The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-25 00:00:00

THE CHARING-CROSS BRIDGE

COMPANY.

A special general meeting of the shareholders in
this company was held at the office, Villiers-street,
Strand, on Saturday (Mr. IV. Hawes in the chair), for
the purpose of receiving a report from the directors.
But a small number of shareholders were present.
The advertisement having been read,
The CHAIRMAN said it was only necessary for him
to trouble them with a few observations. He was
glad to say that, following up the wishes communi-
cated by all the proprietors at the last meeting, that
an amicable understanding should subsist between
the two companies, he and his brother directors had
carefully considered the relative positions of both
companies, and their deliberations had resulted in a
general agreement between them as to the course to
be adopted at that meeting.--(Hear, hear.) The di-
rectors, therefore, came before them to propose two
resolutions—first, the rescinding of the contract with
Messrs. Jackson, Sir Joshua Walmsley, and others,
for the sale of the bridge ; and,risecondly, to obtain
power to raise 20,0001. to pay off the urgent calls on
the finances of the company. The directors had
little more to say beyond the report. Mr. Hawes
then read the report and the proposed resolutions,
which were in the following terms :
" Your directors have little more to say in reference
to the special general meeting convened for this day,
than to report that after the half-yearly general meet-
ing of the proprietors, held in August last, they ap-
pointed a committee consisting of Mr. Seager, Mr.
Child, and Mr. English, to inquire into the financial
position of the company, and to report their opinion
as to the best means of providing for the payment of
the pressing demands on its finances.
" The report of that committee having been adopted
by your directors, it was resolved that a copy thereof,
with the resolutions to be proposed this day, should
be forwarded to the directors of the Hungerford
Market- Company. 'These resolutions„ after some
correspondence and digcussion, have been arranged
to the satisfaction of both parties, and your directors
with confidence submit the same for the support of
the sharehelders now assembled.

" 1. That the arrangements entered into by the
directors with Mr. Jackson, Sir Joshua Walmsley,
Messrs. Reed and Fuller, for rescinding the contract
with them for the sale and purchase of the bridge and
other property of the company, be approved; and
that the directors be and are hereby authorised to
affix the company's seal to any instrument which
may be required for that purpose.
" 2. That a, sum of money not exceeding 20,0001.
be raised, pursuant to the power for that purpose
granted by the Company's Act of Parliament, 6 Viet.,
cap. 19, by the issue of 3,200 quarter shares of 61. ss.
each ; such shares to be issued by the directors at
such times and in such manner as they may think
best calculated to promote the interests of the original
shareholders in the company."
His first business was to move the reception of the
report. Of course he should feel happy to give any
information that might be required, but he could
hardly conceive that any one would make such a re-
quest after the special appointment of the committee
referred to to investigate the accounts, and which had
led to the calling of that meeting, and after the full
discussion which the whole matter then before them
had undergone at the previous meeting.
Mr. BLUNT thought that the members of the com-
mittee formerly appointed should receive some ac-
knowledgment of their labours in the report of the
directors, who had chasseed their recommendations
and now adopted them in another form.
The CHAIRMAN said the propositions now brought
forward were substantially the same as those recom-
mended by the committee of which Mr. Blunt was a
member.

Mr. BROWNE, a solicitor, here handed in a
protest against the proceedings of the directors, which
he called upon the clerk to read previous to moving
its insertion on the minutes. It was signed by
Messrs. Varnham, Cope, Rudall, and Rose, declining
to recognise the legality of the arrangements entered
into by the directors for the sale of the bridge, and
intimating their intention to prosecute them for the
course they had adopted.
The CHAIRMAN, having read the document, said he
could not look upon it as a protest, and inquired if
Mr. Browne submitted it as an amendment ?

Mr. BROWNE replied in the negative : it would
speak for itself. _ _ _

The CHAIRMAN declined to receive it.

