The Sun.
London, England, 1856-09-12 00:00:00

dered. Ey the decision the meeting should come to
with respect to his conduct he should feel perfectly
satisfied ; he ar,kecl no favour from any one, bat would
stand firmly on the ground he had taken. (Cheers.)
Dr. LLOYD then entered into a defence of the part he
had taken in effecting the compromise.
Sir W. DALYELL was of opinion that great blame was
attributable to Mr. Baylis in not having gone down to
Glasgow himself. He thought that gentleman did great
harm to their institution by always starting new com-
panies many of which must damage their association,
and held up to the meeting the pro-pectns of a new corn-
pany, which would require twenty-five millions of
capital.
In answer to a question, whether any undue influence
of a medical character had been brought to bear on the
husband of the deceased lady to induce him to come to a
compromise,
Dr. LLOYD said he was happy to give a distinct an-
swer to that question. He had never seen the man but
once, and had never either directly or indirectly alluded
to a compromise, because he had no opportunity of doing
so, had he been so disposed. He saw the man in the
presence of iMr. Wieland, when a long conversation
took place about the illness of his wife, and he had never
said one word about a post mortem examination. He
was told that the body was screwed down, and he in-
formed Dr. Macfarlane he should not insist on such an
examination. When 10001. was asked by the assurer,
he said I am a man of a few words ; 7501., which sum
was accepted and paid.
Rev. Mr. HINE (Manchester) said there was a great
mystery abut Mr. Wieland. He represented COO
shareholders, and they
were all desirous of effecting a
reconciliation betweP.sn Mr. Baylis and the directors.
He did not understand the cause of their breaking ; but
he hoped that meeting would aid in bringing about a
peaceful solution of the difficulty. He would therefore
propose, as a resolution, that the meeting, viewing the
compromise of the life assurance claim at Glasgow as op-
posed to the constitution of the Unity General Assur-
ance Association, unjust in principle and injurious to the
best interests of the policy and shareholders,—Resolved
that the sum of 1,2501. be paid to Mr. Aitken, or the
persons legally entitled to receive the same. (Cheers.)
He thought that Mr. Baylis and the directors were
equally to blame in the matter. Mr. Baylis bad been
premature in sending down the cheque without waiting
for the board day, and also in sending in his resignation,
but he hoped the breach might be healed, and that they
would not forget they were the Unity. (Cheers.)
Mr. SMITH (Liverpool) seconded the resolution, in the
hope that if the vote of that meeting did not legitimise
the payment, it would, at least, have the effect of put-
ting matters in such a train as to lead to an early and
satisfactory settlement. (Hear, hear.) It was the more
necessary because it was impossiblefor Mr. Baylis, whose
great talents he admitted to attend to so many different
institutions. He condemned in to .s the compromise
which had been mad*, and asserted that whenever a pro-
posal was made, it was the duty of the directors to make
the most strict and searching inquiries previous to its
acceptance; but that, once accepted, it should be as
inviolable as the laws of the Modes and Persians.
(Cheers.)
After some discussion,
Mr. TAYLOE, the solicitor, said that as that was an ex-
traordinary meeting, they could not pass such a resolu-
tion to make it binding upon the directors. In order to
do so, it must be passed at the next general meeting in
October.
Mr. SMITH (Liverpool) would suggest, in order to meet
that difficulty, that there should be added to the reso-
lution the words, "as soon as the said sum can be pro-
perly and legally paid.' (Cheers.)
The resolution, with that addendum, was then put
from the chair.
Mr. Munn, who was received with great applause,
said, as a shareholder, and one anxious to promote good
feeling, he bad endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation
but had failed. They had gone wrong, and were now
about to rectify that wrong. He felt strongly as to the
great and commanding abilities of Mr. Baylis, who was
a " company-maker," but he must be kept under control,
and therefore he approved of the separation of the mana-
gerial from the directorial functions of the executive.
(Cheers.)
After a farther and very irregular discussion the rens
lution, as amended, was unanimously agreed to.
Dr. HEARN they moved--That a committee be ap-
pointed to inquire into the present position of the asso-
ciation, and to ascertain what further steps may be
necessary to improve the management of the institution,
and to report thereupon at the next general meeting.
Mr. JACKSON (director) seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously—and a committee of nine
shareholders was appointed accordingly.
Mr. Mscur proposed that Mr. Baylis should be re-
stored to the managership pro ton.
Mr. SHERMAN seconded the motion.
Mr. J AcasoN protested against such a course until
the report of the committee was presented, and pro-
posed as an amendment that no further resolution should
be passed by that meeting.
Sir W. DALYELL seconded the amendment.
Upon being put to the meeting,
The CHAIRMAN declared that the original motion was
carried, whereupon—
Mr. JACKBON demanded a poll, and ecrutineers were
appointed.
In the midst of the confusion and excitement which
ensued, a vote of thanks was given to the Chairman.
After the chairman retired, the solicitor of the com-
pany (Mr. Tayloe) intimated a doubt on the legality of
the whole proceedings, and expressed his opinion that a
ballot could not be taken, and the proceedings ter-
minated.