PARLIAMENTARY CONTEST ON THE LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER BILL.
The Liverpool and Manchester Bill went into Committee of the House of
Commons on the 21st of March, 1825. There was an extraordinary array
of legal talent on the occasion, but especially on the side of the
opponents to the measure. Their wealth and influence enabled them to
retain the ablest counsel at the bar; Mr. (afterward Baron) Alderson,
Mr. Stephenson, Mr. (afterward Baron) Parke, Mr. Rose, Mr. Macdonnell,
Mr. Harrison, Mr. Erle, and Mr. Cullen, appeared for various clients,
who made common cause with each other in opposing the bill, the case
for which was conducted by Mr. Adam, Mr. Sergeant Spankie, Mr. William
Brougham, and Mr. Joy.
Evidence was taken at great length as to the difficulties and delays
in forwarding raw goods of all kinds from Liverpool to Manchester,
as also in the conveyance of manufactured articles from Manchester
to Liverpool. The evidence adduced in support of the bill on these
grounds was overwhelming. The utter inadequacy of the existing modes
of conveyance to carry on satisfactorily the large and rapidly-growing
trade between the two towns was fully proved. But then came the main
difficulty of the promoters' case--that of proving the practicability
of constructing a railroad to be worked by locomotive power. Mr. Adam,
in his opening speech, referred to the cases of the Hetton and the
Killingworth railroads, where heavy goods were safely and economically
transported by means of locomotive engines. "None of the tremendous
consequences," he observed, "have ensued from the use of steam in land
carriage that have been stated. The horses have not started, nor the
cows ceased to give their milk, nor have ladies miscarried at the sight
of these things going forward at the rate of four miles and a half an
hour." Notwithstanding the petition of two ladies alleging the great
danger to be apprehended from the bursting of the locomotive boilers,
he urged the safety of the high-pressure engine when the boilers were
constructed of wrought iron; and as to the rate at which they could
travel, he expressed his full conviction that such engines "could
supply force to drive a carriage at the rate of five or six miles an
hour."
The taking of the evidence as to the impediments thrown in the way of
trade and commerce by the existing system extended over a month, and it
was the 21st of April before the committee went into the engineering
evidence, which was the vital part of the question.
On the 25th George Stephenson was called into the witness-box. It was
his first appearance before a committee of the House of Commons, and he
well knew what he had to expect. He was aware that the whole force of
the opposition was to be directed against him; and if they could break
down his evidence, the canal monopoly might yet be upheld for a time.
Many years afterward, when looking back at his position on this trying
occasion, he said: "When I went to Liverpool to plan a line from thence
to Manchester, I pledged myself to the directors to attain a speed of
ten miles an hour. I said I had no doubt the locomotive might be made
to go much faster, but that we had better be moderate at the beginning.
The directors said I was quite right; for that if, when they went to
Parliament, I talked of going at a greater rate than ten miles an hour,
I should put a cross upon the concern. It was not an easy task for me
to keep the engine down to ten miles an hour, but it must be done, and
I did my best. I had to place myself in that most unpleasant of all
positions--the witness-box of a Parliamentary committee. I was not long
in it before I began to wish for a hole to creep out at! I could not
find words to satisfy either the committee or myself. I was subjected
to the cross-examination of eight or ten barristers, purposely, as far
as possible, to bewilder me. Some member of the committee asked _if I
was a foreigner_,[60] and another hinted that _I was mad_. But I put
up with every rebuff, and went on with my plans, determined not to be
put down."
George Stephenson stood before the committee to prove what the public
opinion of that day held to be impossible. The self-taught mechanic
had to demonstrate the practicability of accomplishing that which the
most distinguished engineers of the time regarded as impracticable.
Clear though the subject was to himself, and familiar as he was with
the powers of the locomotive, it was no easy task for him to bring home
his convictions, or even to convey his meaning, to the less informed
minds of his hearers. In his strong Northumbrian dialect, he struggled
for utterance, in the face of the sneers, interruptions, and ridicule
of the opponents of the measure, and even of the committee, some of
whom shook their heads and whispered doubts as to his sanity when
he energetically avowed that he could make the locomotive go at the
rate of twelve miles an hour! It was so grossly in the teeth of all
the experience of honorable members, that the man "must certainly be
laboring under a delusion!"
