The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-15 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1853.

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

(Front the Times.)

The rejection of the Vienna Note by the Empe-
ror Nicholas, though not an unexpected nor even
an unnatural event, leaves the great question of
European peace in a position of considerable danger.
There are three parties concerned in the embroil-
ment—the Russian and Turkish Governments, for
their respective clai .I.s, and the four great Powers
of Europe, as mediators between them. The me-
diators delivered their opinion in the form of a
Note, and by these terms the Court of St. Peters-
burg unhesitatingly consented to abide. To the
Porte, however, the award proved less satisfactory,
and the Turkish Government made its assent con-
ditional on the introduction of certain modifications
suggested by itself. These modifications were not
disapproved by the mediating Conference, nor did
they perhaps involve any substantial change of
terms. The important difference consisted in this
—that they proceeded from Constantinople instead
of from Vienna—from one of the two political an-
tagonists directly engaged, instead of from those
practically charged with the duty of arbitration.
The result is now before the world. The Emperor
of Russia accepts conditions at the hands of the
Conference—he rejects them at the hands of Turkey.
The whole question is now opened afresh, and
under circumstances even more difficult than be-
fore. It is certainly probable that the Emperor
Nicholas objects less to the terms themselves than
to the quarter from which they have proceeded,
and the manner in which they have been proposed.
A court, indeed, of lower pretensions than that
of St. Petersburg, might not unfairly demur to
a fresh proposition made after a formal award
at the particular instance of its own opponent
in the dispute. It was doubtful whether the
Czar would defer to the conclusions of an Euro-
pean Conference ; but it was obviously more un-
likely that he would accept additional conditions
coming directly from Turkey, and thus in some
sort resembling demands beyond what the arbi-
trators themselves had appeared to sanction.
Those impressed with extraordinary persuasions of
Russian subtlety may perhaps conceive that the
Emperor and his Cabinet had speculated on this
very contingency as likely to strengthen their own
position ; or it may possibly. be conjectured that a
certain modification of the Note affecting the rela-

tive advantages of Greek Christians in the Ottoman
dominions has disappointed expectations founded
on the original terms. Considering, however, the
promptitude with which the first Note was accepted,
and the slight substantial difference between this
and the second, it seems more reasonable to con-
clude that the exceptions of the Russian Court are
taken to the independent action of the Porte in a
case submitted to European arbitration, and that
the propositions now rejected might have been re-
ceived without much demur if they had proceeded
from the Conference itself.
We trust, at any rate, that such may be the
fact, since, in this event, the course will still be
open to negotiation and adjustment. It is evident
that no fundamental objection to the modifications
offered by the Porte is entertained by the Confer-
ence, and, if the Emperor Nicholas is of the same
opinion respecting their essential import, no great
difficulty should be experienced in devising such a
note as would embody the desires expressed at Con-
-Btantinople in forms less unacceptable at St. Peters-
burg. It is here that we discern the unfortunate
consequences of the omission to consult the Turkish
Envoy at Vienna. If that Minister had been ap-
prised beforehand of the intentions of the Confer-
ence, he would either by his concurrence have se-
cured the assent of his own Government, or, by
expressing in time the views of the Porte, he might
have obtained their admission into the document
under consideration, and thus have deprived them
of their objectionable feature. At the same time,
it must be remembered that if the Conference was
to act impartially between two disputants, one of
them could scarcely have been admitted to the dis-
cussions without the other.

If, however, the objections of the Emperor
Nicholas should be found to apply to the sub-
stance of the Turkish modifications, the question
becomes still more embarrassing, for the mediating
Powers, by placing their independent conclusions
on public record, have in some sense determined
the case, and have deprived themselves, in a mea-
sure, of the right to press upon the Emperor's ac-
ceptance terms different from those to which, after
full debate, they had committed themselves before.
It is perfectly :true that the Porte, as the aggrieved
party, may demand the larger amount of conside-
ration, nor do we for a moment forget that this is
no case of doubtful or equally divided claims, in
which one disputant is entitled to as much indul-
gence as the other. Russia is in the wrong, but
she is not more in the wrong now than she was at
the moment when the Four Powers pronounced

their Opinion upon the dispute. To this decision
Russia may now point. In accepting the award of
the Conference she may require, with some show of
reason, a like decision from the Conference itself,
and may justify her own rejection of the unaccept-
able terms by arguing that the Four powers them-
selves omitted to recommend them. These are the
obvious dangers on the side of Russia.
On the side of Turkey, it can scarcely be hoped

