleasant book; and in the second place it gives us a great amount of information we could not easily obtain elsewhere. As a mere work of art it would be more perfect if the latter half of the second volume were omitted. The lengthy disquisition on the first faltering steps of constitutional life in Russia is the least interesting portion of the book, and bears only indirectly on the question of Poland. We could perhaps wish, too, that Mr. Edwards had given us more of description and less of political discussion; not, indeed, that the latter is not worth reading, but that the former is so very light and easy. As a specimen of the author's descriptive powers, let us quote the following:

"Even in the thoroughly Polish city of Cracow, where there is no prohibition against the national dress, it is a rare thing to see a complete and authentic Polish suit. I remember one old Pole there, however, who, but for the reality of his look, the calm dignity of his manner, and the intimate relations evidently existing between him and his clothes, might have been taken for a Mazurka-dancing Pole out of some Polish ballet, produced with unusual magnificence, and with scrupulous accuracy in the costume department. He was old enough to have seen the constitution of the 3d of May adopted, supposing that his father had carried him to the Assembly, as Suchorzewski did his son, that he might swear a theatrical oath to slay him on the spot if the wise measure which abolished the veto, and made the crown hereditary, became law. The first time I saw this ancient Pole, I found myself looking involuntarily to see whether he still wore the sabre which was formerly the distinguishing sign of a Polish gentleman. No, he had abandoned that; but he kept to the silken semi-oriental robe, and to the close-fitting tunic worn beneath, and the silver ornamented girdle, and the long black boots of soft shiny leather; and on great days (such, for instance, as the anniversary of the Union of Poland with Lithuania) actually appeared in a species of hussar cap, and made a point, according to the ancient custom, of wearing in his dress the colours of his coat-of-arms."

It is a pity that an author who can write so well as this should tarnish his pages with frequent, and invariably unsuccessful, attempts at fine writing. Here, for example, is an indignant apostrophe, though

to whom it is addressed we are unable to discover. We presume it is meant for Prussia, and that for 'Prussia' in the first sentence you should read Russia.' This, however, is only a conjectural emendation.

"Tu l'as voulu, Georges Dandin! You tied yourself to Prussia without thinking how much younger, stronger, more powerful, more enterprising, and even more unscrupulous, she is than you. The Poles may yet rise against you; your long, thin country may again be broken in pieces, as it was in 1806, and as it remained until 1813; when finding that your French master was running from the Russians, you turned upon him and magnanimously kicked him!

"But, whatever happens to Prussia, it will still have Mr. Carlyle for its historian, only it must not lose Posen till the Life of Frederick II. is quite finished: for if a nation does not prosper, it does not deserve to prosper. The historian will justify the ways of Providence towards Prussia up to the moment of going to press. It must not, then, before the last volume is completed, fall back to the position it occupied fifty years ago."

These blemishes, however, are incidental, and hardly affect the intrinsic value of the work. The two points which Mr. Edwards throws the greatest light upon are, to our mind, the state of the Poles in the non-Russian provinces, and the relations of the peasantry to the nobles. On these points he writes from observation, not from theory, and therefore his researches possess an especial importance. If his facts are true, they completely dispel the popular English notion that Austria and Prussia have succeeded in reconciling the Poles, more or less, to their governments. On the contrary, according to our author's views, though the political position of the Poles is more favourable in Posen and Gallicia than in Russia, their social and personal comfort is greater in the latter. "In spite of most reforms, in spite of liberty of the press, as great almost as in Prussia, and perfect liberty of speech in the Gallician diet, there is still, on the whole, far less political liberty in Gallicia than in Posen, though of course far more than in the Kingdom where there is indeed none whatever. On the other hand, of that kind of freedom, scarcely appreciable by those who have never felt the want of it, which consists in being able to speak, learn, teach, and transact all kinds of business in the national language, and without the interposition of foreigners, there is less in Austrian Poland than in that portion of Russian Poland called the 'Kingdom,' where every one speaks Polish, where Polish money circulates, and accounts are kept in the old Polish currency; where such phantoms of journals as appear are all printed in Polish; where Polish is the language of the public offices, churches, and schools; and where until quite lately (when, in consequence of the Poles refusing to attend it, it was closed) there was a national Polish theatre, at which Polish pieces were played by Polish actors. This is just the kind of freedom which is denied to the Poles by the government of Prussia, and which, in spite of copious promises, has only been partially granted by Austria. In short, a Pole is surrounded by more of what is called 'Polonism' in the kingdom than in Gallicia or Posen; but he finds

in Posen the greatest amount of political liberty. In Austria, he has a little of both, but not very much of either."

