The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-11 00:00:00

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

CAMERON'S STEAM COAL AND SWANSEA
AND LOUGHOR.

An extraordinary meeting of this company was
held yesterday at the offices, Moorgate-street, for the
purpose of considering a letter addressed to the di-
rectors by Mr. W. B. J. Cameron, and of ado.pting
such resolutions as might be determined in respect
thereof ; Mr. N. P. Cameron in the chair.
The proposition in the letter was that a sufficient
sum should be raised to effect the Great Winning and
a junction with the Llaneliy Railway, and to com-
mence and continue workings from present openings;
to allow Mr. Cameron to superintend the completion
of the winning and the railway; that he was willing
to forego all dividends on the shares he holds until
other shareholders shall have received five per cent.
on theirs for seven years, by which time the sum to
be borrowed would be paid off; and after the first
seven years to pay the shareholders ten per cent.
until their subscribed capital has been refunded,
and when refunded the property to revert to Mr.
Cameron. _ _

Mr. Beam handed in a protest, signed by him-
s:•lf and others, against the proceedings, on the
ground that the meeting was illegal: that Mr. NV.
B. Cameron was in this matter disqualified to vote
upon it, and that the lease of the mine was invalid in
law and in equity.
Mr. BARHAM moved a resolution, accepting the
proposal of Mr. Cameron, and that the contract he
prepared and submitted to an adjourned meeting to
be held on the 25th inst., which was seconded.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the board had accepted
the proposition, but that did not at all bind the share-
holders.
Mr. Bunts objected at considerable length to the
proposition of Mr. Cameron. He did not think there
was anything in it to induce persons to become jointly
liable for 30,000/. With regard to the proposed ar-
rangement he believed it to be most preposterous.
lie stated that Mr. Cameron had every chance of
managing the concern for three years and nine
months, and yet the property of the shareholders, to
the extent of between 50,0001. and, 60,000/., was ab-
solutely gone for ever. Their own solicitor told
them their lease was valueless. They were no parties
to the lease. The parties who had the lease were
three directors, two of whom were not present, and
the other was dead. These parties were friends of
Colonel Cameron, and were the only parties inte-
rested in the stipulations of that lease. He contended
that the lease was not for the benefit of the sharehol-
ders. He believed the money he had invested in the
property was of no more value than if he had thrown
it into the Thames. He called upon the proprietors
not to sanction the resolution. _ _ .

Mr. HART entered into an explanation of the cir-
cumstances respecting the lean of certain sums of
money by himself and friends to the company.
Mr. ELDERTON then entered into a counter state-
ment of the proceedings between the company and
the three gentlemen with regard to the loan. He
stated that they held 32,0001. security for 10,0001. to
he advanced; but they never advanced more than
1,9001. He then gave an account of the subsequent
law proceedings.
Mr. CHALMERS moved an amendment peremptorily
rejecting the proposition of Mr. W. B. Cameron,
which was seconded.
Mr. Fur recommended the shareholders to throw
away all the money they had spent, and give up the
mine to Colonel Cameron.
After considerable discussion and several proposi-
tions, it was proposed to adjourn the meeting for a
week to allow time for coming to terms.
Mr. BURLS strenuously opposed an adjournment as

being useless.
The CHAIRMAN said it would he understood that
all propositions were withdrawn in favour of the
adjournment, and proceeded to put this question to
a poll.
The shareholders insisted on its being decided by a
show of hands.
The SECRETARY announced that 1,332 votes were
given for the adjournment, and 250 against it.
The CHAIRMAN anounced that the meeting was
adjourned to that day week.
M. BURLS observed that if the shares of Mr. W. B.
Cameron, who, as a party interested, was not entitled
to a vote, were deducted, the adjournment would
have been negatived by 117 votes against 250. The
meeting then separated.