The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-05 00:00:00

far tort sismaaagemant,

which has cost the country the lives at ea many ,
beet and bravest eons, which has iillea the land
widows and orphans, and lownoi
estimate of our military *reel mitertateml
foreigners, shall be allowekto form #itrt of anyitea
Ministerial arrangement. The duty next in import.
ante and urgency is to see that the inquiry voted by
so overwhelming a parliamentary majority is emeled
into effect without mystification or evasion.
With regard to the Earl of ABERDEEN INC OW
Siamese twins late of the War Department, it is
scarcely denied, even by themselves, that all the
labours of the latter have had no result, and that the
former kept them in Ace merely from a
desire not to hurt their pummel natty. Mee
who can be contented to go through the terms
of business, although they must be emote= that
nothing (or worse than nothing) eines from ureic
efforts, or to keep much incapables in Aloe merely
from a desire to spare the feelings of friends,
regardless of every consideration of national in-
terest or honour, are not the men for a crisis like
the present. The Earl of ABERDEEN and the
Duke of Nivrcurrix have shown their sense of this,
by imitating the well-bred dog, who walks out of
the room when he ens preparations making to kick
bine down stairs. It is, therefore, rather sum., se
listen to the pertinacity with which the retention of
the residuary section of the Siamese twins of
lb. War Department is insisted upon. We never
end of an attempt to form a government bevies
tailed, without seeing the failure attributed to the
s.f_al of Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT to take part in the
aereepormet assigned as a reason. It is dear that
there is a determination in some quarter to keep

or 161

him in; and yet it is certain that, in the responsi-
bility for the inefficiency of the War Department,
he must go halves with the Duke of NEWCASTLZ.
The admission of Mr. SIDNEY HIRBEAT to the new
Cabinet would be tantamount to a declaration that
the management of the army and the war is to con-
tinue just what it has been, and the country will look
upon it u such. It is the duty of Parlianssat to
protest against any Government of which any d the
three self-confessed incapacities shall form a wt.
Again, we hear from various quarters peva*
that the inquiry moved for by Mr: Houma AA
be allowed to drop. The reason assigned is that the
object of the motion has been already obtaleel. k
the resignations of the Duke of NEWMAN:Li eel the
Earl of ABEEDIEN. The object of the skim Ike
not been obtained, so long as there is a possibility el
any one of the culprits socessary to the grey Ede.
management of the war remaining in DOVabg•
street. The two most prominent offenders have
pleaded guilty, but that is no reason why the other
culprits should be allowed to escape. Another rea-
son for insisting upon the prosecution of the incivility
Is, that, until the causes and modes of the minas,
nsgement are known, with certainty and in detail, k
is impossible to set about the work of reform. It it,
indeed, alleged that the inquiry is impossible.
because it will require witnesses from the Crimea.
who cannot be spared; but the mismanag►
ment at home can be inquired into even though
the investigation of what has been does OEM
abroad should have to be postponed. And, as Int
what concerns the Crimea, enough of officers hate
been sent home invalided to furnish all the inforsir
tion required. If the inquiry is allowed to drop, the
House of Commons will stultify itself—will lay i
open to the charge of having allowed the motion le
be carried merely for the purpose of indirectly eel-
serving personal ambitions and gratifying personal
grudges.

The question really at issue is not whether the late
Government was broken up *don les regls-♦s
courtly etiquette would dictate ? but whether it has
been justly broken up, and what kind of a Cia-
vernment is to be installed in its place ? The
question, Who are to be Ministers ? is momentous;
but infinitely more momentous is the questioe, Who
are not to be Ministers ? The country is divided in
its opinion of the claims of the men .proposed for
admission into the new Cabinet; but the country is
unanimous on the point of the men who ought to be
excluded. No government can enjoy the national
confidence, no government can work for good, in
which any of those statesmen form a part who have
dallied with the war, until the land has been filled
with mourners, and the national reputation sunk in
the estimation of the world.—Doily Nan.

THE DOCK COMPANIES OF LONDON.

