The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-17 00:00:00

EDINBURGH, LEITH, AND NEWHAVEN

RAILWAY

The few remarks which we made last week, in reference
to this with i 'akin at d the proposed Branch lines to
Litt; and Granton Pier, have drawn upon us the follow-
tog ..ffu6i a of spleen, and something else, from our
cotrinporary, the _Railway Times.
" But for certain influences which, in this matter, we
have reason to believe hold sway over the Liverpool
Standard, we should be at a loss to account for the in-
sertion in that respectable journal of repeated puffs of the
(so-called) " Edinburgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway"
—one of the hollowest bubbles ever blown. To-day we
give a specimen of the Standard's statements—or rather,
we should say, the statements of a person in Liverpool,
who is perhaps " better known than trusted," in connec-
tion with this project. We should ill deserve the confi-
dence reposed in us, if we did not once more caution the
unwary as the barefaced puffery of this concern, which is
thrust before the public in the Liverpool papers. Will
the manazers venture to give a full and fair statement of
what has occurred at any meeting, legally constituted,
within the last three years ? '1 hey dare not ! _

" The whole concern, from first to last, has been carried
most suspiciously ; and if the Directors wish it, we shall
be happy to prove what we thus assert."
In the first place we have a few words to say in reply to
that portion of our cotemporary'S remaks which contain
an imputation upon ourselves. We are said to have been
induced to speak favourably of this undertaking on ac-
count of " certain influences " which " hold sway over
the Liverpool Standard ; " and this by the way, is not
the first occasion on which our contemporary has used
similar language towards us. Coming from such a quar-
ter. the charge is, broadly stated, that we have been
bribed. In our own town, we flatter ourselves such an
imputation would ac trcely need a simple denial. It is not,
as our fellow citizens know, an easy task to "hold sway
over" the Liverpool Standard; and, we believe we may
say that an atte,t.r to bribe would provoke, from most
of our local conternp,ary's, a somewhat hasty and plain
form of rebuke, if it did not even draw personal castigation
upon the unlucky briber. Before the world at large
however, who know es less, we must Lake the earliest
opportunity of indignautly repudiating the calumnious
insinuation endeavoured to be fastened upon us. It is
fate, and malignant in intention ; and is, moreover, as
silly as its venal utterer is contemptib,e. _ _

A question or two, in return, we will take the liberty:of
putting to our contemporary. There are " influences,"
then, employed to " hold sway over" journalists who
comment upon railway undertakings! A man, for in-
stance, who, week after week, for years past, has em vloyed
his hireling pen in misrepresenting the position of any
particular line—say the Eastern Counties—and in slan-
dering its directors and supporters, may be BOUGHT OVER
to become their apologist and puffing advocate. The ad-
mission is an important one; and whilst it establishes the
value of the laudatory effusions of writers thus venal,
furnishes at the same time a clue to the source of their
occasional bitterness and malignity. In the present in-
stance the quid dam peculium has perhaps not been fur-
nished! and the Editor has, i❑ addition, a grudge of old
standing against the respected agent of the undertaking.
And now with respect to the merits of the line in
question—the Edinburgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway
—which this disinterested, and perhaps disappointed,
scribe describes as one cf the hollowest bubbles ever
blown." After the explanatio❑ which he has afforded us
of the " influences " which " hold sway over" some
writers, the public will perhaps be inclined to think that
the opinion of a meeting of the Town Council of the port
of Leith, signed by their provost, and the statements of
facts to be found in the abridged prospectus of the com-
pany, both of which documents will be found in our
advertising columns, are entitled to infinitely greater
weight than the public opinions and malignant scurrility
of the Editor of the Railway Times.

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

SIR,—On visiting the Exhibition I was much surprised
and disappointed not to find any of the works of the
eminent portrait painter, Mr. T. C. Thompson, of Lon-
don, therein, for what reason I cannot divine. Phillips,
to be sure, is there; but slat nominis umbra. I have seen
Thompson's portraits of M'Neile and Stowell, now at his
rooms, No. 10, Maryland-street, besides one or two other
lovely things ; but did not venture to express my thoughts
at the non-appearance of th 3 latter at our Exhibition.
Pray step in, and make a comparison once more in the
M`Neile portrait ; only let it be, like Mrs. Malaprop's, an
" odoriferous" one. I feel assured that Mr. T. would
readily show his works, as he kindly did to, Sir, your's
faithfully,

A. Y. Z

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SIR,—You would oblige me much if you would allow
me to contradict, through the medium of your paper, a
statement which has appeared in the Mercury of Friday,
and the Albion of this day. Never having been a radical,
nor likely to become one, I am not going to oppose Mr.
Birkett in Rodney-street Ward at the approaching muni-
cipal election.—Yours, truly,
16th October, 1843

D. NEILSON