The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-19 00:00:00

PRICE 4 d.
STAMPED sd.

of Convocation to be members of the Church of Eng
land.

Mr. GLADSTONE would like very much to hear on
what authority the lion. member made that assertion.
Mr. MOWBRAY said he merely believed that was
the case from certain circumstances that had transpired,
all of them pointing hi that direction.
A discussion then took place, during which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer said he had no desire or intention
to alter the constitution of. any universities by any of the
provisions of the bill.
Mr. TREVELYAN having withdrawn his amendment,
the division was taken o❑ the question that after the
word "'London" the words "and Durham" be inserted.
Ayes
226
.Noes
234
Majority
—8
The words "and Durham" were accordingly rejected,
and the clause enacts that the University of London alone
shall send a member to Parliament. -
Clauses 16 and 17 were agreed to, it being arranged that.
the discussion on the amendment of Sir J. Collier to the
latter should not be taken until the bringing up of the
report.

Clause 18 (joint occupation clause) was agreed to.
Clause 19, relative to the registration of voters, occupied
the attention of the house up till seven o'clock, at which
hour the sitting was suspended until nine o'clock.
On reassembling at nine o'clock,
Mr. FAWCETT moved the following resolution—
" That in the opinion of this house it is undesirable that
the fellowships and foundation scholarships of Trinity
College, Dublin, should be exclusively appropriated to
those who are members of the Established Church."
The motion was seconded by Mr. BAGWELL.
• Mr. MONSELL moved as an amendment—" That the
constitution of the University of Dublin should be altered
so as to enable and fit it to include colleges connected with
other forms of religion than that of the Established Church,
and that the members of such colleges should be entitled
to share in all the benefits now enjoyed by the members
of Trinity College."
The O'COIOR DON seconded the amendment.
Mr. LEFROY opposed both the original motion and the
amendment, contending that Trinity College was founded
by a Protestant Queen at the instance of a Protestant
archbishop, and for Protestant purposes alone.
Lord NAAS contended that the object of the motion
was an undisguised attempt to revolutionise the character
of Trinity College and its relations with the Established
Church. The noble lord also stated several objections to
the amendment, and amongst them that, if agreed to, its
effect would be to place the college upon a footing analo-
gous to that of the University of London, by depriving it
of its religious character. Moreover, he held that Trinity
College, as now constituted, gave a good mixed educa'ion,
and that all classes of her Majesty's subjects were fairly
represented there.
Mr. LAWSON challenged the accuracy of this asser-
tion, and contended that whereas the vast majority of the
population of Ireland was Roman Catholic, the average
number of students professing that faith at the university
was not more than 50 or 60.
Sir F. HEYGATE opposed the motion and amendment,
and was followed by Mr. BAGWELL, who moved the ad-
journment of the debate.
Mr. GLADSTONE hoped the Government would keep
in view the urgency of the question, as it was time that
some progress should be made with those Irish questions.
Real civil disabilities were now inflicted• on a portion of
the Irish people by their exclusion from the endowment
of Trinity College, and ho asked the Government to con-
sider the consequences which would follow from a multi-
plication of universities in Ireland.
Mr. BAGWELL insisted that the University of Dublin
was sectarian, and that the object of both motion and
amendment was to make it national.
The motion for the adjournment was agreed to without
a division.

Leave was given to Mr. Lefevre to bring in a bill to en-
abio persons to secure to their wives and children the
benefit of assurances on their lives by nomination en-
dorsed on the policy.
Mr. CHILDERS moved a resolution to the effect that
it was incumbent on her Majesty's Government to
institute inquities with a view to the reform of the
Middlesex registry ; and that, pending such inquiries,
steps should be taken to put a stop to the receipt of
illegal fees by the sinecure registrars, and to prevent any
appointment to the office of registrar on a vacancy occur-
ring.

