burg, Berlin, and Vienna, were the three participators, without one word of reprobation from England or France for so flagrant an act of spoliation.

By the convention signed at St. Petersburg, August 5th, 1772, the boundaries of the territories allotted to the three Powers respectively were definitely settled and guaranteed to each other. Russia obtained for her share, Livonia, Witepsk, and Polotsk, the Palatinates of Mocislaw and Minsk. Prussia secured the states of Great Poland, and the whole of Polish Prussia. Austria was assigned the 13 towns which Sigismund, King of Hungary, had mortgaged to Poland in 1412, half of the Palatinates of Cracow, Sendomire, Belz, Pocatia, and Padolia.

The second partition of Poland, in 1793, was as disgraceful as the first partition in 1772, for it was accomplished with the expressed purpose of preventing reform in her administration.

King Stanislaus Augustus, the nominee of the Government of St. Petersburg under the reconstitution of Poland in 1772, had endeavoured to give to Poland a liberal constitution; the most violent abuses were remedied, order was established, the privileges of the nobles were abolished, legislative chambers instituted, and a bright future for Poland seemed destined to dawn; but the jealousy and resentment of Russia were roused, and at the very time the allies affected horror at the atrocious deeds of the French Republicans, Russia, Prussia, and Austria determined on crippling still further the independence of Poland.

Unlike the first partition in 1772, it was not accomplished without a severe struggle and great bloodshed. Under the patriotic leadership of brave Koscuiszko, Poland declared war against the invaders of their rights and liberties, and at Reslavice and Warsaw defeated the Russian troops, but soon afterwards he succumbed to the superior forces of Suwarrow in which 6,000 of the Polish army perished, and "Freedom shrieked, when Koscuiszko fell;"

and when Suwarrow made his triumphal entry into Warsaw, after terrible slaughter, the insurrection was quelled, and subsequently (Oct. 24, 1795) a new Treaty of Partition was signed which dethroned King Stanislaus, and Poland was dismembered still further by the three Imperial powers.

Russia obtained the whole of Lithuania, Samogitia, Courland, and Semigallia, in all an addition of 2,000 square miles, comprising 1,000,000 inhabitants.

To Austria was assigned the Palatinates of Sendomire and Lublin, with part of Brzesci, Podolachia, and Masovia, comprising square miles and population nearly equal to Russian annexation.

To Prussia was assigned the other parts of the Palatinates of Masovia and Podolachia, the port of Troki and Cracow, representing 1,000 square miles, with a population of

1,000,000.

One of the causes of the insurrection in Poland in 1864 was the Emancipation Act of the Emperor Alexander, which gave a deadly blow to the supremacy of the nobles in the western provinces of Poland; and had they renounced their pretensions to these provinces of Russia, wrested from Poland by the partitions of 1772 and 1793, they might have obtained the complete autonomy of the Poland of 1815, but they unwisely determined to make a last effort for the re-conquest of the Russian provinces, and thus to re-establish the oligarchy which was the soul of ancient Poland prior to 1772.

Determined upon an appeal to arms they relied for support on the discontent of the Russian nobility, the weakness of the sovereignty of the Emperor in the conquered provinces and the existence of elements of a revolutionary character; and they relied also on the sympathy and support of the Western Powers in their struggle for the achievement of Polish independence.

The insurgents in Poland in the rebellion of 1864 were not the people, nor had they any sympathy with the popular

G

mind; they were an exclusive and aristocratic class, full of religious bigotry, whose objects were to restore the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church, to suppress the interests of the Greek Church, and therefore the establishment of a great Catholic Power in Northern Europe, at the sacrifice of the suppression of the liberal institutions and reforms introduced by the Emperor Alexander of Russia.

The policy of Russia in Poland previous to the outbreak of the rebellion was generally acknowledged to be one of wisdom and conciliation,-by the introduction of municipal institutions and local self-government, by placing members of the patriotic party into positions of confidence and power, and especially by the enfranchisement of the serfs, he had proved his sincerity for promoting the happiness and security of his Polish subjects; and these enlightened reforms, there is no doubt, however much we may deplore the partitions of 1772 and 1793, had helped to lay foundations of constitutional freedom in that unhappy country.

