Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-25 00:00:00

Simply to villify the ccne rcil morality o
Liverpool.

This is too bad--London castigating Liverpool
for want of rectitude and honour in their com-
mercial dealings ! There may be here, and there
as in every other large community, persons
engaged in trade whose principles and practices
are inconsistent with strict honesty, but they are
nut a sample of the many. They are exceptions
to the general rule, and we know no other city
or town, in any part of the world, where the
bond, aye, or the word of a gentleman, would go
farther than that of the merchant princes of
Liverpool. Can the writer of the Times City
Article point to any merchants in the metropolis
who enjoy a fairer reputation. or in the hour of
need could have the same amount of pecuniary
assistance from the Bank of England, as many
merchants here ? Again, it is absurd to compare
the mercantile rectitude and honour of Liverpool
with London. We cannot boast of a Royal
British Bank swindle, nor emulate the doings
of Paul, Bates, and Strahan. The forgeries of
Redpath, and of Gordon, Brown, and Co., and
the still later affair connected with the Surrey
Gardens, are proofs as clear as holy Writ that
London stands pre-eminent for commercial
rascality.

The special pleading of the writer in the Times
as to the desirability of publishing any abuse of
credit, is an endeavour to prop up a bad cause.
What we complain of is, that once a firm is
known to be shakey, rumour sets all sorts of
stories afloat. These get into the public prints,
and what at the outset was only a temporary
pressure, is converted into a positive failure by
the unreasonable demands of exorbitant and
unfeeling creditors. It is against the publication
of rumours of the above character that we pro-
test. Their premature publication does no good.
On the contrary, every one interested suffers, and
the unfortunate insolvent subjected to annoyance
and mortification, as unjust in principle as it is
injurious in practice. Liverpool acts a straight-
forward part in matters of this kind, hence it is
that such cases as disgrace the monetary and
commercial circles of the metropolis are
unknown. A more ungrateful and unfounded
attack than that in the Times of yesterday,
against Liverpool, never appeared in print. It
requires only to be known to be branded as an
unfounded and unwarranted calumny.

THE Naval and Military authorities of the
country are eternally getting into some scrape
or another—the result of official mismanagement.
The last instance of the kind is the total loss of
the steam transport, Transit. The telegraphic
despatch in anticipation of the Overland Mail
announces that she went down in the Straits of
Sunda. Although it may be gratifying to learn
that both the troops and crew on board were
landed at Suez in safety, the case is one that
requires the strictest scrutiny. No doubt there
will be the farce of a Naval Court Martial,
calling upon the captain to explain and account
for the loss of his ship. The history of the
unfortunate vessel shows that such an inquiry
would be nothing more than " a mockery, y.
delusion, and a snare." The fault rests not with
the captain but the Admiralty, who despite of
pointed remonstrance, sent her, when unsea-
worthy, on a voyage of several thousand miles
across the ocean. Our readers will recollect that
this is the same vessel which got into such
bad repute at the last great naval review at
Spithead. On that occasion, she was appro-
' priated to the use of her Majesty's Peers, but
owing to a deficiency of steam, or some other
defect, she did not get out to the fleet until the
review was nearly over, and when the disap-
pointment was mentioned in the House
of Lords, Lord CAMPBELL pointedly remarked,
that but for a Bishop, and one of his learned
brothers, Baron ALDERSON, lending a hand at
the pumps, the most deplorable consequences
might have occurred to them all, as the vessel
sprung a leak on returning from the review.
It was then stated the Transit was nnseaworthy ;
nevertheless, the Admiralty, of which Sir
CHARLES WOOD is the head, thought otherwise,
and had her put into commission for the purpose
of carrying out troops to Hong Kong, for service
in China. After undergoing what was considered
a thorough overhaul, both in.hull and machinery,
she put to sea for the above port, sailing from
Spithead, and having on board 800 men and
officers belonging to the 59th and 90th Regiments.
But at the outset of her important
mission she proved unsuitable for the service.
The very day after leaving Spithead she put
back in a sinking state. It appeared that shortly
after sailing from Spithead she encountered a
dense fog, and brought up near Hurst Castle in
five fathoms of water. The troops turned in,
and all seemed comfortable, but at daylight it
was reported that the vessel was making water
fast, and that five feet was already in her hold.
On the anchor being weighed, it came up with
half the stock off, and then it became apparent
that she had been driven on her own anchor,
and had knocked a hole in her bottom. She
was then taken into dock and repaired, when the
troops again embarked, and she once more
proceeded to sea ; but misfortune the second
awaited her. The agitated elements of the Bay
of Biscay were more than she could bear, and
she had to put into Corunna in a very bad' ar,d
leaky state. The next thing heard of he:r is,

that she has been totally lost in the
Sunda. -,S"traits of

When she put into Coruna some questions
were twked of Sir CH&RiEs Woon respecting the