Correspondence.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 116, 30 November 1858, Page 3

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Colonist. Silt, —Falsehood is the most direct enemy of sincerity, and so glaringly opposed, that none will verbally contend for its superiority, although even well-meaning men by their conduct will often support it; for let, it be remembered, there are more falsehoods than those of the' tongue, and a man may bo supporting error when he is least apprehensive of it. The human mind does not read from language alone —it reads from every thing that is legible, whether real or apparent. Hence the reason why precept without example has little or no weight. A man may preach what is true, but if he practices that which is consistent only with falsehood, the world has sense enough to know that but little credit is due to one who blows hot and cold at the same time. We are not always aware of the support we give to falsehood, though neither teaching or practising it, by only shewing an indifference to what is right. A man's conduct must always make some impression on the minds of those before whom it is exhibited, and that impression must either be in favor of or against truth. Now, an indifference to what ia right, even the slightest minutije, is certainly no way of promoting it; it is inconsistent with virtue to be indifferent to the performance of it; and as truth and virtue are inseparably connected, whatever militates against one will in the same way affect the other.

It is hardly possible that a sensible man can fall into gross falsehood, or the practice of such vice as would proceed from it. It is the minor, the more subtle falsehoods, that such a- man has to guard against—the falsehood of the head rather than of the heart. Thus, if I praise where praise is not justly due-; if

I censure what upon closer examination is not censurable ; if I express or endeavor to express myself satisfied when I am not -so; pleased when I am displeased ; cool when I am angry ; if I express attachments which I do not feel; hopes which I do not wish for; or sentiments of any class which I do not both feel and practise—in these or any one of them, I am so far an advocate of falsehood and an enemy to sincerity.

These remarks, Sir, have been drawn from me by tlie pertinacious attacks of your coutemporary upon the Superintendent. I ask, in all fairness and candour, does he really deserve the treatment ho is continually receiving from the Examiner? I emphatically answer, No. Let any unprejudiced person calmly and impartially examine his acts from the time of .his election to office to the present moment, and if it can be discovered that in any one of them he has shewn iocompetency, negligence, or dishonesty, the same evidence that satisfies other people, will convince me, and I will cheerfully sign the requisition to resign, so unsuccessfully attempted the other day ; but until then, I am one of his sincere well wishers, and Yours obediently, JUSTICE. Nelson, 20th November, 1858. On Monday, November 8, at the Police Court, Melbourne, two most respectable-looking men, named Octavius Kingsford and George Frazer, were committed to take their trial on a charge of forgery. The prisoner Kingsford pleaded guilty to the charge, and stated in his defence that he was in absolute starvation when he committed the forgery. The other prisoner, Frazer, had purchased some wearing apparel from a clothier in Swanston-strcet, amounting to £2 95., and had tendered in payment a forged cheque for £25 10s., purporting to be signed by Messrs. Brown and Stewart, of Elizabeth-street, in his favor. The clothier was at first unwilling to take the cheque, as it was past bank hours, but on being assured by the prisoner that it was genuine, he at last accepted it, giving the prisoner back the balance, amounting to .£23 Is. When the cheque was presented the next day at the bank for payment the forgery was discovered.