The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-04 00:00:00

is especially the business of every m in Liver-
pool to see that the representative we send to
maintain the right of our Town Dues shall be
some one who can pronounce the words without
calling up a satirical smile on the faces of friends
and enemies. It is true, this charge was not
thus emphatically urged at Mr. TURNER'S former
election. We do not say that it ought not to
have been made a subject of question then as
well as now, but the evident reason was, that no
objection having been then raised as to the con-
stitutional validity of the Liverpool Town Dues,
the charge against Mr. TURNER did not seem as
inevitable a disqualification of that gentleman as
under present circumstances it must, if estab-
lished, be indisputably considered. With a
scrupulousness which is scarcely altogether com-
mendable no opponent of Mr. TURNER'S felt
himself bound in such a position of affairs per-
sonally to bring forward the charge. If by the
allusions made to " electioneering purposes," in
the present contest, it is meant that the charge is
now brought forward with the object of prevent-
ing Mr. TURNER from obtaining a seat in Par-
liament, as the representative of Liverpool, we
think this allegation may be easily answered.
The charge was unquestionably made with that
especiallobject. Nothing possibly could be more
reasonable, and even laudable, than that any
man who conceived he knew of, any strong and
absolute cause why Mr. TURNER should be de-
clared unfit to represent the town, should come
forward and emphatically declare it.
It is true that the charge did undergo some-
' thing like an investigation, at the hands of two
committees—one formed by the Council, and
responsible to the public : the other composed of
private merchants, of unquestioned respectability,
but responsible to no one. It is hardly neces-
sary to state, that the irresponsible committee
brought in a verdict of a much more sweeping
character than that body which felt some sense
of responsibility. The committee of merchants
found that there was not the slightest ground to
justify the imputation attempted to be cast. The
Town Council committee found that Messrs.
SANDS, TURNER, and Co. had proceeded erro-
neously, but without any dishonourable inten-
tion. Against this decision two members of the
committee protested, and more than one member
of the Council, among the rest a gentleman whom
no one in Liverpool ever dreamed of accusing of
any unjust or partisan feeling in the discharge of
his public duties—Mr. HUGH HORNBY. Of
the first committee, little need be said.
Despite the high character of its chairman and
many of its members, we cannot help saying that
it was a kind of tribunal which should never have
been formed at all, and whose decision can carry
no weight corresponding to the position of the
gentlemen who composed it. How are the pub-
lic to know whether the evidence laid before it
was full and complete ; whether it was received
in accordance with any of the recognised
rules of evidence, and on what grounds the de-
cision was arrived at ? What did that committee
mean by the declaration that no grounds existed
to justify the imputation ? Did they mean that
the parties charged had not sent in "bales" as
" trusses," " boxes" as " cases ?" Messrs. SANDS,
TURNER & Co., did not attempt to deny having
done so. Did they mean that to have done so
knowingly for ten years afforded no grounds
whatever for imputation ? Surely the committee
did not arrive at so astonishing a conclusion.
Not having any means, then, of judging on
what grounds the decision was formed, or of
knowing what the decision meant when formed,
it is hardly possible to receive the judgment of
this committee as perfectly conclusive, in the
face of all evidence and reasonable probability.
With regard to the second committee, and pass-
ing altogether over the often-urged fact, that it
was composed of a large majority of Mr.
TURNER'S political supporters and friends, we
think the public will be content with the fact
that its decision affirmed the existence of the
practice charged. Of the intentions of the
gentlemen who committed it we must all judge
for ourselves. If, however, it be true that both
these decisions were given prior to the introduc-
tion of an important report from the Town Clerk
upon the subject, what value can we attach to
their exculpatory clauses ? If it be true, as has
been broadly affirmed, that the customers of
Messrs. SANDS, TURNER & Co. were charged the
full amount of Town Dues by them upon the
cases and bales which were made to pay the
corporation only half the amount, what impor-
tance are we to give to the acquittal of all ques-
tionable intentions ? There will indeed remain
a doubt. Nothing is absolutely impossible,
unless its very statement involves a positive con-
tradiction of itself. It is possible that Messrs.
SANDS, TURNER & CO. knew the difference
between a bale and a truss when they had to
charge, and forgot it when they had to pay. It
is possible that they continued thus alternately
remembering and forgetting, always to their own
advantage, and yet without the slightest inten-
tion of any but the most disinterested, nay,
exalted character. We think lago suggests
some such possibility of no harm being meant to
Othello, but the jealous warrior is emphatic in
his rejection of such an exculpation.
The same remark will apply to the defence
dwelt upon in one of the committee's reports—
the personal denial of the gentlemen charged, of
any questionable intention. Should the allega-
tion we have just alluded to he true, those who
think Mr. CHARLES TURNER an unfit representa-
tive of Liverpool, may very safely leave him the
benefit he will derive in the public mind from
his own declaration of his intentions.

The defence which rests upon the undefined
character of the articles in question is at an end,
if it be true that Messrs. SANDS, TURNER, and
Co. clearly recognised the difference when they
had to charge upon them. It is idle, however,
to aver that any doubt as to the distinction
could have reasonably rested on the mind of the
general public. If it was utterly impossible to
decide what was a bale and what was a truss,
there surely could have been no earthly object in
the sittings of the two committees to pronounce
Mr. TURNER blameless, for not being able to
distinguish what no one could possibly distin-
guish. If the practice was general among all
merchants, the merchants who tried Messrs.
SANDS, TURNER, and Co. might surely have de-
clared the fact at once, and spared so unnecessary
an investigation. And if the ground of defence
merely was that some others were guilty of the
same practice, we fear the admission of such a
plea as a ground of exculpation, would acquit a
great many individuals whom Mr. TURNER, in
his magisterial capacity, would scarcely allow to
escape unpunished.
The matter cannot be allowed to rest as at pre-
sent. Were we admirers of Mr. TURNER'S pub-
lic character-L—which we may frankly declare we
are not—we should be equally or even more
desirous to see the question decided and set at
rest for ever. The charge is made by men of
weight and character, endorsed by others of equal
claims to public attention, and it is urged against