And yet his large experience of railways and locomotives, as described
by himself to the committee, entitled this "untaught, inarticulate
genius," as he has been described, to speak with confidence on the
subject. Beginning with his experience as a brakesman at Killingworth
in 1803, he went on to state that he was appointed to take the
entire charge of the steam-engines in 1813, and had superintended
the railroads connected with the numerous collieries of the Grand
Allies from that time downward. He had laid down or superintended the
railways at Burradon, Mount Moor, Springwell, Bedlington, Hetton, and
Darlington, besides improving those at Killingworth, South Moor, and
Derwent Crook. He had constructed fifty-five steam-engines, of which
sixteen were locomotives. Some of these had been sent to France.
The engines constructed by him for the working of the Killingworth
Railroad, eleven years before, had continued steadily at work ever
since, and fulfilled his most sanguine expectations. He was prepared
to prove the safety of working high-pressure locomotives on a railroad,
and the superiority of this mode of transporting goods over all others.
As to speed, he said he had recommended eight miles an hour with
twenty tons, and four miles an hour with forty tons; but he was quite
confident that much more might be done. Indeed, he had no doubt they
might go at the rate of twelve miles. As to the charge that locomotives
on a railroad would so terrify the horses in the neighborhood that
to travel on horseback or to plow the adjoining fields would be
rendered highly dangerous, the witness said that horses learned to
take no notice of them, though there _were_ horses that would shy at a
wheelbarrow. A mail-coach was likely to be more shied at by horses than
a locomotive. In the neighborhood of Killingworth, the cattle in the
fields went on grazing while the engines passed them, and the farmers
made no complaints.
Mr. Alderson, who had carefully studied the subject, and was well
skilled in practical science, subjected the witness to a protracted and
severe cross-examination as to the speed and power of the locomotive,
the stroke of the piston, the slipping of the wheels upon the rails,
and various other points of detail. Stephenson insisted that no
slipping took place, as attempted to be extorted from him by the
counsel. He said, "It is impossible for slipping to take place so long
as the adhesive weight of the wheel upon the rail is greater than the
weight to be dragged after it." There was a good deal of interruption
to the witness's answers by Mr. Alderson, to which Mr. Joy more than
once objected. As to accidents, Stephenson knew of none that had
occurred with his engines. There had been one, he was told, at the
Middleton Colliery, near Leeds, with a Blenkinsop engine. The driver
had been in liquor, and put a considerable load on the safety-valve,
so that upon going forward the engine blew up and the man was killed.
But he added, if proper precautions had been used with that boiler,
the accident could not have happened. The following cross-examination
occurred in reference to the question of speed:
"Of course," he was asked, "when a body is moving upon a road, the
greater the velocity the greater the momentum that is generated?"
"Certainly." "What would be the momentum of forty tons moving at the
rate of twelve miles an hour?" "It would be very great." "Have you seen
a railroad that would stand that?" "Yes." "Where?" "Any railroad that
would bear going four miles an hour: I mean to say, that if it would
bear the weight at four miles an hour, it would bear it at twelve."
"Taking it at four miles an hour, do you mean to say that it would not
require a stronger railway to carry the same weight twelve miles an
hour?" "I will give an answer to that. I dare say every person has been
over ice when skating, or seen persons go over, and they know that it
would bear them better at a greater velocity than it would if they went
slower; when they go quick, the weight in a measure ceases." "Is not
than upon the hypothesis that the railroad is perfect?" "It is; and I
mean to make it perfect."
