LAMB, Hon. George (1784-1834), of Whitehall Yard, Westminster, Mdx.; Richmond, Surr. and Brocket Hall, Herts.

Lamb was almost certainly the illegitimate son of George IV, who, as prince of Wales, conducted an affair with Lady Melbourne in 1783, and was his godfather. Though in his youth he appeared short, clumsy and coarse by comparison with his brothers William (visct. Melbourne from 1828) and Frederick, he was also high-spirited, intelligent and possessed some talent for writing and acting. Although he was said to possess ‘one of those natures which affects the artist, but cannot, for want of natural force, go beyond the amateur’, Lamb succeeded ‘to some extent in obtaining a literary and political celebrity’ by having a comic opera staged at Covent Garden in 1807. He was an active member of the management committee of Drury Lane theatre at a critical period of its history, and published his translation of the poems of Catullus in 1821. He thus acquired a reputation as ‘a good-natured, agreeable, and rather insouciant man – a virtuoso and affected connoisseur in art, literature, and politics’.2Daily News, 6 Nov. 1849; DNB. xi, 431.

On the death of Sir Samuel Romilly in 1819, Lamb had been elected for Westminster, a seat he failed to retain in 1820. From 1822, he was the nominee of his wife’s half-brother and benefactor, the 6^th duke of Devonshire, for Dungarvan.3HP Commons, 1790-1820, 354-6. A consistent supporter of parliamentary reform and Catholic relief, Lamb also presented numerous petitions on behalf of the fishermen of his constituency. His record of support for Catholic issues and the duke’s timely provision of relief to alleviate local distress helped him to fend off a radical challenge in 1830.4HP Commons, 1820-32; L.J. Proudfoot, Urban Patronage and Social Authority. The Management of the Duke of Devonshire’s Towns in Ireland, 1764-1891 (1995), 234-5. That November Lord Melbourne became home secretary and appointed Lamb his under-secretary and Commons spokesman. He proved an able parliamentary speaker, his speeches being delivered ‘in a sensible and intrepid style’, and executed his official duties ‘in an efficient manner’. In December, he was despatched to persuade Francis Place to appeal to the ‘Swing’ rioters to desist, but their ensuing discussion ended with Lamb concluding ‘that his friends would not propose a sufficient reform’ to meet radical expectations.5HP Commons, 1820-32. Lamb received £1500 p.a. for performing this office: PP 1833 (671) XII. 1; J.A. Jaffe, ‘The Affairs of Others’: The Diaries of Francis Place, 1825-1836 (2007), 329-30.

Although Lamb was successful in preventing the partial disenfranchisement of Dungarvan under the Irish Reform Act, and had enjoyed a friendship with Daniel O’Connell, local repealers wished to see him relieved of his parliamentary duties and given more leisure ‘for indulging in his dramatic taste and arranging theatrical criticisms’.6HP Commons, 1820-32: Dungarvan; L.G. Mitchell, ‘Lamb, William’, Oxford DNB, xxxii. 269; Freeman’s Journal, 14 Dec. 1832. Due to the ‘sincere co-operation’ of the local Catholic clergy, to whom Lamb had been an important benefactor, however, he was the only Whig to meet with success at the 1832 general election in the south of Ireland.7Morning Chronicle, 20 Dec. 1832; Proudfoot, Urban Patronage, 288. Lamb had donated land and subscribed to the building of a Catholic chapel and school house in the town: W. Fraher, ‘The reconstruction of Dungarvan, 1807-c.1830: A political ploy’, Decies: Journal of the Waterford Archaeological & Historical Society, 25 (1984), 4-21 [19-20].

From 1830, Lamb’s contributions to parliamentary debate had been largely confined to the official business of his department, which, by 1833, ranged from curtailing the privileges of the Company of Apothecaries, to matters closer to heart, such as the protection of dramatists’ copyright and the regulation of theatrical performances in the metropolis. With regard to social affairs, Lamb was opposed to empowering magistrates to suppress cruel sports, such as dog fighting and bear baiting, seeing ‘no reason why the sports of the poor should be interfered with more than those of the rich’.8Hansard, 17 June 1833, vol. 18, c.913; 12 Mar. 1833, vol. 16, cc.561, 564-5; 8 May 1833, vol. 17, cc.1067-8. As a member of the select committee on public walks, he supported the provision of parks in order to promote public health, remarking that ‘it always gave him great pleasure to see people who worked hard all the week innocently enjoying themselves on Sunday’.9PP 1833 (448) xv. 337; Hansard, 21 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, cc.1056-7; Morning Chronicle, 22 Feb. 1833. Yet, he opposed a bill to amend the Game Act, regarding the measure as an infringement of landlords’ rights.10Hansard, 17 Apr. 1833, vol. 17, cc.264-5.

