THE PURCHASE OF THE TELEGRAPHS
Upon inadequate consideration the Disraeli Ministry estimated
at $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 the cost of nationalization.
Political expediency responsible for Government's inadequate
investigation. The Government raises its estimate to
$30,000,000; adding that it could afford to pay $40,000,000
to $50,000,000. Mr. Goschen, M. P., and Mr. Leeman, M. P.,
warn the House of Commons against the Government's estimates,
which had been prepared by Mr. Scudamore. The Gladstone
Ministry, relying on Mr. Scudamore, estimates at $3,500,000
the "reversionary rights" of the railway companies, for which
rights the State ultimately paid $10,000,000 to $11,000,000.
On April 1, 1868, the Disraeli Government brought into Parliament a
"Bill to enable the Postmaster General to acquire, work, and maintain
Electric Telegraphs in the United Kingdom."[29] At this time the
Government still was ignorant of the precise relations existing between
the telegraph companies and the railways; and it did not foresee that
the purchase of the assets of the telegraph companies would lead to the
purchase of the reversionary rights of the railways in the telegraphs,
the telegraphs having been, for the most part, erected on the lands
of the railways, under leases of way-leaves that still had to run,
on an average, 23.7 years. At this time, therefore, the Government
contemplated only the purchase of the Electric and International
Company, the British and Irish Company, the United Kingdom Company,
and the London and Provincial, the successor of the London District
Telegraph Company.
[Sidenote: _Purchase Price estimated at $15,000,000 to $20,000,000_]
In the course of the debate upon the order for the Second Reading of
the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. G. W. Hunt, said that
"if the House would excuse him, he would rather not enter fully into
details with respect to the purchase at present. But he would say that,
speaking roughly, it would take something near $20,000,000, or, at
all events, between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000 for the purchase and
the necessary extensions of the lines." He added that if the purchase
should be made, the telegraphs would yield a net revenue of $1,050,000
a year; and that sum would suffice to pay the interest on the debt to
be contracted, and to clear off that debt in twenty-nine years.[30]
Parliament was to be prorogued in August; and a General Election was
to follow prorogation. The Government naturally was anxious to avoid
having to go into the General Election without having achieved the
nationalization of the telegraphs; particularly, since the opposition
party also had committed itself to State purchase. Then again, the
Government believed that the value of the telegraphs was increasing so
rapidly that the State would lose money by any postponement of the act
of purchase. For these reasons the Government entered into negotiations
with the various interests that evinced a disposition to oppose in
Parliament the Government's Bill, until finally all opposition was
removed.
[Sidenote: _Politics forces Government's Hand_]
The Bill, as introduced, proposed that the State pay the four telegraph
companies enumerated, the money actually invested by them--about
$11,500,000--together with an allowance for the prospective increase
of the earnings of the companies, and an additional allowance for
compulsory sale. The last two items were to be fixed by an arbitrator
who was to be appointed by the Board of Trade. The companies flatly
rejected this offer, pointing, by way of precedent, to the Act of 1844,
which fixed the terms to be given to the railways, should the State at
any time resolve upon the compulsory purchase of the railways. The Act
in question prescribed: "twenty-five years' purchase of the average
annual divisible profits for three years before such purchase, provided
these profits shall equal or exceed 10 per cent. on the capital; and,
if not, the railway company shall be at liberty to claim any further
sum for anticipated profits, to be fixed by arbitration."
The Government next offered the companies the highest market price
reached by the stock of the companies on the London Stock Exchange
up to May 28, 1868, plus an allowance for prospective profits, to be
fixed by arbitration. The companies rejected that offer, but accepted
the next one, namely, twenty years' purchase of the profits of the year
that was to end with June 30, 1868.[31] Mr. W. H. Smith, one of the
most highly esteemed Members of the House of Commons, who was himself
a director in the Electric and International, subsequently spoke as
follows of these negotiations: "In 1868 the telegraph companies were
by no means desirous to part with their property, but the question
whether the Government should be in possession of the telegraphs having
been forced on their consideration, the three principal companies
very reluctantly came to an arrangement with the Government of the
day. He did not wish to express any opinion on the bargain which had
been made, and would only say for himself and those with whom he was
associated, that they very deeply regretted to be obliged to part with
property which had been profitable, and which they had great pleasure
in managing."[32] Mr. Smith added that the net earnings of the Electric
and International had increased from $336,815 in 1862, to $859,215 in
1868; and that the average annual increase per cent. had been 17.2 per
cent.
