se, the strength of that unfortunate country was divided; the
[end of page #75] monarchy was elective, and foreign influence had a
means of exertion, which, under a hereditary line of kings, is not
practicable. Poland was not only weaker than its neighbours, but
became a prey to intestine divisions, cabal, and intrigue.

Though Poland was not wealthy, according to the meaning applied to
that word, it was a populous and fertile country, and therefore a
desirable possession to the neighbouring states. To Prussia, a most
ambitious and aggrandising power, with a military government, and of
a very limited extent, it was peculiarly desirable. To Russia, extensive
as it is, the fruitful territory was also an object of ambition, from its
proximity to the seat of an empire, the most fertile and fine provinces
of which lie at a distance. The same desire of possessing what they
wanted, operating at the same time on two neighbouring nations,
occasioned them to unite their power in a first dismemberment of
Poland, for their mutual benefit. The interior convulsions of the
country served as a pretext, and its weakness furnished the means of
executing the design. In 1772, that independent country first lost some
of its finest provinces; but this was only a prelude to its final fall.

The nature of ambition is to augment with success, and as the same
divisions continued in the state, a pretence for a farther interference in
its affairs was easily found; and, in 1794, Poland ceased to be one of
the number of European states. In this last seizure, the house of
Austria had no immediate hand. It was, however, necessary to have its
consent: and, as the aggrandisement of Prussia was not an object of
indifference to Austria, participation in the spoils was proposed, as the
price of acquiescence, and it was readily accepted.

In this case, the weakness of Poland, and the ambition of its rivals and
neighbours, were the immediate causes of its destruction; but that
weakness arose from a want of true patriotism and proper attention in
the people themselves. Jealous of liberties, and disobedient to their
king, the Poles were slaves to the feudal proprietors of the soil.
Though the first cause was different, yet their divisions and quarrels
were the same in effect, as if they had proceeded from real causes of
discontent, and a deranged state of society, such as we have seen,
when the love of the country is lost. In Poland, that love of the country