It is not necessary to state that to have passed through his severe
ordeal scatheless needed no small amount of courage, intelligence,
and ready shrewdness on the part of the witness. Nicholas Wood, who
was present on the occasion, has since stated that the point on which
Stephenson was hardest pressed was that of speed. "I believe," he
says, "that it would have lost the company their bill if he had gone
beyond eight or nine miles an hour. If he had stated his intention of
going twelve or fifteen miles an hour, not a single person would have
believed it to be practicable." Mr. Alderson had, indeed, so pressed
the point of "twelve miles an hour," and the promoters were so alarmed
lest it should appear in evidence that they contemplated any such
extravagant rate of speed, that immediately on Mr. Alderson sitting
down, Mr. Joy proceeded to re-examine Stephenson, with the view of
removing from the minds of the committee an impression so unfavorable,
and, as they supposed, so damaging to their case. "With regard," asked
Mr. Joy, "to all those hypothetical questions of my learned friend,
they have been all put on the supposition of going twelve miles an
hour: now that is not the rate at which, I believe, any of the engines
of which you have spoken have traveled?" "No," replied Stephenson,
"except as an experiment for a short distance." "But what they have gone
has been three, five, or six miles an hour?" "Yes." "So that those
hypothetical cases of twelve miles an hour do not fall within your
general experience?" "They do not."
The committee also seem to have entertained some alarm as to the high
rate of speed which had been spoken of, and proceeded to examine the
witness farther on the subject. They supposed the case of the engine
being upset when going at nine miles an hour, and asked what, in such
a case, would become of the cargo astern. To which the witness replied
that it would not be upset. One of the members of the committee pressed
the witness a little farther. He put the following case: "Suppose,
now, one of these engines to be going along a railroad at the rate of
nine or ten miles an hour, and that a cow were to stray upon the line
and get in the way of the engine; would not that, think you, be a very
awkward circumstance?" "Yes," replied the witness, with a twinkle in
his eye, "very awkward--_for the coo_!" The honorable member did not
proceed farther with his cross-examination; to use a railway phrase,
he was "shunted." Another asked if animals would not be very much
frightened by the engine passing at night, especially by the glare of
the red-hot chimney? "But how would they know that it wasn't painted?"
said the witness.
On the following day (the 26th of April) the engineer was subjected to
a most severe examination. On that part of the scheme with which he was
most practically conversant, his evidence was clear and conclusive.
Now, he had to give evidence on the plans made by his surveyors, and
the estimates which had been founded on those plans. So long as he was
confined to locomotive engines and iron railroads, with the minutest
details of which he was more familiar than any man living, he felt
at home and in his element. But when the designs of bridges and the
cost of constructing them had to be gone into, the subject being
comparatively new to him, his evidence was much less satisfactory.
He was cross-examined as to the practicability of forming a road on so
unstable a foundation as Chat Moss.
"'Now, with respect to your evidence upon Chat Moss,' asked Mr.
Alderson, 'did you ever walk on Chat Moss on the proposed line of
the railway?' 'The greater part of it, I have.'
"'Was it not extremely boggy?' 'In parts it was.'
"'How deep did you sink in?' 'I could have gone with shoes; I do
not know whether I had boots on.'
"'If the depth of the Moss should prove to be 40 feet instead
of 20, would not this plan of the railway over this Moss be
impracticable?' 'No, it would not. If the gentleman will allow me,
I will refer to a railroad belonging to the Duke of Portland, made
over a moss; there are no levels to drain it properly, such as we
have at Chat Moss, and it is made by an embankment over the moss,
which is worse than making a cutting, for there is the weight of
the embankment to press upon the moss.'
"'Still, you must go to the bottom of the moss?' 'It is not
necessary; the deeper you get, the more consolidated it is.'
"'Would you put some hard materials on it before you commenced?'
'Yes, perhaps I should.'
"'What?' 'Brushwood, perhaps.'
"'And you, then, are of opinion that it would be a solid
embankment?' 'It would have a tremulous motion for a time, but
would not give way, like clay.'"
Mr. Alderson also cross-examined him at great length on the plans of
the bridges, the tunnels, the crossings of the roads and streets,
and the details of the survey, which, it soon appeared, were in some
respects seriously at fault. It seems that, after the plans had been
deposited, Stephenson found that a much more favorable line might
be laid out, and he made his estimates accordingly, supposing that
Parliament would not confine the company to the precise plan which had
been deposited. This was felt to be a serious blot in the Parliamentary
case, and one very difficult to get over.
