The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-29 00:00:00

NIGH WATTS AT LONDON =IDOL

MS DATZionaing,-9C3a:::::::10. 14a.
TeWittaiow—Xornlng, NIL 6101.. „Attersoaa, 111 Um.

LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 29.

WITH all their attendant drawbacks the diffi-
culties in the railway world have been productive
of at least one good result. They have put an
end to the reticence which Boards of Directors
have so long and so imperiously observed,
together with that impatience of the slightest con-
trol from those whom directors facetiously
designated their constituents. Adversity has
taught that the most open course is
the only safe one. The necessity of main-
taining strict secrecy upon the future policy
of a railway company is at an end. Directors
now invite the appointment of committees of
investigation, instead of opposing them as they
used to do to the utmost of their power :
chairmen past or present issue lengthy statements
of their own, concerning which, although we may
dissent from the arguments employed, at least no
fault can be found on account of the absence of
plain speaking. The London and Brighton afford
the newest example of this salutary reversal of the
old policy hitherto so regularly pursued, but at
last completely broken down. The shareholders
are about to be called on to give a decision upon
the future management of their property, as to
which it must be conceded they have ample
materials to form an accurate judgment.

The points in dispute are ;riled facie simple
enough. It appears that the London and Brighton
Company undertook to carry out wholly or in
part three new lines—the Surrey and Sussex,
the Chichester and Midhurst, and West Sussex
Junction. In each of these cases the initiative was
taken by parties nominally independent, and the
Brighton Company, after ineffectually opposing the
projects, were induced to take them up from the
belief that they would, under separate manage-
ment, prove prejudicial to the interests of the
main line. According to the statement of the late
chairman, the support that was thus promised was
ratified by successive meeungs of the Brighton
shareholders. It may be observed, however, that
this does not go for much. A year or two ego
recommendations in the half-yearly reports of
railway companies that certain extensions should
be assisted were accepted almost as a matter of
course. There was even hardly any cavil as to
the manner in which the capital required should
be raised. It was, indeed, tolerably well
known that the money could only be got
by the issue of preference stocks, or by
means of some sort of guarantee which
came to the same thing in the end. The policy of
the directors of the Brighton was, according to
railway precedent, either to disarm competition,
or to prevent these new branches from falling
into the hands of rival companies by the usual ex-
pedient of absorbing them into their own system.
The new lines were to be bought out. In order
to carry out this object the Brighton Company,
according to the report of the Committee of Inves-
tigation, obtained parliamentary powers in 1866
to subscribe 695,0001. to the first two railways.
With regard to the third, the West Sussex Junc-
tion, it does not appear that the Brighton have
entered into any positive engagement beyond that
of undertaking to obtain au Act, subject of course
to the sanction of the shareholders, to the effect
" that this line may eventually form part of the
" Brighton Company's system. " Apparently,
however, it has turned out that some additional
powers were required, and hence a Bill has been
introduced in the present session providing that
the Brighton Company shall be enabled to raise
additional capital as follows :

By Shame. By Borrowing.
For the Surrey and Smola .. A:205,000 and £235,000
TheChichester and Midhurst 95,000 and 63,000
The West SUBSCI Junction... 125,000 and 41,010

fihnres
Borrowing

t 425,000 £339,600

Total

£764,600

This amount the Committee of Investigation
believe to be in excess of the 595,000/. originally
promised, so that the obligations to be assumed
by the new Bill will amount altogether to
1,359,600/. The committee likewise intimate,
cautiously but unmistakeably, that they appre-
hend this sum, large as it is, will not cover the
total obligations proposed to be incurred. The
great point, however, to be considered is this—
at present the outside legal liability of the
Brighton Company in respect of these railways is
limited to 595,0001., while the new Act will in-
crease this sum to 1,359,6001., or even more.
Such, at least, is the opinion of the Committee of
Investigation.

But the directors may reasonably say—lt is
true that our parliamentary powers extend only
at present to the smaller sum, but for the credit
of the company we are morally bound to apply for
more. We have entered into certain compacts
with independent companies, which have been
virtually ratified at successive meetings of share-
holders. We, in fact, simply desire to obtain the
power necessary for a railway to give legal validity
to what has been already sanctioned by those
solely interested. The plea would be unanswerable
if it were perfectly correct. It is an old axiom
that when a company, or a firm, or a private in-