The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-03-01 00:00:00

LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.

Yesterday, a meeting of the shareholders of this railway was
held at the Exchange Sale-room, in this town, at. 12 o'clock, to
receive and adopt the report of Mr. L. Heyworth and Mr. C.
Armstrong, a deputation appointed on the 29th of Jan., and sent
to London from Liverpool, by the shareholders residing in
Lancashire, in order to obtain the appoiutinent of one addition-
al Liverpool director for the ensuing half year, at the half-
yearly meeting of proprietors held in London, on the 18th
Upon going up to London, the deputation and the non-resi-
dent directors came to an understanding that this one director
should be made way for by the retirement of the Lord Mayor.
This had been commnnicated to them, but not officially. From
Circumstances, however, which afterwards transpired, the de-
putation thought it right at the meeting to propose the change
of three instead of one director. This proposal was altogether
strongly opposed, and the proxies held by the deputation were
rendered of (10 avail by the adjournment of the meeting being
, carried till the 3d of March. The deputation returned on Sun-
day, the 21st ult., and on Monday, the next day, communicated
to souse of the proprietors the result of their mission. That
meeting came to certain resolutions. regretting the misunder-
standing which had taken place. The meeting now held was
called to adopt those resolutions.
Mr. BROWN took the chair in the first instance, but, the pro-
ceedings not being likely to terminate soon, and having another
engagement, he vacated it to Mr. Alderman BARCLAY. A dis-
cussion then arose as to the efficiency of the London directors,
when Mr. Barclay declined presiding as chairman, having a
brother who is one of the directors. Mr. HARDMAN EARLE
was then appointed chairman.
Mr. LAWRENCE HEYWORTH then rose and explained his
having been sent by a meeting of proprietors, who entrusted
him with their proxies to the half yearly meeting held in Lon-
don on the 18th ult., in order to effect a change in the directors.
On the arrival of Mr. Armstrong and himself in London, as the
deputation, they had made it their immediate business to inves-
tigate some reports they had previously heard affecting the
efficiency of the London committee, the result of which was to
strengthen their opinion that the general board worild be greatly
i,rnproved by the introduction of proprietors into the direction
who held a large stake in the undertaking, and had more prac-
tiCal knowledge in in its execution. Consequently, when the
,ieisighation of•,six of the directors going out by ballot at the
;plating* was announced from the chair, they had thought it
.11ieir(drity, in furtherance of the general interest of the proprie-
',..to•O•shipi• as well as what they believed to be the wishes of those
',Olotss they immediately represented, to propose Mr. Hardman
3irle,Mr..Edward•Wilsort, and Mr: Edgar Corrie, as three of
hgirls
e' ,directors to be chosen. This proposition had been
, Strongly resisted by-the:London directors, and he regretted to.
Say'they were-Supp_orted,by the non-resident directors, as well
as by-some of-the Birmingham committee, they stating that this
was a measure Materially calculated to injure the progress of
the works. They persevered, however, in pressing their motion,
and were astonished on putting in their proxies to find them
refused in vielatit'isr-of the act of the corporation, it being saged
that the 'signatures ,to the proxies ought to be verified. Mr.
Beothby, ;a Liverpool proprietor, protested strongly against a
motion for adjournment for a fortnight, which was even-
tually carried. Mr. Heyworth then proceeded to read various
communications and documents which had passed betwixt Mr.
BoothbY, who had been chosen as a mediator, and the board of
directors, the result of which was, they had not beets able to
come to any amicable understanding, and that there was no
course left but an appeal to the proprietors. • • -
Mr. EDWAItOCROPPER replied, that he and theother non-resi-
dent directors had been astonished by the proposal of the depu-
tation. He thouht some reason should he assigned for chang-
ing those directors. The question ought fairly to be brought
before them. If•they were found capable of betraying their
trust, as a director- he should feel that he could not sit on the
board wills men guilty of such conduct. 'But as a shareholuer
he should think it his duty to know what was charged against
them: ' . • .
Mr. BOOTHDY said he had attended the London Meeting.
He had long entertained the opinion that the London Cons-
'lrian were inefficient to curry out the important trusts de-
puted to them. But he 'never imputed to that committee, nor
did he new impute to them, any sinister motive in any way.
