The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-30 00:00:00

CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

- is.slv..-.v.....
--.1-: .0:1 pe r- 77 ", ..,...4 . hi,
4 , . -,,-x
Pole-I>f* at : •q
.
..-. ------_, ..1. . AP vi
:".• 7.-.1 4,:5t-- ' ""'''' 1. x. "
.t ../ -,•••«....Z,
cv,444,..
/..7:745 V r
,-...,,,
..........fl, .1/4„, :-....
4/ N, 0
.....,
-,:.•,.

THE RADICAL PRESS AND THE ATTACK
UPON THE QUEEN'S LIFE.
(From the Cork Constitution.)
There is nothing like a fact for extinguishing a quib-
bler. The Reporter appropriates no less than half of
one of its very valuable columns to a reprehension of
our remarks respecting the Liverpool Meeting.
" We remember no instance of more grOss mirepresen-
tation of the facts of a case than that which appears in the
Constitution of this morning, in reference to a meeting in
Liverpool, to address the Queen on her late Providential
escape."
We cannot answer for the defects of the gentleman's
memory, but either they are very various, or he is less
intimate with the contents of his paper than might be
reasonably expected. He will " not enter into a de-
tailed refutation" (detailed refutation of our " false-
hoods," and this, we ailmit, is both considerate and
kind. On "the refutation," however, which he does
enter into let us bestow a few_ remarks.
" The Constitution, howc ver, assures its readers that the
clerical firebrand achieved 1. signal triumph over those who
opposed him, and that the disapprobation was confined to
one or two individuals."
There are but two mistakes in this sentence. First : the
Constitution did not " assure its readers that the cleri-
cal firebrand obtained a signal triumph," or any tri•
vmph, " over those opposed to him." It stated, in-
deed, that the attempt at disturbance failed—that "the
meeting would not listen to it," and that " the clamour
of the malcontents was drowned in the acclamations of
the loyal and right-hearted." It stated this, but not
a word said about the " signal triumph" of Mr. Mc
Neile. Secondly : it did not say that the " disappro-
bation was confined to one or two individuals," or to
any number of individuals. It was scarcely worth the
Reporter's while, then, to quote an extract from an
English paper to enable its readers to judge of " the
truth or falsehood" of an " assertion" which we never
made.

" In fact, haidly a word of his (Mr. M'Neile's) address
could be heard."
We do not wish to give to allegations of this kind the
only answer which they deserve. We shall, therefore,
quote part of the speech of one of the leaders of the
disturbance, and from that let the public "judge :"
" Mr. H. T. Atkinson congratulated the meeting upon
having had the rare advantage of hearing the unequalled
talents of the rev. gentleman who moved the address. He
felt sure that in coming forward after that gentleman, though
not with the same force or the same elaborate precision, he
should have credit when he said that there was not a man in
that assembly who felt more deeply than he did the lament-
able consequences which would have fallen upon the com-
monwealth of England if this most atrocious and treason-
able attack had been successful. And he reiterated the
eloquent aspirations of the rev. gentleman when he said, in
the spirit of humble thanksgiving, ' Thanks be to God, for
the interests of England she is safe.'
Now, if " hardly a word" of Mr. M`Neile's speech
could be heard, how is it that one of the most perse-
vering of the clamourers—one of the most earnest of
his adversaries—congratulates the meeting on "having
had the rare advantage of hearing," &e.?—how is it
that he commends the- "force and elaborate precision"
of Mr. M`Neile (the latter a property not to be judged
of without hearing), and that he reiterates "'the elo-