BRITISH CANALS
[Illustration: AQUEDUCT AT PONTCYSYLLTE (IN THE DISTANCE).
(Constructed by Telford to carry Ellesmere Canal over River Dee. Opened
1803. Cost £47,000. Length, 1007 feet.)
[_Frontispiece._
]
BRITISH CANALS:
IS THEIR RESUSCITATION
PRACTICABLE?
BY EDWIN A. PRATT
AUTHOR OF "RAILWAYS AND THEIR RATES," "THE ORGANIZATION
OF AGRICULTURE," "THE TRANSITION IN AGRICULTURE," ETC.
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1906
PREFACE
The appointment of a Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, which
first sat to take evidence on March 21, 1906, is an event that should
lead to an exhaustive and most useful enquiry into a question which has
been much discussed of late years, but on which, as I hope to show,
considerable misapprehension in regard to actual facts and conditions
has hitherto existed.
Theoretically, there is much to be said in favour of canal restoration,
and the advocates thereof have not been backward in the vigorous and
frequent ventilation of their ideas. Practically, there are other
all-important considerations which ought not to be overlooked, though
as to these the British Public have hitherto heard very little. As a
matter of detail, also, it is desirable to see whether the theory that
the decline of our canals is due to their having been "captured" and
"strangled" by the railway companies--a theory which many people seem
to believe in as implicitly as they do, say, in the Multiplication
Table--is really capable of proof, or whether that decline is not,
rather, to be attributed to wholly different causes.
In view of the increased public interest in the general question, it
has been suggested to me that the Appendix on "The British Canal
Problem" in my book on "Railways and their Rates," published in the
Spring of 1905, should now be issued separately; but I have thought it
better to deal with the subject afresh, and at somewhat greater length,
in the present work. This I now offer to the world in the hope that,
even if the conclusions at which I have arrived are not accepted, due
weight will nevertheless be given to the important--if not (as I trust
I may add) the interesting--series of facts, concerning the past and
present of canals alike at home, on the Continent, and in the United
States, which should still represent, I think, a not unacceptable
contribution to the present controversy.
EDWIN A. PRATT.
London, _April 1906_.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. INTRODUCTORY 1
II. EARLY DAYS 12
III. RAILWAYS TO THE RESCUE 23
IV. RAILWAY-CONTROLLED CANALS 32
V. THE BIRMINGHAM CANAL AND ITS STORY 57
VI. THE TRANSITION IN TRADE 74
VII. CONTINENTAL CONDITIONS 93
VIII. WATERWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES 104
IX. ENGLISH CONDITIONS 119
X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 142
APPENDIX--THE DECLINE IN FREIGHT TRAFFIC ON THE MISSISSIPPI 151
INDEX 157
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS
HALF-TONE ILLUSTRATIONS
AQUEDUCT AT PONTCYSYLLTE (in the distance) _Frontispiece_
WHAT CANAL WIDENING WOULD MEAN:
COWLEY TUNNEL AND EMBANKMENTS _To face page_ 32
LOCKS ON THE KENNET AND AVON CANAL
AT DEVIZES " " 42
WAREHOUSES AND HYDRAULIC CRANES AT
ELLESMERE PORT " " 48
WHAT CANAL WIDENING WOULD MEAN:
SHROPSHIRE UNION CANAL AT CHESTER " " 70
"FROM PIT TO PORT": PROSPECT PIT, WIGAN " " 82
THE SHIPPING OF COAL: HYDRAULIC TIP ON
G.W.R., SWANSEA " " 88
A CARGO BOAT ON THE MISSISSIPPI " " 110
SUCCESSFUL RIVALS OF MISSISSIPPI CARGO
BOATS " " 114
WATER SUPPLY FOR CANALS: BELVIDE
RESERVOIR, STAFFORDSHIRE " " 128
MAPS AND DIAGRAMS
INDEPENDENT CANALS AND INLAND NAVIGATIONS " " 54
CANALS AND RAILWAYS BETWEEN WOLVERHAMPTON
AND BIRMINGHAM " " 56
SOME TYPICAL BRITISH CANALS " " 98
BRITISH CANALS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
The movement in favour of resuscitating, if not also of reconstructing,
the British canal system, in conjunction with such improvement as may
be possible in our natural waterways, is a matter that concerns various
interests, and gives rise to a number of more or less complicated
problems.
