CONTINENTAL CONDITIONS
The larger proportion of the arguments advanced in the Press or in
public in favour of a restoration of our own canal system is derived
from the statements which are unceasingly being made as to what our
neighbours on the Continent of Europe are doing.
Almost every writer or speaker on the subject brings forward the same
stock of facts and figures as to the large sums of money that are
being expended on waterways in Continental countries; the contention
advanced being, in effect, that because such and such things are done
on the Continent of Europe, therefore they ought to be done here. In
the "Engineering Supplement" of _The Times_, for instance--to give only
one example out of many--there appeared early in 1906 two articles on
"Belgian Canals and Waterways" by an engineering contributor who wrote,
among other things, that, in view of "the well-directed efforts now
being made with the object of effecting the regeneration of the British
canal system, the study of Belgian canals and other navigable waterways
possesses distinct interest"; and declared, in concluding his account
thereof, that "if the necessary powers, money, and concentrated effort
were available, there is little doubt that equally satisfactory results
could be obtained in Great Britain." Is this really the case? Could
we possibly hope to do all that can be done either in Belgium or in
Continental countries generally, even if we had the said powers and
money, and showed the same concentrated effort? For my part I do not
think we could, and these are my reasons for thinking so:--
Taking geographical considerations first, a glance at the map of Europe
will show that, apart from their national requirements, enterprises,
and facilities, Germany, Belgium, and Holland are the gateways to vast
expanses producing, or receiving, very large quantities of merchandise
and raw materials, much of which is eminently suitable for water
transport on long journeys that have absolutely no parallel in this
country. In the case of Belgium, a good idea of the general position
may be gained from some remarks made by the British Consul-General at
Antwerp, Sir E. Cecil Hertslet, in a report ("Miscellaneous Series,"
604) on "Canals and other Navigable Waterways of Belgium," issued by
the Foreign Office in 1904. Referring to the position of Antwerp he
wrote:--
"In order to form a clear idea of the great utility of the canal
system of Belgium, it is from its heart, from the great port of
Antwerp, as a centre, that the survey must be taken.... Antwerp
holds a leading position among the great ports of the world, and
this is due, not only to her splendid geographical situation at the
centre of the ocean highways of commerce, but, also, and perhaps more
particularly, to her practically unique position as a distributing
centre for a large portion of North-Eastern Europe."
Thus the canals and waterways of Belgium do not serve merely local,
domestic, or national purposes, but represent the first or final links
in a network of water communications by means of which merchandise
can be taken to, or brought from, in bulk, "a large portion of
North-Eastern Europe." Much of this traffic, again, can just as well
pass through one Continental country, on its way to or from the coast,
as through another. In fact, some of the most productive of German
industrial centres are much nearer to Antwerp or Rotterdam than they
are to Hamburg or Bremen. Hence the extremely keen rivalry between
Continental countries having ports on the North Sea for the capture
of these great volumes of trans-Continental traffic, and hence, also,
their low transport rates, and, to a certain extent, their large
expenditure on waterways.
Comparing these with British conditions, we must bear in mind the
fact that we dwell in a group of islands, and not in a country which
forms part of a Continent. We have, therefore, no such transit
traffic available for "through" barges as that which is handled on
the Continent. Traffic originating in Liverpool, and destined say,
for Austria, would not be put in a canal boat which would first go to
Goole, or Hull, then cross the North Sea in the same boat to Holland
or Belgium, and so on to its destination. Nor would traffic in bulk
from the United States for the Continent--or even for any of our East
Coast ports--be taken by boat across England. It would go round by sea.
Traffic, again, originating in Birmingham, might be taken to a port
by boat. But it would there require transhipment into an ocean-going
vessel, just as the commodities received from abroad would have to be
transferred to a canal boat--unless Birmingham could be converted into
a sea-port.
If Belgium and Holland, especially, had had no chance of getting more
than local, as distinct from through or transit traffic--if, in other
words, they had been islands like our own, with the same geographical
limitations as ourselves, and with no trans-Continental traffic to
handle, is there the slightest probability that they would have spent
anything like the same amount of money on the development of their
waterways as they have actually done? In the particular circumstances
of their position they have acted wisely; but it does not necessarily
follow that we, in wholly different circumstances, have acted foolishly
in not following their example.
