Skip to main content

Full text of "History of the Manchester Ship Canal, from its inception to its completion, with personal reminiscences"

See other formats 


HISTORY  OF 

THE  MANCHESTER 

SHIP    CANAL 


SIR  BOSDIN   LEECH 


to 


of  tbe 

of  Toronto 


lo.  C  . 


: 


-CT 


HISTORY  OF 
THE   MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 


Floreat  Semper  Mancunium  " 


DANIEL  ADAMSON,  FIRST  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP 
CANAL  COMPANY. 

Elliott  &  Fry.  Frontispiece. 


HISTORY 


OF   THE 


MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 


FROM  ITS  INCEPTION  TO  ITS  COMPLETION 


WITH  PERSONAL  REMINISCENCES 


BY 


SIR    BOSDIN    LEECH 


NUMEROUS   PLANS,    PORTRAITS  AND   ILLUSTRATIONS 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOL  I. 

1*1 


•  a  s 


MANCHESTER  AND  LONDON: 

SHERRATT      &      HUGHES 
1907 


THE  ABERDEEN    UNIVERSITY    PRESS    LIMITED 


THESE  VOLUMES  ARE   DEDICATED 

TO    THE 

LORD  MAYOR  AND  CORPORATION  OF  THE 
CITY  OF  MANCHESTER 

IN   COMMEMORATION   OF   THE   PUBLIC  SPIRIT  DISPLAYED   BY  THAT  CITY  IN   COMING  TO 

THE   ASSISTANCE  OF  THE   MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL  AT  A  CRITICAL 

STATE   OF   ITS  AFFAIRS,   AND   IN   THE   HOPE   THAT   THEIR    EXAMPLE   MAY  STIMULATE 

FUTURE  GENERATIONS  TO  SIMILAR  LOCAL   PATRIOTISM 


PREFACE. 

THE  early  struggles  and  ultimate  triumph  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  consti- 
tute a  subject  of  absorbing  interest.  In  the  history  of  Manchester,  and  indeed 
of  South  Lancashire  as  a  whole,  no  other  event  or  enterprise  can  compare  with 
it  in  its  far-reaching  effects.  The  story,  too,  in  many  respects  contains  all  the  elements 
of  a  romance.  It  is  the  relation  of  a  desperate  and  almost  hopeless  fight  against  opposi- 
tion of  the  most  powerful  and  uncompromising  character,  and  it  is  meet  that  the 
names  and  qualities  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  strife,  and  the  nature  of  the  difficulties 
which  they  encountered  and  overcame,  should  find  a  permanent  record.  To  rescue 
both  individuals  and  incidents  from  oblivion,  and  to  give  a  connected  narrative  of 
the  course  of  events  from  the  conception  to  the  completion  of  the  canal,  is  the  object 
of  the  present  work.  The  task  has  not  been  an  easy  one,  nor  has  it  been  lightly 
undertaken.  If,  however,  a  personal  association  with  the  enterprise  from  the  outset, 
a  close  and  intimate  knowledge  of  all  its  engineering  and  constructive  phases,  and 
the  possession  of  a  unique  collection  of  materials,  correspondence,  reports  and 
records  of  every  kind,  may  be  regarded  as  qualifications  necessary,  if  not  even 
indispensable,  I  can  at  least  lay  claim  to  these. 

My  first  chapters  are  devoted  to  the  early  history  of  water  communication,  both 
at  home  and  abroad,  and  to  the  rise  and  development  of  the  port  of  Liverpool.  The 
conditions  which  called  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  into  existence  are  next  dealt 
with,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  actuating  motive  was  in  no  sense  one  of  hostility  to 
Liverpool  or  to  other  existing  interests,  but  was  the  mere  instinct  of  self-preservation. 
The  trade  of  Manchester,  and  in  fact  of  the  whole  district  of  which  Manchester  is 
the  centre,  was  being  strangled  by  the  heavy  charges  of  various  kinds  imposed  by 
Liverpool,  aggravated  as  they  were  by  the  high  rates  of  railway  carriage  between 
the  two  cities.  As  a  remedy  for  a  state  of  affairs  beyond  endurance,  the  Ship  Canal 
has  been  a  signal  success.  The  average  freight  charges  to  Manchester  on  imported 
goods  are  now  about  one-third  what  they  were  twenty-five  years  ago.  The  pity  is 
that  some  portion  of  the  great  saving  thus  effected  has  not  gone  into  the  pockets  of 


viii  PREFACE 

the  non-trading  canal  shareholders,  by  whose  exertions  and  sacrifices  these  striking 
economies  have  been  brought  about. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  conception  of  a  navigable  waterway  between 
Manchester  and  Liverpool  dates  back  for  at  least  two  centuries,  and  I  have  given  a 
brief  account,  accompanied  by  maps  and  plans,  of  the  various  schemes  propounded 
since  1712.  With  reference  to  the  Ship  Canal  itself,  plans  are  inserted,  showing 
the  changes  and  modifications,  both  in  the  course  of  the  waterway  and  in  the 
position  of  the  docks,  which  were  made  from  time  to  time  in  the  original  design. 

Two  chapters  in  each  of  the  years  1883-4-5  are  devoted  entirely  to  the  Parlia- 
mentary fight.  These  necessarily  give  a  repetition  of  evidence,  and  may  be  passed 
over  by  the  casual  reader  ;  they,  however,  contain  extracts  of  speeches  by  eminent 
counsel,  and  are  full  of  interest  to  any  one  wishful  to  become  master  of  the  questions 
in  dispute. 

My  intention,  at  the  outset,  was  to  bring  the  story  of  the  Ship  Canal  to  the 
present  time.  My  labours  thus  far,  however,  have  been  sufficiently  heavy,  and  I 
content  myself  by  expressing  the  hope  that  some  abler  hand  will  chronicle  the 
subsequent  developments  and  successes  of  the  undertaking.  Manchester  people 
recognise  with  regret  and  even  humiliation  that  those  who  have  benefited  most  by 
the  canal  have  helped  it  least.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  manufacturing  and 
trading  interests  of  the  district  to  place  the  enterprise  within  a  very  short  space  of 
time  upon  a  paying  level.  A  determined  effort  ought  to  be  made  to  break  down  the 
pernicious  rebate  system  of  the  shipping  rings,  and  new  lines  should  be  established  in 
Manchester  itself  if  shipowners  persist  in  boycotting  the  canal.  If  the  above-named 
interests  will  rise  to  the  occasion  and  be  animated  by  the  lofty  patriotism  displayed 
by  the  humble  shareholders,  they  have  it  in  their  own  power  to  make  the  canal 
a  commercial  success  of  which  Manchester  would  indeed  be  proud. 

Original  shareholders,  who  have  not  been  fortunate  enough  to  recoup  themselves 
by  indirect  advantages,  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  the  noble  self-sacrifices 
they  have  made  have  not  been  thrown  away,  but  will  some  day  be  acknowledged 
with  gratitude  by  those  who  come  after  them. 

It  must  be  understood  that  this  work  has  no  pretentions  to  literary  merit,  but 
has  been  written  with  the  sole  object  that  future  generations  may  be  aware  of  the 
great  struggle  their  forefathers  had  in  order  to  convert  Manchester  into  a  port,  and 
thus  add  to  her  commercial  prosperity. 

BOSDIN  T.   LEECH. 

MANCHESTER,  2$th  December,  1906. 


MEMORANDUM. 

I    DESIRE  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness   to  the  many   friends   who  have 
rendered  me  valuable  assistance  whilst   compiling   this   history,  especially  to 

Sir  Leader  Williams  and  the  Ship  Canal  officials,  also  to  Mr.  Marshall 
Stevens  for  his  statistical  information. 

My  gratitude  is  also  due  to  the  gentlemen  who  have  assisted  me  in  revising 
facts  and  figures,  especially  to  Councillor  Plummer,  who  has  been  most  kind  in 
rendering  valuable  counsel  and  advice.  Also  to  Earl  Egerton  and  to  Messrs. 
Thos.  Agnew  &  Sons  for  their  ready  consent  to  the  reproduction  of  Mr.  B.  W. 
Leader's  "  Mount  Manisty,"  and  to  Mr.  Bythell  and  my  co-directors  for  the  help 
they  have  given  me. 

I  wish  particularly  to  thank  Mr.  Thos.  Dirties,  of  Warrington,  and  Messrs.  H. 
Birch-Killon  and  James  Barningham,  of  Manchester,  for  the  use  of  their  excellent 
photographs  of  the  Ship  Canal  works,  taken  during  construction,  and  also  the 
following  firms  who  have  permitted  me  to  use  their  photographs  and  engravings, 
viz. :  Messrs.  Elliott  &  Fry,  Baker  Street,  London  ;  Messrs.  Thomson,  New  Bond 
Street,  London  ;  Messrs.  Valentine  &  Sons,  Dundee  ;  Messrs.  Lewis's,  Ranelagh 
Street,  Liverpool  ;  Messrs.  Bradbury,  Agnew  &  Co.,  Punch ;  Messrs.  George 
Newnes,  Limited,  Tit-Bits ;  Messrs.  Lafayette,  Limited,  Manchester ;  Messrs. 
Wilkinson  Brothers,  Manchester ;  Messrs.  Brown,,  Barnes,  &  Bell,  Manchester ; 
Mr.  Franz  Baum,  Manchester  ;  Mr.  Warwick  Brooks,  Manchester ;  Mr.  J.  Ambler, 
Manchester  ;  Mr.  W.  P.  Gray,  Cable  Street,  Liverpool  ;  Mr.  A.  Coupe,  Withing- 
ton  ;  Mr.  }.  White,  Dumfries,  and  Messrs.  Macmillan  &  Co.,  Ltd.,  London. 

My  thanks  are  also  due  to  Messrs.  Chorlton  &  Knowles  and  Messrs.  Wilson  & 
Hudson,  of  Manchester,  for  their  care  and  attention  in  reproducing  the  various  plans 
and  photographs. 

B.  T.   L. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  PACE 

I.  Navigable  Rivers  of  England — The  Mersey  and  Irwell — The  Mersey  Bar  -  i 

II.  English  Canals — History  of  the  Bridgewater  Canal     -  -       n 

III.  Canalised  Rivers  and  Ship  Canals :  English  and  Foreign — The  Manchester  Ship  Canal       26 

IV.  History  of  the  Liverpool  Docks — Origin  of  the  Dock  and  Town  Dues — Their  Oppres- 

sive Character — The  Liverpool  Toll  Bar     -  38 

V.  Early  Attempts  to  Make  a  Ship  Canal  to  Manchester  -       54 

VI.  1882.  Daniel  Adamson  Heads  the  Ship  Canal  Movement — Meeting  at  his  House — 
Provisional  Committee  Appointed — Resolution  of  the  City  Council—  Scheme 
Adopted — Subscriptions — Opinions  of  the  Press — Thorough  Organisation  -  76 

VII.  1883.  Chronicle  of  Events — Hostile  Criticism — Mishap  on  Standing  Orders — Lord 
Redesdale — Sketch  of  the  Lords  Committee  at  Work — Bill  Thrown  Out — 
Manchester  in  Earnest — Local  Meetings  -  -  113 

VIII.  1883.  Ship  Canal  Bill  in  the  Commons — Speech  of  Mr.  Pember  and  other  Counsel 
— Summary  of  Evidence  by  the  Ship  Canal  Company — By  the  Opponents — 
Decision  of  the  Committee — Clauses-  -  141 

IX.  1883.  Ship  Canal  Bill  in  the  Lords — Effort  to  Wreck  it  on  Standing  Orders — Lord 
Winmarleigh  Rescues  the  Bill — Speeches  of  Counsel — Evidence  by  Promoters 
and  Opponents — Unfavourable  Decision  -  -  167 

X.  1884.  Manchester  Thoroughly  Roused — Events  of  the  Year — Action  of  the  City 
Council — Of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce — Public  Meetings— Odd  Incidents  Con- 
nected with  the  Parliamentary  Fight — Demonstration  at  Pomona  Gardens — Opinions 
of  the  Press — Liverpool  Uneasy — Bill  Rejected — Corporation  Aid— Determination 
to  Apply  Next  Year  -  189 

XI.  1884.  History  of  the  Parliamentary  Bill  in  the  Lords — Counsel's  Speeches — Evidence 
Pro  and  Con — Captain  Eads  of  New  Orleans — The  Duke  of  Richmond  no 
Friend — Incidents  in  the  House — Bill  to  Proceed  -  -  -  211 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XII.  1884.  Parliamentary  Proceedings  in  the  House  of  Commons — Evidence  of  Witnesses 
— A  Race  for  Time — Case  Curtailed — Liverpool  and  the  Dock  Board  give 
Pledges  not  to  Oppose  a  Changed  Route — Unfavourable  Decision  -  -  238 

XIII.  1885.     The  Ship  Canal  Bill   Recast  on  Mr.  Lyster's  Lines — Liverpool   Views — With- 

drawal  from    Pledge  not  to  Oppose  Bill — Bill  Passed  in  the  Commons — Public 
Rejoicings — Preparatory  Steps  to  Raise  the  Capital    -  -     250 

XIV.  1885.     Ship  Canal  Bill  in  the  House  of  Lords — Evidence  before  Committee — Speeches 

of  Counsel — Bill  Passed  with  Onerous  Conditions      -  -     272 

XV.  1885.  Bill  before  Mr.  Forster's  Committee  in  the  Commons  —  Evidence  —  Mr. 
Pember's  Powerful  Appeal — Other  Speeches  by  Counsel — Final  Decision — 
Clauses  -  297 

XVI.  1886.  Attempts  to  Raise  the  Capital — Bill  to  Pay  Interest  out  of  Capital — Assistance 
Offered  by  Neighbouring  Towns — Rothschild's  Attempt  to  Raise  the  Capital — 
Failure — Great  Disappointment — Consultative  Committee  Appointed  -  317 


LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS. 