Mr. Secretary HARDY admiVed that the fees were
*hcr untrrta.,--w.rr.i.v,.....„ but objected
to prejudging the question tosifthe illegality of the foes.
He was quite willing, however, to agree to the first part
of the motion, which stated that it was incumbent on the
Government to institute inquiries with a view to the ye-
form of the Middlesex registry.
Sir R. PALMER said there could be no doubt of tho
fees being illegal, but he recommended Mr. Childers to
accede to the suggestion of the Home Secretary.
After a short discussion, Mr. Childers consenting, the
resolution so amended was agreed to.
The motion for the third reading of the Tests Abolition
(Oxford and Cambridge) Bill led to some opposition,
chiefly on the ground of proceeding at so late an hour
(ten minutes past one o'clock), and a motion by Mr. Hen-
ley for the adjournment of the house was rejected by 95
to 80.

Mr. COLERIDGE, who had charge of the bill, then
gave way, and the third reading was fixed for this day

The other business was disposed of, and the house ad.
journed at twenty-five minutes before two o'clock unti
twelve o'clock this day.

HOW RAILWAYS ARE MANAGED.

... ---
(From the Times.)

It seems impossible to conjecture what revelations
may yet be in store for us respecting the administra-
tion of railways. The public might have thought
that after the London, Chatham, and Dover Rail-
way all other transactions would appear tame and
stale. But the report of the Committee of Inves-
tigation into the affairs of the London and Brighton
line, an abstract of which we published on Monday,
is more than sufficient to provide a new sensation.
The collapse is not so complete, nor are the trans-
actions of such magnitude, but, considered as the
history of the ruin of a railway compinh
this re-
cord is probably unique. It furnishes the most
extraordinary instance which has yet come before
the public eye of the manner in which round pro-
perty has been squandered, and of the fatuity, if
not downright dishonesty, by which the disaster has
been caused. Something, perhaps, is due to the
special acuteness of the Committee of Investigation,
who had the advantage of possessing Lord West-
bury for their chairman, for we have never read so
clear and incisive an analysis of such a subject. But
the character of the transactions would of itself
be sufficient to lend to this report an unusual
interest.

The report commences by a short account of
the history of the Brighton Company for the last
17 years, from 1849 to 1866. This space of time
is divided into periods, marked by very different
characteristics. From 1819 to 1854 Mr. Laing was
Chairman ; he was succeeded in 1855 by Mr. Leo
Schuster, and the latter gentleman is said to have
been the reigning spirit of the second period. Dur-
ing the first of these periods the policy of the Board
of Directors was " to abstain from extensions, to
keep down the capital account, to maintain friendly
relations with neighbouring companies, and to cul-
tivate the traffic and reduce expenses." In the
second period a policy precisely the opposite has been
pursued. The result is shown in two remarkable
tables, giving the comparative increase in the capital
and income of the Company during the two periods.
In 1818 the capital of the Company amounted to
£6,955,000, and its income to £266,000. In 1851
the capital amounted to £7,690,000,
‘bal-ingbeeetti
increased by no more than £735,000, while the net
income had developed to £391,000, showing
1866anh
in-
crease of £125,000. Between doubled,l.Bs4and
capital had been more than income
had in-
creased creased to £15,762,000, while the net
the
capital laving
only increased by £113,0 00.
during the first period,percentage ln
otherf
income%N words,
the
baderbeecneeti.ucreDasaer(ilagfrotihne nseecetrollyld4pteo.
ntoiorceaptilt)aaln
riod it had been reduced from 5. to little more
than 3 per cent. Moreover, of the eight millions
added to capital in the second period, no less than
£7,300,000 was composed of preference shares and
debentures, and consequently " a permanent charge
of nearly £400,000 a year was incurred to earn an
additional net income of £113,000 a year." Nor
does this even represent the full result of the policy
of the second period. At the commencement of the
present year the company were committed to a
further expenditure of three millions, and if their
engagements had been carried out, the capital of the
company Wild have consisted in round umbers 9f

