The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-20 00:00:00

rates. He declared that the gradients of the proposed
extension from Dorchehester to Exeter were 20 per cent.
worse than those of the Dorset and Devon scheme. He
contended that the cost of. the Southampton and Dor-
chester line had been 800,0001., and the plant 148,430/.,
and that the actual working expenses for the past year
were 40,0081. 4s. 5d., leaving a net profit of 12,0001.
only, and that as 4 per cent., or 32,0001. per annum, was
paid upon the 800,0001. with which the line was con-
structed, the loss upon the working of the line was
16,0001. annually. Mr. Mortimer, however, did not
touch the accuracy of the statement respecting the
amount of net profit which it is declared is realised by
the traffic which the Southampton and Dorchester ex-
tension brings over the trunk line.. Another argument
urged against the construction of the proposed extension
of the coast line from Dorchester to Exeter was, that
the Great Western and Bristol and Exeter Company's
projected Dorset and Devon line must bring a large
amount of local traffic upon the Southampton and Dor-
chester line. The through traffic from the Southampton
and Dorchesterline was stated to be 11,0001. per annum
only. To these objections, it was replied that the work-
ing expenses of the Southampton and Dorchester line,
for the past year, had been accurately ascertained to be
rather under 50 per cent. of the gross receipts—that is,
27,408/., and :not 40,0081. 48. sd. • that it is not true
that the gradients of the proposed Dorset and Devon
line are better than those of the projected Dorchester
and Exeter Extension' and that, the through traffic of
the Southampton and Dorchester line is very much more
than 11,000/. ; and, in answer to the statement that the
country to the west of Dorchester belongs to the Great
Western Company by agreement with the South-West-
ern Company, it was declared that the former had broken
such agreement by diverting traffic from the latter.
The Dorset and Devon line was asserted to be so laid
out as to seriously affect the coast traffic, and the incon-
venience of a break of guage at Dorchester was strongly
commented upon.

Mr. CHAPLIN, having been calls(' on to state his opinion
of the project, said they all knew his opinion was in
favour of the central line, and all the arguments he had
heard that day had convinced him that the only true
policy of the South-Western Company was to construct
the central line from Salisbury to Exeter. The second
best scheme was the coast line from Dorchester to Exe-
ter, and he was prepar6d to support that scheme with
his votes, and the proxies with which his friends had en-
trusted him. He would therefore vote for the measure
brought forward by the directors.
Mr. DICKINSON thought they had better not proceed
any further, as they would only spend the funds of the
company in law and parliamentary warfare without do-
ing any good. There was nothing worth fighting for.
Mr. LOCKE said he had told the proprietors at former
meetings what the Great Western Company were doing,
and the parties who had dissuaded them adopting the
central scheme had inflicted serious injury on the South-
Western Railway Company. He would never be satis-
fied until he had a narrow-gunge line to the west. The
occupation of the district by the broad-gauge interests
he would consider as a national injury, and unless they
made the short and direct line to Exeter they would
never participate in any of the traffic of that place, but
by doing so they would ensure -one-half the Exeter
traffic. •

Resolutions were then passed adopting the report
which had been issued by the directors on the subject of
the extension from Dorchester to Exeter, stating that
the interests of-the company required the rejection of
the Dorset and Devon scheme now before Parliament,
and the extension of the line from Dorchester to Brid-
port and Exeter; authorising the directors to take the
necessary steps to supply the district in question with
the least possible delay ; the capital to be raised by the
company, and ot by independent parties, for the fur-
therance of those objects.
A vote of thanks to the chairman and directors was
then carried, and
After some observations from Mr. Hutchins, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Locke, and other proprietors, in refer-
ence to the course adopted by Mr. Mortimer, the meet-
ing separated without passing any resolution on the
subject.