CARTOONS,  AUTOGRAPH   LETTERS,  ETC. 

PAGE 

Facsimile  of  Original  Letter  from  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater,  22nd  October,   1758         -         -  15 

Copy  of  Deposit  Note — Manchester  Ship  Canal,  1825  .  59 

Music  to  Mr.  Braham's  Ship  Canal  Song,  1825  -  ...  60 

Manchester-sur-Mer.     A  Sea-ductive  Prospect       -  -  109 
From  Punch. 

Letter  from  John  Rylands,  with  Autograph  .        -  222 

Autograph  Letter  and  Verses,  "When  the  Ships  Come  Sailing  In  !  "  -  -      ^^i,  332 
From  Edwin  Waugh  to  Sir  Leader  Williams,  sth  October,  1886. 

TO   FACE  PAGE 

Humorous  Sketch.     The  Port  of  Manchester  in  1950  .         .  XI6 
From  Tit-Bits. 

Ports  of  Liverpool  and  Manchester  in  1960.     Re-action  "Bock  Again"  -  n6 
Rejoinder  by  W.  T.  Gray,  Liverpool. 

How  Manchester  Tried  to  Become  a  Seaport      -  -  116 
By  W.  T.  Gray. 

The  Great  Race  for  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Stake  -  260 

Specimen  of  the  One  Shilling  Coupon  -  264 

Manchester  Halfpenny,  1793.     "Success  to  Navigation"     -  -  264 


PLANS. 

TO    FACE    PAGE 

Map  of  the  Rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell  from  Bank  Key  to  Manchester  -       54 

By  Thos.  Steers,  1712. 

Plan  of  the  Docks,  etc.,  at  Dawpool  for  the  intended  Manchester  and  Liverpool  Ship  Canal, 

1825  -       56 

xiii 


xiv  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

TO   FACE   PAGE 

Plan   of  the   Rivers   Mersey  and   Irwell    between    Western    Point   and  Manchester,    showing 

Proposed  Improvements  for  Sea-Going  Vessels       -  -       70 
By  H.  R.  Palmer,  F.R.S. 

Comparative  Plans  of  the  Ship  Canal  Docks  in  1885  and  1888  -  -     210 

Bridgewater  Docks  at  Runcorn,   1893  -     290 


PLANS    IN    POCKET. 

REFER    TO    PAGE 

Plan  of  the  Proposed  Manchester  Tidal  Navigation     -  -       80 

By  Hamilton  H.  Fulton,  M.I.C.E.,  1882. 

Boddington's  Plan  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  with   Entrance  at  Runcorn  and  Railway 

passing  under  Canal.     Scheme  as  applied  for  in  the  Bill  of  1883-  112 

Plan  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  as  applied  for  in  the  Session  of  1884  -  189 

Chart  of  the  River  Mersey  from  Runcorn  to  Liverpool,  showing  Variations  of  Sailing  Channel 

between  the  years  1829  and  1884  241 

Plan  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  as  applied  for  in  the  Bill  of  1885  -     250 


PORTRAITS. 
Daniel  Adamson,  First  Chairman  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company  -  Frontispiece 

TO   FACE  PAGE 

The   Most   Noble    Francis   Egerton,  Duke   of  Bridgewater,  Constructor   of  the   Bridgewater 

Canal  -  18 

George  Hicks,  Auditor  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  1886  seq.                                              -  72 

William  J.  Saxon,  Solicitor  to  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  1883-1892  -                                    -  74 

Sir  Bosdin  Leech,  Auditor,  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company,  1886-1892  ;    Director  and  Chair- 
man of  Land  Committee,  1892  seq.       -                                                                       -  86 

Jacob  Bright,  M.P.  for  Manchester     -                                                                                          -  106 

E.  H.  Pember,  K.C.,  Leading  Counsel,  Manchester  Ship  Canal  142 

Sir  E.  Leader  Williams,  Engineer  during  Construction  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal ;   since 

Consulting  Engineer      -                                                                                                    -  146 

Sir  William  H.  Bailey,  Director,  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company                                           -  262 

William  J.  Crossley,  M.P.,  Director,  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company                                     -  300 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS  xv 

TO   FACE   FAOE 

Sir  Joseph   Leigh,    Director    of    the   Ship    Canal   Company,    Chairman   of  the   Bridgewater 

Committee,   1904  se/j.    -  -     318 

Charles  Moseley,  Director  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company     -  -     328 


PHOTOGRAPHS. 

TO    FACE  PAOE 

Calamanco  Lock.     On  the  Old  Irwell  Navigation  8 

View  of  Barton  Aqueduct   -  20 

Eastham  Cutting,  with  Mount  Manisty  in  the  Distance.     Specially  Painted  for  Earl  Egerton, 

by  B.  W.  Leader,  R.A.  -  34 

Deviation  of  the  Cheshire  Lines  Railway  at  Irlam       -  182 

Frodsham  Marsh  -  274 

Latchford  Cantilever  Bridge  -  276 

Excavations  at  the  Entrance  to  Eastham  Lock,  Low  Water  278 

Rock  Cutting,  Looking  Towards  Ellesmere  Port  -  280 

Sharp  Curve  near  Runcorn  Bridge       -  -  304 

Weaver  Sluices    -  -  314 

Barton  Aqueduct  During  Construction  -  316 

Mr.  Plait's  Yacht  Norseman        -  -  322 

Masonry  for  Acton  Grange  Viaduct     -  -  326 

Facsimile  of  the  ^1,710,000  Cheque  Paid  for  the  Bridgewater  Canal  -  330 


CHAPTER  I. 

NAVIGABLE  RIVERS  OF  ENGLAND— THE  MERSEY  AND 
IRWELL— THE  MERSEY  BAR. 

There  be  three  things  which  make  a  nation  great  and  prosperous,  a  fertile  soil,  busy 
workshops,  and  easy  conveyance  for  men  and  commodities  from  one  place  to  another. — 
FRANCIS  BACON,  LORD  ST.  ALBANS. 

OUR  townsman,  Dr.  Joule,  in  a  communication  to  the  Manchester  Literary 
and  Philosophical  Society,  on  the  question  of  navigation,  suggested  the 
idea  that  the  monarchs  of  the  deep  were  the  first  models  for  shipbuilders. 
Propulsion  by  the  side  fins  was  copied  in  the  paddle-wheel,  and  by  the  tail  fin  in 
the  screw-propeller.     The  closer  we  follow  Nature  in   its  proportions,  the  more 
certain  are  we  to  obtain  speed  and  safety.     He  instanced  the  porpoise,  with  its  bluff 
figurehead,  attaining  a  velocity  of  over  thirteen  miles  an  hour,  whilst  voracious  fishes 
are  so  constructed  that  they  can  obtain  a  much  greater  velocity.      He  advocated  a 
study  of  natural  proportions  to  those  who  wish  to  be  successful  shipbuilders. 

Ever  since  the  days  of  Noah  (the  first  known  boat-builder)  waterways  have 
been  valuable  agencies,  not  only  of  civilising  the  world,  but  of  providing  for  the 
wants  of  its  people.  Prior  to  the  seventeenth  century,  pack-horses  and  navigable 
rivers  were  the  chief  means  of  carrying  on  the  trade  of  the  country.  Till  then  little 
had  been  done  by  artificial  means  to  widen  and  deepen  rivers  and  make  them 
navigable.  Weirs  had  been  placed  here  and  there,  but  mainly  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  water-power  for  grinding  corn. 

The  Thames  and  the  Severn,  fed  as  they  are  by  huge  watersheds,  have  from 
the  earliest  times  been  easy  of  navigation,  and  have  required  but  a  small  expendi- 
ture to  keep  them  fit  for  traffic.  The  Dee  and  the  Lune  on  the  West  Coast, 
once  maritime  thoroughfares,  are  samples  of  neglected  rivers  that  have  become 
to  a  large  extent  silted  up.  The  first  Act  for  the  improvement  of  the  Ribble  was 
that  of  1806,  in  which  it  is  recited:  "Whereas  the  Port  of  the  town  of  Preston 
is  of  great  antiquity,  and  whereas  the  Ribble,  from  the  uncertainty  and  changeable 

VOL.   I.  I 


2  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

course  of  the  Channel  and   the   beds  of  gravel,  sand,  and  other  obstructions,  is 
become  very  difficult  and  dangerous  for  ships,"  etc. 

Amongst  the  projectors  were  Sir  H.  P.  Hoghton,  Sir  T.  D.  Hesketh,  Lawrence 
Rawsthorne,  Esq.,  and  others.  The  Ribble  navigation,  however,  became  worse 
until  a  few  years  ago,  when  the  Preston  Corporation  in  a  plucky  way  took  it  in 
hand.  After  making  commodious  docks,  they  found  dealing  with  the  Ribble  estu- 
ary a  serious  trouble,  but  the  cost,  together  with  the  fact  that  Preston  possesses  no 
markets  of  its  own,  and  only  supplies  a  limited  area,  makes  it  doubtful  if  the  water- 
way will  be  anything  more  than  a  moderate  success. 

The  Clyde,  the  Tyne  and  the  Tees  are  examples  of  naturally  bad  navigations 
being  changed  by  artificial  means  into  good  and  useful  rivers,  a  credit  to  the  cor- 
porations who  took  them  in  hand,  and  a  source  of  prosperity  to  the  districts  in  which 
they  are  situated. 

We  next  come  to  consider  the  history  of  the  Mersey,  with  its  tributary  the 
Irwell.  The  earliest  mention  of  the  river  Mersey  is  in  a  deed  in  the  reign  of 
Ethelred  (A.D.  1094).  The  origin  of  the  name  is  not  easy  to  determine,  but  it 
seems  only  reasonable  to  conjecture  that  it  has  some  connection  with  the  name  of 
the  kingdom  of  Mercia,  of  which  it  formed  the  northern  boundary.  In  old  Acts 
of  Parliament  the  name  is  generally  spelt  "  Mercy,"  and  it  is  sometimes  referred  to 
as  "  The  Water  of  Mercy". 

About  two  hundred  years  ago  there  was  an  awakening  in  Lancashire.  Man- 
chester had  become  celebrated  for  her  productions,  and  she  needed  larger  supplies 
of  food  as  well  as  raw  material  for  her  manufactures.  Liverpool,  at  the  time,  was 
fast  becoming  an  important  mercantile  port,  and  the  avenue  by  which  foreign 
productions  were  introduced  into  England. 

It  is  a  question  who  first  conceived  the  idea  of  improving  the  communication 
between  these  rising  towns,  or  who  introduced  canals.  Baines  in  his  History  of 
Lancashire  writes :  "In  this  county  the  canal  system  of  modern  times  originated 
with  the  Sankey  Canal ". 

That  the  need  for  improved  waterways  was  being  felt  is  evident  from  a  curious 
letter  sent  by  Mr.  Thomas  Patten,  of  Bank  Hall,  Warrington,  to  Mr.  Richard 
Norres,  of  Speke,  dated  "Ye  8th  day  of  January,  1697.  What  a  vast  advantage 
it  would  be  to  Liverpool  if  the  river  were  made  navigable  to  Manchester  and  Stock- 
port.  Since  I  made  it  navigable  to  Warrington,  there  have  been  sent  to  Liverpool 
2,000  tons  of  goods  a  year,  and  I  believe  as  much  by  land,  which,  if  the  river  were 


NAVIGABLE  RIVERS  OF  ENGLAND  3 

cleared  of  the  weirs  (fish  weirs),  would  all  go  by  water,  for  the  river  to  Manchester 
is  very  capable  of  being  made  navigable  at  a  very  small  charge."  From  this  we 
may  infer  that  this  ancestor  of  the  late  Lord  Winmarleigh  had  shown  his  local 
patriotism  by  improving  the  river  to  Warrington. 

In  1714  a  number  of  gentlemen,  called  in  those  days  "the  undertakers,"  formed 
a  company  and  applied  for  an  Act  "  For  making  the  rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell 
navigable  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester".  They  defined  their  object  to  be 
"  Keeping  the  rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell  in  the  counties  Palatine  of  Lancaster  and 
Chester  navigable  and  passable  for  boats,  barges,  lighters  and  other  vessels  from 
Liverpool  to  Hunt's  Bank,  in  Manchester,  which  will  be  very  beneficial  to  trade, 
advantageous  to  the  poor,  and  convenient  for  the  carriage  of  coals,  cannel,  stone, 
timber  and  other  goods,  wares  and  merchandise,  to  and  from  the  towns  and  parts 
adjacent,  and  will  very  much  tend  to  the  employing  and  increase  of  watermen  and 
seamen,  and  be  a  means  to  preserve  the  Highways".  Among  the  undertakers  are 
found  many  names  perpetuated  in  the  nomenclature  of  Manchester  streets — Oswald 
Mosley  of  "Ancotes,"  Joseph  Byrom,  James  Marsden,  James  Bradshaw,  Thomas 
Garside,  and  an  ancestor  of  my  own,  John  Leech.  Another  of  the  family,  Edward 
Leech,  was  one  of  the  commissioners  nominated  in  the  Act  to  arbitrate  disputes. 

A  special  clause  was  inserted  to  prevent  injury  being  done  "to  the  working, 
going  or  grinding  of  any  of  the  corn  mills  which  now  kre,  or  may  be  erected  or  built, 
at  which  the  inhabitants  of  Manchester  are  bound  by  any  custom  within  the  said 
town  to  grind  any  of  their  corn,  malt  or  other  grain  ".  The  maximum  toll  to  be 
authorised  was  "  33.  4d.  for  the  carriage  between  Bank  Quay,  Warrington,  and 
Manchester,  of  every  ton  of  coal,  cannel,  stone,  slate,  timber  or  other  goods,  wares, 
merchandises  and  commodities  ". 

