The County of Worcester has hitherto been very poorly supplied with Railway communication—a strange fatuity having attended the various undertakings which have been projected for meeting its necessities in this respect. Worcester itself was, indeed, almost shut out from this advantage, now so indispensable to prosperity, till the half century had closed; but a brighter day appears now to be dawning upon us.

BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER.

This is the only railway which has yet been completed in this county, and it was promoted chiefly by parties living at the termini, who made it their only object to carry it in as straight a line as possible from point to point, with very little reference to the convenience of the towns by the way. If the shareholders could have foreseen the disastrous influence of such a policy upon their own funds, they would certainly have taken a different course, even though they felt no interest in the prosperity of the places which they so much injured by passing at considerable distances. The scheme was first projected in 1834, and the directors obtained their act on their first application to Parliament in 1836; the line was opened from Cheltenham to Bromsgrove, in June, 1840, and throughout the whole distance on the 17th of December in that year. The share capital subscribed was £1,142,125, to which £380,076 was afterwards added of money borrowed on debentures, &c. Though the line, except at the Lickey, presented no engineering difficulties, and was cheaply constructed, yet the rate of profit was very small; and in October, 1842, the £100 shares were quoted as low as 41. In January, 1845, it was amalgamated with the Bristol and Gloucester Line; and in 1846, when the broad and narrow gauge interests were each making such struggles for the ascendancy, the Midland Company entered into an arrangement to lease the line for 999 years, paying 6 per cent. upon the capital. The Great Western bid 5½ per cent., but would go no higher.

This undertaking was first introduced to the notice of the citizens of Worcester at a public meeting held on the 15th of January, 1834. The Company were at this time about to determine upon their route, and had two plans before them—the one eventually adopted vi Cheltenham, and another that was to have come by way of Stourbridge, Kidderminster, and Worcester; the former was marked out by Mr. Brunel, the latter by a Mr. Wooddeson. In consequence of this state of things some gentlemen had formed themselves into a provisional committee with a line of their own, and Messrs. Gwinnall and Hughes, the solicitors employed, procured the calling of this meeting, in the Guildhall, Worcester, with the Mayor, W. Dent, Esq., in the chair. The committee laid their plans, in the rough, before the meeting, and asked a vote of sanction and support from the meeting. Sir Anthony Lechmere wanted no railways at all. Major Bund and Mr. Gutch proposed a month’s adjournment. But a resolution to stand by the committee, and to approve of no railway but one which came right through Worcester, was passed by a large majority. The Grand Connection Railway project took its rise from the suggestions of this committee.The Birmingham and Gloucester Company making no attempt to obtain an act in the session of 1835, the matter was not again discussed till the 22nd October in that year, when a meeting was convened, over which Mr. J. W. Lea, Mayor, presided. Some of the provisional directors were present, and admitted that they intended to carry the line through Spetchley. Mr. John Hyde proposed that the directors should be requested to include a branch to Worcester in their scheme. Mr. Pierpoint said the main line ought to be brought, and could be brought, much nearer Worcester; and if it were not so brought, the city of Worcester ought to oppose the line by every means. A committee of conference was appointed, and the meeting adjourned for a week. It was then announced that the provisional directors of the line had agreed to have a survey taken of a deviation line from Abbott’s Wood to Norton, as well as of a direct branch to Spetchley, and lay them both before Parliament to choose from. Several speeches were made to show that the whole line had been contrived without any regard to the interests of the city and county of Worcester; and on the motion of Mr. Hooper, seconded by Mr. Deighton, it was resolved that no railway should be sanctioned by the people of Worcester that did not bring the main line within a mile of the city. On the 4th November another meeting was called, to consider the propriety of surveying a line for a railway on the western side of the Severn, to go by Kidderminster. It was evident that the Birmingham and Gloucester directors intended to adhere to their original plan, and so the citizens of Worcester determined to oppose them vigorously, and entered into a subscription, headed by fifty guineas from the corporate body, to survey a fresh line.

