What is the amount of the whole debt?—The whole debt is 43,000_l._ I
said a considerable reduction of the principal debt had been made, I did
not use the word proportion. I can mention that the balance in the hands
of the treasurer, on the last settlement of the account amounted to
2,790_l._ 0_s._ 4_d._ in the Bristol district, beside a considerable
diminution of the debt, and beside alterations and improvements.
That applies only to one hundred and forty-eight miles round
Bristol?—Only to the one hundred and forty-eight miles round Bristol.
The Bristol district has been under one trust for twenty years, and in
that period the debt has increased to 43,000_l._
You will be kind enough to furnish the Committee, with a statement
similar to that which was supplied by you to the Holyhead Committee,
down to the latest period?—I will. Bristol is the only district for
which I can have precise figures, I have not had the finances in my own
management or direction with respect to the others. As I have only
advised with respect to them, I cannot give you the items; and I must
say, that my information with respect to other roads, must be much more
general than with respect to this road. In Sussex, the roads in nine
trusts have been mended with a considerable diminution of the former
expense, and the thanks of a general meeting of the trustees of the
Lewes trusts were unanimously voted to Lord Chichester “for the
introduction of this system, by which the roads had been so much
improved, and the country was likely to derive so much benefit.”
Have you found that a similar diminution of expense has taken place
where the materials have been bad, as where they have been good?—Yes, I
have.
Do you find your mode of management equally applicable where the
materials are bad as where they are good, and that the same
proportionable benefit arises?—I am afraid gentlemen suppose that I have
some particular mode of management, which is certainly not the case, nor
can by any means be the case; and in every road I have been obliged to
alter the mode of management, according to the situation of the roads,
and sometimes according to the finances. At Epsom in Surrey, the roads
have been put into a good repair, at an expense considerably under the
former annual expenditure, by which the trustees have been enabled to
lower their tolls on agricultural carriages. The road between Reading
and Twyford, in Berkshire, has been made solid and smooth since the
beginning of July last, by persons under my directions, at an expense,
including the surveyor’s salary, not exceeding fifteen pounds per week;
and their former expenditure, exclusive of the surveyor’s salary, was
twenty-two pounds per week. A great part of the road in the
neighbourhood of Bath, which was formed upon the plan laid down in my
report to the commissioners, and with the greatest success, is made with
freestone, which was always supposed impossible to make a good road of;
but it will make a good road. It certainly does not last so long as one
made of better materials; but it is equally good whilst it does last.
One of the roads out of Bristol towards Old Down has been made good,
where it was a received opinion, that from the nature of the materials
the road could not be made so; and the commissioners would not consent
to my beginning it until the road was threatened to be indicted. It was
put into my hands in October 1816, and at the Christmas following I was
able to report that it was one of the best roads in England for a
distance of eleven miles, at the expense of first outlay only of 600_l._
and it has continued so until the present.
Please to inform the Committee, what are the means, in your opinion, the
most eligible to be adopted for the amelioration of the roads throughout
the kingdom?—That question, I think, divides itself into two branches:
The operative part, in making the roads, and the care of the finances,
and the mode of their expenditure. I should imagine the operative part
of preparing roads cannot be effected without procuring a more skilful
set of sub-surveyors; young men, brought up to agriculture and labour
must be sought, and regularly instructed. It is a business that cannot
be taught from books, but can only be acquired by a laborious practice
of several months, and actual work upon roads, under skilful
road-makers. Young men who have been accustomed to agricultural labour
are fittest to be made road-surveyors, as their occupations have given
them opportunities of being acquainted with the value of labour both of
men and horses. But I should greatly mislead the Committee if I did not
inform them, that skill in the operative part of road-making cannot
alone produce a reformation of the multitude of abuses that are
practised in almost every part of the country, in the management of
roads and road funds. These abuses can only be put down by officers in
the situation of gentlemen, who must enjoy the confidence, and have the
support of commissioners, and who must exercise a constant and vigilant
inspection over the expenditure made by the sub-surveyors. They must be
enabled to certify to the commissioners that the public money is
judiciously and usefully, as well as honestly expended; without this
control and superintendence an end cannot be put to the waste of the
public money, and all the various modes that are injurious to the public
interest, the amount of which would appear incredible, could it be
ascertained; but which, I conscientiously believe, amount to one-eighth
of the road revenue of the kingdom at large, and to a much greater
proportion near London.
Do you mean the frauds amount to one-eighth?—No, not direct frauds, I
call it mis-application; it must not be concealed, that the temptations
with which, even a superior officer will be assailed, the facility of
yielding to them, and the impunity with which transgression may be
committed, require great delicacy in the selection of persons to fill
the situation; and encouragement to make this a profession must be in
proportion to the quality of the person required.
Do you not consider one of these mis-applications to be the injudicious
use of the labour of horses, instead of that of men, women and
children?—I do consider that to be a great mis-application of the labour
of horses. I am afraid that gentlemen may understand, from what I said,
that frauds are committed to the amount of one-eighth, but I meant no
such thing; I meant the loss arising from mis-application generally. I
have in general found a great deal more materials put upon the road than
are necessary, and I am of opinion that is one of the chief causes of
the waste of the public money.
