The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-29 00:00:00

SouritAlVlPfioN, MANCHESTER,
AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY COM-
PANY

A public meeting of the sharehelders in this Company
was held on Tuesday, at the Itall Of Commerce, Threadneedle -
street, whieli Was ehaVened by the solicitor, Mr. Par-,
eelis) id eorhpliance with the wishes of a 1„,.0 number
of the shareholders, to take comniesstlpis h 0 agsae•
ments entered into by the Man hi doalmittee with the
Oxford, SouthanipteN tioipekt, and Portsmoutln and the
Oxford, Newbury, Andover, Manchester; and Southampton
Companies respectively, as well as the general state of the
affairs of the Company, and to consider the steps necessary
to be taken with reference to the same.
After a delay of about half an hour,
Mr. PARSONS said, that Mr. Wilkinson, Who was to have
presided, was about fifty yards distant, and had been sent
for, but as he had not appeared he would call on Mr.
Manta to take the chair.
Mr. Mtsvrz, M.P., said he must decline presiding, be-
cause he did not recognise the right of those who had called
the meeting to take that course. The shareholder's! Were
ready to render any explanation that might be required, but
it should be to a meeting Convened by persons entitled
to do so. Ile was unfortunately the chairman of
the Company, but it was with the expreas condition that he
Was not to take any part in the proceedings.
Some other gentlemen having been called on, and having
refused to preside, the chair was at length taken by Mr.
Graham.
The CHAIRMAN said he would call on Mr. Parsons to state
the circumstances under which the meeting was called.
Mr. PARSONS, having read the notice convening the meet-
ing, said, that it became a duty imposed on him, or, rather,
which he had taken on himself, to state the tireumstances that
led ,to this meeting being called. It was well known to
them that it was he who had originated that line (the
Southampton) Manchester, and Oxford Junction), and that
to distinguish it from another line it was called Parsons' line.
As the projector, he conceived he would not be doing his
duty to himself if he did not respond to the call of
those who had relied on him in that matter, and who
had been induced by his representations to take shares in
the Company, and whose desire it was that that
meeting should take place.—(Hear.) He also held
between 400 and 500 shares. Before proceeding further he
must observe, that the line, as projected by him, had its
commencement at the South-Western Railway, and ter-
minated in two points at the Great Western. It did
not depend upon any other lines than those which were es-
tablished, and it was intended by that arrangement to obtain
and consolidate all the other advantages arising from the
north to Southampton. Now that was the line
he had projected, and it was a rational scheme,
but at the time that he was relieved from
professional care of the project, an advertisement appeared
which contained a statement on the part of the Provisional
Committee which to him wasquite suicidal. The line projected
was in itself a good scheme It proposed to have branches
to Swindon. But what was his surprise to see that by an
agreement between both Companies, the main trunk and
branches were given up, the only branch reserved being that
to Swindon. It did not propose to have an amalgamation of
the two Companies. There was no reciprocity of advantages
at all, and the entire benefit resulted to Mr. Bethell, even if
the Act were obtained. But it was absurd to suppose that
an Act could be obtained for such a line. Therefore their
Company would have no interest in Mr. Bethell's Company.
On the contrary they, if it were carried out, would be left
to fight single-handed against the Great Western and
the Southampton Railway, and the Committee took upon
themselves to alter that line, so that it was perfectly absurd
to bring it forward as a distinct branch, because the line then
laid down was within two miles of the Great Western, near
Hungerford. They would, therefore, for that distance, be a
competing line with the Great Western. It must, therefore,
be obvious to them that to go to Parliament for a line running
two miles parallel with the Great Western would be absurd.
Supposing the line was made from Swindon to Hungerford, it
would then fall into Mr. Bethell's line—wonid it not be ridi.
eulous to think of bringing such a scheme before the House?
lie had been called on by parties for an explanation of what
all that meant, but he could only repeat what he had read in
the newspapers. However, being acquainted with the localities,
lie saw that the proposed scheme was an absurdity. Besides
there was no mutuality of benefits between the two companies.