The  power  for  haulage  was  to  be  supplied  "by  winches  and  other  engines,  in 
convenient  places,  and  by  and  with  the  strength  of  men,  horses  and  beasts".  The 
jurisdiction  of  the  company  extended  from  Liverpool  to  Hunt's  Bank,  Manchester; 
the  distance  between  the  termini  was  fifty-seven  miles,  and  this  was  reduced  to 
fifty  miles  by  cuts.  Inasmuch  as  the  river  had  always  been  navigable  up  to  Bank 
Quay,  Warrington,  no  charge  was  to  be  made  for  the  use  of  the  river  up  to  that 
point.  Owners  of  land  within  five  miles  of  the  navigation  could  carry  manures, 
marl,  etc.,  free  from  toll. 

Manchester  stands  at  an  elevation  of  93  feet  3  inches  above  the  sea-levd. 
The  vertical  range  of  the  tides  at  the  Port  of  Liverpool,  on  the  average  of  the 


4  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

springs  (exclusive  of  the  equinoctial  titles),  is  27  feet  6  inches,  the  level  of  low  water 
8  feet  8  inches  below  the  datum  level  of  the  old  dock  sill.  The  rise  of  the  river 
from  the  west  side  of  the  town  may  be  taken  as  nearly  70  feet.  The  river  is  tidal 
up  to  Woolston,  about  fourteen  and  a  half  miles  from  Manchester. 

An  Act  was  passed  in  1719  to  make  the  river  Douglas  navigable  from  the 
river  Kibble  to  a  place  called  Miry  Lane  End,  Wigan  ;  the  undertakers  being 
"  Wm.  Squire  and  Thomas  Steeres,  gentlemen,  both  of  Liverpool,"  and  the  con- 
ditions being  very  similar  to  those  imposed  on  the  undertakers  of  the  Mersey  and 
Irwell  navigation.  Though  the  undertakers  first  applied  in  1714  for  their  Act  to 
make  the  Mersey  navigable,  it  was  1720  before  they  got  clear  away  from  Parliament. 
In  the  same  year  the  first  Liverpool  Dock  Act  was  obtained. 

In  1766,  about  the  time  the  Bridgewater  Canal  was  completed,  there  were 
fourteen  flats  trading  on  the  river  from  Liverpool  to  the  "  Old  Key  "  in  Man- 
chester, and  six  flats  to  the  "  Salford  Key".  It  should  be  stated  that  for  the 
first  fifty  years  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  navigation  did  not  pay. 

The  river  navigation  was  offered  in  1776  to  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater  for 
.£5,000  which  he  declined,  and  in  1/79  it  was  sold  to  a  new  proprietary  for 
.£10,000.  They  got  an  Act  in  1794  empowering  them  to  improve  the  river, 
but,  instead  of  doing  this,  they  applied  their  money  in  paying  large  dividends. 
Under  this  Act  the  company  who  had  the  river  Mersey  in  hand  was  incorporated 
under  the  title  of  the  Company  of  the  Proprietors  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Naviga- 
tion. There  were  then  thirty-nine  undertakers,  of  whom  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater 
was  one.  They  were  restrained  from  building  warehouses  within  a  mile  of  Bank 
Quay,  Warrington,  or  from  demanding  toll  between  Liverpool  and  Bank  Quay- 
the  river  being  already  navigable  to  that  point. 

Though  at  first  prosperous,  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  Company 
had  a  hard  struggle  for  existence.  To  protect  their  trade  they  had  to  purchase 
the  plant  of  many  of  the  by-carriers  (who  were  cutting  one  another's  throats  by 
ruinous  competition)  and  to  become  carriers  as  well  as  toll  takers,  and  as  such 
assumed  the  name  of  the  "Old  Quay  Company".  Opposition  on  their  own  water- 
way had  been  started  by  the  New  Quay  Company,  and  it  had  to  be  bought  off. 
But  the  chief  difficulty  was  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  which  as  a  competitor  had 
great  advantages.  Its  maximum  toll  was  2s.  6d.  per  ton;  it  was  linked  at  the 
Manchester  end  with  the  Rochdale,  Leeds  and  Liverpool  Canals,  and  the  Worsley 
Collieries,  and  at  the  Runcorn  end  with  the  Trent,  Mersey  and  Weaver  Canals. 


NAVIGABLE  RIVERS  OF  ENGLAND  5 

The  distance  by  canal  to  Runcorn  was  thirty  miles,  whilst,  in  consequence  of 
a  tortuous  waterway,  the  distance  by  river  was  much  greater.  To  remedy  such 
drawbacks,  several  short  bends  of  the  river  (as  at  Sandy  warps,  Stickens  and 
Butchersfields)  were  cut  off,  and  the  ends  joined  by  cuts  and  locks.  By  these 
means,  and  the  new  Runcorn  and  Latchford  Canal,  made  in  1804  at  a  cost  of 
.£40,000,  the  distance  from  Manchester  to  Runcorn  by  river  was  reduced  to 
twenty-eight  miles.  Boats  were  enabled  to  leave  the  river  at  Latchford  and  to 
re-enter  it  by  the  Runcorn  Locks  "by  which  means  they  entirely  avoided  the 
neap  tides,  and  conveyed  goods  in  two  days  from  Liverpool  regularly  ". 

It  is  worth  recording  that  the  Runcorn  and  Latchford  Canal  was  made  under 
the  powers  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Act,  and  without  plans  being  submitted.  A 
superior  court  held  that  the  owners  had  powers  to  do  this.  When  eighty  years 
later  (in  1883)  the  Ship  Canal  promoters  sought  to  do  work  without  submitting 
plans,  they  were  blocked  and  had  to  apply  for  the  suspension  of  standing  orders. 

In  1827  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool  brought  an  action  against  the  Mersey 
and  Irwell  Navigation  Company  and  their  workmen,  which  was  tried  at  Lancaster. 
They  maintained  that,  by  taking  water  from  Woolston  in  troughs  to  supply  the  Run- 
corn  and  Latchford  Canal,  the  defendants  were  causing  the  main  channel  of  the 
river  to  silt  up.  Though  the  plaintiffs'  case  was  ably  advocated  by  Mr.  (afterwards 
Lord)  Brougham,  the  verdict  was  given  in  favour  of  the  defendants. 

In  1807  packet  boats  for  passengers  were  first  run  to  Runcorn  daily,  and  there 
was  another  connection  with  packets  to  Liverpool.  In  1840  the  through  fare  was 
first  class,  35.;  second  class,  2s.;  and  in  1850  it  was  reduced  to  first  class,  is.  3d.;  second 
class,  lod.  In  1829  the  through  journey  (41  miles)  was  performed  in  seven  hours. 

In  1821  Mr.  Sandars,  a  Liverpool  merchant,  published  a  pamphlet,  and  got 
a  declaration  drawn  up  and  signed,  which  set  forth  that — 

The  present  establishment  for  the  transport  of  goods  is  quite  inadequate,  and  that  a 
new  line  of  communication  has  become  absolutely  necessary  to  conduct  the  increasing  trade 
of  the  County  with  speed,  certainty  and  economy. 

Manchester  joined  in  this  movement,  and  sent  a  deputation  which  waited  on 
the  Mersey  and  Irwell  representatives  and  on  Mr.  Robert  H.  Bradshaw,  on  behalf 
of  the  Bridgewater  Trustees,  but  without  effect.  Mr.  Bradshaw  declined  to  make 
any  concessions,  and  ridiculed  the  idea  of  railway  competition. 

In  1830  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  Company  purchased  the  Junction 
Canal,  and  afterwards  made  the  Manchester  and  Salford  Canal,  to  connect  the 


6  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

Rochdale  Canal  with  the  Irwell.  This  passed  under  the  site  of  the  present  Central 
Station,  and  a  portion  of  it  is  now  blocked  up.  In  1827  Messrs.  Rennie  and  Giles 
reported  on  the  navigation  of  the  Mersey,  and  Sir  John  Rennie  made  a  further 
and  very  interesting  report  in  1838. 

In  1810,  after  many  years  of  strenuous  opposition,  the  Mersey  and  Irwell 
Navigation  formed  a  conference  with  their  younger  rivals,  the  Bridgewater  Trustees, 
in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  existing  ruinous  competition,  and  identical  rates  were 
published  in  the  Manchester  Mercury  on  I5th  June.  This  arrangement  held  good 
with  one  exception  (1842)  till  the  purchase  by  Lord  Ellesmere  of  the  Mersey  and 
Irwell  Navigation. 

Originally  there  were  500  Mersey  and  Irwell  shares  of  the  nominal  value  of 
^100  each.  The  company  after  1794  prospered  exceedingly;  the  shares  became 
very  valuable,  at  one  time  paying  a  dividend  of  ^"35  per  annum  on  each  ^"70  paid- 
up  share,  and  before  the  advent  of  the  Manchester  and  Liverpool  Railway,  the  £70 
share  realised  .£1,250.  Afterwards  they  depreciated  to  .£800,  at  which  price,  in 
1845,  Lord  Ellesmere  bought  them,  taking  upon  himself  also  a  bonded  debt  of 
.£149,000  owing  by  the  company.  Altogether  he  paid  .£550,800. 

When  the  Bridgewater  Trustees  got  an  Act  of  Parliament  allowing  them  to 
buy,  this  purchase  was  transferred  to  them. 

In  view  of  the  advent  of  railways,  every  effort  was  made  to  improve  the 
navigation,  and  a  costly  work  was  carried  out  in  1 840.  By  widening  and  deepening, 
the  river  was  made  navigable  for  vessels  of  300  tons  burden.  A  system,  too,  was 
instituted  of  placing  goods  in  bond  at  the  warehouses  belonging  to  the  company. 
The  journey  from  Manchester  to  Warrington  took  at  that  time  three  hours. 
Under  the  novel  title  of  "The  Port  of  Manchester,"  the  Manchester  Guardian 
(in  1841)  announced  that  a  vessel  had  arrived  in  Manchester  direct  from  Dublin, 
with  a  cargo  of  potatoes,  and  was  discharging  at  the  Old  Quay  Company's 
Wharf. 

We  have  now  to  add  (says  the  editor  in  a  subsequent  number  of  this  paper)  that  this 
vessel,  the  Mary,  Captain  John  Hill,  having  discharged  her  cargo,  will,  it  is  expected,  "  clear," 
and  sail  this  day  direct  for  Dublin,  with  a  cargo  of  coals  from  the  colliery  of  Mr.  Fitzgerald 
at  Pendleton.  Such  are  probably  the  small  beginnings  of  Manchester's  future  greatness  as 
one  of  the  Ports  of  the  United  Kingdom. 


NAVIGABLE  RIVERS  OF  ENGLAND  7 

THE  SHIP  CANAL  SONG. 

THE  MARY:   A  YARN. 
Air :   The  Ram  of  Darby. 

[The  following  song,  purporting  to  be  written  by  "  Poor  Jack,"  was  published  in  1840,  on  a  small 
handbill,  by  Wilmot  Henry  Jones,  of  Market  Street,  Manchester,  whose  name  is  well  known  in  literary 
circles  owing  to  his  having  been  the  first  printer  of  Philip  James  Bailey's  poem  Festus.] 

The  Union  flag  is  flying, 

By  the  Company's  wharf,  Old  Quay, 
And  Mary  of  Dublin  lying 

Unloading  her  Murphies  to-day. 

In  the  Irish  Sea  I  hail'd  her, 

As  I  stood  in  the  packet  boat ; 
With  equal  pride  I  never  saw 

A  merchant  sloop  afloat. 

"  Your  name  ? "     "  The  Mary,  Captain  Hill !  " 

"  Your  cargo  ?  "     "  Pratees,  sir  !  " 
"  Where  from  ? "     "  Dublin."     "  Whither  bound  ? " 

"  The  Port  of  Manchester !  " 

Eighteen  hundred  and  forty, 

October  the  twentieth  day, 
At  half-past  four  in  the  evening 

She  anchored  by  the  quay. 

It  always  does  my  heart  good 

To  see  the  Union  Jack, 
So  here's  success  to  Mary, 

And  soon  may  she  come  back. 

And  soon  may  scores  of  others 

Perform  the  trip  with  her, 
And  trade  and  commerce  double 

In  noble  Manchester. 

At  one  time  the  Irwell  was  largely  used  both  for  passengers  and  heavy  goods 
traffic.  Country  people  coming  to  Manchester  travelled  by  swift  packet,  and  the 
river  was  alive  with  boats,  many  of  them  carrying  produce  to,  and  manure  from 
Manchester  for  the  farmers  on  its  banks.  In  1882  the  river  was  hopelessly  choked 
with  silt  and  filth.  The  following  figures  will  show  the  result  of  neglect  by  the 
proprietors.  Out  of  31 1  working  days  the  river  was  navigable  for  50-1011  bo;it> 


HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 


In  1878 

.  20  1  days. 

In  1880 

.   1  10   „ 

In  1881 

SO   „ 

In  1882 

•   47   ,, 

In  1883  at  the 

rate  of  32   „ 

In  October,  1883,  it  was  not  navigable /or  a  single  day.  From  the  time  of  the  pur- 
chase of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  in  1845  by  the  Bridgewater  Trustees, 
its  future  history  may  be  considered  bound  up  in  the  annals  of  the  purchasing 
company.  The  Bridgewater  Trustees  worked  both  waterways  with  varying 
success,  till  they  were  taken  over  by  Sir  Edward  Watkin  and  his  friends  in  1872, 
and  formed  into  the  "  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  ".  The  history  of  the  trans- 
fer, and  the  circumstances  connected  with  it,  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 

In  1842  it  was  felt  expedient  that  further  provision  should  be  made  for  pre- 
serving the  navigation  of  the  Mersey  estuary,  and  an  Act  was  passed  appointing 
a  Board  of  Mersey  Commissioners  for  the  conservancy  of  the  river,  to  consist  of 
the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  and 
the  Chief  Commissioner  of  the  Woods  and  Forests  (since  changed  to  the  President 
of  the  Board  of  Trade) ;  this  Board  was  to  have  authority  over  the  Mersey  and 
Weaver  from  Warrington  and  Frodsham  Bridges  to  the  sea,  with  power  to  em- 
ploy an  Acting  Conservator. 