On the 31st March, 1836, a public meeting was called to consider the expediency of further opposing the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company. The directors of that company had bound themselves in a penalty of £70,000 to make a branch to Worcester, to join there the Grand Connection Railway to Wolverhampton, and on that score the opposition to their bill, on the part of the citizens of Worcester, had been withdrawn, and it had passed through committee in the Commons. Mr. Waters, who had been chiefly instrumental in calling the present meeting, said that he thought Worcester ought to join Tewkesbury in opposing the measure in the House of Lords. Mr. Pierpoint said the sum subscribed after the former meeting had been totally inadequate for the purpose of opposing the bill, and so they had to make the best terms they could—which were, that the Railway Company should make a deviation line from Abbott’s Wood to Oddingley, or forfeit £70,000. Mr. Pierpoint represented this as altogether distinct and separate from the Grand Connection Railway, although, he said, he would put the bond on the fire that night if the opposition were determined on. The Mayor asked him how he could do that if the bond were given him on behalf of the city, and he replied that he had been well advised upon the point. A great deal of personal altercation took place, and hot party feeling introduced, but the meeting ended by Mr. Pierpoint proposing the following resolution: “That in consequence of certain satisfactory arrangements having been entered into between the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company and the Grand Connection Railway committee, the interests of this city have been so consulted that this meeting think it unnecessary to interfere.” Mr. Waters, in a few days afterwards, published a letter in answer to “A Grand Connection Shareholder,” in which he declared Mr. Pierpoint to have been proved, by this very letter of his brother shareholder, to have deceived the whole body of his fellow citizens; inasmuch as there was only an agreement between the Birmingham and Gloucester Company and Grand Connection Company to carry out the deviation line between them; or if the Grand Connection Company did not obtain their act, then the Birmingham and Gloucester line were to make a branch from Worcester to Abbott’s Wood.

In April, 1839, the Company attempting to get a bill—to extend their rails to the Berkeley Canal at Gloucester, and to raise more capital—through Parliament, they were opposed by the Worcester Chamber of Commerce on the ground that they had not fulfilled their engagements with the city of Worcester. The bond which they had given to Mr. Pierpoint, as Chairman of the Grand Connection Railway Company, binding them in a penalty of £70,000 to make a branch from Worcester to Abbott’s Wood, was, they said, null and void, because the Grand Connection Railway Company had ceased to exist. The Parliamentary committee, principally in consequence of the able and zealous exertions of Mr. John Hill, the Town Clerk of Worcester, determined that the Company should be compelled to introduce into the bill clauses obliging them to complete the Abbott’s Wood branch before opening the main line for traffic. The Birmingham and Gloucester Company, after this decision, gave up their bill.

In 1842 the Company, having been threatened with proceedings under the bond, offered to construct a branch with a single line of rails from Spetchley to Sansome Fields, Worcester. A public meeting was called on the 15th of August, to consider this proposal. Mr. Pierpoint and Mr. John Dent moved the acceptance of the proposal. Mr. E. L. Williams and Mr. Waters moved, as an amendment, that the city should abide by the bond, and be satisfied with nothing less; and after a long discussion the Mayor put the matter to the vote, and declared the amendment carried.

In 1843 the Company brought two bills before Parliament—the one a money bill, and the other to get powers to make a branch from Bredicot to Worcester. The latter was opposed in committee by Mr. Berkeley, of Spetchley, on the ground of an agreement between him and the Company that such a division of his lands should not be made. The other was opposed by the Worcester Town Council and Chamber of Commerce, with a view of getting justice done to the city; and they procured the insertion of clauses binding the Company to abide by an award of the Board of Trade in the matter. General Pasley was accordingly sent down by the Board of Trade to survey the county in September; and upon his report, and a hearing of the several interests, they issued their award in the following April. By this the Railway Company were called upon to make a branch from Bredicot to the Bath Road, Worcester. But no further steps were ever taken in the matter. Such a branch as the one proposed would only have been in the way when the Oxford and Wolverhampton line was constructed; and with that the public mind was now occupied. As to “the bond,” that is still a subject of profound mystery, and much perplexes the good people of Worcester.

THE GRAND CONNECTION RAILWAY PROJECT.

The origin of this project has been already mentioned.

In December, 1835, a public meeting was held in Worcester, over which the Mayor, J. W. Lea, Esq., presided; at which it was fully determined to proceed with this Railway, which was to go from Gloucester to Worcester, on the western side the river; to cross the Severn at Worcester, thence direct to Kidderminster, and afterwards to Birmingham in one direction and Wolverhampton in another. The capital was to consist of 800,000 shares of £50 each. The shares were taken up pretty freely, and the bill was read a second time, and went into committee in March, 1837. It was strenuously opposed there by the Birmingham Canal Company, and by several landowners. The preamble was, however, declared proved. The committee divided on the point, and the numbers were—for, 15; against, 14. General Lygon, the chairman of the committee, was most indefatigable in promoting the undertaking. The bill was thrown out on bringing up the report in the House of Commons, by a majority of 165 to 88. The principal argument used against it was that it would destroy the beauty of the county of Worcester. Its defeat was principally owing to the landowners. It was attempted to be revived in the following year, but without success.

