found to make the wildest assertions about the increase of the German population, with the object of alarming this country; for, though bearing a German name, he is a bitter enemy of the country in question. "Since 1870," Dr. Reich wrote, "the figures of her [Germany's] population have well-nigh doubled."

To this the answer is, that Germany (which in 1866 had lost her Federal Austrian provinces, containing at the time something like 16,000,000 inhabitants) had in 1870 a population of about 38,000,000. If this number were doubled, it would make 76,000,000. But her population to-day-increased, of course, since 1870, like that of many other countries is not 76,000,000, but 56,000,000. The small difference of 20,000,000 does not matter to an arithmetician like Dr. Reich.

Always for the purp ́se of rousing feelings of hostility between England and Germany, he shadows forth the intention (of which as yet nobody has heard) of the latter country to establish a canal from the E be to Trieste, which would make Germany "sit astride of Europe." A terrible prospect indeed! Does this wonderful student of history not know, or is it a wilful suppressio veri on his part, that the old German Empire, and the subsequent German Confederation, have actually sat astride of Europe through the possession of Trieste from 1508 down to our time, in 1866?

It was only then that Bismarck, for the object of special Prussian aggrandisement, made war against the German Bund, and contrived to bring about the ejection of its Federal Austrian provinces. Up to that time, Trieste, which in the sixteenth century had joined the German Empire of her own free will, and therefore was called "the most faithful city," had been a German port as much as Hamburg or Danzig, or as Liverpool and Cork are ports of this country.

An enemy of Germany, and a panegyrist of Napoleonism, as Dr. Reich is, he raises the absurd bogey of German world-dominion, and gives clearly to understand that he would wish the present dangerous unity of Germany broken up. A "unity" formed after the ejection of one-third of her former national territory and population! A "unity" in which there are still nearly two dozen separate dynasties! "Every one," Dr. Reich writes, "would like to know whether Germany is destined to become the great Power which will be able to impose its dictates upon the whole of Europe, or rather upon the whole world (!) or whether the bond of unity will burst asunder."

In this connection Dr. Reich points to the Socialist party, with its three millions of voters, as an element of dissolution. Не asserts that on principle this party is strong against any manifestation of central control over the component twenty-six States of the German union. Evidently he has never heard, what even Bebel, the chief Socialist leader, has avowed, namely, that the vast majority

of his party is composed of Mitläufer-xen who, for the time being, run and vote with the Socialists, not from adhesion to their doctrine, but because, being extremely dissatisfied as Liberals or Radicals, or having grudges against Government as minor employees, they want to "make it hot" to that Government in the Reichstag.

Moreover, Dr. Reich does not seem to know that the Socialists proper, whose doctrine is the nationalisation of all means of production, of exchange, and of communication, naturally do not want to have a state of political "particularism,' by means of a number of dynasties, maintained. On the contrary, for the very sake of the realisation of their programme, if that were ever feasible, they are in favour of thorough unity, with the strongest possible central authority, though on a Democratic basis.

Then, in order to egg on this country, and others as well, against the so-called would-be world-rulere, Dr. Reich declares that it is the ambition of the Germans, "by the development of their naval strength, to carry their sphere of influence over the whole globe"; nay, that "Germany's almost only means of finding a dumpingground for her surplus population" (which he falsely alleges to be nearly doubled since 1870!) "is in the defeat of England, and in the seizure of her rival's colonies." Awful!

The simple fact is, that Germany, as has often been pointed out, is bound to strengthen herself at sea, because she is wedged in between two great military and naval Powers, allied to each other, and at heart hostile to, or jealous of, Germany as a united nation, even in her present loose Federal form. A country so placed has to guard its own coasts as well as to protect its increased over-sea trade on the high seas-not to speak of the few colonies it has recently acquired.

Need it be said that armies of both the French-and they century after century-and of the Russians, have been as enemies on German soil in times past? The possibility of "a war with two fronts " has consequently to be taken into consideration. Any one acquainted with the facts of the naval strength of the various nations is aware that the Russian fleet and the French fleet are, each of them, far larger than the German one. The German navy only comes sixth in rank! It would be sheer madness for a nation in such a difficult geographical position, whose shores on the Baltic and the German Ocean are liable to invasion, to neglect that which every other great nation, nay, many small ones, have of late given the closest attention to.

With the correctness of statement displayed by Dr. Reich in the cases just mentioned, he writes:

"The drift of all this busy, unflagging preparation can hardly be doubtful. For fifty years there was the same hum of an army making ready, the same keen attention to military affairs, the same drilling of

soldiers and training of officers, before Germany hurled herself irresistibly upon France, full of sanguine confidence in her success.'

Fifty years before 1870 makes 1820. So Germany prepared her army against France since then! Who could help laughing at such an assertion? The years following 1820 were a time of profound peace, only broken by a short war-alarm in 1830, when it was, not Germany, but France, who, through M. Thiers, threatened war on the Rhine. When, in 1848, the German people rose for the recovery of freedom and national unity, the princely armies of the several States of the Bund were for a time quite overmatched by the popular upheaval. Only in the 'sixties the Prussian army was more strictly organised—not in view of any war against France, but for the object, first, of overawing the House of Deputies at Berlin. in its struggle against the reactionary policy of King William; and, secondly, for Bismarck's aim at ousting Austria from the German Confederation.