In  1876  Upper  Mersey  Commissioners  were  appointed  who  were  to  look 
after  the  lighting  and  buoying  of  the  river  below  Warrington,  and  in  1879  further 
powers  were  granted.  Thus,  when  the  Parliamentary  fight  of  1883-84  took  place, 
there  were,  at  least,  three  distinct  authorities  on  the  Mersey.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Act,  passed  in  the  time  of  George  I.,  gave  powers  which,  to 
some  extent,  came  into  conflict  with  subsequent  Acts.  The  Ship  Canal  opponents 
argued  they  were  obsolete,  because  they  did  not  sanction  the  expenditure  of  money 
in  the  estuary  of  the  Upper  Mersey,  and  because  it  would  be  an  outrage  against  the 
public  to  carry  out  the  power  of  changing  fixed  into  swing  bridges.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  promoters  maintained  that  all  rights  had  been  kept  alive,  and  could  be 
put  in  force  by  the  owners  of  the  navigation.  They  were  willing,  however,  to 
submit  their  proposed  alterations  to  the  Acting  Conservator  for  his  sanction. 

At  present  several  channels  give  entrance  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mersey,  but 
there  is  a  reasonable  supposition  that  in  time  past  the  river  had  two  mouths,  the 
present  one,  and  a  second,  passing  through  the  Wallasey  Pool,  crossing  the  Wirral 


(2 


_J 

-Ji 
'f 


a 

O 
u 

X 


I 

8 

< 
J 

3 
u 


NAVIGABLE  RIVERS  OF  ENGLAND  9 

Peninsula,  and  having  its  exit  through  the  present  Leasowe  embankment.  Prob- 
ably the  sea  was  not  able  to  maintain  the  latter,  for  it  silted  up,  and  to  prevent 
another  invasion  the  Leasowe  embankment  was  erected. 

In  1693  Captain  Granville  Collins,  Hydrographer  to  the  Government,  gave 
as  an  instruction  :— 

Keep  close  along  Hyle  Sand,  and  so  into  High  Lake,  and  anchor.  Here,  the  great 
ships  that  belong  to  Liverpool  put  out  one  part  of  their  lading,  till  the  ships  are  light  enough 
to  sail  over  the  flats  to  Liverpool,  where  is  3  fathoms  (18  feet)  at  low  water  on  the  Bar,  but 
this  place  is  not  buoy'd  or  bekon'd,  and  so  not  known. 

Ships  lye  aground  before  the  town  of  Liverpool — 'tis  bad  riding  afloat  before  the  town 
by  reason  of  the  strong  tydes  that  run  here;  therefore  ships  that  ride  afloat  ride  up  at  the 
Sloyne  where  is  less  tyde. 

This  shows  that  so  far  back  there  were  18  feet  on  the  bar;  when  Admiral 
Denham  next  surveyed  in  1833  there  were  12  feet  at  low  water  spring  tides  at  the 
shallowest  part  in  the  new  channel.  The  Queen's  Channel  did  not  then  exist ;  it 
appeared  for  the  first  time  the  following  year.  In  1863  there  were  10  to  13  feet 
on  the  Queen's  Channel  bar,  but  in  1873  there  were  only  7  to  8  feet.  As  the 
trade  of  Liverpool  increased,  and  the  ships  entering  the  port  became  larger,  the 
accommodation  decreased,  and  large  vessels  had  to  wait  outside  the  bar  for  a 
sufficiency  of  water.  Whilst  in  1693  there  were  18  feet  on  the  bar,  in  1873  it  had 
decreased  to  7  or  8  feet.  All  this  was  very  graphically  stated  by  Mr.  John  Laird, 
M.P.,  when  he  addressed  a  meeting  of  the  Dock  Board  in  January,  1874.  He 
then  related  the  marvellous  work  that  had  been  done  on  the  Clyde  and  the  Tyne, 
where  shallow  rivers  had  been  dealt  with,  and  good  ports  practically  made.  He 
reminded  them  that  in  spite  of  the  protestations  of  Admiral  Evans,  the  Acting 
Conservator,  who  for  the  last  thirty  years  had  been  urging  them  to  improve  the 
channel,  they  had  done  nothing  ;  on  the  contrary  they  had  been  tipping  dock  dredg- 
ings,  filth,  and  mud  into  the  fairway  of  the  channel.  This,  in  1872,  amounted  to 
600,000  tons.  He  was  aware  the  Conservancy  Board  had  power  to  deal  with  the 
question,  but  they  had  no  money,  and  he  suggested  the  lighting  and  buoying 
charges  should  be  raised  to  provide  some.  After  reproaching  the  Board  for  their 
inaction,  he  said  :— 

Every  manufacturing  interest  in  the  Kingdom  is  deeply  concerned  in  this  matter,  and  I 
think  I  may  safely  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  they  will  not  only  justify  but 
applaud  the  Board  for  taking  steps,  and  spending  any  necessary  money  to  place  the  port  in 
an  efficient  condition. 


io  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

Mr.  Laird's  resolution  was  modified  to  one  instructing  the  Marine  Committee 
to  communicate  with  Admiral  Evans,  and  to  report  if  it  was  desirable  that  any,  and 
if  so,  what  measures  should  be  adopted  with  the  view  of  obtaining  an  increased 
depth  of  water  on  the  bar.  Also  to  make  inquiries  and  to  report  as  to'  the  rubbish 
being  tipped  into  the  Mersey.  This  was  a  quiet  way  of  shelving  the  matter  for 
another  ten  years.  The  depth  of  the  bar  slightly  improved,  and  beyond  a  few  in- 
dignant letters,  things  slept  till  the  Ship  Canal  agitation  brought  the  question  again 
to  the  front. 

After  the  river  navigation  in  the  upper  reaches  had  been  allowed  to  become 
blocked  for  some  years,  the  price  to  be  paid  for  it  by  arbitration  could  not  have  been 
a  serious  one  ;  but  when  the  Ship  Canal  Company  wanted  to  come  to  terms  for  the 
Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation,  the  Bridgewater  Company  pleaded  it  would  become 
an  opponent  to  their  canal,  and  if  they  sold  one  they  must  sell  both.  Arrangements 
were  therefore  come  to  in  the  sessions  1883-84.  When  in  the  latter  year  the 
Ship  Canal  was  rejected,  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  changed  their  tactics,  and 
bringing  forward  a  scheme  in  1885  to  make  the  river  applicable  for  barges, 
became  strenuous  opponents  of  the  Ship  Canal  Company.  They  proposed  to 
make  the  waterway  io  feet  deep,  to  straighten  it,  to  shorten  the  distance  by  two 
miles,  to  reduce  the  number  of  locks  from  eleven  to  five,  and  to  make  them  154  feet 
long  and  32  feet  wide.  They  would  make  the  waterway  suitable  for  vessels  of  300 
to  400  tons  at  a  cost  of  ,£324,000.  After  a  prolonged  and  costly  struggle,  arrange- 
ments were  come  to,  and  ,£1,710,000  were  given  by  the  Ship  Canal  Company  for 
both  navigations.  Thereafter,  the  upper  reaches  of  the  Mersey  became  part  of  the 
Ship  Canal. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ENGLISH  CANALS— HISTORY  OF  THE  BRIDGEWATER 

CANAL. 

The  history  of  Francis  Duke  of  Bridgewater  is  engraved  in  intaglio  on  the  face  of  the 
country  he  helped  to  civilise  and  enrich. — Quarterly  Review. 

THERE  are  numerous  canals  and  canalised  rivers,  communicating  with  the 
whole  of  England,  that  are  linked  with  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  by  the 
Bolton  and  Bury  Canal,  the  Runcorn  and  Weaver  Canal,  the  Rochdale 
and  the  Bridgewater  Canals.  Unfortunately,  since  the  advent  of  railways  many  of 
these  waterways  have  been  allowed  to  fall  into  disuse  and  disrepair.  England  for 
a  long  time  was  indifferent  to  the  welfare  of  her  canals,  and  the  railway  companies 
were  allowed  to  purchase  certain  sections,  and  by  placing  prohibitive  tolls  on  them 
to  demoralise  the  whole  system.  They  now  possess  i,  1 39  miles  out  of  a  total  length 
of  3, 907  miles  throughout  the  country.  In  consequence  they  make  no  improve- 
ments to  assist  traffic,  and  utterly  neglect  the  deepening  of  waterways  and  the 
enlargement  of  locks  necessary  to  keep  pace  with  the  increased  size  of  boats 
needed  for  cheap  carriage.  The  Board  of  Trade  returns  of  canals  and  navigations 
for  the  year  1898  showed  that  while  the  traffic  on  the  independent  canals  in 
Great  Britain  had  increased  5,000,000  tons  since  1888,  the  traffic  on  the  railway- 
owned  canals  had  decreased  2,000,000  tons  in  the  same  period.  Whilst  it  is 
true  that  in  some  agricultural  districts  canals  were  made  that  have  not  justified 
their  construction,  it  is  equally  true  that  water  communication  is  and  must  remain 
the  cheapest  form  of  carriage  for  minerals  and  heavy  goods  where  speed  is  not 
required.  On  the  independent  and  up-to-date  canals  great  changes  are  taking 
place  :  the  narrow  2O-ton  boat  drawn  by  one  horse  has  given  place  to  the  steam 
tugs  drawing  four  boats  of  at  least  50  tons  each,  and  the  time  does  not  seem  far 
distant  when  the  canals  of  this  country  will  all  be  worked  by  electricity.  If  this 
should  come  to  pass  the  Ship  Canal  could  distribute  to,  and  collect  from  the  whole 


12  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

of  England,  for  the  canal  system  extends  from  Manchester  to  London,  Bristol, 
Birmingham  and  all  parts  of  the  Kingdom.  It  was  given  in  evidence  before  the 
1883  Committee  that  the  average  cost  of  English  canals  per  mile  was  .£3,350, 
whilst  that  of  railways  was  .£46,000,  also  that  the  cost  of  carriage  on  -canals  was 
one-third  of  that  by  railway.  A  few  brief  facts  about  the  most  important  canals 
may  therefore  be  interesting. 

The  principal  canals  affecting  Lancashire  are  :— 

1.  The  Grand  Junction  Canal. 

2.  The  Leeds  and  Liverpool  Canal. 

3.  The  Rochdale  Canal. 

4.  The  Ashton  Canal  and  the  Bolton  and  Bury  Canal. 

5.  The  Bridgewater  Canal. 

THE  GRAND  JUNCTION  CANAL. 

The  Grand  Junction  Canal,  as  its  name  implies,  connects  the  northern  and 
southern  English  canals,  and  has  suffered  through  the  London  and  North -Western 
Railway  Company  getting  possession  of  a  portion  of  the  route.  The  North 
Staffordshire  Canal  has  also  suffered  from  the  same  cause.  At  the  Parliamentary 
Commission  in  1883  evidence  was  given  that  the  railway  commands  7^  per  cent, 
of  the  Grand  Junction  through  route,  and  for  this  they  demand  and  get  33  per  cent, 
of  the  freightage  earned.  The  same  company  stopped  the  Warwick  Canal  eleven 
days  out  of  a  month  for  repairs,  and  in  one  case  it  was. stopped  for  twenty-five  days, 
the  traffic  meantime  going  to  the  railway.  Mr.  Morton,  before  the  same  Commission, 
said  :  "  The  canal  system  was  ruined  by  want  of  unity.  Between  Wolverhampton 
and  London,  carriers  had  to  pass  over  six  separately  owned  canals,  each  with  a 
costly  staff  of  managers  and  engineers.  Manufacturers  declare  they  are  beaten  by 
foreigners  because  of  the  cost  of  transit  in  England.  In  his  opinion  the  best  way 
to  obtain  cheap  and  efficient  carriage,  and  prevent  combination  and  monopoly,  was 
to  have  good  waterways."  On  the  Midland  canals  are  many  long  tunnels — the 
Sapperton  3,808  yards,  the  Lappal  3,795  yards,  and  the  Dudley  tunnel  3,172  yards 
long.  On  these  and  many  other  tunnels  the  boats  are  "  legged,"  i.e.,  pushed  through 
by  men  who  lie  on  their  backs  and  use  their  legs  against  the  sides.  If  an  inhabitant 
of  Japan  were  to  see  them,  he  would  say  our  tunnels  were  very  antiquated  compared 
with  theirs,  and  he  would  be  quite  correct.  As  an  example  of  the  difference  be- 
tween a  railway-owned  and  a  free  waterway,  corn  carried  in  1883  from  the  sea  to 


ENGLISH  CANALS  13 

Birmingham,  via  Sharpness,  cost  only  half  as  much  as  from  the  sea  to  Manclv 
although  in  the  former  case  the  distance  was  nearly  double. 

THE  LEEDS  AND  LIVERPOOL  CANAL. 

This  canal  had  the  misfortune  to  get  into  railway  hands  who  doubled  the  rates, 
and  charged  i6s.  from  Leeds  to  Liverpool,  when  by  the  quicker  railway  it  was  only 
155.  The  lease,  however,  expired  in  1874,  and  though  in  the  interval  traffic  was 
diverted  and  much  damage  done  to  the  interests  of  the  waterway,  the  canal  revived 
when  it  came  back  into  private  hands,  and  has  paid  some  good  dividends,  though 
like  all  carrying  companies  it  is  not  now  quite  so  prosperous. 

