Clitheroe Junction Railway Company.

[Andy873]

Thanks to @Senex's reply to my Bills question on the forum (which I was grateful for) I thought I'd reply under this new thread as it's brought up a whole new railway company I didn't realise ever existed...

The Clitheroe Junction Railway Company:

Although I was researching the very early plans / bills for the Gt. Harwood loop / Padiham branch, the very first mention of it comes from a bill submitted in November 1845. However it didn't read quite right to me as this bill was titled "Clitheroe Junction Railway" (CJR), plus it also refers to junctions with the East Lancashire Railway (ELR for short).

It was only when I searched the London Gazette for "Clitheroe Junction Railway" that the penny dropped. I thought this 1845 bill was actually submitted by the ELR but no I was wrong. It was actually a separate new company.

This company planned not only to build a line from Whalley - Read - Padiham - Burnley plus one from Blackburn to Gt. Harwood (of interest to me) but also a line from Blackburn - Clitheroe - Hellifield - Settle. 1845 was the height of railway mania, even the ELR's East Lancs main line wasn't finished (Blackburn - Accrington - Burnley - Nelson - Colne).

8 September 1846 notice is given in the Gazette that this company was going to hold a meeting with its shareholders at the Star Hotel, Deansgate (Manchester) Saturday 19 September at 12 noon with regards to should this company be dissolved or not.

The motion was carried by enough shareholders to allow it to pass, and that was the end of that company. It's not clear if the shareholders got their money back? would they have done?

For me, it means my old branch line's history goes way back much further than has been written about - another discovery!

My questions are:

Do you think the CJR (Clitheroe Junction Railway Co)'s 1845 bill was passed? sadly there are many Acts of Parliament still not available online at this time.

Nor can I find any acts for the ELR from the 1840's regarding my research.

What I have read is that it was rare for Parliament at that time to reject a bill for a new railway unless it just wasn't feasible to build / too costly - is that correct?

Did many MP's around this time actually hold railway shares? and would that have been allowed?

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is no mention of a Clitheroe Junction Railway as a distinct company in Donald J Grant’s Directory of the Railway Companies of Great Britain. This would suggest that the Bill did not get passed into an Act.

My understanding is that a lot of bills never made it into acts. Nothing unusual. Just a waste of promotors’ money.

 

[Senex]

The Bill never made it through parliament—preamble not proved. Commons Journal, 8 June 1846 (9 Victoria), pp.817-8:

"Viscount Palmerston reported from the Committee on Group No. 44, of Railway Bills, to whom several Petitions against the Bills comprised in way the said Group were referred ; That in the case of the Clitheroe Junction Railway Bill, they had
heard counsel in support of several of the said Petitions, and had also heard counsel in favour of the Bill ; and that the Committee had examined the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill, but the same had not been proved to their satisfaction. Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table ; and be printed."

After this the provisional directors moved on pretty quickly to dissolve the company. See announcement in the Bradford Observer, 30 July 1846 page 1. It had clearly been quite a fight. The winner was the Blackburn Clitheroe & North Western Junction Railway, which got its Act. See the Blackburn Standard, 26 August 1846, page 3.

 

[Andy873]

My understanding is that a lot of bills never made it into acts. Nothing unusual. Just a waste of promotors’ money.

It certainly looks that way.

Commons Journal

"Viscount Palmerston reported from the Committee on Group No. 44, of Railway Bills, to whom several Petitions against the Bills comprised in way the said Group were referred ; That in the case of the Clitheroe Junction Railway Bill, they had
heard counsel in support of several of the said Petitions, and had also heard counsel in favour of the Bill ; and that the Committee had examined the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill, but the same had not been proved to their satisfaction. Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table ; and be printed."

I wondered just how the heck you found the above until I realised this morning the words "Commons Journal".

I didn't know these House of Commons journals existed so I had a look and found them, to say they made my eyes light up is a vast understatement!

I went through these four bills:

1845 Bill – Clitheroe Junction Railway, In session 1846, Rejected.

1846 Bill – East Lancashire Railway (Clitheroe, Mitton and Padiham Branches). In session 1847, Rejected.

1847 Bill – Fleetwood, Preston and West Riding (Burnley and Colliery Branches). In session 1848, Rejected.

1848 Bill – East Lancashire Railway Amendments. In session 1849, Padiham branch section rejected.

I can see the steps, e.g. first reading, second reading, committee etc. What's interesting is that in most cases you can see who is petitioning for and against these bills.

In the case of all four of these, a route from Whalley - Read - Padiham - Burnley is proposed. And in each case John Taylor of Moreton Hall (Whalley / Read area) petitions an objection.

