The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-16 00:00:00

Act, and it was this consider 'ation which had induced the
directors to turn to the Gres it Western Company.
Mr. TOWNLEY objected to the present agreements, and
contrasted them with form or agreements proposed by
the Great Western Railway, by which a 4 per cent.
dividend was guaranteed t a the shareholders of this
company. He was astonia, tied that the directors had
been so short-sighted. He. should certainly support the
amendment.
Major COURT suggested that the original agreement
alluded to by the Hon. Gent leman who had just sat down
should be reverted to at one .e. Ever since that agree-
ment had been abandoned the company had been going
wrong.
Mr. COHEN contrasted the advantages which this
company would derive fracci the two companies who
were candidates for their id liance. If they agreed with
the London and North-Wtu ,tern Company, from the re-
ceipts of 150,0001. this company would receive 29,3841,,
and the London and North -Western 14,3601., or a divi-
dend of 2 per cent., and all. excess to be divided equally
between the two. From io i agreement with the Great
Western Railway, from a receipt of 100,0001. this com-
pany would only. get about 21. Ils. 6d. per cent. Again,
the agreement with the Lo t idon and North-Western Rail-
way would save the ea :penditure of 300,0001. and
be able to borrow money o a the credit of that railway
at 4 per cent., and also to borrow money on the Great
Western Railway. If the • worst came to the worst they
could work their own lint —(Hear, bear)—and he was
sure that with the increases i advantages of the present
day they could do it with n much higher dividend than
many other railway compaz ies.
Mr. PARSONS defended ti le agreement on the ground
that it was more advantageous than the farmer agree-
ment with the London and :North-Western Railway, and
that in fact there was no other path left open for this
company. The one disting7 uishing element in the last
agreement was certainty, whereas in the other there was
an uncertainty both of exp enditure and receipts. This
last agreement, also, could be carried out immediately
without any further expi rrience. The London and
North- Western were not in a position to deal with them.
l'he traffic of this company was a London traffic, and in
his opinion the Gr.:at Wen tern Railway was the most
advantageous line to carry on their traffic to London.
Mr. Sergeant GASELEE ,commented on the anomaly
of the solicitor of the comp 'Loy making harangues in fa-
vour of a scheme which he would receive the pay of the
company to carry out in another place. Unfortu-
nately, on the last occasion, he had just the same advo-
cacy in favour of the London and N,,rth-Western Rail-
way Company. If, however, he had such confidence in
his case, what objection col uld there be to wait and al-
low every body else to Bald sty themselves that the ad-
vantages were as great as had been represented? He,
for one, could not forget ale breach of faith which the
Great Western Railway be. i once been guilty of. He
would rather subscribe far a Bill against the Great
Western, than favour theta in the least. He would,
however, not enter into t'sn relative advantages of the
two schemes, but entreat them to consent to the amend-
ment for a delay, to give time for consideration.
After a considerable alter cation the original resolution
was withdrawn, and the amendment agreed to.
Mr. Uzelli, Mr. Lawre ctce, Mr. Walker, Mr. Brett,
Mr. Caple, and Mr. H. G•risewood were appointed to
form the committee of inqu.iry.
The meeting then separated, after a vote of thanks to
the Chairman.