The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-03 00:00:00

THE SQUABBLES AT THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT.

Mr. M‘GREGGoa, wished to understand if he had rightly
understood the arrangement come to the day before, that the
chairman and Mr. W. Earle would bow to the wishes of the
majority of the board, and resign if a resignation should be
required of them.

The CHAIRMANsaid be had promised to do all in his power
to make the board work together unanimously, as it was the
pleasure of the meeting to withdraw the resolution. But as
to his giving any pledge either for himself or Mr. Earle he
was quite sure be did not,
Mr. BOOTHBY said,' o far as he understood, the arrange-
ment on Wednesday was, the ample assurance of the chair-
man, and other directors tbat they would endeavour to act
harmoniously together, and that the system of locomotive
power should be changed, and that they would endeavour to
benefit from the experience of other railways. On that un-
derstanding the mover of the resolution withdrew it, not
putting it to the vote. But it was highly desirable that the
board should work harmoniously together, they never could
work well if they were continually squabbling among them-
selves, and appealing to the proprietors. He would say, that
the board did not work harmoniously till these proceedings
were done away with. And if the majority of the board
expressed a wish that any individual should retire, whether
Mr. Earle or Mr. Moss, or any other individual, they ought
to retire without troubling the prom ietors. He thought they
should have some more specific pledge from Mr. Earle to this
effect, in order to terminate the matter. If Mr. Earle would
state now, that if those difficulties did again occur, and a
majority of his own board requested him to retire, that he
would do so, it would be satisfactory.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE did not expect a renewal of this
discussion ; he had hoped it was concluded.
The CHAIRMAN was sure be did.

Mr. H. EARLE said, he had had• a very satisfactory and
conciliatory conversation with the chairman ; but as to giving
an answer to a hypothetical case, he declined it. He hoped
such a case might never arise, and he did trust he should be
excused till it did. They had begun now on a different foot-
ing. lie had stated it should be his endeavour to work hal-
rnoniously and properly. Their differences were not irrecon-
cilable ; and it"was only a question of time as to when certain
things should be done; but he did hope the meeting would
trust to his good feeling, and permit the question to drop.
He did not doubt but that in future he should conduct him-
self in a proper manner.
The CHAIRMAN said, that what he had referred to on Wed-
nesday was, that all personal objections were removed; and
that if the gentleman would withdraw his resolution, he would
endeavour to work harmoniously with Mr. Earle; he could
give no pledge for what was to take place hereafter. So far
as going out went, he wanted to go out; he was most anxious
to get out. He did not like Mr. Boothbv's term of "squab-
bling," because it implied a personal thing. They differed
on a question which he considered as of vital importance to
the board, which Mr. Earle did not so consider.

Mr. Boi)THBY did not mean personally to speak of Mr. Moss
as chairman, but as a director; but what he meant to say was,
that they disagreed, and continually appealed to the proprie-
tors. He thought that when a director could not agree-with
others, his first call was to tender his resignation, and then
come before the proprietors; and if they approved of his con-
duct, they would re-elect him, But it was quite unusual'for
one part of the proprietary to come before another to justify
him before a majority of the board. He sincerely hoped an-
other occasion would never present itself. But he did think
they were entitled to have the pledge of Mr. Earle to bow be-
fore the majority. He had always an appeal to the proprie-
tors, and they would set him right; but he did not like this
continual appeal from the board to them. He had differed
always from Mr. Earle on the principle of undertaking a con-
cern like this. He was of opinion that it ought not to be
undertaken on private responsibility, and under the direction
of separate directors. It ought to be under an executive .
They had ample funds to pay proper officers,and the respon-
sible interference of a director in a great concern like this
must be very prejudicial, be he ever so efficient. He could
not be lord, and, therefore, he hoped that this would put an
end to personal interference out of court, and that no instruc-
tions would be given except through 'the proper quarter—
their secretary.
Mr. HA RDMAN EARLE said the observations of Mr. Booth-
by were directed against him, no doubt. This sort of inter-
ference in the Grand Junction Railway was much the same
as Mr. Boothby's on the London and Birmingham Railway.
He had been very active and taken much trouble with the
detail. His (Mr. Earle's) services were very inferior, but
pretty much of the same description. There must be a cer-
tain sort of interference, but his had not been a mischievous
one, and with respect to orders he had never given any.
Mr. M'GREGOR said the meeting had separated on Wed-
nesday with an understanding that, if called upon by a ma-
jority of the proprietors, Mr. Earle would resign. Was that
the case ?