It appeals in the most direct form to the British trader, from the
point of view of the possibility of enabling him to secure cheaper
transit for his goods. Every one must sympathise with him in that
desire, and there is no need whatever for me to stay here to repeat the
oft-expressed general reflections as to the important part which cheap
transit necessarily plays in the development of trade and commerce.
But when from the general one passes to the particular, and begins to
consider how these transit questions apply directly to canal revival,
one comes at once to a certain element of insincerity in the agitation
which has arisen.
There is no reason whatever for doubt that, whereas one section of
the traders favouring canal revival would themselves directly benefit
therefrom, there is a much larger section who have joined in the
movement, not because they have the slightest idea of re-organising
their own businesses on a water-transport basis, but simply because
they think the existence of improved canals will be a means of
compelling the railway companies to grant reductions of their own
rates below such point as they now find it necessary to maintain.
Individuals of this type, though admitting they would not use the
canals themselves, or very little, would have us believe that there are
enough of _other_ traders who would patronise them to make them pay. In
any case, if only sufficient pressure could be brought to bear on the
railway companies to force them to reduce their rates and charges, they
would be prepared to regard with perfect equanimity the unremunerative
outlay on the canals of a large sum of public money, and be quite
indifferent as to who might have to bear the loss so long as they
gained what they wanted for themselves.
The subject is, also, one that appeals to engineers. As originally
constructed, our British canals included some of the greatest
engineering triumphs of their day, and the reconstruction either of
these or even of the ordinary canals (especially where the differences
of level are exceptionally great), would afford much interesting
work for engineers--and, also, to come to commonplace details, would
put into circulation a certain number of millions of pounds sterling
which might lead some of those engineers, at least, to take a still
keener interest in the general situation. There is absolutely no doubt
that, from an engineering standpoint, reconstruction, however costly,
would present no unsurmountable technical difficulties; but I must
confess that when engineers, looking at the problem exclusively from
their own point of view, apart from strictly economic and practical
considerations, advise canal revival as a means of improving British
trade, I am reminded of the famous remark of Sganerelle, in Molière's
"L'Amour Médecin"--"Vous êtes orfévre, M. Josse."
The subject strongly appeals, also, to a very large number of patriotic
persons who, though having no personal or professional interests to
serve, are rightly impressed with the need for everything that is in
any way practicable being done to maintain our national welfare, and
who may be inclined to assume, from the entirely inadequate facts
which, up to the present, have been laid before them as to the real
nature and possibilities of our canal system, that great results would
follow from a generous expenditure of money on canal resuscitation
here, following on the example already set in Continental countries. It
is in the highest degree desirable that persons of this class should be
enabled to form a clear and definite opinion on the subject in all its
bearings, and especially from points of view that may not hitherto have
been presented for their consideration.
Then the question is one of very practical interest indeed to the
British taxpayer. It seems to be generally assumed by the advocates
of canal revival that it is no use depending on private enterprise.
England is not yet impoverished, and there is plenty of money still
available for investment where a modest return on it can be assured.
But capitalists, large or small, are not apparently disposed to
risk their own money in the resuscitation of English canals. Their
expectation evidently is that the scheme would not pay. In the absence,
therefore, of any willingness on the part of shrewd capitalists--ever
on the look-out for profitable investments--to touch the business, it
is proposed that either the State or the local authorities should take
up the matter, and carry it through at the risk, more or less, either
of taxpayers or ratepayers.
The Association of Chambers of Commerce, for instance, adopted, by a
large majority, the following resolution at its annual meeting, in
London, in February 1905:--
"This Association recommends that the improvement and extension of
the canal system of the United Kingdom should be carried out by means
of a public trust, and, if necessary, in combination with local or
district public trusts, and aided by a Government guarantee, and that
the Executive Council be requested to take all reasonable measures to
secure early legislation upon the subject."
Then Sir John T. Brunner has strongly supported a nationalisation
policy. In a letter to _The Times_ he once wrote:
"I submit to you that we might begin with the nationalisation of our
canals--some for the most part sadly antiquated--and bring them up to
one modern standard gauge, such as the French gauge."
Another party favours municipalisation and the creation of public
trusts, a Bill with the latter object in view being promoted in the
Session of 1905, though it fell through owing to an informality in
procedure.
It would be idle to say that a scheme of canal nationalisation, or even
of public trusts with "Government guarantee" (whatever the precise
meaning of that term may be) involving millions of public money, could
be carried through _without_ affecting the British taxpayer. It is
equally idle to say that if only the canal system were taken in hand by
the local authorities they would make such a success of it that there
would be absolutely no danger of the ratepayers being called upon to
make good any deficiency. The experiences that Metropolitan ratepayers,
at least, have had as the result of County Council management of the
Thames steamboat service would not predispose them to any feeling of
confidence in the control of the canal system of the country by local
authorities.
