HER STEADY AMBITION.

475

raging agriculture and commerce, diffusing literature, art, and science, and, above all, by promoting Bible and Missionary Societies throughout the whole extent of his immense dominions. The recent exploits of Russia, in stemming the tide of revolutionary France, have wonderfully augmented her power and influence; and facilitated the means of her further extension and aggrandizement; by developing the amount, and displaying the official management of her national resources, by disciplining her enormous strength, by inspiring her own people with self-confidence, by dispiriting and overawing her enemies.

It is not in the nature of great power to set limits to its own progress. Peter the first said, "he had land enough, and only wanted water;" yet Catharine and Alexander have added a very large portion of land to the Russian empire since their imperial predecessor utterred this speech. Alexander himself has enlarged his dominion by the annexation of Finland, Moldavia, Wallachia, Bessarabia, a part of old Gallicia, lower Georgia, Circassia, and the kingdom of Poland. With one part of her territory she threatens Asia, and with the other alarms Europe. What is to prevent her extension into Germany, her entire control of the northern powers, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, and her possession of Constantinople? Once mistress of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, in addition to her present empire, and what is to become of Austria, what of the whole European continent?-Nay, what of England's maritime superiority? It has always been the aim of the Russian cabinet, from the reign of the first Peter to that of Alexander, to render their country a great naval, as well as a great military power. The dominion of the Black Sea, of the Morea, of the Grecian Archipelago, of Constantinople, of some ports in the Mediterranean, might render Russia a far more formidable rival on the ocean to England than she has ever yet found in Europe. Lord Nelson used to say, "that in encountering with French ships the best way was to run along side and board them; but with Russian ships to keep at a distance, and manœuvre." And Russia has often evinced her jealousy

of the maritime pre-eminence of Britain, particularly when she led the armed neutrality in 1781, under Catharine, and in 1801, under Paul, and at the treaty of Tilsit, in 1807, under Alexander, when he and Napoleon stipulated, that Russia might take possession of Turkey in Europe, and pursue her conquests in Asia, at her own discretion;-that she should assist France with her marine for the conquest of Gibraltar; that the towns in Africa, as Tunis, Algiers, Tripoli, &c. should be taken possession of by France; that no peace should be made with England, unless the island of Malta be ceded to France; that Egypt be occupied by the French; that no other than French, Russian, Spanish, and Italian vessels be purmitted to navigate the Mediterranean; that no power be allowed to send merchant-ships to sea, unless they have a certain number of ships of war.

The British empire in India, also, has been long an object of desire to Russia; and Catharine, at one time, projected to march an army over land, to drive the English from the Indian Peninsula; and, at a more recent period, Alexander and Napoleon agreed to accomplish this scheme. It is supposed that Britain could not prevent the occupation of Constantinople by the Russian arms; and that any one of her able generals, with a sufficient body of troops, might march strait to the Turkish capital, and win, and hold it, in spite of the world. No one imagines that the Turks, themselves, could defend their European empire against the undivided assaults of Russia, who might well alarm all the other powers of Europe for their independence, if she could lay her schemes for their subjugation in her two capitals of Constantinople and Petersburgh. It is doubtful, if she be allowed a few years of peace to organize her resources, to consolidate her strength, to develope her schemes, whether or not a coalition of the other European States could stop her progress towards universal dominion in that quarter of the world. At all events, the prodigious preponderance of Russia is not likely to restore the balance of power, nor to ensure the perpetuity of peace in Europe. See Sir Robert Wilson's "Sketches of the power of Russia," for facts

AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS.

477

proving the extent of her alarming strength; although I by no means subscribe to his ultra whiggish inferences against England, who certainly means to survive his predictions.

