In our second impression last week, we stated on the
authority of the Standard, that a proclamation bad been issued for theassem- bling of Parliament on the 4th of February ; and we asked how it happened that no Ministerial evening journal had the same infor- mation? We never doubted that the proclamation had been issued: for the Standard published as a leading article, what purported to be a verbatim copy of the Royal document, which was to appear that evening in an Extraordinary Gazette : of course we never dreamed that the Standard had fabricated it. But so it was: there was no such proclamation issued on Saturday, none on any subsequent day ; no Extraordinary Gazette was published ; but on Tuesday a proclamation differently worded was published in the ordinary Gazette. The verbal discrepancy Was of no great consequence, but it was sufficient to prove that the Standard had copied the form of some previous proclamation, and then palmed oft' this copy for an original official document. The Courier on Wednesday put the question directly to the Standard; but, caught in the fact, and unquestionably guilty, the Standard had not a syllable to reply to this charge,—which implies something worse than " O'Connellism." To be occasionally rather coarse, is not quite so disreputable as to fabricate Royal proclamations.
Previous page