As to the false allegation of Dr. Reich that Germany, having with fell purpose prepared her army, "hurled herself irresistibly upon France," the simple truth is, that France, in 1870, declared war against "Prussia." That was done in accordance, as has been said, with the old French recipe of singling out one German State, and so trying to divide the Germans among themselves. This is an old trick, as the history of the French wars against Germany sufficiently proves. The trick was even used in the war of the French Revolution against Germany, when "Prussia" was singled out.

It is, furthermore, a well-known fact that

"War had already been decided upon in a State Council at Paris, in 1868, under the presidency of Napoleon III., on account of Luxemburg, which the French Government wanted to seize upon. Only, the next morning, the courage of the Man of December, who was already badly ailing, evaporated, and so the war was put off. In 1870 the Empress Eugenie, goaded on by Jesuit influence, carried the day, and triumphantly exclaimed: C'est ma petite guerre!' [That's my own little war!']"

It was when the despotic perpetrator of the coup d'état of 1851 had been foiled in his infamous attempt upon Mexico, and gradually become decadent in healtb, whilst being also alarmed at the rising opposition at home, that the counsels of his intriguing, priestridden wife carried the day. War was held to be the last desperate means of saving the dynasty. That dynasty was one of a criminal usurper who had murdered the Roman Republic, murdered the second French Republic, and attempted to muider the Mexican Republic, with the ultimate design of doing the same for the Republic of the United States, where the slaveholders' rebellion was brewing.

Yet Dr. Reich actually "is filled with regret that Austria had not the good sense to unite with France at the beginning to crush Germany!" So a critic otherwise friendly to Dr. Reich, but who

is unaware of his many astounding historical and statistical blunders, puts it in the Daily News. The same reviewer cannot help pointing out that this extraordinary writer is such an admirer of Napoleon I. as to mock at the national resistance of the Spaniards to the Corsican tyrant, and to make fun of the idea that Wellington had any important part in overthrowing him. On the other hand, we hear that Dr. Reich "has most interesting chapters on religious success, defending with some vigour the Jesuits against their assailants, and emphasising the immense present importance and future power of the Roman Catholic Church.” A noteworthy point!

The hint thrown out (truly, one is reminded of the Jesuit maxim: “Calumniate boldly; something will always stick ") that Germany intends to take possession of Holland by means of a pecuniary compensation to her Queen; and the threat held out that France would, some day, proceed to "the humiliation of her old enemy, and demand the restoration of the Rhine frontier," are additional fine touches in Dr. Reich's political music of the future. For one who avows that the learned class of the Fatherland shows a considerable degree of knowledge and painstaking research, but who cannot be said to possess those qualities himself, the performances here described are characteristic enough.

It is a misfortune that public opinion in this country can be easily misled, uninstructed as it is on foreign affairs or on the history of Continental nations, and nervously liable as it has shown itself of late to silly alarms. Trading upon this lack of information, one who poses as a facile teacher may, under a deceptive show of learning, deftly slip in his suspicious designs and do great mischief. I hold the attempt thus to set two kindred nations against each other in hostile array to be a downright crime against the cause of intellectual, political and social progress. For this reason it will be useful to exhibit, for once, the "nakedness of the land" in the writings of one whose rapidity of production is on a par with the untrustworthiness of his historical and statistical assertions.

VERA COLO.

KOSCIUSZKO'S LETTER TO COUNT SÉGUR.

"MONSIEUR LE COMTE,-In reference to the letter sent to you yesterday, concerning the affair of M. Poninski and his conduct in the campaign of 1794, another fact has yet to be mentioned, which is in connection with the unfortunate battle of Macieowice, and which I feel compelled to clear up.

"Ignorance or malevolence [mauvaise foi] furiously insist on putting the saying: Finis Poloniæ,' in my mouth, which it is alleged I had uttered on that disastrous day. Now, it has first to be remarked that, before the issue of the battle was decided, I was already almost mortally wounded, and

only two days afterwards I recovered consciousness, when I was in the hands of my enemies. Secondly, this has to be said: If such an utterance is inconsistent and criminal in the mouth of every Pole, it would be even much more so in my own.

"When the Polish nation called upon me for the defence of the territorial unity, the dignity, the glory, and the freedom of the fatherland, it knew well that I was not the last Pole, and that with my death on the field of battle, or elsewhere, Poland cannot and shall not end. All that the Poles have done since in the glory-covered Polish legions, and all that they will still do in the future for the reconstitution of their fatherland, is sufficient proof that if we, the devoted champions of that country, are mortal, Poland herself remains immortal, and that it is not permitted to anybody to repeat the grossly insulting words: Finis Poloniæ.'

6

"What would the French say if, in the disastrous battle of Rossbach, in 1757, Marshal Charles de Rohan, Prince of Soubise, had exclaimed: Finis Galliæ'? or if this cruel utterance had been attributed to him in the descriptions of his life?

"I would, therefore, feel obliged to you if, in the new edition of your work, you would not any longer speak of this 'Finis Poloniæ'; and I hope that the great influence of your name will make a commanding impression among all those who in future would repeat these words and attribute to me a blasphemy against which I raise a protest from the very depth of my soul.

"My cousin and pupil, young George Zenowicz, will have the honour of handing this letter to you. Although it is his intention to devote himself to the military career, he will nevertheless be happy to enjoy your benevolent protection, in case circumstances should induce him to take advantage of it.

"Pray accept, Monsieur le Comte, the assurance of my high respect.

"PARIS, the 20 Brumaire of the year XII."

"T. KOSCIUSZKO.