A SHAREHOLDER said it was usual at public meet-
ings to hand in protests at their termination, if the
persons protesting were dissatisfied with the pro-
ceedings.
The Cus.tasurr said that was the usual course.
Mr. ELKINS said the document put forward by the
directors could not be considered a report, as it did
not contain the information which the: shareholders
required before they could decide upon so momentous
a matter as that for which they had been summoned.
He found a statement in it to the effect that a report
had been made by a certain committee, that it was re-
ceived by the directors, and approved of by them; and
they now called upon the shareholders to agree to the
reception of a report, of the contents of which they
were ignorant. He wished to have the report read,
but if the Chairman refused to accede to his request,
it would be for the meeting to consider whether they
would act properly if they
adopted such a report.
The CHAIRMAN said he would cut a long story
short, by consenting to read the report on which the
directors based the resolutions. He accordingly
did so.

The Rev. Dr. MOORE thought they should
be fully informed on the matter before the meeting.
Would it not be well also to read the resolutions
agreed to by the Market Company, in
order to see
how the matter stood ?
The CHAIRMAN replied that the Market Company
were desirous that the new shares should not go into
the market to the depreciation of the old shares, and
the directors of the Bridge Company had passed a re-
solution complying with this wish and pledging the
faith of the company that they should only be used for
the creation of a temporary loan.
Mr. QUADE inquired, if the shares
were so used,
what guarantee the directors could give that they
would not be taken into the market ?
The CHAIRMAN—I can offer
y
ou no guarantee,
gentlemen, except the word of your directors that it
is not their intention so to issue the shares, and
surely you have sufficient confidence in us to believe
that we are sincere in what we say. Such an assur-
ance is as much as any gentleman would require from
those whom he has elected to conduct the affairs of
any company in which he is a shareholder.—
A SHAREHOLDER recommended that the resolution
should be accompanied with a statement to this
effect. (Hear.)

a threat
put it to The CHAIRMAN said it w
in-
cluded in the resolution as on record, and was
agreed
Company.
Mr. FOWLER thought it
protest.led
to with the Market
should be seconded by a
resolution at that meeting.
The report was then received.
The CHAIRMAN moved the
resolution, which was seconded by, adoption of the first
Mr. BLUNT.
to prosecute t
Mr. BROWNS again pressed
The CHAIRMAN repeated that
a tpti
odr
otntheoestt
meeting.
consider
eta
iii.dnnegsrt.
to do with the
it a protest; it was merely
directors. If the Hon. Proprietor wouldthsuebcmointtirtalicates.
motion, he would receive it and
Mr. BLUNT said it had nothing
business of the day.
co conduct uc hist
own
the
Mr. BROWNE replied that was
"all acts and dealings" in respect
He disclaimed against the Chairman having
way at all the meetings.
to
business properly.
The CHAIRMAN merely wished
Mr. CHRISTIE, a director, said that there was
nothing in the document to indicate its nature, ex-
cept the word " protest." If the parties who had
signed it did not approve of the proceedings, they
might vote against them. It merely said that they
would hold the directors responsible for money they
had spent in the opposition they had carried on, and ,
was a question which would no doubt be decided at ,1
the proper time. It was nothing more than an
amendment.
Mr. BROWNE said—The whole matter was this.
The Chairman would not receive a protest against
what he had done, and wished him to postpone press-
ing the reception of the protest until the first resolu-
tion was carried. Now he protested at the proper
time; its consequences would be felt at the proper
time, and it was monstrous that a servant of the
company should refuse to receive it.
A SHAREHOLDER said the protest was nothing
more than a written speech against the resolution.
If the parties objected to it they should proceed by a
substantive motion.
After some discussion, .
The CHAIRMAN explicitly declined to receive the
document as a protest. lie had, however, no objec-
tion to receive it at the end of the meeting.
Mr. ELKINS complained that the proposition of a
resolution of so much importance had not been pre-
ceded by some explanation by the chairman of what
' had occurred since the last meeting to induce the
directors again to bring it forward. They could not
have forgotten that it bad been propounded twice or
thrice, and that each time it had been repudiated.
, All that they had heard in addition was, that the
' Hungerford-market - company had agreed to