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

CONTEMPORARY PRESS.

2
op
.4\4_
.‘,-"-- 11, • r',l --,.
VI Tail ,•••••- .I'' 0.
;14 • -I•:---) 'C-:4 C.,"")ti r
x :,...",.±....„ )
~, „si Q."

THE RADICAL PRESS AND THE ATTACK
UPON THE QUEEN'S LIFE.
(From the Cork Conetitution.l
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.

gross tairepresen
" We remember no instance of more
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 admit, is both considerate and
kind. On " the refutation," however, which he does
enter into let us bestow a few remarks.

" The Constitution, however, assures its readers that the
blerical firebrand achieved a 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-
umph, " 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. W-
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, hardly 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," &c. ?—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-

quent aspirations of the reverend getWemee—how is
it that he does this if " hardly a word" of those elo-
quent aspirations had been heard?
" As to the threat that the Orangemen will, in future,
" have nothing to do' with the people, it is one which the
latter have certainly no reason to fear."
Certainly. At all events, they may wait until it is
made. Intimidation it is not our habit to attempt.
Counsel we sometimes venture to submit, but threats
we have neither authority nor inclination to hold out.
What we said we adhere to. It is for others to adopt
it or refuse; but conservatives will probably find them-
selves not much the worse for decking co-operation
with men by whom they are deceived.
Our " argument," as he by cruel constraint is com-
pelled to call it, respecting "no faith with heretics,"
he " declines to dispute," and, if an argument it was,
he is right, quite right. Now, as heretofore, " the
better part of valour is—discretion."
" The notion of an Orangeman interfering in anything
partaking of a national character—in anything intended for
the honour and interest of the country—is about as rational
as that a highwayman should publish his opinion on the kind
of punishment to be awarded to robberies from the person."
Perhaps so; and yet Orangemen have interfered, and
with some eject too. The suppression of the rebellion
of 'gs had something of a " national character," and
had not the Orangemen interfered, what would be the
condition of the country now ? True, the interference
was sadly to the mortification of the priests. "No
faith with heretics" was in every heart—" no quarter
for heretics" on every lip. These things were no theories
then. Blood was flowing like water—Protestants were
butchered without mercy. Rome was in her hey-day ;
the pike and the faggot did their duty well. Her
priests caught the bullet on its way, and by their faith-
ful followers the helpless woman and the unconscious
child were flung back into the flames. Visions of
glory were bursting on the view. Heresy quenched in
its own blood, or consumed in the fires which Rome
had kindled—opposition extinguished—the flag of the
faith waving from tree and tower—the people prostrate,
the priests upon their necks—such was the prospect
when the Orangemen " interfered." It is no wonder
that the adherents of the Papacy dislikes them. They
spoiled the sport they were intent on, and, in conjunc-
tion with the military, preserved Ireland to the crown.
But for that interference, another hand than Victoria's
might sway the sceptre here.
lf, however, " the notion of an Orangeman inter-
fering in anything .partaking of a national character" is
so exceedingly ridiculous, seems it not strange that Mr.
O'Connell should have so assiduously sought their aid
a few years ago? Stranger still that he should have
proclaimed that with that aid Ireland would be invin-
cible, and the union could not last a year! But this is
nonsense not worth the trouble of exposure.

POLITICAL CHARACTERS.