The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-16 00:00:00

Tin% 117 jioN now! WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANTARY 10; 1016.

a
Y..i.*i:::::. c.~irAk3.Y,

T ?tXEi;

t t 0 II
i4p4P_
fa,/z
. •
' -
4•••
, , •

ZA.T.II,WLie‘

~~l 'iii F•♦l'l~ ~

this .

this lay •

SUN OFFICE, Sia; o'Clock.

Bedford and

SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

Meeting this Day.

A special general meeting of the shareholders of this
compwly was held this morning at the Waterloo Ter-
minus, Waterloo-road, to consider and decide on which
of the two schemes of extension of this line—from Dor-
chester to Exeter, or Yeovil to Exeter —shouli be
adopted, the directors recommending that from Yeovil
to Exeter.

It will be recollected that the extension of, this line
has been the subject of much discussion and ill-feeling
amongst the shareholders, on the ground, as alleged by
some, that the late Chairman (the Hon. Mr. Scott) had
pledged the company yvithout authority) to the exten-
sion of the line to Exeter. The attendance of share.
holders at the commencement of the meeting was very
small. Mr. Chaplin, M.P., in the chair.
The report of the directors recommending the
extension from Yeovil to Exeter, and which has already
been published in The Sun, was read by Mr. Crombie,
the secretary.

In answer to a question from Mr. PUNCEUED,
The SECRETARY said the committee of directors who
considered the question of extension were the Chairman,
Mr. Dutton, Mr. Mortimer, Count Ayre, Mr. Castle-
main, Captain Mangles, and Mr. tlzielli.
The CuArniew said that, in accordance with the con-
tents of the report, they were called on to decide the
simple question whether the extension of the line to
Exeter should be by the coast or through the central dis-
trict between the coast and tkelGreat Western Railway.
The explanatory report which 110 been read contained
the unanimous sentiments of the board—(hear)—and he
felt he might with advantage avoid troubling them with
his opinions on the question and unnecessarily occupying
their time. As it was his intention to propose to them a
resolution confirming and adopting the report, and the
agreement with the Salisbury and Yeovil Company, be
would make a few observations. With reference to the
coast line, looking at the railway system throughout the
country, they would find they were mostly at a con-
siderable discount, which was not much to be wondered
at, because half of the district which a railway had to
look to for support was occupied by the sea. (Hear.)
If the coast did not contain good mercantile ports, such
as Southampton, Bristol, Liverpool, and Hull, it fol.
owed that the sea was very unproductive to a rail-
way, and where there were such small porta
as Lymington, Poole, Sidmouth, and Exmouth,
they found in the small sailing craft a powerful
rival to a coast line in carrying rough, large, and
heavy commodities, which comprised a railway's goods
traffic, at a trifling cost. A coast line also left a large
district open to the influence of a competing railway.
The distance by the - central line would be 27 miles
shorter than the coast line, which was a weighty con-
sideration. It often happened that competing lines ran
at a uniform rate of fare., the longer route adopting
them in order to obtain a share of popularity, conse-
quently they would save in the outlay of construction in
adopting the central line, and derive an advantage over
their rival in the amount of their fares. The hon. gen-
tleman proceeded to remark on the better security the
central line would give over the ether, and reminded
the meeting that as there bad lately been new blood in-
fused into the direction, and the central scheme had re-
ceived the unanimous approval of the board, it
would also receive the unanimous support of the meet.
ing. He moved the reception and adoption of the report
with the agreement with the Yeovil and Salisbury Com-
pany.

