The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-06-25 00:00:00

'Wool anb istct(4eivs
THE DUDLEY, STOURBRIDGE, AND KING.
SWINFORD TRAMWAY SCHEME.

The Dudley, Stourbridge, and Kingswinford
Tramwa.ys Order Confirmation Bill came before a
Select Committee of the House of Commons on
Friday last. The order was opposed by the Great
Western Rene:ay Company.. Mr. Bidder, Q.C. (for
the promoters), said that the order was one to
authorise the construction of tramways abaut five
miles in length. The Great Western Railway
Company opposed, but, he contended, on in.ufficient
grounds.
Mr. Wainwright, the Mayor of Dudley, said he
was the solicitor of the company promoting the
tramways. In 1845 he opposed the Bill of the Great
Western Railway. The promoters were residents
in Dudley and had an interest in the locality. The
tramways would lead from Dudley to Stourbridge,
and the road was almost a continuous street, thickly
populated. The Corporation of Dudley had unani-
mously petitioned in favour of the Bill. rile
Corporation were a very independent body, end
would not be influenced by him in doing so. He
believed that the people of Dudley were, as a whole,
in favour of the Bill. Many portions of the popu-
lation were not served by the railway. It was not
true to Say that the railway met the requirements
of the public. The accommodation by the tramways
would no doubt take a good deal of the traffic of the
railway, but in other respects they would act as a
feeder to the railway. There would be no material
obstruction in the streets if the tramways were
made. There was nothing but crdinary traffic along
the route. The tramways at one point would pass
over a mineral railway, but it did not pass the
Stourbridge Extension Railway.
Cross-examined by Mr, Pember, Q.C. : The com-
pany was formed for the express purpose of making
the tramways. Witness was a member of the
company. He did not recommend the formation of
the company. There were ten members in it. The
capital of the company was
Mr. Bidder objected to the question on the ground
that there was nothing stated in the petition
challenging the financial proposals.
The Chairman: Ido not think that we can go
into the capital of the con- pany.
Croiss-examination continued : Five miler; of
tranewer, had been rejected by the Board of Trade.
The Kingswinford people first moved in the matter
There is a passenger railway at Dudley and Stour-
bridge, and the distance was between i five and Fix
miles. Some of the stations were close together.
the works of Messrs. Cochrane were less than a
quarter of a mile from the Round Oak Station, anti
Messrs. Smith's place of business was equally near.
There was a level crotsing of Messrs. Bradley's
near Stourbridge over which the proposed tram e ays
would pass. That was not the only level crossing
on the lino ; there was no other level croEsing
mentioned in the Bill., _

Mr. Bidder again objteted to these grvstior.s
relative to private level-crossings which were not
objected to in the petition.
Mr. Pember said he had stated that the tramway..
would be objectionable if made, and that they
ould be an obstruction to the general traffic.
The Chairm:tn ruld that Mr. Pernber could hardly
go into thia matter.
Cross-examination continued: There were no
omnibuses along the proposed route The railway
company had adopted a system of carrri age monopoly,
only one man being allowed to ply for hire. The
monopoly was kept up by the company keeping
carriages out of the station. The public had com-
plained, and witness himself had complained of there
being cabs or carriages kept at the station. The
tramways would pss the station, but would be no
nearer for the public than a carriage would be.
There was a general feeling in favour of the train-
ways. The Board of Trade decided that the tram-
way should commence not at Tipton, but at Dudley
Market. The part cut off by the Board of Trade hat
been handed over to another limitedliability com-
pany, over whose line running powers would be
granted. _ _

- Re-examined: The scheme originally was pro-
moted, although by people of KingAwinford, in thf,
jut ereit of the people of Dudley and Sburbridge
well.