Mr. IlorEs said he did not understand that • but he sup-
posed that there was a distinct understanding that Mr. Moss
and Mr. Earle would endeavour to make the management
work harmoniously in future. He certainly understood no
pledge from Mr. Earle, but it would certainly be conducive
to the establishment of a good understanding if he would
make that statement.

. The CHAIRMAN said he had made no pledge; what he had
stated was an abstaining from all personal feeling.
Mr. MAXWELL said the chairma❑ had certainly stated
on Wednesday that he did not think the board could work
together harmoniously. Did the chairman think that the
difficulty as to its harmonious working together was removed?
The CHAIRMAN could not say; he would do all in his
power to make it work harmoniously.
Mr. MAXWELL.—Because you stated yesterday that the
board could not so work.
The CHAIRMAN.--i did say so.
Mr. CHARLES LAWRENCE thought going over this ground
a second time, was hardly fair to the proprietors, who had
thought on Wednesday that all was arranged. But he could
not deny, that when Mr. Earle had given a pledge to act
harmoniously, he had hoped that such would be the case.
He thought they ought not to go into the matter again.
Mr. ItursoNsoncurred in what Mr. Boothby had said. He
did think after the manner in which Mr. Earle had laid
himself open, the spirit in which his promise hae been given,
and the spirit in which it had been taken by the assembled
shareholders at large—he did conceiYe'that an end had been
put to the matter on Wednesday. And, although he gave
Mr. Boothby credit for what he had stated, his impression
was that they ought to let the question rest where it was, and
see how the directors in future act.

The CHAIRMAN said, that he must say he would not again
come before the proprietors on this question; this was his.
last appearance. He would not be brought forward in this
way. If they could not agree it was better to separate. He
should not feel disposed to serve after all that bad passed,
because it was extremely unpleasant to him that Mr. Moss's
name should be brought forward in opposition to Mr. Hard-
man Earle's. if such was to be the case again, Mr. Moss
would walk out of the room and not go in again. He would
not come before the proprietors again where a difference was
spoken of between Mr. Moss and Mr. Earle. He never
would again appear in that room with any difference. It
should be a qyestion between the board and Mr. Earle and
Mr. Moss.

Mr. Horns said they understood it was now a question
between the board and Mr. Earle, and Mr. Moss.
The CHAIRMAN said it was a, question for the board, pro-
perly speaking, and he did not know any right why his name
had been mentioned on Wednesday. He should be very
glad if the board would bring forward another chairman. To
have his name brought forward in that way was extremely
unpleasant to his own feelings, and he would not have it on
any occasion repeated. If he thought there was a majority
of the directors against him he should resign, as he was
perhaps too thin skinned on these occasions. He wished
distinctly to say that he would not quarrel with Mr. Earle
again; be would have no more quarrelling.
Mr. BOOTHBY had come merely to hear the result of the
scrutiny, and the questions put to the chairman had led to
the discussion which had occurred, but without any pre-con-
certed intention.

