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

which

has

up

until

now

existed

between

our

two

authorities.

A. H. Aitken (Town Clerk).

Dated the 11 th the following response was received - Dear Sirs, I am in receipt of your letter of yesterday, enclosing a copy of your report to your Council, and the resolution they passed thereon. I submitted this to my Bill Committee last evening, when I was given instructions to inform you of the reason why Clause 36 was inserted into our Bill. This was in reaction to the difficulties we have experienced when dealing with Rawtenstall Corporation on the whole question of tramways. However, my Corporation will be prepared to insert into our Bill a ‘similar’ provision to Clause 168 of your Act of the previous Session, subject of course to the approval of our Agents. My Committee fully appreciates the offer of any “reasonable assistance” in the prosecution of our Bill, and trust that the previously harmonious relationship between our two Councils will continue. Yours, W. Musgrove (Town Clerk). On the 24 th at the behest of Haslingden Corporation, a conference took place between top representatives from the two Councils. At this meeting Haslingden explained the motives for including Clause 36 in their Bill, which was included in the supplementary minutes of their Watch Committee on the subject of through-running of tramcars between Haslingden and Accrington. The view of Accrington was reiterated in that they had taken the ‘strongest exception’ to Haslingden’s attempts to force through running over Accrington’s lines, especially since Accrington had sought no similar powers over Haslingden’s lines. With a view to settling this contentious issue, it was suggested that the following terms should be adopted, subject to the approval of their respective Committees. 1. That Clause 36 is taken out of the Bill. 2. That a Clause for the protection of the rights of Accrington, similar to those contained in Section 168 of the Act of the last Session should be inserted, (this protected the rights of Haslingden). 3. There should be included in the Bill another Clause similar to Section 80 of the Accrington Steam Tramways Act of 1887, tailored so as to apply to the needs of both Accrington’s and Haslingden’s Corporation tramways, which would provide for mutual through-running on a reciprocal basis. This would come into force after terms had been agreed, or in case of a dispute, to be settled by Board of Trade arbitration. 4. The initiative to begin or terminate these mutual running powers always resting with Accrington Corporation. At its conclusion the deputation from Haslingden promised to communicate their decision on these proposals at “an early date”. It was resolved the actions of this deputation be approved and adopted. February At a meeting of the Legal & Parliamentary Committee, the Town Clerk reported he had received the draft Clauses submitted by Haslingden Corporation in their Bill, which still contained those which Accrington found objectionable with regard to the granting of compulsory running powers over Accrington’s tramways. He had subsequently spoken with the Town Clerk of Haslingden, and informed him that Accrington Corporation were not at all likely to accept these proposed amendments, which they found to be just as objectionable as the original ones, but were still prepared to withdraw from opposing the Bill on the terms offered beforehand. It was resolved the Mayor and Town Clerk would meet with representatives of Haslingden Corporation again in order to come to a settlement on the lines of those previously set out. March The Town Clerk reported to a meeting of the Legal & Parliamentary Committee, that he and the Mayor had travelled to London to meet with the representatives of Haslingden Corporation, who had

115