that the original Note of the Conference, should
Russia so frame her demands, will, after a formal
rejection, be accepted now that the martial fanati-
cism of the Ottomans is effectively roused, and the
chances of war are apparently less adverse. If the
Porte insisted on supplementary conditions when
it was less able to enforce its will and less deeply
committed to a policy of resistance, there can be
little expectation of its dispensing with these con-
ditions at a moment when the war party is clearly
in the ascendant. At present, too, the points of
difference are unhappily distinct. Originally there
was no definite knowledge of any particular terms
which Turkey might adhere to and Russia might
refuse ; but these conditions have now, unfortu-
nately, been stated with a preciseness rendering any
compromise exceedingly difficult. It has been
categorically specified what the Porte demands,
and what the Czar denies, and if, as is not impro-
bable, the Courts of St. Petersburg and Constan-
tinople should persist in their conclusions, the
opportunities of mediation are almost hopelessly lost.
The main policy, however, of the Four Powers
remains as clear as before. Their duty is the pre-
servation of peace. On the merits of the case it is
impossible that they should not incline to the side
of Turkey—a Government which has been noto-
riously aggrieved, which has certainly exhibited
some patience, and which is only in fault in so far
as that patience may have proved unequal to the
provocation received. Nevertheless, it is equally
impossible to deny that Russia, in accepting the
terms proposed to her by the joint action of the
other great Powers, has provided herself with plau-
sible warrant for her present objections, however
deficient in substantial justice her case may be.
She has expressed her readiness to do all that a
Conference of arbitrators thought proper to require,
and it evidently will be a difficulty to require more.
The Governments of Europe possess, of course, an
undoubted right to see that the consequences of
this embroilment are not carried to a length inju-
rious to the common security, nor can it be main-
tained that the conduct of Turkey, however politi-
cally imprudent, has not been such as to expose it
either to the attacks of its enemies, or the derelic-
tion of its friends. It has forfeited none of its
rights, though it may have impaired its supports,
and we earnestly trust that, as the Conference is
sincerely desirous of maintaining the sovereign in-
dependence of the Ottoman empire, it might be
enabled to do so by adjusting a dispute which
doubtless involves greater matters, but which has
apparently been reduced already to a question of
form.

A CHILD ACCIDENTALLY SHOT.—An inquest was held
on Tuesday, before Mr. G. 0. Rutter, deputy coroner,
for the hundred of Salford, at the Sherwood Inn, Fallow-
field, near Manchester, on the body of a little girl named
Ann Partington, aged two years, daughter of John
Partington, of Fallowfield. The deceased was at the
house of a man named Joseph Lyth, at Withington, on
Saturday afternoon, when Thomas Knight, a ware-
houseman, living in Manchester, went to the house with
a double-barrelled gun, which he reared up against the
cheek of the door, on the outside. Both barrels were
loaded with shot. There were percussion caps on the
nipples, and the hammers were down. Two dogs which
were playing about ran against the butt-end of the gun,
and threw it down. It fell with the muzzle into the
house. Both barrels were discharged ; and the deceaSed,
who was standing in the house close to the door, re-
ceived the shot from one of the barrels in her abdomen
and one of her legs. She died almost immediately. The
jury returned a verdict of " Accidental death."

EDINBURGH ACADEMY.—The classical mastership in
the Edinburgh Academy, which was vacated by the
election of the Rev. R. Payne Smith, M.A., to the
head-mastership of the Kensington Grammar School,
has been filled up by the appointment of Mr. Henry
Weir, M.A., now head-master of the Grammar School
at Berwick-upon-Tweed. Mr. Weir was originally a
very distinguished student in the University of Edin-
burgh, and he has had much experience as a teacher
in Scottish schools. He. is also a graduate in the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, where he obtained a high position
in the classical exatuination.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM. .
A special meeting of this company was held yester-
day at the London Tavern, to consider -the headsuf a
proposed agreement for amalgamating the undertaking
with that of the Great Western Railway Company.
The heads and conditions of the proposed agreement
have already been published. Mr. Hill, one of the
directors, took the chair.
The CHAIRMAN commenced the proceedings by calling
attention to the offer of the Great Western Company,
by which it was proposed to apply for an act in the en-
suing session of Parliament to authorizeihe amalgama-
tion of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham and Shrews"-
bury and Chester with the Great Western Railway
Company, the amalgamation to commence on the pas-
sing of the act, upon the principle that the shareholders
of each company shah become entitled to have the stock
of their respective companies exchanged for Great Wes-
tern stock at par, so soon as the grois receipts over.
each line shall amount, in any one year, to a sum which
would enable them to declare a dividend over and above
all charges and expenses at the rate of 4 per cent. per
annum out of their proper revenue ; the Shrewsbury
Company, in the meantime, to receive from the Ist of
January, 1854, for .two years, dividends at the rate of
three-fourths of the Great Western dividend, being
equal to 75 per cent. of the said stock ; from the Ist of
January, 1856, during two years, at the rate of four-
fifths of the said dividend equal to 80 per cent. of the
same ; and from the Ist of January, 1358, at the rate
of nine-tenths of the dividend, equal to 90 per cent. of
the some stock and, on the earnings of the Shrewsbury
line being equal to pay a dividend at the rate of 4 per
cent. per annum, in any one year, to have the poWer to
exchange their stock at par with the Great Western
Company. Until the amalgamation bills shall pass,
the existing traffic agreements of the three companies
to be carried out in their full spirit by the committee to
be appointed for that purpose. The matter would, of
course, rest with the shareholders as to accepting the
offer.