The state of the public mind at the time when the
Government introduced its Bill, was indicated in the issue of April
11, 1868, of _The Economist_, the leading financial newspaper of Great
Britain. Said the journal in question: "Even if the companies resist,
they will not be very powerful opponents--firstly, because the leaders
of both parties have already sanctioned the scheme; and, secondly,
because the companies are exceptionally unpopular. There is, probably,
no interest in the Kingdom which is so cordially disliked by the press,
which, when united, is stronger than any interest, and which has
suffered for years under the shortcomings of the private companies.
The real discussion in Parliament, should there be any, will turn
upon a very different point, and it will be not a little interesting
to observe how far the current of opinion on the subject of State
interference with private enterprise, has really ebbed within the last
few years. Twelve or fourteen years ago it would have been useless for
any Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose such an operation.... It was
[at that time] believed on all sides that State interference was wrong,
because it shut out the private speculators from the natural reward of
their energy and labor."
Before the Select Committee of the House of Commons to which was
referred the Government's Bill, Mr. Scudamore argued that if Parliament
could not make a reasonable bargain with the telegraph companies, it
could authorize the Post Office to build a system of telegraphs. But
that measure ought to be adopted only as a last resource. It was of
paramount importance to avoid shaking the confidence of the investors
that private enterprise would be allowed to reap the full benefits of
its enterprise, and that it would be exposed to nothing more than the
ordinary vicissitudes of trade. That the possibility of competition by
the State, by means of money taken from the people by taxation, never
had been included within the ordinary vicissitudes of trade. Coming to
the question of paying twenty years' purchase of the profits of the
year 1867-1868, Mr. Scudamore said: "The telegraphs are so much more
valuable a property than we originally believed, that if you do not buy
them this year, you unquestionably will have to pay $2,500,000 more for
them next year.... Their [average] annual growth of profit is certainly
not less than ten per cent. at present. If you wait till next year
and only give them nineteen years' purchase, you will give them more
than you will now give. If you wait two years, and give them eighteen
years' purchase, you will still give them more than you will now give,
assuming the annual growth of profit to be the same. If you wait four
years, and give them sixteen years' purchase, you will again give them
more, and in addition you will have lost the benefit accruing in the
four years, which would have gone into their pockets instead of coming
into the pockets of the nation."[33]
[Sidenote: _Purchase price estimated at $30,000,000_]
In the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. G. W.
Hunt, said: "The terms agreed upon, although very liberal, were not
more liberal than they should be under the circumstances, and did
not offer more than an arbitrator would have given. The companies
had agreed to sell at twenty years' purchase of present net profits,
although those profits were increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. a
year. He was satisfied the more the House looked into the matter, the
more they would be satisfied with the bargain made."[34] The Chancellor
of the Exchequer continued with the statement that Mr. Scudamore
estimated that the Postmaster General would obtain from the telegraphs
a net revenue of $1,015,000 at the minimum, and $1,790,000 at the
maximum. The mean of those estimates was $1,402,500, which sum would
pay the interest and sinking fund payments--3.5 per cent. in all--on
$40,000,000. The Government, therefore, could afford to pay $40,000,000
for the telegraphs. Indeed, on the basis of the maximum estimate of net
revenue, it could pay $50,000,000. But Mr. Scudamore confidently fixed
at $30,000,000 at the maximum, the price that the Government would
have to pay. Mr. Scudamore's estimates of net revenue "would stand any
amount of examination by the House, as they had stood very careful
scrutiny by the Select Committee, and for the Government to carry out
the scheme would not only prove safe but profitable."
By this time the Government had learned that it would be necessary
to purchase the reversionary rights of the railway companies in the
business of the telegraph companies. The Government had agreed with
the railway companies upon the terms under which it was to be left to
arbitration how much should be paid for those reversionary rights. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was unwilling to divulge
the Government's estimates of what sums would be awarded under the
arbitration; for, if he did divulge them, they might be used against
the Government before the arbitrators. "But Mr. Scudamore, whose
ability with regard not only to this matter, but also to other matters,
had been of great service to the Government, had given considerable
attention to the matter, and Mr. Scudamore believed that $30,000,000
would be the outside figure" to be paid to the telegraph companies and
the railway companies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer added that Mr.