Mr. M`GREGoa begged to ask, for his own satisfaction,
whether this was nut an adjournment of the Wednesday's -
meeting. He wished a distinct pledge from Mr. Earle.
Mr. EWA RT thought it better to leave the question to
the gentlemen themselves; and if the proprietors did nut
think Mr. Earle did his duty in the way he ought to do, he
would do what any gentleman would do. It was quite wrong
to ask him for any pledge.
Mr. BOOTHBY should subscribe to that doctrine under or-
dinary circumstances. But they were given to understand
from Mr. Earle that he would not resign under ordinary cir-
cumstances. He should quite agree in the statement just
made, but Mr. Earle was under peculiar circumstances He '
did not think there had been an instance at any board in
Liverpool where so much squabbling and bad feeling, and
appeals to the proprietors, and injury to their property, had
resulted as in this. (Hear.)
Mr. H. EARLE should wish each case to rest on its own
merits; and when another occasion should arise of his squab-
bling, it was quite time for him to give an answer. He would
endeavour in future to avoid quarrelling.
The CHAIRMAN wished to be understood. Any conversa-
tion he had had with Mr. Earle had nothing to do with set-
tling the question. If the proprietors would endeavour to
settle it, he would do his best.
Mr. M‘GREGoit said, how different the situation of the
proprietors was to what was understood. Mr. Moss said if
any differences occurred, he would not be a party to them.
They had no such pledge from Mr. Earle. They ought, as
men of business, to have that pledge. (Hear.)
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE did not think he was called upon
to give any pledge of the kind. He considered that the case
was finished on Wednesday. He considered it rather per-
sonal to himself to revert to it again that day.
Mr. M'GREGoR begged to say, he did not wish the pledge
on his own account personally,
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE said it was very difficult to define
what they meant by difference of opinion. It was not to be
supposed that the whole board should be of one opinion on
any subject. If he were to endeavour to circumvent the
opinion of the whole board when against him, that would be
very unworthy in him, and he should be quite unworthy of
holding a seat at that board. But as to the divisions which
took place, he hoped they would not degenerate into personal
squabbles. He thought he was competent as a director to
give his opinion on those matters; and he did not think he
should go to the extremity of dividing the board, unless he
saw a very strong party in his favour. All he could say was,
he should endeavour to conduct himself properly, and not
differ with the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN.—You will never differ with the chairman
again; I never will suffer it.
Mr. H. EARI.E.—But by difference you don't mean differ
in opinion.
The CHAIRMAN.—If we differ on essential points of manage-
ment iu the concern, from that moment I will resign.
Mr. H. EARLE.—Suppose the board decide in your favour,
there is an end of the question.
The CHAIRMAN.—I will not stay for it to be decided, for
I shall never appeal to them.
Mr. HoYEs said, the difference of opinion at the board was
not all; but when those differences were carried out so that
other boards would not meet them' as the shareholders were
distinctly informed was the case, he thought it was quite time
for the shareholders to look after their own property.
Mr. BOOTHBY did think that Mr. Earlestanding there as a
director, should not hesitate to pledge himself at once; that
when a majority of proprietors had lost confidence in his
management, or in the system which he advocated, he should,
without the least hesitation, say he would retire He could
not see on what ground he could retain his situation, against
the opinion of the proprietors.
Mr. C. LAWRENCE thought this principle ought not to be
applied to Mr. Earle alone, but to any director. He for one
would retire in an instant if the majority required him. But
he did not think that Mr. Earle ought to be called upon, un-
less they made a direction that when any director was called
upon he should retire:
Mr. HoyEs always understood they had such a tacit un-
derstanding with any other director; but Mr. Earle had said
he would not retire. And if any other director would make
the same assertion that he would not retire, he should not
hesitate for an instant in coupling his name with Mr. Earle's,
and demanding the same pledge from him. (Hear.)
Mr. SANDARS thought the best plan would be to call on
every one of the directors to resign. He should be very happy
to do so as one, and then it would be competent for the pro-
prietors to elect whom they would. The peace before had
been a truce—it was a holloW peace. What was the conse-
quence ? There had never been a meeting since when there
had not been angry discussions painful to hear. And he
would tell them that constituted as the board was their inte-
rests would never be looked after. (Hear.)

Mr. HARRISON thought the call should be on all the di-
ctors, and not on Mr Earle.
Mr. HOYES thought the retirement of any director should
not rest with the determination of theimajority of the board.
Mr. EWART thought it not rigbt to insist on pledges from
the directors, if they should not agree, to retire. He thought
that if they insisted on pledges they at once told them that
they had no proper confidence in them, which they ought to
have. (Hear.) If he had gone into the board expecting
this he never would have become a director. He should al-
ways act harmoniously if he could, and if not he should know
his duty.

Mr. HARRISON said, he had given a pledge, that if he
found he could not act harmoniously with the majority of the
directors, he should retire.

Mr. HoyEs said, if MI. Earle had not made a distinct
assertion, that he would not withdraw, he should not have
required that he should give that pledge. He thought they
were only consulting their own interests in insisting upon it.
Mr. BOOTHBY really thought that Mr. Earle should give
the pledge if he wished for the future confidence of the pro-
prietors. If not, it would go further, and lead to further dis-
cussions. It was a common pledge; he did not call on him
to retire at the request of a majority of the board, but at the
request of the majority of the proprietors, of whose property
he was a trustee. He could not see on what ground he re-
fused it. He thought that if it went forth, that he had re-
fused it, the proprietors would be very much exasperated,
and the matter would not end.

