TORY LIES OF THE1WEEK.
IT is a pity that the modern Tories—the soi-disnnt " gentle- men" of politics—should be so inveterately addicted to the un- gentlemanly rice of lying. For some months past, their grand object—" their being's end and aim "—has been to decry O'Coe- !SELL ; and as the day approached when their long-meditated blow was to be struck in Parliament, they became busier than ever in the work of falsification. Their lunge at O'CONNELL WaS suc- cessfully parried; or rather, it fell short of the mark. Did they make the amende honorable ? No indeed—their resource in de- feat was lying—still lying. Let us give a few specimens of their industry.
On Monday, the noble ZETA of the Post assured his readers, that
Mr. 0CoNsutee had proposed to put off' the inquiry into the Carlow affair till the 1st of March—" he proposed that the debate should be postponed till the 1st of March ;” the fact being, that Mr. 0Cosreseh had proposed Tuesday the 16th of February, and had preferred Tuesday to Monday only because he intended to join in two important discussions which were expected to take place on Monday. He dud not move to adjourn the debate to the 1st of March; and his calumniator could not fail to know that lie did not.
This was a lie direct. Our next specimen shall be a false in- sinuation from the same paper ou Wednesday-
" It will be recollected how, on Thursday last, Mr. O'Connell, when beg- ging fur delay, dwelt upon the hardship be endured for want of due notice ; sad that this assertion of his was not, as it should have been, contradicted effectually on the spot."
In order to make out that O'CONNELL had "due notice:' Mr. Ileetiv's note in the morning, telling him that he should claim precedence for his motion that very evening, is quoted. But the complaint of O'CONNELL was, that he had received no copy of the petition; that the usual courtesy had been neglected; that the House was to be called upon to do that which even Mr. CHARLES Wrseve said was most irregular. All the circumstances prove that •• due notice" had net been given ; yet the To:y journalist appeals to the "fact," which he says is " in no respect dis- puted," in order to fix a charge on O'Coaoseee, which thus recoils on himself.
In connexion with this point, we may remind our readers, that some person—a Tory hater of O'CONNELL, no doubt—had lied to Mr. kismet ; for that gentleman stated, on authority he-did not name, that Mr. O'CONNELL had been seen with a printed copy of the Bath petition in his hands, before Mr. HARDY Ind received it himself : but Mr. 01;ms:um. most pointedly denied the truth of Mr. HARDY'S statement. The Morning Chronicle on Thursday convicted the Times of an intentional and infamous perversion of a passage in Mr. Mow- zez Le's speech- " By substituting (said the Chronicle) the word heard for known, and a few other tricks, the unprincipled Times tries to make it appear that one part of O'Connell's statement respecting Raphael contradicted another, and both could not be true. !tie. O'Connell, for instance. etated that he first became ac- quainted with Raphael through Mr. CharleePearson, who gave a high character ,of him; that lie had been told th d Raphael was a faithless fellow, but he bad been unwilling to give ear Li what he was inclined to believe a calumny. 'Whatever might be his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion of Mr. Raphael at present, as arising out of these transactions (we quote the report of the Times), he at that time knew of nothing to his disparagement. Indeed, he knew of nothing against him but what had arisen out of the.e occurrences.'" This, be it observed, is the Times' own report of what °Tom- PIRT.L actually did say : but in the leading article of' that journal, ift order to make Mr. O'Cosovese contradict himself, and thus subject him to the dilemma of having spoken an untruth, the word'
" heard " is substituted for " knew;" and then it is provcd that he- had " heard" something against RAPHAEL. There can be no
excuse for the falsification ; as the whole of this part of O'CoN-- Nine's speech is an acknowledgment of having refused to believe. what he had " heard " but " knew" not.
The Tory Evening print on Thursday contains two virtual' falsehoods, both relating to O'Corovehr.. The Globe had said that O'CoNNese bad returned part of RAPHAEL'S 20001. to that per- son : this was a mistake, inasmuch as the money was paid IO RAPHAEL's attorney or agent—not his hanker: but the Standard, instead of stating the fact, observes- " Mr. 0' Connell never refunded one farthing of the 20001. He would be the last tnan to do suelt a thing. Fa/stgif could not less relish the double trouble of paying back. Pistol could not have a more lively sense of the base- ness and slavishness of such a proceeding."
The lie here insinuated is, that O'Cosmeee kept money which he ought to have refunded; whereas the Standard knows, and RAPHAEL does not pretend to deny, that he paid away all that he received on the election account.
The second falsification of the Standard is, that Otosoveht„ at the very time and in the same letter that he pressed RAPHAEL for his first 10001., declared "that the cash would probably not be wanting for election expenses." Trusting to the recklessness of Tory readers, the Standard has the assurance to quote the letter in proof of this; in which letter, however, no such declaration is to be found. Moses-Hee simply doubts " whether there will be more than a show of a contest ;" but the very doubt implied a necessity for cash in order to be prepared for a contest, and to defray all those preliminary expenses which are inevitable, whether the opposing party fights in earnest, or whether his opposition is merely vexatious.
This is a pretty good batch of lies against one person; hut the Tories bare found time to calumniate others as well as Otos:NELL.
Dr. HAMPDEN of Oxford is to be Regius Professor of Divinity. He is a Liberal ; but that circumstance cannot be decently urged against his appointment; so the Standard declares him to be heterodox—a Socinian. Quotations from the Doctor's writings prove that he is no Socinian ; but the Tory journalist sticks to his calumny. As a mil-piece to this catalogue of slanderous and false attacks on individuals, we shall add an assertion of Lord Viscount MAHON,. at the Finsbury dinner on Saturday; which cannot be called, like the other misstatements of fact, a lie, inasmuch as his Lordship's uttered, but and prejudice probably led him to believe what he but which was really as untrue with regard to the Liberals in gross as those we have quoted are with regard to the indivi- duals designated. Lord MAHON is made to say, in the Times of Monday- " The property of the country was essentially Conservative; anti what, he begged to ask, had wealth and propeity to gain by the continuance of any abuse? By the continuance of abuses, the property .of the country had then nothing to gain ; while, on the other hand, their opponents, possessing neither the fbrtune nor Me industry to acquire fortune, had nothing to lose."
This was spoken of a party which numbers in its higher ranks some of the most wealthy noblemen, bankers, merchants, and country gentlemen in England,—such as Lord WESTMINSTER, Mr. PORTMAN, and Mr. LEWIS LOYD: it was spoken of that party which has gained the ascendancy in four-fifths of the Town- Councils, by majorities of the permanent, resident, rate-paying inhabitants: it was spoken of that party which comprises the im- mense majority of those classes to whose skill and "industry" England owes the extent and stability of her commerce, her wealth, and her power. Is not this a pretty exhibition of Tory regard to truth, for one- week ?