Scudamore's "calculations had been submitted to and approved by Mr.
Foster, the principal finance officer of the Treasury."
In passing, it may be stated that Mr. Foster had stated before the
Select Committee of the House of Commons that he had given only "two or
three days" to the consideration of the extremely difficult question of
the value that the arbitrators would be likely to put upon the railway
companies' reversionary rights.[35]
[Sidenote: _Parliament warned against Government's Estimates_]
Mr. Goschen, of the banking firm of Frühling and Goschen, who had
been a member of the Select Committee, and had taken an active part
in its proceedings, replied that "the inquiry [by the committee] had
been carried on under great disadvantages. An opposition, organized by
private interests [the telegraph companies and the railway companies],
had been changed into an organization of warm supporters of the Bill
pending the inquiry. Before the Committee there appeared Counsel
representing the promoters [_i. e._, the Government], and, at first,
counsel representing the original opposition to the Bill [_i. e._ the
telegraph and railway companies]; but in consequence of the change
in the views of the opposition, who during the proceedings became
friendly to the Bill, there was no counsel present to cross-examine the
witnesses. Consequently, in the interests of the public, and in order
that all the facts might be brought to light, members of the committee
[chiefly Mr. Goschen and Mr. Leeman] had to discharge the duty of
cross-examining the witnesses. The same causes led to the result that
the witnesses produced were all on one side." ...[36]
Mr. Goschen emphasized the fact that upon the expiring of the telegraph
companies' leases of rights of way over the railways, the reversionary
rights of the railways would come into play, and that the Government,
after having paid twenty years' purchase to the telegraph companies,
"would probably have to pay half as much again to the railways." "The
railways had felt the strength of their position so much, that they
had pointed out to the committee that they would not only be entitled
to an increase in the rate which they now received [as rent from the
telegraph companies] as soon as the leases expired, but they would
also be entitled to an indemnification [from the State] for the
loss they would sustain in not being allowed [in consequence of the
nationalization of the telegraphs] to put the screw on the telegraph
companies." Mr. Goschen said "he felt very strongly on this point
because he was convinced that it was impossible to find an instance
of any private enterprise which, while it returned a profit of 15 per
cent. to its shareholders, enjoyed a monopoly for any great length
of time." If the Government purchased the assets of the telegraph
companies, the railway companies would succeed in compelling the State
to share with them the great profits to be obtained from the business
of telegraphy. They would do so by compelling the Government to pay a
big sum for their reversionary rights in the telegraph companies, as
the price for abstaining from building up a telegraph business of their
own, upon the expiry of the telegraph companies' leases. No business
that yielded a return of 15 per cent. could be worth twenty years'
purchase, for such returns were very insecure, because of the certainty
that competition would arise from persons who would be content with ten
per cent., or less.[37]
Mr. Leeman, who had sat on the Select Committee, and had, with Mr.
Goschen, done all of the cross-examining directed to bring out the
points that told against the Government's proposal, followed Mr.
Goschen in the debate. He began by stating that he spoke with "twenty
years' experience as a railway man;" and he directed his argument
especially against the terms of the agreements made by the Government
to purchase the reversionary rights of the railways in the telegraph
companies' businesses. "Mr. Scudamore, who was what he had already been
described to be--a most able man--had not known, up to the time of
the second reading of the Bill [June 8, 1868], what were the existing
arrangements between the telegraph companies and the railway companies;
and, subsequently, while still without the requisite knowledge on
that point,[38] he went and agreed on the part of the Government to
buy the interest of the telegraph companies at 20 years' purchase of
their profits. In addition it was to be remembered that the railway
companies had reversionary interests which would come into operation
after comparatively short time for which their arrangements with the
telegraph companies were to continue. In July, 1866, Mr. Scudamore
estimated the necessary outlay on the part of the Government at
$12,000,000. In February, 1868, another officer of the Government
raised the estimate to $15,000,000; but it was not until the Bill
came before the committee [July, 1868], that Mr. Scudamore said that
$30,000,000 would be required.... He [Mr. Leeman] undertook to say that
Mr. Scudamore was as wide of the mark in his estimate of $30,000,000,
as he had been in his estimate of $12,000,000. At the expiration of
their agreements with the telegraph companies, several [all] of the
railway companies would have it in their power to compete with the
Post Office in the transmission of telegraphic messages. No doubt
this fact would be brought under the notice of the arbitrators when
the value of their reversion was being considered, and at what price
would the arbitrators value this reversionary power of competition?