Mr. HARDMAN EAl2l.E—lllought it was a pledge the pro-
prietors ought not to require him to give. He distinctly
stated, that he would give no pledge of the kind. When the
case aroseit was quite time enough.
Mr. BOOTHRY.—It has arisen.
Mr. HARDMAN EARL E' thought it had not arisen. He
hoped the matter would not be further pressed. He must
positively decline to give that pledge. The proprietors had
no right to ask such a pledge till the occasion should arise.
Mr. HoyEs.—Then I beg to propose a resolution, "That
the shareholders of the Grand Junction Railway are of opin-
ion that the unanimity of the board would be much perfected
by the retirement of Mr. Earle, and tend to the advantage of
the undertaking."
Mr. M'GREGOR said, before that question was put, he
wished to ask the secretary in what situation the company
would be if all were to resign ?
Mr. SWIFT, the secretary, said that if any one director
were not to resign, that one would have the power of appoint-
ing all the rest.

HaanisoN.—Aye, there's the rub.
Mr. MAXWELL would second the resolution. As this was
a small meeting he would move in addition that. this iesolu-
tion go to the ballot, that every proprietor might have an
opportunity of recording his opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN wished to know if there would be any ob-
jection to adjourn the meeting to that day three weeks.
There must be another meeting for the allotment of shares.
Mr. WGREGOR thonght it was better that the sense of the
proprietors should be taken at once.
Mr. tiOYES would do anything which would tend to the
harmony of the board. He had no hostility against Mr.
Earle. He was quite in the hands of the meeting, whether
his resolution should now be withdrawn and brought forward
at the next meeting if necessary.
Mr. MAXWELL thought after what had been unqualifiedly
stated by Mr. Sandars, that the harmony of the proprietors
could not go on as the board was at present constituted, that
the enquiry should be instituted forthwith. (Applause.)
A DIRECTOR cordially agreed in what Mr. Sandars had
stated.

Mr. HARDMAN EARLE thought that the new directors ap-
pointed would contribute to harmony. There was no know-
ing what the infusion of new blood would do. He did not
know what Mr. Sandars had to object to him.
Mr. SANDARS said, he had no had opinion of Mr. Earle;
quite the reverse: but, in his opinion, Mr. Earle's judgment
was not a sound one.

The CHAIRMAN.—WouId it not be less offensive that Mr.
Swift should take an opinion as to the possibility of the whole
batch of them retiring rather than that Mr. Earle should
retire?

Mr. HOYES was quite willing to yield to a postponement
of the resolution, but would not be responsible for the post-
ponement.

Mr. RITSON thought, after the pledge of Mr. Earle, that
he would restrain the irregularities of his temper, that har-
mony would continue.

Mr. M‘Guanou said, if that should not be the case, they
had the determination of Mr. Earle, that he would not retire;
and they had the opinion of the chairman, that if it did occur,
he would not remain iu the direction; that they would be de-
cidedly minus of a very valuable direction.
The CHAIRMAN again said that nothing should ever induce
him to appear before the proprietors on such a question.
Mr. WGREGOR said, they were not then in the situation
they had believed themselves to be on Wednesday. They
had a distinct statement from Mr. Moss, and not from Mr.
Earle; and as a matter of business, he required that state-
ment.

Mr. H. EARLE said he could not draw any distinction be-
tween himself as Mr. Hardman Earle and a director. He
had already given his opinion on giving pledges.
Mr. EwAar thought it desirable to adjourn the question
for three weeks, and then determine to settle it, or not. It
was rather too bad. He was sure when he had left the meet-
ing on Wednesday and talked with a great number of gentle-
men on 'Change, and they had been of opinion that this
question was settled. He was very sorry to see it revived,
and he thought if it was adjourned for three weeks it would
be more satisfactory. This was seconded.
Mr. Horns must press his motion. He also had thought
it settled on Wednesday, but had been deceived. They had
that day additional proof afforded to them that the undertak-
ing would be very much prejudiced by the continuance of
Mr. Earle in the direction. He therefore moved that the
votes be taken by ballot, and that the decision of the share-
holders be declared that (lay week.
Mr. MAXWELL was sure, from the statements of Mr.
M`Greger and Mr. Rotherham, that as long as this want of
harmony existed it would be injurious to their interests.
Mr. HOYES said they understood that that was the opinion
of the majority of the board.
Mr. SANDARS had no hesitation in saying that it was.
Mr. Ewn RT said such a question as that had never come
before the board.

