The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-28 00:00:00

r~L' -~- Z•t'{

~~ /~~~~

The shin RAN 00Ehaied lie was aaniawhat surprised
at the Interruption that had been offered to him. The
Hon. Proprietor had referred him to the printed cor-
respondence.—(Hear, hear.) Now, it was en that seer-
respondence teat he (the Chairman) had experesee
doubt. He would read to the Hon. Proprietor the lire
referred to, and the Proprietors would then see if toe
rectors were not left in doubt as to the disposition of the
Grand Junction Directors in reference to the agreement
of July. The line referred to was to the following effect:—
" This (the Grand Junction) Board desire to express to
the London and Birmingham Board their opinion that it
can tend to no possible good to treat the agreement
as a subsisting agreement any longer."—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear.") Therefore he had a right to say that
the London and Birmingham Directors were in a case of
doubt as to how they stood—(Cheers) —and therefore it
was that he had said they would not answer the question
of his Hon. Friend in the way he wished ; but if the
Grand Junction Company were anxious to give a
guarantee for the upper part of the line—if they were
deesiriius of negotiating with them for that, ae intimation
had been given that they (the London and Birmingham
Board) were willing to accede to that. They had no
answer to that intimation. Let them remetuher that in
that room they were London and Birmingham Proprie-
tors. The proprietory had a right to see that the Di-
rectors did not involve the Company in difficulties. In
this spirit the Directors had made the communication to
the Grand Junction Company with respect to their
coming in and guaranteeing fir the upper part of the
line. _ It was for the London and Birmingham Company
to take care the broad guage did not occupy the part of
the country referred to ; therefore the answer that he
gave to his Hon. Friend was this—that they had,
through the medium of one of his colleagues, now
present, opened a negotiation with the Grand Junction
Company, and he (the Chairman) would be glad if ho
were shortly able to say that they had come to a proper
conclusion on the subject.
Mr. PEASE suggested that the resolution should be al
lowed to rest until the negotiation with the Grand Junc-
tion Company was closed.
A PROPRIETOR inquired whether there had not been
time for an answer from the Grand Junction Compeny
to the communication spoken of by the Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN thought there had scarcely been time.
With respect to the suggestion of Mr. Pease, that Hon.
Gentleman not living in the part of the country to which
this discussion had reference, was perhaps not aware of
the fact that the Worcester Committee had been obliged
to occupy this ground at a very late period, and that
great energy and activity on their part were requisite.
He did not hesitate to say that if the meeting had not,
after the explanations the Directors had given, sufficient
confidence in them to give them the power of the gua-
rantee, the Worcester Committee would, in his opinion,
be placed in such difficulty and doubt as to afford a de-
cided advantage to their rivals, and powerful rivals they
were, in that district.—(Hear.)
After some further observations from several of the
Proprietors, .

Mr. MOSELY begged again to ask whether the Direc-
tors were verbally or by writing in possession of any
reply to the proposal made to the Grand Junction Com-
pany,' or if they knew anything of the views of that Com-
pany as to the proposed Wolverhampton line ?
The CHAIRMAN did not exactly know v. liether his
lion. Friend alluded to a communication made to him
(the Chairman) by the Chairman of the Grand Junction
Company three or four days ago. If he did, that com-
munication expressed a strong opinion against the Wor-
cester and Wolverhampton line. Subsequent to that a
communication had been made to the Lond,ai and Bir-
mingham Board, which he believed he might say had
led to a proposal from the Grand Junction, one portion
of which proposal consisted of an arrangement as to the
extension of the line from Worcester to Wolverhampton.
On that point the London and Birmingham Board were
quite willing, provided the other parties with whom they
were connected agreed, to 'met the Grand Junction
Company's views.
Mr. BassETT thought that, after what they had heard
from the chair, they might place, or at least they ought
to place, the fullest confidence in their board of Dime-
tors.—(Cheers.) Ile was sure they had great reason to
do so.—(Cheers.) Seeing the disposition in certain quar-
ters to introduce the broad guage, the adoption of which
would be most disastrous to the interests of the London
and Birmingham Proprietors, there could not, he
thought, be a doubt respecting the soundness of the
course they were now called upon to pursue.—(Cheers.)
The resolution was then put and carried unanimously.
A PROPRIETOR said he understood the Grand Junc-
tion, the London and Birmingham, and the Manchester
and Birmingham Companies were the parties who were
to carry out the Trent Valley line. The Birmingham
and Manchester Company had taken 10,000 shares, and
in a circular he had received it was stated that the Lon-
don and Birmingham Company had paid their own de-
posit. Ile wished to know the number of shares this
Company had in the line ?
The CHAIRMAN said the Manchester and Birming-
ham, the Grand Junction, and the London and Birming-
ham Companies had all an equal interest, 10,000 shares
being allotted to each.

The PROPRIETOR would like to know whether it was
intended to oppose the Churnet Valley line ?
The CHAIRMAN was not prepared to answer the ques-
tion. The London and Birmingham Board were only
one of the bodies representing the interests of the Trent
Valley line.