The river Thames is called in legal documents
Her Majesty's Port of London.* It is, therefore,
a national property. The QUEEN is in the position
of the collective nation. Au attempt is being made
which, if successful. will have the effect of making
the Thames "The Dock Companies' Port of London."
It is this which elevates the opposition made by the
wharfs to the movement in contemplation by the
Docks oat of the position of a mere private squabble
between contending interests. It is really a national
question. The Docks made a bargain with
the nation. Give us permission to use a
portion of your great. water-way, and we

will recompense you by arrangements which
will greatly facilitate commercial operations. The
nation gays the permission, but at the same time
made express stipulation that not one single privilege
which they possessed as the real owners of the great
waterway should be given up. The portion of the
river in the Docks was still to be considered as a part
of " Her Majesty's Port," and as such subject to all
the rules and regulations to which the remainder of
the river is submitted.

Have the Docks made a bad bargain ? Certainly not
as we shall presently show. The Dock shares are con-
sidered at the present moment one of the best invest-
ments for money. East and West India Dock stock weal
in Januar', 1841, at 96f ; in 1853 the same stock was
sold at 170. London Dock shares rose in the same
period from 67 to 1281. St. Hatharine's Dock shares
experienced a rise from 953 to 100. In the same
period the dividends of the East and West India
Dock Company experienced a rise of 13 per cent.,
those of the London Docks a rise of 2 per cent. The
business of the St. Katharine's Dock Company bad
increased 23 per cent, during the ten years ending
in 18.53.

The Dock Companies, then, have made a good bar-
gain. They have created colossal fortunes for the
shareholders, by means of the privileges granted
them. If they could show that they had made a
miscalculation, that the great expense of the works
which they have erected for the accommodation of
the public has diminished their dividends, and that,
therefore, some modifications of the conditions to
which they agreed is necessary, something might be
urged in their favour. But in the full blush of their
prosperity they come forward and say, we must have
not only the use of the river Thames, but a pro-1
perty in it. We consented, when we obtained our,
deeds of incorporation, that the water in our docks'
should be considered a part of the port of London, but
we desire to be freed from that stipulation. We
have made a great deal of money; we want to make
mbre. And to do this, we want to levy a tax which
neither the Government nor the Corporation of Lou-

don hays ever thought ef levying. We must have the
right of imposing a tax upon all lightermen who float
their lighters epos that portion of the Thames
inside oar decks, tathoYdh the peatoonditipnVPAl
which Or deeds of Incorporations were 'gamed
pee ele * 'horrid cot inrpon, nu* I Rai. Aldine&
lighterage, preemies on the privilege so jealously
to them int 411 Acts of Parliament relative
to this: lithject, have,*ever gobs the construction of
the &As, removed the goods of their customers from
verges in dock, without charge, to wharfs chosen
by the consignees of goods themselves, wish this
privilege to be abolished. We want, in fact, to fine
merchants for landing goods on soy other wharfs
than oar own, although we admit, that the may way
to get to our wharfs Is by the means of that public
highway which we have pledged ourselves to
aspect.
It becomes, then, as we have said, a question of
national intemt to decide whether the Docks shall
be permitted to remind the solemn agreement they
formerly made. The Dock Companies are great
wharfingers. Their object is to be the only wharfin-
gen. If they succeed in their object, every mer-
chant wanting to use a private wharf will have to
pay the Dock Companies a toll, if the vessel, of the
cargo of which he has a fractional share,
happens to lie in the docks. Let it be remembered
that the vessel has already paid all those dock dues
which are claimed as being necessary to repay the
eurpany for its pecuniary investment.
A consignee bevies only a fru-timid interest in a
cargo can, of mune, make no terms as to where the
vessel containing it shall discharge. The vessel is met
on its entrance into the Thames by touters on steam
tugs belonging to the Dock Companies, who offer the
skipper all kinds of advantages, if he will make use of
the docks t or, perhaps, a large portion of the cargo
may be consigned to a merchant who has a share
in oos of the docks, and has made a sti-
pulation that the goods shall be landed
from the dock in which he has as inte-
rest. In this cue all the other consignees,
or at least such portion of them as wished to have
their goods landed elsewhere, will have to pay the
company for permission to do so. They can only
avoid the tax by using the dock wharfs. It is
quite clear that such a process will confine the mono-
poly to the docks, and give them the exclusive um
of the Thames. The rights of the Crows and the
Corporation will thus be practically infringed upon,
land the trade of the port will be extinguished under
the blighting influence of monopoly.—Daily News.