It might further be noted, in this connection, that while in the
case of Belgium all the waterways in, or leading into, the country
converge to the one great port of Antwerp, in England we have great
ports, competing more or less the one with the other, all round our
coasts, and the conferring of special advantages on one by the State
would probably be followed by like demands on the part of all the
others. As for communication between our different ports, this is
maintained so effectively by coasting vessels (the competition of which
already powerfully influences railway rates) that heavy expenditure on
canal improvement could hardly be justified on this account. However
effectively the Thames might be joined to the Mersey, or the Humber
to the Severn, by canal, the vast bulk of port-to-port traffic would
probably still go by sea.
Then there are great differences between the physical conditions of
Great Britain and those parts of the Continent of Europe where the
improvement of waterways has undergone the greatest expansion. Portions
of Holland--as everybody knows--are below the level of the sea, and
the remainder are not much above it. A large part of Belgium is flat;
so is most of Northern Germany. In fact there is practically a level
plain right away from the shores of the North Sea to the steppes of
Russia. Canal construction in these conditions is a comparatively
simple and a comparatively inexpensive matter; though where such
conditions do not exist to the same extent--as in the south of Germany,
for example--the building of canals becomes a very different problem.
This fact is well recognised by Herr Franz Ulrich in his book on
"Staffeltarife und Wasserstrassen," where he argues that the building
of canals is practicable only in districts favoured by Nature, and that
hilly and backward country is thus unavoidably handicapped.
Much, again, of the work done on the Continent has been a matter either
of linking up great rivers or of canalising these for navigation
purposes. We have in England no such rivers as the Rhine, the Weser,
the Elbe, and the Oder, but the very essence of the German scheme of
waterways is to connect these and other rivers by canals, a through
route by water being thus provided from the North Sea to the borders
of Russia. Further south there is already a small canal, the Ludwigs
Canal, connecting the Rhine and the Danube, and this canal--as distinct
from those in the northern plains--certainly does rise to an elevation
of 600 feet from the River Main to its summit level. A scheme has now
been projected for establishing a better connection between the Rhine
and the Danube by a ship canal following the route either of the Main
or of the Neckar. In describing these two powerful streams Professor
Meiklejohn says, in his "New Geography":--
"The two greatest rivers of Europe--greatest from almost every point
of view--are the Danube and the Rhine. The Danube is the largest river
in Europe in respect of its volume of water; it is the only large
European river that flows due east; and it is therefore the great
highway to the East for South Germany, for Austria, for Hungary, and
for the younger nations in its valley. It flows through more lands,
races, and languages than any other European river. The Rhine is the
great water-highway for Western Europe; and it carries the traffic and
the travellers of many countries and peoples. Both streams give life
to the whole Continent; they join many countries and the most varied
interests; while the streams of France exist only for France itself.
The Danube runs parallel with the mighty ranges of the Alps; the Rhine
saws its way through the secondary highlands which lie between the
Alps and the Netherlands."
The construction of this proposed link would give direct water
communication between the North Sea and the Black Sea, a distance, as
the crow flies, and not counting river windings, of about 1,300 miles.
Such an achievement as this would put entirely in the shade even the
present possible voyage, by canal and river, of 300 miles from Antwerp
to Strasburg.
What are our conditions in Great Britain, as against all these?
In place of the "great lowland plain" in which most of the Continental
canal work we hear so much about has been done, we possess an
undulating country whose physical conditions are well indicated by
the canal sections given opposite this page. Such differences of
level as those that are there shown must be overcome by locks, lifts,
or inclined planes, together with occasional tunnels or viaducts.
In the result the construction of canals is necessarily much more
costly in Great Britain than on the aforesaid "great lowland plain"
of Continental Europe, and dimensions readily obtainable there become
practically impossible here on account alike of the prohibitive cost
of construction and the difficulties that would arise in respect to
water supply. A canal connecting the Rhine, the Weser, and the Elbe, in
Germany, is hardly likely to run short of water, and the same may be
said of the canals in Holland, and of those in the lowlands of Belgium.
This is a very different matter from having to pump water from low
levels to high levels, to fill reservoirs for canal purposes, as must
be done on the Birmingham and other canals, or from taking a fortnight
to accomplish the journey from Hull to Nottingham as once happened
owing to insufficiency of water.
[Illustration: SOME TYPICAL BRITISH CANALS.
[_To face page 98._
]
There is, also, that very important consideration, from a transport
standpoint, of the "length of haul." Assuming, for the sake of argument
(1) that the commercial conditions were the same in Great Britain as
they are on the Continent; (2) that our country, also, consisted of
a "great lowland plain"; and (3) that we, as well, had great natural
waterways, like the Rhine, yielding an abundant water supply;--assuming
all this, it would still be impossible, in the circumscribed dimensions
of our isles, to get a "length of haul" in any way approaching the
barge-journeys that are regularly made between, say, North Sea ports
and various centres in Germany.
