The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-16 00:00:00

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN STEAM NAVIGATION

COMPANY.

Yesterday an extraordinary meeting of the share-
holders of this company were held at the London
Tavern, to take into consideration the recommendations
of the committee of investigation as to the future ma-
nagement of the company. Mr. Frith, the chairman
of the company, presided.
Mr. .HENDERSON moved a resolution to the effect that
the qualification of a director should be reduced from
100 to 50 shares, and justified it by alleging that as the
number of shareholders possessing 100 shares was so
few, it presented but a narrow field from which to
select competent directors.
Mr. GURNEY seconded the motion.
Mr. B. LANCASTER considered that as the company
had lost the confidence of the public, and were now
going to appoint a new directory, which was tantamount
to the formation of a new company, the best course
would be, to avoid all further loss, to dissolve the com-
pany, and, with the least possible sacrifice, realise the
assets of the company ; and he therefore begged leave to
move the adjournment of the meeting for fourteen days,
when he should move a resolution in the spirit of his
observations.
Mr. MEEK considered that nothing could be more sui-
cidal, ruinous, and, if he might use the term, ridiculous,
than the course suggested by Mr. Lancaster.
Mr. Mums had hopes of the ultimate success of the
company, as every steam navigation company with which
he was acquainted had gone through a period of diffi-
culties. Over all these companies the present had a supe-
riority in the possession of a royal charter, and in trading
with the richest and most rising portion of the empire.
Mr. KENNEDY found fault with the manner in which
the committee bad spoken of the directors, and insinuated
that they had been actuated by a desire to become their
successors. He had calculated that a dissolution would
only involve a loss of 2/. per share.
I Mr. AMBROSE MOORE repelled the insinuations, and
I asked why Mr. Hawes—one of the directors--had not
defended himself and colleagues at the last meeting, when
the directors brought forward their report, instead of
having since written a pamphlet in answer to that report.
Mr. HAwEs replied that he had recourse to the writing
of the pamphlet alluded to, because he had been anxious
that what he had to state might be soberly considered.
He wished that the directors should be considered free
from opprobrium, but was ready to acknowledge a want
of success in their management. He should not, how-
ever, sit quietly under the imputation that the board of
directors had been guilty of jobbing, and he thought that
he had a right to call on the committee for the grounds
they had for making the charge. With regard to the
amendments, he had to observe that if they were unable
to select as directors efficient men, in whom the public
might have confidence, their best course would be to
wind up their affairs at once, as delay only made mat-
ters worse, and increased their difficulties. He did not
in saying this retract what he had before stated, that
the company would be yet a paying concern. It only
wanted an efficient management to make it what it
ought to be.
The CHAIRMAN then put Mr. Lancaster's amendment,
which was lost on the show of hands.

Both Mr. COxHEAD and Mr. SHEPHERD here rose to
propose other amendments, that of the former gentleman
being in effect a vote of confidence in the present board,
but as Mr. Shepherd had first caught the eye of the
chairman, he proceeded to move his, to the effect that
the consideration of the question be postponed to the
4th of next month, and that, in the meantime, applica-
tion be made for the consent of the Board of Trade to
an alteration in the deed of settlement, doing away with
the clause which requires the qualification to be held for
six months, which, after a long and desultory debate,
was agreed to.
The committee and chairman received the thanks of
the meeting, when the proceedings terminated.