The Secretary read the heads of the proposed agree-
ment.

The CHAIRMAN having moved a formal resolution for
the adoption of the agreement,
Mr. SCOTT, one of the committee of shareholders,
moved an amendment to the effect that the terms offered
by the Great Western Company for the line were inade-
quate, and that the further consideration of them should
be postponed till the 24th of October, and then be con-
sidered at a meeting to be held at Wolverhampton. As
the resolution appointing the investigation committee,
of which he was a member, had never been rescinded by
any positive vote of the proprietors, he felt bound, in
honour, to the present time to do everything in his
power to carry out the interests of the shareholders.
The question was whether they would agree to the terms
proposed by the Great Western Company for amalga-
mation. He stated that he was not interested either in
the London and North-Western or Great Western com-
panies. If they were to agree to the terms proposed,
they would not know what the result would be. He
contended that the affairs of the company had been ma
naged under the influence of the Great Western Com-
pany ever since the directors had entered into the first
agreement with that company on the Ist of January,
1851, and all the mischief had arisen from the appoint-
ment of the joint committee for the management of the
traffic. He then, at considerable length, entered into
details respecting the proceedings that had taken place
in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, with a view to show
that the directors were not worthy the confidence of the
proprietors. He contended they ought to have honest
and independent men as trustees to manage their affairs.
He had no confidence in the proposal for a traffic ar-
rangement. Nothing less than an unconditional divi-
dend would satisfy them. (Great applause.) They
wanted a board to act independently, and to come to an
agreement to proceed in the next session of Parliament
with either the Great Western or London and North-
Western Companies, leaving it to a committee of the
House of Commons to,decide as to which company they
should unite with, pledging themselves to carryout that
decision in the House of Lords. He advised them to
enter into no agreement until they had a new board of
directors, nor unless they were to have a fixed and un-
conditional dividend.

Mr. ACKROYD seconded the amendment, and, amid
considerable uproar, stated that three of the directors at
the board held only a colourable qualification, and that
they were not fit for the position they occupied. They
had 150 female shareholders in the company who had
held their shares from the commencement, and the ques-
tion was whether they were to have a dividend ? He
confessed that it was of importance to himself to have a
dividend, and, if they had men who would come forward
and give them a fixed dividend, he for one would be in-
clined to entertain the offer. Competition might be a
very good thing for Mr. Roy and other parties, but a
fixed dividend would be a great matter for the share-
holders. ,

A PROPRIETOR wished to know whether they would
not be satisfied with a fixed dividend of 31 per cent. per
annum, and half the surplus profits F He understood
from Mr. Scott, at Bristol, that he would venture to
support a proposition of that kind if it were made to
them. They had heard him say that he would go for a
fixed and unqualified dividend.
Mr. Score acknowledged that he would have accepted
34 per cent. and half the surplus profits, as he believed
it would be accepted by a large majority of the share-
holders.

