It appears then, from all that has been delivered on this subject in the preceding pages, that Peter was more the king than the parent; and that he sacrificed his own son to the sentiments of the father and lawgiver of his country, and to the interest of his people, who, without this wholesome severity, were on the verge of relapsing again into that state from which he had taken them. It is evident that he did not sacrifice this son to the ambition of a step-mother, or to the son he had by her, since he had often threatened the czarowitz to disinherit him, before Catherine brought him that other son, whose infirm infancy gave signs of a speedy death, which actually happened in a very short time afterwards. Had Peter taken this important step merely to please his wife, he must have been a fool, a madman, or a coward; neither of which, most certainly, could be laid to his charge. But he foresaw what would be the fate of his establishments, and of his new-born nation, if he had such a successor as would not adopt his views. The event has verified this foresight: the Russian empire is become famous and respectable throughout Europe, from which it was before entirely separated; whereas, had the czarowitz succeeded to the throne, every thing would have been destroyed. In fine, when this catastrophe comes to be seriously considered, the compassionate heart shudders, and the rigid applauds. This great and terrible event is still fresh in the memories of mankind; and it is frequently spoken of as a matter of so much surprise, that it is absolutely necessary to examine what contemporary writers have said of it. One of these hireling scribblers, who has taken on him the title of historian, speaks thus of it in a work which he has dedicated to count Bruhl, prime minister to his Polish majesty, whose name indeed may seem to give some weight to what he advances. 'Russia was convinced that the czarowitz owed his death to poison, which had been given him by his mother-in-law.' But this accusation is overturned by the declaration which the czar made to the duke of Holstein, that the empress Catherine had advised him to confine his son in a monastery. With regard to the poison which the empress is said to have given afterwards to her husband, that story is sufficiently destroyed by the simple relation of the affair of the page and pocket-book. What man would think of making such a memorandum as this, 'I must remember to confine my wife in a convent?' Is this a circumstance of so trivial a nature, that it must be set down lest it should be forgotten? If Catherine had poisoned her son-in-law and her husband she would have committed crimes; whereas, so far from being suspected of cruelty, she had a remarkable character for lenity and sweetness of temper.