At the Manchester meeting of the Association of Chambers of Commerce,
in September 1904, Colonel F. N. Tannett Walker (Leeds) said, during
the course of a debate on the canal question: "Personally, he was
not against big trusts run by local authorities. He knew no more
business-like concern in the world than the Mersey Harbour Board, which
was a credit to the country as showing what business men, not working
for their own selfish profits, but for the good of the community,
could do for an undertaking. He would be glad to see the Mersey Boards
scattered all over the country." But, even accepting the principle
of canal municipalisation, what prospect would there be of Colonel
Walker's aspiration being realised? The Mersey Harbour Board is an
exceptional body, not necessarily capable of widespread reproduction on
the same lines of efficiency. Against what is done in Liverpool may be
put, in the case of London, the above-mentioned waste of public money
in connection with the control of the Thames steamboat service by the
London County Council. If the municipalised canals were to be worked
on the same system, or any approach thereto, as these municipalised
steamboats, it would be a bad look-out for the ratepayers of the
country, whatever benefit might be gained by a small section of the
traders.
Then one must remember that the canals, say, from the Midlands to one
of the ports, run through various rural districts which would have
no interest in the through traffic carried, but might be required,
nevertheless, to take a share in the cost and responsibility of
keeping their sections of the municipalised waterways in an efficient
condition, or in helping to provide an adequate water-supply. It
does not follow that such districts--even if they were willing to
go to the expense or the trouble involved--would be able to provide
representatives on the managing body who would in any way compare, in
regard to business capacity, with the members of the Mersey Harbour
Board, even if they did so in respect to public spirit, and the sinking
of their local interests and prejudices to promote the welfare of
manufacturers, say, in Birmingham, and shippers in Liverpool, for
neither of whom they felt any direct concern.
Under the best possible conditions as regards municipalisation, it is
still impossible to assume that a business so full of complications as
the transport services of the country, calling for technical or expert
knowledge of the most pronounced type, could be efficiently controlled
by individuals who would be essentially amateurs at the business--and
amateurs they would still be even if assisted by members of Chambers of
Commerce who, however competent as merchants and manufacturers, would
not necessarily be thoroughly versed in all these traffic problems. The
result could not fail to be disastrous.
I come, at this point, in connection with the possible liability of
ratepayers, to just one matter of detail that might be disposed of
here. It is certainly one that seems to be worth considering. Assume,
for the sake of argument, that, in accordance with the plans now being
projected, (1) public trusts were formed by the local authorities for
the purpose of acquiring and operating the canals; (2) that these
trusts secured possession--on some fair system of compensation--of the
canals now owned or controlled by railway companies; (3) that they
sought to work the canals in more or less direct competition with the
railways; (4) that, after spending large sums of money in improvements,
they found it impossible to make the canals pay, or to avoid heavy
losses thereon; and (5) that these losses had to be made good by the
ratepayers. I am merely assuming that all this might happen, not that
it necessarily would. But, admitting that it did, would the railway
companies, as ratepayers, be called upon to contribute their share
towards making good the losses which had been sustained by the local
authorities in carrying on a direct competition with them?
Such a policy as this would be unjust, not alone to the railway
shareholders, but also to those traders who had continued to use the
railway lines, since it is obvious that the heavier the burdens imposed
on the railway companies in the shape of local rates (which already
form such substantial items in their "working expenses"), the less
will the companies concerned be in a position to grant the concessions
they might otherwise be willing to make. Besides, apart from monetary
considerations, the principle of the thing would be intolerably unfair,
and, if only to avoid an injustice, it would surely be enacted that
any possible increase in local rates, due to the failure of particular
schemes of canal municipalisation, should fall exclusively on the
traders and the general public who were to have been benefited, and
in no way on the railway companies against whom the commercially
unsuccessful competition had been waged.
