The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-17 00:00:00

dines; sad, in proportion. to the strength end the degree
of the former is the strength and the degree of the latter.
The, do not think the inconsistency possible of really be-
lieving without obeying; and where they no disobedience
they cannot imagine the ninon* of tree faith.
Catholic", on the other had, that faith and love, faith
and obedience, faith and works; are simply separable and
ordinarily separated in feet; that faith does not imply lOTA,
obedience, or works; that the firmest faith, so as to move
mountains, may exist without love; that is, tree faith, as
truly Gala, in the strictest sense of the word, as the faith of
a martyr or a doctor.
Father Nxwsuct is a catholic doctor. His faith
then is of the purest quality ; it is ""faith in the
strictest sense of the word." Is it then the deliberate
wish of the catholics of England that Dr. NEwnAN
should, in his own person and conduct, exhibit to
protestants a practical example of this refined distinc-
tion ? Do they intend that Dr. NEWMAN, by pur-
suing a line of conduct infinitely below what an
ordinary sense of honour and natural justice would
prescribe, should establish that, in the catholic reli-
gion itself, " faith and works arc simply separable
and ordinarily separated in fact?" Can they expect
men by such a spectacle as this not to become
Christians, but to become Roman catholics?

THERE are, we must repeat, three things, each
quite separate and distinct, in the compromise of the
London Docks case : the conduct of the Customs and
the Treasury to the Dock Company; the conduct of
the Dock Company to the mercantile interest; the
conduct of one dock company to the other. And by
nearly universal consent, all three arc strongly re-
probated and condemned, both out as well as in the
City. The first, as involving an unworthy and now
almost admitted intrigue of the Treasury and Customs
to escape the consequences of a disastrous and dia.
creditable defeat in making the heaviest charge say
revenue department ever advanced, and most es-
gratefully advanced, against a commercial body, by
whose agency and efficiency millions sterling ha
been saved and paid to the Treasury. The second, as
involving a betrayal and an abandonment by the
Dock Company of a position voluntarily assumed,
of confidence besought by it and obtained from the
commercial public, and of correlative obligations
imposed and accepted. The third, as involving a
' broach and violation not merely of good faith, but
d express engagement with Nir. lIITCHELL and
ler.TooKr.. It is in vain for Customs, Treasury, or'
Docks to try to escape from, or wriggle out, of the
verdict already recorded against them on each of
these heads.
The Treasury has, however, made a desperate
attempt to do so. Let us sec what it amounts to; but be-
fore commencing the examination, a word on any com-
wresniae. " I call on you," Sir FITZROY KELLY Wasby the London Dock Company instructed to ask the
jury, and thus did so : " I call on you to dis-
countenance by your verdict a nefarious scheme to
ruin the reputation of many, many honourable men.
I call upon you to acquit the London I Company
of the charges of fraud, embezzlement, of felony and
of crime which have been so wickedly brought
against them." Accusations of this sort scarcely
admitted of anv compromise. They might be apo-
logised fur, witidrawn, or acknowledged to be false
and scandalous; but they could hardly in honour be
compounded. Yet they were compounded for by the
company for a sum of 11101.
They were, it may be said, disproved on the trial.
No doubt, they broke down in the plaintiffs', and
were refuted in the defendants' case. That. was
so; and because of that, any possible arrangement,
after the verdict, imperatively. required, first and
foremost, as a bare act of justice, an expression of
regret on the part of the revenue functionaries that
imputations so foul and so false had ever been ven-
tured on. Ilan any such regret been expressed?
No. What is almost worse, it has not been nought.
The Dock Company, which in its defence com-
plained of persecution add of slander, has, after an
expenditure of 13,00 W., cried l'eratei—has begged
pardon for what it never committed, and promised to
behave better for the future in respect of what it
never behaved badly. And the Treasury has, not-
withshuidiug this humiliating submission, substan-
tially reiterated in its letter to the Customs all the
offensive charges against the Docks. Nay, more,
has, through its newspaper organ, again described
them as "frauds," and has estimated the pecuniary
profit of those " frauds" at 10,0001. to the docks.
If any compromise of such imputations were admis-
sible, this at all events is not such a compromise as
the assent of a body of British merchants, mindful of
their own honour and the honour of their order,

