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

A Court of Proprietors was held yesterday. Mr. J.
G. Hubblr(l. governor, in the chair.
The minutes of the former meeting having been read
and confirmed,
The CHAIRMAN said—Gentlemen, I have now to ac-
quaint you that this is one of the general quarterly
courts appointed by the charter, and that it is also one
of the half-yearly general courts appointed by the 12th
by-law for the making of dividends. I have also to
state that the net profits of the half-year ending on the
30th of August last were 584,557/. 7s. id., making the
amount of the rest on that day 3,596,674/. 14s. Bd.,
and that after providing a dividend of 41. per cent. the
rest would be 3,014,5581. 9s. 2d. The Court of Direc-
tors, therefore, propose that a dividend of 41. per cent.
be made (if this Court think fit) of interest and profits
for the half-year ending the 31st of August last, without
deduction on account of income-tax, and I beg to put a
resolution to that effect to the meeting.
Mr. COOKE seconded the proposition with great plea-
sure, because lie felt that the dividend was the result of
the prudent management of the directors during the
past year—first, in making money easy for general
convenience in the early part of the year ; then, in
giving assistance to more extended and legitimate com-
merce ; and, in the next place, by putting a check on
the most extravagant speculation, which was likely to
result in disastrous consequences, thereby preventing
the substratum of the public credit from being frittered
away by vile speculation. While the directors had been
consulting the public interest, it seemed to have fol-
lowed, as a matter of course, that the interest of the
proprietors had been likewise greatly benefited, and
therefore the public as well as themselves must be satis-
fied with the result, for if they consulted their own in-
terests alone--which, he hoped, would never be the case
—and let the public interest be neglected, they would
subject themselves most justly to considerable blame.
He believed they were not exclusively met on that day
for the purpose of considering the dividend, and that it
was open to them to look to what might be their pros-
pects in future. When they considered what had taken
place in their close neighbourhood, at the India House,
it should put them in mind that the circumstances of
their corporation must likewise undergo some revision.
When they looked back to the year 1830, a considerable
alteration took place in regard to the charter. A. large
sum at that time—

Mr. GRAY must appeal to the Court whether the ob-
servations of the honourable proprietor were relevant
to the subject before them.
.... _., _ _

Mr. COOKE would be happy to submit to the opinion
of the Court if it was thought that he was travelling
out of order, but he considered it was a legitimate course
to go into what might be their future prospects.
The CHAIRMAN would be sorry personally, or on the
part of the directors, to check the honourable pro-
prietor, but having been appealed to, he felt bound to
say that the observations were not exactly in point on
the question of dividend. It was hardly desirable to
make any observations on the general subject, unless
the proprietors present wished to listen to them.
Mr. CooKE would not press his observations. There
would be time enough next year to put them forward.
Therefore, he should merely say that he felt great plea-
sure in seconding the proposition, and he was sure there
would be no dissention on that point.
The resolution was put and passed unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN—I have only now to acquaint the
Court that the dividend will be paid on Tuesday, the '
11th of October next.
The Court then adjourned.

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. MALINS 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 had 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 21. per share.
Mr. AMBROSE MOORE repelled the insinuations, and
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 be 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.