RAILWAYS TO THE RESCUE
It is not a little curious to find that, whereas the proposed
resuscitation of canals is now being actively supported in various
quarters as a means of effecting increased competition with the
railways, the railway system itself originally had a most cordial
welcome from the traders of this country as a means of relieving
them from what had become the intolerable monopoly of the canals and
waterways!
It will have been seen that in the article published in the _Quarterly
Review_ of March 1825, from which I gave extracts in the last Chapter,
reference was made to a "Letter on the Subject of the Projected
Rail-road between Liverpool and Manchester," by Mr Joseph Sandars, and
published that same year. I have looked up the original "Letter," and
found in it some instructive reading. Mr Sandars showed that although,
under the Act of Parliament obtained by the Duke of Bridgewater, the
tolls to be charged on his canal between Liverpool and Manchester were
not to exceed 2s. 6d. per ton, his trustees had, by various exactions,
increased them to 5s. 2d. per ton on all goods carried along the
canal. They had also got possession of all the available land and
warehouses along the canal banks at Manchester, thus monopolising the
accommodation, or nearly so, and forcing the traders to keep to the
trustees, and not patronise independent carriers. It was, Mr Sandars
declared, "the most oppressive and unjust monopoly known to the trade
of this country--a monopoly which there is every reason to believe
compels the public to pay, in one shape or another, £100,000 more
per annum than they ought to pay." The Bridgewater trustees and the
proprietors of the Mersey and Irwell Navigation were, he continued,
"deaf to all remonstrances, to all entreaties"; they were "actuated
solely by a spirit of monopoly and extension," and "the only remedy
the public has left is to go to Parliament and ask for a new line of
conveyance." But this new line, he said, would have to be a railway. It
could not take the form of another canal, as the two existing routes
had absorbed all the available water-supply.
In discussing the advantages of a railway over a canal, Mr Sandars
continued:--
"It is computed that goods could be carried for considerably less than
is now charged, and for one-half of what has been charged, and that
they would be conveyed in one-sixth of the time. Canals in summer are
often short of water, and in winter are obstructed by frost; a Railway
would not have to encounter these impediments."
Mr Sandars further wrote:--
"The distance between Liverpool and Manchester, by the three lines
of Water conveyance, is upwards of 50 miles--by a Rail-road it would
only be 33. Goods conveyed by the Duke and Old Quay [Mersey and
Irwell Navigation] are exposed to storms, the delays from adverse
winds, and the risk of damage, during a passage of 18 miles in the
tide-way of the Mersey. For days together it frequently happens that
when the wind blows very strong, either south or north, their vessels
cannot move against it. It is very true that when the winds and tides
are favourable they can occasionally effect a passage in fourteen
hours; but the average is certainly thirty. However, notwithstanding
all the accommodation they can offer, the delays are such that the
spinners and dealers are frequently obliged to cart cotton on the
public high-road, a distance of 36 miles, for which they pay four
times the price which would be charged by a Rail-road, and they are
three times as long in getting it to hand. The same observation
applies to manufactured goods which are sent by land-carriage daily,
and for which the rate paid is five times that which they would be
subject to by the Rail-road. This enormous sacrifice is made for two
reasons--sometimes because conveyance by water cannot be promptly
obtained, but more frequently because speed and certainty as to
delivery are of the first importance. Packages of goods sent from
Manchester, for immediate shipment at Liverpool, often pay two or
three pounds per ton; and yet there are those who assert that the
difference of a few hours in speed can be no object. The merchants
know better."
In the same year that Mr Sandars issued his "Letter," the merchants
of the port of Liverpool addressed a memorial to the Mayor and Common
Council of the borough, praying them to support the scheme for the
building of a railway, and stating:--
"The merchants of this port have for a long time past experienced
very great difficulties and obstructions in the prosecution of their
business, in consequence of the high charges on the freight of goods
between this town and Manchester, and of the frequent impossibility
of obtaining vessels for days together."
It is clear from all this that, however great the benefit which canal
transport had conferred, as compared with prior conditions, the canal
companies had abused their monopoly in order to secure what were often
enormous profits; that the canals themselves, apart from the excessive
tolls and charges imposed, failed entirely to meet the requirements
of traders; and that the most effective means of obtaining relief was
looked for in the provision of railways.
The value to which canal shares had risen at this time is well shown by
the following figures, which I take from the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for
December, 1824:--
+-------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| Canal. | Shares. | Price. |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| | £ _s._ _d._ | £ |
|Trent and Mersey | 75 0 0 | 2,200 |
|Loughborough |197 0 0 | 4,600 |
|Coventry | 44 0 0 (and bonus) | 1,300 |
|Oxford (short shares) | 32 0 0 " " | 850 |
|Grand Junction | 10 0 0 " " | 290 |
|Old Union | 4 0 0 | 103 |
|Neath | 15 0 0 | 400 |
|Swansea | 11 0 0 | 250 |
|Monmouthshire | 10 0 0 | 245 |
|Brecknock and Abergavenny | 8 0 0 | 175 |
|Staffordshire & Worcestershire | 40 0 0 | 960 |
|Birmingham | 12 10 0 | 350 |
|Worcester and Birmingham | 1 10 0 | 56 |
|Shropshire | 8 0 0 | 175 |
|Ellesmere | 3 10 0 | 102 |
|Rochdale | 4 0 0 | 140 |
|Barnsley | 12 0 0 | 330 |
|Lancaster | 1 0 0 | 45 |
|Kennet and Avon | 1 0 0 | 29 |
+-------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
These substantial values, and the large dividends that led to them,
were due in part, no doubt, to the general improvement in trade which
the canals had helped most materially to effect; but they had been
greatly swollen by the merciless way in which the traders of those
days were exploited by the representatives of the canal interest. As
bearing on this point, I might interrupt the course of my narrative
to say that in the House of Commons on May 17, 1836, Mr Morrison,
member for Ipswich, made a speech in which, as reported by Hansard, he
expressed himself "clearly of opinion" that "Parliament should, when it
established companies for the formation of canals, railroads, or such
like undertakings, invariably reserve to itself the power to make such
periodical revisions of the rates and charges as it may, under the then
circumstances, deem expedient"; and he proposed a resolution to this
effect. He was moved to adopt this course in view of past experiences
in connection with the canals, and a desire that there should be no
repetition of them in regard to the railways then being very generally
promoted. In the course of his speech he said:--
"The history of existing canals, waterways, etc., affords abundant
evidence of the evils to which I have been averting. An original share
in the Loughborough Canal, for example, which cost £142, 17s. is now
selling at about £1,250, and yields a dividend of £90 or £100 a year.