Had Mr. Scudamore made any estimate on the subject? Owing to the
position in which Mr. Scudamore had placed the Government, the railway
companies had demanded and had been promised terms in respect of their
reversions, which he, as a railway man, now said it was the duty of any
Government to have resisted." ...[39]
[Sidenote: _Railway Companies' Reversionary Rights_]
For the better understanding of this question of reversions, it must
be stated that the telegraph companies, for the most part, had erected
their poles and wires on the permanent way of the railway companies,
under leases of way-leaves, which, in 1868, still had 23.7 years to
run, on the average.[40] As the leases should expire, the railway
companies would have an opportunity to try to obtain better terms,
or to order the companies to remove their plant, and then to erect
their own plant, and themselves engage in the telegraph business. But
the railway companies were handicapped by the fact that the leases
did not expire together, and that it would be difficult to build up
a new telegraph system piecemeal out of the parts of line that would
become free in the next three years to twenty-nine years. There was,
therefore, much room for difference of opinion on the question how far
the railway companies would be able "to put the screw" on the telegraph
companies upon the successive expirations of leases. The Stock Exchange
doubtless took the contingency into consideration, that being one
reason why the Electric and International shares did not rise above
fourteen years' purchase of the annual dividends. Mr. Scudamore, before
the Select Committee, expressed the opinion that the railway companies
could force the telegraph companies "to give them somewhat better
terms; that would be the extreme result of any negotiations between
the telegraph companies and the railway companies." To Mr. Foster,
principal officer of the Finance Division of the Treasury, whom the
Government called to support Mr. Scudamore's evidence, Mr. Leeman put
the question: "Looking at it as a financial question, do you suppose
all the railways in the country, having power to work their telegraphs
at the end of ten years, but for this Bill, will not put in a claim for
a very large sum in respect of that reversion?" The witness replied: "I
do not think it would be of very great value in the first place, and in
the next place it would be a value deferred for ten years, which would
very much diminish it." To the further query: "You do not take the view
that we shall have to pay the railway companies and also the telegraph
companies for the same thing," he replied in the negative.[41]
Shortly after the Government's Bill had been referred to the Select
Committee, the Government made the railway companies this proposition,
which was accepted. The Government was to acquire perpetual and
exclusive way-leaves for telegraph lines over the railways, and the
price to be paid therefor was to be left to arbitration. The railway
companies were to have the choice of presenting their claims either
under the head of payment for the cession of perpetual and exclusive
way-leaves to the Government; or, under the head of compensation
for the loss of right to grant way-leaves to any one other than the
Government, as well as for the loss of right themselves to transmit
messages, except on their own railway business. The Government was
of the opinion that the sums to be paid to the railways under this
agreement would not be large enough to raise above $30,000,000, the
total sum to be paid to the telegraph companies and the railways.
Parliament enacted the Bill of 1868 authorizing the Government to
purchase the property of the telegraph companies and the rights of the
railways; but it provided that the resulting Act of 1868 should not
take effect, unless, in the Session of 1869, Parliament should put at
the disposal of the Postmaster General such monies as were required to
carry out the provisions of the Act of 1868.
The Government immediately appointed a committee to ascertain the
profits earned by the telegraph companies in the year that had ended
with June, 1868. The committee, which consisted of the Receiver and
Accountant General of the Post Office, and other gentlemen selected
from the Post Office for their general ability, but especially for
their knowledge of accounts, in June and July, 1869, reported that
the aggregate of the sums to be paid to the six telegraph companies
was $28,575,235,[42] the companies having put in claims aggregating
$35,180,185.
While the Bill had been before the Select Committee, the Government
had agreed to purchase the properties of Reuters Telegram Company
(Norderney Cable), as well as of the Universal Private Company. The
price paid for those properties absorbed the margin on which Mr.
