The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-11 00:00:00

ithr ervregili•

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
• Irma f Tbs Farms." *fatal 1• be was safeiffro
tfas.aw," r wait-eta tam, Tusagay sad • *fiat, fa NN
tfe pow.
401.4111010,141111ateseted for ..71fa Omsk" Larks Emilia, pow,
woo Ir a tam mate. 10, trooorwrior. lot Two o'clock ea Ur

MOH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE
Tins D.l—afuntlng, 51o• 1531. .Afterfase. SOS.
Tassaiww—Mcgnind, sr. 47.2. Attars% 416 4a.

LONDON. TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 11.

ON Thursday last her MAJESTY'S Treasury,
through the columns of the Globe, announced that
the Court of Exchequer would receive no further
trouble from what are called the Dock Cues ; as the
Consnanies proceeded against by the ATTORNEY-
OESERAL had made their peace with the Customs.
Now Thursday last was the 6th of November; and
the correspondence out of which this announcement
(but partially accurate as we shall see) sprung only
terminated on the 4th of November. The Treasury,
therefore, lost no time in announcing what was true,
and in adding to it a little more than the truth. And
from this haste, and the triumphant manner in
which the fact, and more than the fact, was so
precipitately made, it is to he inferred that the Trea-
sury (sadly scandalivd by the late mercantile revolt
against, and the subsequent investigation into, the
Customs obstructions to commerce) is of opinion, that
by this conclusion it will regain some of the cha-
racter lately lost.
A correct acquaintance with the circumstances
of the case will not, however, support any
such opinion; but will rather lead to the conclusion
that the Treasury has, in an undignified man-
ner, snatched • victory over one of the Dock
Companies, to which the ompany was exposed by
its own functionaries trilling with its honour and
reputation, and uhandonitt„o the high position it had
previously assumed in its defence of an unparalleled
prosecution.
Ike Treasury announcement, we have said, is only
partially correct. The ATTORNLT-GENLItAL had, it
will be recollected, proceeded against both the Lon-
don Dock Company and the St. Katherine's Dock
Company, and the compromise so announced included
both companies. This, however, is not the case. The
St. Katherine's Docks have not been convicted of
any offence against the Customs laws; they have
hitherto resolutely defended their integrity, assailed
by the Customs; as yet they have had no correspon-
donee tending to any admission that they have any
offence or irregularities to compromise ; and though,
down to Thutstlay last, the authorities of the St.
Katherine's Docks had every reason to suppose
that they were acting in accord with the func-
tionaries of the London Docks, the announce-
ment of the eit,hc bok them as much with
surprise as it did the commercial community of Lon-
don generally, whose champions in this matter the
'sock Complain" hall assumed to be; and it is, we
are told, only to-day that the directors of the St.
Katherine's Docks will have an opportunity of con-
sidering the effect which this desertion of the other
company will have on their defence. In considering
it they must nut forget that the public cause is now
in their keeping; and they ought to know that if
they persevere in defending it and their own charac-
ter they will be fully supported and amply Monk-
ventml fur all the tradde and coat they will be put to.
Against the London Dock Company the Anon-
PISY•6I:NeIt vi. had litd no fewer than sixty-
seven informations imputing • under all the
violates forms that legal ingenuity could give
to the charges, almost every species of of-
fence, that could he perpetrated within the walls of
a dock and of bonded warehouses, nut merely
against the revenue laws, but against their ewe
none's interests. They had, if these information,' con-
tained the truth or a tithe of the truth, cheated the
Customs and plundered their employers; they had
given a premium and a reward to their servants for
their ItUtTl!"s it, these frauds; and had made large
profits out of other people's property. The charges
meant this, or they meant nothing. The character
of the London Delis fur common honesty and bare
integrity, to say nothing of honour and high morality, I
was therefore impeached. In this spirit the London
hocks amplest and defended the prosecutions; they
appealed to and neeived from the City support and
sontideneo in this attack on their very existence;
they pointed out the immense depreciation of their
capital (probably not less than •itio,ooo/.) it had in-
volved; nod they. and . their complaints chiefly

to be re-entered for duty, insisted on regulations for
the prevention of future irregularities, and relying
on the company's penitential assurance of better con-
duct hereafter, pardoned it for offences which it had
failed to establish before a jury.
This astounding answer from the Treasury brought
the director, of the London Docks to a sense of what
they had done. But too late.' In vain they referred
the Treasury to the persona arrangements out of
which the correspondence arose; in vain they repu-
diated the interpretation put on their letter ; in vain
they protested against the injustice of a money fine ;
in vain expressed their conviction that they had
grounds of action against the Customs officers who
had seized the goods : all in vain. The Treasury, on
their own supplication, had pardoned them, and
would condescend no further correspondence. " (Jo
and sin no more," was the only consolation they
could screw out of " my lords."
lAnd thus kicked and spurned by the Treasury,
they have disgusted the mercantile community,
whose interests they have sacrificed. They have
s. ent 13,000/. in obtaining a verdict substantially in
their favour, and have then abandoned the verdict
they obtained. In the selfish expectation of promot-
ing their ow n interests, they have left the St. Kathe-
rine's Docks in the lurch. After rousing City indigna-
nation in their behalf, they have yielded to the
tyranny of the Customs, against ahieh they excited
it ; and having selured the co-operation of a large
and independent party in the House of Commons, I
they have given up the cause which they themselves
put in the hands of that party.
What apology to Mr. NiltellELL, who so zealously
and ably, at their own request, took up their griev-
ances and brought them before the committee of the
House of Commons—what justification to the public
—what explanation to parliament—the London Dock
Company can possibly offer for this conduct, remains
to be seen.