In glancing the eye over the present condition of the European powers, in connexion with a view of the resources of America, it is necessary to bear in mind the strongly marked difference between all the governments of the United States, and those of other countries. In the United States they have consisted, from their commencement, of written constitutions, of certain fixed codes; whereas, in other countries, they have grown up incidentally, from existing circumstances. In Holland and France, indeed, written constitutions have been lately adopted; which appears to be not the least momentous of the consequences imposed upon Europe by the French revolution; namely, a tendency to infuse a greater spirit of democracy into the European governments. It is asserted, likewise, that Prussia and Wirtemberg, and some other of the continental powers, propose to form written constitutions, and admit the representative system into their municipal institutions. Prior to the French revolution, all the governments of Europe were composed amidst the chapter of accidents, and time and chance were there nursing-mothers. When the government of imperial Rome, in the west, was subverted by the barbarous tribes of Northern Asia, and Northern Europe, the victorious nations every where established an elective aristocracy, consisting of an elective chief, and elective nobles. After a time the feudal system grew up into an hereditary monarchy and aristocracy; nevertheless, some traces of popular liberty still survived, although they were rendered faint and feeble in Spain, by the abolition of the cortes; in France, by the depression of the tiers etat; in Denmark and Sweden, by the usurpations of the sovereign over the privileges of the nobles; in Italy and Germany, by the combined encroachments of both nobles and sovereign upon the mass of the people; while, in England, the gradual advance of the House of Commons, or democratic branch of the government, eventually rendered it,

at least, equal to, if not an over match for, the two other branches, consisting of an hereditary aristocracy, and an hereditary monarchy. Mr. Burke developes this subject in his Regicide Peace, and labours to show that England is the weakest, and revolutionary France the strongest, of all the European governments.

Indeed, it may be taken as a general proposition, that the more free a government is, whatever be its form, whether a republic or a monarchy, the more it consults and provides for the individual, domestic, and national happiness of its own people, the less able it is to watch over, and influence the actions of other sovereignties; and so far it is deficient in its system of foreign policy. And this defect applies, not only to its diplomatic department, but also to the mode of conducting its foreign wars; in the management of which it never exhibits the secrecy, despatch, and effective energy that characterize the military operations of more absolute governinents.

But peace and war are the great hinges upon which the safety and existence of nations turn. Diplomatic negotiations are the means of making peace or preventing war; and are, therefore, in themselves, and in their consequences, of more serious importance than any single events of war or peace. It is not too much to affirm that England has suffered and lost more by her unskilful diplomacy, during the ninety years which clapsed from the peace of Utrecht, in 1713, to the peace of Amiens, in 1801, including both those deplorable treaties, than by all the battles she has fought for the last five centuries. Yet such is the construction of her internal government; so well adapted is it to secure the personal liberty, promote the productive industry, and protect the individual enjoyment of her people; and, at the same time, build up the intrinsic, permanent strength of the nation, that, notwithstanding the frequent blunders of her foreign policy, she has, in spite of her confined home territory, and small population, raised herself to the rank of a first-rate power; and, in more than one period of her national history, has been the saviour and the arbitress of Europe.

INTRINSIC POWER OF ENGLAND.

479

The French revolution, however, has materially shattered and deranged the political fabric of England, by compelling her to maintain a large and disproportionate military force; by grievously augmenting the public expenditure and taxation, and by adding seven hundred millions of pounds (more than three thousand millions of dollars,) to the national debt. That revolution has likewise torn up from their foundations all the governments on the European continent. Into what forms of civil polity, whether into a preponderance of democracy or aristocracy, or monarchy, the states of Europe will eventually subside, when the more immediate consequences of the French revolution shall have produced their full effect, is not given to human wisdom to foresee. At present, the representative system, which is the only certain and permanent basis of national liberty, prevails to a small extent, and in different degrees, in Europe: for example, in England, Holland, France, and Sweden, the executive and nobles are hereditary, and the popular representatives elected; while in Switzerland, the executive and both branches of the legislature are elective. The system of representation hitherto has gained no effectual entrance into Spain, or Portugal, or Italy, or Germany, or Russia, containing, altogether, a population of one hundred and forty-five millions of souls.

There seems, however, among some of the nations of continental Europe, a desire to imitate the constitution of England, in their own municipal institutions. Indeed, it is no new thing for continental Europeans to admire and praise the fabric of British polity; for instance, M. Montesquieu has devoted the whole of the sixth chapter of the eleventh book of his Esprit des Loix, to an investigation of, and eulogium on, the English constitution; and Voltaire, in his letters on the English nation, chap. 21, 22, follows the same track; and M. Gourville also expresses similar sentiments, as may be seen in Sir William Temple's Memoirs. To these may be added the decisive testimony of the Duke de la Rochefaucault, in the Supplement to his Reflections; and the incidental praises of many of the best French historians, from the