Do you think the loss arises, in most instances, from mistake, or from
any abuse in regard to the power and patronage which the situation
confers?—I think it proceeds from mistakes and ignorance mostly.
Please to explain to the Committee in what way you think the labour of
men, women and children, may be substituted for that of horses?—I have
generally found that a much greater quantity of materials have been
carted to the roads than are necessary, and therefore the increase of
horse-labour has been beyond any useful purpose, and that generally the
roads of the kingdom contain a supply of materials sufficient for their
use for several years, if they were properly lifted and applied; this is
to be entirely done by men, women, and children, men lifting the roads,
and women and boys, and men past labour, breaking the stones which were
lifted up.
By lifting the road, you mean turning it up with the pickaxe?—Yes; that
I consider as man’s work; taking up the materials and breaking stones, I
consider the work of women and children, and which indeed ought to have
been done before those materials had been laid down.
How deep do you go in lifting the roads?—That depends upon
circumstances, but I have generally gone four inches deep; I take the
materials up four inches deep, and having broken the larger pieces, I
put them back again.
Please to explain to the Committee the mode of breaking the stones so as
to admit of the labour of men, women and children?—When the stones of an
old road have been taken up, they are generally found of the size that
women and boys can break them with small hammers, and therefore I would
propose to employ these people to break those stones always before they
are laid back in the roads.
Is it your plan for those people to break those stones standing, or in a
sitting posture?—Always in a sitting posture: because I have found that
persons sitting will break more stones than persons standing, and with a
lighter hammer.
Does that apply to all materials?—To all materials universally.
Does the plan which you have mentioned of breaking up the roads, apply
to gravel roads, or only to those roads composed of hard stones?—In
gravel roads and in some other roads it would be impossible to break
them up to any advantage; and in several places which I will explain, I
should think it unprofitable to lift a road at all. There is a
discretion of the surveyor, or the person who has the execution of the
work, which must be exercised. I did not order the road in the
neighbourhood of Reading to be lifted, but I directed wherever a large
piece of flint was seen, it should be taken up, broken, and put down
again; and I directed the road to be made perfectly clean—I am speaking
of a gravel road now—and I directed that additional gravel should be
prepared in the pits by screening the dirt very clean from it, breaking
all the large pieces and bringing that upon the road in very light coats
not exceeding two inches at a time; and when those coats were settled,
to bring others of very clean materials upon the road, until it settled
into a solid smooth hard surface, and which the coachmen in their mode
of expression, say “runs true.” The wheel runs hard upon it; it runs
upon the nail.
Uninfluenced by the state of the weather?—Perfectly so.
In your experience, have you observed that on gravel roads the materials
are generally very unskilfully and improperly applied?—Generally so. I
think always I may say, for I think I never saw them skilfully or
properly managed.
Have you adopted the mode of washing the gravel?—No; I think that is a
more expensive process than is necessary.
Do you think it more expensive than screening?—A great deal more so, and
I have another reason for objecting to that, with respect to the gravel
near London; the loam adheres so strongly to it that no ordinary washing
will clean it. The loam is detached from the gravel by the united effort
of the water on the road, and the travelling, by which the roads near
London become so excessively dirty; but it would be impossible to detach
the loam from the gravel in the pits, by throwing water on it; I have
tried the experiment and know the fact.
To what particular practice do you allude, when you inform the Committee
that gravel is unskilfully applied to the roads in general?—I see that
on gravel roads, the gravel is put on after being very imperfectly
sifted, and the huge pieces not being broken, and the gravel is laid on
the middle of the road and allowed to find its own may to the sides. Now
the principle of road-making I think the most valuable, is to put broken
stone upon a road, which shall unite by its own angles, so as to form a
solid hard surface, and therefore it follows, that when that material is
laid upon the road, it must remain in the situation in which it is
placed without ever being moved again; and what I find fault with
putting quantities of gravel on the road is, that before it becomes
useful it must move its situation and be in constant motion.
In order to attain the advantage you allude to in the angular materials,
I take it for granted, it is your plan to have the larger pieces of
gravel well broken?—Certainly; but I mean further, that in digging the
gravel near London, and places where there are vast quantities of loam,
and that loam adhering to every particle of the gravel, however small, I
should recommend to leave the very small or fine part of the gravel in
the pits, and to make use of the larger part which can be broken, for
the double purpose of having the gravel laid on the road in an angular
shape, and that the operation of breaking it is the most effectual
operation for beating off the loam that adheres to the pieces of gravel.
There are other cases besides that of gravel, in which I should think it
unprofitable to lift a road. The road between Cirencester and Bath is
made of very soft stone, and is of so brittle a nature, that if it were
lifted it would rise in sand, and there would be nothing to lay down
again that would be useful. I should not recommend lifting of freestone
roads for the same reason, because it would go so much to sand that
there would be very little to lay down again. I will explain what I have
done to that road between Cirencester and Bath; I was obliged to lift a
little of the sides of the road in order to give it shape, but in the
centre of the road, we, what our men call, “shaved it;” it was before in
the state which the country people call “gridironed,” that is, it was in
long ridges with long hollows between, and we cut down the high part to
a level with the bottom of the furrows, and took the materials and
sifted them at the side of the read and returned what was useful to the
centre.
