3—London, Worcester, and Rugby and Oxford Railway.
4—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Worcester Branch and Deviation.
5—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Wolverhampton Extension.
6—London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire Railway—the Tring line.
7—Grand Junction—Dudley Branch, Shrewsbury and Stafford, and Shrewsbury
and Wolverhampton.
8—Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway.
All the great railway interests of the country thought themselves
interested in the decision of the committee, and brought their forces to
bear upon the battle; inasmuch as it was supposed that it would decide to
which of the gauges the preference should be given in coming railway
economics, and so be of vital importance to the opponent systems and the
great companies connected with them. For months prior to this contest
the press had swarmed with pamphlets, some contending that a greater
power, speed, and safety could be attained upon the broad gauge; others
requiring a uniformity of gauge throughout the country, and pointing out
the inconvenience of a break of gauge at Gloucester and elsewhere: but
the decision of the committee had very little reference to any of these
matters, and was clearly influenced by different considerations. The
principal counsel employed were Mr. Talbot and Mr. Cockburn for the
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line; Mr. Austin and Sergeant
Wrangham for the London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire line; Mr.
Daniell for the Birmingham and Gloucester; and Mr. Kinglake for the Great
Western Company: besides innumerable others. Mr. Austin opened the case
on behalf of the London and Birmingham line to Tring, which he contended
was all that the district could require; that it would be absurd to
introduce the broad gauge north of Birmingham; and, lastly, the Board of
Trade had reported in its favour. The witnesses connected with this
county, who were examined in its favour, were Mr. Richard Smith, mining
agent to Lord Ward (whose interests had been especially consulted in this
scheme); Mr. William Hancock, ironmaster, Cookley; Mr. W. Berrows,
ironmaster, Dudley; Mr. E. Williams, miller, Dudley; Mr. Best,
Kidderminster; Mr. H. Brinton, Kidderminster; Mr. Harris, carpet
manufacturer, Stourport; Mr. Heath and Mr. Griffiths, Bewdley; Mr. Lukin,
manager of the Weldon Tin Works; Mr. H. B. Tymbs, Mr. John Hood, Mr. A.
Wells, Mr. James Wall, and Mr. J. W. Lea, Worcester; Mr. E. Smith,
gardener, Evesham; &c. Mr. Daniell then opened the case for the
Birmingham and Gloucester Company’s Deviation line, and examined Mr. M.
Pierpoint, who said that he believed this and the Tring line would be all
that the citizens of Worcester would want, and would answer their
interests better than the Oxford and Wolverhampton line. Mr. W.
Chamberlain and Mr. Robert Hardy, with Mr. Tombs, of Droitwich, were also
examined by Mr. Daniell. Mr. Cockburn then called witnesses in favour of
the Great Western Company’s broad gauge projects: those from this county
were Mr. James Boydell, Oak Farm Iron Works, Kingswinford; Mr. Jonathan
Fardon, Stoke Works; Rev. W. H. Cartwright, Dudley; Mr. Paul Matthews,
Stourbridge; Mr. John Hill, Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, Mr. William Lewis
(Mayor), Mr. Henry Webb, Mr. Leader Williams, of Worcester; and Mr. T. A.
Foster, of Evesham. After the committee had sat twenty days, they
reported that they found the preamble of the Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton Railway and of the Oxford and Rugby lines, proved: and
those of the railways promoted by the London and Birmingham not proved,
with the Birmingham and Gloucester Deviation line. They evidently came
to this decision from a belief that the broad gauge lines were so planned
as best to answer the wants of the districts through which they passed,
and that the public favour had been generally accorded them on that
ground. The avowed intention of the Great Western Company to carry out a
line to Port Dynllaen, had also probably some influence with the
committee. The greatest excitement prevailed during the whole of the
inquiry—no change of ministry ever created greater in the lobbies of the
House—and the result seemed to be very unexpected, as shares in the Tring
line went up considerably a day or two before the decision was given.
The committee were occupied some days longer in considering the clauses
of the Oxford Company’s Bill, and gave the Birmingham and Gloucester
Company power to use the loop line at Worcester, at a remuneration to be
fixed by umpires. It being known that the London and Birmingham Company
intended to oppose the Oxford Bill in the House, petitions in favour of
that line were sent up from Worcester, Droitwich, Dudley, Blockley, and
Chipping Camden. Lord Ingestre moved that the report on the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up. Mr. Pakington
seconded the motion. Mr. Cobden moved, as an amendment, that an address
be presented to Her Majesty to appoint a commission to inquire into the
comparative merits of the broad and narrow gauges. Colonel Wood seconded
the amendment; which, after much debate, was lost by 247 to 113, and the
Oxford Railway Bill was read a second time. Its triumph was hailed with
great rejoicings in this county. The bill had a comparatively easy
passage through the House of Lords, though strenuously opposed in
committee by the London and Birmingham Company, and on the 4th of August
it received the royal assent. Its various successes were occasions of
excited rejoicings in Worcester.
