The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-13 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVIINI-.NG,-

attending the meetings of the company, and though he
was not present On the last eec3sion he was Pi.r=fedY
i;.tortn,o 01 the whole- of the preceedi.gs, and in tact
of the precf=rdings of the comoanv .r some time past,
and he could not help Mating that if they pllow,-d party
feeling to run through-out all their proceedings the result
would be moreAltsustrous than anything that had
yet occurred. He came - -somewhat prejudiet-cl, he
admitted, against the directors, but from. what he had
heard to-day, it did appear to him that the two gentle-
men who had been appointed should have attended the
meetings of the committee, because he considered they
would have consulted the interests of both companies by
doing so.—(Cheers.) The report, however, was un-
questionably an honost one ; they had asked for it, and
he did not think it became them to complain of it now.
He was as adverse to raising money by shares as any
man, but what could they du? The claims must be sa-
tisfied, and he thought ihe mode of raising them recom-
mended was -the best they could adopt. Those who
opposed the report should suggest some better plan; but
as they had failed to do so he should vote for the recep-
tion of the report No doubt he might agree with many
of those who opposed the directors, as he did not ap-
prove of many things they had done, but indulging in
these feelings now would only involve them still further
in irretrievable difficulties. The proper time to deal
with -the directors with whom they were dissatisfied
was when the period of their re election arrived.
The CHAIRMAN dun pet the resolution to confirm the
one agreed to at the lust meeting, for the purpose of
raising 20,000/.

Tvrenty-seven hands were held up for it, and thirty
against it.

-Mr. HAVES demanded a poll, which Mr. Few and
Mr. Stuteley proceeded to take.
On coming to the name of Matthew Thomas Archer,
Mr. IIAWES objected to the reception of the vote.
The CHAIRMAN (to Mr. Lawrence)—I abk you, Is
there a shareholder on the register named Matthew
Thomas Archer, and with or wituout any person joined
with him ?

Mr LAWRENCE—Joined with him there is.
The CHAIRMAN—Then produce the register. (The
register was op.ned.)
Mr. ELKINS—Io a court of law he would be obliged
to answer the question directly, and not indirectly, as
he has done.

Mr. HAwEs—lt is registered " Matthew Thomas
Archer and the Hungerford-market Company."—
(Hear, hear.) Mr. Stuteley, you represent the Hunger-
tord-market Companyehe e, will you allow me to rok
you whether Mr. Archer and the llungerford.market
Company 11,1 d j intly ?
Ihe CHAIRMAN—Don't answer the question. Take
my advice, and don't reply to it.—( ;onsiderable aston-
ishment)

Mr. HAWES (after a pause).—Then as it is not a pro-
per d.scription, I object to receive it.
The CHAIRMAN—YOU object to it ?
Mr. IlAwEs—l do.
The CHAIRMAN—On what ground ?

Mr. HAwES—I object to state the grounds on which
I do so ; but, in justification of the course I am taking.
I have o onjecrion to read the eplestion put to Sir
Fitzroy Kelly, and his reply.—(Cries of " Oh! oh!")
The CHAIRMAN had no otjectten to have the opinion
read, provided the way in which it was put to the
Learned Counsel was also stated.—(Cheers.)
Mr. IlAwEs said he should take his stand on the ob-
j-ction he had made ; it was for the law to decide whe-
ther he was right or wrong.
The CHAIRMAN said the objection was perfectly in-
telligible. It was this—did this gentleman and the
Market CoMpany make one proprietor between them;
and was he properly described as a joint proprietor with
the Market Company?
Mr. FEW said the decision in this case would govern
all the other votes objected to on the same ground. The
62d section was perfectly explicit It specified the num-
ber of votes which holders of 20, :30, 40, 50, and 60
shares were entitled to, and expressly provided that no
corporate company like the Market Company should
have more than five votes. He.knew nothing of the ar-
rangement with respect to the 200 shares until within
the last three weeks. The directors had just as much
power to take double dividends as they had to receive
more than five votes from the Market Company. He
adinitt, d, on the opinion of Mr. Lloyd, that the first
party nailed should represent the share, but they had
no power of giving proxies.
Mr. FLA.DGATE said the party first named was clearly
entitled to vote,
A SHAREHOLDER said Mr. Stuteley had his proxy. He
held his shares conjointly with the Market Company ;
they had been legally transferred to him by deed, and
the Hungerford Company had no power to control his
vote.'

Mr. HAWES-- Perhaps you will state who receives the
dividend ?