Can you state whether the plan adopted on this road has increased or
diminished the expense?—I think the expenses, by the last account, were
rather within the expenditure of the former year, even including the new
surveyor’s wages. They had been in the practice of allowing about 32_l._
a week to the two surveyors as the ordinary expenditure; I directed the
new surveyors not to exceed that sum upon any account whatever,
including their own wages: but formerly they paid that sum, and paid the
surveyor his wages at the end of the quarter or half-year in addition:
therefore I consider the sum expended upon the road is rather within the
former expenditure than otherwise, except with regard to two dangerous
slips which took place at Swainswick-hill, which I consider as perfectly
extra.
In the formation of roads under your management, to what shape do you
give the preference; I allude to the convex shape or the flat?—I
consider a road should be as flat as possible with regard to allowing
the water to run off at all, because a carriage ought to stand upright
in travelling as much as possible. I have generally made roads three
inches higher in the centre than I have at the sides, when they are 18
feet wide; if the road be smooth and well made, the water will run off
very easily in such a slope.
Do you consider a road so made will not be likely to wear hollow in the
middle, so as to allow the water to stand, after it has been used for
some time?—No; when a road is made flat, people will not follow the
middle of it as they do when it is made extremely convex. Gentlemen will
have observed that in roads very convex, travellers generally follow the
track in the middle, which is the only place where a carriage can run
upright, by which means three furrows are made by the horses and the
wheels, and the water continually stands there: and I think that more
water actually stands upon a very convex road than on one which is
reasonably flat.
What width would you in general recommend for laying materials on a
turnpike road?—That must depend upon the situation. Near great towns
roads of course ought to be wider than farther in the country. Roads
near great towns ought not to be less than thirty or forty feet wide,
but at a distance from great towns it would be a waste of land to make
them so wide.
You mean a breadth of thirty feet actual road?—Yes. The access to
Bristol for a distance of about three miles, if we had room between the
hedges, I would make about thirty feet wide. Between Bath and Bristol I
should wish to see the road wide all the way, because it is only the
distance of twelve miles between two large cities.
In what way do you make the watercourses at the sides of the road; I ask
that question, having observed the farmers, in exercising their power of
cleaning out their ditches, dig them to such a depth as to render them
dangerous to be passed at night?—I always wished the ditch to be so dug
as that the materials of the road should be three or four inches above
the level of the water in the ditch, and to that point we endeavour to
bring the farmers, but they are very unwilling to clean the ditches at
any time when called upon, and when they do it, if they find vegetable
mould in any quantity at the bottom of the ditch, they will prosecute
their inquiry much deeper than is useful, or proper for safety.
Do you consider you have power by law, at present, for preventing
that?—Yes; because the law says, they are to clean them out according to
the directions of the surveyors.
In your experience have you found any impediment to the improvement of
the roads, from a want of power in the proprietors of different
navigations to lower their tolls for conveying materials?—I have found
in the river Lea navigation, that the trustees have no power to lower
their tolls, which were imposed by act of parliament upon merchandize,
and therefore, it operated in a great measure as a prohibition to carry
materials upon that river.
Do you consider it would be to the interest of the proprietors to allow
materials to be carried on their navigations at a lower rate than they
are empowered to allow by law?—Yes, if they could.
Do you know any similar instance as applicable to canals?—I don’t know
an instance with respect to canal trusts, but there is an instance with
respect to the Bath river at Bristol. No mitigation of the present rate
of duty on that river can take place if objected to by any one
proprietor, and therefore we have found great difficulty in carrying
materials on the Bath river. In one particular place we have been
entirely precluded from carrying any.
Have you found any impediment to the improvement of roads arising from
the conditions upon which materials are permitted to be conveyed from
one parish to another?—Yes; I found that in several cases in the Bristol
district. One very strong instance occurred near Keynsham; we had a
quarry close to the edge of one parish, and we could not carry the
stones from it to the distance of ten yards, without the process of
going to the magistrates.
Did you in that case make application to the magistrates?—I did intend
to make application, but before I made that application, I found in the
very next field, belonging to the same farmer, and in the parish where
we required them, the necessary materials, and I was under the necessity
of opening both the fields, to the detriment of the farmer’s landlord I
am persuaded.
Do you know an instance of such an application as that to which you have
alluded, having been made to the magistrates, and having been
refused?—No, I do not.
Do you think that a great inconvenience and loss of time would be saved
if that necessity of application was dispensed with?—It certainly is a
great inconvenience, and creates a great deal of heart-burning in the
country, and much dispute. I think the commissioners would very seldom
be disposed to carry materials from one parish to another, unless for
the general public good.
What depth of solid materials would you think it right to put upon a
road, in order to repair it properly?—I should think that ten inches of
well consolidated materials is equal to carry anything.
That is, provided the substratum is sound?—No; I should not care whether
the substratum was soft or hard; I should rather prefer a soft one to a
hard one.
You don’t mean you would prefer a bog?—If it was not such a bog as would
not allow a man to walk over, I should prefer it.
What advantage is derived from the substrata not being perfectly
solid?—I think, when a road ts placed upon a hard substance, such as a
rock, the road wears much sooner than when placed on a soft substance.
But must not the draught of a carriage be much greater on a road which
has a very soft foundation, than over one which is of a rocky
foundation?—I think the difference would be very little indeed, because
the yield of a good road on a soft foundation, is not perceptible.