THE  ROCHDALE  CANAL. 

This  canal  is  most  intimately  connected  with  the  Ship  Canal,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
linked  to  it  by  means  of  the  Bridgewater  Canal.  It  also  supplies  the  Bridgewater 
undertaking  with  a  large  portion  of  the  fresh  water  required  to  work  it.  A  small 
boat  of  50  tons  can  pass  right  acoss  England  from  the  Ship  Canal,  via  the  Rochdale 
Canal,  and  emerge  via  the  Aire  and  Calder  Navigation  at  Goole. 

The  first  Bill  for  the  Rochdale  Canal  was  obtained  in  1794.  The  navigation 
extends  from  its  junction  with  the  Bridgewater  at  Knott  Mill  to  the  Calder  Naviga- 
tion at  Sowerby  Bridge,  and  forms  a  link  in  the  through  communication  between 
the  North  and  Irish  Seas.  Power  is  given  to  the  manufacturers  on  the  banks  to 
use  the  water  free  of  charge  for  heating  their  mills  and  condensing  steam,  provided, 
after  using  it,  the  water  is  returned  into  the  canal.  For  a  great  many  years  the 
manufacturers  had  an  unstinted  free  use,  but  about  1 844  some  official  (sharper  than 
the  rest)  discovered  there  was  no  power  to  take  water  for  raising  steam.  This  gave 
rise  to  much  litigation,  because  the  water  was  useless  for  condensing  unless  it  could 
be  used  for  raising  steam.  Ultimately  it  was  decided  that  those  who  had  used  the 
water  for  twenty-one  years  for  the  dual  purpose  might  continue  to  do  so  without 
charge,  but  that  new-comers  must  pay.  Like  all  other  canals  the  Rochdale  felt  the 
competition  of  railways,  and  they  naturally  harassed  each  other  by  cutting  rates. 
To  stop  this,  and  for  other  purposes,  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  and  other  rail- 
way companies  in  1854  took  a  lease  of  the  Rochdale  Canal,  with  the  usual  result 
that  they  equalised  the  cost  of  carriage,  and  by  offering  a  more  regular  service  and 
a  quicker  route,  soon  began  to  undermine  the  vitality  of  the  canal  by  letting  it  fall 
into  a  state  of  disrepair.  The  result  was  that  when  the  lease  expired  the  canal 
was  in  a  very  impoverished  condition.  Since  then  there  has  been  a  revival,  but  it 


1 4  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

is  a  question  if  the  canal  will  ever  recover  from  the  mistaken  policy  then  adopted. 
Unfortunately,  difficulties  arose  between  the  company  and  the  Ship  Canal,  both 
as  regards  towage  by  steam  on  the  canal  and  the  use  of  water,  but  I  propose  to 
deal  with  these  disputes  later  on.  Happily  they  have  now  been  settled. 

THE  ASHTON  AND  BOLTON  AND  BURY  CANALS. 

These  are  both  in  railway  hands,  and  it  was  given  in  evidence  in  1883  as 
regards  the  latter,  that  manufacturers  on  its  banks  conveyed  their  goods  by  railway 
because,  though  it  is  well  known  that  water  is  the  cheapest  possible  means  of 
carriage,  it  was  practically  denied  to  them,  being  made  dearer  than  by  railway. 

THE  BRIDGEWATER  CANAL. 

This  canal  has  always  a  special  interest  for  Lancashire  men,  and  its  history 
will  bear  repeating.  It  brought  forth  native  talent  to  a  remarkable  extent,  and 
whilst  other  canals  were  the  work  of  company  promoters  and  undertakers,  the 
Bridge  water  Canal  was  the  conception  of  one  man,  who  was  prepared  to  face 
herculean  difficulties  and  to  spend  his  fortune  in  order  that  "he  might  found  canals 
and  navigations  for  the  public  good  ".  These  remarkable  words  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Duke  of  Bridgewater's  will,  proved  at  Doctors'  Commons  in  1803. 

It  would  appear  that  Scroope,  the  first  Duke  of  Bridgewater,  and  father  of  the 
great  canal  maker,  obtained  in  1737  an  Act  of  Parliament  to  make  the  Worsley 
Brook  navigable,  with  the  intention  of  forming  a  waterway  from  the  Worsley 
Collieries  to  the  Irwell,  but  the  scheme  was  never  carried  out.  The  Duke  of 
Bridgewater  was  one  of  the  Commissioners,  the  undertakers  being  Jonathan  Lees, 
Samuel  Beardman,  Josiah  Byrom,  Jeremiah  Bradshaw,  Isaac  Clegg  and  others. 

How  Francis,  the  second  Duke,  came  to  embark  his  money  and  devote  all  his 
energies  to  carrying  out  his  great  work  is  explained  by  the  rumour  that  in  his  youth 
he  enjoyed  the  pleasures  of  London  Society  and  applied  himself  assiduously  to  win 
the  hand  of  a  fair  lady  (Miss  Gunning),  who,  however,  rejected  his  addresses. 
Stung  by  the  rebuff  he  determined  to  leave  the  gaieties  of  the  capital,  retire  to  his 
country  estate,  and  try  to  forget  the  disappointment  by  leading  a  country  life  and 
devoting  his  energies  to  the  improvement  of  his  property  in  Lancashire.  Coal  of 
good  quality  had  been  found  there,,  and  he  wished  to  get  it  into  the  Manchester 
market ;  therefore,  carrying  out  his  father's  idea,  in  1758,  he  applied  for,  and  obtained 
an  Act  "to  make  and  maintain  a  navigable  river,  cut  or  canal  from  any  part  of  the 
croft  or  meadow  known  by  the  name  of  Master  Cooke's  Tenter  Croft  in  the  town- 


ENGLISH  CANALS 


jfoffi-        /•?-> 


fazfo  f. 

•/x 


/ 

FACSIMILE  OF  ORIGINAL  LETTER  FROM  THE  DUKE  OF  BRIDGEWATER. 


1 6  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

ship  of  Salford  to  or  near  Worsley  Mill  and  Middlewood  in  the  Manor  of  Worsley 
and  from  thence  to  or  near  Hollin  Ferry  ".  The  latter  place  was  close  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Glaze  and  almost  a  dozen  miles  from  Salford.  This  scheme  was,  however, 
given  up  as  impracticable.  Father  and  son  up  to  this  time  had  intended  to  reach 
Manchester  by  the  Irwell,  deeming  it  impossible  to  take  the  canal  over  the  river. 
Whilst  the  Duke  was  modifying  his  plans  he  had  introduced  to  him  by  his  agent 
(Mr.  Gilbert)  a  shrewd  but  illiterate  countryman,  James  Brindley.  He  soon  found 
out  that  his  new  acquaintance  was  a  genius,  and  would  be  an  able  adviser.  Brindley, 
after  making  what  he  called  an  "  ochilor  (ocular)  servey  or  a  ricconitoring,"  conceived 
the  idea  of  making  a  bridge  or  aqueduct  over  the  Irwell.  His  scheme  was  laughed 
at,  and  the  Duke  consulted  an  eminent  engineer,  who  concluded  his  report  with— 
"  I  have  often  heard  of  castles  being  built  in  the  air,  but  never  before  saw  where 
any  of  them  were  to  be  erected".  Having  matured  his  plans,  the  Duke  of 
Bridgewater  obtained  his  second  Act  on  the  24th  March,  1760.  It  recites  that 
"  whereas  the  said  Duke  of  Bridgewater  hath  begun  the  said  intended  navigation 
and  made  a  considerable  part  thereof,"  the  canal  so  begun  "may  be  continued  and 
taken  over  the  river  Irwell  at  or  near  a  certain  bridge  called  Barton  Bridge".  The 
Duke  himself  was  of  a  scientific  turn,  with  a  taste  for  engineering,  but  his  previous 
idea  had  been  to  cross  the  river  by  a  series  of  locks  on  either  side.  When  before 
Parliament,  Brindley  puzzled  both  Counsel  and  Committee  by  his  dialect  and  the 
local  technical  terms  he  used  ;  and  when  he  talked  of  stopping  water  by  "  puddling  " 
they  were  nonplussed.  Next  day  he  took  with  him  some  clay,  which,  by  the  use 
of  water  he  converted  into  puddle,  and  moulded  into  coffer  dams.  Again,  when 
Brindley  wished  the  Committee  to  realise  his  intended  bridge,  he  produced  a  model 
of  it  carved  out  of  a  cheese.  These  ocular  demonstrations  made  the  matter  clear 
and  convinced  the  Committee.  The  Honble.  Francis  Egerton,  writing  from  Paris, 
says  he  had  it  from  the  old  Duke's  own  mouth  that  when  the  late  Duke  made 
Barton  Bridge,  "Mr.  Brindley  was  so  timid  during  the  filling  that  he  ran  away 
from  it  to  Stretford,  and  never  appeared  again  until  the  bridge  had  proved  secure. 
Afterwards  heavy  rain  came  and  Mr.  Brindley  feared  it  would  fall.  'He  did  very 
ill,'  for  he  weighted  the  sides ;  but  the  bridge  was  saved  by  Mr.  John  Gilbert,  who 
took  just  the  contrary  method.  He  weighted  the  arch  in  danger,  and  lightened 
the  sides ;  taking  the  material  from  the  sides  and  placing  it  regularly  on  the  top  of 
the  arch.  He  then  put  a  layer  or  covering  of  straw  on  the  arch  ;  then  he  clayed 
it  again.  He  let  the  whole  remain  to  settle  till  late  in  the  following  spring.  The 
structure  now  stands  but  it  is  not  a  regular  arch." 


ENGLISH  CANALS  17 

The  late  Sir  Thomas  Bazley  confirms  this :  "  He  (Brindley)  sought  refuge  in 
Stretford,  and  in  his  absence  the  Duke  and  Gilbert  saw  the  waters  softly  and  slowly 
run  to  their  new  abode  of  laborious  duty.  No  flinching  of  the  aqueduct,  and  no 
accident  betokened  present  or  future  disappointment  in  the  triumph  which  was  then 
achieved.  Brindley  was  brought,  if  not  excavated,  from  his  temporary  retirement, 
and  the  bloodless  victory  of  skill  and  labour  was  complete.  All  honour  to  the 
courageous  Duke,  to  the  valiant-minded  Brindley,  to  the  faithful  Gilbert,  and  to  the 
honest  workmen  whose  labours  raised  this  monument  to  utility."  People  came 
from  far  and  near  to  see  what  they  termed  "the  canal  in  the  air"  ;  and  there  were 
plenty  of  prophets  who  said  "that  man  Brindley  were  ruinin'  th'  Duke,"  but  by 
skill  and  perseverance  he  carried  the  canal  to  the  mill  at  Worsley,  and  connected 
it  with  the  pit  workings. 

The  aqueduct  was  opened  on  i7th  July,  1761,  by  a  boat-load  of  coal  passing 
over  it.  It  was  250  feet  long,  36  feet  wide  and  about  39  feet  above  the  Irwell, 
which  there  is  50  yards  wide.  The  value  of  the  canal  was  speedily  felt,  as  it  reduced 
the  price  of  coal  by  one-half  in  Manchester,  namely,  from  yd.  to  3$d.  per  cwt. 

This  aqueduct  at  first  was  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  district.  In  1768  it  was 
viewed  by  the  King  of  Denmark,  and  our  present  King  and  Queen  visited  it  in 
1869.  It  was  a  specimen  of  admirable  masonry,  and  very  hard  to  dismember. 
When  it  was  pulled  down  in  1891,  I  secured  some  stones  with  the  mason's  marks 
on  them  just  as  fresh  as  when  they  were  inscribed. 

Before  the  Duke  obtained  his  first  Act,  the  owners  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell 
Navigation  refused  to  carry  his  coals,  etc.,  for  less  than  33.  4d.  per  ton  from  Barton  to 
Manchester,  and  he  had  further  to  pay  the  cost  of  conveyance  to  the  former  place. 
Now  they  voluntarily  offered  his  Grace  the  use  of  their  navigation  at  6d.  per  ton,  to 
induce  him  to  connect  his  canal  with  their  river.  We  largely  owe  the  Bridgewater 
Canal  to  the  unreasonableness  of  a  monopoly. 

His  success  with  the  Worsley  to  Manchester  Canal  induced  the  Duke  to  enter 
upon  a  new  task,  viz.,  linking  his  collieries  with  Liverpool.  This  he  proposed  to 
do  by  bifurcating  at  Stretford  and  taking  a  new  branch  to  Liverpool,  the  idea  being 
to  make  a  shorter  and  cheaper  communication  between  Manchester  and  Liverpool, 
via  Runcorn.  Not  many  engineering  difficulties  were  in  the  way,  as  it  was  decided 
to  take  the  canal  on  a  dead  level  to  Runcorn,  and  there  descend  to  the  river  by  a 
series  of  locks,  having  a  fall  of  90  feet.  To  avoid  crossing  valleys,  the  canal  was 
to  be  carried  by  a  detour  along  hill  sides,  thus  lengthening  its  course,  but  still 

VOL.    I.  2 


1 8  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

leaving  it  shorter  than  the  winding  river  navigation.  In  those  days  people  were 
not  very  particular,  and  when  the  Ship  Canal  bought  the  undertaking,  it  was  found 
the  Duke  had  in  some  cases  simply  paid  for  the  land  and  taken  possession,  regard- 
less of  title  deeds,  believing  that  when  once  the  canal  was  made  he'  would  never 
be  disturbed.  The  maximum  toll  on  the  canal  was  to  be  2s.  6d.  per  ton,  and  the 
maximum  freight  between  Manchester  and  Liverpool  6s.  per  ton. 

