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

Council had sent to the Town Clerk of Accrington, following the negotiations which had recently taken place. April The Town Clerk read a letter from the Corporation’s Parliamentary Agents and stated he was writing in further support of the Corporation’s views to the Light Railway Commissioners on the subject of the Blackburn, Whalley & Padiham Light Railways Order . The General Works Sub-Committee inspected the tramway and granite paving in Blackburn Road to a point beyond the Catholic Church ( Sacred Heart ). After consideration it was resolved with regard to the level of the track that alterations could not be made until such time as the tramway was relaid. However, the Borough Surveyor could make suggestions as to the improvements to the road as highlighted by this sub-committee. With regard to the Blackburn, Whalley & Padiham Light Railways Order , the Town Clerk reported that the Light Railways Commissioners had now settled the outstanding issues, and had in the main accepted the amendments to Clause 59 as put forward by the Council, with regard to the proposed junction between the ‘light railway’ and the terminus of the Corporation’s Tramway in Clayton-le-Moors. They had also deleted from this Clause all references to Clayton-le-Moors District Council, thus denying that authority the controlling power they had tried to secure. He then presented a letter ( dated April 15 th ), from the Secretary of the Light Railway Commissioners to the corporation’s Parliamentary Agents. It read as follows – Gentlemen, I am directed by the Light Railway Commissioners to forward you a copy of the Blackburn, Whalley & Padiham Light Railways Order which they have submitted to the Board of Trade for confirmation. It reads - With reference to your letter of February 22 nd , forwarding the objections of Accrington Corporation to the Commissioners ‘draft’ order and in particular to Clause 59, I am directed to ask you to explain to the Corporation that the Commissioners had not previously understood the position of the Corporation before inserting Clause 59 into their draft. The Commissioners are satisfied that the omissions requested in this Clause should now be made, and they also agree with the Corporation that it would be desirable that further lines to connect the tramway to the light railway at the Load of Mischief Inn should be constructed. They understand that the promoters are prepared to undertake this work in addition to their present scheme. But the Commissioners consider that this matter must be dealt with in a separate application, and the line as now pro Blackburn, Whalley & Padiham Light Railways Order posed should be authorised and constructed in any event. Yours, Henry Allan Steward (Secretary). The Committee felt the Council would be satisfied with the terms contained in this letter, which justified them in their actions. The reason being that in trying to amend Clause 59 to obtain a junction between the Tramway and the Light Railway, it would have enabled passengers to travel direct between Accrington and Rishton, but for some unaccountable reason Clayton-le-Moors District Council took exception. To add to this, the Committee felt that having regard to the opinions expressed by the Light Railway Commissioners, this junction should be made and any future application to Parliament for this purpose would not be opposed. A letter was received from the Council’s Parliamentary Agents with regard to the Commissioners letter, the Board of Trade would also agree to delete Clause 59, if the Corporation made an application to that effect. It was resolved this Committee recommend the Town Council accepts these terms as satisfactory. May A letter was received from the Tramway Company on the subject of the Corporation’s suggestion that the passing place in front of the Market Hall should be replaced by a loop from the Whalley Road end of Peel Street down to the junction with Blackburn Road. The Tramway Company did not consider

98