deavoured from the first to discredit the practice of receiving the crown from the hands of the Pontiff. Nature indeed seems to have endowed them with some peculiar power of resisting the thunders of the Vatican. When the Archduke Rodolph was threatened with excommunication by the Pope, he used to say, that within his own dominions he was himself Pope, Archbishop, Bishop, Archdeacon, and Priest: and his successors have religiously adhered to the maxim of exercising within their own states all the powers of the church. The Emperor Maximilian endeavoured to organize a general council in Germany, to control the pretensions of the Court of Rome. Charles VI. pensioned the historian Giannone for opposing the pretended supremacy of the church over the kingdom of Naples. Joseph II. ventured, when he pleased, on the boldest reforms in religion within his dominions. He encouraged the publication of the Monocologia, a satire against the monks, somewhat similar to the Guerre des Dieux which appeared at the Revolution. Instead of walking with the penitential hair-cloth to Rome, he brought Pius VI., in 1786, a suppliant to his capital and the reigning monarch, though he inculcates religion in public and private, though he has paid a visit to the Pope in Rome, and restored to him eighteen pictures which belonged to the Pinacotheca of Milan, allows no papal bull to be published within his dominions without his previous sanction; and certainly has never dreamed of restoring to the monks the property they possessed before the Revolution. And if, in former times, Austria used to consign her heretical subjects to Rome, as to a common centre, for trial and punishment, Italy now repays the obligation by placing in the hands of Austria her political delinquents.

The key to all this is, that the love of power, like that of money, renders even the dullest intelligent. If Austria showed dexterity in emancipating herself from the papal yoke, she showed no less obstinacy in resisting the reformation in Germany. No sooner did she perceive that the tendency of the reformed religion was to render men less submissive to despotism, than she reared the standard of intolerance. She needed not the aid of any impulse from Rome; for it was not superstition or bigotry which led her to wage a war of extermination against the reformed opinions, but her dread of the political consequences which they appeared to involve. The treachery and cruelty with which she proceeded against the Hussites in Bohemia are well known. Charles V. and Ferdinand II. covered Germany and Holland with blood and fire to extirpate Protestantism; and the same scenes of cruelty were repeated in Bohemia for the same purpose. But Austria was politic as well as cruel; and when she had at last been taught, by the experience of centuries, that her opponents were not less resolute in resistance than she herself in persecution, she wisely relaxed the system of intolerance from the fear of wasting her own strength, and was induced to grant a temporary repose both to the Protestant States of Germany, and her own Protestant subjects. The thirty years war, while it exhausted both herself and her opponents, had convinced her that the risk of the contagion of the reformed doctrines, or at least of their political tendencies, had in a great measure ceased; that the furious zeal, which had at first been roused by the rapid spread of Protestantism, was on the decline; and that, in order to preserve the supremacy of Germany, it was necessary that the toleration which she accorded should be sincere. In order, therefore, to calm the fears of the Protestant States, and regain their confidence, she began by granting protection and toleration to her own Protestant subjects. If this

government is revengeful, it is more from calculation than passion; and accordingly it never allows its resentment to get the better of its reason, or pushes its vengeance so far as to injure itself. Its policy is slow and temporizing, indeed, and hence it has been looked upon by many with contempt. But when was it mistaken in its calculations? The truth is, that selfishness, assisted by cool reflection, and unchecked by any sense of honour, can seldom go wrong. The instant that Austria ceased to persecute, she regained the supremacy of the German empire, which she continued exclusively to exercise down to the reign of Frederic II. From that period Protestant Germany, having a natural protector in Prussia, has possessed a surer guarantee for the sincerity of Austrian toleration; and accordingly, that Government now allows an equal protection to the Calvinist and Lutheran doctrines, with all their modifications, and to three millions of Greeks, Schismatics, Jews, Moravians, etc.

Thus Austria, guided solely by an unbending principle of self-interest, emancipated herself early from the Papal authority-protected the Jesuits, and availed herself of their services while they were necessary to her— banished them when these services were no longer required, and finally became tolerant, not from feeling but from necessity, when she saw that bigotry was generally on the decline.

The next preponderating ingredient in political power is the army: and Europe, which has seen Austria struggle for twenty-two years against the gigantic power of France, must at least applaud her perseverance. De Pradt himself, who is not generally inclined to deal in panegyric, observes, "résister est l'attribut caractéristique de cette puissance, qui endure tres bien les echecs; et qui, ayant l'habitude des revers, a fort bien appris à les supporter, comme à en rappeler."