For three entire days was our engineer subjected to cross-examination
by Mr. Alderson, Mr. Cullen, and the other leading counsel for the
opposition. He held his ground bravely, and defended the plans and
estimates with remarkable ability and skill, but it was clear they were
imperfect, and the result was, on the whole, damaging to the bill. Mr.
(afterward Sir William) Cubitt was called by the promoters, Mr. Adam
stating that he proposed by this witness to correct some of the levels
as given by Stephenson. It seems a singular course to have been taken
by the promoters of the measure, for Mr. Cubitt's evidence went to
upset the statements made by Stephenson as to the survey. This adverse
evidence was, of course, made the most of by the opponents of the
scheme.
Mr. Sergeant Spankie then summed up for the bill on the 2d of May,
in a speech of great length, and the case of the opponents was next
gone into, Mr. Harrison opening with a long and eloquent speech on
behalf of his clients, Mrs. Atherton and others. He indulged in strong
vituperation against the witnesses for the bill, and especially dwelt
upon the manner in which Mr. Cubitt, for the promoters, had proved that
Stephenson's levels were wrong.
"They got a person," said he, "whose character and skill I do not
dispute, though I do not exactly know that I should have gone
to the inventor of the treadmill as the fittest man to take the
levels of Knowsley Moss and Chat Moss, which shook almost as much
as a treadmill, as you recollect, for he (Mr. Cubitt) said Chat
Moss trembled so much under his feet that he could not take his
observations accurately.... In fact, Mr. Cubitt did not go on to
Chat Moss, because he knew that it was an immense mass of pulp, and
nothing else. It actually rises in height, from the rain swelling
it like a sponge, and sinks again in dry weather, and if a boring
instrument is put into it, it sinks immediately by its own weight.
The making of an embankment out of this pulpy, wet moss is no very
easy task. Who but Mr. Stephenson would have thought of entering
into Chat Moss, carrying it out almost like wet dung? It is
ignorance almost inconceivable. It is perfect madness, in a person
called upon to speak on a scientific subject, to propose such a
plan.... Every part of the scheme shows that this man has applied
himself to a subject of which he has no knowledge, and to which he
has no science to apply."
Then, adverting to the proposal to work the intended line by means of
locomotives, the learned gentleman proceeded:
"When we set out with the original prospectus, we were to gallop
I know not at what rate--I believe it was at the rate of twelve
miles an hour. My learned friend, Mr. Adam, contemplated--possibly
alluding to Ireland--that some of the Irish members would arrive in
the wagons to a division. My learned friend says that they would go
at the rate of twelve miles an hour with the aid of the devil in
the form of a locomotive sitting as postillion on the fore horse,
and an honorable member sitting behind him to stir up the fire,
and keep it at full speed. But the speed at which these locomotive
engines are to go has slackened: Mr. Adam does not go faster now
than five miles an hour. The learned sergeant (Spankie) says he
should like to have seven, but he would be content to go six. I
will show he can not go six; and probably, for any practical
purposes, I may be able to show that I can keep up with him _by the
canal_.... Locomotive engines are liable to be operated upon by the
weather. You are told they are affected by rain, and an attempt has
been made to cover them; but the wind will affect them; and any
gale of wind which would affect the traffic on the Mersey would
render it _impossible_ to set off a locomotive engine, either by
poking of the fire, or keeping up the pressure of the steam till
the boiler was ready to burst."
How amusing it now is to read these extraordinary views as to the
formation of a railway over Chat Moss, and the impossibility of
starting a locomotive engine in the face of a gale of wind?
