report; and therefore, if the case rested here, we should credit the Prince's denial, confirmed as it appears by Mr. Fox's deliberate concurrence: but there is another circumstance of great and contrary weight. Lord Holland states the circumstances of the supposed ceremony as he heard them from a friend of Mrs. Fitzherbert's :

It was at the Prince's own earnest and repeated solicitations, not at Mrs. Fitzherbert's request, that any ceremony was resorted to. She knew it to be invalid in law; she thought it nonsense, and told the Prince so. . . . It was performed by an English clergyman. A certificate was signed by him and attested by two witnesses, both, I believe, Catholic gentlemen, and one a near relation of Mrs. Fitzherbert, Mr. Errington. Mrs. Fitzherbert, from mixed feelings of fear and generosity, tore off the names of the witnesses at some subsequent period, lest they should by possibility be involved in any legal penalties for being present at an illegal transaction. Before George the Fourth's accession to the throne, or, as I believe, his appointment to the Regency, the clergyman was dead (for it was not, as often surmised, Parson Johnes who married them): and his name, I understand, remains annexed to the instrument purporting to be a register or certificate of the ceremony.'-pp. 140–142.

This relation of Mrs. Fitzherbert's-also at second or third hand-is full of inconsistencies: how can we imagine her indifference to a point which was to quiet her conscience?-and what value could she place on a ceremony performed by a Protestant clergyman?-and if she thought it nonsense, why was she provided with two witnesses of her own sect? It would, therefore, add little to the rumours which were long ago afloat on the subject, but to which we did not then, and should not now, give any serious credit but for the following material fact, now distinctly stated by Lord Holland, and which alters very decidedly the complexion of the case:

'In truth, that there was such a ceremony is now (I transcribe* my narrative in 1836) not matter of conjecture or inference, but of history. Documents proving it (long in the possession of Mrs. Fitzherbert's family) have been, since June, 1833, actually deposited by agreement between the executors of George IV. (the Duke of Wellington and Sir William Knighton), and the nominees of Mrs. Fitzherbert (Lord Albemarle and Lord Stourton), at Coutts's bank, in a sealed box bearing a superscription of "The property of the Earl of Albemarle : but not to be opened by him without apprising the Duke of Wellington," or words to that purport.'-pp. 123, 124.

Here, again, we have another of Lord Holland's supplementary interpolations, which leave us in doubt as to how much was his original impression, and what he may have added from other sources and with subsequent views. The use of the word transcribe is remarkable; for it seems from the context that there was here no transcription at all, but the addition of some pages.

S

This assertion-as we cannot question the substantial fact as to the existence of some such deposit certainly corroborates Mrs. Fitzherbert's statement that something in the nature of a ceremony had passed, and that she (however inconsistently with her declaration that she thought it nonsense) had preserved some documentary evidence of it. We must also confess, that to those who knew George IV, and his babit

most idexterously running off from in conversation, always

་་

disagreeable

958611

the

short and general terms of his answer to Fox s remonstrance, and the haste with which he starts wholly different matters- will lead to a suspicion that there was more ground for Fox's alarm than the Prince chose to admit even to that dear friend. On the other hand, Mr. Fox's earnest denial of thy such transaction two years later than his first anxious consideration of the subject, during which time he had abundant opportunities and a great personal interest for rest for getting at the truth, seems to outweigh all the other evidences except the existence of the sealed, box, deposited in the joint custody of the nominees of Mrs. Fitzherbert, and then KingBelieving that fact, we are forced to conjecture that some of se ceremony, like the left hand marriages of the German Courts, artiture and of whicts there were no distant examples in the House, ghie distantening