In 1840 the Railway Commissioners were engaged in determining what would be the most desirable route for a grand trunk line which should connect the metropolis with the Welsh coast, so that the quickest possible communication might be made with Ireland. One project was to carry a line from Port Dynllaen, in Brecknockshire, to Didcot, on the Great Western line; and in this the people of Worcester felt much interested.

1840—March 17—A public meeting was held in Worcester in favour of this line; and in the absence of the Mayor, Mr. Chalk, who was in London to present the address of congratulation from the town council to Her Majesty, John Dent, Esq., was called to the chair. A report from the Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the meeting was read by Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, and it was resolved to procure subscriptions in order to obtain another survey of the line of country from the Royal Commissioners. A similar meeting was held in the next week at Evesham.

The Chester and Holyhead route, though the longest by several miles, was eventually preferred by the Commissioners, because Holyhead was the better harbour and starting point for vessels.

In 1842 a branch railway was projected to connect Evesham with the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway at Eckington, but it was strenuously opposed by the owners of lands through which it must have passed, and was thereupon abandoned.

The railway mania of 1845 of course did not leave Worcestershire uninfected. No fewer than twenty-seven schemes, having more or less reference to this county, were advertised in the Worcester papers, with long statements of imaginary advantages and abundance of “provisional directors.” The Welsh Midland; Worcester, Tenbury, and Ludlow; Worcester, Warwick, and Rugby; and Worcester, Hereford, Ross, and Gloucester, were those which found most favour with the Worcester public. A great number of meetings were held in reference to them all over the county, and every scheme was enthusiastically received everywhere; it is quite useless, however, to allude to them further, as, without a single exception, they were utterly resultless, excepting in abstracting money from the pockets of people who could ill afford to lose it. The 30th November was at Worcester, as at all other places, a day of great excitement—the promoters of the various schemes which had just started into existence having, before twelve o’clock on that night (Sunday), to deposit their plans and sections with the clerks of the peace. Plans for no less than thirty-six railways were deposited at the office of the Clerk of the Peace for this county, [156] and thirteen with the Clerk of the Peace for the city.The early part of the year 1846 was occupied with “amalgamations” and “arrangements;” then came the ordeal of standing orders, and very few survived that. In some instances ingenious engineers had made rivers run up-hill, and canals swim over bridges, instead of allowing the bridges to bestride the canals; while in many cases the most trivial error of misdescription or omission to serve a notice was sufficient to extinguish a scheme of real utility. Then ensued the panic and “winding up”—very few of the scripholders ever obtaining any return out of their deposits. Only six of all the projects connected with Worcestershire received the sanction of the legislature, and only three of the rest were resuscitated in the coming season; these were the Shropshire Union (Shrewsbury to Worcester), the Worcester and Hereford (Midland Company’s project), and the Worcester, Tenbury, and Ludlow. The last mentioned, however, seemed only to have been continued for speculating purposes, and was speedily withdrawn. The Worcester and Hereford line was warmly supported by the citizens of Worcester in a public meeting held in February, 1847, but it was thrown out on standing orders; and the Shropshire Union was also abandoned.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON.

The first meeting at Worcester with reference to railway communication between that city and the metropolis, vi Oxford, was as follows:

1844—March 19—The Mayor presided at a very respectable gathering of tradesmen of the city in the Guildhall, and Mr. F. T. Elgie made a statement of the proposal by the Great Western Company to construct what is now known as the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway, and requested the support of the citizens to the scheme. Mr. W. S. P. Hughes said the Grand Connection Railway would answer all the purposes of the city of Worcester, and that was to be brought before Parliament again immediately, with every prospect of success. A resolution in favour of the line proposed by Mr. Elgie was, however, carried unanimously. The merits of the two lines were discussed at a public meeting at Kidderminster, on the 4th of April, at which Mr. Elgie and Mr. Hughes supported their respective schemes, and the Oxford line had a majority in the meeting of three to one.