When  the  Duke  asked  Parliament  to  pass  his  Bill,  he  was  met  with  a  vigorous 
opposition.  His  attempt  to  cheapen  and  facilitate  the  passage  of  goods  was  bitterly 
opposed  by  the  proprietors  of  the  River  Navigation,  notwithstanding  they  them- 
selves had  obtained  exclusive  rights  on  the  river  "only  in  view  of  the  advantage 
to  the  public,"  which  could  not  mean  to  give  a  monopoly  to  any  mode  of  water 
carriage  if  a  more  advantageous  one  could  be  found. 

The  Duke  in  his  application  said  :  "The  River  Navigation  is  very  precarious, 
imperfect  and  expensive,  and  there  has  been  no  attempt  to  improve  the  navigation 
to  Warrington  Bridge,  or  between  that  place  and  Manchester,  where  are  many 
shallows,  which  it  is  very  difficult  to  pass  with  loaded  vessels ".  Again,  the  new 
canal  did  not  depend  on  the  tide,  and  offered  to  reduce  carriage  from  1 2s.  to  6s. 
per  ton,  and  was  nine  to  ten  miles  shorter  in  distance. 

The  owners  of  the  River  Navigation  contended  that  Parliament  had  given 
them  a  monopoly,  and  that,  as  it  was  proposed  the  owners  of  the  canal  should 
become  carriers,  they  could  monopolise  the  freightage  of  the  canal  by  consolidating 
tonnage,  freightage  and  wharfage  into  one  charge,  and  so  drive  off  all  by-carriers. 
Further,  that  2s.  6d.  per  ton  was  to  be  charged,  regardless  of  distance.  Parliament 
could  not  be  persuaded  to  throw  out  the  Bill,  but  passed  it  in  1762. 

In  purchasing  land  the  Duke  was  by  no  means  particular  as  to  title,  feeling 
sure  that  if  once  the  waterway  were  made  it  would  be  difficult  to  dispossess  him. 
Often  there  was  a  letter  of  acceptance,  and  a  receipt  for  the  money  was  all  that 
passed  between  the  buyer  and  the  seller.  On  page  15  is  an  original  letter  from  the 
Duke  to  a  lady  from  whom  he  wished  to  purchase  land.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
Duke  writes  of  "the  cut  intended  to  be  made".  Even  to  the  present  day  country 
people  often  speak  of  the  "cut"  instead  of  the  canal. 

Before  the  completion  the  Duke's  fortunes  were  brought  to  a  very  low  ebb. 
So  hard  up  was  he  that  he  had  to  pledge  his  estates,  borrow  money  from  his  friends, 
and  adopt  at  times  all  kinds  of  expedients  to  raise  the  weekly  wages.  To  be  on 
the  spot  he  built  himself  Bridgewater  House,  Runcorn,  a  modest  mansion  now  in 


THE    MOST   NOBLE  FRANCIS   EGERTON,    DUKE   OK    BRIIX;KW.\TKK, 
CONSTRUCTOR  OF  THE  BRIDGEWATKR  C.\\\i. 


ENGLISH  CANALS  19 

the  possession  of  the  Ship  Canal  Company.  Here  at  one  time  were  many  relics  of 
old  days,  and  there  is  still  to  be  found  an  excellent  likeness  of  the  old  Duke. 
Fortunately,  he  lived  to  surmount  all  his  difficulties,  and  to  see  the  canal  a  complete 
success. 

During  the  war  with  France  the  Duke  showed  his  generosity  and  patriotism 
by  subscribing  .£100,000  to  the  Loyalty  Funds. 

The  following  specimen  of  the  accounts  passing  between  the  Duke  and  Brindley 
(his  right-hand  man)  is  interesting  : — 

1761.  £    s.    D. 

Nov.  1 8.  Mesuring  a  cross  from  Dunham  to  Warburton,  Morely  and  Thalwal. 
Dunham  for  2  diners  is.  3d.  for  the  man  is.  at  Thalwal  is.  2d.  all 
night  at  Worington  33.  nd.  .  . 074 

Nov.  19.  Set  out  from  Chestar  for  London  and  returned  back — going  to  London, 

and  at  London,  then  back  to  Worsley.     Charges  Hors  and  myself    .480 

Dec.  9.  Coming  back  from  Hamston.     Charges  at  Wilderspool  all  night        .         .080 
At  Worington  to  meet  Mr.  Ashley  dining 042 

Dec.  10.  Chaind  the  Turnpike  Rode  2s.  6d.  and  again  on  ye  12  ye  rode  33.  6d.     .060 

Dec.  21.  To  inspect  ye  flux  and  reflux  at  Hamston  2  dayes  charges      .         .         .060 


£600 

26th  Dec.,  1761.    Received  the  contents  of  the  above  bill  by  the  hand  of  John  Gilbert  Esq. 

JAMES  BRINDLEY. 

This  bill  speaks  well  as  regards  economy.  The  trio,  viz.  the  Duke,  Gilbert 
and  Brindley,  when  a  difficult  problem  had  to  be  solved,  used  often  to  meet  either 
at  Worsley  Old  Hall  or  at  the  Village  Inn,  and  sit  till  they  had  done  so. 

Reilly,  in  his  History  of  Manchester,  says  that  the  Runcorn  Locks  were 
opened  on  loth  January,  1773,  and  that  the  undertaking  was  completed  at  a  cost  of 
,£220,000.  The  length  from  the  water  meeting  to  Runcorn  (twenty-four  miles)  was 
opened  in  1766.  The  Worsley  branch  to  Leigh,  for  which  powers  were  obtained  in 
1795,  increased  the  total  length  of  canal  to  forty  miles. 

Litigation  followed  the  making  of  the  canal,  for  in  carrying  it  across  the 
Mersey  at  Stretford  by  a  bridge,  so  narrow  an  aperture  was  left  that  when  the 
Mersey  was  in  flood  the  water  could  not  get  through  fast  enough.  In  consequence 
it  backed  up  and  flooded  the  Stretford  and  Chorlton  meadows  :  indeed  on  some 
occasions  it  broke  its  banks  and  destroyed  much  valuable  property.  The  Trafford 
Estate  held  the  Bridgewater  Trustees  responsible  for  obstructing  the  river  by  the 
canal  bridge  and  sued  for  damages.  After  the  great  flood  of  1828  the  Trustees 


20  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

turned  the  tables  and  sued  Mr.  Trafford,  because  that  he  and  his  tenants  by  raising 
the  banks,  had  prevented  the  water  having  a  free  course.  Hence  the  floods. 
When  the  case,  Trustees  of  the  late  Duke  of  Bridgewater  v.  Thomas  Joseph  de 
Trafford,  was  tried  in  1829,  judgment  was  given  in  favour  of  the  plaintiffs  on  the 
ground  that  the  defendant  had  raised  the  river  banks,  and  by  preventing  the  water 
flooding  the  meadows  caused  damage  to  the  canal  arch  over  the  river.  But  when 
the  case  by  writ  of  error  was  taken  before  the  Court  of  Exchequer  in  1832,  the 
decision  was  reversed  and  a  new  trial  ordered.  In  the  end  an  arrangement  was 
come  to  whereby  a  new  weir  was  to  be  erected  nearer  Chorlton,  with  a  lip  low 
enough  to  allow  water  to  pass  away  before  it  reached  the  bridge,  and  so  relieve  it. 
The  surplus  water  then  flowed  down  to  the  Urmston  Ees,  below  Urmston  Hall, 
where  it  re-entered  the  river  at  a  lower  level.  By  agreement  dated  loth  June, 
1838,  the  necessary  work  to  prevent  damage  was  to  be  paid  for  in  the  following 
proportions  :— 

Bridgewater  Trustees  and  the  Earl  of  Ellesmere          .         .         .  .£1,500 

Commissioners  of  the  Turnpike  Road 500 

Thomas  Joseph  Trafford,  Esq.     .         .         ...         .         .         .  1,000 

Wilbraham  Egerton  of  Tatton,  Esq 1,000 

£4.000 

The  Bridgewater  Trustees  to  pay  Mr.  Trafford  ^500  for  the  wayleave.  Future 
maintenance  to  be  borne  in  the  following  proportions  :— 

Bridgewater  Trustees '.  one-half. 

Thomas  Joseph  Trafford,  Esq one-fourth. 

Wilbraham  Egerton,  Esq one-fourth. 

The  first  overflow  embankment  was  washed  away  in  1 840,  but  was  shortly  after- 
wards replaced  by  one  which  has  an  inscription  on  it,  and  is  still  doing  its  work. 
In  1766  an  anonymous  Manchester  writer  published  a  book  entitled  The 
History  of  Inland  Navigations,  particiilarly  those  of  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater 
in  Lancashire  and  Cheshire.  Printed  for  T.  Lowndes  in  Fleet  Street,  London, 
MDCCLXVI.  It  was  written  whilst  the  Bridgewater  Canal  was  in  construction,  and 
contains  some  pertinent  and  quaint  passages.  In  the  preface  it  says  :— 

It  has  been  customary  to  erect  monuments  in  honour  of  men  who  have  during  their 
lives  distinguished  themselves  by  patriotic  services;  but  I  wish  to  see  your  Grace  repre- 
sented in  the  prime  of  life  by  an  elegant  statue,  or  a  distinguished  pillar,  fixed  in  the  centre 
of  St.  Ann's  Square.  This  I  propose  as  one  grateful  record  of  your  fame  which  the  history 


H 

3- 


I 

a: 


ENGLISH  CANALS  21 

of  these  times  will  spread  through  Europe,  and  I  hope,  my  Lord  Duke,  to  see  your  naviga- 
tion finished,  and  to  bring  you  annual  treasures  such  as  few  peers  can  boast  of. 

It  does  seem  singular  that  nothing  exists  in  Manchester  to  commemorate  the 
name  of  a  man  who  perhaps  helped  more  than  any  other  man  to  lay  the  founda- 
tions of  the  prosperity  of  the  city.  Rumour  says  that  at  one  time  Mr.  Algernon 
Egerton,  then  M.P.  for  the  county,  offered  a  handsome  contribution  by  the  Bridge- 
water  Trustees  towards  a  statue,  but  that  the  proposition  fell  through.  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  some  day  Manchester  will,  in  an  appropriate  way,  show  her  gratitude  to 
the  memory  of  a  man  who  devoted  his  life  to  opening  out  the  trade  of  the  district 
and  securing  for  her  cheap  carriage  and  cheap  coal. 

The  before-mentioned  author  claimed  that  China  was  the  pioneer  of  canals  and 
understood  their  advantages  long  before  more  civilised  nations  adopted  them. 

But  the  great  Canal  called  the  Royal  Canal,  which  is  300  leagues  in  length,  is  without 
comparison ;  which,  at  infinite  expense,  and  with  amazing  industry,  is  carried  on  through 
many  provinces  upon  which  all  the  riches  of  the  North  and  South  are  conveyed,  and  by  its 
communications  with  other  canals  and  rivers,  the  Chinese  can  travel  or  convey  goods  very 
commodiously  from  Pekin,  the  capital,  to  the  farthest  part  of  the  Empire,  being  about  600 
leagues,  by  water  :  they  commonly  have  a  fathom  and  a  half  of  water  in  their  canals. 

The  writer  states  that  whilst  of  old  the  carriage  from  Manchester  to  Liverpool 
by  road  was  405.  and  by  river  123.  per  ton,  the  legal  maximum  by  canal  will  be  6s., 
and  that  timber  will  be  carried  at  half  the  previous  rate.  Further  that  coals  are  then 
being  sold  at  the  Cornbrook  Wharf  for  3|-d.  for  seven  score  pounds — an  enormous 
reduction. 

History  reproduces  itself,  and  it  would  seem  the  Bridgewater  Canal  had  to  en- 
counter very  similar  opposition  to  that  offered  125  years  later  to  the  Ship  Canal. 
The  author  wrote  :— 

To  have  the  means  of  conveyance  so  greatly  facilitated  ;  the  price  of  carriage  so  much 
diminished  ;  old  manufactures  encouraged  ;  new  ones  established  ;  estates  greatly  improved  ; 
plenty  widely  diffused  ;  and  the  country,  in  general,  rendered  still  more  affluent,  populous 
and  secure,  are  considerations  of  such  weight  as  cannot  fail  to  interest  all  benevolent  and 
public-spirited  persons  in  the  success  of  this  important  undertaking. 

To  conclude,  it  would  be  happy  for  this  country  if  private  interest,  prejudice,  ignorance 
or  obstinacy  were  not  employed  to  discredit  such  patriotic  undertakings,  as  must  redound 
so  greatly  to  the  honour  and  welfare  of  the  kingdom :  but  such  is  the  tax  ever  laid  upon 
attempts  for  the  public  emolument ;  let  them  be  proved  ever  so  salutary  by  the  most  con- 
victive  and  forcible  reasons,  some  opposition  will  be  made  if  it  only  flow  from  the  natural 
vanity  or  malevolence  of  mankind.  But  it  is  time,  in  the  present  critical  circumstances  of 


22  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

the  nation,  when  rivals  in  trade  and  manufactures  are  taking  every  advantage  over  us,  when 
enormous  taxes,  and  the  advanced  price  of  the  necessaries  of  life  oppress  our  manufactures 
and  our  poor,  that  we  unite  as  one  man  in  promoting  those  designs  which  will  contribute  to 
raise  our  drooping  commerce,  to  find  employment  for  our  labourers,  and  enable  us  to  bear 
the  burden  of  our  numerous  taxes  with  some  degree  of  chearfulness  (sic)  and  patience  ;  by 
which  we  may  once  more  raise  up  our  heads  and  recover  what  we  have  lost.  Let  us  say, 
at  least,  in  the  language  of  the  poet : — 

'  'Tis  not  in  mortals  to  command  success  ; 
But  we'll  do  more,  we'll  deserve  it.' " 

From  a  description  of  the  Bridgewater  Canal  by  Arthur  Young,  published  in 
1769,  it  would  appear  that  the  Duke  was  puzzled  how  to  get  lime  for  building  walls, 
but  that  he  met  with  a  chalky  kind  of  substance  which  he  tempered,  like  clay,  and 
then  burnt.  This  was  called  "lime  marie".  By  the  use  of  this  for  the  sides  of 
the  canal  he  saved  many  thousand  pounds. 

