PATKUL, John Reinhold, was descended of a noble family in Livonia, a province which then belonged to the crown of Sweden. The Livonians having been stripped of their privileges, and great part of their estates, by Charles XI., Patkul was deputed to prefer their complaint; a duty which he discharged with such eloquence and courage, that the king, laying his hand upon his shoulder, said, “You have spoken for your country as a brave man should, and I esteem you for it.” Charles, however, was determined to punish the zeal and honesty which he thought fit to commend; and a few days afterwards he caused Patkul to be declared guilty of high treason, and condemned to death. Patkul, however, found means to escape into Poland, where he continued until the death of Charles. He hoped that his sentence would then have been reversed; but being disappointed in this expectation, he applied to Augustus king of Poland, whom he solicited to attempt the conquest of Livonia. Augustus, acting on this suggestion, possessed himself of Livonia; and afterwards, when Charles XII. entered the province to recover it, Patkul commanded in the Saxon army which opposed that remarkable man. Charles proved victorious; and Patkul some time afterwards entered the service of the Czar,.a little before Charles compelled Augustus to [7:17:139]abdicate the throne of Poland, and his subjects to elect Stanislaus in his stead. The Czar then sent Patkul, with the title of his ambassador, into Saxony, to induce Augustus to meet him at Grodno, that they might confer upon the state of their affairs. He succeeded, and the proposed conference accordingly took place; but immediately afterwards the Czar left Grodno for Astracan, to quell a rebellion which had broken out there. As soon as the Czar was gone, Augustus ordered Patkul, who was then at Dresden, to be seized as a state criminal. This proceeding surprised all Europe; for Patkul was not only an ambassador, but an ambassador from the only power that could afford him protection. Patkul, it seems, had discovered that the ministers of Augustus were to propose a peace to Charles upon any terms, and had therefore resolved to anticipate them, and procure a separate peace between Charles and the Czar. But his design was discovered; and, in order to prevent its success, Augustus ventured to seize his person, assuring the Czar that he was a traitor, and had betrayed them both.

Augustus was soon afterwards reduced to beg peace from Charles at any price, and the latter granted it upon certain conditions, one of which was, that he should deliver up Patkul. This reduced Augustus to a sad dilemma. The Czar had reclaimed Patkul as his ambassador; and, on the other hand, Charles demanded, with threats, that the prisoner should be put into his hands. Augustus, therefore, contrived an expedient by which he hoped to satisfy both. He sent some guards to deliver Patkul, who was prisoner in the castle of Königstein, to the Swedish troops; but by secret orders privately despatched, he commanded the governor to let him escape. The governor, however, though he received the order in time, disappointed its intention. He knew that Patkul was rich; and having it now in his power to permit him to escape, he demanded a large sum for the favour. Patkul refused to buy that liberty which he made no doubt would be gratuitously restored; and, in the mean time, the Swedish guards arrived with the order for his being delivered up to them. By this party he was carried to the head-quarters of Charles at Albran-stadt, where he continued three months, bound to a stake with a heavy chain of iron. He was then conducted to Casimir, where, being ordered to be tried, he was, as a matter of course, found guilty by his judges. After being kept in a state of horrible suspense for several months, he was, on the 30th of September 1707, put to death, with circumstances of atrocious cruelty, having been broken alive on the wheel, and his agony prolonged with unheard-of barbarity.

Charles XII. has been severely censured for not pardoning Patkul, and we are not inclined to vindicate that sovereign. Yet it must be remembered that this unhappy man was guilty of a much greater crime than that which drew upon him the displeasure of Charles XI. He had incited foreign powers to attack his country when under the government of a boy; hoping, as he said himself, that it would in such circumstances become an easy conquest. He was therefore a rebel of the worst kind, and where is the absolute monarch to be found who would readily pardon such rebellion?