The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-25 00:00:00

BRITANNIA.

Tare EVENivo. FAI'sT. Ara. [AIM and llnsdimr7l,Edwin,
An.l -.ttnr which THE T:. LEA VI..
1:0 $O.l fa, Cranford, DlMllltelotiol, LiglV.l, And Elton:
and )liar illh-s.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON MUDGE.

rnv nAT —*lrning, sd. 3m Ait;noot7, fat. 2osn.
70410120w—Morning, :M. 36m Afternoon, a. '..311.

LONDON, .INNDAY, MA Rem 25.

Loco CAIRN, has achieved his first success in
the House of Lords by contriving to have Lord
Reoe.soa Les Bill for the Relief of Railway Com-
panis thrown out. It is admitted on all hands
that the great railway interest of the United
Kingdom has, from a variety of circumstances,
been lately placed in a 'Keith n of, to say the
least, considerable inconvenience. It is also
granted that the magnitude of the capital in-
volved—probably nearer five hundred millions
than four—would, under these extraordi-
nary circumstances, justify in the general
advantage some departure from the rules strictly
laid down by Parliament for other VMS, and that
exceptional difficulties may fairly be met by afford-
ing exceptional relief. How have these hopes been
met ? Every suggestion has been pooh-poohed or
protested against. Practical num are accorded no
more than a patient or impatient hearing. Nothing
else is attempted to be done. The Government
seem utterly unable to do anything, probably from
their entire ignorance of tho subject, and a modest
proposition to defer a compulsory enforcement of
rights which no two persons define alike until
after the lapse of a sufficient period to find out
what they really amount to is described as a
flagrant violation of good faith, and a general in-
centive to a breach of mercantile trust.

Lord CAIRNS was not very happy when he in-
sisted upon the impolite), of allowing great rail-
way companies protection from temporary diffi-
culty at the cost of preventing one class of
creditors from recovery, of their claims by enforce-
ment of law to the prejudice of everybody else.
He has apparently forgotten his own de-
cision upon the debenture question, which
is precisely calculated to aggravate the existing
evil, and, in fact, has done so already. As the
law stands it seems that the holder of a deben-
ture—an obligation issued under the direct sanction
of an Act of Parliament—is worse off than a trade
creditor, whose debt has been incurred at the
simple discretion of the directors. The one can
levy execution, the other cannot, and the only
remedy to prevent what amounts to undue pre-
ference in favour of the ordinary creditor is to put
the company into liquidation ; in other words, to
make it bankrupt. Such, at least, seems to be
the present view. It naturally has considerably
startled the holders of debentures issued by leave
of the Three Estates of the Realm to find that,
instead of possessing, as the subscribers supposed,
mortgage bonds on the property of the company,
their securities were not so good as a common
trade debt. Of course the result has been that
numerous possessors, instead of renewing their
claims as they fell due, are determined to insist
upon payment, and to avoid such dangerous
investments for the future. The situation becomes
the more complicated as the bulk of debenture
holders are bankers, insurance companies, trustees,
and the like, since to them security is everything,
even at the cost of receiving but low rates of per-
centage. It was clearly most desirable that the
question should be settled, not only in the interest
of the public, but of the railway companies them-
selves. It is admitted by Lord CAIRNS himself
that the whole question will have to be dealt with
by the Legislature ; but how soon the Govern-
ment will find time to introduce a satisfactory
measure no one, and certainly not the noble lord,
has the slightest idea. In the meantime we are
promised a kind of financial anarchy. The rail-
way interest is to be mulcted of inmecessarily in-
creased charges' for temporary loans, to the great
profit of the speculative capitalist, and the corres-
ponding detriment of the small shareholder. Of
course it is only a question of time, but even then
it is a matter of serious moment to thousruals
of proprietors scattered all over the king-
dom, if even for a comparatively brief
interval they get decreased dividends, or perhaps
in extreme instances no dividends at all. It can
hardly be expected that the trade creditors and
others in their position will show too much for-
bearance. Supposing, as a body, that they de-
sired to do so, many would be determined from
various reasons to get their money as soon as they
legally could. Of course if one section moves, the
rest inevitably follow the example. It is therefore
evident that the best course was simply to frame
a measure which would be equally binding on all
parties, and the experience of Lord REnesnatc!
showed him its imperative necessity. It is very
probable that there was much that was faulty in
his Bill, but that might have been amended, and '
anything is better than to stand supinely by and
do nothing.