To use the expression to which you have alluded, as being used by the
coachmen, would a carriage run so true upon a road, the foundation of
which was soft, as upon one of which the foundation was hard?—If the
road be very good, and very well made, it will be so solid, and so hard,
as to make no difference. And I will give the Committee a strong
instance of that, in the knowledge of many gentlemen here. The road in
Somersetshire, between Bridgewater and Cross, is mostly over a morass,
which is so extremely soft, that when you ride in a carriage along the
road, you see the water tremble in the ditches on each side; and after
there has been a slight frost, the vibration of the water from the
carriage on the road, will be so great as to break the young ice. That
road is partly in the Bristol district. I think there is about seven
miles of it, and at the end of those seven miles, we come directly on
the limestone rock. I think we have about five or six miles of this
rocky road immediately succeeding the morass; and being curious to know
what the wear was, I had a very exact account kept, not very lately, but
I think the difference is as five to seven in the expenditure of the
materials on the soft and hard.
Do you mean seven on the hard and five on the soft?—Yes.
And yet the hard road is more open to the effect of the sun and air than
the soft road?—It certainly lies higher.
Have you ever inquired of the coachmen, on which of those two
descriptions of roads the carriages run the lightest?—Yes, I have; and I
have found that there is no difference, if the road be equally smooth on
the surface, whether it be placed on the soft ground or hard.
But in forming a road over a morass, would you bottom the road with
small or large stones?—I never use large stones on the bottom of a road;
I would not put a large stone in any part of it.
In forming a road across morass, would you not put some sort of
intermediate material between the bog and the stone?—No, never.
Would you not put faggots?—No, no faggots.
How small would you use the stones?—Not to exceed six ounces in weight.
Have you not found that a foundation of bog sinks?—No, not a bit of the
road sinks; and we have the same thickness of materials on the one as on
the other.
If a road be made smooth and solid, it will be one mass, and the effect
of the substrata, whether clay or sand, can never be felt in effect by
carriages going over the road; because a road well made, unites itself
into a body like a piece of timber or a board.
In making a road under these circumstances, do you make the whole of the
depth of materials at once?—No, I prefer making a road in three times.
Three different times?—Yes.
To what size would you break the hard materials?—To the size of six
ounces weight.
Do you not think that is an indefinite criterion; had you not better
mention the size?—No; I did imagine myself, that the difference existed
to which you allude, and I have weighed six ounces of different
substances, and am confident there is little difference in appearance
and none in effect; I think that none ought to exceed six ounces; I hold
six ounces to be the maximum size. If you made the road, of all six
ounce stones it would be a rough road; but it is impossible but that the
greater part of the stones must be under that size.
Do you find a measure or ring through which the stones will pass, a good
method of regulating their size?—That is a very good way, but I always
make my surveyors carry a pair of scales and a six ounce weight in their
pocket, and when they come to a heap of stones, they weigh one or two of
the largest, and if they are reasonably about that weight they will do;
it is impossible to make them come exactly to it. I would beg leave to
say, in all cases of laying new materials upon an old road, I recommend
loosening the surface with a pickaxe a very little, so as to allow the
new materials to unite with the old, otherwise the new materials being
laid on the hard surface never unite, but get kicked about, and are lost
to the roads; wherever new materials are to be put down upon an old
road, I recommend a little loosening; but that I don’t call lifting.
Have you stated what thickness of new materials you would lay down on an
old road?—I should consider an old road would not want new materials if
it had ten inches of materials before, but I should only pick up the
materials, and break the large stones; and if there were any want of
materials, I would lay on as much as would bring it up to somewhere
about the ten inches.
Would you prefer doing that in dry weather or in wet weather?—In wet
weather, always; I always prefer mending a road in weather not very dry.
Are you of opinion that any alteration of the present law, either in
regard to the repeal of the present regulations or the enactment of new
ones, could advantageously take place in regard to the shape of wheels,
and the allowance of weight to be carried in waggons and carts?—I am of
opinion that the descriptions of wheels given in all the acts of
parliament in the last sessions are the most convenient and useful; and
I have thought of the matter very much, without being able to suggest
any alteration profitable to the public. With respect to weights, I
consider there are very great difficulties in that business. We have
weighing machines in the neighbourhood I now am in, and I am persuaded
in many instances that they are made instruments of oppression, and in a
great many cases the means of committing very great fraud on the
commissioners and others; and if some method could be fallen upon by
which weighing machines might be dispensed with altogether, and the road
reasonably protected, I should think it a very great public advantage.
In the new Bristol Act, I have proposed to the commissioners that they
should submit to parliament to lay a toll-duty upon the number of horses
in a progressive ratio, so as to compel those people who offend to bring
in their hands the penalty in the shape of toll; I think it would
prevent a great deal of that system of entering into combinations
between the toll collectors and the waggoners, which is carried on to a
great extent.
Do you think, that if horses in narrow-wheeled waggons were obliged to
draw otherwise than at length, it would afford any protection to the
road?—Yes.
Has not the practice of making horses draw at length very much a
tendency to make the horses follow one track, be the road ever so
good?—Yes; and I must mention to the Committee, that the feet of horses
on ill-made roads do full as much mischief as the wheels. It is driving
horses in a string that makes a road what the country people call
“gridironed;” it is an odd expression, but it is a very significant one.