Mr. GEACH, M.P., a director, entered at considerable
length into the difficulties he had had to encounter at
the board, in consequence of differing essentially from
the majority respecting the management. He stated
that there never had been a fair meeting of the board
when he was present at it, and that he had actually de-

- _
tected the secretary in the act of skipping and mis-
reading certain parts of a document in his presence at a
board meeting. He would not remain at the board
were it not with the view of defending the property of
those who bad elected him to a seat in the direction,
and who had confidence in him. He felt, as a pub-
lic man, that the conduct of their board was calcu-
..

lated to destroy all confidence—in-7uch property.
He would work the line fairly and accommo-
date all parties, he would oppose an alliance with
the Great Western Company, or even the London and
North-Western, and he believed, if their affairs were
honestly and prudently managed, that they would have
a dividend quite equal to any guarantee that would be
offered them. He advised them to keep their affairs in
their own hands until they could come to an arrange-
ment with the great companies. He complained of the
way in which the directors had entered into an agree-
ment with the Great Western Company on the 10th of
January, 1851, and said that he for one would never
submit to that agreement. He believed it would never
have been carried were it not for fictitious votes and cer-
tain representations to the shareholders. Ho considered
the conduct of the board was a scandal to all public com-
panies. If the majority of the shareholders decided
against his recommendations, he would submit, and be
glad to be relieved from the responsibility of being a
director. On the 7th of September ho discovered that
2,000 preference shares, deposited by the directors with
a banker as collateral security for a loan of 20,0001.,
had been transferred to Mr. W. O. Hunt, and subse-
quently divided among a number of persons, to be used
as proxies on the questions submitted to the meeting.
He called upon the proprietors to purify the board, and
in their selection to draw a distinction between men of
honour and those who had none, or else they would get
no honourable men to serve them in future. They
might trust the committee to select for them fit and
proper persons, as they held about 100,000/. stock in the
oompany. He felt that they owed a great deal to the
London and North-Western Company for upholding
them in the present struggle. (Cheers.) Neither for
the London and North-Western, nor the Great Western
Company would he use the trust reposed in him except
for the benefit of the shareholders. (Great applause.)
Mr. BASER said, the proprietors must not be carried
away by the arguments of gentlemen holding large
stakes in the company, as they were only the nominees
of other parties. He thought they should make a pro-
position for 3i per cent., and half surplus profits if they
did not like the other. _ _

Mr. Sam said, it was not for them to offer terms to
the Great Western, but to let the Great Western make

them an offer.
Mr. BAKER proposed that a proposition of the kind
he had suggested should be added as a rider to the reso-
lution.
Mr. SCOTT would not consent to that, with the present
board.
The Solicitor to the committee of shareholders then
entered into a statement respecting the conduct of the
directors in borrowing money for the company at a higher
rate of interest than was paid to the bankers ; 5 per
cent. in one case of 20,0001. being charged when only
41 was paid, and in another case of 12,0001., 5 per
cent. being charged and only 31 per cent. paid, the dif-
ference being retained as an indemnity for their personal
responsibility.
Mr. C. A. SAUNDERS, the secretary of the Great West-
ern, said he would not advert to the time that had been
consumed in discussing matters irrelevant to the busi-
ness for, which the meeting had been convened. He could
not permit any one to say that the agreement of Jan.,
1851, with the Great Western Railway Company had.
been entered into unfairly. They never sought it, the
matter was suggested to the Great Western Company.
The first question asked at the time was by himself,
whether they were in negotiation with any other com-
pany, and if they came to the Great Western with a
view to promote the interests of that company ? The
answer they received was to the effect that the Shrews.
bury and Birmingham Company had been in negotiation
with the London and North-Western, but were told that
they could not come to terms. The objects of the
Shrewsbury Company were stated to be a traffic ar-
rangement by which the traffic from the Shrewsbury
line was to be brought on that of the Great Western,
and the traffic of the latter to be brought on the Shrews-
. bury line ;in fact, a mutual interchange of traffic. He
. would ask any gentleman in that room whether it was
• not fair for one company to promote its interests by an
• interchange of traffic with another? The terms and con-
- ditions of the arrangements entered into with the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham and Shrewsbury and
Chester Companies were based on a, mutual interchange