Mr. Turney said he carried on a large wholesale
and expart trade in leather at Stourbridge. He was
chairman of the Public Improvement Coaimissioners
of the town. In his opinion the proposed taeaways
would be a very great convenience. There was a
petition signed against the tramway by 40 or 50
persons, but a counter petition, signed mostly by
the trading inhabitants of Stourbridge, was very
numerously signed. The large majority were in
favour of the tramways' and anxiously awaited their
being made. They would give accommodation Omit
the railway could not afford to the public.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember, Q.C. : Witness's
works adjoined the gods station at Stourbridge.
The population of the town was a little under 10,000
The adjoining townships gave a population in the
district of 30,000, The district had not increased
during the last decade.
Mr. W. Webb sai t he resided at Wordsley, near
an angle of the proposed tramway. Witness and
his brother were manufacturers, and employed a
large number of hands. The tramway would supply
a public want which was very much needed. The
railway company could not meet the wants of the
public.
At this point the commi' tee adjourned.
The Bill again came Lfore the Committee on
Monday; Mr. Portman in the chair.
Mr. Rupert Smith, C.E„ of Birmineharn' said he
was well acquainted with the Dudley and Stour.:
bridge district, and in conjunction with Mi.
Pritchard lie prepared the Parliamentary
Generally, tile line was laid out with special iefer-
e::ce to the me of ne.chanical power, and was
eminently convenient for the public, and could be
worked witli.ut any difficulty or danger. Referring
to the points raised by the (uieat W, stern Rails ay,
the tramway line would p as over the two bridges
crossing the Great Western lino at Brettell Lute
and Round Oak without difficulty whatever, and
the security of these bridges would be in no way
interfered with. The tramway line would also cross
a mineral tramway near Stourbridge, which takes
mineral into the works of Messrs. Foster and others.
It was a line merely to pass the mineral trucks
across the road into the works During the last
twenty years he had known the diFtrict he never
remembered to have once had to stop his carriage
because trucks were passing. rids mineral line
communicated with the works of Messrs. Bradley,
and they had raised no objection to the tramway.
Cross-exau3inel by Mr. Pember : The power to
use steam through that part of the town of Dudley
through which the tramway passed was subject to
the sanction of the Corporation and tl.e Board of
Trade, but he apprehended re difficult) would
arise. Lord Dudley had the power of mining under
some of the roads over which the tramway passed
at the lower end tewards Scott's Green, and roads
had been known to sink, in consequence, as much
as an inch in a night.
Mr. Gorge Bagutt, of Dudley, said he had lived
in Dudley all his life, and, with his brother, was
owner of a large amount of property there. He
was an alderman and.member of the Town Council,
andibad been Mayor. He was chairman of the
Streets and Gas Committee, of the Poor-law Union,
and the Assessment Committee. As to tbe value
of the tramway to the district, he believed it!would
be the greatest boon to the town generally, but .tore
espeemlly to the working classes. Ti o means of
communication which the line would offer was now
much needed. The advantages which ihe tramway
would offer were impossible to the railway company
because the railway siations were distant from the
town. The means of continuous communication
with Birmingham, Tipton, and Walsall also would
be a very great advantage. He had no c-nnection
with the scheme, but he shared what he knew to.be
the gener:d feeling of Dudley in favour of the
tramway. Speaking as chairman of the Streets
C,nunittee, he apprehended no difficulty in work-
ing the cars through the streets of Dudley.
By the Committee: There was an almost con-
tinuous road-side population along the tramway
route.
Witnesses were then called for the petitioners.

Mr. Edward B. Marten, C.E., t!.to-urbridge, ex-
pressed hi opinion that the roads in the district
were inc.st difficult for laying a tramway. Nothing
but steam could cork the cars up the gradients.
There mms a rise of 475 :cet from end to end.
1 he Chairman rultd that the matter of gradients
should not be entered upon.
Witness (contnuing) said there was a very heavy
road t-aftie, consisting of castings, boilers, and other
heary goods. Up the steep gradients th, se heavy
loads were drawn with difficulty, and by continued
ziszaging to ease the weight to the horses; there-
fore there would be the grautest inconvenience to
have large cars meeting this traffic and keeping
rigidly to a straight line. The population was not
a travelling-one, and the people used their own
lc cal markets.
Colonel Fletcher. of Lawnswood, near Stour-
bridge, chairman of the Stourbridge Canal Com-
pany, corroborated what had been said by the last
witness as to the heavy traffic on the road. The
tramway would be objectionable, and divert the
road from its original purpose, for which there was
no public necessity. He was a member of the
_Highway Committee for the county of Worcester.
The two counties—Stafford and Worcester—had
the supervision of these roads. He attended a
meeting of the Highway Committee at Worcester
on Saturday last. and the meeting expressed its
objection altogether to the scheme, and he was
requested to bring the matter before the Court of
Quarter Sessions. and move for a petition against
t e scheme, Foe coannittee were a representative
body, appointed by the Court of Quarter itiessicee

and had supervision of these particular roads, for
which they paid half of the expenses out of the
ounty rates. His residence was lf mile from the
line of rails, and he was not likely to use the cars.
lie objected to the lines, as everyone who kept
horses must.

Cross examined: This matter was only brought
before the Highway Committee on Saturday, and
until thrn no membr of the committee knew any-
•hing about it. The promoters did not represent
their case to the committee, who oxly had the ex-
pknation he Limself gave
Mr. Georze King Harrison, Hagloy, near Stour-
bridge, magistrate. and also owner of mi ping and
fireclay work 4at Brettell Lane, wiCch occupied
both sides of the road, said a more unsuitable roal
for a tramway could not be selected in tl.e three
kingdoms, and there was no: population to
use it. As a proof to that, he pointod to the fact
that there was no line of conveyances on the road.
The train service between Stourbridge and Dudley
was fairly good, and would be added to if neces-
sary. _ _ _

Dr. Henry Walker, Brierley Hill, confirmed the
opinioi of the last witness as to the unsuitability
of the road, and there being no necessity for the
tramway line.
Mr. Pember then addressed the committee on
behalf of the Great Western Railway, and le tying
the question of passing over bridges as matters of
detail that might he settled, he dwelt upon the fact
that this scheme was really a competing scheme
with the Great Western Railway Company, com-
peting in all respects like a rail.way. and competing
upon most unfair terms. He , 1,0 insisted that no
necessity had been shown for the line for the con-
venience of the population.
Mr. Bidder, in replying, relied upon the unani-
mous opinion of the local authorities and the feeling
of the district in favour of the tramway, against
which ho denied that the few witnesses called on the
other side had tu,:de any case. His learned friend
argued that there was no traffic to ju•itify the line;
but it wns evident that was not the view of the
Great Western Railway, which feared competition.
But after all it was idle to call a tramway a com-
peting scheme. The conditions were wholly differ-
ent, and met totally different requirements.
The committee unanimously decided on confirm-
ing the provisional order.