Speaking  of  crossing  Sale  Moor,  he  writes  :— 

This  part  of  the  navigation,  from  the  lowness  of  the  Moor  below  the  level  of  the  canal, 
was  pronounced  by  many  to  be  impracticable,  and  Mr.  Brindley's  ne  plus  ultra ;  but  this 
difficulty  was  removed  by  perseverance  and  spirit ;  a  complete  bed  was  made  for  the  canal, 
raised  at  bottom  as  well  as  the  sides,  sufficient  for  conducting  the  water  on  a  level.  This 
was  effected  by  making  a  vast  case  of  timber  for  the  whole  work.  Great  piles  of  deal  were 
fixed  as  a  mound  to  keep  the  earth  in  a  proper  position  to  form  the  banks ;  and  when  they 
were  raised,  the  piles  removed  on  for  answering  the  same  work  again,  and  the  water  brought 
forward  by  degrees,  to  the  astonishment  of  those  who  pronounced  the  work  impracticable. 

At  one  time  the  Duke  contemplated  carrying  a  branch  canal  from  Sale  Moor 
to  Stockport.  He  also,  with  Mr.  Brindley,  viewed  the  river  at  Runcorn  and  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  it  was  practicable  to  bridge  it  over  and  by  means  of  an 
aqueduct  to  carry  his  canal  into  Liverpool.  Young  says  : — 

The  number  of  foreigners  who  have  viewed  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater 's  present  naviga- 
tion is  surprising ;  what  would  it  be  if  his  Grace  was  to  extend  it  over  a  boisterous  arm  of 
the  sea.  To  exhibit  a  navigation  afloat  in  the  air,  with  ships  of  a  hundred  tons  sailing  full 
masted  beneath  it.  What  a  splendid  idea ! 

But  this  courageous  nobleman  was  not  permitted  to  carry  out  his  ambitious 
designs. 

When  the  Duke  died  he  left  an  eccentric  will.  He  made  the  second  son  of 
the  Duke  of  Sutherland,  Lord  Francis  Egerton,  his  heir,  but  he  so  tied  up  his 
property,  that  for  one  hundred  years  neither  the  heir  nor  his  successors  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  management  of  the  estate.  This  was  vested  in  Trustees,  one 


ENGLISH  CANALS  23 

of  whom  was  to  be  salaried,  and  to  be  the  manager  of  the  property.  Mr.  Brad- 
shaw  was  the  first  superintendent,  and  he  was  succeeded  in  turn  by  Mr.  Loch 
and  Mr.  Algernon  Egerton.  The  Trustee  was  all  powerful,  and  Lord  Francis 
Egerton  and  his  successors  have  had  simply  to  draw  the  income.  The  will  was 
typical  of  the  man.  He  was  determined  his  pet  work  (the  Bridgewater  Canal) 
should  not  suffer  through  neglect  in  after  days,  so  he  created  a  trust  that  should 
exist  during  the  lifetime  of  all  his  contemporaries,  and  for  twenty  years  after. 
The  last  survivor  of  the  great  number  of  persons  named  or  indicated  in  the  will 
died  in  October,  1883,  and  it  was  not  till  1904  that  the  trust  ended,  and  the  vast 
Bridgewater  Estate  passed  into  the  sole  possession  of  the  present  Earl  of  Ellesmere. 

As  has  been  recited  in  the  history  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation,  after 
a  severe  competition  the  two  companies  entered  into  a  working  arrangement  in 
1810,  and  finally,  in  1842,  became  merged,  and  the  Bridgewater  Trustees  became 
owners  of  both  navigations.  So  fierce  at  one  time  was  the  struggle  with  the  railways 
that  passengers  were  carried  from  Manchester  to  Liverpool  at  the  low  figure  of 
3d.  each.  Goods  came  down  in  1849  from  gs.  per  ton  to  2s.  6d.  per  ton.  Cotton 
was  carrJed  at  this  rate  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester.  At  length  the  rivals  came 
to  terms  and  the  canal  entered  the  railway  conference. 

In  time,  to  reduce  expenses,  the  Trustees  decided  mainly  to  work  the  canal, 
and  keep  the  river  navigation  as  a  kind  of  stand-by  in  case  of  need.  They  continued 
however,  to  use  the  Old  Quay  warehouses,  bringing  goods  by  canal  and  then  taking 
them  through  the  Hulme  Locks  to  the  river  for  warehousing  purposes.  Copying 
from  a  newspaper  correspondent  ("  B.  L.")  in  1882,  I  give  the  relative  cost  of  articles 
of  same  weight  by  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  (1795),  by  the  combined  water  carriers  in 
1810  and  by  the  same  bodies  when  railway  competition  was  threatened  (1822)  :— 

1795.  1810.  1822. 

1  chest  starch  ,         .         .        is.  36.  2s.  lod.  2s.  40!. 

2  hhds.  sugar   .         .         .      I  is.  od.  £i  145.  3d.  £1  53.  lod. 
I  hhd.  tobacco.         .         .        2s.  6d.  55.  4d.  45.  3d. 
6  boxes  soap     .                          45.  sd.  93.  od.  75.  6d. 

Though  from  1 845  onwards  competition  by  water  ceased,  there  was  a  stiff  struggle 
with  the  railways  for  traffic.  The  Bridgewater  Canal  was  a  thorn  in  their  side, 
because  they  could  carry  more  cheaply  by  steam  haulage,  and  they  delivered  goods 
almost  as  quickly  as  the  railways.  Cotton  sent  from  Liverpool  one  day  could  be 
delivered  in  Manchester  the  next.  Railways  then  began  to  buy  or  lease  canals, 


24  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

and  by  throttling  them  to  create  a  monopoly,  just  as  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
hud  taken  a  lease  for  twenty-one  years  of  the  Rochdale  Canal.  But  when  in  1871  the 
railway  companies  wanted  to  buy  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  the  commercial  bodies 
of  Manchester  and  elsewhere  were  in  arms.  The  Manchester  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce opposed  it,  and  Parliament  refused  permission  for  a  Bill  to  enable  the  leading 
railway  and  canal  companies  to  take  over  the  Bridgewater  Trustees'  property  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  not  public  policy  to  allow  a  monopoly  of  the  kind.  More 
than  this,  in  1872  an  Amalgamation  Bill  was  passed  forbidding  railways  to  buy  up 
canal  property.  But  what  could  not  be  done  openly  was  done  by  a  side  wind.  A 
number  of  railway  magnates,  captained  by  Sir  Edward  Watkin,  banded  themselves 
together  and  bought  the  Bridgewater  Trustees'  interest  in  their  waterways,  and  then 
created  shares  which  were  apportioned  amongst  those  railway  shareholders  who 
desired  to  take  them  up.  Henceforth  the  canal  virtually  became  railway  property, 
and  matters  were  so  arranged  that  there  was  no  active  competition,  heavy  material 
and  goods  not  requiring  speed  being  sent  by  canal.  In  order  to  disarm  public 
anxiety,  Sir  Edward  Watkin  and  Mr.  Fereday  Smith,  principal  agent,  waited  on 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  assured  them  that  the  transfer  would  be  found  for 
the  advantage  of  the  public,  that  they  were  opposed  to  monopolies  or  restrictions 
on  trade,  that  they  were  against  any  attempt  to  treat  a  canal  as  anything  but  an 
open  highway,  that  it  was  intended  to  develop  the  traffic  on  the  canal  and  not  make 
it  over  to  railway  control,  and  that  it  was  proposed  to  limit  the  dividends  to  5  per 
cent,  for  a  certain  time,  and  to  apply  the  surplus  to  improvements. 

In  order  to  appease  the  corporation  Sir  Edward  Watkin,  in  a  very  diplomatic 
way,  gave  Sir  Joseph  Heron,  the  Town  Clerk  of  Manchester,  an  honorary  seat  on 
the  Board  of  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company,  but  I  am  not  aware  he  ever 
took  any  part  in  their  proceedings.  To  do  justice  to  Sir  Edward  Watkin,  he  always 
showed  a  friendly  disposition  towards  canals,  but  there  is  no  doubt  railway  interests 
were  his  first  consideration.  When  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  was  introduced  in  1883,  tne 
Bridgewater  Navigation  Company,  consisting  as  it  did  of  railway  magnates,  was  in 
a  position  to  offer  a  powerful  opposition,  and  as  narrated  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
the  Ship  Canal  Company  thought  it  prudent  to  buy  their  whole  estate  rather  than 
take  only  the  river  navigation.  The  following  figures  will  be  interesting  :— 

The  cost  of  making  the  Bridgewater  Canal .         .         .         .         .         .  *       .         .     ,£240,000 

The  Bridgewater  Trust  in  1845  paid  for  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation.         .        550,800 

£790,800 


ENGLISH  CANALS  25 

The  Bridgewater  Navigation  in  1 872  paid  the  Bridgewater  Trustees  for  their  Canal 

and  carrying  properties £1,120,000 

In  addition  to  this  sum  £10,000  was  paid  to  Sir  Edward  Watkin  and  Mr.  Price,  the 
vendors,  and  very  heavy  legal  expenses  were  incurred.     The  sum  of  £600,000  was  the  price 
fixed  on  the  canal  portion  of  the  property. 
The  Ship  Canal  in  1885  paid  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Co.  .         .         .     £1,710,000 

That  the  purchase  has  not  been  a  bad  one  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in 
1 900  the  Ship  Canal  sold  the  Duke's  Dock,  or  thirteen  acres  of  land  in  Liverpool,  to 
the  Liverpool  Dock  Board  for  £522,000.  This  was  a  valuable  yet  a  very  small 
portion  of  the  estate  purchased. 

The  ,£1,710,000  paid  to  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  caused  much  litigation. 
The  capital  of  the  company  was — 

100,000  Ordinary  Shares,  £10  each,  £3  tos.  paid  up               .         .         .     £350,000 
Preference  Shares,  5  per  cent 300,000 


£650,000 

After  all  capital,  liabilities  and  expenses  were  paid,  there  was  the  substantial 
sum  of  ,£550,000  clear  profit  left  for  division. 

The  ordinary  shareholders  claimed  that  the  preference  shareholders  were  not  en- 
titled to  a  share  ;  they  had  had  5  per  cent. — all  they  bargained  for.  The  preference 
shareholders  claimed  a  share,  as  their  capital  had  carried  on  the  concern.  The 
matter  went  into  court,  and  it  was  decided  by  Justice  North  and  the  Court  of  Appeal 
that  the  profit  must  be  divided  pro  rata  on  the  paid-up  capital  among  all  the  share- 
holders. Against  this  the  ordinary  shareholders  appealed  to  the  House  of  Lords, 
who  reversed  all  previous  decisions,  and  said  the  ordinary  shareholders,  though 
they  had  only  paid  up  ,£350,000,  had  taken  all  the  risks  of  ,£1,000,000,  and  as  they 
would  have  had  to  pay  that  amount  in  case  of  failure,  they. must  participate  to  the 
same  extent  in  case  of  profit,  so  that  their  share  was  calculated  on  the  ,£1,000,000 
instead  of  on  ,£350,000.  The  litigation  lasted  a  long  time,  and  the  lawyers  must 
have  had  a  good  harvest. 

When  Mr.  J.  F.  Bateman,  C.E.,  who  at  one  time  was  engineer  for  the  Bridge- 
water  Trust,  was  examined  before  a  Parliamentary  Committee  as  to  the  filthy  con- 
dition of  the  canals  in  Manchester,  he  replied :  "  The  canals  in  Manchester  are 
certainly  black  and  disagreeable  looking,  but,  like  the  Devil,  not  so  black  as  they 
are  painted  ". 


CHAPTER  III. 

CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS:   ENGLISH  AND 
FOREIGN— THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL. 

Navigable  waterways  play  an  important  part  in  the  production  of  the  wealth  of  a 
country.  It  has  been  found  that  navigable  waterways  and  railways  are  not  destined  to 
supplant  but  to  support  one  another.  Each  has  its  particular  attributes.  Railways  take  the 
least  cumbrous  traffic — that  which  requires  speed  and  regularity  and  bears  most  easily  the 
cost  of  carriage.  Waterways  take  heavy  goods  of  low  value,  and  their  mere  existence  checks 
and  moderates  the  rates  on  goods  which  are  sent  by  railway. — M.  FREYCINET. 

FOR  centuries  our  forefathers  had  to  depend  mainly  on  the  roads  of  the  country. 
The  coach  sufficed  for  passengers,  and  the  pack-horse  and  waggon  for  the 
collection  and  distribution  of  goods.      Rivers  were  to  some  extent  utilised  by 
the  construction  of  locks  which  conserved  the  water  and  made  them  navigable. 
Many  of  these  in  time  became  linked  with  canals  and  thus  provided  an  arterial 
system  of  water  navigation  throughout  the  country. 