1844—May 9—Another railway meeting was held in the Guildhall this day, with the Mayor in the chair, to support one or other of the schemes for connecting Worcester with London. Mr. Elgie and Mr. Brunel appeared for the Oxford line, and Mr. Taunton and Mr. Addison for a line from Worcester through Evesham and Leamington, to join the London and North Western Railway. This was to be only a single line of rails. Mr. Brunel assured the meeting that the Oxford line was supported by the Great Western, and that £1,000,000 would be sufficient for its construction. Mr. Hughes, on behalf of the promoters of the Grand Connection Railway, said the cost of the line from Worcester to Wolverhampton alone would be above a million; and proposed, as an amendment, that it would be premature to express an opinion in favour of any particular line till they had more details before them. The meeting, however, almost unanimously expressed itself in favour of the Great Western project.

1844—The great town’s meeting at which the Great Western and London and Birmingham projects for a Worcester Railway were brought into competition for the approbation of the citizens, was held in the Guildhall on the 4th November, William Lewis, Esq., Mayor, presiding. It was first assembled in the Crown Court, but afterwards there was an adjournment to the outer hall. The proceedings were commenced by Mr. Waters’s moving “That until the Parliamentary plans were deposited, the citizens were in no position to decide upon the eligibility of the schemes proposed to them.” Mr. J. W. Lea seconded this proposition. Mr. Leader Williams denied that the Great Western were bon fide in their scheme, and until the plans were deposited they could have no security that they would go on with it. Mr. Elgie retorted that Messrs. Waters and Williams wanted no railway at all. The motion was negatived by a very large majority. Mr. Alderman Matthews, Mr. Francis Rufford, and Mr. Barlow spoke on behalf of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line, which again received the almost unanimous adhesion of the citizens, Mr. E. Shelton, of Thorngrove, alone putting in a word for the London and Birmingham Company’s line.

1845—February 4—The Railway Commissioners of the Board of Trade reported in favour of the Tring line, and against the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton.

1845—February 22—A general meeting of the Oxford and Worcester Railway Company’s shareholders was held in the Guildhall, Worcester, at which they determined to proceed vigorously with their own measure, in spite of the unfavourable report of the Board of Trade. The report of the provisional committee, read at this meeting, stated that the project had been set on foot in the previous February, by the influential mining and commercial interests of South Staffordshire, who afterwards applied to the Great Western Railway Company to support and lease a line from Wolverhampton to Banbury; but this was ultimately changed for the line to Oxford.

On the 26th of March a common hall was convened at Worcester, at which the citizens unanimously agreed to petition in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line. A series of resolutions in favour of the Tring line was transmitted to the Mayor, who presided, as having been agreed to at a private meeting of its supporters at Messrs. Hyde and Tymbs’ offices, with Mr. Francis Hooper in the chair, the day before; and this was assigned as the reason for the non-attendance of the friends of the London and Birmingham scheme.

1845—April 10—The inhabitants of Droitwich assembled in public meeting on the railway question, and on the motion of W. H. Ricketts, Esq., petitioned in favour of the Birmingham and Gloucester Company’s deviation line, refusing to support the Oxford and Wolverhampton scheme.

The Great Battle of the Gauges.—The Parliamentary Committee to whom had been intrusted the duty of reporting on the various railways proposed for this district, commenced their labours on the 5th of May. The members of the committee were the Right Honourable F. Shaw (Dublin University), chairman; Messrs. Bramston, Horne, Drummond, Villiers, Stuart, and Lockhart. The lines brought before them were:

BROAD GAUGE.

1—Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway.

2—Oxford and Rugby Railway.

NARROW GAUGE.

3—London, Worcester, and Rugby and Oxford Railway.

4—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Worcester Branch and Deviation.

5—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Wolverhampton Extension.

6—London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire Railway—the Tring line.

7—Grand Junction—Dudley Branch, Shrewsbury and Stafford, and Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton.

8—Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway.

