The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-23 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

St a,—This day's Journal has ushered into the world another
of those thundering epistles addressed to the Rev. H. 3PNeill,
by one who styles himself a " Protestant Layman." (?)

. .
This stout " defender of the faith," whose notions of religion
will, it seems, allow him to enter a church on the Sabbath-day
expressly to seek matter for bullying letters to the preacher, is
quite frantic at finding that he can neither frighten Mr.
into silence nor provoke him to a reply. Stung almost
to madness by this unpardonable slight, he would yet fain per-
suade his readers that Mr. M'Neill, " behind the skulking hole
of au anonymous signature," has endeavoured to meet the
charges brought against him! But, ere making this assertion,
he does allow (for argument's sake, no doubt) that Mr. M'Neill's
"champions" may have an existence distinct from that of the
reverend gentleman himself. Listen, then, how kindly he
speaks to his fellows incog.:—" They are mistaken, however,
if they think that I (!) shall condescend to reply to such small
fry as they are:" This is • from a teacher of humility, sir
Again, " I dislike dealing with underlings--I prefer squaring
accounts with principals." In tha course of my experience in
business, I once heard nearly the same words from the mouth
of a very fine gentleman, adorned with gold rings, &c.,who after-
wards proved little better than a swindler. Since this incident I
have naturally felt a suspicion of all who express themselves in a
similar swaggering manner: I should therefore like to know what
claim Mr. " Protestant Layman" has to receive his castigation
at the hands of a: " principal ?" Does the vain man think that
the talent displayed in his vapouring letters places him above
the level of " underlings" and " small fry ?" 'But soon he turns
and-gravely asserts his belief that Mr. M'Neill and his " charn-
piGns" are a kind of tria juncta in uno—that the " lumbering
letters" in the Standard ate written by the rev. gentleman him-
self. Sure as of my own existence that this assertion is false in
one instance, and firmly believing its falsehood in all, I am
somewhat amused at this bold declaration. But we will admit
for the sake of argument (chat few will believe to be the fact)
that it is even as he would have it. Supposing that Mr. M'Neill
has anonymously defended himself,•has. "A Protestant Lay-
man" (?) any reason .to expect it otherwise? Would this
gallant assailant challenge the object of his attack to come from
" behind the skulking hole of an anonymous signature" whilst
he himself finds it prudent to keep out of sight? " But," says
this hero, " there is no reason except my own will why my
name should he concealed." If so, let him throw oft' his dis-
guise—let him show Mr. M'Neill that his antagonist is one
worth his notice, and then, perhaps, he may be induced to give
him the chastisement he covets so much. Has Mr. AV's/ell'
more reason to skulk than the gentleman who so gallantly attacks
him ? but is it to be expected that he will stand forth to combat
every anonymous coxcomb who chooses to assail him? But it
is apparent, through all his blustering, that the " Protestant
Layman" is smarting under the consciousness that he has not
power to draw upon himself the notice of Mr. .
But this, verily, would be a " lumbering letter" were I to
procethin a minute dissection of the mass of direct falsehood
and-splenetic misrepresentation contained in that of this." Pro-
testant Layman.'.' I will therefore have done. But, "first, I'
would. ask with what intent he has introduced his humorous
sketch of the " rise" of Archbishop Magee ? In spite of this ,
envious snail and the sliver with, which he has sought to dis-
figure it, the character he has drawn seems not so discreditable
entice to the archbishop himself or to his son-in-law, Mr.
M`Neill„ as he would fain make it appear. One more question
I will ask.. • He.tells us that Mr. opinions have been a
stumbling-block in his way to preferment. Does he argue from
this that they are merely assumed for worldly purposes ?
June 20th, 1835. J.