BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 933, 17 January 1890, Page 13

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

SPECIAL MEETING. (PER press ASSOCIATION.) Auckland, January 9. A special meeting of the Bank of New Zealand was held at noon to-day to consider the proposed removal of the head office to London. The Chairman, in opening the meeting, said In pursuance of the recommenda-

tion made to you at the last half-yearly meeting, and of the intentions we then expressed, we now meet you to consider the question of the removal of the head office and general management of the bank to London, and to obtain from you the neces. sary direction and authority to take steps to effect the transfer. The course of procedure to be adopted in order to carry out so important a change in the affairs of the institution has necessarily called for careful consideration by our legal advisers, and for communication with the shareholders in England, whose proxies are necessary in order to give the required voting power. You will not, therefore, be surprised that this is the earliest opportunity afforded us of meeting you to submit the questions For reasons explained to you at the October meeting, the recommendations we then made to transfer the control came upon the Loudon Board somewhat unexpectedly, for, though it was a step which had their general approval and concurrence, in case it should be deemed desirable, they had not anticipated that that occasion would meantime arise. In response, however, to our invitation that they should send an envoy to the Colony, they took this initial step toward the assumption of control, and, as you are already aware by Press telegrams, have appointed Mr David Hean, who is now on his way hither. Meanwhile, we ask you to affirm the principle of the removal, in order that we may proceed to arrange details. We do not think it necessary or desirable to-day to enter into any more elaborate statement than we have already made as to the reasons which led us in the first instance to recommend the proposal to you, and which still prompt us to ask your authority to carry it through, for it seems to us that the remarks made from this chair at the meeting on the 24th October last concisely placed those reasons before you. The discussion upon the question in the press and elsewhere has gone to confirm us in the opinion we then expressed, that the removal of the head office and general management to London is, so far as can at present be seen, the step best calculated to increase confidence in the bank, and, therefore, most effectually to conserve your interests. Though I believe the shareholders generally (at least in the colonies) would prefer that the situation could be otherwise dealt with, the fact that a very few have directed their proxies to be used in opposing the removal shows how generally the propriety of the step is recognised, and convinces us that it is not necessary to urge further reasons in order to ensure that the resolution lam now about t > submit shall meet with your approval. I beg to propose : “That the head office and general management of the bank be removed to

London, and that the Directors take such steps as they may think fit to remove the same accordingly.” Major George seconded the resolution.

Mr Header Wood asked for information as to the effect of the resolution ; first, as to the precise meaning of the removal of the head office to London, If there were to be two directorates—one in London and one here—they would achieve nothing. It was desirable to have the sole directorate of the bank in London, so as to avoid the local influences so disastrous in the past. Mr C. E. Button said: With regard to the question raised by Mr Reader Wood, I may say that this present meeting is simply necessary to affirm the proposition that it is desirable to remove the head office of the bank to London. It will then be Decessary for a meeting to be called to amend the deed of settlement in order to carry that resolution into effect. I have given advice to the Board of Directors as to the points on which it appears to me necessary the deed of settle ment should be amended and to take the sense of another meeting called immediately after this. Before the Directors can be authorised or properly take any steps in the removal of the head office to London the shareholders must, under Act of Parliament, affirm'the principle that it is desirable to so remove it. Then a set of resolutions will be presented to you, which will bring before

the shareholders the question as to whether or not the Board in London should have power to appoint any local Board. As I have been instructed by the Board of Directors, I have framed resolutions wrhich will come before a subsequent meeting, duly adververtised. The resolutions are to this effect: First, “ That all references to Auckland in the deed of settlement, which require meetings to be held in Auckland and so forth, will be altered to London ’■ ; and second, “ That the Board of Directors (meaning thereby the Board of Diiectors in London) may, if they think fit, appoint a colonial Board of Directors which would aofc accordiug to instructions to be framed by the Board in London.” That will raise the question for the shareholders to consider

whether they will give that power to the Board in London. I am of opinion, and I think I may give my own opinion, that it would be unwise not to give them that power. It would be for the .Board at Home to consider whether or not it would be expedient to appoint a local Board to do so ; it would be for the gentle, men at Home, who have full information as to the interests and requirements of the Bank, to say whether or not the general manager should be under the direction of any local Board, and, besides, you must remember that it is possible circumstances might arise in future in which it might be advisable for the Board at Home to appoint some advisory body in the Colony, However, that will be for your consideration subsequently. The present resolution is simply preliminary to the subsequent steps which must be taken, and to which your sanction will be required, in order to allow of a settlement. In reply to the President Mr Reader Wood said he considered Mr Buttou’3 explanation very satisfactory indeed. The motion was then put and unanimously agreed to. Mr Tolhursfc announced that a subsequent 1 meeting would be called at an early date to affirm the resolution which had just been carried, and at that meeting the resolutions would be brought forward wh ; ch Mr Button had explained. Mr Boardman asked if that meeting would be held at such a date that the absent i

shareholders would know what the resolutions were. Mr Button said that 30 days’ notice would be given, and the resolutions carried at that meeting would then require to be confirmed at a meeting to be held 30 days afterward. Mr Boardman thought 30 days’ notice would not be sufficient for the English shareholders. Mr Tolhurst said that the English shareholders were already aware of this matter. The information was given by the Board of Directors in Auckland to the Board in London when communicating with them after the half-yearly meeting in October last. There was no further business, and the meeting closed. Auckland, January 13. A meeting of shareholders in the Bank of New Zealand has been called for Friday, the 24th of February next, to consider various alterations of the deed of settlement which become necessary to give effect to the resolution passed at the meeting held on Thursday last authorising the removal of the chief offics to London. Among the resolutions to be submitted to the meeting are two providing for the appointment of a local board and appointment of an attorney to act for the bank in the colonies.