Evidence was called to show that the house property passed by the
proposed railway would be greatly deteriorated--in some places almost
destroyed; that the locomotive engines would be terrible nuisances,
in consequence of the fire and smoke vomited forth by them; and that
the value of land in the neighborhood of Manchester alone would be
deteriorated by no less than £20,000! Evidence was also given at great
length showing the utter impossibility of forming a road of any kind
upon Chat Moss. A Manchester builder, who was examined, could not
imagine the feat possible, unless by arching it across in the manner of
a viaduct from one side to the other. It was the old story of "nothing
like leather." But the opposition mainly relied upon the evidence of
the leading engineers--not, like Stephenson, self-taught men, but
regular professionals. Mr. Francis Giles, C.E., was their great card.
He had been twenty-two years an engineer, and could speak with some
authority. His testimony was mainly directed to the utter impossibility
of forming a railway over Chat Moss. "_No engineer in his senses_,"
said he, "would go through Chat Moss if he wanted to make a railroad
from Liverpool to Manchester. In my judgment, _a railroad certainly
can not be safely made over Chat Moss without going to the bottom of
the Moss_." The following may be taken as a specimen of Mr. Giles's
evidence:
"'Tell us whether, in your judgment, a railroad can be safely made
over Chat Moss without going to the bottom of the bog?' 'I say,
_certainly not_.'
"'Will it be necessary, therefore, in making a permanent railroad,
to take out the whole of the moss to the bottom, along the whole
line of road?' 'Undoubtedly.'
"'Will that make it necessary to cut down the thirty-three or
thirty-four feet of which you have been speaking?' 'Yes.'
"'And afterward to fill it up with other soil?' 'To such height as
the railway is to be carried; other soil mixed with a portion of
the moss.'
"'But suppose they were to work upon this stuff, could they get
their carriages to this place?' '_No carriage can stand on the moss
short of the bottom._'
"'What could they do to make it stand--laying planks, or something
of that sort?' 'Nothing would support it.'
"'So that, if you would carry a railroad over this fluid stuff--if
you could do it, it would still take a great number of men and a
great sum of money. Could it be done, in your opinion, for £6000?'
'I should say £200,000 would not get through it.'
"'My learned friend wishes to know what it would cost to lay it
with diamonds?'"
Mr. H. R. Palmer, C.E., gave evidence to prove that resistance to a
moving body going under four and a quarter miles an hour was _less_
upon a canal than upon a railroad; and that, when going against a
strong wind, the progress of a locomotive was retarded "very much."
Mr. George Leather, C.E., the engineer of the Croydon and Wandsworth
Railway, on which he said the wagons went at from two and a half to
three miles an hour, also testified against the practicability of
Stephenson's plan. He considered his estimate a "very wild" one. He had
no confidence in locomotive power. The Weardale Railway, of which he
was engineer, had given up the use of locomotive engines. He supposed
that, when used, they traveled at three and a half to four miles an
hour, because they were considered to be then more effective than at a
higher speed.
When these distinguished engineers had given their evidence, Mr.
Alderson summed up in a speech which extended over two days. He
declared Stephenson's plan to be "the most absurd scheme that ever
entered into the head of man to conceive:"
"My learned friends," said he, "almost endeavored to stop my
examination; they wished me to put in the plan, but I had rather
have the exhibition of Mr. Stephenson in that box. I say he never
had one--I believe he never had one--I do not believe he is capable
of making one. His is a mind perpetually fluctuating between
opposite difficulties: he neither knows whether he is to make
bridges over roads or rivers of one size or of another, or to
make embankments, or cuttings, or inclined planes, or in what way
the thing is to be carried into effect. Whenever a difficulty is
pressed, as in the case of a tunnel, he gets out of it at one end,
and when you try to catch him at that, he gets out at the other."
Mr. Alderson proceeded to declaim against the gross ignorance of this
so-called engineer, who proposed to make "impossible ditches by the
side of an impossible railway" over Chat Moss; and he contrasted with
his evidence that given "by that most respectable gentleman we have
called before you, I mean Mr. Giles, who has executed a vast number
of works," etc. Then Mr. Giles's evidence as to the impossibility of
making any railway over the Moss that would stand short of the bottom
was emphatically dwelt upon; and Mr. Alderson proceeded:
"Having now, sir, gone through Chat Moss, and having shown that Mr.