What then is the principle of this passive courage, this power of resistance? It is, we think, to be found in the abundance of a population, vile in the eyes of its rulers, and of which the Government can dispose almost at its pleasure. Austria is poor in money and heroism, but she is rich in men! Her perseverance is not at all akin to that of ancient Rome, which never made peace till victory enabled her to dictate the terms. Austria, on the contrary, has repeatedly submitted to save her existence by passing under the yoke. She never gives quarter, but she has no objection to receive it. With all this command of men, however, the miserable state of her finances will not allow her to bring great armies at once into the field. While Louis XIV. had 400,000 men in arms, Austria could with difficulty embody 70,000. In 1756 she raised 100,000, to oppose the King of Prussia with 200,000. In 1792 she took the field with 170,000, against France with an army of 600,000. In spite of the numerous subsidies which she draws from other countries, she still remains poor. During the last war, notwithstanding the immense loans which she received from England, she was obliged to have recourse to a paper currency, and five times failed in her engagements with her creditors. But if her poverty prevents her from raising large armies, she can recruit them easily-for the materials are never wanting. Her strength, therefore, is not shown by one but by successive efforts. What she wants in extension, she makes up in depth. As she can dispose of men like property, her conscriptions have no limit, not even that which high prices usually put upon the consumption of other articles; for in Austria the expenses of living, of clothing, of education, etc., do not amount to the fifth part of what they do in England. It is the small value of individual lives

which explains how such immense armies were consumed by the Eastern governments, by Turkey, and by the Crusades. England, from a contrary cause, has always been sparing of men.

It is this continuous force which Austria possesses, that affords the key to her unwearied obstinacy in war; to the interminable campaigns of Charles V.; his extravagant expeditions to Africa; the thirty years' war; the war of the succession of Spain; that of the succession of Charles VI.; the second seven years' war against the King of Prussia; and, lastly, the twenty-two years' war against the French Revolution. The armies of Austria, if they are not immortal for their heroism, may be said to be so by the rapidity of their resurrection. Napoleon, in order to make himself master of Upper Italy, in 1796, was obliged to destroy five armies in one year. The best plan, therefore, of vanquishing Austria is that which Napoleon in all his campaigns adopted, of invading and surprising her, without leaving her time to recover herself. Give her breathing time, and she will soon recruit her armies, from her immense depôts in Hungary, Transylvania, and Croatia.

Among all the automata that allow themselves to be slaughtered for fivepence per day, the Austrian soldier is the most deserving of compassion. The chastisement which awaits him for the slightest offences is the most ignominious that can be inflicted; the reward of his toils and his bravery, the most miserable that can be given. The food, the pay, and the clothing of the Austrian are inferior to those of any other soldier in Europe. Life, where men are at all trained to reflection, is not a thing to be bought for a sordid price. It may be gifted, but cannot be sold. To dispel these illusions of honour which animate the soldier, is to deprive the military profession of its only redeeming quality. The Greeks and Romans fought for the name of their country; the French for Francis I.-for Henry IV. -for Napoleon-for France-for glory; the Turks for their religion. But the Austrian soldier fights neither for loyalty, nor religion, nor honour. He never sees a king at the head of an army. He is scarcely aware that he has an emperor. From the first existence of the empire, only a single enthusiastic movement is to be found among the Hungarians, when in the presence of their suppliant Queen, they exclaimed, "Moriamur pro Rege nostro Maria Theresa." Almost ignorant of his general's existence, the Austrian soldier can feel no enthusiastic attachment to him. Frequently these generals are strangers, such as Tilly, Montecuculli, Eugene, Lacy, etc. The jealous policy of the Court will not allow the generals to court popularity, or to appeal to the feelings of their followers. Twice only have the Austrian troops showed any thing like enthusiasm for their generals-for Prince Eugene and for Laudon. In this age, in which prodigies of valour have been effected by military eloquence, the Austrian government has allowed nothing but a brief proclamation at the opening of each campaign, commanding obedience, rather than rousing to effort. No triumphal archesno annalist to record his exploits-no monuments to attest his victories, present themselves to the imagination of the Austrian soldier. Nor can his courage be much animated by the prospect of a medal, which he must look upon rather as a badge of inferiority, than as an honour, since it is never worn by the officers; while the officers, in turn, can have no strong incentive to exertion in the hope of obtaining the Cross of Maria Theresa, the requisites for which are too numerous and too difficult.

Armies such as these make no rapid conquests, and give little employment to fame. But, in return, a force of this kind, being almost entirely

