The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-16 00:00:00

4-e--__
.4ariii4r
//,r,/
, 4toititt,,,
•-- -'7:-.3C'l /.t. '4.'" .-'••
~;
l ---;
'4 I -
~,, 4...... ,-., ,i, J V A
------....,.. p.-✓, ,1p ~/ , .sz , •

. z

11)RicE SD.

struetcd ;" and the last by the substitution of the word " un-
tpual" for " unconstitutional."

Mr. Tax took exception to one phrase in the resolutions.
Mr. beott had been distinctly authorised to give a pledge—(no,
yes),—and that part of the resolutions which referred
ntoo'hains‘L'lduct in that respect was not true. (Oh, oh.) He was
present at be meeting when the authority was given to Mr.
Scott. (It ,a'as a packed meeting.) No, it was not a packed
meeting. It ~as a meeting fairly summoned, and fairly repre-
sented the shareholders. (No, no.) It was fairly summoned.
(No, no.) It wail fairly announced. And what followed ?
There was another public meeting, at which Mr. Snell
spoke distinctly in favour of the pledge. (No, no, and
yes.) That meeting Cumnimonsly authorised Mr. Scott to
go to Parliament and ,Give the pledge. (No, no.) There
was sic deceit practised. The meeting was publicly sum-
moned, the matter was ful.ly and.publiely discussed, a posi-
tive authorif!, was given to 11f.. Scott, and he obeyed the di-
rections of the meeting. (No, no, and yes.) The company
were now at issue with Parliament on' bill of Po great im-
portance, and the qirestion was, whether they would remain
at issue by passing resolutions which ;were not true. (Great
uproar.) The plain course to pursue was; to leave the mat-
ter in the hands of the chairman. (No, no.) It was most
unfair to attempt to throw a blemish on the character of a
man of honour and a gentleman. Although he (Mr. Tite)
had opposed the extensiontof the line when the project was
under discussion, he felt bound to say that Mr. Scott was
authorised to make the pledge which he did make— (no, no,
and cheers)—and he was sorry that the proprietors, as Eng-
lishmen, and Men of honour and common sense, did not re-
deem that pledge. (Cheers.)
Dr. WATBRFIELD wished to ask the chairman whether such
resolutions as those now under consideration would strengthen
the hands of the directors / It appeared to him most absurd
for some 150 shareholders to set themselves up against the
House of Commons. Wear.)

The CHAIRMAN said he should prefer the proprietors taking
their own course.

A PROPRIETOR objected to the resolutions, on the ground
that they would bind the directors never to 'change their
present policy. The pledge was given' by Mr. Scott
in consequence of a resolution passed unanimously at a pre-
vious meeting. (No, no.) At all events, the majority in its
favour was very large. (No, no—very small.) The pledge of
Mr. Scott was founded on what passed at the meeting, and
some of the proprietors afterward§ changed their minds in the
most extraordinary manner. (No, no, and cheers.)
Mr. Aornsos said the resolutions, if passed, could not be
considered binding on ally absent shareholder. In order to
bind.the corporation in its corporate capacity, public notice
of all business to be transacted must be given. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. MORTIMER (a director) said there could be no doubt
that the meeting did authorise Mr. Scott to give a pledge—
(hear, hear)—but, at the same time, he did not think that
Parliament ought to have exacted any such pledge from a
corporate body, which was bound by its acts of Parliament,
and could not go out of them. The housds of Parliament
had certain rules and standing orders, and the shareholders
possessxl certain privileges, and he did not see why a com-
mittee should meet to say, " We will'rob these shareholders
of their rights and privileges ; we will get the chairman to
make a pledge, and bind the company by that pledge ; and
if the shareholders will not redeem the pledge, we will deem
them dishonourable." (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUTCHINS, M.P., (a director), considered the proceed-
ings which had taken place disgraceful to the shareholders,
and not to the House of Commons. (No, no, and cheers.)
He believed they had broken a solemn pledge. (Great uproar.)
Mr. Scott was authorised to make the pledge, and went and
did so ; and had not that been the case, Parliament would
have sanctioned au inroad into the country occupied by the
South-Western Company. (Hear, hear.) As one of the direc-
tors of the company, he had endeavoured to pass the bill'
now before the house ; but the shareholders must not expect
him to come to the meeting and palaver them over, and say
they had done nothing wrong. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr.
Labouchere, Mr. Henley, and some of the most honourable
and eminent men in the house, had told the shareholders
what they had done, and if the discussion had gone on, some
of the members of the Government would have repeated the
same thing ; and if the bill had gone to a division, he believed
that Mr. Chaplin and himself would have had to walk, out
alone.. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not wish to express
any opinion on the resolutions, but would leave them iu the
hands of the meeting.

