Star.
London, England, 1830-02-08 00:00:00

i
I

THE LETTERS OF SIDNEY TO THE STAR.

LETTER FIRST.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND THE PEOPLE.

December E.

Sta—Amid all the concurrent signs of political and
moral deterioration which rise around us, it is impossible
not to be struck—even more than with the late prosecu-
tions of the Press, though I shall speak of these

presently—with the Petition of the KENTISH GRAND
JURY to the Duke of WELLINGTON. Such a spectacle,
in such a country as England—Gun be thanked—is still
equally novel as it is extraordinary : but it depends upon
vs—the People—by our manifestations of sympathy or
abhorrence at such a proceeding, to make it common and
notorious as the daylight, or prevent for ever its humi-
liating recurrence. Great Gon, Sir, who and what is
this Duke of WELLTNGTON, that his name is to paralyse
a whole nations manliness, and hold the minds of
millions in such a passive and ignominious thraldom ?
Let us analyse the man : is he, indeed, supreme in this
much-abused land? Is Ae MAXIMUS INTER MAXIMO.?

Are Englishmen, then, so degenerated, as to bow the

head and bend the knee, before an ambitions, usurping
subject—the equal of them all by pature—superior to
some among them, by adventitious circumstance alone ?
Tbis train of ideas—these self-asked questicras—do they
not force theme/to meg us, eollas asairsposi that fat-

sumo and abject composition which has made its round in
all the diurnals, purporting to emanate from the Grand
Jury of that County which glories in the boast of its
invincibility ? • Invicta !—lleu, spes mendacissima !
What a lesson is here presented to this once great
people, if they will but rouse from their lethargy, and
profit by it? If they will but read, in this letter to

the great DUKE—for it is recorded there in damning
characters—how degenerate their condition is become,
how unhealthy the working of the public mind ! How long
will men, and Englishmen, blindly permit others to think
for them ? How long will they thus tacitly subscribe,
thus niggardly assent to any doctrine, which shall spare
them the trouble of investigation ? This indolence—this
criminal apathy—this dangerous slothfulness—how truly
are they colleagues and helpmates of corruption ? Bro-
thers of mischief—offspring of the devil—how mutually
do they contribute to each other's delinquencies ; how
lovingly are they found reciprocating in alternate pulsa-
tions'
But to the letter itself—that letter, which already dis-

seminated through this degraded empire, must have car-
ried shame and indignation to the hearth of every free-
man who loves his country : let us consider a moment
this letter from the Max of KENT—this rescript of the
self-styled " Invicti !" And who is it, in this crisis of
eur deatinies—ibis hour, perhaps, of al
extermination —who is it whom these constitutional men
address ? Their KtwG ? No. The representatives of
the nation—such as they are ? No. The two Houses
of Parliament ? No. The Ministers of the Crown—as
e responsible body ? No. Whom, then ? I blush
for my country, while recording with my pen the
answer—lt is their fellow-subject, the Duke of Wet.-

:_ •

tixoTon, whose leniency these invicti of Kent now

supplicate with prostrate bodies ! It is their fellow-sub-
ject, the Duke of WELLlNGTow—conqueror by favour-
ing combinations at Waterloo, victorious by connivance
it the Old Bailey—whom Englishmen and freemen now
implore as a demi-god, .now would conciliate as the sole
arbiter of their destinies !
Pass, we, Sir, from these reflections—painful and
humiliating—to the speeches of the ATTORN sir-Gz-
t4 &lux., on the occasion of the fourth Government
Prosecution against the freedom of the Press. %t-
-railing and luxuriating in previous success—grown bold
sad daring, by reason of the ready compliance of three
termer Juries—we here find the astute lawyer metamor-
phosed into the insolent tyrant. Speaking of ALEX-
AN DER'R partners, we hear him state, " that these men
at last thought fit not to continue with Mr. ALax A N DER,
W share either in his perils or his crimes." His crimes!
By what right dares the ATTORNEY-GENERAL desig-
sate—previous to conviction—the act of any man as
eriminal ? By what right presumes he thus to prejudice
the minds of the Jury, then sitting in judgment upon the
4efendaht ? Let Sir JAMES SCA RLETT explain that.
Look, again, at the threat of this Whig ATTOR ET-
GaN ERA', respecting the publication of the names of
the Jurymen : If any person dared to publish such a
list, he - the Attorney-General—would bring the indi-
vidual so offending to condign punishment 1 Truly,
this Sir JAM'S SCARLETT is a prodigious fine fellow—
wonderfully clever—but I question much, whether a little
Talked= upon his past language will satisfy even !}is
mind, that he hits discreetly exercised the power of
speech. His exultation at his monstrous successes has
led him astray. He is drunk with his un-English tri-
mph, and reels to and fro. la his unguardedness of in-
crimination, the cloven foot has been too palpably ex-
posed, to suit either his or his Master's ulterior aim.
Bat the COUNTRY, Sir, will rouse itself—who, now,
.an doubt it ? and seeing the abuse to which these laws
eliibel may be carried, will indignantly demand an enact-
ment, which shall wipe away from our code powers so
atrocious—statutes so disgraceful in a lead of liberty.
SIDNEY.

THE DUKE or WELLINGTON axe nut PARLIAMENT.