The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-30 00:00:00

and from Brighton worked at a cost of 55 per cent.
of the receipts, leaving about £114,000 net for the
traffic between London and Brighton. On the pro-
posed new line from Beckenham there would be
13,000 yards, or 6k miles, of tunnels, with gradients
of 1 in 120 against those on the existing line of 1 in
264. They would have to stop at four or fiveplaces on
the new line, and if they could take away from them
one-fourth of the existing net traffic, or £20,000 a
year, it would be a very small return for an outlay
of £4,500,000. The Brighton Company had been
asked why they did not take advantage of the faci-
lities of the Cannon-street and Charing-cross stations
of the South-Eastern ; the answer was that there
was no means of getting in and out of them unless
they were widened by other lines of rails being
added. When the Victoria station at Pimlico was
first made there were only two lines of rails avail-
able, but they had since found it necessary to in-
crease the number to six lines of rails. It was there-
fore impossible for them to use the Cannon-street
station until it was widened. He was sorry their
neighbours intended to lay out so much capital un-
profitably. There were 600 proprietors in the
Brighton Company who had also shares in the South-
Eastern Company, so they would be in the position
of fighting the left hand pocket with money taken
from the right hand pocket. He contended that the
Surrey and Sussex line was in the Brighton Com-
pany's district, and that they had a perfect right to
make it for the protection of their Hastings traffic.
He thought, on the whole, the Brighton Company
would run no great risk of losing traffic even if the
new Brighton scheme should be sanctioned. But as
it had been rejected in the sessions of 1863, 1864,
and 1865 by Parliament, he thought it would also be
rejected in the ensuing session. He then alluded to
the bills promoted by the company, none of which
would injure their neighbours. One was for a line
from Croydon to the Banstead and Epsom line at
Banstead; another was for making an independent
station at Hastings ; and another for a high-level
line to the Crystal Palace, and station there, about
five miles in length. He could assure the proprietors
they were quite ready to shake hands with all their
neighbours, as it was their wish that the shareholders
in every railway company should have a proper re-
turn for their outlay.
Mr. J. SCOTT, deputy- chairman, seconded the mo-
tion for the adoption of the report
Mr. WYATT stated that the proposed Worthing
Direct line from Reigate to Worthing did not go near
a single town, and would never pay anything. The
magistrates and inhabitants were against the South-
Eastern and Chatham scheme to Brighton ; but, if
carried out, he suggested that the Brighton Com-
pany should extend their line to Folkestone harbour.
Mr. LEVY thought the Brighton scheme would be
rejected by Parliament. He should be glad if some
arrangement could be come to, so as to put an end
to the present unseemly contest between the two
companies.

Mr. MOORE complained that the company's pro-
posed extension to Kemp-town, Brighton, had not
yet been commenced, although it had been sanc-
tioned by Parliament in 1864.
After some observations from• Mr.. Wilson, Mr.
White, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Langdale;
Mr. COHEN said the consumption of fuel on their
line was 401 b. per mile, while on the Great Northern
and other lines it did not exceed 271 b. per mile. He
proposed that the company should publish a list of
shareholders annually.
Mr. LEVY seconded the motion ; the list should
be sold for a sum not exceeding 2s. 6d. per copy.
Mr. WILSON thought the proposed line to Brighton
was a mere bugbear to frighten timid shareholders.
It would do: the Brighton Company no harm, but
might benefit them.