Mr. CASTLEMAINE trusted the resolutions would be with-
drawn. (No, no.) The shareholders had obtained one advan-
tage from the pledge given by Mr. Scott. They obtained the
dismissal of a bill adverse to their interests, in order that they
might at a future time introduce a bill for their own advan-
tage. (Hear.) He thought it would be most injudicious to
throw down the gauntlet to the House of-Commons. (Hear.)
Mr. F. SCOTT, M.P., considered the resolutions which had
been submitted to the meeting most unwise, untrue, and
unconstitutional. (Cheers, and no, no.) It was said that the
shareholders had been taken by surprise. Now, in February,
he stated to the meeting the rule of conduct by which he
should be guided, and that he intended to lay before the pro-
prietors, in the clearest and plainest manner, all matters in
which their interests were concerned. What was done in
April ? Three weeks previously to the meeting a report was
circulated and sent, to every shareholder; and in May, by a
majority of five-sixths of those who sent in their proxies, the
report of the directors was adopted. (Hear, hear.) There
were eight or nine hands held up, m a crowded room, against
the proposition ; and, with that exception, the shareholders
were unanimous in calling upon him to go to Parliament and
pledge them. (Cheers, and no, no.) Those gentlemen
wh. ~ried "no. no." had anteeL bth.tor have acqualnted
themselves with the circumstances. (Cries of hear, hear.)
In accordance with the decision of the meeting, he gave the
pledge in July. It was a most unusual course for a com-
mittee to exact such a pledge, but it was exacted on account
of the unusual circumstances of the case. The South-Western
Company went to Parliament to oppose a bill without having
any bill of their own, and there never was a company so much
they favourede by Parliament. And wby ? Because they imagined
had to deal with men who, having given a pledge, would
not break their word and fly from it. And they
thought
justly too. For what took place in August ? Mr. Snell
the meeting said, " Let us be unanimous," and the meeting
thanked him (Mr. Scott) for what ho had done, and took
upon themselves the promise which they had at first laid upon
his back. (Cheers.) And yet gentlemen had now the boldness
to say that Mr. Scott took upon himself a pledge which he
was not able to fulfil. They ought rather to have said, "We
took upon ourselves pledges which we could fulfil, but which
we would not fulfil—(hear, hear)—we took upon ourselves
promises for which we obtained a consideration and a benefit,
and having got the money in our pockets; we tore up the
engagement by which we had pledged ourselves to do the
work for which we had received the benefit." (Cheers and
uproar.) Not a fortnight had passed after the time to which
he had alluded, when Mr. Snell raised an agitation upon the
question, and he (Mr. Scott) never could have supposed that
ho would have used the votes in the way ho had done in
order to carry that question. (Cheers, and oh, oh.) Having
done that, Mr. Snell had been rewarded with a seat at the
board. (No, no.) It was open to those who had changed
their minds in that singular manner to have postponed the
change, and waited for the Wharncliffe meeting. . They.
might then have done so wit't a good grace, and no one
would then have been more willing than himself to go to
Parliament to obtain a release from the engagement. It was
.most unfortunate for the company that they had been so
misguided •' and what Parliament had now done was pre-
dicted in October as the course they might be likely to pur-
sue. (Eledr, hear.) He expected the board would have deli-
berated upon the matter, and suggested some resolution to
the meeting. As they had not done so, he thought the
better course would be for the meeting to refer it to the
board. (Hear, hear,,and no, no.) The shareholders might
fancy themselves very strong, but they would find that they
could not bully the House of Commons with any effect, and
he thought the wisest course to pursue would be to with-
draw the resolutions. (No, no.) •
A PROPRIETOR. requested that the minutes of the meeting
might be read at which the authority was given to Mr. Scott.
The request having been complied with,
Mr. Lem, M.P., expressed his regret that the dire..tors
had not presented some recommendation to the meeting.
(Hear, hear.) He concurred with Mr. Scott in the propriety
of withdrawing the resolutions. Independently of their con-
taining statements unfounded in fact, the course pursued
was one challenging Parliament to a line of action which
they were not justified in doing, and he could not help ex-
pressing his surprise at the term " robbed" which had been
applied to, the House of Commons by one of the directors.
(Cheers.) Mr. Scott was forced by Mr. Mortimer and his
party to give the pledge to Parliament, and they ought not
to be released from that pledge after obtaining the quid pro
quo. (Cheers.) He bad never been in favour of the, coast
line ; but, as the company had given the pledge, ho for one
would not shrink from it, and would oppose any motion ask-
ing the company to violate it. (Cheers.)
Mr. PuNcuza expressed his belief that Mr. Scott- was at
the bottom of this piece of mischief in the House of Com-
mons—an expression which Mr. Scott warmly resented,
amidst considerable noise and confusion.