Mr. DUTTON seconded the nntion.
Mr. WOOD, in a lengthened address, complained thal
the chairman bad used hie influence, as a member o
Parliament and chairman of that board, to promote ex
tensions which had been unproductive. He had no con.
fldence in him as their chairman, and be (Mr. Wood
advised them to call on him to resign. He was oppose,
to any further extensions.
Mr. DICKINSON said that the report presented by the
direct-ma was the most illusory and treacherous docu-
ment that had ever been submitted to a body of share.
holders. Mr. Dickinson, in the course of his opening
remarks, charged Mr. Hutchings, one of the directors,
with grinning and sneering at his remarks, which that
gentleman denied, when a strange scene occurred, in the
course of which Mr. Hutchings denied the assertion, re,
marking that if Mr. Dickinson wiohod to make a porqn-
nal quarrel of it he was ready to do so, because he was
afraid of no mau either in publi9 or private. Mr. Dick•
mason then resumed his speech, in the eour..e of wb ich he
remarked that the Yeovil and. Salisbury Company wa,
but a sham, and proceeded to read the list of the share-
holdere, with the amount they bad subscribed, comment-
ing severely on them—sotne of them, he said, being
without the means of raising money sufficient to pay for
the shares stated they had, and that others were persons
under age, &o. He was about to remark on the chair-
man of the board as a shareholder in the Yeovil atad Sa-
lisbury line, when
The CHAIRMAN rose, and said he was not convected
with the line, either directly or indirectly—(hear)--and
if Mr. Dickinson's other 'statements were of the same
character as his statement respecting him (the chairman)
he was afraid they were not to be relied on.
Mr. DICKINSON then entered into the cost of the con-
struction of the line. He described the valuation of Mr.
Locke and the surveyors as mere fictions. He called on
the meeting to discountenance alliances with other lines
and to set their faces against further extension. It was
impossible to make the Central line for 600,0001. The
route from Yeovil to Exeter, by the Bristol and Exeter
line, was but six miles longer than it would be by the
proposed line, and it was to be expected the Bristol and
Exeter Railway would oppose them in fares and crush
them. The line from London to Southampton bad. cost
three millions, and he felt certain that the extension to
Exeter before it was finished would cost a similar
amount. Mr. Dickinson next referred to the directors
having sent out proxies to support the central line.
Mr. UZIELLI (director) denied that he had canvassed
for a single vote.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE ,saia he did not believe the
directors had canvassed for a vote. (Hear.)
Mr. PUNCHARD —Theo why have they sent out
proxies
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE said the directors had sent
out proxies to prevent a section of the shareholders from
doing so, and gain an advantage over the others.
Mr. DICKINSON, after some further remarks, moved
the rejection of the report.
Mr. HELPS seconded the amendment.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR, M.P., as acting chairman of
the Salisbury and Yeovil Company, denied Mr. Dickin-
son's statement that it was not a bona fide company.
Colonel LUARD (director) replied to the letters that
bad been published by Mr. Dickinson, reflecting on the
conduct of the directors. He characterised these let-
ters as foul abuse in describing the directors as j Akers,
enemies to the company, &c., and called on that gentle-
man to retract his assertions.
Mr. DICKINSON declined to retract what he had said
or published.
Colonel LUARD—Then I shall know how to deal with
you.
Mr. HELPS said he made similar charges to those Mr.
Dickinson had made against the beard, which were made
on them in their collective capacity as directors, and
not as private individuals. He addressed the meeting
at greatlength, supporting the views of the mover of the
amendment. •
General HUTCHINSON condemned the opposition that
hail been got up against the board of directors, and ex-
pressed his confidence in them. He called on the share-
holders to support the board in this, their unanimous
recommendation, by agreeing to the Chairman's too-
_ _

In answer to a question from Mr. Snow,
The CHAIRMAN said that when the decision of Parlia-
ment was declared with reference to this extension, the
directors, being sensible of their position, invited the
Great Western and Bristol and Exeter directors to meet
them and discuss the best mode of meeting the views of
Parliament, and providing the best accommodation
for the public ; but those bodies bad declined to meet
them.
Mr. SNOW charged Mr. Dickinson with advocating
measures to the disadvantage of the shareholders. It
was true that Mr. Dickinson was not a shareholder in
Great Western Railway, but he had a large family inte-
rest in that line. Mr. Dickinson, notwithstanding his
opposition to the board, had lately increased his stake
iu this railway by 2,0001. (near, hear.)
Mr. DICKINSON denied it.
On examining the tranefer•book the increase was
found to have taken place in April, 1855.
Mr. EAGLESFIELD moved another amendment,
calling upon Parliament to allow them to proceed
with the extension at such time as circumstances would
enable them to do it without loss to the South-Western
shareholders,
Mr. PRITCHARD seconded it.
Mr. CASTLEMAIN explained his change of opinion from
the coast line to the central line, and acquitted tha chair-
man of any personal interest over that of any other
shareholder in advocating the latter.
The CHAIRMAN put the amendment, which was lost
by a large majority, as was that of Mr. Eaglefield's.
Mr. GASKELL moved, and Mr. DICKINSON seconded,
an amendment that the extension should be from D,
cheater to Exeter, and not from Yeovil to Exeter, whit,
was negatived.
A third amendment was moved, hut lost, and the
original resolution carried, confirming the central line.
A poll was granted.
The meeting then teparated.