He has no means of answering them through the press. They assail him, sitting snugly in their offices. They assail him daily. And, is he never to open his lips at any time, or at any place? "Where, then, is the ground of all this infamous abuse? After accusing Mr. Hunt of having raised a mob for _treasonable_ purposes, some of the papers have, in the most _serious_ manner, asserted that he was _insane_, and that he had been to a _madhouse_! Is not this a pretty stretch of calumny? Is a man bound to endure this in _silence_? 'He has his redress _at law_.' Oh! the base cowards! Their answer is worse than their crime. "Was it any _fault_ in an Englishman, living in the country, to come to London to take part at a _Meeting of Englishmen in distress_? Was this any _fault_? No one can say that it was.--The Meeting had been advertised many days before any knowledge of it reached Mr. Hunt; he was requested to come up; and who can blame him for coming? However, it is not a question of blame or no blame; he had _a right_ to come, and he chose to exercise his right. If, indeed, the invitation had been from persons in _prosperity_, he might have easily declined; but, I do not see how he was to resist the call of people in distress. "But his speech, that was '_inflammatory_.' Good God! what is _not_ inflammatory now-a-days? But, though the speech might, and, I dare say, did contain matter much stronger than that which I have read in the report of it, I am very sure that it could not surpass what I have read in the _Morning Chronicle_ within this month; and that it could not surpass (for nothing can surpass) the inflammatory matter in the _Times_ and the _Courier_ on the subject of their alleged extortions of the Bakers and Butchers. Besides, as to the printed reports of the speech, Mr. Hunt was wholly _at the mercy of the Reporters_. They have made him say just what they pleased, and he has no redress; no means of correction; no chance of being heard in explanation. They impute to him the having asserted, that _Lady Oxford_ is on the _pension list_. This was false, as he has since proved to me by the list which he read. It has been asserted, that he went to the Meeting with a tri-coloured flag. This is also false, he never having known of the existence of any flag until his arrival on the spot; and, was he to go away merely because some whimsical persons had _hoisted a flag and a cap of Liberty?_ Besides, are there not flags enough at contested elections? Do not freemasons and others parade about with flags? Why was this meeting not to have a flag, if it chose it? Call the thing _nonsensical_ if you please, and I shall not dissent. But, where was the _harm?_ Where was the justification for all this vile, this atrocious abuse?