Tue 25 Jan 1825
Printed report of a meeting of the Committee at which they agreed to oppose a projected railway from the River Severn to Brimscombe Port.
Proceedings of a meeting of the land owners on the line of the projected railway from the River Severn to Brimscombe Port were read and entered into the minutes of this committee.
The resolutions of the meeting held on the 27th December last noticing a reduction already made by the Stroudwater Canal Company of one shilling out of three shillings and sixpence in their tonnage rate and a recommendation to them to reduce those rates sixpence per ton more on the whole line of their canal and so in proportion to distance ; and also a recommendation to the Tram road Projectors (on that reduction being acceded to) to abandon their projected schemes.
The reply of the Stroudwater Canal Company from which it appears that the recommendation of the landowners was acceded to, by an order to reduce the tonnage rates on the canal sixpence per ton in case the railway be abandoned.
The reply of the committee of subscribers to the railway; from which it appears that such committee thought they had not the power to negotiate; and that, if they had, they did not consider the suggested reduction of tonnage on the canal to be a sufficient inducement to them to enter into any negotiation for abandoning the railway.
The following resolutions were then unanimously adopted;
To collectively and individually oppose the railway by every means to protect our property
That in order to strengthen our resistance we will join the Stroudwater Canal Company and other parties disposed to unite with us in such measures.
Reasons for determination are-
First because the projected railway (parallel to and near the canal) is unnecessary and will seriously injure the estates through which it will pass and destroy the personal comfort of many owners and inhabitants.
Secondly, Because the Stroud Canal company have evinced a readiness to accede to such a reduction of tonnage as would in our opinion avoid the necessity for the tram road as far as the public are interested in its execution.
Thirdly, because it now appears to us that the projected tram road is persevered in for the purpose of individual advantage, or from motives not avowed and not for public utility.