The SHAREHOLDER—That has nothing to do with it.
I can prevent any one receivinc, them.
Mr. HAwEs said the Markete Company paid for the
proxie3.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to give his decision
with respect to the votes so described. Ile said it ap-
peared probable that one party or the other must go to
the Court of Chancery; but before any proceedings could
be talv-qi either in Parliatn4-nt or in the courts of law, it
was rt quisite that the Chairman should have given his
decision on the matter. He did not pretend to possess
legal knowledge, but finding that the votes now ob-
jected to had been received on three several occasions,
he could not really understand wh) they should not
now be received.— (Cheers.) It appeared (the Noble
Lord was corrected) they had been received twice with-
out the Chairman objecting to them.
Mr. HAWES said he then had no advice,

The CHAIRMAN said he thought the practice of re-
ceiving the votes as heretofore should be adhered to, and
that the parties who roused them should be the parties
to seek the aid of the Court of Chancery.—(Loud
cheers.) They had been rejected once, but was that any
reason why he should conform to that opinion, and re•
ject them no w 2—(lienew ed cheering.)
Mr. flAwEs said he considered his Lordship was
taking an inaccurate view of tf,e matter, and that he did
not quite exercise the impartiality that he should.—
(Ci ies of " Shame," sad hisses.) He had adopted the
I gal and the proper course in rejecting the votes after
he had been so advised by a high legal authority.
The CHAIRMAN did not shr nk frotn the responsibility
of offering his op'.nion. It was, however, open to discus-
sion in a court of law. Ile confessed, from the best
judgment he could form, that the votes tendered were
legal.— ("Pied cheer%) The perenn first nambd in the
register, whe,her 'sith the Market Company or any
other body, was the person entitled to vote. He was
bound to give a clear opinion on the subject, and he
re gretted exceedingly that it differed from that of the
professional men whose opinions had been cited. lie
was decidedly of opinion—and he might be set right if
he was wrong by either the Court of Chancery or the
Queen's Bench—that A B holding shares in the Bridge
Company was entitled to vote as a proprietor of the
Bridge Company.—(Cheers.) He also was of opinion
that A B might give a proxy, and therefore he was en.
titled to vote.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HAWES proteste.l against the reception of the
votes and the decision of the Chairman.
The votes so objected to were then received. Some
of the proxies were invalid, as they had not been de-
livered seven days be!ore the meeting, in accordance
with the Act.
The result of the poll was, that 142 voted for the con-
firmation of the resolution, and 199 against it-57 ma-
jority. The announcement was received with rapturous
cheering.
Mr. FEW stated that there were 75 objectionable
votes.

The business of the half-yearly meeting was then pro-
ceeded with.

Mr. HAWES briefly addressed the meeting, and read
the following report:
" Your directors congratulate the proprietors that the
tolls received during the past half-year justify a divi-
dend at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum ; and that the
receipts, which & creased for a time after the interest
excited by the opening had abated, and which were
further temporarily injured when the penny boats began
to run from the Surrey side of Westminster-bridge, are
now gradually improving; and there can be no doubt,
when the railway terminus is completed in tho York-
road, the traffic, and consequently the tolls, will be very
much augmented.
" To prepare for this traffic your directors propose
immediately to commence the access to the bridge from
the York-road, and they hope, in conjunction with the
railway companies, to make arrangements very benefi-
cial to the shareholders. No exertion shall be spared
to secure, to the fullest extent, all the advantages which
should arise from one end of the bridge being contiguous
to that which will probably be the largest railway station
in the kingdom, and the other in the centre of this vast
metropolis.
" At the annual meeting held in August, 1846, your
directors stated, that in conformity with the wish ex-
presoed at the previous half-yearly meeting, that law
proceedings with the Ilungerford Market Company
should, it possible, be avoided, they had submitted plans
to that company for the arrangement of the steatn• boat
passenger traffic, which they thought could not fail to be
accepted. This expeetation,
thoewever, was not realised;
b
and after much delay, and h refusal y the Market
Company to refer the subject to arbitration, an appeal
was made by that company to the Vice Chancellor,
who refused to entertain their application; but this de-
cision was afterwards reversed by the Lord Chancellor.
" Immediately the decree of the Lord Chancellor was
obtained, your directors instructed your soliciem to settle
these proceedings without delay, and to give
to the
Market Company, in the least expensive and simplest
form, the full benefi, ot their success.
me six-feet way
on the bridge was immediately railed off, and the pier
opened to the pub ie.
" The Market Company then marl© a claim for
demages, which your oirectors suggested, as they had
previously
done in respect of all other duff rences, should
be referred to arbitration. and your directors are happy
to say this offer wee accepted, although further proceed-
ings have not yet been taken upon it by the Market
Company. Whenever this subject is renewed it will
receive the closest attention of your directors, so that the
interests of the bridge proprietors may be protected.
Your directors thought the disputes respecting the
right of way being thus settled, no other source of dif-
ference between the companies existed, and that both
directions would, from that time forward,
unite to pro-
mote one common object. The directors of the Market
Company having seats at this board were requested to
renew their attendance, and a plan was suggested by
your deputy-chairman to one of those directors to place
a tell-tale and check-taker on the north pier, so as to
give the utmost facility to th, passengers from Lambeth
for the use of the pier and float. It was suggested that
the expense the first year (1001.) should be equally
divided between the Market leanpany, the Steam-boat
Companies, and the Bridge Company ; and that if, at
the expiration of that time, it was found to be beneficial
to the Bridge Company, the latter should bear the entire
charge.
" iA these untici

latious of barmoniouo working your