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

which he had based this assessment. Also received was correspondence from the Corporation’s own arbitrator Mr Farraday. In the light of this it was resolved to challenge Mr Wainwright’s judgement as “incomplete and defective”, as it omitted the details on which his judgement was based. It was resolved the Town Clerk would by going through the Umpire’s Solicitors inform him, that only if these omissions were supplied would his judgement be considered again! It was also resolved that any further developments would be referred to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Alderman Rawson and the Town Clerk, with the powers to take whatever actions they thought appropriate. Having considered the question of tramway services on the day of the Coronation, the Committee decided that a ‘normal’ service would be attempted, with the service withdrawn in order to allow the passage of processions. That all timetables for the day would be suspended and that men who wished to have the day off from work would be allowed to do so without any loss of pay, whilst those who would be required to work would receive double pay. The Chairman requested his Committee look into the ‘administration’ of the Tramway Department, whilst pointing out several ways in which he felt some economies could be made. These were referred to the Sub-Committee for them to compile a report. June The Electrical, Legal & Parliamentary Committee met to receive a report from the Town Clerk on the subject of the recent rateable assessment of the Tramway, with a view to having the Assessment Committee join with the Corporation in a joint request to the Umpire, to state the basis and particulars of his award. July At a meeting of the Electrical & Parliamentary Committee, the Chairman suggested that two further spare armatures should be obtained for the Tramway Department, and that the tender of £45 each from Brush Electrical Engineering should be accepted for their supply. It was also resolved the Tramway Manager should obtain a 3 horsepower motor for driving the plant for ‘impregnating’ the armatures at a cost of £13. It was further resolved that the Borough Treasurer should pay the sum of £1 – 14s – 0d as Accrington Corporation’s share of the enquiry by the Municipal Tramways Association into the phenomenon of ‘rail corrugation’ and the problems it causes. On the subject of the Tramway’s rateable assessment, the Town Clerk read out a letter from the Clerk to the Guardians. It said he now submitted a case for the opinion of Mr Ryde (King’s Council), and was now awaiting his opinions. On June 13 th , the Town Clerk had written back in response as follows ( a synopsis ) – Sirs, Referring to the recent arbitration and the Umpire’s award, which we regard as incomplete, immediately we received this we contacted Messrs Morris & Sons, the solicitors who prepared this award, to point out these omissions. They promised to see the Umpire and place before him our views. On the Following day, May 31 st , I wrote to them in these terms. “Referring to our meeting with you yesterday, we have now consulted with our Tramway Commissioner’s arbitrator, Mr Farraday. We are united in the opinion that the Award is incomplete in so much as Mr Wainwright has failed to include the principles on which his judgement was based, in contravention of the wording contained in ‘paragraph 6’ of the Agreement of Reference.” On June 23 rd , Messrs Morris & Sons replied as follows - Sirs, We have today seen Mr Wainwright about your letter of the 13 th . He informs us he went carefully through the figures before making his award. Therefore there is nothing more that he can usefully add. He would be happy to meet with you to discuss any details and give you his explanation only if required to do so by both sides, but cannot do so without their ‘joint’ consent. The Town Clerk responded as follows -

187