material in its nature, is exempt from those alterations which disturb the action of moral power. The government, accordingly, calculates its strength numerically; and reckons not by souls, but bodies. Though fitter for resistance than aggression, this strength has always aimed at conquest when it promised to be safe and easy; and, resting her projects on a definite and arithmetical basis, had adopted a slow and cautious system of usurpation, and shown the most determined obstinacy in retaining what she has once acquired. With the armies which Austria has sacrificed to preserve the dutchy of Milan and the Low Countries, and to recover Silesia, Charles XII. would have conquered the world. In a word, Austria acquires with difficulty, but she never abandons her acquisitions. The cession or the restitution of a province feels like a dismemberment; for all that she acquires she incorporates. She cannot forget any thing she has once possessed. Maria Theresa, whenever Silesia, which she had ceded to Frederic, was mentioned, used to exclaim, in a tone of emotion, "I feel it in my heart!" Although Austria had recognised the Cisalpine Republic by the treaty of Campo Formio, when she re-entered Italy in 1799, she annulled the sales of national property, and chastised, as rebels, all the Italians who had entered into the service of the Republic. In the wars of 1805 and 1809, the Italian officers who were made prisoners were reproached as rebels to the House of Austria; and, in 1814, when she took violent possession of the Italian provinces, she announced that she was about to re-enter her old dominions! For Austria there is no such thing as prescription. Her titles of property subsist from the beginning to the end of time. Treaties she looks upon merely as truces, that enable her to recover breath and vigour for the next attack. Like the Court of Rome, she can bend to circumstances; but is always ready to revive her pretensions. Should the opportunity occur, Rome would be ready again to assert, as she did under Alexander VI., her universal supremacy, and again to demand from England the homage and tribute due by a vassal to his lord. In all her treaties, Austria has the same convenient mental reservations. The knowledge that she possesses twentyeight millions of subjects, with whom she can play the game of war for ever, inspires her with an avarice like that of the Athenian madman, who thought that every vessel that entered the Piræus was his own!

An eloquent writer has compared the despotism of Austria to a noxious vapour, blighting every thing it lights upon; and the comparison expresses exactly the withering influence which this government exerts over all its subjects. When it kills, it is by stifling. Rewards, the great spring of human action, are excluded from the scheme of its internal policy. Sometimes it is sparing even in punishment, from the fear of rousing into activity those minds which she would wish to reduce as much as possible into a state of vegetation. Madame de Staël says, there is no instance in Austria of any one being punished for doing too little, though occasionally one may be punished for doing too much. The Austrian Government would not permit the representation of Pellico's tragedy "Eufemo de Messina," for no other reason than that it was likely to produce too strong an effect on the spectators. The Austrian Censor has a list of prohibited books as numerous as that of the Holy Office at Rome. Montesquieu is at this hour proscribed from the library at Vienna. The science of legislation is naturally considered as not only dangerous but useless, where the sovereign is the sole legislator. Napoleon, who knew how to touch the sore parts of his opponents, when he took possession of Vuiennai 1809, ordered a general pardon

to be given to all the philosophers of the eighteenth century; and caused the Works of Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and others, to be printed and circulated. All foreign Journals are prohibited in Austria. The different states of which it is composed have but one Journal, which merely delivers, at second hand, the oracular responses of the "Austrian Observer," which is printed in the capital. Sometimes the newspaper of one province is published in another. In 1821, the Milan Gazette was published in Vienna. It is not wonderful, therefore, if the sciences, and particularly literature, owe little or nothing to this government. In the last century, the Court of Vienna gave the sounding title of Cæsarian poet, with a miserable salary, to Apostolo Tezio, to Metastasio, and others. In the present, even this scanty munificence has been retrenched. Government stopt the pension of the poet Parini, who died almost in poverty, and recalled the splendid rewards which Buonaparte had conferred on the living poet Monti. Europe has scarcely yet recovered from her astonishment at the violence of the Imperial anathema, fulminated at Laybach, in 1821, against the progress of knowledge.

And yet, while Austria persecutes literary men, she pretends to encourage the instruction of the people. In her regulations for public instruction, we find a pompous enumeration of lyceums, elementary schools of different kinds, etc. Every village is to be provided with a teacher of reading and writing and every parent who does not send his family to school is to be subject to fine, etc. But the fact is, that nothing of all this is ever reduced to practice over the greater part of the kingdom. The inhabitants of all Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Bucornia, etc., amounting to about twelve millions, can neither read nor write. Austria has preserved one half of her provinces in all that primitive rudeness and barbarism in which she received them from the Turks, or the Gothic chiefs of the dark ages. There is perhaps no other instance where a government professing the Christian religion has thus laboured to render ignorance perpetual. The astrictio glebæ still exists in Hungary, in Gallicia, in Croatia, and other Austrian provinces; while Russia is every day emancipating her serfs, opening canals, erecting cities, and civilizing even the savages of the Crimea. The Russian Czars have done more for civilization in fifty years, than the Austrian Cæsars in three centuries.

It is usual with some writers to quote, as the model of a good administration, the government of Maria Theresa and Joseph the Second during the last century in Lombardy. There is exaggeration enough in this; but there is some truth also. There is no doubt that those sovereigns did more good than any of their predecessors. But it is at least as certain, that what they did bore no proportion to what they might have done. When Napoleon created, armed, and enriched the kingdom of Italy, he proved experimentally, that the Austrian princes, who had preceded him, had done little more than sketch the outline of those improvements of which Lombardy was susceptible. We may add, that the evils which Italy now suffers from the Austrian government, but too effectually cancel in the eyes of Europe any merit that is to be found in the memory of the past.

Joseph II., that great contriver of laws and projects, wished to give a stimulus to industry and manufactures, and, with the usual narrow policy of heorists, adopted the system of restriction. But industry cannot flourish in 1 kingdom where there is no luxury,-no splendid court,-no rapid circuation nor facility of communication,-no sort of emulation or encourage