28 NOVEMBER 1835, Page 12

THE " TRUTH-LOVING " ASSAILANTS OF O'CONNELL.

To insinuate a lie, is at least as infamous as to tell one outright. The object of the parties who got up the RAPHAEL case was to give the impression that O'CONNELL had pocketed the whole or part of that person's 20001.; though the documents put in their hands not only proved that O'CONNELL had not kept any of the money, but that Mr. VIGORS bad received it. They therefore were guilty of insinuating what they knew to be a foul calumny. The testimony of Mr. VIGORS has refuted this slander; but the creatures are still at their dirty work—witness the following morceau which appeared conspicuously in the Times of Tuesday.

"O'CONNELL TO RAPHAEL. "O'CONNELL TO CARLOW.

June 18. 'November 10.

" I enclose you the ballot of this My opinion, from the moment the morning. _Nothing can be better. Committee teas struck, wets, that it Every yours faithfully.' was hopeless to contest the matter a Here he wanted to get the second further. 10001. from his poor dupe. " Here he wanted to get several

thousand pounds ,rint ' from his yet greater dupes. " Now, ye members of Brookes's ! deceived and fallen Whigs of England, g look on this and this,' and say ye, who is the mighty great liar ?'

"PACT."

The Standard, faithful to its partner's " lead," copied this from the Times in due course; and sneeringly headed the extract "THE

TRUTH-LOVING DANIEL."

The note of O'CONNELL, dated June 18th, was inserted in the RAPHAEL correspondence. Why was it put there P—Plainly for the purpose to which it has since been converted. "Here (says the Times correspondent) he wanted to get the second 10001. from his poor dupe ;" in other words, O'CONNELL falsely told RAPHAEL that the ballot for the Committee on his election was a favourable one, in order to induce the latter to " bleed freely." But, un- luckily for the slanderous crew who are employed to vamp up these things, the news of RAPHAEL'S election did not reach London till Sunday the 21st of June. The petition against his return was not presented till the 3d of July; the recognizances were not completed till the 16th July; the ballot only took place on the 28th July. All this appears on the face of the documents formerly published. O'CONNELL'S note must have alluded to some other ballot : it is morally certain that it could not have had any reference to either of the Carlow Committees—the decision of the first having been given some days previous, and the second not being appointed for more than a month after. Now, gentlemen, who is the truth-teller? Who sticks to the " fact? " What was your motive for foisting in the note of the 18th of June, knowing, as you must have known, that it had nothing to do with the Carlow election? The public will suspect that you falsified some of the letters to answer your own purposes, from this specimen of the manner in which your case was got up.