The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-28 00:00:00

avoid doing the best for themselves,• and the result
would be that they would have a new line from
Three Bridges, through Horsham and Pulborough
to Arundel, and thus there would in fact be four
lines to Portsmouth instead of three, involving a
ruinous competition. He deprecated any disturb-
ance of the friendly relations existing with the
Brighton Company. Was it not possible to come to
terms with the Brighton Company ? It must be
admitted that where the public and great arsenals.
were concerned, the Portsmouth line which had
been made could not be shut up.- The question was'
how it was to be dealt with, so as not to cause any'
bad faith with the Brighton Company. He did not
wish to meet the resolution of the board with a ne-
gative, but he only wished to show that it would be
bad policy to be on bad terms with the Brighton
Company. He should not move an adjournment of
the meeting, as he understood that the majority of
the proxies held by the board were favourable to:
their proposition; but he would suggest a fortnight's
delay, in order to obtain a full and fair discussion
with tb.e Brighton Company, and to originate peace,
and security, and safety. (Hear.) It had been
stated, although he did not credit it, that a 'breach
of faith with the Brighton Company had been
committed.
beenp o s of eany
nythebreach question
of
DER
—Let
Bttrhuigesrhdieston Company ?
our u
rf Ab
agreementfaith
Or
sLwtl).
Mr. CASTLEMAN (a director) thought it would be
better to leave the board to fight out any question
of good or. bad faith. The only question was one
of policy.
Mr. ADDISON, although a Brighton shareholdei,
must Say that in dealing withthe question of policy
they must not consider the interests of the two com-
panies alone, but these of the public and the'eo-
vernment, and the demand for a direct and conve-
nient access from the metropolis to our naval and
military arsenals, in which was involved the ques-
tion of the defences of -the country. Do what they
would the line in question must be used, and the
point was whether it should be used hostilely or
incorporated in the South-Western Company's sys-
tem ? He thought they should get the line at once,
and then enter into a fair arrangement with the
Brighton Company. (Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN—We have offered the Brighton
Company a third of the Portsmouth traffic, as be-
fore.

Mr. CASTLEMEN said that the board was anxious
to continue on amicable terms with the Brighton
Company ; and with reference to the line in ques-
tion, the threat was greater against the South-
Western than against the Brighton. The South-
Western was prepared to give the Brighton as much
as they would get by the poSsession of the line. If
it was allowed to go into the hands of any other
company it would threaten the Southampton traffic
—and it might go into -the hands -of the South-
Eastern Company— (hear, hear)—and so there 'would
be three companies soing to Portsmouth instead of
two—(hear)—inducang .a violent competition. He
admitted that £lB,OOO a-year was a large sum to
pay to parties who came into a line of country
where they had no business to come, but the Aan-
dard to take was not that of advantage to them, but
of damage to the South-Western, if the line was
made independent of the latter company. As to
an adjournment the directors were actually in
treaty with the Brighton Company, and were
about to make a. proposal to them, which, unless
their object was to obtain an aggressive line, no one
could say was not fair, and rather to the disadvan-
tage of the South-Western than to them. If the
meeting was adjourned it would go forth that the
Brighton Company was not fairly treated, and in
the negotiations that would follow the hands of that
company would be strengthened and those of the
South Western proportionably weakened—(heitr)--
when the board was prepared to do all that was fair
and liberal to the Brighton Company. He wished
to add that Mr. Herapath had handed in a protest
containing a paragraph stating that the proposal
to purchase the lease of the Portsmouth line was a
job concocted for private purposes and not for the
public good. The only way to treat such gross
charges was this—(tearing the paper and throwing
it on the ground). Let Mr. Herapath name the
persons he accused; or if not, let him withdraw his
charges, and express his regret for having made
them. (Hear, hear.)
After some discussion,

The CHAIRMAN put the following resolution
" That the directors be authorised and requested to
proceed with and conclude such an agreement with
the Portsmouth Railway Company for a lease of
their undertaking as authorised by Parliament, or
of any part of it, upon such terms and conditions
(consistent generally with those reported this day
by the directors to the proprietors). as they may
consider right and conducive to the interests of this
company."
Mr. SNOW, a proprietor, supported the resolution
at length ; and having inquired what the conditions
of the proxies in the hands of the board were,
The SECRATARY read a statement that the num-
ber of voters for the lease was 986, the capital held
being £2,267,486, and the number of votes 13,898.
Against the lease the number of , voters was 100,
the capital held £171,524, and the number of votes
1,282.

The resolution was carried by a large majority.
Among the dissentients were two of the directors.
The following resolution was also agreed to :
" That for this purpose the directors are authorised
and requested to take and concur in such measures
in Parliament as to them may appear expedient,
the South-Western Company working the Ports-
mouth line in the meantime.
The proceedings closed with a vote of thanks to
the chairman and directors.