Hanovers may in the heyday of amples in the

agoti

s youth (it 5101 to must have takeplaed; if at all, when the Prince was the Prince was about three-andtwenty) been adopted to win the compliance or quiet the scruples of Mrss Fitzherbert!It must Have been a silly affair at best, ford the dady thought it Nonsense, and the Prince knew that practically iv it was nothing de The question as to whether any deception was ༞asir practised on the lady seems sufficiently answered by Mrs. Fitted herbert's own statement that she neither desired nor relied on the supposed ceremony But if there was any ceremony at allms George Yeannot be acquitted of culpable fevity in the firstds instance, nandoofs subsequent insincerity to Fox and his friends, who had every reason to believe that the denial meant 2012 that noformilofomartinge had ever been gone through d merely that no valid marriage had been contracted, which everyt On the whole, we are obliged to suspend our Anal judgment on the subject further d informationdifrom the contents of the sealed box, which, Bowe that its existence is revealed, will hour we WICH inquisitive times be much longer withheld. would deprecate all such discussions; but a scandal seventy years old is most innocuous, and

bolly knew tolt bes Yegallimes

9

20001 901

we suppose,
We

171697egret and to

will be ni wholly soyani, after what has foresee apod Passed 911 IGGY serious mischief from the telling the whole truth, whatever it may be. 926 legal bas taut, & al basland le tout whatever it 1979q l6764 bus vistilim adı 101 2299902 19tr91g staqiɔitns gw ob

to

ART.

la

ret les Institutions Rurales de la Russieme dotationales!

de/Haxthausen 3rd volume?

Berlin,

go

Auguste

2. The Shores of the Black Sea. By Lawrence Oliphant, Esq. “Edinburgh, 1853100026 Jant

THE present aspect of.

3. The Russians of the Southida zid bng VI 9209) word odw of the South Traveller's Library By Shirley Brooks, Esq. London, 1854ens aid to 2019 999 bas roda 4. La Russie Contemporaine, bg Aussie Contemporaine, Pay L Leouton le Duc Paris, 1853. i uslo¿zo1 Tot bпorg 910m 268 919dt tot noisiqeve 6 of 5. Der Russisch-Türkische Feldzug in der Europitischen Türker 1828 und 1829. Dargestellt durch Freiherm Foil Molthed Berlin, 18402 ft to goitstabiano izas teri aid edt 1916! 6. The Speech of the Earl of Shaftesbury in the House of Lords on Friday, March 10th on the Manifesto of the Emperor of Russiaoqondon,b854, 9d1 to 9999 9999299119219 nododstila 10 299gimon adt to bota taioj odt Square affairs in Europe gives the British 'public a strong interest in measuring the forces and the energy of antagonist, whose duplicity, and aggres sion call the great sion call forth the fleets and armies of England, to battle after anl unbroken peace of forty years, Supported by the unanimous opinion of the country, and by the assent of the most conservative states of Europe by the court of Vienna, as well as bylo that of Paris-England presents herself once more in arms, andd at the head of a combination scarcely less, formidable than that ti the head but which established the peace of Europe on a firm and lasting basis in 1815. Yet it endo o auto has seldom happened to any nation too engage in hostilities with a foreign power whose real strength.lt and resources are so imperfectly known,No other empire but) that of Russia ever succeeded in ky ever succeeded in keeping so vaste a portion of thei globate on from the rest of mankind. We knowin

that she possesses territories, wider than the realms of Tamerlanesit we are told that the troops under her banners are as countless s the hosts that followed Napoleon when he was the master dfod Eutope." But so little added with gertainty to these facts,do that we alternately power of Russia describadi astheni scoure and terror of Europe or as a public imposture, to but crumpled up by the mountebanks of the hustings.The eventşi of the coining year will determine with greater, accuracy theow truth of these

in diplomatic warfare the boasted influence, of Russia even oven w her nearest allies is no match for the straightforward vigilancera resolution of England in a just and legal cause. Nopm do we anticipate greater success for the military and naval power

ТЯ

of

of the Russian empire. The true source of national greatness, in a contest like that in which we are about to engage, lies in the social condition and political institutions of an empire, since they supply that vigour and bottom by which the efforts of military power can alone be sustained.

