The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-09 00:00:00

S Ny NOVEMBER 9, _B4B,

miu ms to be got for them, that any other course would
have given general dissatisfaction."
Is not this delightful ? The facts are stated so
naively and confidently that we will not venture to
dispute them, and certainly have no wish to do
so. But this is not all. With most engaging
candour our informant goes on to describe va-
rious cases in which calls have been dispensed
with, and which, therefore, need not be reckoned,
because their place has been supplied by loans.
The loans altogether amount to 46,457,3371., no
trifling item in the liabilities still resting on the
public. Our knowing contemporary runs over the
share lists, and picks out here and there a line that
is " likely to make a call." On five lines, amounting
to more than 3,000,0001., a different opinion has been
expressed. Somebody thinks they are not quite dead.
So our authority says the shareholders and public
generally consider these, with only one exception, de-
funct schemes ; and he intimates that the engineers
and solicitors would reward any one who could tell
them how money could be extorted from the present
shareholders. He then trips lightly over the giant
carcases of deceased lines with passing obituary re-
marks,—" The deposit only paid." "It is very im-
probable this scheme will he proceeded with." "The
deposit only has been paid." And he winds up with
lamenting the amount of calls that have been made
already, the number of contracts inconsiderately let,
and the supineness exhibited by shareholders in
suffering directors to proceed with their undertakings.
For this year at least it is evident that railway specu-
lation has sounded the bottom of our national
resources. The Gazette informs us that 125 applica-
tions for extension of time have been received and
considered, and yet we have complaints and remon-
strances addressed to those who have failed to
apply. Now, this we call hitting us on the right
cheek and on the left also. We were abused two
years, night and day, for maintaining that thellines of
1845.46-47 could not and would not be done. We
are now derided, not for supposing that they will ever
be done, but for so much as reckoning them among
the liabilities still resting on the public. Gentlemen
behind the scenes rush forward and exclaim, "Oh,
they were never intended to be made. They were
got up, like Hodge's razors, for sale, and not for use.
The shareholders wanted premium, so the directors
made sham lines to satisfy the general cupidity. De-
pend upon it, the lines can't be made, and won't be
made, and you are a simpleton for imagining that they
will be ever attempted, or that they are at all burden-
some to the consciences of the directors." There is
so much substantial comfort in the rebuke that we
cannot but receive it with all meekness. We are
truly glad to hear, on undeniable authority, that
40,000,0001. worth of lines, on which deposit has been
paid, and which the Legislature enacted after months
of quarrelling and spending, are mere hoaxes and
nothing else. It was not, perhaps, very respectful to
Queen, Lords, and Commons, nor yet to the public—
hut we will let that alone; all parties will be so happy
to hear the railway gentlemen confess themselves
beaten.
HERALD.—The TinteaThas somewhat moderated
the tone of its exacting suggestions to the State, as to
the mode in which the property of the London and
North-Western, Great 'Western, and South-Western
proprietors shall be treated when the Amalgamation
Bill comes under legislative discussion. It is, how-
ever, the tone only that has been moderated—the
spirit of the aggressive suggestions is plainly dis-
cernible under less " open " though equally "advised"
language. Our contemporary, with a singular for-
getfulness, lays down the principle that, " It is ac-
cording to all precedent, to all principle, to all ana-
logy, and to the plainest common sense, that the
State should take care that the means of communica-
tion are available, cheap, and good," and it is readily
admitted that the State is bound to fulfil all such en-
gagements as it could properly contract, and to re-
ward within reasonable limits the genius and spirit of
private adventure." But has the State "taken care"
to do this ? It is perfectly true that the State has fre-
quently " taken care" to render the means of railway
communication " available," and also " cheap and
good," but not by comprehensive interference—not
by any initiatory encouragement—not by any na-
tional grant. But the State has, also, by acts of
omission and commission, thrown a thousand obstacles
in the way of the cheap construction of railways, and
having committed this great error, " according to
all precedent, to all principle, to all analogy,
and to the plainest common sense," it has
sought to render railway communication " cheap and
good" at the expense, and frequently to the manifest
Injury of those to whom the country is altogether
indebted for it. It is precisely within these " rea-
sonable limits" that our contemporary would reward
the " genius and spirit of private adventure." On
Saturday the Times would not listen to the applica-
tion to Parliament, by the three great rail way com-
panies, for a Bill permitting them to put an end to
their ruinous contests in and out of Parliament, un-
less those corporations would consent to allow the
State to " claim a p iwer of dictating new branches,
new trains, new accommodations, and lower fares ; "
that is, unless the three companies would, for the
mere legislative sanction to an Act to enable them
to save the probable outlay of another million ster-
ling in Parliamentary struggles, permit the State
to dictate conditions utterly subversive of the rights
and destructive to the interests of private property.
The Times now requires that if the three companies
" present themselves to Parliament for a further in-
crease and consolidation of their existing power and
monopoly, the gain shall not be wholly on one side.
There shall be a quid pro quo. There shall be gua-
rantees against the abuse of absolute power, or rather
against the possibility of having to arrest its en-
croachments." But this moderated suggestion is
coupled with a disbelief that it is the interest of rail-
way companies to afford ample accommodation to the
public at moderate rates of fares. Our contemporary
doubts " that lower fares will frequently leave the net
profit undiminished. He cannot trust such visionary
hopes. The public will not have the utmost possible
use of the railway." Our contemporary's quid for
legislative permission to these three companies to settle
their differences and economise their expenditure is
still, therefore, clearly "low fares," that will diminish
net profits, or, in other words, the " utmost possible use of
the railway" for the public. This "utmost possible use"
may, and perhaps will, be a very popular doctrine.
But at whose cost is it to be realised? What is the
quid that the shareholders are to have secured to
them ? The Times does not appear to he very clear
in the notions it entertains about rail way traffic.
"The utmost possible use ?" Does our Contemporary
mean that the Post-office principle, of which it seemed
enamoured on Saturday, should be applied ? The
" utmost possible use of a railway by the public,"
would vary with a dozen varying circumstances. It
would, consistent always with a fair dividend to the
shareholder, be twenty-four or forty-eight trains per
day on this, and six or four trains per day on that,
line of railway. Does it think that if the passenger
fares of the London and North-Western Company
were reduced one-half, the public would " have the
utmost possible use" of that railway ? To yield the
present net revenue, if the company were to make
this diminution of charge, the passenger traffic must
be quadrupled ; whereas all those practically ac-
quainted with the traffic of the company in question
know that the reduction would not even ap-
proach such an increase. Perhaps the Times would
desire to have the passenger fares reduced to one-
fourth their present amount. In that case it would,
we think, find the task of developing a paying amount
of traffic somewhat difficult, as well as the duty of
working it, rather an onerous one. The Times
is very emphatic in its demand for " guarantees
against the use of absolute power " by the
three companies. Railway corporations could
not, beneficially to themselves, use such a
power in the way our Contemporary infers or
insinuates they would. We have previously ex-
plained the fact that all our great railway companies
have a direct interest in affording ample accommoda-
tion at moderately low fares; but it is not their in-
terest, indeed it would be spoliation and nothing
else, to allow the public to " have the utmost possible
use of their railways." If such an accommodation
be desirable, let the State afford it the same way that
cheap postage has been given to the community—at
the national cost, with the aid of an augmented income-
tax, and not through a confiscating intermeddling,, with
A claim for " guarantees against
private property.
the exercise of " absolute power" on the part of the
three companies comes with a very bad grace from
one who urges the State to demand " a power of dic-
tating new branches, new trains, new accommoda-
tions, and lower fares," considering that all those cor-
porations have too many trains already, that the fares
of the London and North-Western are very low, and
that those of the Great Western will soon be very
considerably reduced by Act of Parliament. If the
aggressive recommendations of the Times were
adopted by the Legislature and consented to by the
companies, the "gain" would indeed be "wholly on
one side." Our contemporary admits that, "on the
whole, the present fares and accommodation are as
good as may be expected under the existing traffic ;"
but then it urges—" If, however, the present compe-
tition is to be set at rest, and the iron rule of a giant
monopoly to take its place, we demand in that case
that the right of the ;people shall be guarded by the
State." 'Yes, and a little more is demanded by our con-
temporary. "On the whole the present fares and ac-
commodation ,are as good as may be expected ;" but