Do you not believe, that if horses were attached to narrow wheeled
waggons in pairs, it would be found very considerably easier to drive
and guide them when abreast, than when placed at length?—I should think
it would.
And would it not tend to prevent accidents?—Horses driven in pairs would
provide in a great measure against the accidents that arise from the
carelessness of those persons who drive them, which is extremely great.
Do you think that if horses were put in pairs to waggons, the power of
holding back those waggons when going down a hill, would be so much
increased as to prevent the necessity of so frequently locking the
wheels?—Certainly it would; because on certain slopes it would not be
necessary to lock the wheels; but there are very steep hills where you
cannot do without locking.
Is not locking wheels an operation extremely injurious to the roads?—I
am not prepared to say it is, if the drag-iron, as it is called, be of a
proper description. I followed a waggon lately, with seven tons of
timber on it, down Park-street, at Bristol, being a very steep road,
with both its hind wheels locked; and this waggon, with this weight of
timber on in and with both the hind wheels locked, did not make the
least impression from the top of the street to the bottom. You could
discern where the drag-irons had gone, but they had not displaced the
materials nor done any mischief.
Don’t you find locking generally injurious?—Extremely injurious; on
rough roads it is dreadful.
Would not fewer ruts be made if it were more the custom for horses to
draw in pairs?—I believe gentlemen are not generally aware of what a rut
consists. There are two kinds of ruts, generally speaking: one is a rut
produced by displacing ill-prepared materials, and that is the common
rut. When a road is made of ill-prepared materials, the wheel piles them
up one upon another, and that forms a very narrow rut, which just holds
the wheel; but a rut made by wear upon a smooth surface, is rather a
concave hollow than a rut, and will present no difficulty to a carriage
in travelling, and that is the difference between a rut produced by wear
in a very well-made road, and that produced by displacing the materials.
Is there not much injury done to the roads by the heavy weights both of
coaches and waggons?—I am not disposed to think that upon a well-made
road the weight of coaches is material, or that it would be judicious to
make any legal provisions affecting that subject. In regard to waggons,
I conceive that the loads carried upon wheels of the description
encouraged by recent acts of parliament, whatever their weight, would be
very little injurious to well-made roads. I think a waggon wheel of six
inches in breadth, if standing fairly on the road with any weight
whatever, would do very little material injury to a road well made, and
perfectly smooth. The injury done to roads is by these immense weights
striking against materials, and in the present mode of shaping the
wheels they drive the materials before them, instead of passing over
them, because I think if a carriage passes fairly over a smooth surface,
that cannot hurt the road, but must rather be an advantage to it, upon
the principle of the roller.
Are you not of opinion that the immense weights carried by the
broad-wheeled waggons, even by their perpendicular pressure, do injury
by crushing the materials?—On a new-made road the crush would do
mischief, but on a consolidated old road the mere perpendicular pressure
does not do any. But there is a great deal of injury done by the conical
form of the broad wheels, which operate like sledging instead of turning
fairly. There is a sixteen-inch wheel waggon which comes out of Bristol,
that does more injury to our roads than all the travelling of the day
besides.
Are you of opinion that any benefit arises from those broad-wheeled
waggons, which would justify their total exemption from tolls?—None at
all.
Does the answer you have given to the Committee relative to the effect
of great weights, apply equally to roads made with gravel, as well as
broken stone?—I mean it to apply to all well-made roads, whether of
gravel or of other materials.
You mean after the road is smooth and solid?—Yes.
But with regard to a new road, are you not of opinion that the materials
are crushed and worn out by a great weight?—Yes; no doubt that is so on
a new-made road, and one of those waggons with the wheels made conical,
would crush a greater proportion of stone than it ought to do.
Do you not conceive that the state of the turnpike roads would be
improved by not allowing any waggons to carry more weight than four
ton?—I don’t know that that would make any great difference, under good
management. I think the defect lies in a want of science in road-making.
_Martis, 9° die Martii, 1819._
_John Loudon MᶜAdam_, Esquire, called in; and Examined.
In your evidence last week, you stated that less improvement had taken
place in the roads in the neighbourhood of London than in any other
district, to what causes do you attribute this circumstance?—I consider
the principal cause to be the small extent of the trusts, and the
peculiar situation of London, which increases the bad effects of the
division into very small trusts.
What are the particulars of the situation to which you allude?—The
situation of most of the roads near London is very low, difficult to be
kept free from water, the traffic is very great both in weight and
number, and therefore requiring more skill, as well as more care and
attention, than the other roads of the kingdom; the material found near
London for making the roads is gravel of a very bad quality, it is mixed
with an adhesive loam that cannot be separated from the gravel, except
by the united power of water and friction; this operation cannot be
effectually performed before laying it on the roads, but is done by the
rain and the traffic, producing a stiff mud, which is not only in itself
an impediment to travelling, but has the effect of keeping the roads
loose; the form of the gravel is also unfavorable, being smooth round
masses of flint, without any angles by which the parts might unite. On
the other hand, London is placed in a situation peculiarly convenient
for being supplied with materials from a distance, by water carriage.
