The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-11-08 00:00:00

(-counts now brOugt

an adjournment should take place to afforu
The shareholders surely were not to be
sures for a dissolution, by whomsoever they might be brou,
forward ; and he trusted the meeting would see the absolui
necessity for reserving to themselves the power which they

hurried into r

now possesse
act which sl),

'ery careful not to do any
ae control which they now
msider the matter before

The CIiAIRMAN

4illiligton v

any motion to th

to make?

Mr. GaBIG said, the rootlet

so soon as a certain gentle

the questions

nounced h

mtentiol

), through the public prints
right he

sent, and it would

have an

explanation, because much rr

Send upon

in which he'criminated others along with hinise:

Mr. PORTER.—Who do you mean?
Mr. GREIG said he meant Mr. Richard Roberts. If that
person was not heard, he (Mr. Greig) should bring forwarc
a distinct motion against the dissolution. (Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN explained that the object of the meeting

bareholder who

was to ascertain whether there
would propose the dissolution of the company

Mr. GREIG seriously hop, .
so remarkably foolish as to propose such a ..._
should consider such a man fit only for a lunatic asylum.
Mr. CURTIS said there were three parties whose conc.
in this unfortunate concern might be called in question. '1
shareholders had not acted in a manner in which they oug,
to have acted, and they ought to bear the portion of blana,
which justly attached to them. The general body of direc-
tors were also to blame ; but, most of all, the managing com-
mittee, by whom the great interests of the concern had been
grossly, shamefully, managed—in fact, he could not find
words to express adequately the opinion he had of their con-
duct. (Hear, hear.) But still the shareholders
free from blame. lie was not going to palliate the c 0,.,
of the directors ; but as just and honourable men, the share-
holders should take their proper share of blame for not seein,
the concern conducted properly. The reports annually pr,
rented to them by the directors had not been framed I,
cordance with the deed of settlement ' • and Cm, _
had been content to receive them, without looking na.
to see whether they were in accordance, provided there v
en- f good dividend. The directors were also themselves mu

that no al

!holder would 't

re not

shareholders

blame for not seeing the deed of settlem

carried out in ti

outset. (Hear, hear, hear.) H
early part of the history of the hi

had stated that in the first report or two no estimate
was made of the probable amount of loss which might
accrue from the then current accounts. Not having be-
come a shareholder himself till 1836, and not having the
reports in his possession, he could not say whether such was
the case ; but in the reports which he had, since 1836, no
such mention was made except on two occasions. Mr.
Curtis then went through the reports of 1836, 1837, 1838,
1839, and 1840, with a view of proving this statement. The

report of 1836 stated that the rn
directors, after having pro-
vided for all bad debts and the existing engagements of the
bank, were enabled to set aside £46,000 clear profits for
dividends. Now, the first duty was to enquire whether the
directors at that period had applied all their energies to ascer-
tain whether that report was true or not. Let the meeting