Giles is right in his principle when he adopts a solid railway--and
I care not whether Mr. Giles is right or wrong in his estimate,
for whether it be effected by means of piers raised up all the
way for four miles through Chat Moss, whether they are to support
it on beams of wood or by erecting masonry, or whether Mr. Giles
shall put a solid bank of earth through it--in all these schemes
there is not one found like that of Mr. Stephenson's, namely,
to cut impossible drains on the side of this road; and it is
sufficient for me to suggest, and to show, that this scheme of Mr.
Stephenson's is impossible or impracticable, and that no other
scheme, if they proceed upon this line, can be suggested which will
not produce enormous expense. I think that has been irrefragably
made out. Every one knows Chat Moss--every one knows that Mr. Giles
speaks correctly when he says the iron sinks immediately on its
being put upon the surface. I have heard of culverts which have
been put upon the Moss, which, after having been surveyed the day
before, have the next morning disappeared; and that a house (a
poet's house, who may be supposed in the habit of building castles
even in the air), story after story, as fast as one is added, the
lower one sinks! There is nothing, it appears, except long sedgy
grass, and a little soil, to prevent its sinking into the shades of
eternal night. I have now done, sir, with Chat Moss, and there I
leave this railroad."
Mr. Alderson, of course, called upon the committee to reject the bill;
and he protested "against the despotism of the Exchange at Liverpool
striding across the land of this country. I do protest," he concluded,
"against a measure like this, supported as it is by such evidence, and
founded upon such calculations."
The case of the other numerous petitioners against the bill
still remained to be gone into. Witnesses were called to prove
the residential injury which would be caused by the "intolerable
nuisance" of the smoke and fire from the locomotives, and others to
prove that the price of coals and iron would "infallibly" be greatly
raised throughout the country. This was part of the case of the
Duke of Bridgewater's trustees, whose witnesses "proved" many very
extraordinary things. The Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company were so
fortunate as to pick up a witness from Hetton who was ready to furnish
some damaging evidence as to the use of Stephenson's locomotives on
that railway. This was Mr. Thomas Wood, one of the Hetton Company's
clerks, whose evidence was to the effect that the locomotives, having
been found ineffective, were about to be discontinued in favor of
fixed engines. The evidence of this witness, incompetent though he was
to give an opinion on the subject, and exaggerated as his statements
were afterward proved to be, was made the most of by Mr. Harrison when
summing up the case of the canal companies.
"At length," he said, "we have come to this--having first set out
at twelve miles an hour, the speed of these locomotives is reduced
to six, and now comes down to two or two and a half. They must be
content to be pulled along by horses and donkeys; and all those
fine promises of galloping along at the rate of twelve miles an
hour are melted down to a total failure; the foundation on which
their case stood is cut from under them completely; for the Act
of Parliament, the committee will recollect, prohibits any person
using any animal power, of any sort, kind, or description, except
the projectors of the railway themselves; therefore I say that the
whole foundation on which this project exists is gone."
After farther personal abuse of Mr. Stephenson, whose evidence he spoke
of as "trash and confusion," Mr. Harrison closed the case of the canal
companies on the 30th of May. Mr. Adam replied for the promoters,
recapitulating the principal points of their case, and vindicating Mr.
Stephenson and the evidence which he had given before the committee.
The committee then divided on the preamble, which was carried by a
majority of only _one_--thirty-seven voting for it, and thirty-six
against it. The clauses were next considered, and on a division, the
first clause, empowering the company to make the railway, was lost by
a majority of nineteen to thirteen. In like manner, the next clause,
empowering the company to take land, was lost; on which Mr. Adam, on
the part of the promoters, withdrew the bill.
Thus ended this memorable contest, which had extended over two
months--carried on throughout with great pertinacity and skill,
especially on the part of the opposition, who left no stone unturned
to defeat the measure. The want of a new line of communication between
Liverpool and Manchester had been clearly proved; but the engineering
evidence in support of the proposed railway having been thrown almost
entirely upon George Stephenson, who fought this, the most important
part of the battle, single-handed, was not brought out so clearly as it
would have been had he secured more efficient engineering assistance,
which he was not able to do, as all the engineers of eminence of that
day were against the locomotive railway. The obstacles thrown in the
way of the survey by the land-owners and canal companies, by which
the plans were rendered exceedingly imperfect, also tended in a great
measure to defeat the bill.
