Volhynia, and Podolia, with the kingdom of Poland, were the principal points which they claimed at the court of Nicholas. He received their envoys with the utmost coldness, and warned them that the first cannonshot fired would be the signal of the ruin of Poland.

་་་་

The course pursued by Austria and. Prussia was all that the Czar could desire, and as inimical as it could be to the cause of freedom without actually attempting to crush it with the sword. Each of them collected an army of observation upon the frontiers, allowed no correspondence to pass from Poland through their dominions, and kept the harbours of Dantzic and Königsberg, closed against all convoys of ammunition and provisions, even though they should come from France or England. Poland was thus isolated and surrounded with bayonets, preparatory to her being crushed. Austria, true to the policy to which to this hour she clings, opened up secret negotiations with Poland, consenting to the restoration of her nationality, provided a prince of the house of Austria were accepted as King, and that the arrangements were made with the concurrence of France and England. France was favourable. England dismissed the envoy with every expression of regret that it could not interfere. Belgium was then on its hands, a Coburg had to be cared for, and Poland, by the present prime minister of England, then her foreign minister, was left to its fate. He too, has been true to his policy, and Poland is still forgotten. Our moral influence was not exerted to secure the independence of Poland in 1830, and in 1855, we have to contend for the independence of Turkey with the sword.

The Poles, single-handed, had to contend for their liberties, and in the contest showed themselves worthier of a better fate than awaited them. The citizens of Warsaw, scarcely numbering a hundred and forty thousand persons, in one day, contributed 800,000 florins to the service of the state, and Chlopicki devoted his salary of 200,000 florins to the same cause. Meanwhile, Nicholas issued an animated proclamation to rouse the animosity of his people, branded the Poles as traitors, collected an army of 110,000 men on the frontier, and placed Diebitch, the Passer of the Balkan, at their head. Thus menaced, the Polish Diet, before throwing away the scabbard, addressed a manifesto to the nations of Europe, which is to this day a noble and solemn witness against the cowardice of those who feared to say that their cause was just, or the apathy of those who admitted it just, but allowed it to be sacrificed to the ambition of the Czar. ~Let England read that document, and at the present crisis remember its sin of omission, in allowing so noble a nation to be crushed by the despot's joke. The world knows too well the infamous machinations, the vile calumnies, open violence, and secret treasons, which have accompanied the three dismemberments of ancient Poland. History, of which they have become the property, has stigmatized them as political crimes, of the deepest dye. The solemn grief which that violence has spread through the whole country, has caused the feelings of nationality to be preserved without interruption.

the

That country has risen from its ashes, and, though restrained within narrow limits, Poland has received from the hero of the last age, its language, its rights, its liberties, gifts in themselves precious, but rendered doubly so by the hopes with which they were accompanied. From that moment his cause has become ours, our blood became his inheritance; and when our allies and Heaven itself seemed to have abandoned him, the Poles shared the disasters of the hero and

the fall together of a great man and an unfortunate nation exhorted the involuntary esteem of the conquerers themselves. That sentiment produced a deep impression; the sovereign of Europe in a moment of danger, promised to the world a durable peace; and the Congress of Vienna, in some sort, softened the evils of our unhappy country. A nationality and entire freedom of internal commerce were guaranteed to all parts of ancient Poland, and that portion of it which the strife of Europe had left independent, though mutilated on three sides, received the name of a kingdom, and was put under the guardianship of the Emperor Alexander, with a constitutional charter and the hope of future In performance of these stipulations, he gave a liberal constitution to the kingdom, and held out to the Poles, under his immediate government, the hope of being, ere long, reunited to their severed brethren.

extension.

But the hopes inspired by these circumstances proved as short-lived as they were fallacious. The Poles, saw that under cover of the sacred names of liberty and independence, he was resolved to reduce the nation to the lowest point of degradation and servitude. The measures pursued in regard to the army first revealed this infamous design. The liberty of the press, the publication of debates, was tolerated only so long as they resounded with strains of adulation; but the moment that the real discussion of affairs commenced, the most rigid censorship of the press was introduced, and after the sittings of the Diet closed, they prosecuted the members of it for the opinions they had expressed in it.

He

The union, on one head, of the crown of the Autocrat and of the constitutional King of Poland, is one of those political monstrosities which could not by possibility long endure. Every one foresaw that the kingdom of Poland must be to Russia the germ of liberal institutions, or itself perish under the iron hand of its despot. That question was soon resolved. If Alexander ever entertained the idea of reconciling the extent of his despotic power with the popularity of liberal institutions amongst us, it was but for a moment. soon showed by his acts that the moment he discovered that liberty would not become the blind instrument of slavery, he was to be its most violent prosecutor. That system was soon put in execution. Public instruction was first corrupted; it was made the mere instrument of despotism. An entire palatinate was next deprived of its representatives in the council, the chambers of the power of voting on the budget; new taxes were imposed without their authority; monopolies destructive of industry were created; and the treasury became a mere fountain of corruption, from whence, in lieu of the retrenchment, which the nation had so often solicited, pensions and gratuities were distributed with the most scandalous profusion amongst the supporters of government. Calumny and espionage soon invaded the privacy and destroyed the happiness of domestic life; the ancient hospitality of the Poles was converted into a snare for innocence. Individual liberty, so solemnly guaranteed, was every day violated; the prisons were filled, and courts-martial, proceeding to take cognisance of civil offences, inflicted infamous and degrading punishments on citizens, whose only fault was, to have endeavoured to stem the torrent of corruption which overspread the country.