it is not the continuance of " present fares and
accommodation" that the Times claims,—it must
have a power vested in the state to claim a power of
dictating new branches, new trains, new accommoda-
tion, and lower fares," and the "public are to have
the utmost possible u3e of railways." The plain
meaning of all this is the reduction of dividends to
the " lowest possible" rate-7, 6,6, 4,3, 2, or 1 per
cent., or whatever the "new branches, &c.," may
leave the " absolute monopolising" shareholders. And
the " guarantee" which the shareholders are to re-
ceive in return is—the permission to put an end to
law and parliamentary contests, and to economise
their working expenses. The Times charges all the
unnecessary expenditure which has been incurred in
the cost of railways to "chance and passion." We are
assured "the railway world had the option of referring
the whole laying out of the country to a railway board,"
and that " the railway world has to thank itself for
the many millions absolutely wasted in the prelimi-
naries of Bills passed, rejected, or now laid aside by
the two successful promoters." The Times will
scarcely assert that railway companies encouraged
landholders' exorbitant claims, their vexatious opposi-
tion, and all the enormous consequent expense ; or
that the old companies originated or encouraged
direct and competing lines, and the wasteful and
almost ruinous outlay which such lines occasioned.
That some, not all, railway functionaries, as our con-
temporary asserts, " preferred the open fight in Com-
mittee, the private canvass of the Commons, the trans-
action with the noble landowner, the distribution of
scrip, the profitable amalgamations of lines as yet
without existence, and all the accidents and opportu-
nities of a hazardous and complicated game to the dull
certainty of a national scheme, done without battle,
heat, or risk," may be very true, but to charge the
difficulties and obstacles which have presented them-
selves to a cheap construction of railways in this
country to these causes, is not to make a mistake ; it
is to mis-state the most notorious of facts. The
Times thinks that the sanction of the Legislature to
the proposed Amalgamation Bill will necessarily lead
to other, and almost as extensive consolida-
tions of railway interests. No doubt it will,
but it does not as necessarily follow that the
amalgamated boards would, -as our contemporary
suggests, be able "to work the monopoly to the
utmost advantage " of themselves. With a watch-
ful and just Parliament, these amalgamations may
be rendered both profitable to the shareholder and
advantageous to the public ; but we must protest
against the doctrine of legislative interference pro.
mulgated by our contemporary, the more particularly,
as this doctrine is associated with his emphatic asser-
tion, that railways are not private property. Cheap
and expeditious travelling is most ;desirable in this
great commercial country, but the " utmost possible"
cheapness can be realised only by the State taking
railway property into its own keeping. If the State
desire to have " new branches, new trains, &c.," let
the State provide them, or offer the guarantee of a
fair minimum dividend in return for the " dictation"
of these matters, as suggested by the Times. Railway
passengers are not " to travel for nothing, and have a
dinner into the bargain," at the expense of railway
shareholders—not even to please the Times.