Moving on, the L&Y's bill of 1865 (In session 1866) partly succeeds because the idea of the Whalley - Read section was not included. However the committee amended the bill and only allowed a line from Blackburn - Read - Padiham, here it has to terminate. Sadly I can't see who might have objected to the Padiham - Burnley section!

Finally, the L&Y's bill of 1866 (In session 1867) sails through when the route from Padiham - Burnley is changed to Padiham - Rose Grove (just outside Burnley), and all of these bills listed gives me a true picture of what happened and why.

Except the Padiham - Burnley section from 1865?

@Senex I really can't thank you enough for pointing me in the right direction, it's been a very busy morning going through those bills through Parliament.

Are there other Commons sources? (I know about the London Gazette).

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[Rescars]

Have you tried Hansard? It may add more than you have already.

 

[Andy873]

Have you tried Hansard? It may add more than you have already.

No, not for these bills. That's a great point - will do, thanks.

Regarding the bills:

Since Thursday, I've gone through all the journals covering the bills mentioned and there are some interesting things to be found, plus some terminology I have yet to get to grips with...

1845 Bill – Clitheroe Junction Railway, In session 1846, Rejected.

In this one (the first scheme), the large numbers of townsfolk along this proposed line (in favour) decide to withdraw their names from the petition in favour of the Blackburn, Clitheroe and North Western Junction railway. They jumped ship, the bill was rejected and the company folded.

1847 Bill – Fleetwood, Preston and West Riding (Burnley and Colliery Branches). In session 1848, Rejected.

This one throws up two things of note - The bill goes all the way to committee report stage, it's recommended that the bill proceed, however a general election is called and Parliament is dissolved.

When the new Parliament is formed the bill has to start all over again with it being presented and read once more for the first time in the next session in 1848. It passed and went to the Lords who seem to have rejected the Whalley - Padiham - Burnley section??

Looking through these bills and their progress two names come up petitioning against most of these bills. John Taylor of Moreton hall (next to Read hall) and Lord Petre of Dunkenhalgh manor. John Taylor had Moreton hall built in 1833, the hall had a spectacular view of the Ribble valley looking towards Whalley and he didn't want a railway line spoiling it. Lord Petre owned a large piece of land stretching from near Accrington (south east), Rishton (north west) and beyond, he too didn't want a railway so close to his private estate.

When the loop line was finally built by the L&Y, I had confirmed all the major land owners except Lord Petre, I felt sure he owned some of the land it would eventually pass through but thanks to these journals I can now confirm that.

A couple of questions please:

What does "allegations of the preamble of the bill" mean? because of this the L&Y's first act is cut back (stops at Padiham instead of going onto Burnley).

What does "ordered the standing orders (SO) to be dispensed with" mean?

And "the report does lie upon the table"?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[Rescars]

A couple of questions please:

What does "allegations of the preamble of the bill" mean? because of this the L&Y's first act is cut back (stops at Padiham instead of going onto Burnley).

What does "ordered the standing orders (SO) to be dispensed with" mean?

And "the report does lie upon the table"?

Thanks,
Andy.

Have you tried Erskine May? It's all online. As it so happens, the first edition was published in 1844 - just in time for your bills!

 

[Senex]

See Erksine May indeed.

All Local and Personal Bills have a preamble saying basically what they're about. The statements made are the allegations, e.g. "Whereas there is a shortage of transport facilities between Blackburn and Padiham and this shortage could best be met by ...." — as you have seen, these allegations can be pretty lengthy!

Certain changes to a Bill could technically require reference back to the Standing Orders Committee, but the Bill committee could recommend that this step should not be required.

A Bill to which no changes had been made in the committee stage could come back and go straight to third reading. If there had been changes, then the Bill had (has?) to lie on the table for three days so that members could see what had been done before voting on the third reading.

You might find James J Scott, The Law and Practice of Railway and Other Private Bills, London (Owen Richards) 1846, useful — it's a clear and interesting exposition downloadable from the Internet Archive or Google Books. As you can see from the date, it came out at a time when parliament was rather busy with railway Bills!

Also, more general but still authoritative, Maurice F Bond, Guide to the Records of Parliament, HMSO 1971, also to be found on the Internet Archive.

 

[Andy873]

To all of you, just wanted to thank you once more.

I'm about finished now with the bills and acts of Parliament regarding the North Lancashire loop line.

One observation I've noted:

The 1874 act is missing online, but I can confirm there was one under the title
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway
(New Works and Additional Powers)
R.A. 21-July-1873.

The above is missing from John Marshall's text about the branch.

John Marshall also mentions an extension of time in an act 1869. I've looked at the 1869 L&Y Act(s) and find no mention of anything to do with the branch at all - perhaps that too is missing? The London gazette show the 1868 bill - in session 1869 but again, no mention of the branch line.

