The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-03-08 00:00:00

THE PROPOSED RAILWAY FROM STOUR.
BRIDGE TO BEWDLEY.

A meeting was held in the Free Grammar School,
}Culver, on Monday evening, for the purpose of consider-
ing the best means of supp "'dog the Great Western
Railway Company in obtaining the necessary powers to
construct their proposed line from Stourbridge, through
Mover. Cookley, and Kidderminster, to Itemßey. Mr.
H. 0. Firmatene, of Wollaston, was voted to the chair ;
and among those present were the Revs. J. Hodgson
(vicar of Kinver), and W. Boulton ; Messrs. C. H. Firm-
moue, J. B. Sheppard, T. Boehm), B. A 1 Miscue, T.
Holyoake, Thompson (agent to Mr. H. W. Foley), J.
Williams, J. Stinson, 0. Matthews, T. Belcher, Birch,
Stevens, J. A. E. Swindle, it:d, &c.

,
The Chairman read a letter of up don' for non-attend.
from Mr. H. T. Hickman, who considered the proposed
railway had lit come almost iedispensable to the welfare
of the neighbourhood. Having expressed the pleasure it
afforded him to be present on that occasion, the Chair-
man amid that, as is large proprietor and employer of
labour, together with the great interest he took in the
welfare of the ancient town of liinver, it was with great
pleasute that he endeavoured to help forward the in-
tentions of the meeting. They bad been led to suppose
that the (heat Western Railway Company would supply
the want which that neighbourhood had so long felt, as
they flail the promise if that company that when the
time should arrive for them to carry out the work they
would do to ; and the people now believed that the time
had arrived when a new railway should be constricted to
enable them to complete with other manufacturing towns
is the kingdom—(hear, hear). They were aware that a
very formidable opposition to the line had been or-
ganised. which mighttend to diesuatie the company from
persevaring in the formation of the line unless they were
strengthened by the voice of the public. He did not
know the exact nature ef the opposition which was raised
mattinst the bill, but he understood that there were three
very important landowners, all if them noblemen, ist the
neighbourhood, wit were opposed to the formation of
the line on sonic grounds. The Earl of Dudley, the
Earl of Stamford and :Warrington, and Mr. Foley, pro-
prietor of Prestwood, hot all filed petitious egainst the
bill, mei it was f tit them to consider what steps they
should take with a view either to remove entirely their
opposition, or to meet it in each a manner, either by
petition or some other means, an will warrant the cons•
pony to fight it out even in opposition to those petitions
—(cheers). He could not do better than call upon Mr.
J. R. Sheppard, one of the solicitors to the company, to
explain the nature of the opposition.
. _

Mr. Sheppard said the question of the construction of
a new line alwayi involved some personal inconveniences
to landowners through whose lands the railwity would
have to go, so that the present opposition had not came
upon them unexpected. On the present eccasion the
nature of the petitions might be divided into two classes.
There were petitions which alieged " that the public
it Tests would not be served by the construction of that
line." bat it would be for the meeting to say whether
that was a truism or not; and the other division of the
petitions was that the petitioners alleged "that their
private interests would be interfered with." The object
of the company, in constructing that line, wail to inter-
fere as little as possible wilt the private rights of land-
owners ; lent it was only ti be expecieil that the shoe
would pinch in some places. Mr. Foley's petition alleged
that he was the occupier of the Prestwood estate, eon.
Laming 1,200 acree, through the middle of which it was
proposed to carry the projected railway for two miles.
It would be most injurious to the petitioner, and would
greatly diolinish the value of the property—(Voices :
" Query "). There was a mansion there, and upwards of
£lOO,OOO had been spent in beautifying the grounds, and
the proposed railway would come right across the drive
to the house. There was also Stourton Castle on the
grounds, which had been let on a lease which would
soon expire, and then would be on the hands of the
petitioner, greatly deteriorated by the railway running
in close proximity to it. The petitioner further alleges
that the proposed railway was not required for the
accommodation of the public, the district being already
well provided with all necessary accommodation for
minerals and goods traffic by means of the existing rail-
wayie, together with the existing canals. If there had
been a railway required the petitioner affirms that one
could have been constructed less expensive, and which
would not have infringed upon the private property of
landowners so nuieh. It would, if constructed, be only
confined ties small number of persons, and would not
confor any such public or general advantartes as would
justify the promoter to seek for powers to interfere
injuriously with the private property and rights of laud.
owners. Lord Stamford's opposition wait very similar.
It would not only interfere with the catalog of the
hot would very materially interfere with the
iittington Ironworks belonging to the petitioner -
( ad laughter). The petitioner farther alleged that the
ino-ed railway was ill-advised The canal company
i.deged competition no being highly injurious to their
traffic as the grounds of their opposition. The Earl of
Dudley alleged that there was no public necessity for the
railway—(" Shame," and ironical laughter). It would