This proposition will, I am sure, appeal to that instinct of justice
and fair play which every Englishman is (perhaps not always rightly),
assumed to possess. But what would happen if it were duly carried out,
as it ought to be? Well, in the Chapter on "Taxation of Railways" in
my book on "Railways and their Rates," I gave one list showing that
in a total of eighty-two parishes a certain British railway company
paid an average of 60·25 per cent. of the local rates; while another
table showed that in sixteen specified parishes the proportion of local
rates paid by the same railway company ranged from 66·9 per cent. to
86·1 per cent. of the total, although in twelve parishes out of the
sixteen the company had not even a railway station in the place. But
if, in all such parishes as these, the railway companies were very
properly excused from having to make good the losses incurred by their
municipalised-canal competitors (in addition to such losses as they
might have already suffered in meeting the competition), then the full
weight of the burden would fall upon that smaller--and, in some cases,
that very small--proportion of the general body of ratepayers in the
locality concerned.
The above is just a little consideration, _en passant_, which might
be borne in mind by others than those who look at the subject only
from a trader's or an engineer's point of view. It will help, also,
to strengthen my contention that any ill-advised, or, at least,
unsuccessful municipalisation of the canal system of the country might
have serious consequences for the general body of the community, who,
in the circumstances, would do well to "look before they leap."
But, independently of commercial, engineering, rating and other
considerations, there are important matters of principle to be
considered. Great Britain is almost the only country in the world where
the railway system has been constructed without State or municipal
aid--financial or material--of any kind whatever. The canals were
built by "private enterprise," and the railways which followed were
constructed on the same basis. This was recognised as the national
policy, and private investors were allowed to put their money into
British railways, throughout successive decades, in the belief and
expectation that the same principle would be continued. In other
countries the State has (1) provided the funds for constructing or
buying up the general railway system; (2) guaranteed payment of
interest; or (3) has granted land or made other concessions, as a
means of assisting the enterprise. Not only has the State refrained
from adopting any such course here, and allowed private investors to
bear the full financial risk, but it has imposed on British railways
requirements which may certainly have led to their being the best
constructed and the most complete of any in the world, but which have,
also, combined with the extortions of landowners in the first instance,
heavy expenditure on Parliamentary proceedings, etc., to render their
construction per mile more costly than those of any other system of
railways in the world; while to-day local taxation is being levied
upon them at the rate of £5,000,000 per annum, with an annual increment
of £250,000.
This heavy expenditure, and these increasingly heavy demands, can
only be met out of the rates and charges imposed on those who use the
railways; and one of the greatest grievances advanced against the
railways, and leading to the agitation for canal revival, is that
these rates and charges are higher in Great Britain than in various
other countries, where the railways have cost less to build, where
State funds have been freely drawn on, and where the State lines
may be required to contribute nothing to local taxation. The remedy
proposed, however, is not that anything should be done to reduce the
burdens imposed on our own railways, so as to place them at least in
the position of being able to make further concessions to traders, but
that the State should now itself start in the business, in competition,
more or less, with the railway companies, in order to provide the
traders--if it can--with something _cheaper_ in the way of transport!
Whatever view may be taken of the reasonableness and justice of such a
procedure as this, it would, undoubtedly, represent a complete change
in national policy, and one that should not be entered upon with
undue haste. The logical sequel, for instance, of nationalisation of
the canals would be nationalisation of the railways, since it would
hardly do for the State to own the one and not the other. Then, of
course, the nationalisation of all our ports would have to follow,
as the further logical sequel of the State ownership of the means of
communication with them, and the consequent suppression of competition.
From a Socialist standpoint, the successive steps here mentioned would
certainly be approved; but, even if the financial difficulty could be
met, the country is hardly ready for all these things at present.
Is it ready, even in principle, for either the nationalisation or
the municipalisation of canals alone? And, if ready in principle, if
ready to employ public funds to compete with representatives of the
private enterprise it has hitherto encouraged, is it still certain
that, when millions of pounds sterling have been spent on the revival
of our canals, the actual results will in any way justify the heavy
expenditure? Are not the physical conditions of our country such that
canal construction here presents exceptional drawbacks, and that canal
navigation must always be exceptionally slow? Are not both physical
and geographical conditions in Great Britain altogether unlike those
of most of the Continental countries of whose waterways so much is
heard? Are not our commercial conditions equally dissimilar? Is not
the comparative neglect of our canals due less to structural or
other defects than to complete changes in the whole basis of trading
operations in this country--changes that would prevent any general
discarding of the quick transit of small and frequent supplies by
train, in favour of the delayed delivery of large quantities at longer
intervals by water, however much the canals were improved?
These are merely some of the questions and considerations that arise in
connection with this most complicated of problems, and it is with the
view of enabling the public to appreciate more fully the real nature of
the situation, and to gain a clearer knowledge of the facts on which
a right solution must be based, that I venture to lay before them the
pages that follow.