Star.
London, England, 1820-03-11 00:00:00

in one place, and of another kind in another; with a
man who would not give different colours to his sen-
timents as.occasion_rectuired (Applause). - He hoped
At." should
.13e returned with a. man who would not
!Write to a Contractor in— (Much disapprobation).
He was perhaps mistaken: the person who received
the letter, perhaps, was not a Contractor. He did
not know the Gentleman: he only designated him as
a Contractor, to shew that he was one of those per-
sons who were anxious to uphold the system of Go.
vernment which he (Sir Francis Burdett) wished to
controul—one who wished to support the system of
corruption which now existed—as a man who had
formerly been a supporter of Sir Murray Maxwell,
than which there could not be a fairer criterion by
which to judge of a man's politics. At all events,
the letter was written to a man whom Mr. Lamb
considered it necessary to address in a strain very
different from that which he used in soliciting the
votes of the Electors generally. It was said, that he
was c, yoked with a lamb." Now he thought this
lamb was a full-grown sheep—at least, it had all the
appearance of a wolf in sheep's clothing! (Cheers)
But, be he what he may, he was not fit to represent
the feelings, the interests, and the sentiments of West-
minster. If the Gentleman hoped for success in this
contest, he should advise him to seek for it in another
quarter. Here again he must quote his favourite
author, and advise that Gentlemaa to cry out to his
, Ministerial friends,

" Help, Cassius! or I sink."—(Lauzhir4.)
He assured the Meeting that the worthy Gentleman
(Mr. Lamb) could 'not delight him more than by
putting him upon this topic. He was an ardent ad-
mirer of Shakspeare, and he hope! that Gentleman
ivould again, in the course of his speech, refer to it.
Now that he was upon the subject he would give the
Gentleman a piece of advice, and from his favourite
author too. R. was, as would be recollected;• where
one person was advising another to commit an ill
action, and at the same time pointing out the ap-
pearance he was to assume— •

a To beguile the time. look like the time,
Bear welcome in your hand, your tongue, your eye,
Look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under it!"—(Chars.)
With respect to the letter which was made such mat-
ter of complaint, the worthy Gentleman could not
call it a breach of confidence. He had no power or
right to exact confidence from the Gentleman to
whom it was written. It was a canvassing letter,
written for the purpose of hoaxing a man out of his
vote, by making him believe that he was voting for
a Candidate of very different principles from those
under which he (Mr. Lamb) solicited the support of
the independent Electors of Westminster. Now he
would put a case :—the Gentleman was a Lawyer,
though certainly not an old one—he certainly did not
appear to have gone far back in the history of his
country—he did not appear to have gone beyond the
reign of Elizabeth—( Laughter ). He was led to sup-
pose this from an observation of the Gentleman, that
Lord Fortescue lived in that reign. In speaking of
old Lawyers, he wished it to be understood, that he
did not despise them—on the contrary, he was con-
vinced that to no set of persons was this country more
indebted for the liberties it enjoyed, than to the old 1
Constitutional Lawyers 'who had at various times
ornamented it. Nor did he wish to pronounce a cen-
sure on modern Lawyers; he knew many of that
profession, both in and out of Parliament, who were
foremost in supporting the Constitutional Rights of
Englishmen, and who were ever ready to right the,
injured and relieve the oppressed—( Applause ).
The Lawyers to whom he alluded, were those
trading Parliamentary Lawyers, who considered a
seat in the House only as a step to the Bench—
men who had no principles—who were traders in
politics for the purpose of obtaining the high ho-
'ours and emoluments which the profession holds
out. To those, and those only, did he allude. But
he was going to put a case—it was a case which a
modern Lawyer, or a man who was no Lawyer, could I
easily understand. Suppose a person had written to
him to take secret steps to undermine Mr. Lamb.—
Suppose he was requested to practise the meanest,
the most unfair means of ousting him from Parlia-
ment, would there be any breach of confidence to-
wards the writer, on his part, if he handed this letter
to Mr. Lamb ?—(" No"—Cheers.)—So far from being'
a breach of confidence, he should consider it an act
of duty to do so. That Gentleman had, however,
broached a new doctrine. He seemed to think, that
the writer of the letter in question was innocent, but
he who received and made it public, was guilty of a
breach of confidence. Mr. Lamb said, that he would
much rather have been the writer than the reader in
public of that letter. It was as old rule, that there
was no accounting for taste. But for himself, he
would say, that if the hustings were a scaffold, he
would rather mount it than be the writer of such a