of traffic ; and he would ask them if there was anything
dishonourable in that ? (Cries of " No, no.") There
was no disguise in the matter, and it was very soon
found that the effect would be to render the Shrewsbury
and Birmingham line independent ; and from the mo-
ment the London and North-Western became aware of
the arrangement a most unrelenting opposition was com-
menced, which was continued up to the present time,
and rendered it impossible to carry out the arrange-
ment for an interchange of traffic. There were inte-
rests at work on the London and North-Western Com-
panyhad howp were
rouiieetdhetyo to
earr be d
out
y o-
to prevent arrangements of any kind being carried
foeuatt
ed
; an?d
Thet G
the question
Western
was,
their engagements by every honourable and legal means,
and they were determined to do so provided the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company fulfilled their
part honourably, and in good faith. He was there
en the part of the Great Western Company, and
he did not ask for the same board to be continued. He
denied tha,t'Shey had acted dishonourably, at least so far
as he (Mr. launders) knew, the directors had carried
out their arrangement honourably with the Great West-
ern Company, and to do so was the only means of ob-
taining an income for the proprietors. The directors
of the Great Western Company would not agree to
amalgamate with the Shrewsbury line unless it earned a
certain dividend, and the proprietors must be interested
in promoting the prosperity of their own line. He was
authorised to state that nothing on earth could induce
the Great Western Company to pay them 4 per cent.
unless the line earned it. The agreement proposed to
the meeting would give them 75 per cent. of the divi-
dend of the Great Western for two years, commencing
on the Ist of January, 1854, and 80 per cent. of it after-
wards for three years, and after that 90 per cent. of the
dividend until the earnings of the Shrewsbury and Bir-
mingham line were equivalent to .4 per cent. per annum
for one year, when they would be entitled to exchange
their stock at par with the Great Western Company.
A deputation had waited on the directors of the line
from Bristol about five or six days ago with a memo-
rial stating that if 3i per cent. and half surplus profits
were offered by the Great Western Company, that Mr.
Scott and the other parties with him would accept it,
and that it would meet with all but an unanimous con-
sent of the proprietors. That being the case, he (Mr.
Saunders) was authorised by the board to say that they
should have the 3i per cent. and half the surplus pro-
fits. (Great and long continued applause.) The Shrews-
bury and Birmingham should have those terms, com-
mencing on the Ist of January, 1854. The interest on
preference shares and all debts and obligations of the
company would be defrayed by the Great Western Com-
pany. Now, he would ask Mr. Scott and Mr. King
whether they were prepared to accept those terms. He
would not ask them to retain the present directors, but
would agree to six new directors being placed on the
board, not in any way connected with the London and
North-Western, nor with the Great Western Company,
but devoted to the interests of the company ; and as
the interests of the two companies would be identical,
he hoped they would all endeavour to carry out the
arrangement faithfully, and put an end to the troubles
and contentions which had so long deprived them of
a dividend. (Great applause.)
Mr. GEACH said they could not carry out the arrange-
ment without the sanction of Parliament. They had at
present an offer from the London and North-Western
Company of 41 per cent. per annum. (Uproar, and
cries of No, no.) He was desirous of ending the struggle,
but he thought it was a question for Parliament to de-
cide as to its public policy. If they entered into the
agreement with the Great Western they would find
themselves in the midst of competition. (Cries of
Ohl oh !)

Mr. SAUNDERS said the offer, on the whole, was for
the settlement of the question between them, not as
against the London and North -Western Company.
Mr. GEACEI considered that it would be very unwise
for the meeting to accept the offer at present. He
thought they had better remodel their own board before
they entered into any arrangement.
Mr. SAUNDERS remarked, that by accepting the offer
the proprietors would have 3i per cent, per annum
whether the line earned it or not. Some objection had
been made to the traffic arrangement. He would
pledge himself that the traffic arrangement should
cease on the Amalgamation Bill passing the Wharncliffe
meeting, and that clauses should be inserted in both
bills to that effect, so as to secure the amalgamation on
the terms offered.

After some observations from Mr. Scott and Mr.
Geach,

The CHAIRMAN said, that in consequence of the offer
made by Mr. Saunders, the original motion was with-
drawn, and the amendment became a substantive motion.

•
Mr. BAKER, seconded by Mr. CULVERWELL, proposed
an amendment to the effect that the offer of 33/4 per cent.
and half the surplus profits by Mr. Saunders, on the
part of the Great Western Company, be approved and
accepted.
Mr. GEA.CII opposed the amendment, and endeavoured
to obtain an adjournment of the question.
The amendment was put and carried by a large ma-
jority. (Loud cheers.)

1- A poll was demanded and scrutineers were appointed.
It was agreed that the poll should remain opon at the
London Tavern to the 19th inst. to receive the votes of
the proprietors. On the 20th inst. the result of the poll
is to be declared at the London Tavern.
It was stated by the CHAIRMAN that the result of the
poll at Chester on the question of accepting the Great
Western offer to amalgamate with the Shrewsbury and
Chester Railway Company, on certain terms and condi-
tions, showed that 12,450 votes were recorded in favour
of the Great Western proposition, and 8,925 against it;
majority, 3,525. (Cheers.)