If you were given until say 1- August 1873 to complete you railway line and it's not finished you have to submit another bill to extend the time you have. That, or abandon it. Also, there is no need to apply for extension of time if you still have time under a previous act.

The other thing of note is be careful, something concerned with a line might be placed in what appears to be an unrelated bill, e.g. bill to build railway from A to B but in say section 18 of it "an extension of time for railway X".

I think, the bottom line to all of this is to take plenty of time, double check what's been written (don't get me started on that one!), and use some common sense.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Senex]

I think it's only in quite recent years that Local Acts have been available on line, and neither of the two big free-access collections that I know of is anything like complete yet (the Parliamentary Archives, and legislation.gov.uk). By far the best site that I know of, both in terms of the collection it offers and of quality of scanning, ease of access, etc, is vLex Justis — but unfortunately it's a subscription site. If you have access to a university library that subscribes, that's the go-to (but in these straitened times for universities, libraries are looking again at their subscriptions and I know at least one where this facility is no longer available).

I generally find Bradshaw's Manual a useful starting-point (though a starting-point always to be used with care) for the official side of company history. Here's the relevant L&Y page from the 1876 volume where you'll see a brief summary of the major points of the 1874 Act you haven't yet seen along with a reference to Padiham in the 1875 Act.

 

[Andy873]

You might find James J Scott, The Law and Practice of Railway and Other Private Bills, London (Owen Richards) 1846, useful — it's a clear and interesting exposition downloadable from the Internet Archive or Google Books. As you can see from the date, it came out at a time when parliament was rather busy with railway Bills!

Well, what an interesting book. I'm only part way through reading it but already it's answered lots of questions!

In session 1849, the ELR make their second attempt at building some of the branch line. Here I came across (in the journal) that the ELR had not paid all the required ten percent of the three quarters of the estimate for the line, this had me confused but the book explains the requirement.

In 1865 the Manchester and North Lancashire railway (to be incorporated in their bill) is submitted to Parliament, however they (the would be directors) came to an agreement with the L&Y, and it looks like no payment was made by the company. Given this company proposed to build 45 miles of lines at a cost of 1.25 million (if I've got my calculation right) they would have had to pay out going on for 94,000.

Here the L&Y step in and submit their own bill.

Now there are several things to note:

1. The M&NLR couldn't and didn't want to keep their plans secret, and it wouldn't have been too long before the L&Y heard about it.

2. There are newspaper reports from October describing how the M&NLR had almost completed their line survey.

3. Given the very detailed plan(s), list of land owners etc, book of reference I can't see how the L&Y could have done all of that in a couple of weeks? surely they must have dusted down the ELR's plan / details? (The ELR now part of the L&Y) and made the suitable changes.

Wouldn't the four previous plans still be publicly available?

This bill as mentioned before was two thirds successful, but not the Padiham - Burnley section. This act forced the L&Y to stop next to the turnpike road run by the Blackburn, Addingham and Cocking End trust, (west side of).

Speaking of turn pike road trusts, many of the trustees I believe were indeed land owners of the private estates, and the bills I've read take particular note of them and any changes a railway company might want to do with one. This trust certainly petitioned against part of the ELR's bill of the 1840's.

The L&Y then submit the second bill to complete the loop line. Looks liked they learned something with this bill, from Padiham (where the station was to be) they send the line in a south east direction through countryside, they don't go anywhere near a private estate and only cross three roads, keeping the line out of harms way and technically out of Burnley. And that is why I believe it was finally successful...

The real answer of course would be in the petitions against the 1865 bill plus the original plan of the route both of which I've found is held by the Bolton Archives and Local Studies Service, listed in the Lancashire archives, but sadly I'm not in a position to go and visit them.

Question, wasn't there a railway magazine called something like Haraper's railway magazine? I can't remember the exact name!

 

[Senex]

“Herapath’s Railway Journal” — you’ll find a long run in the British Newspaper Archive, though unfortunately not the early years. An important and very useful source to have access to. There’s also a good long run of the “Railway News”.

 

[Andy873]

“Herapath’s Railway Journal” — you’ll find a long run in the British Newspaper Archive

That's the one! I've gone through a list of around 120 editions covering the dates of interest to me, and I can tell you all, there's a lot of railway history in there. Anyone researching the railways really should take the time to look through them.

One edition caught my eye, 10 February 1866 - it gives notice of the L&Y half yearly meeting, one section is very interesting to me... it states by the L&Y have made an application to Parliament to restrict their bill in session to be limited, that is to (for now) stop at Padiham and not to continue onto Burnley. That part they state will be submitted later in the year for next years session.

With the following in mind:

Bill read first time Feb 2.
Bill has not been read second time yet.
This "application" is done before the second read, debate and committee stage.

Question, what mechanism allows the L&Y to scale back their own bill and communicate this to Parliament before the second read of the bill? am I missing something here?