,be necessary for that meeting to establish non fact which
could not be contravened that the construction of the
line would be of great public service, and that public
mcessity required the formation' of the line—(hear,
hear). He felt convinced that if they could prove that
1 to a demonstration that the opposition of Lord Stam-
ford and Lord Dudley would either be altogether with-
, drawn or very much modified, as he was convinced that
their great desire was to forward the benefits of the
public, and their opposition was more to challenge the
necessity of the line than to vigorously oppose it on
private grounds—lcheers). He hail no doubt that Mr.
Foley would reconsider his opposition if such facts were
presented to him. It would be almost impossible to
' construct a railway from Stourbridge to Bewdley without
running through some portion of Mr. Folex'a property,
as it was as described in a "ringed fence. The com-
pany had already done all they could to remove tho
oh-
)ectiona raised by the petitioners he hail named, and
. what they wanted was the unanimous support of the
1 public —(hear, hear).
In reply to the Vicar of Kinver, Mr. Sheppard said
that the opposition raised by Mr. 'l'. W. Knight and Sir
J. S. Sebright were simply as landowners, and not as
ironmasters, for he was pleased to nay that there was not
1 a proprietor of works along the route which the line
would take bat what heartily supported the ticheme.
1 The Chairman said they could not do better than
petition buth Houses of Parliament in favour of the bill,
and then appoint a deputation to wait upon those peti-
tioners who had tiled petitions *pinta the bill, with a 1
view of getting their opposition removed. Had he con-
sulted his own.personal interests, he might havo raised
some objection to the line, but when he was solicited he
felt bound to support it on grounds of public interest.,
because be was convinced that it would prove a great
blessing to the district. Ile then moved that a Parlia•
mentary petition, setting forth the requirements of the
district which were met in the proposed railway, should
be presented to both Houses of Parliament, and he
urged all persons to sign such a petition numerously.
Mr. J. Williams seconded the motion, which was
carried,.

The Rev. J. Hodgson then morel that a deputation,
consisting of Mr. 11. 0. Finnstone, B. Williams, H. J.
Hickman Stenson, and T. Bonlton, be appointed to wait
upon Earl Stamford and Warrington and Mr. H. Vt.
Foley, to urge upon them the great importance to the
town of Kinver of the proposed new railway from Stour.
bridge to Bewdbris.with a view of inducing them not
only to wiihdraw their opposition to it, but to heartily
support tho construction of the line—(loud cheers).
Mr. Morgan seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
. . „

Mr. G. Osborne thought it would be better if some
official from the railway company could accompany the
depuiation, as it would then prove that the Great
Western Company were in earnest..

Mr. Sheppard eaid the company bad already used all
the influence they eould in the matter.
The Chairman said the trade of the district bad been
crippled for the want of better accommodation, especially
in the winter, when at times the canal was frozen over.
It was stated that the canal had been frozen over for 13
weeks on oue occasion, during which tims the neighbour-
hood was entirely shut out from the commercial world.
A vote of thanks to the Chairman, on the motion of
Mr. B. Wllhams, seconded by Mr. Holyoake, terminated
the proceedings.