After a few de/ultory observations from several of the
Proprietors,

The CHAIRMAN introduced to the notice of the meet-
ing a requisition that the Directors had received from
certain Proprietors resident at Liverpool, relative to the
differences between the London and Birmingham and
the Grand Junction Companies, with respect to the
Churnet Valley line. After glancing at the termination
of negotiations between the Grand Junction and the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company, which he said
he believed no one could regret so much as the London
and Birmingham Company themselves, he went at some
length into the question between himself and Mr. Moss,
as to the latter gentleman's forgetfulness of his receipt of
a letter from him, and his answer to it, relative to the
differences between the two companies (the London and
Birmingham and the Grand Junction). He (the Chair •
man) had sent to Mr. Moss a copy of the letter in question,
as well as of that gentleman's reply to it, and had asked
him to do that which he (the Chairman) had thought he
would take an early opportunity of doing—viz., stating
that there was such a letter in existence. But what
situation was he (the Chairman) now placed in ? The
answer to that request for a simple act of justice to be
done had led to a voluminous correspondence, and it was
now required that the whole of their private correspon-
dence shouH be published. lle (the Chairman) would
never consent to this. If the publication of private offi-
cial correspondence between two such bodies as the Lon-
don and Birmingham and the Grand Junction Companies
were tolerated, there would be an end of all free and
frank communication between them.—(Hear, hear.)
The Chairman detailed the prompt steps he had taken
in communicating with Mr. Moss upon the subject of
the letter particularly referred to, and concluded by ob-
serving that, notwithstanding this, he had been told
that he was the cause of the differences between the two
Companies. All that he was anxious to prove was that
he wrote to Mr. Moss the letter which. that gentleman
had forgottt n the receipt of, and that that gi ntletnan
had also written an answer, which he (Mr. Moss) did
not remember having sent. The Chairman then read
the requisition from certain of the Liverpool share-
holders..

The requisitionists stated that they had so recently as
August last heard, with the greatest satisfaction, the an-
nouncement made by the respective Chairmen of the Lon-
don and Birmingham and Grand Junction Companies, that
an amicable agreement had been entered into on the 3d of
the previous month, for the protection of the property
and interests of both bodies, and that the permanency
of the good working of this vitally important agreement
was guaranteed to the Shareholders by a sound and use-
ful clause, leaving all the differences that might arite
between the parties to be adjusted by the arbitration of
eligible, proper, and disinterested persons to be by the
Companies nominated, and that they (the requisitionists)
had now to express their regret and surprise on learning
from Mr. Moss's statement at the Grand Junction Rail-
IA ay Company's meeting, that this agreement had be-
come a nullity, in consequence of the Directors of the
London and Birmingham Railway declining to adhere to
the arbitration clauses upon the very first occasion for its
requirement, thus rendering this great safeguard inope-
rative. The requisitionists then required that an early
meeting, to take the matter into consideration, should
be convened.

Mr. MOSELY spoke at some length upon the reasons
which had induced the Liverpool Proprietors to send in
the requisition for a special meeting, to take into consi-
deration the differences between the two Companies re-
specting the Churnet Valley line.
The CHIARMAN thought that, under present circum-
stances, it would not be well to enter into any lengthened
discussion on the subject. It was quite clear that if the
Directors of the London and Birmingham Company had
thought that the question raised on the Churnet Valley
line had come under the agreement of the 3d July, they
would have submitted to a reference, but they denied
that cases such as of the Churnet Valley line were
embraced in that agreement. It was not necessary for
them to' say anything as to the merits of that line ; but
he would suppose a most eligible offer made to the Lon-
don and Birmingham Company, by which it was clear
their interests would be essentially promoted, but tha
unfortunately the project interfered with Grand Junc-
tion interests. Did the Proprietors of the London and
Birmingham Company consider that their Directors
would in such case have come before them with the
agreement of the 3d July, and bound them for ever to
do that which would sacrifice their interests, and that
not only at the expense of their revenue, but of their re-
ceipts, in Parliamentary opposition—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—that they should be called upon to de-
fend, not their own property, but the property of the
Grand Junction Railway, by the terms of " mutual de-
fence," hich would not admit of a moment's discussion ?
To concur in a " mutual defence" they must have mu-
tual interests, and this was not the fact in the ease he

had put.—(llear, and cheers.)
Mr. E. MosELY, in an able speech, expressed a wish
that a termination to the differences between the two
Companies might be arrived at.
After some remarks from several of the Proprietors,
The CHAIRMAN thought they might collect from what
bad been said what the feeling of the Proprietors was.—
(Bear.) He took it to be that they desired peace, but
be did not understand that they desired peace at all cost.
—(Cheers.) With respect to the position of affairs be-
tween the two Companies, he held in his hand a resolu-
tion passed at the London and Birmingham Board on the
previous day. He would read it, but it had not been
communicated to the Grand Junction Company. He
hoped that Company would receive it in the spirit of
conciliation which had dictated it.—(Loud cheers.) He
thought that with this declaration on his part the dis-
cussion should close.—(Cheers.)
Mr. MOSELY said that as he had originated the dis-
cussion he thought it right to say that he was perfectly
satisfied with the Chairman's explanation.—(Cheers.`