From the numerous inquiries that were made of him by
several great shareholders, he was urged to make some re-
monstrance with the parties before the line was persisted in.
Previous to doing so, however, he was determined to take the
advice of counsel, and laid a case as to whether a Company,
having abandoned the original line, could retain the deposits.
The answer of Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Hetherington was,
that they could be compelled to return the deposits, in con-
sequence of the line being altogether changed. Shortly after
that, an advertisement appeared in the paper, to the effect
that an arrangement had been made with Mr. Bethell
and the Managing Committee, and it was declared that there
was an amalgamation of the companies. There was some
mystery which could not be discovered in the face of the
advertisement. It was evident that Mr. Bethell's line pro -
posed to go to Manchester and Andover. If that were a
bond fide agreement, it was impossible the Company could
preserve their line to Swindon; therefore the whole project
was abandoned, and the Directors had no right to retain the
money. The line, which was to have terminated in two
points at the Great Western, would have secured the assist-
ance of that Company, but they had now incurred the re-
sentment of two powerful companies, and there
would be great danger in going to Parliament.
Here they were called on to sanction a line which deprived
them of the communication with Portsmouth and Gosport,
which would have procured for them the patronage of Go-
vernment, from the facilities it would afford of conveying
troops there. How could any men of business sanction such
an arrangement. But this had been done without even con-
suiting the wishes of the shareholders on the question. He
could not place much confidence in men who had betrayed so
much infirmity. In the first instance only half the shares
were allotted, so that instead of raising 900,000/., which they
could have easily done, they only raised 400,000/a
and with so small a capital it was impossible
they could go before Parliament. Moreover, there
were applications for nine or ten times more shares
than could be alloted by the committee. Now, under the
circumstances, how was it, he would ask, that they had been
induced to give up that line? Why, the project was so ab-
surd that it could not be submitted to Parliament, and it
had been intimated to him that they could not show a traffic
on the line. And it was proposed now to hand over their
money, nolens volens, to carry out those views on which the
Directors were determined to act, without even consulting
the shareholders, and they persisted in going before Parlia-
ment with a line quite different from that for which they
had paid their money. The shareholders were now called on
by the advertisement to sign the deed, or forfeit
their deposits. It had been said that the lines with which
they bad amalgamated had only sufficient to pay their own
expenses, and therefore they would incur the responsibilities
of two lines. Instead, therefore, of bettering their condition
they were getting worse and worse. He conceived now that
the shareholders had a right to demand some explanation
from the Directors, who ought to state the position in which
they were placed and give them up their deposits, which
they refused to do.—(No, no.)
A LADY (a shareholder) said that she had called at the
office in Throgmorton-street, and stated that she would
much rather get back her deposits than sign the deed, but
this was refused.
The CHarnalast said this was a corroboration of what he
had stated.
A SHAREHOLDER asked why Mr. Parsons had not called a
meeting at the time when the first advertisement appeared?
Mr. PARSONS said he was consulting counsel on the
affairs of the Company, and of course it occupied him some
time in drawing up a case ; besides that, he had the engage-
ments of his business on hand.
Mr. Musrrz, M.P., rose in the body of the meeting, and
said, after what had fallen from Mr. Parsons, he felt called
on to animadvert on some of the statements which had fallen
from that gentleman. For himself, he said, he had never
been a speculator in railways, and was not one, except to the
extent to which he had been involved by his connexion
with that Company, and he begged to seate how that con-
nexion came to be formed. When Mr. Parsons had brought
out his line, he wrote to him (Mr. Muntz), speaking
of the. good prospects of the scheme, and its advantages,
and asking him to take shares in it. In reply, he wished to
see what names Mr. Parsons had got on the committee ; Mr.
Parsons went down to Birmingham and called on him with
the information, representing the scheme so fairly that he
consented to take shares, but observing at the time
that there must be a greater number of working men on the
committee, for he could not promise to work himself. Some
time after Mr. Parsons wrote to him to say that the prospec-
tus from one cause or another had not then been published,
and asked him to allow himself to be put down as chairman.
