Here, then, is the whole secret of the affair, and having mentioned it, we have explained all, and need not say that the “hisses” and “disgraceful disturbances” are gratuitous inventions of the enemy—in other words, downright fabrications.
We had the honour of bring at the dinner in question, and sat the whole evening at Mr Priggins’s left hand, and, thus situated, if there had been hissing, we certainly must have heard it. But there was none. Not a single hiss; and for the truth of this assertion we unhesitatingly pledge our word of honour. So far from any part or parts of Mr Priggins’s speech being hissed, every sentiment, almost every word that gentleman uttered, was hailed with unanimous and unbounded applause. In fact, we never heard a speech that gave such general satisfaction. As to the “disgraceful disturbances,” these we leave to the party of which the Northern Luminary is the avowed supporter.
Has he forgotten the scene that occurred at the last public dinner of his friends at the Hog and Pigs Tavern? He may, but we have not.
This statement, of course, rouses the utmost wrath of the editor of the “Northern Luminary,” who to the Demolisher of his contemporary replies with a red-hot
ABUSER.
It is (says the editor of “The Northern Luminary”) the nature of the serpent to sting, of the cur to bite, and of the editor of the Meridian Sun, save the mark!—the farthing candle—to fabricate falsehoods. This low scurrilous scribbler, this vile reptile, who leaves his slimy track on every subject over which he crawls, is again spitting his venom at us, and the friends of social order. But we will put our heel on the loathsome toad, and crush him as we would the disgusting little animal which he so much resembles. We were not invited to Mr Priggins’s dinner! We were, thou prince of liars! We were invited to the dinner, but we treated the invitation with the contempt it deserved. We knew that you, the editor of the Farthing Candle, were to be there—(when did you refuse a dinner, pray?)—and on this account we declined the invitation. We would not be seen sitting in the company of a man so utterly devoid of the feelings and principles of a gentleman, as the person alluded to is well known to be; and this, we repeat, was the reason why we did not honour the dinner in question with our presence.
That Priggins was hissed, and that the evening was marked by a most disgraceful disturbance, we have most respectable and most undoubted authority for repeating, and we repeat it accordingly. The effrontery is indeed monstrous and unblushing that would deny facts so notorious. Let the dastardly editor of the Farthing Candle again deny those facts if he dare.
Our next specimen is from “The Patagonian,” a paper of gigantic dimensions. It is
THE CONTRADICTOR
(with calm and confident accompaniments).
Our contemporary “The Watch Tower” is grossly mistaken when he asserts that Ministers were outvoted on the question of the potato monopoly. They were not outvoted. They merely abandoned the measure, as we foresaw they would do from the first, and as we from the first advised them to do. Our contemporary is equally wrong in ascribing to a certain political party an undue influence in the affairs of this city. We know for certain that the party alluded to have no such influence. The idea is absurd.