Mr. SANDA RS said the chairman had stated it on Wednes-
day.

The CHAIRMAN said he had not wished to state it, but he
was authorised to state it.

Mr. HAItDMAN EARLE said it appeared to him that the
chairman did not view it in that light. .
The CHAIRMAN was quite unprepared to be called on that
day. Ou Wednesday-he-had agreed to accept the orange
branch presented by Mr. Earle, and to promote harmony
to the utmost of his power.
Mr. BOOTHBY said, they had no alternative but to go to the
vote on the motion of Mr. Hoyes; they were assured that
the board could not work well. lie should have been satis-
fied with the assurance of Mr. Earle ten minutes ago; but
now it was stated that the board could not work well unless
Mr. Earle left it.
Mr. HovEs said he would withdraw his resolution if Mr.
Earle would withdraw his expression, that he would not
resign.
Mr. BOOTHBY said he should vote for the resolution of Mr.
Hoyes, and Mr. Earle must go to his trial, on the statement
that the board could not work with him.

Mr. HEY«•oon said this had formerly been the case, but
he hoped it would be different. . . _

Mr: SANDAkS had no confidence in the past, and no hope
for the future. (Applause.)
Mr. Roves said an opinion had been expressed three
weeks ago on Mr. Earle's conduct; but since then, instead
of having altered his proceedings, he had followed those
measures which were objected to before, and they had no
confidence in the future from the past. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. EA R LE.—What were those measures ?
Mr. HOYES said he was not prepared to state; but he
would say candidly what his impression was, that refusing to
ork on account of Mr. Earle's interference, was prejudicial
to the company. Another cause of complaint was, that Mr.
Earle sought for himself a great deal too much power as a
director. And another complaint was, that his mode of pro-
ceeding had been deemed by other boards as unconciliatory,
and they refused to meet them or have anything more to do
with-them. If he was wrong he referred to the letters of the
chairman, wherein he had distinctly given his opinion that the
mode the board had adopted, had lost them their friends, and
made their enemies more hostile—he alluded to the hostilities
of the Manchester and Birmingham Company, and the
Chester and Crewe Company. He had merely brought for-
ward this question as the general opinion of the proprietors.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE denied that he had done anything
which should deserve the hostility of these parties. "There
was one powerful individual whom he had offended three
years ago, who he dared say entertained very hostile feelings
towards him. Very likely that hostility had arisen from the
part he had taken in getting Mr. Locke appointed in the
place of Mr. Stephenson, as engineer. He felt he was not
obnoxious to the charges made against him. He should be
happy to meet any charge; but it was impossible to grapple
with these general rumours. Mr. Hoyes must press his
motion.

Mr. HARDMAN EARLE thought if they came to vote on it,
their votes ought to be backed by reason.
Air. Hoyas said, there could be no hardship in the case, as
he was perfectly ready to withdraw his resolution the mo-
ment Mr. Earle stated that he was in the hands of the pro-
prietors, and would resign when called on, as the other direc-
tors did.

Mr. M‘GREGOR said that Mr. H. Earle had said, in order
to promote harmony when conferences were held with other
companies, he would withdraw from those companies. It ap-
peared to him very extraordinary, that a gentleman should
say he would withdraw from these conferences, in order to
have his services retained, where his services were most
required.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE said he had made that offer volun-
tarily.
Mr HOYES would be very anxious to retain Mr. Earle's
services, if they could do so with safety to themselves. The
reason he made a distinction between Mr. Earle and the
other directors was, that he said he would not withdraw if
required. Would Mr. Hardman Earle disavowthat assertion.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE would neither affirm nor deny it.
Mr. HOYES.—" Then I must press my motion."
-Mr. BooTusY said they had now as their enemy in another
company a very powerful individual, and they all knew how
his influence had been exerted to their prejudice on account
of Mr. Earle. He thought if Mr. Eai le truly felt as he ought,
and felt for the interest of this great concern, setting aside
all the differences of the other directors—he thought on that
ground alone, being obnoxious to certain individuals, be it
right or wrong, it was injurious to the concern, and he ought
to retire from the direction.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE denied that rival lines had been
started on his account. Because powerful individuals took
an objection to an individual on a board was he to be called
on to resign. He thought that was most tyrannical, and was
rather a reason why he should remain.
Mr. BooTuay said the chairman and another director had