Mr. Gooch says the rejection of the scheme was probably the most severe
trial George Stephenson underwent in the whole course of his life.
The circumstances connected with the defeat of the bill, the errors
in the levels, his severe cross-examination, followed by the fact of
his being superseded by another engineer, all told fearfully upon him,
and for some time he was as terribly weighed down as if a personal
calamity of the most serious kind had befallen him. It is also right
to add that he was badly served by his surveyors, who were unpracticed
and incompetent. On the 27th of September, 1824, we find him writing
to Mr. Sandars: "I am quite shocked with Auty's conduct; we must throw
him aside as soon as possible. Indeed, I have begun to fear that he has
been fee'd by some of the canal proprietors to make a botch of the job.
I have a letter from Steele,[61] whose views of Auty's conduct quite
agree with yours." The result of this first application to Parliament
was so far discouraging. Stephenson had been so terribly abused by the
leading counsel for the opposition in the course of the proceedings
before the committee--stigmatized by them as an ignoramus, a fool, and
a maniac--that even his friends seem for a time to have lost faith in
him and in the locomotive system, whose efficiency he continued to
uphold. Things never looked blacker for the success of the railway
system than at the close of this great Parliamentary struggle. And yet
it was on the very eve of its triumph.
The Committee of Directors appointed to watch the measure in Parliament
were so determined to press on the project of a railway, even though
it should have to be worked merely by horse-power, that the bill had
scarcely been defeated ere they met in London to consider their next
step. They called their Parliamentary friends together to consult as
to their future proceedings. Among those who attended the meeting of
gentlemen with this object in the Royal Hotel, St. James's Street,
on the 4th of June, were Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Spring Rice, and General
Gascoyne. Mr. Huskisson urged the promoters to renew their application
to Parliament. They had secured the first step by the passing of their
preamble; the measure was of great public importance; and, whatever
temporary opposition it might meet with, he conceived that Parliament
must ultimately give its sanction to the undertaking. Similar views
were expressed by other speakers; and the deputation went back to
Liverpool determined to renew their application to Parliament in the
ensuing season.
It was not considered desirable to employ George Stephenson in making
the new survey. He had not as yet established his reputation beyond
the boundaries of his own district, and the promoters of the bill
had doubtless felt the disadvantages of this in the course of their
Parliamentary struggle. They therefore resolved now to employ engineers
of the highest established reputation, as well as the best surveyors
that could be obtained. In accordance with these views, they engaged
Messrs. George and John Rennie to be the engineers of the railway; and
Mr. Charles Vignolles, on their behalf, was appointed to prepare the
plans and sections. The line which was eventually adopted differed
somewhat from that surveyed by Stephenson, entirely avoiding Lord
Sefton's property, and passing through only a few detached fields of
Lord Derby's at a considerable distance from the Knowsley domain. The
principal parks and game preserves of the district were also carefully
avoided. The promoters thus hoped to get rid of the opposition of
the most influential of the resident land-owners. The crossing of
certain of the streets of Liverpool was also avoided, and the entrance
contrived by means of a tunnel and an inclined plane. The new line
stopped short of the River Irwell at the Manchester end, and thus,
in some measure, removed the objections grounded on an anticipated
interruption to the canal or river traffic. And, with reference to the
use of the locomotive engine, the promoters, remembering with what
effect the objections to it had been urged by the opponents of the
measure, intimated, in their second prospectus, that, "as a guarantee
of their good faith toward the public, they will not require any clause
empowering them to use it; or they will submit to such restrictions in
the employment of it as Parliament may impose, for the satisfaction and
ample protection both of proprietors on the line of road and of the
public at large."
