Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century / A Complete Digest of Facts Occuring in the County since the Commencement of the year 1800

by T. C. Turberville

2—Oxford and Rugby Railway.

NARROW GAUGE.

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.