Iv -17;
1 h,R
eYelee'
(CD
,it4CK+
- • ..eve 1,:r4
itsl,33lB°lool°°llil4 Ofdireftlearry ICA AS cad it W 0
a1211:11
doe -.;• 4%,
have required a gross traffic of 11,8-60,0-60. a year to
pa Pram") charges alone, the present amount of
y £1,190,000.
L2SulcBhs4i s
thethe
contrast between "now and then."
cothne
wgasonon e of the most
Brighton Cti:pcabne
prosperh
tp
c o.
lo:u
s
a i
the
lines in the kingdom, doing a safe anddl
time
proving business. Within 12 years'
his pr
perity has been totally destroyed,
and
mittec think it " not too much to say that nothing
but- a timely reversal of the policy
of the Board
ordinary
could have saved the property of the
ig
shaLreethoulsdneersxtfrionmpuirtetewr ruin."hat
this
policy wits, by which,
more than five millions of good money were thies
rendered valueless. In the first place, it was, as we
icionsmpbeiitiioenx,paernlddoef(liiitlinbgpyarttoioivlneh.lig
have implied, a policy of incessant "ex toneion,"
righton
their
roicflial.p3aaocnOtolfojnx:
time,ot loietusi
iol
ted
ial tui s
observed
es in
reetdhebyrnethtreopcoolirns.miDtteure,intghethseosuatnhie_
Eastern Company has spent about four millions oes
the same object. The London, Chatham, and
Dover has also spent several millions for this pur-
pose. But counting only the Brighton and South-
Eastern Companies, a sum of six millions has been.
spent in providing terminal accommodation for not
more than 200 miles of railway, and the original
cost of this mileage was not much more than has
been spent in extending the original terminus at
London-bridge to Cannon-street, Charing-cross,
and Victoria. The establishment of these three
stations has cost as much as the original con-
struction of the whole of the Brighton wed
South-Eastern lines ; and this " ruinous expen-
diture" was incurred, we are told, in a great mea-
sure under :4•e itintence of rivalry. These two
companies, nOlv that the mischief is done, are about
to be amalgamated. If this step had been taken
sooner, can there be any doubt that " the public'
might have been equally well accommodated for less
than half the cost ?" Again, another two millions
of this disastrous addition to capital has been in-
curred for metropolitan and suburban lines. Thes%
it may be hoped, will ultimately be remunerates e,
but they were none the less unjustifiable specula_
tions, and " a considerable time must elapse before
their net earnings can equal the interest on the
capital provided for their construction." Thirdly,
there are the country branches, upon which another
two millions and a half have been expended. Thee
sum the committee conclude must be set down as
" almost an entire loss," as there are few of these
lines which even pay their working expenses.
Such was the nature of this disastrous policy ;
but the most interesting question remains to be
asked. The shareholders, indeed, have had to sub-
mit like sheep to be fleeced. They knew nothing
of what was going on, and were helpless in the
hands of the directors. But what can be the
motive which impelled the directors to persist in
thus destroying their own property, as well -as
that of their shareholders? For it should be re-
membered that a director, as a large share-
holder, must needs li.ave a considerable personal
interest in the welfare of the company. The
committee recognise that the greater number
of these country extensions were " to sonic extent
forced on the company by the fear of competition."
The directors only acted on the received principles
of railway administration in those days. It is now
easy to see the folly of such a policy ; but it is
more or less intelligible. When a rival company
proposed to invade the supposed " country" of an
established railway, almost any board of directors
would have incurred apparent ruin to repel the in-
vasion. But there is a part of the story which` is
not capable of this explanation. The Surrey and
Sussex, the Chichester and Midhurst, and the West
Sussex Junction Railways have a character of their
own, and deserve to be for ever notorious in rail-
way history. We must state first the account of
these three lines as from time to time represented
by the directors to the shareholders. It was
said then that these three lines " were each
promoted originally by independent parties, without
the concurrence and assistance and against the wish
of the Brighton Company." The directors thought
it for the interest of the company to prevent the