The materials that may be so procured are of the very best description,
and, under the sanction of parliament, may be procured on very moderate
terms. The Thames furnishes gravel of a very good quality and quite
clean; by using this gravel, the navigation of the river will be
improved; the several canals, the Surrey, the Grand Junction,
Paddington, and river Lea navigation, present facilities for procuring
clean flint of the best kind; the coast of Essex, Kent, and Sussex, can
furnish a supply to any extent of beach pebbles, one of the best road
materials in the kingdom. Granite chippings might be obtained
occasionally from Cornwall, Guernsey and Scotland, as ballast; two
pieces of road were made with these materials near London, without any
mixture of land gravel, at Blackfriars Bridge and Westminster Bridge.
What are the impediments which, in your opinion, prevent the
commissioners of the roads near London from availing themselves of those
advantages?—The very small trusts into which the roads in the immediate
vicinity of London are divided, is the principal cause; this renders it
impossible for commissioners to enter upon the plan of procuring
materials upon an extended scale, and they cannot be obtained with any
regard to economy, except in quantity, with a view to a supply for the
whole roads, proceeding from the stones of London to a certain distance.
There are also some impediments arising from particular laws,
regulations and customs, which can only be removed by parliament. The
Ballast Act gives a right of pre-emption to the Trinity House of all
stone and other materials brought as ballast into the Thames. The
coasting duty on stone operates as a prohibition to the importation of
stone as merchandize; the amount of canal duties payable on merchandize
prevents the carriage of road materials on all inland navigations;
manure so transported has been protected in most Canal Acts, but road
materials have not been considered. Should parliament be pleased to
remove these difficulties, the London roads may be rendered independent
of the gravel of the country, by a moderate exertion of statistical and
mercantile information on the part of the officers employed by the
commissioners.
If the Committee understand you right, you give a decided preference to
materials thus imported, over the gravel to be found in the
neighbourhood of London?—I do.
Is it your opinion, that by proper regulations a sufficient supply of
those materials to which you have alluded, could be procured for the
whole of the roads in the neighbourhood of London?—Yes, I think there
might; because a steady and constant demand, even at a low price, would
insure importation, and this demand can only be steady if the roads
round London were consolidated under one set of commissioners acting for
the whole, and having depôts into which they could receive materials at
all times at a fixed price, to be distributed wherever wanted, by an
assurance of a ready purchaser; vessels coming in ballast, or not fully
loaded, from any place where good road materials were to be procured,
would be induced to take on board sufficient to make up their loading;
contracts could also be made for flint by the various canals, and upon
terms more moderate than the present price of gravel; I am unable to lay
before the Committee a detailed plan for supplying the London roads with
good and cheap materials, which requires a considerable time and
attention in the inquiry.
Is there any other information connected with the improvement of the
roads in the neighbourhood of London, which you think you could give to
the Committee?—I am quite satisfied that the materials to be imported
into London would make good roads, because I made two pieces of very
excellent road with those materials at the two bridges, without making
use of any gravel of the country.
At what time was this done?—The pieces of road were made in August and
September 1817.
What was the extent?—There were about 200 yards of the one, and about
180 yards of the other; one of them joins the iron pavement at the foot
of Blackfriars bridge; and the other joins the Marsh-gate turnpike, and
goes to the Asylum; those roads were made with river-gravel and pebbles
from the coast.
From whence did you get the river-gravel?—It was purchased from the
steam-engines that raise it in the river.
Did you lift the old road?—I took up all the stones that were in them
that were good for any thing, the flints and other stones, and then made
use of a considerable quantity of additional materials to make the
surface of the road afterwards.
Was the expense considerable?—There was no account kept of the expense
of the experiment at Westminster bridge, because the commissioners
wished me to employ a number of paupers and persons that had been on the
road before, without discharging them, who were very indifferent hands;
and they also wished that the road should be very considerably above the
level than I thought necessary, and that brought much more materials
than otherwise need have been put on; but the Blackfriars bridge
experiment cost about seven-pence halfpenny per square yard; there was a
very correct account kept of it, including the price of materials and
labour, and every thing.
Could you state what that would amount to for a mile?—That would depend
upon the breadth of the road.
At what rate per mile would be the expense of such an improvement,
supposing the road thirty feet wide?—About 528l. or 530_l._
Is not a road constructed with a roadway of sixteen feet breadth of
solid materials, and with six feet on each side of that with slighter
materials, a sufficient road for the general purposes of country
travelling?—Yes; and generally the roads round Bristol are made with
stone, about the breadth of sixteen feet.
In your former answer respecting materials, you made use generally of
the term roads “round London,” to what extent did you mean to convey the
idea of that improvement?—I should think that the river, and the
facility of the canals, might in all places allow you to carry the
improvement ten miles round London; and perhaps where the canals or
rail-ways come through the country, you might carry the improvement
farther.
Has not the system of road management at present practised, the effect
of repressing efforts for acquiring skill and exertions of science, as
connected with the business of road-making?—I think it has.
Will you explain in what way?—Because the surveyors at present appointed
are not required to have any particular skill in their business before
they are appointed; but the appointment generally takes place to provide
for some person a situation; and the want of superior officers over the
sub-surveyors is the means of preventing those sub-surveyors from
acquiring a knowledge necessary to execute their duties under an officer
who would know whether they were able to execute them or not.
