The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-04-16 00:00:00

egir". rtlig7=ol===.l2s6==.4WWWMP
,• EDITOR or• THE STATES MilN.

stR,..-ln a former letter d remarked the neces.
kity *hick Sir FAANCIS BURDliri under of
rotainieg in his house* until the Serieent at Arms
broke into it. Sir FAA tsc4s ,ilueeatt ha.
d2tcraiineil to bring heroics the, Tribunal Of est
Vatic the whole claim of the noose of Commons ;
this claim may be divided lite three yertir 'first,

thc) clAimed be a Court of Criminal Jurisdic-
tion fur the trial of Libels. Secondly, they

(Waled a right to ince Warrants of Apprdhatsiou

and CriMnbitinent ligsktsf, supposed delinquents.

Dirtily, they deleted, that in the execution of

these %currant'', their Scrjeint at'Aems might law.
fully break open a dwAllag.bouse.... if sir Flu lg..
Bunoirre had voluntarily surreadared.
to the Speaker's • warrant, 'tie third point could
newer have been brought under exaniinatien.. The

mobs assembled before his home,
.must certainly

Mare occasioned great disquiettide to nvery part of
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT'S (May. Those mobs
cnull by no possibility be useful to him, although
in a very higrilegratthey increased the danger to
which his person was exposed. The events which

sere the consequences of those mobs, must be
afflicting to every one ; but they arc not to be at.

tributeti to Sir Foams BVIUMTT ; with far more

truth may they be attributed to the indecision,
the irresoletion,' anti the want of foresight of
the Ministers. If the claims now advanced
by the Home of Commons are illegal, the
Rouse, or those persons who influenced the
House to the adoption of those measures,
are responsible; far the consequences. It is
unjust to impute the afflicting consequences to
Sir Ftiamets Barnprect if ke has in no degree
violated the laws of Ms country. When Mr.
SrocioAut, of Piceadilly, , was charged with hav-
ing published a libel reflecting on the proceedings
of the House Of 'Commons, it was proposed that
lie should be sisminoned to the bar ; the late Mr.
FITT resisted this proposal ; he observed that the
publication was a libel, an offence at the com-
mon law, and that the offender ought to be tried
in a Court of common law. The House ac-
quiesced in Mr. Prrr's opinion. The ATTORNEY-
GENERAL was ordered to prosecute him ; on the
trial Mr. STOCLIDALII was acquitted.---Why
did not the House in the case of JouN
GALE Joxcs follow • this precedent ? The
atis*er is obvious : eithei they distrusted the
Trial by Jury, or had determined to, establish
their new claim, of being a Court of Criminal
Jw:ist'Aiction. It has been said that Sir FRA re
tURDETT'S Letter to the SPEAKER. was intempi:
rate. If he is correct in the opinion which be en.
Lttaiits, viz. that the whole proceeding of the
Item of Commoweiss.violatiow of the law, who
has a right to.alicteleln Sir FRANCIS BURDETT,
that he ought to resent the outrage with modera-
tion? It was the 'lounge of power against' an un.
protected individual ; it was injury combinckwith
insult. Wary politicians may be afraid, to slash.
cate him; but, I trust, and firmly Wien, that at a
future period a virtuous public will.applaud his
conduct. No man ever blamed I .tatrags for having
brought before the public the question of Ship
Money. The claim of the House of Commons
Which Sir F. Bumorrr has laid open to the view of
the public, is not of less importance. In forteds
times the House of Commons defended the rights!,
of the people against the claims of Ministers. It is
not surprising, therefore, that the people applaud.'
cd every effort of the House of Commons to increase
its power ; but the character of the House of
Commons is now completely changed. Under the
name of the House of Commons, the Minister can
exercise the most unlimited authority, while at
the same time be protects himself from odium and
responsibility. No man can now be Minister
without being able to influence a' majority
of the House of Commons; and possessing
that influence, experience has shown us, that
there are no measures which he may not
attempt. The power now claimed by the House
of Commons is at the present moment only for.
midable to the people. But if ever the. moment
should arrive when the King may be unable to di-
vide those great families who nominate to seats in
Parliament, the. Sovereign of this country will be
reduced to the condition of a King of the Mah.
TAttax, aid the powers of Ouvernment will be
vested in hereditary Nobles. Let it be recollected
that in 178.1 the King was nearly reduced to this
situation by a confederacy of great families ;—he
was compelled to remove a Minister whom he
wished to retain, and to appoint as Ministers men
'shorn he did not wish to employ. Fortunately,
both for the King and the People, the violent mea-
sures of the usurpers enabled the King to relieve
himself from their power. Let the House of
Commons remember how ranch the People of
Lugland are now suffering in consequence of their
ill-founded claims in 174—they claimed the rigid
to impose taxes on British subjects not rem.
seated in their House. ifluat was the result of
this ill.fountled claim ? Eight years of civil war
—a waste of blood anti treasure, unexampled in
our history—a load of debt and tans, under'