lines falling into hostile hands, and they have accord-
ingly submitted from " time to time to the meetings
of the company proposals for their absorption into
the company's system." Accordingly, in 1866, the
directors promoted a bill, by which the Brighton
Company were authorised to subscribe largely
towards the capital of these railways, and they pro-
posed in the present session to obtain a bill for
taking entire possession of the lines with all their
contingent liabilities. The shareholders had up to
the present moment sanctioned these successive
steps on the representations of the directors that
the new lines were independent and Hostile un-
dertakings. Now, wonderful to say, it is
moted by the
of these three lines was really pro
con-
clusively established by the committee that each
have been both the directors
the Brighton directors
staff of the Brighton Railway Company ; that
and shareholders
in the new lines; and that the
Brighton company,
directly or indirectly, has found
them. ln short, " the Surrey and Sussex was a
almost all the money which has been expended on
company, got up by persons connected with
board, adopted by the Brighton board,
thesh a
Brighton
ri
o,hton
and palmed off on the shareholders of the Brighton
line as a real and independent company." Tho
statements made by the directors to the shareholders
are, in fact, denounced by the committee as delibe-
rate misrepresentations, which " they decline to cha-
racterise as they deserve," and it is perfectly asto-
nishing by what fatuity men of position and honour
can have reconciled their consciences to the course
they were taking. A deliberate scheme seems to
have been entertained from the commencement for
promoting these lines under false appearances, and
entrapping the shareholders of the Brighton Rail-
way into absorbing them step by step.
This danger has been averted in time, and the
lines will be abandoned, though not until the com-
pany have incurred a most serious loss. But the
question we have asked remains to be answered,
and any one who can give a satisfactory answer to
it would confer a benefit upon all who are interested
in railways : HOW can the directors have consented
to be parties to these ruinous and disgraceful tran-
sactions? They have very nearly ruined their own
company, and would have ruinel it quite if they
had had their own way, and they have gained
nothing from these lines themselves. On the con-
trary, as the nominal shareholders, though they
have never yet paid a penny on their shares, they
seem to be legally liable to refund to the Brighton
its losses. The com-
mittee doubt whether it will be advisable to insist
Company no small portion of
on this claim, but the liability exists, and it appears
• OC/111011S manoeuvres.
their wild schemes and
who -
to be the sole personal result to the directors from
disingenuous
The only persons w have profited arc the eon
,
whom the idea of the
lines was originally conceived.
the subordinate of s,
It would seem that
tractors, the solicitors, theby engineers, and, Perhaps,
the schemes off for their own
purposes upon
ptahlemhedoard, and the directors were too
even to the extent of guarding
t‘teceaisrke Pptocerrs:osliliissatl them,
honour.heu
general result to the company, or the process by
which it has been obtained, a more extraordinary
talc has never been told. It affords additional
evidence that nothing will be safe in railway affairs
until the shareholders find some means of in-
suring perfect publicity. Perhaps it is not the
least wonderful part of the story that after all,
when two millions more capital have been raised
to start the company afresh, the ordinary share-
holders may still hope in 1868 for a dividend of
2/ per cent., which will increase by about a half per
cent. each year.

Scholarship (..Cl5
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.—A special
meeting of -the council was held on Saturday for the
purpose of awarding the Atkinson-Morley Surgical
per annum for three years). The
scholarship was conferred upon Mr. Geo. V. Poore, of
Andover. Professors Erichsen, Wharton Jones, and
Marshall, and Mr. 13,rkelcy Hill wore the examiners.
A lIINT TO THE COMMITTEE.—By the new Re-
distribution Bill. Luton is to have a member. The value
of this proposed addition to the house is very doubtful, for
to represent Luton Hoperly its M.P. inust be a Man of
Straw.—Punch.