The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-02 00:00:00

JOHN BROODEN'S GOLD CHAINS by troy
weight, as matiasble value, and the workmanship at
wholesale manufacturers' prima The gold in the chains gua-
ranteed, and repurchaaed at the Woe charged. I
" Here 'a the note,
How much your chain weighs to the utmost carat,
The fineness of the gold, and chugs for W
suim"
Elsrisli.
Itstarfictery, 16, Hasriettarstreet, covontgarden. Loodoe-

rpuRTLE, TURTLE, TURTLE.
1 Clear nick. and TUITLE SOUPS always ready.
sr JtheassßALL, apaarranuerr, nocADELLY.
WU. DONALD, P 1 tor.

T°WEST-END DIETERS.—The wzmnra-
Toy, Timedlily. Indlee helm
DIM/proem on the arst floor. The vabiertptlon room are now
Mew Terms, twelve months. £1 tla ed.; mix months, Ll 11.—
Apply to D. Cameron, 49, 9t Janteewdreet.

PNDON must have a SUPPER and MIC
.a-s ROOM for Oentienkea.—Bemewber, we wail to
you at
" SVAlitr," attar the Covent Garden Opera anti the Theatres.

ghe erprtoys.

TO CORRE9PONDENTR.
,dvartisaments intended for The Emma," London Evening
raper, must be at the Of 10, flouvariestroet, by Two
o'clock on the day of publication.

HATMARICST.
TEM ILVEIMIO. A ROMANTIC ATTACITMLNT. Mesas.
Compton and W. (amen ; MLa AdsCsvendiab.—TßE FAVORITE
OF FORTUNK Mama &Widow, Chippendale, and Both=
Meadsmen Chippendale, Saville, vita.—AndellOCßlNO Emus.

PRENCESSE
Tars EvEroo, A GHOST IN SPITE OF HIMSELF —Alter
erlich THE STREETS OF LONDON. Mama Vining, T. Mead,
D. Murray, Slum and Villiers; MIS H. Marston, end )LJ L
Barnett and K. Rodgers.

LYIINL.
Tins lrarad. STYPSON ACIND CO. Yam S. Amery sad
C. Hamm ; Mesdames nryine Hernade, dc.—And TIE=
YAM= Or NAWNSWOOID. Mama Pechter, O. Jordan,
TWA. km" ; Madames Tessa, Ilswarthy, IC Lederal
-

-miffANA
Toe ZTINING, 770 DAZE KING OF 771 Z BLACK 710171 C
TAINS. NM Clara St, Came, Mrs. 8. Ime—Muter Z. Sanders
—7lre 'Muse Fsalltr—Ald 7/US SCOTTISH CHIZF. Mr.

Jima Anderson.

HIGH-WATTS AT LONDON-81MM
T® DAT —Moran. itt. Um Afternoon, 3k 40m.
To-MoAnoW—Morning, 314 136 m Afternoon, elt. 1 Om.

LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 2.

Ir appears tolerably certain that the shareholding
public are at length becoming fully alive to the
necessity of trusting the management of their
affairs to directors who will exercise a real and not
nominal superintendence over the general interest.
It has taken a considerable time to produce this
result. Among no class in the world could be
found the singular apathy on matters of vital im-
portance which has been the almost unfailing cha-
racteristic of shareholders in public companies. A
few individuals might occasionally be induced to

protest against some apparently injurious oourse of
action, but except in the rarest instances they
could never reckon on the support of their co-

proprietors. There can be no question that this
entire absence of control has caused many evils.
Directors became practically possessed of absolute
power, and could not be expected to escape
entirely from the faults which such a position
necessarily entails. Some of the worst examples
may be seen in the case of the railway companies.
If the shareholders could, or rather would, have
exercised their legitimate influence nine-tenths of
the sums which have been squandered upon fierce

parliamentary battles and profitless extensions
would in all probability have been saved. As in
the somewhat similar instance of bodies politic,

lavish expenditure can only be efficiently checked
by those who have to find the means. Other and
like defects may be traced to the same source of
virtual irresponsibility. An extravagant intoler-
ance of opposition, and a proneness to consider the
interests of the directors as in some, if not all, re-
spects distinct from those of their constituency, are
the most salient. Even in the best conducted under-
takings, which have either kept clear from, or not
been exposed to, the temptations which have
beset railway companies, there has always
been a tendency to carelessness in the manage-
ment. Two, or at most three, of the board
have taken „a real interest in directing the affairs a
the concern, but the rest have done little more
than take theirfees, and now ana trim sign their
names. This easy system has, however, now re-
ceived a rude shock. The recent revelations of
the scandalous mismanagement which may take
_ _

place under the very eyes of a faineant board—the
Joint Stock Discount Company affording at once
the latest and worst example—have been too flagrant
to be lightly passed over. Accordingly the share-
holders of public companies are beginning as a
body to set seriously to work to put their House in
order, to the manifest advantage both of them-
selves and, in the furtherance of commercial morality,
to that of the community at large.
The first evidence of this salutary change is
shown in the resolution to exclude the members of
the late Joint Stock Discount Company from all
share in the direction of any other undertaking.
It cannot be considered, even by those ever ready
to apologise for official delinquencies, that this
decision is in the slightest degree harsh. Making
every allowance that could possibly be devised by
the keenest ingenuity, the directors of this unfor-
tunate concern cannot be acquitted of a negligence
that would be incredible if it were not so clearly
proved. It is self-evident that an individual who
has so utterly failed in his most obvious duty on
one occasion cannot be safely trusted on another.
As it was very pertinently observed at the meeting
of the Bank of Australsais, if directors are not to
be made responsible for what passes under their
own eyes, it would be better to have no directors
at all. But although the truth of this conclusion
has been often recognised in the abstract, it has
rarely been followed out in its practical conse-
quences. Too many instances could be cited
where shareholders have experienced heavy
loss through the almost wilful neglect of their
directors, and yet the latter have escaped
scot free. The exceptions have been so rare that
they only serve to prove the rule. Henceforward,
any one who accepts a seat on a board will under-
stand that he will not be allowed the opportunity
of shirking the responsibility. It is one thing for
a company to experience misfortunes which may
fairly be considered unavoidable, and another to
permit it to go to ruin from want of the perform-
ance of the plainest duties. While in the former
case the directors may justly calculate upon the
forbearance and support of their constituency,
in the latter they must, on the other hand, be pre-
pared to take the consequences of their malversation.
The next step, it is to be hoped, will be to put
an end to the system, which is becoming every day
more prevalent, of individuals making a trade of
sitting on directions. Beyond giving a mere per-
functory attendance at the weekly board this class
of nominal officials do nothing but draw the largest
income they can contrive to get out of the com-
panies to which they belong. It usually happens
that they are supremely ignorant of the transactions
they are supposed to supervise, an ignorance which
they are at little or no pains to conceal. But,
even with the beat intentions, it is often alto-
gether beyond their power, either mentally
or physically, to obtain any knowledge that
would be of the least practical use. It
requires no small amount of time and attention
to master in anything like detail the large and cow