All the great railway interests of the country thought themselves interested in the decision of the committee, and brought their forces to bear upon the battle; inasmuch as it was supposed that it would decide to which of the gauges the preference should be given in coming railway economics, and so be of vital importance to the opponent systems and the great companies connected with them. For months prior to this contest the press had swarmed with pamphlets, some contending that a greater power, speed, and safety could be attained upon the broad gauge; others requiring a uniformity of gauge throughout the country, and pointing out the inconvenience of a break of gauge at Gloucester and elsewhere: but the decision of the committee had very little reference to any of these matters, and was clearly influenced by different considerations. The principal counsel employed were Mr. Talbot and Mr. Cockburn for the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line; Mr. Austin and Sergeant Wrangham for the London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire line; Mr. Daniell for the Birmingham and Gloucester; and Mr. Kinglake for the Great Western Company: besides innumerable others. Mr. Austin opened the case on behalf of the London and Birmingham line to Tring, which he contended was all that the district could require; that it would be absurd to introduce the broad gauge north of Birmingham; and, lastly, the Board of Trade had reported in its favour. The witnesses connected with this county, who were examined in its favour, were Mr. Richard Smith, mining agent to Lord Ward (whose interests had been especially consulted in this scheme); Mr. William Hancock, ironmaster, Cookley; Mr. W. Berrows, ironmaster, Dudley; Mr. E. Williams, miller, Dudley; Mr. Best, Kidderminster; Mr. H. Brinton, Kidderminster; Mr. Harris, carpet manufacturer, Stourport; Mr. Heath and Mr. Griffiths, Bewdley; Mr. Lukin, manager of the Weldon Tin Works; Mr. H. B. Tymbs, Mr. John Hood, Mr. A. Wells, Mr. James Wall, and Mr. J. W. Lea, Worcester; Mr. E. Smith, gardener, Evesham; &c. Mr. Daniell then opened the case for the Birmingham and Gloucester Company’s Deviation line, and examined Mr. M. Pierpoint, who said that he believed this and the Tring line would be all that the citizens of Worcester would want, and would answer their interests better than the Oxford and Wolverhampton line. Mr. W. Chamberlain and Mr. Robert Hardy, with Mr. Tombs, of Droitwich, were also examined by Mr. Daniell. Mr. Cockburn then called witnesses in favour of the Great Western Company’s broad gauge projects: those from this county were Mr. James Boydell, Oak Farm Iron Works, Kingswinford; Mr. Jonathan Fardon, Stoke Works; Rev. W. H. Cartwright, Dudley; Mr. Paul Matthews, Stourbridge; Mr. John Hill, Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, Mr. William Lewis (Mayor), Mr. Henry Webb, Mr. Leader Williams, of Worcester; and Mr. T. A. Foster, of Evesham. After the committee had sat twenty days, they reported that they found the preamble of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway and of the Oxford and Rugby lines, proved: and those of the railways promoted by the London and Birmingham not proved, with the Birmingham and Gloucester Deviation line. They evidently came to this decision from a belief that the broad gauge lines were so planned as best to answer the wants of the districts through which they passed, and that the public favour had been generally accorded them on that ground. The avowed intention of the Great Western Company to carry out a line to Port Dynllaen, had also probably some influence with the committee. The greatest excitement prevailed during the whole of the inquiry—no change of ministry ever created greater in the lobbies of the House—and the result seemed to be very unexpected, as shares in the Tring line went up considerably a day or two before the decision was given. The committee were occupied some days longer in considering the clauses of the Oxford Company’s Bill, and gave the Birmingham and Gloucester Company power to use the loop line at Worcester, at a remuneration to be fixed by umpires. It being known that the London and Birmingham Company intended to oppose the Oxford Bill in the House, petitions in favour of that line were sent up from Worcester, Droitwich, Dudley, Blockley, and Chipping Camden. Lord Ingestre moved that the report on the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up. Mr. Pakington seconded the motion. Mr. Cobden moved, as an amendment, that an address be presented to Her Majesty to appoint a commission to inquire into the comparative merits of the broad and narrow gauges. Colonel Wood seconded the amendment; which, after much debate, was lost by 247 to 113, and the Oxford Railway Bill was read a second time. Its triumph was hailed with great rejoicings in this county. The bill had a comparatively easy passage through the House of Lords, though strenuously opposed in committee by the London and Birmingham Company, and on the 4th of August it received the royal assent. Its various successes were occasions of excited rejoicings in Worcester.