In the ancient provinces of Poland, incorporated with Russia, matters have been still worse. Since the accession of the Emperor Nicholas, all these evils have rapidly increased, and intolerance coming to the aid of despotism, has left nothing undone to extirpate the Catholic worship, and force the Greek ritual in its stead.'

The Russians demanded absolute surrender. The Poles insisted on the justice of their claims. The Autocrat was unbending. On the 19th of January, 1831, the Diet met to decide the question of peace or war. Poles,' said Prince Czar-toryski, the president, our cause is sacred, our fate depends upon the Most High, but we owe it to

66

ourselves to transmit intact to posterity the honour of this nation, enshrined in our hearts: concord, courage, perseverance, such is the sacred motto which can alone insure the glory of our country. Let us put forth all our strength to found for ever our liberty and our national independence.' On the 21st the command of the army was conferred upon Prince Radziwil, who received the solemn trust in these words: 'I only accept the command in order to hold it till the war has raised one of those great men who save nations. My sole wish is for the independence and happiness of our beloved country. Such I have been,-such I ever shall be.'

(To be continued.)

Our Open Page.

ADVOCATES OF ATHEISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

Of all the mad concerts that the heart of man has ever conceived, atheism is the wildest and most unreasonable. In comparison with it a sick man's dreams seem sober and waking realities. In short, atheism offers such contradiction to the very principles of reason and common sense, that it seems to me incompre hensible how any man in his senses should seriously embrace it. Indeed, it has been questioned-and I think with reason-whether, in spite of the pretensions of some to be so, such an animal as an atheist has really ever existed, since the very notion involves the denial of the most common principles of our nature.

But how great, sir, must be our astonishment when we see this monstrous doctrine taught by men who pretend to be in advance of the age, and the lights and ornaments of the world? But such is the specious guise under which the insidious folly insinuates itself, viz., a pretended regard for the rights of man, and his emanipation from the bonds of priestcraft and religion.

Among these little sages who distinguish themselves foremost by their violent declamations against Christianity stand prominent the names of Holyoake and Barker-names unknown to fame for anything save this. I am willing to give these gentlemen all the credit due to them for their spite against religion, but I am not so sure of their claims to originality of genius. All their objections and arguments against Christianity, so far as I can see, are collected out of the works of Tindel, Toland, Paine, Hume, and others of that generic class who dignify themselves with the title of free-thinkers, and who have infested this country for the last two centuries, only adapted to the circumstances of the age, and applied to the growing importance of the working classes. I really cannot sufficiently express my unaffected pity for those men, who, simply to gratify a paltry vanity of becoming superior te the rest of their fellows, can find no other better way of distinguishing themselves than by indulging in empty declamations against a religion which has done more good to mankind than has any philosophy, or sect, or law, or discipline.' But in spite of their invectives and declamations against Christianity, there is some reason to doubt whether they are really sincere in their efforts for its destruction-for where then would be their importance? Who then would take Mr. Holyoake for a philosopher, or Mr. Barker for a wit? But when such writers as these, who have no spirit but that of malice, pretend to inform the age, Molochs and cut-throats may well set up for wits and men of pleasure.'

But, sir, I am willing to give these men every credit for their good intentions, to believe that they are actuated in all their actions by a regard for the good of

their fellow men, and that they themselves believe that the most beneficial results would follow the destruction of Christianity. Still I must confess myself unable to see what those good results would be. They laud virtue and declaim against vice. Would virtue be elevated or vice depressed by such a catastrophie? I do not believe that even Mr. Holyoake would have the assurance to say this. But if these men think that by levelling virtue and vice,--by removing all distinction between man and the brutes, they are doing mankind a service, I must confess myself unable to appreciate the obligation. But I suppose that these sages do not confess to any distinction between virtue and vice, or hold that the distinction is but artificial, in which case their position is much more reasonable. For my own part, were I not deterred from vice by the fear of future punishment, and encouraged in the pursuit of virtue by the hope of immortal reward, I should consider following the one vain, and a course of vice reasonable. I should say, 'Eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die.' the old Heathen poet shame these modern Heathens---

Quis enim virtutem amplectitur
Præmia si tollas?