The geographical differences in general between Great Britain and
Continental countries were thus summed up by Mr W. H. Wheeler in the
discussion on Mr Saner's paper at the Institution of Civil Engineers:--
"There really did not seem to be any justification for Government
interference with the canals. England was in an entirely different
situation from Continental countries. She was a sea-girt nation, with
no less than eight first-class ports on a coast-line of 1,820 miles.
Communication between these by coasting steamers was, therefore,
easy, and could be accomplished in much less time and at less cost
than by canal. There was no large manufacturing town in England that
was more than about 80 miles in a direct line from a first-class
seaport; and taking the country south of the Firth of Forth, there
were only 42-1/2 square miles to each mile of coast. France, on the
other hand, had only two first-class ports, one in the north and the
other in the extreme south, over a coast-line of 1,360 miles. Its
capital was 100 miles from the nearest seaport, and the towns in
the centre of the country were 250 to 300 miles from either Havre
or Marseilles. For every mile of coast-line there were 162 square
miles of country. Belgium had one large seaport and only 50 miles of
coast-line, with 227 square miles of country to every square mile.
Germany had only two first-class ports, both situated on its northern
coast; Frankfort and Berlin were distant from those ports about 250
miles, and for every mile of coast-line there were 231 square miles
of country. The necessity of an extended system of inland waterways
for the distribution of produce and materials was, therefore, far more
important in those countries than it was in England."
Passing from commercial and geographical to political conditions, we
find that in Germany the State owns or controls alike railways and
waterways. Prussia bought up most of the former, partly with the idea
of safeguarding the protective policy of the country (endangered by
the low rates charged on imports by independent railway companies),
and partly in order that the Government could secure, in the profits
on railway operation, a source of income independent of Parliamentary
votes. So well has the latter aim been achieved that a contribution
to the Exchequer of from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 a year has been
obtained, and, rather than allow this source of income to be checked
by heavy expenditure, the Prussian Government have refrained from
carrying out such widenings and improvements of their State system of
railways as a British or an American railway company would certainly
have adopted in like circumstances, and have left the traders to find
relief in the waterways instead. The increased traffic the waterways
of Germany are actually getting is mainly traffic which has either
been diverted from the railways, or would have been handled by the
railways in other countries in the natural course of their expansion.
Whatever may be the case with the waterways, the railways of Prussia,
especially, are comparatively unprogressive, and, instead of developing
through traffic at competitive rates, they are reverting more and more
to the original position of railways as feeders to the waterways. They
get a short haul from place of origin to the waterway, and another
short haul, perhaps, from waterway again to final destination; but the
greater part of the journey is done by water.
These conditions represent one very material factor in the substantial
expansion of water-borne traffic in Germany--and most of that traffic,
be it remembered, has been on great rivers rather than on artificial
canals. The latter are certainly being increased in number, especially,
as I have said, where they connect the rivers; and the Government are
the more inclined that the waterways should be developed because then
there will be less need for spending money on the railways, and for
any interference with the "revenue-producing machine" which those
railways represent.
In France the railways owned and operated by the State are only a
comparatively small section of the whole; but successive Governments
have advanced immense sums for railway construction, and the State
guarantees the dividends of the companies; while in France as in
Germany railway rates are controlled absolutely by the State. In
neither country is there free competition between rail and water
transport. If there were, the railways would probably secure a
much greater proportion of the traffic than they do. Still another
consideration to be borne in mind is that although each country has
spent great sums of money--at the cost of the general taxpayer--on the
provision of canals or the improvement of waterways, no tolls are,
with few exceptions, imposed on the traders. The canal charges include
nothing but actual cost of carriage, whereas British railway rates may
cover various other services, in addition, and have to be fixed on a
scale that will allow of a great variety of charges and obligations
being met. Not only, both in Germany and France, may the waterway be
constructed and improved by the State, but the State also meets the
annual expenditure on dredging, lighting, superintendence and the
maintenance of inland harbours. Here we have further reasons for the
growth of the water-borne traffic on the Continent.
Where the State, as railway owner or railway subsidiser, spends money
also on canals, it competes only, to a certain extent, with itself;
but this would be a very different position from State-owned or
State-supported canals in this country competing with privately-owned
railways.[9]
If then, as I maintain is the case, there is absolutely no basis for
fair comparison between Continental and British conditions--whether
commercial, geographical, or political--we are left to conclude that
the question of reviving British canals must be judged and decided
strictly from a British standpoint, and subject to the limitations of
British policy, circumstances, and possibilities.