The fourth part of a Trent and Mersey Canal share, or £50 of the
company's stock, is now fetching £600, and yields a dividend of about
£30 a year. And there are various other canals in nearly the same
situation."
At the close of the debate which followed, Mr Morrison withdrew his
resolution, owing to the announcement that the matter to which he had
called attention would be dealt with in a Bill then being framed. It
is none the less interesting thus to find that Parliamentary revisions
of railway rates were, in the first instance, directly inspired by the
extortions practised on the traders by canal companies in the interest
of dividends far in excess of any that the railway companies have
themselves attempted to pay.
Reverting to the story of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway--the
projection of which, as Mr Sandars' "Letter" shows, represented
a revolt against "the exorbitant and unjust charges of the
water-carriers"--the Bill promoted in its favour was opposed so
vigorously by the canal and other interests that £70,000 was spent in
the Parliamentary proceedings in getting it through. But it was carried
in 1826, and the new line, opened in 1830, was so great a success that
it soon began to inspire many similar projects in other directions,
while with its opening the building of fresh canals for ordinary inland
navigation (as distinct from ship canals) practically ceased.
There is not the slightest doubt that, but for the extreme
dissatisfaction of the trading interests in regard alike to the heavy
charges and to the shortcomings of the canal system, the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway--that precursor of the "railway mania"--would not
have been actually constructed until at least several years later. But
there were other directions, also, in which the revolt against the then
existing conditions was to bring about important developments. In the
pack-horse period the collieries of Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire
respectively supplied local needs only, the cost of transport by
road making it practically impossible to send coal out of the county
in which it was raised. With the advent of canals the coal could be
taken longer distances, and the canals themselves gained so much
from the business that at one time shares in the Loughborough Canal,
on which £142 had been paid, rose, as already shown, to £4,600, and
were looked upon as being as safe as Consols. But the collapse of a
canal from the Leicestershire coal-fields to the town of Leicester
placed the coalowners of that county at a disadvantage, and this they
overcame, in 1832, by opening the Leicester and Swinnington line of
railway. Thereupon the disadvantage was thrown upon the Nottinghamshire
coalowners, who could no longer compete with Leicestershire. In fact,
the immediate outlook before them was that they would be excluded from
their chief markets, that their collieries might have to be closed, and
that the mining population would be thrown out of employment.
In their dilemma they appealed to the canal companies, and asked
for such a reduction in rates as would enable them to meet the
new situation; but the canal companies--wedded to their big
dividends--would make only such concessions as were thought by
the other side to be totally inadequate. Following on this the
Nottinghamshire coalowners met in the parlour of a village inn at
Eastwood, in the autumn of 1832, and formally declared that "there
remained no other plan for their adoption than to attempt to lay a
railway from their collieries to the town of Leicester." The proposal
was confirmed by a subsequent meeting, which resolved that "a railway
from Pinxton to Leicester is essential to the interests of the
coal-trade of this district." Communications were opened with George
Stephenson, the services of his son Robert were secured, the "Midland
Counties Railway" was duly constructed, and the final outcome of the
action thus taken--as the direct result of the attitude of the canal
companies--is to be seen in the splendid system known to-day as the
Midland Railway.
Once more, I might refer to Mr Charles H. Grinling's "History of the
Great Northern Railway," in which, speaking of early conditions, he
says:--
"During the winter of 1843-44 a strong desire arose among the
landowners and farmers of the eastern counties to secure some of the
benefits which other districts were enjoying from the new method
of locomotion. One great want of this part of England was that of
cheaper fuel, for though there were collieries open at this time
in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire, the nearest
pits with which the eastern counties had practicable transport
communication were those of South Yorkshire and Durham, and this was
of so circuitous a character that even in places situated on navigable
rivers, unserved by a canal, the price of coal often rose as high as
40s. or even 50s. a ton. In remoter places, to which it had to be
carted 10, 20, or even 30 miles along bad cross-roads, coal even for
house-firing was a positive luxury, quite unattainable by the poorer
classes. Moreover, in the most severe weather, when the canals were
frozen, the whole system of supply became paralysed, and even the
wealthy had not seldom to retreat shivering to bed for lack of fuel."
In this particular instance it was George Hudson, the "Railway King,"
who was approached, and the first lines were laid of what is now the
Great Northern Railway.
So it happened that, when the new form of transport came into vogue, in
succession to the canals, it was essentially a case of "Railways to the
Rescue."