It is, therefore, to these questions that we propose at this time to direct our attention; and we have placed at the head of the works now before us the third volume of Baron von Haxthausen's elaborate survey of the social condition of Russia, although the former volumes of this publication have already been noticed at some length in this Journal. But, upon the whole, this book is, in spite of its partiality and its defects, the most complete account we have met with of the condition and resources of the Russian empire, and more especially of the peculiar institutions and character of the Russian people. Although the Baron more than once expresses surprise in the course of his labours that no natural born Russian should have attempted the task which he has executed, he supplies this deficiency by a warmth of Russian feeling which is not common to the west of the Vistula. He assures us that he spent his time in Moscow, with the cream of Muscovites, and drank his notions of Russian policy and administration from the well of Russia undefiled. His work is, in fact, an elaborate panegyric on the empire and the people of Russia; and though we are not displeased to learn all that can be said on this subject by so favourable a witness, we are not very powerfully affected by the picture he attempts to draw of the strength of the Imperial Government. It is evident, however, that the broad propositions for which our author contends are regarded in Russia as fundamental truths, and are supposed to establish a sort of superiority and ascendancy in the political relations of the empire over other nations. No such propositions can, in our judgment, be consistently maintained. They are unsupported by facts, and they will not sustain argument. They are the offspring of a state of society in which public discussion is unknown; and whenever Russian institutions are brought into more direct contrast or connexion with those of Europe, we have very little doubt that the superstitious veneration of their admirers, and the exaggerated apprehensions of many of their antagonists, will be alike dispelled.

According to Baron von Haxthausen, the historical mission of the Russians is to serve as mediators between Europe and Asia, and to transmit to the East the civilisation of the West.' He compares the position of the Russian empire to that of the Roman empire in the early ages of the Christian era, when the propagation of Christianity was assisted by the universal domi

nion of the imperial power of Constantine and Justinian. He contends that it is impossible to deny that, in the present state of Europe, the Russian empire does really represent the Empire of the East, and the Russian Church the Church of the East. And he attempts to show that the political and military organization of the empire are precisely the conditions requisite for the maintenance of this position, and the accomplishment of these designs. We shall examine, with the assistance of this auther and of one or two other witnesses, the accuracy of these startling propositions; and we think it may be shown that Russia is as ill prepared to transmit to the East the civilisation of Europe as she is to crush the liberties of Europe by the barbaric hordes of the East. Her distinguishing characteristics are still Asiatic, and the efforts she has made to engraft her influence on the ancient states of Europe have borne only crude and imperfect fruit.

The primary condition of the political and social institutions of Russia is the doctrine of passive obedience which pervades all the relations of the people to the state, in domestic life, and even in the avocations of daily business. Military organization is the form in which this passive obedience of the nation has been armed for the purposes of aggression or of defence. To this principle every institution or usage of the country seems to be referred or resolved.

"The feeling of the Russians is not so much one of deep attachment to their country as of ardent patriotism. Their country, the country of their ancestors, the Holy Russia, the people fraternally united under the sceptre of the Czar, the communion of faith, the ancient and sacred monuments of the realm, the tombs of their forefathers-all form a whole which excites and enraptures the mind of the Russians. They consider their country as a sort of kinsmanship to which they address the terms of familiar endearment. God, the Czar, and the priest, are all called "Father," the Church is their "Mother," and the empire is always called "Holy Mother Russia." The capital of the empire is "Holy Mother Moscow," and the Volga "Mother Volga." Even the high road from Moscow to Vladimir is called "Our dear mother the high road to Vladimir." But above all, Moscow, the holy mother of the land, is the centre of Russian history and tradition, to which all the inhabitants of the empire devote their love and veneration. Every Russian entertains all his life long the desire to visit one day the great city, to see the towers of its holy churches, and to pray on the tombs of the patron saints of Russia. "Mother Moscow" has always suffered and given her blood for Russia, as all the Russian people are ready to do for her.'-p. 151.

Such is the national sentiment of the Russians, but their social unity must be described in greater detail. We insert, in a

note,