Star.
London, England, 1829-11-23 00:00:00

borne on the pinions of national distress and bankruptcy :
and if the foolish children of privilege are lapt and
lulled in security to the end, by the adulation and
blandishments of an emasculated hermaphrodite press,
will they not bitterly rue—in that extreme hour—their
fatal deception by the self-styled organs of popular
opinion ? Too surely they will : in their present intoxica-
tion they see nothing but rose and velvet ; and they are
fortified In their feudal prejudices by those alone, to whom
it appertains to dispel their delusion. Let the descrip-
tion, however, given of this once happy country, by
our often
,stumbling contemporary—" A WEALTHY
ARISTOCRACY, A CRAWLING MIDDLE CLASS, AND A
STARVING POPULACE"—sink deep into their hearts,
and rouse them to reflect—while time of reflection remains.

There was a sneaking article in the Globe of Satur-
day, on the subject of Prince LEOPOLD and SARAH
HI not; , which proves that paper to be as prostrate a sy-
cophant before individual rank, as it has lately shown
ipeif profligate in its political vindication. The letter of
Colonel CusT, which went to fix upon this humble wo-
man a stigma that she spiritedly repelled, was conspicu-
ously displayed in the Globe, with all the pomp of great
names, and circumstance of authoritative imputation :
but the answer of Mrs. Ilixow—throwing back the
charge of " falsehood" to the worthless quarter from
which it emanated—is denied a place in the columns of
our partial contemporary. We wonder he is not ashamed
Of such extreme servility, when even the Coryplueus of
the Sum* fiervites—the thing that desecrates religion,
by wearing the Bible as its frontispiece—has not ventured
upon tha flagrant suppression. Why did he not give
Mrs. limos's letter, as well as Colonel CUNT'S, and
leave his readers to judge fairly between the contradic-
tions ? He might still have urged his own arguments,
to incline their decision in favour of his royal client
but then there would have beim the letter—which is sow
absent—to expose their feebleness and insincerity: and
this did not suit the Globe. Why is he to take the
word of a German dependent, in preference to
that of this wronged—but poor—remonstrant? What
is there in the statement of Mrs. Hixon, which is
not quite as worthy to be believed, as the assertion of the
domestic, Amm EASCHU BUMS 11 But though the Globe
refuses a place to the letter of Mrs. !bacon in his co-
lumns, he does not hesitate to make such partial refe-
rences to it, as he conceives will suit his purpose of mis-
representation : affecting, at the same time, a strain of
candour even in his disengenuous commentary ; for he
says that it is due to Mrs. Ilixon—as he inserted the
letter of Colonel CUST—to give her statement also. But
he does not give it. On the contrary, he keeps it care-
fully out of sight, that he may attack it more effectively.
and says that it is not reconcileable with certain circum-
stances, which he garbles, in order that he may sum up
against her : and this is the spirit in which he sums up.
" Mrs. Hums repeats that Mr. An 31E111CHUBBaS, the
gentleman who makes the payments of the Prince's
establishment, when he discontinued the allowance in
question, assigned as a reason that the Prince could not
afford it. Mr. Am m z ascii V SIMS, who is a gentleman
of respectability, has denied this ; and as there is nothing
but the assertion of Mrs. Ili Icon in proof that so absurd
a reason was stated, it is fair to consider that she was
mistaken. We shall now dismiss the subject altogether,
merely observing, that an undue importance seems to
have been given to it by some malevolent persons, who
were desirous of bringing the name of the Prince into
discredit."
When Mrs. • Hutow re-asserts so positively the
reason assigned by ANNENCHUEERS for the dis-
continuance, why does the Globe prefer the denial
of a party so interested is denying as Amuck-
CHIMERS is, to the affirmation of this repulsed ap-
plicant ? What " respectability" does our contem-
porary discover about this employed German, to over
to;► that, which he has not the courage openly to impeach
in Mrs. Ilixow—for thisprecise reason, that be knows it
to be unimpeachable ? What does he mean by" nothing
but the assertion of Mrs. Hixow r' Is not that as good as
the " assertion" of Mr. A muzescnv seas, or—if
not—will he tell us why ? We do not think it would
be very difficult to prove the converse of this insinuation
of the Globe: our object, however, is not to attack Mr.
ANDIERECIIIIBEAS, but to defend Mrs. Hixon. We
shall therefore content ourselves with remarking, in re-
ference to this denial of ANNERSCHUBEAS—regird
also being had to his motive for denial, which was no
less than the conservation of his master's favour, and the
situation dependent on it—that " it is but fair to consi-
der that he was mistaken." Why should not he be mis-
taken, as well as Mrs. HIXON ? especially when the pro-
babilities are, from the known character of Prince LEO-
POLD for stinginess—not only that Ast MEILICH INNERS
uttered the words imputed to him, but—utteisd them by
the direction of the Prince. •
We have already expressed our opinion of the un-
amiable light in which this little incident sets the cha-
racter of his Royal Highness. We also availed ourselves
of that opportunity, to remonstrate against the con-
tinuance of this foreigner's enormous pension, at a time
when the grinding exactions out of which that pension is
paid are devastating.the else happy hearths of England,
and spreading pauperism and starvation through the land.
We said " fifty" in our careless hurry, but it is sixty
thousand a-year which Prince LeoeoLD draws from
this country, to spend with foreigners ; not for any merit
of his own, but because he was the husband of her who
might have worn the crown. But there is all the differ-
ence in the world between husband and widower, and we
are astonished that this difference did not suggest itself to
Parliament, when the splendid probability which alone
justified such a grant, ceased even to be a contingent.
In the next Session, when the difficulties:of the country
will be the chief themes to engross discussion, and all
practical reductions are to be proposed, we know not
what motion—in reference to specific retrenchment,would
be more patriotic, or ought to be more popular, than a