might have been expected to make.
A compromise, argues the Treasury journal, w•as
advisable because the ordinary business of both Docks
and Customs was obstructed and confused by the
unavoidable attendance of their officers in courts of

haw. This is simply absurd. The attendance was
over; it had only occupied eleven days; and until a
new trial had been obtained it was not likely to be
required again. Moreover, when a man's character
and reputation are attacked, when his honour is as-
sailed and his honesty.ts impugned—that surely is
nut an occasion or a time when trouble is to be
grudged, or expense, as the Docks now urge, made
an excuse for submission. .

The Docks to this hour, in their very last letter,
emphatically deny the existence of any irregularities
fur which legal proceedings were justifiable;
they, in that document at least, still claim the ho-
nours of unmerited suffering. Yet, before the public,
they have been told by the Treasury, in its letter to
the Customs, that those irregularities " were at di-
rect variance with the provisions of the law, and
calculated to afford facilities for fraud, and to en-
danger the revenue." What then have they gained
in reputation by their compromise ? Not reputa-
tion; for the Treasury has repeated the charges.
Nut freedom from obstruction to business ; for new
and additionally oppressive regulations have to he
imposed on them. Their past practices did,
the Treasury, in its concluding words, tells them, en-
danger the revelue and tend to fraud; the prosecu-
tious, it goes on to say, will put a stop to those prac-
tices; and the docks must, it adds, submit to further
customs' regulations and hindrance and obstruction to
business. But that is not all; as if to make the

matter plainer, and their degradation deeper, notwith-
standing their repudiation of the logical inferences
drawn by the Treasury. from their surrender, and,
with their disclaimer of the justice of those infer-
CAM before It, the Treasurys journal has actually
revived the most offensive of those imputations
which the crown failed to establish before a jury

How are the merchants of London interested in respond-
ing to this appeal to their sympathy ? Does it concern
then, that their merchandise should continue exposed to
the depredations of the servants of the Dock Companies ?
Are they interested in maintaining a system, under which
thousands of pounds worth of imported goods may be
found in the bonded warehouses of the London Docks,
not brought to account with the crown—not brought to
account with the owners, though aecumniated by a long
course of irregular abstraction from their merchandise, and
of the right to property in which the Dock Companies
themselves can produce no account?

From the technicality of its expreesions, the proba-
bility is that this extraordinary passage was actually
penned in, and, if not, was certainly inspired by
the Treasury. Now, what is it but, in the plainest
language, a repetition "of the charges ot fraud,
embezzlement, of felony, and of crime," which Sir
FITZROY KELLY called on the jury to purge the corn-
, pany from, and of which the jury did in express
1 words acquit the company—not merely its directors,
but its officers and servants also! The effect of
their submission is, therefore, in the Treasury's judg-
ment, an overthrow of that verdict, without giving
them the advantage of a new trial; it is besides, the
Globe adds, an admission that the " merchandise of
London has been exposed to the depredations of the
'servants of the dock companies." The revenue de-
partments have, therefore, renewed these atrocious
imputations, and concurrently deprived the comps
of the opportunity of again disproving them. That r
the compromise the London Docks have, for the make of
their " ordinary business," submitted to. A ppeeaorr,
miserable, and pitiful return this for the
reposed in, and the sympathy bestowed on, them.
Very true ; this is the result of a Cadens'
intrigue and of Treasury smartness. But it is Iseme►
theless the logical sequence of the Docks' weekneme
I infidelity, and want of dignity. When the ihes-
tors, as the result of " personal commadsatims"
, with the Customs, admitted the esdistsmse of
larities which might have jaded mime of
seizures, their officers ne Gm farther rename,
have admitted larger. i and the NNW
irregularities were, it is only. reaserabie to infer, mach
r than the admitted irresihrhim. And thus,
" my lords" of the Tremery may have per.
the intentions of the Dock on as to the
ot their admission, the fact that the directors