You mean that there is a not a sufficient degree of inspection and
control provided by the legislature over the conduct of the surveyor of
the roads?—I think so.
Do you conceive that a more scientific system of management of roads is
wanted universally?—I do.
Do not you conceive that the want of this scientific system leads to a
great waste of public money?—I think it leads to a great waste of public
money.
And also to a great waste of property in horses and carriages?—I think
it does.
Has any estimate ever been made of the extent of that loss?—There can be
no accurate estimate of a loss so universal as that of the waste of
horses and carriages by bad roads; but the Committee of 1811 estimated
the saving which would be made to the country by putting the roads in a
proper state of repair, at a sum equal to five millions annually.
What remedy would you propose to cure the defects of the general system
of road management?—My opinion is, that the only cure would be to have
people of a better station of life placed over them in the direction of
this business; that each county or large district in the country ought
to have an officer in the character of a gentleman, to oversee the
surveyors of the district; not only to direct them what to do, but to
see that the work is judiciously and honestly executed; and I think a
very small proportion of the sum now wasted by bad management would pay
for such an establishment.
Would you alter the trusts?—That would be a great advantage, if the
trusts could be consolidated; but there are objections to that, and very
serious objections.
Local objections?—Yes, such as the debt upon each trust.
Do you propose the appointment of those overseers to be with the present
commissioners of the roads?—Certainly.
Do you propose any general inspection to be established over the whole
system of road-making?—I should think it a public advantage if there was
some inspection or controlling power in some quarter or other, to
prevent the general surveyors from being improperly appointed; but
whether that controlling power should emanate from the government, or
the authorities in the county, I am not a judge.
Do you think a controlling power established in the metropolis, to
communicate on the subject throughout the kingdom, would be an
advantageous establishment?—I think it would be a very profitable and
desirable establishment.
Looking to the revenues and to practical advantages?—Looking to the
revenues, practical advantages, and to the dissemination of information.
Would you propose their having a power of suspending officers in certain
cases?—Certainly, till the pleasure of the commissioners was known; on
any gross instance of misconduct or negligence.
Would not you propose they should report occasionally the state and
condition of the roads, and also the state of the finances of each
trust?—I should think the state of the finances ought to be reported in
some way every year, that they might reach parliament, either by
counties, or by some means the least expensive and least troublesome;
and I think such a report of the finances, annually, would be a great
means of preventing mis-application of the public funds; and it would
create a comparison between one part of the country and another, that
would be useful in checking misconduct.
Then you do not think there is, at present, a sufficient protection of
the road revenue of the kingdom against dishonest or ignorant
practices?—I think the road revenue is less protected than any other
part of the public expenditure; and, though it is very large, it may be
considered, I think, almost unprotected, under the present system of
law.
Have you any loose guess in your own mind, as to the extent of the
revenue throughout the kingdom, raised for the purpose of maintaining
roads?—I have been led to guess a million and a quarter a year, as the
toll revenue; from the circumstance of there being five-and-twenty
thousand miles of turnpike road in England and Wales.
That is an increasing revenue?—It is certainly increasing very much; I
think the revenue has been increased by the increase of travelling, and
particularly stage-coaches.
Has not it been the practice to augment the tolls considerably in all
recent turnpike acts?—In the three sessions of parliament preceding the
present, I think, there were about ninety petitions to parliament for a
renewal of acts, and an increase of their tolls, because they were in a
state that they could not pay their debts without the assistance of
parliament.
Does not the great expense attending the renewal of acts of parliament,
contribute very much to restrain a proper improvement of the roads in
the kingdom?—The expense of renewing so many acts of parliament, as is
occasioned by the great division of trusts in the country, certainly
absorbs a very great sum of the road revenue of the kingdom; because
those acts are every one of them renewed every twenty-one years, and
frequently circumstances oblige the trustees to come oftener to
parliament.
Do you happen to know whether there have been any steps taken by the
Post-office, with a view to forming some general arrangement with regard
to the roads?—I am not acquainted with any. I have had repeated
conversations with lord Chichester, the postmaster-general, and he has
asked for all the information I could give his lordship; and, of course,
I have given the information pretty much in the manner I have had the
honour to do to this Committee; and, I believe, his lordship is
satisfied, that the consolidation of trusts would be very useful: and he
has used his influence in the county of Sussex to have nine trusts
consolidated, for the express purpose of mutual assistance in providing
a general surveyor.
Do you know the result?—I gave the result, and a copy of the resolutions
of the county, at the last meeting.
Do you know the result as to the expenditure?—Yes, it goes to that as
well as to the amendment of the roads.
Supposing any insuperable difficulty to exist in placing the management
of the roads of the kingdom under a board of management, do you not
consider that very great advantage would arise from consolidating the
different trusts round London, and placing them under an unity of
superintendence and regulation?—Certainly so; I think that that would be
a measure of the greatest use in the world; and I think that no
palliative, no other means whatever can be devised to get the London
roads improved, except consolidating the trusts under one head, or one
set of commissioners, or some body that shall control the whole;
consolidating the roads round London, would be the means probably of
great amelioration in the system or manner of mending the roads, and
that would serve as an example to other parts of the country, and might
be the means of extending improvement in the mode of road-making, and
would form a sort of school or example to other parts of the country.
