Star.
London, England, 1829-10-16 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

We have received a Nauss or Gases this morning at our (Ace
—containing a hare, and a leash of pheasants—from some unknown
friend, whose handsome attention we have not any other means of
acknowledging. The basket appears—to us—to have undergone
some visitation in iiiisere.

It is satisfactory for us to perceive that the views,
which from the commencement we took, of the Turkish
war, are not merely verified now by the issue of an invasion,
chiefly extraordinary from the apathy with which it was
regarded by the rest of Europe—and more especially by
this country—but that an universal persuasion in accord-
ance with those anticipations which we were the first to
form is now, though late, doing justice to our clear-
sightedness. The change of language in our great con-
temporary, the Times, since the arrival of the Russian
treaty—manifesto rather—illustrates this in a striking
manner. As he has not the courage to go before public
opinion, so he has not the courage to lag far behind it.
His pen, wielded with a fearless integrity—only with the
same integrity with which we wielded ours—might, at
the beginning of this contest, have given it a totally dif-
ferent turn. We are not affirming too much, when we say
that if the honesty of that Paper had been commensurate
with its great circulation and power of influence, it—it
alone—might have conserved the balance of the king-
doms. We will tell him how : it was but required of him
to desert the standard of an imbecile Ministry—of those
men, whose fatuous forbearance has entailed all the
mischief—and the slavish prints, whose highest achieve-
ment is to follow his greater stride, übicunque, would
have united with him to drive them disgraced from the
ti:eatre of Government. For the voice of the press—
when it is in unison with itself and conducted by clear
minds, who disdain to be swayed by selfishness—is the
voice of popular opinion, and must prevail. But the
advocacies of the Times have been any thing else but the
inspirations of public probity : the talent which is con-
centered in it has been prostituted to individual views,
and passion—not to insist upon more sordid immora-
lities—has perverted its power to mischief.
It is impossible to read the Times of the last few days,
and not be struck with the justice of these remarks.
Who, that has been for only three months in the habit of
consulting its columns, does not perceive the antipodal
attitude—antipodal to itself—which that everlasting
shifter is again assuming? But this is not the first
time that we have compelled our contemporary to change
his language ; and it only proves that talents, even
transcendental—if they be not united with public inte-
grity—are ever sure to make shipwreck among the
shoals of inconsistency. After trumpeting, on each
returning day, the moderation and good faith of
N ICHOLAS—after deriding as nonsensical, or factious,
all accusations urged against ministers, for putting con-
fidence in his " disclaimers"—after upholding through
thick and thin the Duke of WELLINGTON'S pernicious
and ignorant policy of non-interference:—he now turns
round, and cries out that it is an enormous misfortune,
that Europe should have permitted Russia to lay hands
on Turkey. His article of this morning on that all-
absorbing subject, is elaborated with much force and
eloquence : but it goes especially to prove, that a mind
capable of such clear views and sound deductions—
yet refraining to press these views and the consider-
ations arising from them, when their insistence might
have availed the State—cannot have misled the people

through incapacity, but must have calculated to deceive
them wilfully by false impressions. It proves, in fact,
the superlative wickedness of our contemporary.
" But how were these evils"—he asks—" which
many foresaw, and to which the KING'S Ministers
did not blind themselves, or the country, to
be averted ?" An enquiry of exceeding impu-
dence, considering that it is not put by the Courier
—the natural vindicator of the faults of Government.
What ? Does the Times, then, mean to assert that the
Noble Duke saw from the first the dire preponderance
which Russia was upon the point of achieving, and did
not feel that it was time to interfere ? Does he mean to
say that the Noble Duke did not blind himself to the
degradation which was theft working for us in the
scale of nations—but that he foresaw that conquest
in all its consequences, which has already made
a third-rate power of England--and did aot feet
that it was time to interfere ? Does he mean to
say, that a British Ministry foresaw the destruction