Star.
London, England, 1830-12-25 00:00:00

Neva did we within a seen totaldisregard of candour sad of truth than we
find exhibited in this instance of party virulence and decsptloaa Went.—
In the first place, the vote of gratitude by the Nation for the stows'.
leled Services and transcendently glorious Achievement of the Illus-
trious Hero, while yet ardently devoted to the duties of his militia+, ca.
reer in the field of Glory, strange to say, fa brought forth ea an act of
the Noble Duke himself l—Then follows the employment of Mr. Ar-
buthnot, • gentleman whose acknowledged useful talents to the
State have claimed the attention of every Minister from the
time of the late Duke of Portland, and who is not even dis-
tantly related to the Duke of Wellington. Next en the list is
Lord Jersey, who also bears no degree of relationship to
his Grace. We then find Lord Cowley, Lord Maryborough, and
the Marquis Wellesley, all noblemen whose distinguished abilities
attracted the eager notice of the Duke of Portland, Mr. Perceval,
and Lord Li 1. and whose several appointments, so for from
having proceeded from his GUM, all took place, not only when he
had no share whatever In the Adminisuatim, but at a time when
be was gloriously fighting, far from home, the battles of his
country, in the very agony of her immortal struggles. All the
I other offices mentioned were filled in a manner precisely the same,
the noble duke having had nothing whatever to do with the
appointments, with the solitary exception (and; that we may
venture to say proudly the reverse of improper or discreditable) of that
meritorious officer Lord Fitzroy Somerset, as his Grace's Setretatr, not
when be was Prime Minister, but Commander-in-Chief of the Fortes.
Nothing more need be said in elucidation of the base subterfuges in
which our candid and liberal factious are wont to indulge, at the e:.
pence of all truth, candour, common honesty, and honour. In behalf
of this basely calumniated, but pure and most illustrious character of
the age, we nevertheless feel bound to add the well known and %lode-
niable feet, that his Grace, during the whole of his administration did
not appoint to office a single member of his own family, either bonze.
diate or collateral.

Tutits.—lf the peace of Paris is finally preserved, sad the exalt-
don of the law duly secured against the invasions of popular fury,
France wiU mainly owe this greatest of all blessings to the extensive
institution and admirable conduct of the National (hard. A body of
regular troops much more numerous and more decided than that which
was employed to support the infamous ordinances of Chaska X. would
not have been sufficient on the present occasion to have enforced the or-
ders of the most popular !Sovereign who ever reigned in France. In
whatever way the trial had ended, and whatever was the sentence pro-
nounced, agitators would have found in the present ferment of the
popular mind. and amid the almost intolerable miseries of the work-
ing classes, called together on such an occasion, the means of dis-
turbing civil order and perhaps of shaking, by the violence of the peo-
ple, the throne which they pretend to have raised by their sovereign
will. An evening contemporary professes not to know what the Peers
mean by say inf that France:has no limo( treason for the punishmentof
ministers. If he would look at the article of the Charter of 1814. by
virtue of which the ministers of the crown arc impeached before the
upper Chamber, he would see that a law of ministerial re-
sponsibility is promised to define what is meant by treason 1
and what is meant by concussion. the only other crime
specified in the regulation. This law of ministerial responsibility,
though promised in the Charter of 1814, and in the Charier
of 1830, has never yet been enacted. The treason contemplated in all
previous statutes, and even described in the articles of the criminal code
on which the Commissioners of the Chamber of Deputies founded their
impeachment, is treason against the King or the existing authorities of
the State, by the subjects of the King, and not treason of the King's
servants by order of the King against the King's people or liberties of
the nation. In fact, this species of treason seems never to have entered
the minds of those who made codes for Napoleon, or of those who re-
vised and extended these codes for the use of the Bourbons.
As the crime of parricide was omitted in sonic of the ancient codes,
so the crime of enforcing the execution of tyrannical ordinances by the
massacre of the people was not contemplated by the framers of the
modern French laws.