Do you think, upon the same principle that you recommend consolidating
trusts round London, it would be advisable that powers should be given
to consolidate trusts in different parts of the kingdom?—I should think
it very advisable that powers were granted by parliament to such trusts
as chose to do it, to consolidate themselves into one body for the
purpose of having a better superintendence, or for any other purposes of
general improvement; but upon considering the matter very fully, I am of
opinion that it would be more profitable that the Legislature should
give leave to trusts than that they should make it imperative upon them;
it will be absolutely necessary, before any such measure could come into
effect, that parliament should not only give this leave, but that they
should make the proceedings of the general meeting of those trusts
legal, which at present they would not be as the law stands; the nine
trusts in Sussex, who have now voluntarily associated together, hold
what is considered a general meeting of those trusts; but I by no means
think that their proceedings are legal, as the law now stands.
In many cases where the consolidation would be beneficial, do not you
consider it would be resisted from local motives?—Perhaps it might be
resisted; it will be unfortunate when that happens to be the case, but
when the good effects of it begin to be seen in the country, I think
those objections would be got rid of.
Do you believe that the first effects of such consolidation would be a
diminution of expense?—I am quite certain of that.
How is that diminution of expense to arise?—By introducing a much better
mode of management, it would occasion more regularity in the mode of
keeping accounts, it would introduce a diminution of expense materially
in horse labour, and in various other things; that I think, upon the
whole, the diminution of expense by such regulation would be found very
great indeed.
Do not you believe that the present system of maintaining roads is the
means of a continued increase of expense in the debt and tolls
throughout the kingdom?—I think the debt is increasing very much
throughout the kingdom and that the debt is perhaps greater than
gentlemen in parliament are aware of; at present tolls are increasing.
Do you consider that there is a corresponding improvement in the roads,
in proportion to the increase of the tolls and debts?—By no means; my
belief is, that where the greatest expense is, there the worst
management is, or rather, that the worst management produces the
greatest expense.
Then, in your opinion, a great improvement might be effected on the
roads in general, which might be accompanied in the end by a gradual
diminution of debt and tolls?—Certainly, I think so.
Can you give any information as to the total amount of general debt on
the roads now existing in England and Wales? After inquiring by all the
means that an unauthorized individual could do in different parts of the
country, and ascertaining, as nearly as I could, the amount of debt upon
a great number of trusts; I have been inclined to believe that the debt
at present amounts to about seven millions in England and Wales.
Are you of opinion that any considerable advantage might be derived in
the management of the roads, by a commutation for the statute
labour?—Yes; I think very great advantage would be derived by the
public, if the statute labour were commuted for money, and that, if it
were commuted at a very low rate; if it were one half of the real value
of the work, I should think, the roads would be more benefited by it in
general through the country.
Is it the general practice in Scotland, under any act of parliament, to
commute statute labour for money?—All the acts of parliament I am
acquainted with in Scotland, have commuted it; one in the county I
belong to, commuted it twenty years ago with very great advantage.
You have mentioned that the commissioners of the Westminster bridge road
required you to employ a considerable number of paupers; the Committee
wish to know whether it is the general practice, in your observation, to
employ paupers upon roads?—I have always found that in every place where
the improvement of the roads has been commenced, under any advice given
by me, it has been desired very much by the inhabitants that the people
unemployed (not, perhaps, paupers that generally receive parish relief,
but those people who come to ask for relief, because they cannot get
work) should be employed on the road; and it has been very much my wish
to gratify that desire by giving them work, not by the day, but by the
piece, because that has generally put them off the parishes; the moment
they get work to do, by which they can get their bread, and without
which they cannot get their bread, they quit the parish.
Is it not the practice, in trusts where you have not been concerned, to
employ paupers, or very old labourers?—I have found in all the trusts
that have sent to me to take advice, that the labourers have been a
great number of them very inefficient men; and the excuse generally
given for that is, that those people would come to the parish if they
were not sent to the roads.
Is the pay of those men proportionably low with their abilities to
work?—I have not found that to be the case. I have found that those
poor, miserable men, who can do very little, have been getting
considerable wages, and in that way a considerable sum has been wasted.
In point of practice, then, the road revenue is made to act as a poor
fund?—Precisely so; I think the road revenue has gone to the assistance
of the poor in that way.
In your experience have you found that the common mode of employing
paupers by day-work, is inefficient both to the improvement of the roads
and to the object of relieving the parishes?—It may have the effect of
relieving the parishes, but I should think it a very bad mode of mending
the roads; inasmuch as these men, when they have got day-wages, will do
very little, and for that reason I employ all our men on piece-work; we
have two hundred and eighty labourers in the district of Bristol, and
they are almost all on piece-work; it is very seldom we employ men by
the day. I was directed by the Committee, at their last meeting, to
produce some more detailed accounts respecting the Bristol district: in
obedience to that order, I have obtained the report made by me at the
end of the first and second year of my administration, which I beg to
submit to the Committee, together with the resolution of the
commissioners thereon.
[_The following Papers were delivered in, and read:_]
EXPENDITURE on the BRISTOL ROADS.
In the year 1815, previous to the
alteration of management, there was paid £. 14,285 2 1