The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-28 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, FRIOAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1867.

money. The (No. 4) bill promoted by Mr. Har-
tridge proposed the grant of a loan from the Trea-
sury in consideration of the great services the
company had rendered to the country by the
construction of a line for military defence.
The directors would have been very glad if the
money could have been obtained in that way,
but the committee decided against the No. 4 Bill.
At length the House of Commons agreed to the
consolidation of the directors' Bill No. 1, and
the debenture holders' Bill No. 2, which was pro-
moted by Mr. Hodgson's committee. This bill pro-
posed to raise £600,000, instead of £1,500,000, the
debenture holders giving up the right to receive the
arrears in cash, but to take debenture stock for the
amount of the arrears, which would dispense with
£500,000, as originally proposed. The open credi-
tors in respect of rolling stock were to receive
£75,000 in cash, and to take the rest in a third
stock to rank after the debentures. Ile had no
doubt that they had seen in the newspapers of that
morning, in which it was stated " that the consi-
deration of the bill Lir the adjustment of the affairs
of the London, Chatham, and Dover Company had
been adjourned till Friday, with the prospect of re-
jection at that date, a resolution having been adopted

—' That the committee cannot, at all events, sanc-
tion the raising of any additional capital with
priority over those debenture holders who do not
give their consent with a full knowledge of the cir-
cumstances of the case. " And in addition to this
the chairman of the committee stated that it must
be a question for further consideration whether they
would allow any priority under any circumstances.
Well, that would involve considerable alterations in
the bill. lle was sorry that Mr. llartridge, who
represented the main line interest, did not agree to
the bill. The rolling stock belonged to the main
line, and had cost £BO,OOO. If any section was to
be benefited under the bill it certainly was the main
line. Ile looked upon the various sections as parts
of an entire undertaking. They had all seen the
statement prepared by Mr. Fletcher as to the state
of accounts with respect to the contractors. The
directors had charged the full amount of the shares
and stock issued to them, leaving the contractors to
make their own statement.

Mr. TunNEn said he differed from the views o
Mr. Hodgkinson. He stated that the rolling stock
of the company had never been paid for, and that
it had been supplied by several companies. He
contended that the bill would extinguish the rights
of the shareholders. The Bth clause would
keep them in suspense for 10 years, and place
the property entirely in the hands of the debenture
holders. It would sanction the proceedings of the
former board of directors, and make the shareholders
pay what had not been paid by the contractors, and
in fact would mortgage the whole of the property
for raising the new capital. He concluded by mov-
ing as an amendment, " That all consents already
given by the directors to the consolidated bill No. 2
now pending before Parliament, and introduced as
the London, Chatham, and Dover (No. 2) Bill, be
withdrawn ; and that no consent be given by the
directors, either directly or indirectly, to that or
any other bill in Parliament which had not obtained
the previous sanction of the shareholders ; and that
fur the future no notice of any intended application
to Parliament for leave to introduce a bill relating
to the company be given by the directors or any offi-
cer of the company without the sanction of share-
holders first obtained; and that no bill be hereafter
introduced into Parliament that had not been pre-
viously submitted to the shareholders ; and that the
consideration of the directors' report and the elec-
tion of directors stand adjourned until after the bill
now pending in Parliament had been submitted to
the shareholders, and had been approved or rejected
by them." He contended that the bill would not
redeem the company, but would annihilate it.
Mr. SIIAW seconded the motion.
Mr. V. KNIGHT said they had heard nothing but
sound and fury against the bill. Ile was disposed
to take Mr. Hodgkinson's view, as it appeared to
him that Mr. Turner wanted to involve them in
law proceedings. There was already a lawyer's
bill for £OB,OOO against the company. Ile had op-
posed the former directors who brought them into
their difficulties, and he believed the only way to get
out of those difficulties was to place confidence in
the present directors, and assist them in attaining
that desirable object.
Mr. H. BAxTER, the solicitor, amid considerable
interruptions, explained the object of the company's
Consolidated Bill now before Parliament. He said
it would not do for the shareholders what his friend
Mr. Turner had stated. Sanctioned by Parlia-
ment, the bill would give them the means of
working the line properly and going on for ten
years,during which the debentureholders would wait
before enforcing their claims. That would allow
them to go on and develope the traffic. At the end
of that time the property would not be sold by the
debenture-holders, because the condition of the com-
pany would be greatly improved. The supension
alluded to by Mr. Turner would be a great benefit
to the shareholders. With regard to the charge on
the whole undertaking every section would be liable
for the amount of the new capita,' expended on it,
but to no further extent. Each section would bear
its own burden. The new board would consist of
four debenture-holders and four shareholders, the
chairman being a shareholder, baying the casting
vote, and in case of equal voting the Board of Trade
would appoint an arbitrator. One of those four
directors would go out by rotation, and either be
re-elected, or another would be elected in his place
by thebondholders or shareholders as the case might
be. The company was in misfortune, and sacrifices
must be made by all parties for the benefit of all.
The vic•J-chairman had watched over their interests
and had endeavoured to see what could be done
to promote the interests of the company. He was
determined that every interest should be dealt with
fairly. Law proceedings would be stayed for ten
years, and the Court of Chancery were authorised
by the bill to take a short course with all proceed-
ings relating to the company. Instead of filing bills
and answers, they would proceed at once on any
case by petition. They would be enabled to dispose
of surplus lands, and to issue debenture stock for
£600,000 A stock over the debenture debt, deben-
tures for £500,000 B stock to rank pari passe with
existing debentures, for payment of arrears to deben-
ture-holders, and £500,000 C stock to come after the
debenture holders for payment of the open debts of
the company. The open creditors would receive
£75,000, or 4s. in the pound in cash, and 16s. in
the pound in C stock. The bill did not interfere
with the rights of any section ; it would leave rent
charges, &c., just as they were. All cases would
be settled by the Court of Chancery as speedily as
possible. It would be impossible to get the consent
of every one, but there was a very large majority in
favour of the bill. The debenture-holders had one
vote for every £lOO held by them.
Mr. BRISTOWF, pointed out one or two legal de-
fects in the bill which would be rectified.
Mr. HARTRIDGE recommended the shareholders
to read the evidence given in committee on the
London, Chatham, and Dover Bills before Parlia-
ment this session, particularly that given by Mr.

Harrison.
Mr. HILLIER, a director, explained how the mat-
ter stood between the company and the contractor,
so far as could be ascertained, but he would not give
any opinion on the case. It would, however, have
to be dealt with.
On a show of hands the amendment was nega-
tived, and the motion of the Chairman was carried.
Mr. TURNER demanded a poll, which resulted in
125 proprietors present, representing £734,152 stock,
and 4,433 votes ia favour of the motion of the
Chairman and against the amendment ; and 11 pro-
prietors present, representing £16,275 stock and 197
votes, were in favour of the amendment and against
the motion of the Chairman.
The CITAIRMAN declared the amendment lost and
report of the directors adopted.
Mr. HILLIER moved a resolution to the effect that
the meeting approved the London, Chatham, and
Dover Consolidated Bill, subject to such altera-
tions as might be assented to by the directors, or
Parliament might deem requisite.
Mr. WARIER seconded the motion, and it was
carried by a very large majority, there being only
seven against it.
Mr. Hotbam, one of the retiring directors, was re-