But he charged them, -and he charged them openly, with in-
competency to fulfil the trust that was imposed on them, and
he should shortly state the grounds on which he did so. He
had heard Many -reports of the great bias on the part of the
London Committee fdr the great Western Railroad. He could
scarcely believe that it was the case, he could scarcely credit
that they mittld advocate a bill which was to take from them a
great part of their traffic—that the directors could aid another
bill for obtaining a railroad which was to rob them of their trill.-
fie. He found by inquiring, however, that they had lent their
aid to that bill, and that had it not been for their aid the great
Western Railway Bill would not have been obtained. He did
not mean to-eh:tree any of the Committee with any sinister mo-
tive in that undertaking, he merely accused them of want of
judgment—of an error, and he believed it would not have gone-
to the extent which it had done if that Committee had possessed
the stake in the' undertaking which a great many of the pro-
prietors then present possessed. He believed they fulfilled
their duties as far as they could in forwarding the progress of
the works. But from the aid which they afforded to the great
Western Railroad they had not tended to advance the reve-
nues of their own railway but to rob them of a great amount of
revenue. As soon as he .heard of the arrival of the nun-resi-
dent directors in London, Mr. T. W. Rathbone, Mr. E. Crop-
per, and Mr. it. Garnett, he thought it his duty to wait on them
and put them in possession of the information he bad received ;
that infornation was given to him by the chairman of the
Southern Railroad, three of their directors and the secretary
being present. They said it etas a matter of notoriety in Lon-
don that the directors of the London and Birmingham Railway
were aiding the Great Westeru Railway, and they were sur-
prised that he Was in ignorance of it. Ile hoped a committee
would be apoointed to examine the evidence on that bill-before •
pstaartleiadiftnhta,t a
the
heheco‘mvomulidtteeengdag t o pr
ide
aidionveotit:tathe
illinnigwhthaet he wGnreolit
Western Railway bill. He believed they did it in the expecta-
tion of deriving revenue from the railway fur the four miles on
their line. That, he believed, was the reason why they had
done so, for he could not discover any other; those four miles
of road would• leave them,. from the Great Western Railway
Company making use of them, £15,001 a-year: but by that
Western railway running through Oxford it would deprive them
iof twenty-eight coaches a-day for thirty-two miles of their road ;
and twenty-eight coaches a-day for thirty-two miles, if they run
twiceln a-day, Would produce a revenue of1:80,000 aryear ; and
if they run three times a-day, of £120,000 a-year. Now, it was
a very important feature that this committee who gave their
support to obtain £15,000 a-year should not tub them of -80,000
a-year. lie understood that another brava] was to be continu-
ed from the Great Northern Line to Rugby. If that road were
Made it would deprive them of eighty-eight miles of their road to
Birmingham. He would admit that the road by Oxford
through Rugby would be round some miles, but it would be a
great inducethent to many travellers to go that way. Now, in
comparison to the £15,000 per annum the committee proposed
to give them by their four miles of road, they robbed them of
sixty passengers a-day : the loss of sixty passengers a-day for
eighty-eight miles would be £60,000 a-year. This but proved
what he had stated=-that the London committee, constituted as
it now was, was an inefficient committee. He believed, as in-
dividual members, they were highly respecta 'he men; but they
had not experience in the formation of railways—they had not
that stake in their railway which they ought to have, and they
were 'perSotstslly unknown to the great body of their proprietors.
Ile maintained that it was very important that the directors of,
that board Shahid be men of experience who had large stoic...fain
the undertaking. Such men as Mr. Wilson,lorinstances: He
had a letter in his possession from. one of the surveyors,
which stated that Oxford, by the London and Birming-
ham road, was nearer to London by five miles than by -Abe
Great Western Road; Cheltenham was nearer by miles than
by the great western road, and it did show great supineness la the
London committee that they should allow the great western
road to put- forth her arms and snake a great progress to their
detriment without making any exertions to prevant.it. He had
documents there to prove this, which he Was ready. to submit
any gentleman on the committee; but they were, matters which
it would not be proper to make public. He had been chosen
as mediator between the deputation and the directors on this
subject. lie had been told by Mr. Itathbone that a second va-
cancy which would.be made in the hoard was to be reserved for
Mr. Earle; 'Which would meet the views of the Lancashire pro-
prietors. He .(Mr. Boothby) said it might' be so; but he had
better write it, as he should decline making a verbal communi-
tion on such a subject. Mr. Rathbone afterwards wrote this
assurance signed with his initials. This, however, had after-
wards been objected to. He did not meats to make any objec-
•tion to the non-resident directors; but what would they say to
those directors re-electing the six retiring directors, while at the
same time they were instructed to put in Mr. Earle? They did
not elect hint, but signified that he would be elected on the
Lord Mayo's. retiring. - lie would Contend that that was not fol-
lowing the directions given to them. The Lord Mayor merely
signified his intention to resign : he did not say when. He
siecerely hoped that nothing would pass calculated to cast the
slightest disrespect on any individual. (Cheers.)
