12 DECEMBER 1835, Page 11

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.

THAT the faculties—the intellects—of Sir FRANCIS BURDETT are clean gone, we have under his own hand and signature, in the following letter. Sir FRANCIS stands publicly accused of hav- ing betrayed his constituents and become a catspaw of the Tories : utore specifically, the charge runs, that in a session of unparalleled importance he utterly abandoned the Reform cause, and performed no duty of a Representative of the People in Par- liamoot—that he canvassed for a Tory Speaker— that he disclaimed the Reform Association, at Tory prompting—that he did the dirty work of Tories in the affair of the letter to Brookes's Club. Well, coining. before the public to defend his conduct against newspaper animadversions, what is his answer to these heavy charges ? Ab- solutely nothing. Callous, or conscious, he answers not a word to them ; but raises an issue upon a miserable point of etiquette—a point of duelling 1—and that not of the day, but some fifteen years old. Hear the imbecile, the lost Member for Westminster, in his second childhood—forgetting every thing, down to his schoolboy grammar.

"TO IIIE EDITOR OP THE MORNING CHRONICLE.

0 Sir—ilaving been much blamed for sending my letter addressed to the members of Brookes's to the rinses, and strange inferences having been drawn therefrom, such US I never could have believed possible, I take the liberty of sending this to you. and of remesting that you will have the.ecaxluess to publish it without delay, and also to transmit a copy to the nut —you will thereby very much oblige me. " I have just read a quotation from :t paper called the Observer. stating, or rather misstating. mistakingly too, I believe. many passages of my public life, upou which the writer with muds intended severity eomnieuts. There is only one, however, as it appears to me. that is not so obviously erroneous, and been so often corrected, consist- ing chiefly of false inferences and uttcandid opinions, rather than matters of fact, that they hardly are worthy of notice. There is one circumstance, however, which the writer in the Observer asserts as a fact. and which, if it were so, would occasion me the deepest regret. therefore call upon him to produce his proof. The assertion is, that I made use of some insulting terms relating to Mr. Canuiug's mother. just before being sent to ti;' Tower, and that on cooling oat Mr. Canning required, and received from ere, an ample apology. Now I firmly believe there is not the slightest truth iu this statement. " I du not rely on my memory when I say this, but on my principles and feelings, which never, I think, would have allowed ire to be guilty of so unjustifiable an act. What it was that provokal Mr. Canning's anger, as alluded to, I am really unable to call to my recollection ; but the impression on my mind is, th it it was something that took place during my implisonment in the King's Bench. Whatever was the cause of the allow:Ilion between us, I can safely say, that b.) far as it was a personal concern, my conduct stands clear, without the possibility of imputation or reproach. Upon receiving Mr. Canning's letter proposing a meeting. I wrote an answer accepting it. I then sent for Mr. Douglas Kiintaird, as honourable and spirited a man as any in Englaild, and as lit as :any man in England to decide upon the point at issue between me and Mr. Canaing. I placed myself in his hands—his bowed and character were xs much implicated in the transaction as my own, nodI was boOINI to abide by his decision upon it. I filter myself, therefore, that as far as this was personal concern. I may challenge the most illiberal minds and the most rancorous enmity to deny that my cotaluet hi the transaction was correct. or to iosionate that there was the slightest ground for censure. " I trust therefore, that the writer of the Ottgerrer will either produce his proof or acknow ledge his error. I remain, sir, your most obedient servant, Leoinoti's, 6th December Ils35." " FRANCIS BURDETT."

Why, even in this infinitely little point of view, Sir FRANCIS makes out no justification. Mr. DOUGLAS KINNAIRD'S undoubted honour cannot shelter him. It is very possible that Buenierr, who called CANNING " a buffoon, drunk with insolence," also spoke affentingly of his mother ; and in that case, we have little doubt that Mr. KtNNitRD would direct Sir FRANCIS to make an apology. All this might happen without detriment to Mr. KIN.. NAIRD'S character, but with considerable damage to that of Sir FRANCIS Bt; RDETT.

But commentary is needless : the letter proclaims for itself that the public career of the writer must be near a close. He cannot again sit for Westminster. If he possessed the virtue which is believed to be wanting, he lacks the capacity.

The old, the affectionate admirers of " Westminster's Pride and England's Glory," wonder how such a change can be. The change is indeed lamentable, yet is there no witchcraft in it. Phrenologists could explain the case. Man is of a mixed nature. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT was a fine animal, with some excellent endowments : but he neglected to strengthen his higher faculties sufficiently by exercise, and restrain the lower by self-discipline: indulgence gave the inferior a mastery over his better nature, and,

by a sort of premature decay, his mind became the wreck we see it. Peace be with the fallen—when be has ceased to misrepresent the Reforming constituency of Westminster!