The first general meeting of the shareholders was held in October, at the Guildhall, Worcester. The Yorkshire shareholders sought to set aside the agreement between this Company and the Great Western directors, by which the line was to be leased to the Great Western Company for 3½ per cent., and half the surplus profits. They wished to make this an independent line; but at the representations of the chairman and others, who, with a too fatal confidence in the Punic faith of the Great Western, represented that they were under such obligations to that Company in the starting of the project and its success in Parliament, and that it would be dishonourable to break this agreement of lease—the Yorkshire shareholders withdrew their opposition to the reception of the directors’ report.

1846—February 27—At the first half yearly meeting of the shareholders, the chairman, Mr. Rufford, expressed his gratification at the resolution of the Great Western Company, to “extend the guarantee to such sum as shall appear to them necessary for the completion of the second railway and works, and fixing the rate of interest at 4 per cent. per annum in lieu of 3½ per cent. per annum; subject to such conditions as may appear equitable between the two Companies.” The shareholders present seemed pleased with this arrangement. The amount of expense incurred before a sod of earth was turned, was £76,124; of which £36,765 went in law and Parliamentary expenses, and £14,288 to the engineers.

1846—August 29—The second half yearly meeting of the Oxford and Wolverhampton Railway shareholders, held at Worcester, when it was promised that the deviation line from Stoke to Abbott’s Wood should be opened in twelve months, and the whole line in three years. Lord Redesdale called upon the directors to oppose the making of the Oxford and Birmingham line upon the broad gauge, foretelling that it would drain all the traffic from this line. The meeting was harmonious, and thanks very cordially voted to the directors.

1847—August 27—Half yearly meeting of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway shareholders, at which Mr. Brunel reported that the loop line from Stoke to Abbott’s Wood might be finished by the end of the year. Mr. Figgins, a London shareholder, wanted to see the agreement with the Great Western, and to set it aside. Mr. Barlow said there never was a lease more binding and less likely to be set aside. Mr. Elgie produced a copy of the agreement, by which it appeared that the line was leased to the Great Western for a permanency; and the chairman said it guaranteed four per cent. to the shareholders on whatever amount might be expended. The resolutions prepared by the directors were carried unanimously.

1849—February 24—At the half yearly meeting it was announced that the interest, which had hitherto been given to the shareholders on the amount of capital paid up, must be discontinued for want of funds; and the directors talked of making an arrangement with the Great Western Railway Company “more suitable to existing circumstances.”

1849—June 9—At a special meeting of the proprietors a long report was presented from the directors, complaining that the Great Western Company would now only give them £4 per cent. on £2,500,000 of capital, instead of on the whole sum necessary to complete the line, as the directors had understood them to guarantee, and had led their proprietary to believe. A committee of proprietors was appointed to confer with the directors upon the course to be adopted.1849—September 1—Another special meeting of the directors, held in London, at which the committee of proprietors, appointed at the previous meeting, presented a report, severely impugning the conduct of the directors in several particulars, and advised that the narrow gauge alone should be laid down between Tipton and Abbott’s Wood, and the line immediately opened so far.

The year 1850 witnessed a total rupture with the Great Western Company, and some very unpleasant meetings between the shareholders and the directors. The Company passed two bills through Parliament—the one authorising them to sell the Stratford Canal to the Oxford and Birmingham Company, and the other to enable certain other companies to advance them money for the completion of their line. The first morsel of the railway—the half of the loop line from Worcester to Abbott’s Wood—was opened on the 5th October, and worked by the Midland Company under special agreement.

In January, 1851, Lord Ward became chairman of the Company, and the whole management passed into different hands. Messrs. Peto and Betts accepted contracts for constructing the greater portion of the line; and arrangements were entered into, by issuing preference shares at £6 per cent., for raising the capital necessary to complete the undertaking, which, it was now estimated, would cost £3,300,000 instead of the million and a half, which was the sum originally intended to be raised.

The preference shares were almost immediately subscribed for, and the directors soon afterwards entered into an agreement to lease the line to the London and North Western and Midland Companies; whereupon Lord Ward resigned the chairmanship, and an unpleasant correspondence took place between his lordship and Mr. Peto. The arrangement, however, was never carried out, as an injunction was obtained by the Great Western Railway Company to prevent any other company doing that of which they themselves evaded the performance.

Since that time the directors have been proceeding to lay down the line upon the narrow gauge, and with the view of working it independently of either of the great companies, nor have the Great Western been able to hinder them further. The whole of the loop line was opened on the 18th of February, 1852, and thirty-six miles of the main line, from Evesham to Stourbridge, on the 1st May, 1852.