stated that they could not and would not act VritCtlis board
so long as Mr. Earle remained on it. Whether justly or un-
justly intended, be did think that Mr. Earle, feeling this ob-
jection, should resign for a time.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE did not think that was the real ob-
jection.
Mr. COGLAN, who just here entered the room, expressed
his surprise on the opening of the question, and went over
the grounds of argument gone over by the early speakers.
He thought it most unjust and un-English that Mr. Earle
should be condemned without a hearing, and suggested that
an enquiry as to the charges against him should be instituted.
At present they were forming their opinions on mere reports.
The reasons which had led the meeting to this determination
were then explained to Mr. Coglan.
Mr. HARDMAN EARLE thought the conduct pursued to-
wards him was most unfeeling. The general impression
must be if that resolution went forth, that he should be unfit to
sit on any board; and all that was stated against him was
founded on mere report.
Mr. HOYES said he could only form his opinion from ru-
mour that he could not sit at the board.
Mr. JOSEPH HORN BY here entered the room, and also
expressed his surprise that the charges against Mr. Earle
should be again gone into. He wished to know what the
charges were which were brought against Mr. Earle.
Mr. BOOTHBY said the present charge against him was,
that he was obnoxious to a powerful individual, who had
exerted himself to the injury of the company. The other
charges were, that the other boards could not act with him.
Another charge was, that Mr. Earle refused to give a positive
pledgelthat he would bow to the majority of the pioprietors,
and submit to the majority of the board; when it had been
understood that if any future disagreements should occur he
would at once retire on a requisition from the board without
putting the proprietors to the disagreeable necessity of dis-
cussing this question again.
Mr. HoRNBY said it was a pledge that no man of spirit or
honour would have demanded of him; but if any body of
people came forward and demanded a pledge of bins on this
subject he should at once tell them to get somebody else as
director, he cared not who.
Several SHAREHOLDERS.—That is all we wish.

Mr. HARDMAN EARLS.—That is
become directors.

Mr. HORNBY said as to other opp.
got their acts of parliament, and had begun their works, and
would not now diminish their hostility.
Mr. BOOTHBY.—Unquestionably they would.
Mr. HORNBY.-But will they work less against our in-
terest ?

Mr. BOOTHBY.—Unquestionably.
Several other shareholders entered who renewed the dis-
cussion de novo, ignorant of what had taken place.
Mr. BOOTHBY said it was evident the discussion would
never end at that rate; it had been carried on long enough;
they had better come to some determination.
Mr. EWART moved an adjournment, sine die, and the
amendment was put "that the meeting do generally adjourn."
Mr. M'GREGOR here said—is it fair to Mr. Earle that he
should be left with these charges unanswered?
Mr. H. EARLE.—I am much obliged to Mr. M`Gregor for
his sympathy, but I can stand it.
The amendment wes then put and negatived on a show of
hands by a large majority.
A poll was demanded that they should go to a ballot on the
the division.

The question was hereupon again opened and fully dis-
cussed, and alter repeated attempts to bring about a recon-
ciliation.

Mr. H. EARLS agreed to withdraw his statement that he
would not resign, but would not give a pledge that he would
resign if called upon as circumstances might arise to induce
him not to do so, thus placing himself in the position of the
other directors, with the tacit understanding that if obnoxious
to the interests of the shareholders and requested to resign
he would do so.

. Upon this, after a rather warm discussion of considerable
length. Mr. Hoyes withdrew his motion, and the meeting
broke up at three o'clock, without arriving at any very defi-
nitive understanding, other than thata great want of general
unanimity prevailed.

et.

fig, A
"" 1,7 ,r 4
✓
'of • •
• . •
•
Z:
-;`•
all ver
msition.railways they had