The first general meeting of the shareholders was held in October, at the
Guildhall, Worcester. The Yorkshire shareholders sought to set aside the
agreement between this Company and the Great Western directors, by which
the line was to be leased to the Great Western Company for 3½ per cent.,
and half the surplus profits. They wished to make this an independent
line; but at the representations of the chairman and others, who, with a
too fatal confidence in the Punic faith of the Great Western, represented
that they were under such obligations to that Company in the starting of
the project and its success in Parliament, and that it would be
dishonourable to break this agreement of lease—the Yorkshire shareholders
withdrew their opposition to the reception of the directors’ report.
1846—FEBRUARY 27—At the first half yearly meeting of the shareholders,
the chairman, Mr. Rufford, expressed his gratification at the resolution
of the Great Western Company, to “extend the guarantee to such sum as
shall appear to them necessary for the completion of the second railway
and works, and fixing the rate of interest at 4 per cent. per annum in
lieu of 3½ per cent. per annum; subject to such conditions as may appear
equitable between the two Companies.” The shareholders present seemed
pleased with this arrangement. The amount of expense incurred before a
sod of earth was turned, was £76,124; of which £36,765 went in law and
Parliamentary expenses, and £14,288 to the engineers.
1846—AUGUST 29—The second half yearly meeting of the Oxford and
Wolverhampton Railway shareholders, held at Worcester, when it was
promised that the deviation line from Stoke to Abbott’s Wood should be
opened in twelve months, and the whole line in three years. Lord
Redesdale called upon the directors to oppose the making of the Oxford
and Birmingham line upon the broad gauge, foretelling that it would drain
all the traffic from this line. The meeting was harmonious, and thanks
very cordially voted to the directors.
1847—AUGUST 27—Half yearly meeting of the Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton Railway shareholders, at which Mr. Brunel reported that the
loop line from Stoke to Abbott’s Wood might be finished by the end of the
year. Mr. Figgins, a London shareholder, wanted to see the agreement
with the Great Western, and to set it aside. Mr. Barlow said there never
was a lease more binding and less likely to be set aside. Mr. Elgie
produced a copy of the agreement, by which it appeared that the line was
leased to the Great Western for a permanency; and the chairman said it
guaranteed four per cent. to the shareholders on whatever amount might be
expended. The resolutions prepared by the directors were carried
unanimously.
1849—FEBRUARY 24—At the half yearly meeting it was announced that the
interest, which had hitherto been given to the shareholders on the amount
of capital paid up, must be discontinued for want of funds; and the
directors talked of making an arrangement with the Great Western Railway
Company “more suitable to existing circumstances.”
1849—JUNE 9—At a special meeting of the proprietors a long report was
presented from the directors, complaining that the Great Western Company
would now only give them £4 per cent. on £2,500,000 of capital, instead
of on the whole sum necessary to complete the line, as the directors had
understood them to guarantee, and had led their proprietary to believe.
A committee of proprietors was appointed to confer with the directors
upon the course to be adopted.
1849—SEPTEMBER 1—Another special meeting of the directors, held in
London, at which the committee of proprietors, appointed at the previous
meeting, presented a report, severely impugning the conduct of the
directors in several particulars, and advised that the narrow gauge alone
should be laid down between Tipton and Abbott’s Wood, and the line
immediately opened so far.
The year 1850 witnessed a total rupture with the Great Western Company,
and some very unpleasant meetings between the shareholders and the
directors. The Company passed two bills through Parliament—the one
authorising them to sell the Stratford Canal to the Oxford and Birmingham
Company, and the other to enable certain other companies to advance them
money for the completion of their line. The first morsel of the
railway—the half of the loop line from Worcester to Abbott’s Wood—was
opened on the 5th October, and worked by the Midland Company under
special agreement.
In January, 1851, Lord Ward became chairman of the Company, and the whole
management passed into different hands. Messrs. Peto and Betts accepted
contracts for constructing the greater portion of the line; and
arrangements were entered into, by issuing preference shares at £6 per
cent., for raising the capital necessary to complete the undertaking,
which, it was now estimated, would cost £3,300,000 instead of the million
and a half, which was the sum originally intended to be raised.
The preference shares were almost immediately subscribed for, and the
directors soon afterwards entered into an agreement to lease the line to
the London and North Western and Midland Companies; whereupon Lord Ward
resigned the chairmanship, and an unpleasant correspondence took place
between his lordship and Mr. Peto. The arrangement, however, was never
carried out, as an injunction was obtained by the Great Western Railway
Company to prevent any other company doing that of which they themselves
evaded the performance.
Since that time the directors have been proceeding to lay down the line
upon the narrow gauge, and with the view of working it independently of
either of the great companies, nor have the Great Western been able to
hinder them further. The whole of the loop line was opened on the 18th
of February, 1852, and thirty-six miles of the main line, from Evesham to
Stourbridge, on the 1st May, 1852.