The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-24 00:00:00

TRENT VALLEY CONTINUATION

RAILWAY.

Several Manchester shareholders in this contemplated line
being. dissatisfied with the proceedings of the directors, a
meeting was held yesterday at the London Tavern, at the
instance of John Collier, Esq., chairman of the Manchester
Sub-Committee, Francis Dedinne, Esq., one of the same
body, and Thomas Carlisle Esq., of Hyde-park-place.
The Committeeof Management issued a counter advertise-
ment, stating their intentions to call a meeting, after the
provisions of the Bill for dissolving railway companies should
be ascertained. Some little time elapsed after the hour
had passed for which the meeting was called before the pro-
ceedings commenced. After that lapse it was moved that
Thomas Carlisle, Esq., take the chair, but that gentleman
declined on the plea of a severe cold, and, on his motion,
James Troup, Esq., was called upon to preside.
The CHAIRMAN stated that he was but little accustomed
to preside at public meetings, but he was ready to hear any
gentleman, and having read the advertisement calling the
meeting,
F. DEFLINNE, Esq., stated that the chief objection of the
shareholders to the conduct of the directors arose from the
intention of that body to amalgamate with the Shropshire
Union Company, the London and Dublin Approximation
Company, and the Shropshire Mineral Company, part of
which Companies were well knownsto the proprietors pre-
sent. The proceedings, however, of this day would be much
modified by the fact that the directors had issued an adver-
tisement, statinc that they intended to calla meeting as
soon as the provisions of the Government Bill for dissolving
railway companies should be known. But there were very
suspicious circumstances connected with the investment of
the funds, and it appeared, that in order to meet the pro-
visions of that Act the directors had been largely engaged in
buying up shares, and one auctioneer had been engaged to
bay all the shares he could obtain at 30s. a share, and several
had seen purchased at 15s. discount, and others at 17s. 6d. a
share. It' this course were pursued, it would be evident that
the shareholders would be swamped. The object of this
meeting was to answer any question that might be asked.
A SHAREHOLDER suggested that it would be well to as.
certain what proportion of shares had been taken up by the
directors. This was the more necessary as the shares came
out at a premium.
Mr. DEFLINNE—They came out at 5/. premium.
The SHAREHOLDER wished then to know what had been
paid upon. He had applied for information, but could obtain
none.

Mr. JOHNSON NEALE said that he had replied to the
letter which was addressed to them.
Mr. JAMES RICHARDSON wished to know whether Mr.
Deflinne was about to move a resolution ?
The CHAIRMAN stated that Mr. Deflinne had stated' that
he was ready to answer any questions, and that he was ready
to submit a petition for signature.
Some conversation then ensued as to the real object of the
meeting, as several strangers had just entered the room, and,
The CHAIRMAN having again read the advertisement, said,
that the gentleman who had convened the meeting was to
make a report, the materials of which they had not been
able to obtain, and they were ready, therefore, to submit a
petition for the signatures of the members present.
After some further conversation, the object of which was
to elicit the names of some particular directors, which Mr.
Deflinne refused to give,
The CHAIRMAN thought that gentleman ought to be heard
to the end of his statement.
Mr. DEFLINNB then read the petition which had been pre-
pared, and which was intended to be presented to the House
of Commons, with a view to give greater efficiency to Lord
Dalhousie's Bill, the purport of which was, that the directors
had taken originally five-eighths of the whole of the shares of
the company; that on the 16th of April last year the others
had come out at 5/. premium, on which a deposit of 11. 7s. 6d.
had been paid. On the 4th of October a further deed was
prepared, by which it appeared that the directors had agreed
to take up the whole of the shares which it was incumbent
upon them, but had actually taken up only one-eighth of
that quantity. The petition still further stated that its ob-
ject was to prevent a winding up of the Company without
an investigation of the conduct of the directors.
Mr. DEPLINNE then moved the adoption of that petition,
but it remained without a seconder; and a Shareholder then
moved that the meeting adjourn till after the meeting which
the directors intended to call, which was seconded ; but 'a
further conversation ensued, from which it appeared that
this was the desire of the meeting, with the addition that
an opinion should be expressed, that the committee of share-
holders ought to have an opportunity of investigating the
papers and accounts,
Mr, SOLOMON then moved an adjournment for a fortiiis ght,
or three weeks.

Mr. Jaux.a---then inquired whether any report had been
issued from the Trent Valley office.
Mr. DEFLINNE said there had been no such report.
Mr. JAMES moved a resolution, which he was putting into
writing, when
Mr. JOTINSON NEALE said that he had come there to give
all the information he possessed respecting the Company,
and he was the more desirous. of doing so, because
he was anxious to refute a slander which had ap-
peared in the Morning Chronicle, he believed in the
report of a statement made by Mr. Deflinue, which
went to the effect of saying that he had sold the in-
terests of the Company. Mr. Neale then went into an ex
planation of his conduct, which appeared to be perfectly
satisfactory that it had been in every way honourable. In
this statement it was shown that the Staffordshire „Inneti ,n •
had offered to abandon the Welsh part of their line, and to
give 15,0001. to take up all the dropped shares; and with
respect to the Shropshire Mineral Amalgamated Company
equal advantages were proffered; and on Mr. Neale's motion,
at a meeting of the directors, it was decided that the share-
holders should be eddied together in order to effect the amal-
gamation, but from that meeting the Manchester shareholders
had refrained from attending Such was the case, yet at a
susequent period those gentlemen had openly expressed
their disapprobation of the proceeding, and it was
not to be wondered at that after this the pep_
tors did not work well with Thb Manchester com-
filittee. As Vegarde'ds the oppoitunity of investigating the
accounts, a meeting had been held on the 23d of January,
since which time the committee had el:Ted smile opportu.