Scudamore and the Government had counted for the purchase of the
reversionary rights of the railways.
In the meantime, the Disraeli Ministry, which had carried the measure
of 1868, had been replaced, on December 9, 1868, by the Gladstone
Ministry. On July 5, 1869, the Marquis of Hartington, Postmaster
General, laid before Parliament a Bill authorizing the Post Office
Department to spend $35,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out the
act of 1868. The Marquis of Hartington said that $28,575,000 would be
required for the purchase of the assets of the telegraph companies;
that $3,500,000 would cover the claims of the railways, which had not
yet been adjusted; and that $1,500,000 would suffice to rearrange the
telegraph lines and to make such extensions as would be required to
give Government telegraph offices to 3,776 places, towns, and cities,
the present number of places having telegraph offices being 1,882.
The Marquis of Hartington stated that Parliament "was quite competent
to repudiate the bargain of 1868, if they thought it a bad one....
Having given the subject his best consideration, he must say, without
expressing any opinion as to the terms of the bargain, that if they
were to begin afresh, he did not think they could get the property
on better terms." He added that the "Government would take over the
telegraphs of the companies on January 1, 1870, on the basis of paying
twenty times the profits of the year 1867-68. But that in consequence
of the increase of the business since 1867-68, the $28,575,000 which
the State would pay the telegraph companies, would represent, not
twenty years' purchase of the profits in 1870, but considerably under
seventeen years' purchase of those profits. The trade of the Electric
and International had been found to be growing at the rate of 18 per
cent. a year; that of the British and Irish at the rate of 32 per
cent."[43]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Robert Lowe, was by no means
so sanguine. He spoke of the "immense price" which the Government
was asked to pay, "a price of which he, at all events, washed his
hands altogether. The Right Honorable Gentlemen opposite [Mr. Hunt,
Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1868], had accused them of appropriating
the honor of this measure. He had not the slightest desire to contest
the point with the Right Honorable Gentleman, who was welcome to it
all. The matter was found by the present Government in so complicated a
state that it was impossible for them to recede; but unless the House
was prepared to grant that [_i. e._ a government monopoly] without
which they believed it would be impossible to carry on the business
effectively, it would be better that they should reject the Bill
altogether."[44]
Mr. Torrens moved an amendment adverse to the Bill, but his motion was
defeated by a vote of 148 to 23. Before the vote was taken, Mr. W.
Fowler, of the firm of Alexander & Company, Lombard Street, speaking of
the reversionary rights of the railway companies, had said: "Therefore,
for what the House knew, there might be contingent liabilities for
hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds sterling more."[45]
The measure became a law in August, 1869; and on February 5, 1870, the
telegraphs of the United Kingdom were transferred to the Post Office
Department. In the course of the year 1870, the Government bought
the properties of the Jersey and Guernsey Company and of the Isle of
Man Company. Those purchases, together with a large number of minor
purchases made in 1869, but not previously mentioned, raised the total
sum paid to the telegraph companies to $29,236,735.
[Sidenote: _Reversionary Rights estimated at $3,500,000 cost
$10,000,000_]
Not until 1879 were the last of the claims of the railway companies
adjusted. The writer has not succeeded in finding a specific official
statement of the aggregate sum paid to the railway companies for their
reversionary rights and for the grant to the Post Office of perpetual
and exclusive way-leaves over their properties, but he infers that
that sum was $10,000,000 or $11,000,000. That inference is based on
testimony given in 1888 by Mr. C. H. B. Patey,[46] Third Secretary to
the Post Office, and on information given by the Postmaster General in
1895.[47] It will be recalled, that in 1869, the Marquis of Hartington,
Postmaster General, had told the House of Commons that the payments
for the rights in question would not exceed $3,500,000. The Postmaster
General doubtless spoke on the strength of assurances given by Mr.
Scudamore. It will be remembered also that Mr. Leeman, in 1868, had
warned the House in strong terms that Mr. Scudamore's estimates were
not to be trusted. Finally, it will be remembered that in 1869, Mr. W.
Fowler, a financier of high standing, had warned the House of Commons
that "there might be contingent liabilities of thousands or millions of
pounds sterling more."
