The Sun.
London, England, 1826-09-27 00:00:00

tRITISII ROCK and 'PATENT SALT COMPANY.

. Yesterday: a meeting of the Directors and Shareholderi
in the British Rock and Patent Salt Company, took place
at the City of London Tavern, for the purpose of deciding
upon a proposition for rescinding a Resolution passed at
a former meeting, allowing to Mr. Furnival, the founder
of the Company, time to pay up on 1,000 shares, of which
he is the holder. Mr. Fernival is the holder of 25,000
shares in this Company, upon all of which the calls have
been paid, with the exception of the 1,000 here alluded
to. Before the Meeting proceeded to the business on
which it was summoned—Wm. Heseltine, Esq. in the
Chair—.
The CHAIRMAN stated, that a verson outside had dia.,
tributed papers amongst the Shareholders, containing
grossly false and libellous matter against some of the Di-
rectors, signed Wm. Furnival, and it was, in' his opi.
nion, necessary to make some inquiry upon he subject,
Mr. CIIAI'MAN did not see the necessity of any examine.
tion of the kind.
Mr. BROUGHTON' said, that he was one of the persona
most particularly alluded to; but he treated the charge
with the utmost contempt.
The CHAIRMAN said it was necessary to institute an in-
quiry upon the subject. The directors had been accused
of 'the most gross frauds by the person whose Signature
appeared to the address.
After some further observations, it Was determined that
the distributor should be called in.
DUNWORTRY, the distributor, then stated in answer to
'some questions from the directors, that he had come front
trance at the desire of Mr. Furnival to distribute the
papers, and to send to him accounts of what took place
at the meeting.
Upon being asked whether he was to celled the
opinions of those who were interested from listening at the
door, he said certainly not. He was to trust to the news•
palters for what took place.
Mr. ROREPTSON moved that the meeting should not
receive as a fitting mode of communication any paper of
Mr. Furnival's, after the sufficient notice that had been
given 'of the meeting in the public papers.
Mr. BROUGHTON considered that the honour of the dis
rectors was concerned, and that investigation was there 4
fore indispensable. He, for one, had been most vilely at.
tacked, and he should therefore move as an amendnient
that a committee be appointed for the purpose of making
the necessary inquiry.
A committee was then appointed.
Mr. HARRINGTON suggested the impropriety of proceed-
ing further with respect to the forfeiture of the shares in
the absence of Mr. Furnival, awl said that perhaps it would
be advisable in any gentleman who felt aggrieved to prose-
cute that gentleman.
Mr. PARRATT said that Mr, rurnival not being in the
country could not be. prosecuted.
Mr. BROUGHTON.rwit he was a respectable man, I'd
prosecute him, but he is an object of the greatest contempt.
Mr. SUTTON stated, that. upon an occasion when he
and Mr. Broughton went to confront Mr. Furnival, that
gentlemeat declined an interview; and declared that he had
no charge whatever to make against them.
Mr. PARRATT then read several papers descriptive of
the conduct of Mr. Furnival. In one of his letters he
charged the directors with having acted in such a manner,.
as would have disgraced the character of sweeps. A rm.:
lutiosi bad been passed, giving him six months to pay up,
the calls on the 1,000 shares. To this indulgence he re
plied in the following manner :—" The unmanly attack of
your Chairman, by moving for time upon the 1,000 shares,
which was not asked for recently but protested against,
Intv4 have originated from a base motive to injure my clia-
s.acter ,and my pursuits, and to destroy the value of my
property." This communication was followed up by tin
advertisement, denying that the lenity on the payment of
the calla on the 1,000 shares had been requested by Mr.
