Accrington on Rails - The Tramways: A Complete History - Robert Kenyon

8. Each Corporation to promote Bills in the ensuing session of Parliament seeking powers to carry out this agreement, along with the conversion of the system to electric traction. 9. In case Parliament refuses to sanction the agreement between the Corporations, the terms if accepted by the Corporations to be withdrawn and of ‘none effect’, and all three Corporations to be free from any liability. 1906 (The ‘electrification’ bug was now proving contagious with other authorities following Accrington’s initiative and using it as the opportunity to improve their own public transport systems, with all the red tape and negotiations associated with such a momentous move. It was a busy time for the various ‘officers’ of the Council, as they were required to set out what one might call a business case, and to formulate the shape of the new tramway.) The Haslingden Corporation Tramway Bill 1906. With this Bill Haslingden Corporation sought powers to purchase, reconstruct, electrify and work the tramways within their Borough, and to construct and operate ‘certain’ additional extensions. In Clause 24, they sought powers to make junctions between its own tramways and ‘other’ tramways which could be worked in connection with theirs, but only with the consent of the owners and lessees of such systems. January It was resolved by Accrington at a meeting of the Town Council, that this last Clause would not be objectionable with regard to the rights of the Council. But by Clause 36 Haslingden sought powers to place and run cars on their own tramways and on any tramway or light railway, within or outside their Borough, which might at the time be connected to their tramway, also to work and demand tolls and charges in respect of the use of such tramways with cars. It was noted that if passed this Clause would enable Haslingden Corporation to exercise compulsory running powers over Accrington’s lines, which certainly called for an opposing Petition to protect the rights and interests of Accrington Corporation. It was recorded as ‘regrettable’ the Haslingden Corporation had by virtue of these Clauses sought to gain ‘over-riding’ powers over Accrington’s Tramways, when Accrington sought no such powers over Haslingden’s lines in their Bill of the last session. It was resolved that a Petition would be lodged against this Bill to strenuously opposite it until the objectionable Clauses were removed or modified to the Committee’s satisfaction. The Chairman and vice-Chair reported on the steps they had taken in order to secure certain properties in Church and Oswaldtwistle in connection with the tramway extension. They were then empowered to purchase one of the selected properties in Church within the limits of the cost now decided. On the 10 th the following letter went forward from the Town Clerk to Haslingden Corporation - Sirs, I enclose a copy of the report I submitted to the Legal & Parliamentary Committee of my Council on Monday last, which resulted in them adopting the following resolution - Shortly I shall be our Agents to prepare a Petition, unless your Council decides to drop Clause 36 from your Bill, or to amend your Bill so as to exclude our Tramway from operation therein. Or that you will undertake to insert into your Bill a similar provision to Clause 168 of our Act of the last Session. If you will do this the nature of our Petition will of course be modified, would only be deposited for ‘watching’ purposes, and we would give to you any reasonable assistance you might require should you chose to call upon us. Otherwise Accrington Corporation is bound to ‘strenuously’ oppose your Bill, in so far as it affects any of our tramways or other rights and interests. My Council has expressed great surprise at your Bill for including such an ‘objectionable’ Clause, in so far as it includes our tramways. We therefore hope that your Corporation will comply with this request, and not prejudice the amicable relationship

114