Lord CAIRNS IS a lawyer, and consegnently has
a veneratiun fur precedents, which is found in

perfection among lawyer alone, though a very
strong tinge also prevails in Government offices.
The relief sought was, he said, unprecedented.
Very possibly, but the present position of railways
themselves is equally unprecedented. It would
puzzle the ba) JUSTICE to ls.int out a previous
instance of the whole traffic of the country being
nerrxii bac rci in the hands of a section
44 monopolists. It was not so in old days. If a
trader were precluded by high elreges or any other
oinsideration front sending his wares b•; canal,
he could at all events take the browl-wheele4l
' waggon. Passenger traffic also benefited by the
competition of rival proprietors on the 8:1111(1 road.
11.. w nnutopolise both services. au 1 it is
impossible to see how this can he hc'l.•d. It was
easy to perceive front their first introdw.tion, or
at least from the successes of the first few compa-
nies, that this result must inevitably happen. Par-
liament legislated in its usual fashion ; ;.4sl
was (lone, mingled with no sin All harm. I; granted
orivil:.;.•<. ilielmling that .4 coittpuls .ry
( without which, indeed, no gees: could
have been made), awl it intw.sell vario:::4 restric-
tions as to direction of road, limitation of fares,
and other• points, the mesa important being, indi-
rectly, the enormous preliminary cost of carrying
a special bill through both Houses of Parliament.
What has been worse, the Legislature, while forc-
ing original projectors of railways between two
points to take a circuitous route, and thus incur II
consequently greater outlay than necessary, has
subsequently sanctioned direct competing lima, to
the manifest advantage of the latter.
It is, on the other hand, only fair t•o allow that
the great companies( have of themselves initiated
many blunders. Their financial extravagance,
their desperate parliamentary battles, :111.1 the
pride or folly which has prompted the construc-
tion of costly and useless branches, have been
often reprobated in these columns. But in these•
CUBS the right is never entirely on ono aide.
Whatever mistakes the railway companies have
comndtted, they were all done std. r the delibe-
rate sanction of Parliament ;and surely, in o mum ut
fairness, now that days of trouble have arrived,
they have a right to expect some measure of aid
from their virtual abettor.

Another question, too, might be fairly mooted,
and especially now that the engine-drivers are
agitating for increased wages. Suppose that the
railway companies were to go to Parliament with
a demand to be &Hewed to carry on their business
at their own discretion. Let them say, " Since
" our lines were built the expense for labour and
" materials has greatly increased, the rate of
" interest for capital has, as a role, considerably
" advanced, and often in late years has
" been at a prohibitory level. Our pro-
" fits do not increase in the same ratio,
" since we are bound to charge for g, xis, many
" classes of passengers, and the conveyance of
" troops and mails according to a fixed tariff. It
" does not answer, and we therefore claim the
" right i doing what every other comp:my and
" individual in the country has the liberty to do,
" of na:ing such contracts as we may find re-
" numerative. We do not want protective legis-
" latiom we want free trade." If this should
prove a somewhat awkward request to be answered
by the Peers generally, no doubt Lord CAIRNS
would be exceptionally able to make a most coo-
elusive reply. One thing is certain, that should
the existing distrust continue, the ill-judged
hostility of a portion of the law lords to new pre-
cedents must yield to the paramount necessity of
supporting the traffic system of the country, and
the consequent maintenance of trade. A contrary
course can only have the effect of aggravating and
prolonging the present discredit, and of causing
much unnecessary and national

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.
(THIS DAY.)