Furnival, hr, having protested against any such payments
and all other future calls, although he had made arrange
-
merits for such future 'Win on 'a5,000 shares in the com-
pany, independent, of that on the 1,000 shares alluded tic,
until after a full investigation had taken place into the ma.,
nwernent of the company to the satisfaction of the share.
holders. In consequence of this letter and advertisement
the ditectors passed a resolution, that Mr. Furnival should
have notice of the intention to rescind the resolution post-'
poning the forfeiture' of the shares. Two or three post-
ponements had taken place, in the expectation that Mr.,
Furttival would attend to give a proper explanation of his
conduct. Mr. Parrott then read the extracts of a minute
of a meeting, held the 20th of .finiary, 1826, which •
stated that it was eallettby Messrs. Broughton and Sutton to
be informed why there was a demur in paying the interest
of the money lent by them to the compaity, upon which
debate took place, and Mr. Robertson, on the 'part of Mr.
Furnivel, attended the board, and stated that Mr. Furnival
objected to the payMent, on the ground of misrepresenta-
tion as to the value of their works. But owing to the im-
portance of the subject in discussion, Mr. Furnival was re-
quested to attend the board in person, which he then did.
Mr. Furnival then repeated that he objected to the pay-
ment to Messrs. Broughton and Sutton being made; and
the Chairman, by the advice of the solicitor who was in
attendance, asked if Mr. Furnival alloWed the due execn-
tion'of the deed of settlement by Mr. Bodin on his behalf,
as the board were advised that they could not admit him
to net. as a shareholder or director of the cempanyontil he
executed the deed; that if he did execute the deed, they
were then ready to consider his notice, but they must re-
quire that such notice should be in writing. Mr. Furnival,
thereupon denied the authority which had executed the
deed for him, and snid that he should question it. Mr.
Furnival then left the room, but stated previously to so
doing, that he did not charge -Messrs. Broughton and Sut-
ton with fraud. -Whereupon it was resolved and second-
ed, that under the circumstances, the board cannot with-
hold payment to Messrs. Broughton and Sutton, and that
therefore a check be at once made out. for the amount and
handed to them.---R. Ricaaoo, Chairman;
Mr. BROUGHTON—Mr. Furnival is inveterate against
me because I would not consent that he should have
270,000/. instead of the 100,0001. which he received.
' At the desile of several shareholders, Mr. Furuival's
protest was hae read. It stated his charges against the
directors as his reason for not paying the call.
Mr. CHAPMAN.—He here states certain grounds for the
non-payment of the calls, and those grounds ought certainly
to be received as a cause of postponement.
Mr. PAansrro---When he could not get the indulgence
he required, he turned round and impeached the directors.
Mr. FitnalifFlEl.o said that it would be unfair, tinder such.
circumstances as had been suited in the course of the'day,'
to order a forfeiture of mu.. .purnivart
shares.
Mr. PARRATT.-.—A meeting was caned in January to
hear his charges, and he was desired to state them speeili.
g
cally ; but being either unable or unwillin ,ere left the
room, but declared before he went that he had no charge
of fraud against any of the directors.. Afterwards he
begged for more'time. It was all an effort to get time.
The CHAIRMAN said the deed WEIS imperative upon
them. The money was wanting to' the proprietary, not
the directors, and there was no alternative butforfentire.
Mr. CHAPMAN said, that the object for which it aP-
peered the meeting wet; convened, was t.O rescind it reao-
lution which was passed at the last. Illt,'ii4 n/3? graltttinigo
Mr. Furnival the indulgence of six tnot tind
"'wale my
actuated
stslment. He moved the resolution, a
solely by the principle " do unto others allyeofletewhildbywoiapt:
to be done by," and he would follow up ti
ap-
posing the resolution now before the rrieepm{,a :lire/tors,
peered to him to have originated with t"
throg's pique and resentment, for the charges which fir.
Furmvat had brought against them. New, as the directors
had nothing to do with the indulgence granted, it having
emanated solely from the shareholders, be thought it, ex-
tremely injudicious in the directors to require the indul-
gence to be withdrawn from Mr. Furnivid; far although
it would appear from his letters that he was non campus
metal, it must be admitted that he was a man of genius,
and for which reason alone the indulgence was granted.—