letter—(Cheers).—lt was, however, for the Electors
to judge how far it was right or wrong. The worthy
Baronet, after exhorting the Electors to continue
their exertions, retired with thanking them sincerely
for those they had already made.
Mr. LAMB then came forward and attempted to
address the Meeting, but found it impossible to ob-
tain a hearing for some time. A few persons in the
crowd called out for Mr. Hobhouse, but silence being
restored shortly afterwards, Mr. Lamb was enabled
to proceed. He commenced by observing, that if
they wished to hear Mr. Hobhouse, they must hear
him first—(Applause and disapprobation). If his op-
ponents supposed that the confidence of success which
they had so exultingly expressed, could produce any
feeling of despondence upon his part, he could as-
sure his opponents that they were most egregiously
mistaken. He never expected that the result of the
first two or three days' poll would have been very
different from what it now was; and though some
persons bad taken the pains to spread a report
through Westminster.,that-it was his intention to re-
sign, he could assure them, that up to the present
moment he, felt as confident as ever, and that he
would not quit his post until all the Electors of
Westminster bad an opportunity of declaring their
sentiments. It was not his intention to detain therm
long, nor should he have detained them even so long
as he now intended, if had not been for some obser-
vations that had fallen fi orn the worthy Baronet, his
late colleague. The worthy Baronet had said, that
it was unusual for the popular cause to appear so
successful on the poll at so early a period ofiLhe con-
I test, when it had to.contend against the influence of
the Ministerial. Candidate. But what proof had been