Subsequent to that he had become unwell, so as to be unable
to be present at any meetings of the committee, at first
when he was able to attend, he found, he was sorry to say,
all the acting persons who had been appointed by Mr.
Parsons, with one or two exceptions, the most unfit persons
for their duty, the most fraudulent set of people he had ever
met with. He had no interest apart from the interest com-
mon to the shareholders; he considered he had lost from four
or five hundred pounds by the scheme into which he had
been led by dishonesty—for he had to state to them the way
in which he had been lugged into it. He said to Mr. Parsons,
when he was down at Birmingham, " Is there any railway in
competition with your line ?" Oh, no, decidedly not,"
was Mr. Parsons reply; but the first thing he had
met with after that was a notice of Mr. Remington's
line. He would, however,
_notice some of the points of Mr.
Parsons' statement. He (Mr. Parsons) said they were poor,
and perhaps they were poor, but how did their poverty
arise? Why, one-half the shares only had been sold by Mr.
Parson's own recommendation.—(Hear, hear.) Ought he not
otoughhatvehest,aatfetedrtthheant,ththateohme
ehaadndadmviaskede tahsattanateeasmeunrtea? Aboanda
poverty which, if it has existence, derived that existence
from himself? Mr. Parsons had blamed them for giving
up the original line, but they had done so because Mr.
Bethell's Company, with which they were on terms, had
their line already, and they had retained as much as the
money they had on hand warranted them to do. Why, it
was asked, had they given up the arrangements negotiated
with Mr. Bethel? Mr. Parsons should have known that;
if he did not, he (Mr. Muntz) could tell him affairs had
turned up with that Company which were beyond
his (Mr. Muntz's) control, and the control of the committee,
which warranted their breaking off as they did. If thegentle-
man would wish to know further he might go and inquire
of Mr. Bethell what these affairs were. They had given up
part of the line because there was a parallel and a better
line. As for the waste of money with which they had been
charged, Mr. Parsons might call together a meeting of all
the shareholders, and the committee would render up a
faithful account of all their transactions. For himself he
wished nothing more earnestly, unless it be one thing, and
that was that he had never had anything to do with the
Company, for he had been lugged into it against
his will and most deceitfully. Mr. Parsons' connexion
with the committee had been dissolved for reasons
which he could himself have averted. When he
(Mr. Muntz) came up he found Mr. Parsons ex-
ercising control over the committee and all its business.
They were obliged to get rid of him on account of his con-
duct, for it was such as they could not put up with. He was
sorry at parting with the gentlemen of the committee on
such a ground, but it was a painful necessity. Mr. Par
sons had to thank himself for the position in which he found
himself and for the position which the committee were now
occupying. For his part, as he had said already, lie would
be most willing to give a statement to the shareholders,
when convened for that purpose, of all that they had done.
Mr. Wllauarsom, a large shareholder, rose and said
he had never heard a statement made by any chair-
man of a railway company, though he had at-
tendedmanyrli
urtaboohdtdyoeeebmndl teuhhatdmaeownsedeecn:
ebtaaretiseacnhneesebngedntdlrn
Honourable
statement
aeGehenbmddedeol
nteen:Anth Gentlemanlitboee
connectumommrdt
Gentleman
ni
dhel
rweenh kabwfayeododrs ,u
had be
been
n made
hoodwinked?
Birmingham
rda
ask
inTukl icihhnhaeaegdnghjyheausanamods_tf
tbtwtsatloheeaeomstns dheoaloennnwi
egnhmnglei.aterkhn
nedearll 'aiytenll
hyimMrse.lfMwuinthtzihaes
committee, remarking however on what the Chairman of
the meeting said were misquotations.) He then then said
that his ground of complaint was against gentlemen who al-
lowed themselves to be put upon committees of railways, in
order to gain subscriptions by the authority of their name
in the newspapers. On that occasion, when difficulties
I were alleged, the Honourable Gentleman, he considered