The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-07 00:00:00

in the habit, and had been in the habit for a number of
years, of universally paying the low duty on all packages
which they shipped. And if there was nothing improper
in that practice, where was the imputation against Mr.
Sands? But he would not rest here; a material fact was
stated on which they justified the practice. They said
" The practice of the town due offices is to receive different
rates on packages containing goods of the same kind and
quantity." Now, so far as he could judge of the meaning
of words, here was an admission that goods of the same
dimensions and qualities paid different 'rates ; and yet on
this ground they thought Messrs Sands and Co. justified i❑
entering every package, no matter what its dimensions
were, at the low duty. (Hear, hear.) They were of
opinion that there should be an enquiry to ascertain and
define the exact difference between bales and trusses, boxes
and cases, and therefore that an English merchant was
justified in entering all his goods to pay the low duty.
(Rear, hear.) As far as his own (Mr. Hornby's) office was
concerned, no difficulty was experienced by any person
connected with him in ascertaining what were trusses and
what were bales—what were boxes and what were cases.
If there had been such such difficulty, the proper course
would have been to appeal to the council to have a proper
definition, but not to go on for years together paying only
the smaller rate of duty en all the packages entered.
He protested, for his own part, against being included in the
declaration of principle contained in the resolutions of this
committee—he would not allow himself to be measured by
the standard of morality which they had set up. (Hear,
hear.) What was the constitution of this committee ?
They consisted principally of large shippers of goo-A, and
fir anything the council knew to the contrary. they might
all have been adopting the very practice on which they
were called upon to adjudicate as to its propriety or
impropriety. (hear, hear.) It was impossible that any
unprejudiced and rational man could look on this investi-
gation as a satisfactory proceeding.

We have very little: more to say upon this
subject, except to repeat that the question ought
not to be allowed to rest in its present very
painful position. Men of high public character,
and recognised private honour, have made in
writing and in public addresses, before large
meetings, on the election hustings, a heavy charge,
deeply affecting the integrity of a political anta-
gonist, They have allowed the momentary heat
of argument to pass away, have calmly reflected,
and calmly repeated the charge. It has been
denied loudly, vehemently, and, in the
present instance, calmly and deliberately by Mr.
CHARLES TURNER himself. Such a question
cannot be disposed of by any foolish newspaper
denunciations. The public cannot be reasoned
into ignoring it, or coerced by clamour into
keeping it hushed. If it be not met and decided
in some fair and open and convincing manner,
we must be left every one to the painful necessity
of weighing evidence and character for himself,
and deciding—according to antecedents and pre-
sent circumstances, according to reasonable proba-
bility of statements, and the conceivable motives
of witnesses—where the deliberate falsehood
lies among men, of whom at either side none is
apparently open to the imputation of personal
untruth and dishonour.

Newspaper controversies, even where con-
ducted on both sides with temper and gentle-
manly feeling, we very much object to. In the
present instance, such an absurd encounter as the
Mail invites would be especially objectionable.
We have one thing, in common with the Mail, a
profession, which not even such writing as our
cotemporary's recent article can render dis-
honourable. To this journal, in its present form,
we may assume for a moment the superiority of
age, and earnestly advise a discontinuance of
that immoderate zeal which, bursting out into
such language as this we have been reading, can
only give pain to friends, and move the laughter
of enemies. Provincial journalism is, unhap-
pily, too often painfully characterised by
a coarse and bitter vehemence storming
out upon very unimportant occasions. The
Mail, which was, we believe, in its former
shape, one of those journals which objected to
the removal of the Stamp Duty, lest by intro-
ducing newspapers of a cheaper class the tone of
the Press should be lowered, should remem-
ber that nothing makes a newspaper so
ridiculous and so contemptible in the
eyes of the public as the continual introduc-
tion of vituperative epithets and ludicrously ex-
aggerated abuse. The Mail is a Conservative,
and, as we are informed, an especially religious
paper. It must surely hold that few things are
more worthy of being " conserved" than good
temper and decency of language. It must
know that religion refuses the service of
calumny and foul words and curses.
Whatever be the cause in whose service the
Mail is enlisted, if it cannot be promoted with-
out such auxiliaries, so much the worse for the
cause in the end. Even although we remember
the peculiar manner in which the Mail has been
called into its present form by the aid of a par-
ticular party, and to serve its particular ends,
we cannot believe but that those ends can be best
served while moderation, and good feeling, and
ordinary courtesy are preserved. There are, among
the party whose cause the Mail champions,
many gentlemen and men of high culture, as well
as kindly feeling, to whom the employment of
such language as we have seen flickering all
down the column we have just been reading,
must be as painful and repelling as to any of the
unconcerned public. These men pursue their
political ends eagerly and perseveringly ; fight
their battles, win their triumphs, undergo their
defeats, and, throughout, all remain ever gentle-
men. The same course, surely, lies equally open
to writers, whose very profession supposes, of
necessity, some degree of education, and some
acquaintance with the usages of public as well as
of private life.

THE Trial of PETER CAMPBELL, second mate
of the James L. Bogart, on a charge of shooting
a seaman named JAMES CHRYSTIE, at Birken-
head, on the 19th of January, has attracted some
attention. From the evidence, it appeared that
the deceased, along with other sailors, had been
transferred in a mistake from the Robin Hood to
the J. L. Bogart, and that on being called upon
to go to work, CHRYSTTE that he did not
ship for that vessel. This was the signal
for the ferocious assault which was corn-
mitted. Both the first and the second mates
joined in the attack, and the latter made himself