As ‘the official organ of the home department’ in the Commons, Lamb defended the government’s suppression of potentially violent meetings, such as the National Convention at Coldbath-Fields on 13 May 1833. Having served on the select committee into the affair, Lamb defended the police against accusations of heavy-handedness.11The Times, 4 Jan. 1834, 13, 17 May 1833; Hansard, 16 May 1833, vol. 17, cc.1272-3; 13 June 1833, vol. 18, cc.683-8; PP 1833 (718) xiii. 589. He served on the inquiry on the Metropolitan Police, and, after sitting on another to consider a petition protesting against the employment of policemen as spies at the taxpayer’s expense, he defended the (then novel) practice of employing plain clothes policemen ‘for the purpose of detecting felonies’.12PP 1833 (675) xiii. 401; (627) xiii. 407; Hansard, 22 Aug. 1833, vol. 20, c.837. With regard to inducing ratepayers to contribute to the maintenance of the force, however, Lamb was criticised for issuing a ‘confused and self-contradictory’ circular offering a discount to those parishes that complied.13Ipswich Journal, 19 Oct. 1833. The Morning Herald denounced the scheme as ‘quite contemptible, and marked with a degree of official imbecility to which we are sorry to perceive the signature annexed of so respectable a member of the government as Mr. George Lamb’. His views on reforming the criminal code were generally liberal. On a measure to provide counsel to persons accused of felony, Lamb admitted that experience had convinced him ‘that justice was not always done in criminal cases’, arguing that unless the accused was ‘permitted equal advantages as to the assistance of Counsel as the prosecutor possessed’ then the law would be open to impeachment. Though Lamb had long believed in restricting the number of offences subject to capital punishment, he became increasingly concerned that abolition for crimes where it was rarely, if ever, applied, such as forgery, was leading to an increase in those offences. Nevertheless, he conceded that it was better ‘to treat every crime separately’ in order to gauge the effect of each ‘relaxation of the extreme penalty of the law’. It was, he argued, only ‘by gradual and cautious legislation’ that the code could be mitigated ‘without endangering the security of life and property.’ With regard to the punishment of juvenile offenders, however, he insisted that ‘boys nursed up in the career of crime should not escape punishment under the pretext of their age’.14Hansard, 15 Apr. 1833, vol. 17, cc.610-1; 26 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, cc.1156-7; 12 June 1833, vol. 18, cc.615-6; 16 Apr. 1833, vol. 17, cc.149-50. In 1833, Lamb also served on select committees to consider the regulation of the sale of beer and victualling house licences, the repatriation of Irish vagrants, and the administration of the vaccine board.15PP 1833 (416) xv. 1; (585) xv. 261 & (664) xv. 265; (394) xvi. 323; (753) xvi. 149. As well as lending general support to the Whig ministry, he supported both Irish church reform and the Irish coercion bill.

Lamb lived chiefly at Brocket Hall, where he built up the basis of its present library. In spite of a ‘robust constitution’, his immoderate intake of alcohol may have contributed to the sudden and unexpected deterioration of his health after suffering ‘an accident’ late in 1833. He died at his residence in Whitehall-yard on 2 January 1834 and was buried at Hatfield. He left his Richmond property and his freehold chambers in Lincoln’s Inn to his wife, and his inheritance of £20,000 to his brother Frederick. Lamb’s death was considered ‘a real loss’ to the government, and he was remembered as ‘a sensible, straightforward upright officer … a warm-hearted man, who was never more pleased than when he was rendering a service’.16The Times, 3, 4 Jan. 1834; ‘Lamb, William’, Oxford DNB, xxxii. 268-9; Gentleman’s Magazine (1834), 437; G. Le Strange (ed.), Correspondence of Princess Lieven and Earl Grey, ii (1890), 494, 496.