Mr. Sergeant G&IELBB (a director), as a matter of justice to
Mr. Scott, recommended the withdrawal of the resolutions.
Mr. Scott had throughout the business acted conscientiously
and honourably, and certainly had a right to complain that
some of the shareholders who were foremost in urging him on
in their hour of need had eventually left him in the lurch.
(Cheers and laughter.) They had got into a mess, and the
question now was, how they were to get out of it i Ho was
not at all surprised at the astonishment which had been ex-
pressed, that the matter had not been taken up by the board.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAINTSBUILY considered the resolutions so unwise and
indiscreet, so challenging* and so pugnacious, in such utter
bill taste, and so unsound in point of judgment, that he
would move as an amendment that they be committed to the
waste-paper basket. (Laughter and cheers.)
Mr. BIRCIIIM, an adviser and aecessor of the chairman,
could not avoid warning the proprietors of the result of the
adoption of these resolutions. One of them asserted that
Mr. Scott .ought to have represented to the committee the
division of opinion amonnst the shareholders. Now Mr.
Scott did faithfully represent the matter to the House of
Commons, and stated most fairly and truly what took place
on the 19th of May. (Hear.) The second resolution, there-
fore, was quite contrary to the fact. He wished to state to
the shareholders the position in which they stood before the
House of Commons. They stood very much in the position
of a culprit before the executioner. All the power was in the
hands of the house, and there were only two members who
during the late discussion had a word to say in favour of the
South-Western Company, and those members were Mr. Chap-
lin and Mr. Hutchins. (Hear.) If the shareholders could
have heard the extraordinary cheers which followed Mr. Lft-
bouchere's remarks, showing the universal assent of the house
to his proposition, they would not readily have forgotten
them. (Hoar.) If the shareholaers sent back the directors
and their legal advisors to the House of Commons with these
resolutions, in the expectation of carrying the bill, their case
would be utterly hopeless. If tho bill should be thrown out
now, those resolutions would infinitely strengthen the case
against it in 1856. (Hear.)
Mr, UZIELLI (a director) said, that in his opinion the pro-
prietors had acted most unfairly in not carrying out the
pledge which Mr, Scott had been more than once authorised
to give. (Hear.) He moved, as an amendment, that the
whole matter be referred back to the directors to give their
opinion to the shareholders, and that this Meeting be ad-
journed until Thursday, the Ist of March, at one o'clock, for
that purpose.
The amendment having been seconded,
Dr. WATERFIELD, who had moved an amendment referring
the resolutions to the directors, agreed to its withdrawal.
The amendment of Mr. Uzielli was then put and agreed to,
there being only two dissentients.
The resolutions were then put and negatived, and the meet-
ing adjourned.