This statement, if correct, will account for the vitality of Poland, and is therefore promising for the hopes of its future regeneration. On the other hand, Mr. Edwards' narrative of the feelings prevalent amongst the peasants towards the nobles is a gloomy one for the friends of Poland. Entertaining as he does a strong prejudice in favour of the old aristocratic Polish government, he strives hard to prove that the peasants have no real cause to entertain ill-will towards their former inasters. He dwells enthusiastically on the liberal provisions with regard to the serfs contained in the constitution of 1791. He declares, possibly with reason, that the Polish nobles have long been anxious to emancipate their serfs, but were continually prevented by their rulers from carrying out their wishes; and he affirms that the permanence of serfdom would have been far less long-lived, had it not been for the partition of Poland. All this may be true, but it does not affect facts. The truth seems to be, that the serfs were miserably ill-treated under the old Polish governments, and that since their country has been enslaved their condition has been marvellously improved. In consequence they regard the government as their friend, and the nobles as their enemy. The conclusion may be wrong, but it is not unnatural. Supposing the result of the American civil war should be to free the blacks, it is certain that the Negroes will always regard the Federal government as their protector, however logically you may prove to them that the planters, if left to themselves, would have liberated them with equal or greater rapidity. The condition of the Polish serf appears to have been little, if any thing, better than that of a field-hand in the cotton-states; and the Poles are reaping now the curse which sooner or later falls on all slave-owners. It is hard that the Polish nobles should be ruled by foreigners at the present day, because their grandfathers were tyrants; but it is the law of the world that children do suffer for the sins of their parents. The Polish peasantry are very likely brutal, ignorant, and selfish; but still we cannot exaggerate the importance of Mr. Edwards' admission, that practically the emancipated serfs would regard the restoration of an independent Poland as a national calamity. We do not say, for one moment, that this state of things justifies the enslavement of Poland; but it accounts for the fact that the country has been enslaved, and causes us not to be oversanguine of its ultimate liberation.

BOOKS OF THE QUARTER SUITABLE FOR READING

SOCIETIES.

The History of England during the Reign of George III. By William Massey, M.P. Parker and Bourn.

[Reviewed in the Short Notices.]

The Life of Lacordaire. By the Count de Montalembert. Bentley. [Interesting in itself, and for the light it throws on French Ultramontanism.]

Six Months in the Federal States. By Edward Dicey. Macmillan. [Reviewed in the Short Notices.]

The Naturalist on the River Amazon. By H. W. Bates. Murray. A Memoir of Charles James Blomfield, Bishop of London. By his Son, A. Blomfield, M.A. Murray.

Fish Hatching and the Artificial Culture of Fish. By F. Buckland. Tinsley Brothers.

The Life of Sir Howard Douglas, G.C.B., &c. By S. W. Fullom. Murray.

The Heroes of the Sahara, and the Manners of the Desert. Translated by J. Hutton. Allen and Co.

Travels on Horseback in Mantchu Tartary. By G. Fleming. Hurst and Blackett.

John Leifchild, D.D., his Public Ministry, Private Usefulness, and Personal Characteristics. By J. R. Leifchild. Jackson, Walford, and Co.

[Badly written, but interesting as the life of an eminent Nonconformist.]

The Court of Peter the Great. By an Austrian Secretary of Legation translated by Count Mac Donnell. Bradbury and Evans. Narrative of a Secret Mission to the Danish Islands. By the Rev. J. Robertson. Longman.

Essays on the Pursuits of Women. By Frances Power Cobbe. Emily Faithfull.

Heat considered as a Mode of Motion. By J. Tyndall, F.R.S. Long

man.

[Popularly written.]

Memoirs of Miles Byrne, Chef de Bataillon, &c. Paris, Bossange. The Roman Poets of the Republic. By Professor Sellar. Edmonston and Douglas.