'Mr. EDWARD CROPPER was very much surprised -that that
charge should have been brought before that meeting again,
beeause it had been repeatedly stated what was the reason why
Mr. Earle should not be introduced to the direction imme-
ately.
Mr. EARLE wished to know the reason why lie was objected
to?
Mr. Boornov.—lt had better not have been mentioned; but
the reason was this, Mr. Berry had been under an impression
that Mr. Earle was opposed to his being the contractor. When
it was.mentioned that Mr. Earle was proposed to be a director,
it was 'desired that Mr. 'Berry's engagement should be first com-
pleted. The objection was not to Mr. Earle personally in the
slightest degree, but that his appointment might not interrupt
the negociation which was going on.
Mr. Caoi.Patt.said the reason wiszgliaynwtyohuenlvdegddoiodciatinhiogiotu because pthe credit to
of
press for the
election Of MroAavle was, that. the Lord Mayor might hold the
office till the completion of the Engagement with Mr. Berry.
suppose Mr' EttiaKt eh L 411 e hooP:Id the d
m dot op epeot
Mr. Berry.
Mr. CROPPER.--Mr. Boothby had made many statements
about branch lines; he never found any 91)r/idiot. try assist
those lines which were calculated to be beneficial. Mt. Boothby
had stated that some of the directors were interested in the
western railway—
Mr. Boort-ter begged pardon. He said Mr: Glynn was in a
delicate position, in being banker to both concerns.
Mr. CROPPER said he wrote the other day in order that he
might be able to state facts if any meeting was called. He
wrote to ascertain if any of the directors in the London corn-
rnitte held shares ot' the other railway or not—
Mr. BOOTHRY begged pardon; he made no such charge.
Mr. CROPPER.—He had got a letter the other day from the
London directors, which be would hand in to the chairman to
read.

The letter disclaimed any such connexion on the part of the
directors, with the exception of Mr. Glynn, who held GO shares,
and another member who held 10 shares, and strongly dis-
claimed the idea of their being so sordid as to be influenced by
any such consideration in the discharge of their duty as direc-
tors of the Birmingham and London railway, and even if they
were. that they would be a very small minority of the directors.
Mr. CROPPER.—Mr. Boothhy had merely shown that there
were branches from other railways forming, calculated to do
harm to their undertaking. Mr. Boothby had stated that he did
not make it a charge against the London committee, that some
of them were shareholders of the other railway. He would dis-
tinctly say that he did make that charge. They had had a
conversation together as to the shares held by the London corn.
mittee of the Great Western Railway. They stated. that they
believed no one held shares but Mr. Glynn, and they asked the
question whether they would allow him to remain as director.
Mr. L. HEY WORTH said the meeting had taken a turn fur in-
quiry which he did not anticipate. He was sure it was a sub-
ject worthy of their inquiry. Mr. Cropper had just stated that
they knew that the directors in the London railway bad an in-
terest in the Grand Western railway. Now he declared that
they did not know that, nor could they, because that was the
first time he had ever heard such a statement.
Mr. Cnopp-En.,—Would Mr. Heyworth allow him to ask a
question of Mr. Wilson, if he had not said he would get Hid' a
Mr. Glynn if he could?
Mr. WILSON thought not in that way. .The,.question was,
" whether he would do more Mischief out of lhe board than in
(Laughter.) He did not express a wish at all that lie
Should be removed.
;194.'.11,iywonm—The lait ,letter the cliaiimAP.,hAd read