It was found that the capital required to form the line of railway,
as laid out by the Messrs. Rennie, was considerably beyond the amount
of Stephenson's estimate, and it became a question with the committee
in what way the new capital should be raised. A proposal was made to
the Marquis of Stafford, who was principally interested in the Duke
of Bridgewater's Canal, to become a shareholder in the undertaking. A
similar proposal had at an earlier period been made to Mr. Bradshaw,
the trustee for the property; but his answer was "all or none," and the
negotiation was broken off. The Marquis of Stafford, however, now met
the projectors of the railway in a more conciliatory spirit, and it was
ultimately agreed that he should become a subscriber to the extent of a
thousand shares.
The survey of the new line having been completed, the plans were
deposited, the standing orders duly complied with, and the bill went
before Parliament. The same counsel appeared for the promoters, but the
examination of witnesses was not nearly so protracted as on the former
occasion. Mr. Erle and Mr. Harrison led the case of the opposition.
The bill went into committee on the 6th of March, and on the 16th the
preamble was declared proved by a majority of forty-three to eighteen.
On the third reading in the House of Commons, an animated, and what now
appears a very amusing discussion, took place. The Hon. Edward Stanley
(since Earl of Derby, and prime minister) moved that the bill be read
that day six months. In the course of his speech he undertook to prove
that the railway trains would take _ten hours_ on the journey, and that
they could only be worked by horses; and he called upon the House to
stop the bill, "and prevent this mad and extravagant speculation from
being carried into effect." Sir Isaac Coffin seconded the motion, and
in doing so denounced the project as a most flagrant imposition. He
would not consent to see widows' premises and their strawberry-beds
invaded; and "what, he would like to know, was to be done with all
those who had advanced money in making and repairing turnpike roads?
What with those who may still wish to travel in their own or hired
carriages, after the fashion of their forefathers? What was to become
of coach-makers and harness-makers, coach-masters and coachmen,
innkeepers, horse-breeders, and horse-dealers? Was the House aware
of the smoke and the noise, the hiss and the whirl, which locomotive
engines, passing at the rate of ten or twelve miles an hour, would
occasion? Neither the cattle plowing in the fields or grazing in the
meadows could behold them without dismay. Iron would be raised in price
100 per cent., or more probably exhausted altogether! It would be the
greatest nuisance, the most complete disturbance of quiet and comfort
in all parts of the kingdom that the ingenuity of man could invent!"
Mr. Huskisson and other speakers, though unable to reply to such
arguments as these, strongly supported the bill, and it was carried on
the third reading by a majority of eighty-eight to forty-one. The bill
passed the House of Lords almost unanimously, its only opponents being
the Earl of Derby and his relative the Earl of Wilton. The cost of
obtaining the act amounted to the enormous sum of £27,000.
FOOTNOTES:
[60] George's Northumberland "burr" was so strong that it rendered
him almost unintelligible to persons who were unfamiliar with it;
and he had even thoughts of going to school again, for the purpose,
if possible, of getting rid of it. In the year 1823, when Stephenson
was forty-two years of age, we find his friend Thomas Richardson, of
Lombard Street, writing to Samuel Thoroughgood, a schoolmaster at
Peckham, as follows: "DEAR FRIEND,--My friend George Stephenson, a man
of first-rate abilities as an engineer, but of little or no education,
wants to consult thee or some other person to see if he can not improve
himself--he has so much Northumberland dialect, etc. He will be at my
house on sixth day next, about five o'clock, if thou could make it
convenient to see him. Thy assured friend, THOS. RICHARDSON."
[61] Hugh Steele and Elijah Galloway afterward proceeded with the
survey at one part of the line, and Messrs. Oliver and Blackett at
another. The former couple seem to have made some grievous blunder in
the levels on Chat Moss, and the circumstance weighed so heavily on
Steele's mind that, shortly after hearing of the rejection of the bill,
he committed suicide in Stephenson's office at Newcastle. Mr. Gooch
informs us that this unhappy affair served to impress upon the minds of
Stephenson's other pupils the necessity of insuring greater accuracy
and attention in future, and that the lesson, though sad, was not lost
upon them.