FOOTNOTES:
[29] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 1, 1868, p. 678, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
[30] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 9, 1868, p. 1,305.
[31] _Special Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868. Mr. Scudamore: q. 3,477 and following, 3,352 to
3,364, 172, and 3,379 to 3,386.
[32] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 26, 1869, p. 755.
[33] _Special Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868; q. 3,366 and following, 3,484 and following,
and 2,204 to 2,226.
[34] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 21, 1868, p. 1,557 and
following.
[35] _Special Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868; Mr. Foster, q. 2,857, _et passim_.
[36] _Special Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868.
Mr. Leeman cross-questions Mr. Scudamore.
2,331. "Did you agree with the Telegraph Companies till after this Bill
was sent to the Select Committee?"--"No."
2,332. "At the time this Bill was sent to this Committee you
had petitions against you, had you not, from 25 or 30 different
interests?"--"Yes; quite that."
2,333. "Since that time, have you, with the exception of the interest
which Mr. Merewether now represents [Universal Private Telegraph Co.],
bought up every interest, or contracted to buy up every interest, which
was represented by those petitioners?"--"Yes, subject to arbitration
and the approval of the committee."
2,334. "They had largely, upon the face of their petitions,
controverted the views you have been expressing to this
Committee?"--"They had endeavored to do so."
2,335. "They had in fact?"--"They had endeavored to put forward a case
against me. I do not say it was a good case."
2,336. "In direct opposition to the information you have been supplying
to the Committee?"--"Undoubtedly."
2,337. "The Electric and International Telegraph Company was the
company most largely interested, was it not?"--"Yes."
2,338. "That company had put forth its views controverting in detail
what you have been stating to the Committee in the course of your
examination?"--"Attempting to controvert it."
2,339. "By your arrangements, since the time at which this Bill was
submitted to this Select Committee to inquire into, you have in truth
shut the mouths of all these parties?"--"They are perfectly welcome to
speak; I am not shutting their mouths."
2,340. "Do you propose to call them?"--"No, but they are here to be
called."
2,341. "You do not propose to call them. This is the fact, is it
not, that this Bill was sent to the Select Committee, with special
instructions to make inquiries into various matters raised by petitions
from 25 to 30 different interests, and you have, since that time,
subsidized every interest that could give any information to this
Committee; is not that the fact?"--"Not quite."
[37] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 21, 1868, p. 1,568 and
following.
[38] _Special Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868.
Mr. Leeman examines Mr. Scudamore.
Question 2,330. "When the Bill was read a second time in the House
of Commons, had you knowledge of the contents of the terms of the
agreement between the Telegraph Companies and the Railway Companies,
which enabled you to form any judgment financially as to what you might
ultimately have to pay in respect of the Railway Companies?"--"No, I
had not."
[39] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 21, 1868, p. 1,578 and
following.
[40] _Special Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868; Appendix, No. 7.
Leases to expire in: Number of miles of telegraph line
3 to 6 years 1,280
7 " 10 " 4,046
11 " 20 " 3,211
20 " 99 " 4,927
Average unexpired length of all leases: 23.67 years.
[41] Special _Report from the Select Committee on the Electric
Telegraphs Bill_, 1868; q. 2,980, 3,023, and 1,132.
[42] _Parliamentary Paper_, No. 316, Session 1873.
=======================================+===============+==============
|Sums to be Paid|Capitalization
---------------------------------------+---------------+--------------
Electric and International Co | 14,694,130 | 6,200,000
British and Irish Magnetic Co | 6,217,680 | 2,670,000
United Kingdom Co | 2,811,320 | 1,750,000
[A]London and Provincial Co | 300,000 | 325,000
Reuter's Telegram Co. (Norderney Cable)| 3,630,000 | 1,330,000
Universal Private Co | 922,105 | ?
=======================================+===============+==============
[A] This Company was paid the highest market value of its
shares on the Stock Exchange in the first week of June, 1868,
plus an allowance for prospective profits.
[43] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 5, 1869, p. 1,216 and
following, and July 26, p. 759 and following.
[44] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 26, 1869, p. 767.
[45] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 26, 1869, p. 747.
[46] _Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Department
Estimates_, 1888; q. 1,984.
[47] _Report of the Postmaster General_, 1895, p. 37.