The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-06 00:00:00

The Great Ship Company,

An adjourned meeting of the shareholders in this
Company was held at the Albion Hotel yesterday,
to receive a report of the Committee appointed at
the meeting held on the 15th ult., to provide a
guarantee fund, with a view to postpone the sale of
the ship, and to consider a proposal to secure the
interests of the ordinary shareholders. About 18
persons were present, and the chair was occupied
by Mr. H. D. Pochin.
Mr. W. BOOTH presented the report of the Com-
mittee, which stated that the committee plead
itself in correspondence with gentlemen in Liver-
pool who were believed to be actively promoting
scheme to dispose of the ship by lottery. The com-
mittee, however, found that the schem. had so far
advanced that a deputation had gone to Frankfort
on-Maine to establish it, and before hearing further
from the gentlemen in Liverpool, circulars respect-
ing the lottery were issued, and the scheme pub-
lished. Entertaining an opinion that an active com-
petition wonld be made by private firms at the sale
on the 11th inst., the committee determined to
recommend the shareholders to consider the desir-
ableness of forming a guarantee fund of about £2OO,
to make application to the Court of Chancery to
postpone the sale until funds could be raised to
enable the shareholders to compete for the ship.
Mr. Booth concluded by moving the adoption of
the report, which was seconded by Mr. Sharp and

passed.
The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Mr. H. Web-
ber, London, who said he hoped that the meeting
would yield some legitimate actio to liberate the
proprietary from the degradation to which it was
being subjected. The lottery scheme was a law-
less proceeding, and great disappointment was felt
because of the absence of good results from the posi
tion of Mr. Hawes as official liquidator. The chair-
man explained that Mr. Webber had taken an active
part in the concerns of the company, especially at
one of the recent meetings in London,
Mr. R. Highat, of Liverpool, and Mr. H. Davey,
representing Messrs. T. Powell and Sons, the coal
creditors, attended to obtain the support of the
meeting to the lottery scheme.
Mr. DAVEY said that in proposing the scheme
the creditors had not been unmindful of the inte-
rests of the shareholders. It was at first suggested
that the public should be asked for £160,000, which
would have paid the mortgage debts and the cre-
ditors, but subsequently it was determined to in-
crease the amount to £240,000, which would leave
a balance of £30,000 for the preference shareholder s.
He feared that if they increased the value of the
lottery to £400,000, they would swamp the pro-
posal. Both he and Mr. Highat believed that
with the co-operation of the shareholders the lot-
tery scheme would be a success.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the promoters of
the lottery would not have to pay the Govern.
ment of Frankfort ten per cent., which would very
materially depreciate the real value of the scheme ?
Mr. HIOHAT said that though Government lot-
teries paid 12 per cent., there was for private lot-
teries a fine of a few francs, which in this instance
would not amount to more than £5 or £6. The
cost of the lottery, including the 5 per cent to its
promoter, would not be more than £15,000. He
estimated that the £240,000 lottery would produce
sufficient to pay the mortgage debts and the
creditors, and leave about 12s. 6d. or 15s. in the
pound and preference shareholders.
The CHAIRMAN observed that the lottery scheme
amounted to a bid of £225,000.
As several of the shareholders desired to have fur-
ther information respecting the nature of the pro-

ceedings at the lottery, one of the lottery trustees,
Herr Francis Fabricius, the secretary, Herr Charles
Sehaeffer, and Herr Stoess, the Liverpool consul for
Frankfort-on-Maine, were admitted to the meeting.
Herr STOESS said he had been the means of in•
troducing Herr F. Fabricius to Mr. Highat and the
Liverpool creditors, and considering the position
that he (Herr Stoess) held, he would not have re-
commended Herr Fabricius unless he had considered
him a person in whom he had perfect confilence.
After a lengthy conversation with Herr Stoess,
who interpreted the proceedings to Herr Fabricius,
The CHAIRMAN said that the information those
gentlemen afforded amounted to this, that the cost
of the lottery would be about £15,000, that the pay-
ment to the Frankfort Government would not be
more than £lO, but unless the promoters of the
lottery scheme paid the Government 10 or 12 per
cent the Government would not supervise the
drawing. The drawing would, nevertheless, be
conducted by notaries who were officers holding a
public appointment, but still the notaries would not
in that instance be engaged on the part of the Go-
vernment. If the lottery promoters paid 10 or 12
per cent. the affair would be conducted by the
Government in the ordinary way.
Mr. BERNSTEIN said the ordinary shareholders
would have no benefit in the lottery if its value was
only £240,000. He thought that it should be in-
creased to £400,00, and people on the continent,
where lotteries were encouraged, would have an
opportunity of taking shares.
Mr. W. HANNAM said he endorsed the view
taken by Mr. Bernstein, and considered that the
British public would have had more confidence in
the scheme it the lottery trustees had printed in
their circulars the names of London bankers as

references.
Mr. HIGHAT said the mention of any English
name in the prospectus would render the scheme
invalid. The funds would not pass into the hands
of Herr Fabricius, but be placed in a Liverpool
bank, and if any opposition was raised to that pro.
ceeding the money would pass into foreign security.
He did not think that the lottery could be thrown
open to the continent, because its value had been
already fired, and people had taken up shares in
the belief that the scheme would be limited to this

country.
Mr. J. MOORE suggested that the Committee
appointed on the 15th of December should consider
how the value of the lottery could be increased
to £400,000 or £500,000, so as to benefit the
ordinary shareholders.
In reply to the Chairman,
Mr. HIGHAT said he could give no idea of the
number of lottery tickets that had been taken up.
He knew that as many as 700 letters had been re-
ceived by one post.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the lottery trustees
mild complete their arrangements before the day
fired for the sale of the great ship ?
Herr STOESS said that they could not.
Mr. HIGHAT, in reply to the Chairman, said that
in ease the lottery scheme was realised there would
be no objection to a small committee of shareholders
watching the drawing on behalf of the general
body, and their expenses might be paid out of the
expenses of the lottery.
Mr. DAVEY said he had been "behind the scenes,"
and he feared it would be impossible to increase the
value of the lottery to £400,000.
The CHAIRMAN said that, in the absence of a
higher bid than that which had just been offered
(£225,000), he thought it would be the duty of the
shareholders to do all they could to secure that
amount. And they would not even obtain that
£225,000, and much less would be the likelihood of
receiving a higher offer if they did not attempt to
postpone the day of sale.
Mr. SHARP suggested that abill should be filed in
Chancery for that purpose, and that the cost of that
proceeding should be borne by the shareholders,
who should at once subscribe £1 each, and when
£5O had been obtained that they should subscribe
an additional £1 each.
The CHAIRMAN said he thought that the post-
ponement of the sale would be strongly supported
by the official liquidator.
On the motion of Mr. MOORE, seconded by Mr
SHARP, the meeting adopted a resolution asking the
committee formed in December, with Mr. Pochin,
to continue their services, to take such proceedings
as might be necessary in the Court of Chancery for
the postponement of the sale of the great ship, and
to employ such agency as might be necessary for
raising a guarantee fund to defray the expenses.
A suggestion was received from Messrs. Highat
and Davey and Herren Fabricius and Schaeffer,
• that the meeting should pass a resolution expressing
an opinion that the lottery transaction was a bona
fide undertaking, and that Mr. Hawes should apply
for the postponement of the sale.
The majority of the meeting, however, thought
that, while both they and the lottery promoters
desired a postponement, is was not desirable that
they should apply for it conjointly.
The proceedings then terminated.