Mr. Richard naturally deprecated this appeal of the Polish nobility to force of arms, for achieving their independence; and believing as he did in the liberal and conciliatory policy of the Emperor Alexander towards the Poles, he cordially supported Russian policy and claimed for Russia the sympathy of England on the ground that she was struggling, as England had struggled in her earlier history, for civilization against feudalism; and he utterly discredited the charges of oppression Poland brought against Russia, and that the Poles far from being goaded by oppression, it was precisely the reverse, for he considered that the mild rule of the Emperor Alexander, and the emancipation by Russia of 25 millions of serfs, had furnished both the cause and the opportunity for the organising of a formidable conspiracy against Russian rule.

Mr. Richard also considered that the engagements entered into by England in 1815 by the Treaty of Vienna were not binding, as Russia, Prussia, Austria, France and the other

Powers had openly violated many of its provisions, and to interfere on the higher ground of justice and humanity was pregnant with mischief and misery, for it would, he said,. constitute England the Don Quixote of universal humanity, and he hailed with satisfaction the declaration of Lord Russell, Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which he said :

"For my part I see no advantage that could arise from armed intervention on behalf of Poland. I can see nothing but confusion and calamity likely to arise from an interruption of the peace of Europe. I cannot see what clear or definite object which a British Government could propose to itself, would justify them in entering into such hostilities, and I enter my protest against engaging in any such contest."

Lord Palmerston expressed similar views, and the Government being firm against intervention the policy advocated by Mr. Richard was adopted.

THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

In 1860 and 1864 England was engaged in an extermi.. nating War against the Maories in New Zealand, and Mr. Richard, on its first outbreak, wrote a series of articles on the subject, and he justly observes that "It would be difficult to put one's finger on a single year within the century when Englishmen were not engaged in War;" and this terrible charge alas! is too true, for from the day of our colonisation in New Zealand, British policy in New Zealand has been to exterminate the noblest aboriginal race which British adventure and British prowess has subjugated; and this fate of the Maories is all the more shocking when we remember how much Missionaries have done to effect their civilization.

Mr. Richard justly asked, What is the cause of the New Zealand War? The answer is obvious, for like all Colonial

Wars of England, it arose out of a purchase of land estimated at 600 acres, from one chief called Teira, which was claimed by another chief called Kingi, a tract of land purchased by the Governor of New Zealand, Sir George Browne, and the invalidity of the purchase was generally recognised, and therefore the injustice of the War. A sanguinary struggle in the province of Taranaki was the result, and at its close, Governor Sir George Grey, who had succeeded Governor Browne, ordered that the land should be restored to its lawful owners, but before this act of restitution was done, irreparable mischief had been effected.

The New Zealanders had made up their minds that whatever might be our professions, our intention was "slowly but surely" to despoil them of their rights to the soil. The war in 1864 was therefore the sequence of the war in 1860, as the Maories considered they were not really defeated, that they were in possession of Tataraimaki, which they regarded as a conquest.

The result was that when military force was sent to resume possession of Taranaki, the military escort were attacked and killed, and this being the first shot fired, war was inevitable.

The war cry raised in Taranaki was the signal for the tribe of Waikatoo, who sympathised with their fellow-countrymen, to rise in rebellion.

For a time Auckland was in danger, but by the energy of General Cameron it was saved, and the war confined to a narrow limit.

The New Zealanders were treated as "rebels," taunted as "niggers," and branded as “traitors," and threatened with spoliation, they naturally rose in arms; and who will blame them, for England might have ensured their loyalty by a policy of justice and conciliation.

The policy of England was to exterminate the Maories, and thus secure peace, but it was, as Mr. Richard said, "the peace of the tomb, a peace that could only cover England with dishonor," and he warmly supported the address of the