WILLIAM TI-IE THIRD.

161

partition of Poland was tlie partition of a nation. It wassuch a partition as is effected by hacking si living man limbfrom limb. The partition'planned at Loo was the partitionof an ill governed empire which was not a nation. It wassuch a partition as is effected by setting loose a drove ofslaves who have been fastened together with collars andhandcuffs, and whose union has produced only pain, in-convenience and mutual disgust. There is not the slight-est reason to believe that the Neapolitans would havepreferred the Catholic King to the Dauphin, or that theLombards would have preferred the Catholic King to theArchduke. How little the Guipuscoans would have dis-liked separation from Spain and annexation to France wemay judge from the fact that, a few years later, the Statesof Guipuscoa actually offered to transfer their allegiance toFrance on condition that their peculiar franchises shouldbe held sacred.

One wound the partition would undoubtedly have in-flicted, a wound on the Castilian pride. But surely thepride which a nation takes in exercising over other nationsa blighting and withering dominion, a dominion withoutprudence or energy, without justice or mercy, is not afeeling entitled to much respect. And even a Castilianwho was not greatly deficient in sagacity must have seenthat an inheritance claimed by two of the greatest poten-tates in Europe could hardly pass entire to one claimant;that a partition was therefore all but inevitable; and thatthe question was in truth merely between a partitionMacaulay, History. IX. 11

C1UP

xxiv

ns.