The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-07 00:00:00

On the reassembling of the shareholders on Satur-
day morning, the result of the poll on the directors' amend-
ment was declared as follows:—For the amendment, 7,146;
against it, 9,110 ; the proposition of the board was thus
lost.
Before the chairman could put the resolution moved by
Mr. Scott, for confirming the agreement with the London
and North Western Company,
Mr. Itotitsmos, solicitor, of Wolverhampton, rose, and
mid that he considered the vote just taken to be a fair ex-
pression of the wishes of the shareholders ; and he hoped
the directors would see the wisdom and propriety of bow-
ing to it, instead of, hr further prolonging the controversy,
producing increased litigation, harassment, bitterness of
feeling, and tedious delay; in this spirit he moved the fol-
lowing, as an addition to Mr. Scott's motion of yesterdar,
and which, consequent on the negativing of the amend-
ment, it was now anticipated would be put from the chair.
"That the agreement to be made with the London and
North Western Railway shall be subject—first, to all agree-
ments with the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway Company
which can legally be enforced against this company ;
second, that in the event of the agreement with the Great
Western company being decided to he legal, and to be car-
ried out, no claim shall arise against this company for
damages on that account by the London and North Western
Company."
This was duly seconded; but before the chairman had
risen to put the resolution,
Mr. ROB/MT/lON, the calumny's engineer, rose and
moved another amendment, to the effect that this meeting
be adjourned to the 9th of May, with the view to ascertain
whether the Shrewsbury and Birmingham, Shrewsbury and
Chester, and Chester and Birkenhead, could be amalga-
mated, and heroine one common stock ' • and also to ascer-
tain whether the whole could be leased or guaranteed by
any other, and what, company.
This was opposed us an obstructive amendment, proposed
by a paid officer of the company.
Hoare of angryyrrangle and personal alma. were spent upon
the point, but eventually, at half-past 4 o'clock, Mr. Wain-
weight, of Dudley, on the oat of the shareholders, and Mr.
Nichol, of London, on thC part of the directors, were ap-
pointed scrusineers to examine the votes, and the meeting,
to allow time for that purpose, adjourned until 8 o'clock.
At that hour Mr. Wainwright attended the meeting, and
slated that he found, if the plan adopted by his colleague
was pursued, the scru,iny could not he got through under
48 hours. Ile .hought ie right to apprize the meeting of
this fact, in melee that they Might, if they thought proper,
adjourn until Monday nr some other day. Another uproar
following, charges of obserucarin were urged against the
directors and their friends, and the shareholders present ex-
pruned their determination ici at.end constantly, notwith-
standing obstructive adjournments, until a vote was taken
upon Coe suh.tantial ipieri.ion at issue. At 10 o'clock, it
being no longer possible shat she business could conclude that
night, the meeting adjourned un.il 12 o'clock on Tuesday,
to meive the report of the scrutineers. It is understood
Jut when the present amendment is disposed of others will
lie proposed, so that the termination of the proceedings can-
not be anticipated. In all probability they will coutinue
throughout the week.