adduced to chew that he was a Minisierial Candi-
date? , The-proof adduced was, that be had written
a letter to a Government Contractor. But did the
Government Contritetoi supportlim ?. No. What did
v'
the Government Contract° do ? He gave up his let-
ter to his opponents, eita ishing, by that fact, as far
as it was entitled to justi y any inference, that they,
and not he, were the Ministerial Candidates. Such was
the conclusion, from the worthy Baronets reasoning.
The worthy Baronet had represented him as calling
out to the Government Contractor—" Help, Cassius,
or I sink r but what did the Government Contractor
answer ? He answered—" No, I'll see you d—d
first" (A laugh). It was on that letter, to which al-
lusion was so often made, that his opponents built all
their hopes of success. Ile knew not what reason
Mr. Hobhouse had to suppose that he disapproved
of his committal to Newgate. He had not voted in
the House of Commons against his committal, though
he had voted with •the worthy Baronet for the more
lenient course. He had no reason to conclude, from
his civility in having called upon him in Newgate,
that he disapproved of the course which the House
of Commons had adopted. One word more upon
that subject. It often happened to him that he was
betrayed, in the warmth of speaking (and particularly
in the haste and anxiety to which their interrupt;ons
sometimes exposed him), into expressions which his 1
cooler 'judgment taught him to regret. lie had,
therefore, no hesitation in saying, that in the hurry
of his address to them yesterday, he bad used a
phrase with respect to the committal of Mr. Hob-
house, which he did not mean. He had then said,
that he thought Mr. Hobhouse was properly punished.
The expression was too strong, and he most willingly
retracted it. His feeling upon the subject was this
—that the power of the House of Commons, under
which he was committed, was one that should be
exercised but seldom, and with mercy ; that it would
be better, in most cases, to direct the Attorney Gene-
ral to prosecute, than to fake the punishment into their
own bands, as they had done in that instance. But why
he did not state this opinion, when the question was
discussed in Parliament, he would tell them candidly.
Situated as he was with regard to Mr. Hobhouse, he
had read the pamphlet, with a view to defend him,
if he could, and the reason he did not recommend a
prosecution by the Attorney-General was, that he was
sure he would be found guilty, and that the conse-
quence would be a much more severe punishment
than the other course of proceeding exposed him to
—(Applause and disapprobation). He could bring
before them many friends, if it was necessary, to
whom he had declared the same opinion at the time.
But the part of the pamphlet, which he disapproved
of the most was, not that which alluded to the House
of Commons, in that part there was some boldness,
whatever want of wisdom it might have manifested; 1
his chief objection was to that part which reflected
on Lord Erskine—a man, to whom the country was
more indebted than to any other man alive—(Ap-
plause). At that part of the pamphlet he certainly
felt shocked, and he believed he was justified in
saying, that the Hon. Baronet felt in the same way,
as in his speech on that day, and on some former oc-
casions, he had made some amends to that honourable
and distinguished character. He wished to say, in
explanation of a phrase contained in the letter so
much alluded to, that it was not on his own belief
he had stated that Mr. Hobhouse founded his hopes
of success on his committal to Newgate. He was told
so by some of those in the interest of Mr. Hobhouse.
—(Disapprobation). He would offend them no longer
by persevering to speak ; but before he came to a
close, he wished to thank the worthy Baronet for that
part of his speech, in which he vindicated the profes-
sion of the law, and shewed that his aversion to that
body was more qualified in its nature than he had
supposed, from some of his former animadversions.--
He was willing to let the misrepresentation about
Lord Chancellor Fortescue spread abroad, for ac-
cording to their opinion of modern practitioners, the
less he appeared to be of a lawyer, the more likely
he was to be acceptable to them. --
Mr. HOISHOUSE said, that the cause of the Inde-
pendence of West Minster was that day placed on an
eminence which the success of yesterday had promised.
It was impossible to say what Mr. Lamb might have
yet in store, but let him continue his present exer-
tions, and let them continue theirs, and it required
but little knowledge of arithmetic to anticipate that
they would have every reason to be satisfied with the
close of the poll--(A laugh).—He found, from Mr.
Lamb's explanation, that when he employed himself
in writing letters, he did not favour his correspondent
with his own. opinions, but with a report of the opi-
nions of other men. Mr. Lamb had informed them,
that he did not mean to say that he was properly
punished by the House of Commons, for the power
was one that ought to be exercised with mercy. But
what was the mercy he recommended ? It was that
an Englishman should be sent to prison without trial
or a hearing. He might as well talk of hanging a
man in mercy. His explanation, however, gave
them to understand pretty plainly how Mr. Lamb
would defend their privileges when left to the mercy
of the House or Commons. Mr. Lamb had professed
himself, at the last Election, a friend to the principles
of Sir Samuel Romilly, but the principles of Sir Sa-
muel Romilly, of which he seemed to know nothing,
were contrary to such proceedings. In fact, it was
contrary to all law, to send a man to prison merely
for a constructive breach of privilege. _ Magna
Charta was infringed by it—the Bill of Rights was
infringed by it—the whole spirit of the Constitution
was infringed by it. There was not a single man
who pretended to popular principles, that could be
found to defend this assumption of! power by the
House of Commons. He would defy Mr. Lamb 'to
name one who had ever done so.- He had investigated
the whole subject with more pains than Mr. Lamb
was likely to bestow upon that or any other subject.
But Mr. Lamb had said that he was the popular Can-
didate, and that they were the Ministerial ones.—
It might possibly be so, according to his view of
mercy—for the Ministry had sent him to prison, they
were now trying to send the worthy Baronet to pri-
son, and, in doing so, he might think they had given
some proofs of Ministerial affection. Ile did not
know what Mr. Lamb meant by the lower classes ;
Mr. Lamb was himself one of the lower classes. But
the phrase itself was the common cant of those Gen-
tlemen who were brought forward by Party. Mr.
Lamb had talked of the lower classes as Mr. Scal -
lett had talked of the rabble of Westminster—but per-
hap's this was also a slip of the pen. Ile certainly