Let

(For who would embrace virtue for her own sake if you take away her rewards?)

In what remains of these remarks I shall endeavour to point out the respective effects of Christianity and infidelity. But I venture to assert that if infidelity were to become universal (as some learned men have thought that it will before the renovation of all things) instead of the social happiness which these visionaries dream would be the effect of secularism, the bonds of society would be loosed-even the sacred ties of kindred disregarded--no right acknowledged but that of force-that only thought just which is practicable—and men, who were joined together for mutual defence and support, league together only to kill and devour one another.

All the effects of Christianity, on the other hand, are beneficial. It has a direct tendency to ameliorate the condition of man both for time and eternity, Its blessed effects are seen in the lives of those who practise it in those countries where it prevails. It streugthens the hands of the law-mitigates the tyranny of despotism-blunts the edge of the sword-arrests the robber and murderer in their downward career-and influences the conduct of those even who pretend not to come under its dictates. But atheism is a baleful disease, which vitiates whatever it touches,-which turns into a mass of corruption that which before was lovely and precious,-which degrades our noble image-turns man into a brute--destroys the peace and happiness of society, and spreads it deadly contagion all around.

But let not the friends of truth be dismayed. Atheism cannot long prevail. In a few corrupted circles it may, but with the miserable, the poor, and the oppressed it will never be popular. If there were not a God, it would be necessary to invent one. In the last century, infidelity, patronised by most of the literati of Europe, backed by the example of two powerful princes, and encouraged by the profligacy of the Christian clergy, prevailed for a time to unchristianise France. But there again, as in its palmiest days, religion rears her, head. Christians know who hath said that their religion is founded on a rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

A STUDENT OF GLASGOW UNIVERSITY.

UNBELIEF.-I would rather dwell in the dim fog of superstition, than in air rarified to nothing by the air-pump of unbelief, in which the panting breast expires, vainly and convulsively gasping for breath.

My dear Sir,

EARNEST ENQUIRY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

to

It has long been my settled impression, that if all anxious inquirers after truth-including free thinkers, lovers of reason, advocates of free thought, free discussion, &c., would have the prudence and good sense to investigate the Bible and its evidences with calmness and intelligence-to examine them with care, and to study them, with humility, there would not be half so many infidels in society as there are. If I am to speak freely what I sincerely think, I must say without hesitation, that many of our friends of the deistical persuasion are determined not to believe in the Divine authority of the Bible upon any evidence of truth whatever, that either ever has been or can be produced. I do not wish to speak either rashly or unfriendly concerning our opponents, but certainly my conviction is, and I feel inclined to think that it is an enlightened and well grounded one, that many infidels never read and search the inspired volume with any other motive, or for any other motive, than t discover, what they think, may be considered as contradictions, inconsistencies, and absurdities. They will not take the trouble to consider and examine the statement or conclusion in connexion with the occasion or the circumstance -the effect with the cause the fulfilment with the prediction the action with the motive—the punishment with the sin-the practice with the precept-the morally governed with the moral governor the command with the agency and powers of the agent, or the type in connexion with the antitype. And thus, we have too much reason to think, that, if infidels ever study the Bible at all, it is partially and unfairly, if ever they reason at all concerning it, it is illogically and foolishly, and if ever they arrive at any conclusions, they are false and erroneous. And as such is the method which they almost uniformly adopt in their Biblical investigations, it is not at all surprising that they seldom or never come to any right knowledge or conclusion, concerning any one important fact, doctrine, principle, or precept. Even Thomas Paine had impudence and presumption enough to tell the world, that when he wrote the first part of his Age of Reason, he had neither Bible nor Testament with him, but that he afterwards procured one of each. Studies and investigations of any kind conducted in such a manner, are not only unphilosophical, but extremely ridiculous. I do not, I cannot think it is for want of evidence, either internal or external, that infidels reject the Bible as a book of Divine authority; but I believe it is for want of stricter scrutiny-of just and more enlightened criticism of deeper reflection of more sober and serious enquiry-of better judgment and better logic and of candid, thorough, and intelligent investigation. Very many of the greatest men whose names and writings now adorn the page of history— men of the finest and nicest taste, and of the greatest learning and accomplishments, have devoted almost a life-time to the study of the Bible, and the investigation of its evidences, and these men have been its greatest admirers, and its most intense lovers. Of course the authority of great names, or the mere assertions of great men do not prove the Bible to be Divine; but then, we have reason to believe that a far larger amount of intellect, of talent, and learning, have appeared on the side of the Bible than has ever been displayed against it, by any of its enemies, in any age of the world; and we have also reason to believe, that such worthy, learned, truth-loving, noble, and clever-minded men as we could mention, would not on any account have believed and received the Bible as a divinely inspired book-as a book of Divine origin and authorityhad they not had sufficient evidence to warrant and justify such a reception and belief. Had there been no evidence for the Divine authority of the Bible,"