The  Thames  Navigation. — The  first  Act  for  the  improvement  of  a  river  was 
for  the  Thames  in  the  year  1423.  The  earliest  locks  and  weirs  were  made  by 
landowners  rather  with  the  intention  of  securing  water-power  than  of  improving 
the  navigation.  They  were  of  a  rude  type,  and  heavy  tolls  were  levied  by  the 
landowners.  In  1730  the  river  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  Commissioners,  who 
had  ample  powers,  and  created  a  good  barge  navigation.  In  1783  an  Act  was 
passed  to  unite  the  Thames  and  the  Severn  by  a  canal  forty  miles  long.  This 
worked  successfully,  but  on  the  introduction  of  railways  it  was  gradually  allowed 
to  fall  into  disrepair.  Lately  a  public  trust  has  been  formed  to  resuscitate  what 
ought  to  be  a  most  important  link  in  the  English  waterways. 

The  Severn  Navigation. — Various  Acts  were  passed  from  1503  to  1811  to 
secure  the  maintenance  and  navigation  of  the  river,  but  it  was  not  till  1842  that 
Commissioners,  representing  the  various  interests  in  the  river,  were  appointed  to 

take  tolls  and  improve  the  navigation.      In  1869  the  canalisation  of  the  river  was 

(26) 


CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS  27 

completed,  and  there  is  now  a  minimum  depth  of  10  feet  of  water  from  Gloucester 
to  Worcester,  enabling  vessels  of  300  to  400  tons  to  reach  the  latter  city.  The 
Severn  Navigation  is  an  important  link  between  the  Midland  towns  and  the  Bristol 
Channel  ports,  and  it  connects  with  the  Gloucester  and  Berkeley  Ship  Canal  at 
Gloucester.  The  Midland  Railway  Company  tried  to  purchase  it,  but  Parliament 
would  not  allow  them  to  do  so. 

The  Aire  and  Calder  Navigation  was  authorised  in  1698,  and  is  now  one  of 
the  best  of  English  waterways.  It  is  85  miles  long  and  has  thirty-one  locks. 
Total  cost,  ,£2,761,807.  It  starts  at  Goole  and  ends  at  Leeds  by  a  junction  with 
the  Leeds  and  Liverpool  Canal,  thus  forming  a  continuous  navigation  from  the 
east  to  the  west  coast.  In  1860  great  improvements  were  made  :  the  depth,  once 
3  feet  6  inches,  was  increased  to  9  feet  on  the  lock  sills  ;  the  locks  were  made 
2 1 5  feet  long,  and  now  vessels  of  1 70  tons  can  use  the  canal.  By  a  novel  system 
designed  by  the  manager,  Mr.  W.  H.  Bartholomew,  trains  of  boats  propelled  by 
a  steamer  convey  700  to  900  tons  of  cargo  for  shipment  at  Goole  at  a  minimum 
of  cost. 

The  Weaver  Navigation  was  created  under  the  powers  of  an  Act  in  1721, 
which  enabled  the  Trustees  to  use  any  profits  in  repairing  bridges  and  other  public 
charges  in  the  county  of  Chester.  Later  a  canal  4  miles  long  was  made  to  avoid 
the  lower  tidal  portion  of  the  river  and  obtain  a  better  entrance  to  the  Mersey  at 
Weston  Point. 

An  Act  obtained  in  1866  authorised  further  improvements,  including  the  An- 
derton  Lift,  an  ingenious  piece  of  mechanism  constructed  by  Sir  Leader  Williams. 
Since  their  completion  the  Weaver  has  been  the  best  navigation  in  England  for 
small  coasters  and  large  barges.  The  locks  are  in  pairs,  the  largest  being  220 
feet  long  by  42  feet  wide  with  15  feet  depth,  sill  depth  about  10  feet  6  inches. 
They  have  intermediate  gates  so  as  to  pass  small  craft  without  wasting  water. 
The  whole  of  the  salt  trade  outwards  passes  down  this  navigation,  and  salt  can 
thus  be  carried  far  cheaper  than  by  the  railways. 

Abroad  canalised  rivers  have  received  much  more  Government  assistance  than 
they  have  in  England.  France  paid  ,£2,500,000  to  open  the  Seine  for  navigation. 
It  was  made  toll  free,  and  now  over  4,000,000  tons  pass  over  it  yearly. 

Germany  between  1880  and  1893  spent  .£17,875,350  in  creating  and  improv- 
ing waterways,  and  in  1895  there  were  6,214  miles  open.  On  the  Rhine  the  size 
of  vessels  has  been  increased  from  800  to  1,300  tons,  and  vessels  of  500  to  600  tons 


28  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

can  now  go  direct  from  Breslau  to  Hamburg.     In  order  to  foster  water  carriage 
the  tolls  levied  are  only  about  one-third  of  the  cost  of  maintenance,  the  State  paying 

the  rest. 

SHIP  CANALS  IN  ENGLAND  AND  IRELAND. 

The  earliest  English  ship  canals  were  the  Gloucester  and  Berkeley  Canal 
and  the  Exeter  Canal.  The  Newry  Canal  dates  from  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  Gloucester  and  Berkeley  Canal  was  first  visited  by  me  in  1882  when 
searching  for  information,  and  I  well  remember  the  strange  sensation  felt  on  view- 
ing its  course  one  fine  day  from  the  top  of  Gloucester  Cathedral.  Far  as  the  eye 
could  reach  was  a  luxuriant  country,  through  which  meandered  the  canal  like  a 
silver  streak.  This  connected  the  sea  with  the  port  of  Gloucester,  where,  in  the 
midst  of  an  agricultural  county,  were  to  be  seen  forests  of  masts  and  huge  grain 
warehouses  with  vast  stacks  of  timber  on  every  side. 

The  Act  authorising  the  construction  of  the  canal  was  passed  in  1793.  It 
was  completed  in  1827.  The  first  engineer  was  Robert  Milne,  but  the  celebrated 
Thomas  Telford  revised  the  plans  and  completed  the  work.  The  navigation  of  the 
Severn  from  Sharpness  to  Gloucester,  being  both  dangerous  and  circuitous,  it  was 
decided  to  make  an  artificial  channel  18  feet  deep  between  these  points  and  thus 
reduce  the  distance  from  28  miles  to  i6|-  miles.  The  level  is  uniform  with  basins 
at  both  ends  for  shipping,  and  with  locks  down  to  the  Severn.  The  water  supply 
is  obtained  from  the  river  Frome,  and  by  means-of  the  Stroudwater  Navigation, 
which  crosses  it,  there  is  a  connection  with  the  Thames  and  Severn  Canal,  and 
other  inland  navigations.  Foreign  grain  and  timber  ships  drawing  too  much  water 
lighten  their  cargoes  at  Sharpness  and  the  surplus  is  barged  up.  Since  1869  steam 
tugs  have  been  used  to  bring  up  sailing  ships. 

The  Exeter  Canal. — This  was  the  first  canal  made  in  Great  Britain  to  enable 
sea-going  ships  to  reach  an  inland  port.  It  was  made  in  1566  by  the  Corpora- 
tion of  Exeter  and  lengthened  in  1675.  Previous  to  1820  only  small  ships  of 
9  feet  draught  could  pass  up  the  Exe  to  Exeter.  By  the  construction  of  a  canal 
3  miles  long,  from  Exeter  to  the  river,  and  the  subsequent  extension  down  to 
the  tidal  estuary,  vessels  drawing  1 4  feet  of  water  can  now  pass  up  to  the  basin  and 
wharves  at  Exeter.  The  change  was  effected  by  raising  the  banks  and  making 
new  locks.  The  works  were  carried  out  by  Mr.  Green,  under  the  advice  of  Mr. 
Telford.  Coasting  vessels  still  use  the  canal,  but  it  is  too  shallow  for  much 
business. 


CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS  29 

The  Newry  Canal. — Ireland  has  a  great  number  of  arms  of  the  sea  penetrating 
far  into  the  interior,  and  making  it  impossible  for  any  one  to  live  more  than  50 
miles  from  salt  water.  Carlingford  Lough  is  one  of  these  arms.  At  its  head  is  the 
port  of  Warren  Point,  and  here  the  river  Newry  enters  the  sea.  The  town  of 
Newry  is  a  few  miles  up  the  river.  To  enable  ships  to  reach  it,  a  canal  was  con- 
structed about  150  years  ago.  First  a  canal  2  miles  long  was  made  so  as  to 
avoid  the  shallows  on  the  upper  reach  of  the  river,  and  afterwards,  in  1829,  a  private 
company  got  powers  to  continue  it  i^  miles  seaward  to  deeper  water,  and  improve 
the  river  to  Carlingford  Lough.  Sir  John  Rennie  was  the  engineer. 

FOREIGN  SHIP  CANALS. 

The  chief  continental  ship  canals  are  the  two  connecting  Amsterdam  with  the 
North  Sea,  the  Baltic,  the  Ghent,  the  Brussels  and  the  Bruges  Canals.  Farther 
afield  are  the  Suez  Canal  and  the  Corinth  Canal.  In  America  and  Canada  the 
chief  canals  are  the  Erie,  the  Sault  Sainte  Marie  and  the  Welland  Canals. 

On  determining  to  take  up  the  question  of  a  ship  canal  for  Manchester,  I 
made  up  my  mind  to  visit  all  the  existing  ship  canals,  also  those  in  the  process  of 
construction.  I  propose  now  to  give  a  brief  description  of  them. 

The  Dutch  Canals. — Holland  is  largely  dependent  on  artificial  waterways  for 
her  wealth  and  importance :  they  form  the  commercial  roads  of  the  country. 

In  1825  was  completed  the  North  Holland  Ship  Canal.  It  connected  Lake  Y, 
on  which  Amsterdam  is  situated,  with  Niewediep  on  the  North  Sea;  formerly, 
ships  used  to  pass  through  the  shallows  of  the  Zuider  Zee,  and  then  through  the 
Texel  Roads  to  the  ocean.  This  passage  was  blocked  with  ice  in  the  winter,  and 
at  no  time  could  ships  of  any  size  reach  Amsterdam,  the  available  depth  being  only 
ii^  feet.  The  North  Holland  Canal  is  52  miles  long,  18  feet  deep,  has  a  bottom 
width  of  33  feet  and  cost  ,£916,000.  There  is  a  lock  at  either  end  with  three 
intermediate  locks. 

In  time  this  ship  canal  became  insufficient  for  the  growing  trade  of  Amster- 
dam. The  passage  was  circuitous  and  too  shallow  for  large  ships.  Indeed  one 
wonders  why  it  was  ever  made,  when  by  a  cut  of  about  16  miles  direct  access  to 
the  North  Sea  could  be  obtained,  especially  as  this  would  pass  across  VVyker  Meer, 
and  reduce  the  excavation  considerably.  It  is  presumed  the  varying  water  levels 
and  the  difficulty  of  protecting  the  entrance  into  the  North  Sea  daunted  the  original 
projectors. 

Greater  proficiency  in  the  construction  of  harbour  work  having  been  attained, 


30  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

it  was  decided  to  make  an  embankment  across  Lake  Y  and  construct  the  North 
Sea  Canal  in  a  direct  line  to  the  sea.  This  was  started  in  1 866  and  completed  in 
1872.  Originally  there  were  two  locks  at  Ymuiden,  where  it  enters  the  North 
Sea,  and  where  protecting  breakwaters  and  extensive  harbour  works  have  been 
built.  Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  canal,  it  was  recognised  that  the  proportions 
were  insufficient,  it  was  therefore  deepened,  widened,  and  larger  locks  were  con- 
structed. It  is  now.  28  feet  deep  up  to  Amsterdam,  with  a  bottom  width  of  82  feet 
and  105  feet  at  the  sidings.  The  top  water  level  varies  from  328  to  426  feet. 
New  locks  added  at  Ymuiden  and  Amsterdam  will  pass  ships  722  feet  long  and 
65^  feet  wide  at  the  former  place,  and  567  feet  long  and  51  feet  wide  at  the  latter. 
The  canal  now  belongs  to  the  State.  The  cost  was  ^4,853,000,  but  this  has  been 
reduced  by  sales  of  reclaimed  land  to  the  value  of  £1,166,000.  An  idea  of  the 
increase  of  traffic  may  be  gained  from  the  fact  that  in  fifteen  years  the  business  in- 
creased five  fold.  Sir  John  Hawkshaw  was  one  of  the  consulting  engineers,  and 
the  work  was  carried  out  by  English  contractors. 

The  Baltic  Canal. — This  waterway  gives  access  from  the  North  Sea  to  the 
Baltic  for  the  German  Navy  and  Merchant  Service.  It  was  started  in  1887  and 
completed  in  1895,  at  the  cost  of  about  .£8,000,000.  The  length  is  about  61  \  miles, 
depth  29^  feet,  width  at  bottom  72  feet.  Every  2\  miles  there  are  wide  places 
to  enable  large  ships  to  pass  one  another.  The  canal  runs  chiefly  through  the 
Schleswig-Holstein  territory,  which  Prussia  took  from  Denmark  half  a  century  ago. 
Previously,  German  ships  could  only  reach  the  Baltic  ports  through  the  Sound, 
commanded  by  Denmark  on  the  one  side  and  Sweden  on  the  other.  By  means 
of  the  canal  the  approach  to  the  Baltic  is  now  entirely  through  German  territory, 
and  in  time  of  war  battle-ships  can  pass  through  in  safety. 

My  first  visit  was  by  steamer  from  Kiel  to  the  Baltic  end  at  Holtenau.  Here 
we  passed  through  spacious  locks  and  under  several  magnificent  fixed  and  swing 
bridges,  the  clear  headway  to  the  former  being  138  feet.  Afterwards  I  went  to 
the  Kuden  Lake  length  and  thus  to  Briinsbuttel,  where  are  the  locks  through  which 
the  canal  is  entered  from  the  North  Sea.  The  levels  of  the  connected  seas  vary 
very  little,  the  locks  at  each  end  being  used  only  to  equalise  any  little  variation 
there  may  be.  The  excavated  material,  in  all  about  106,000,000  cubic  yards, 
together  with  the  dredgings  have  been  largely  put  on  the  low  land  adjoining  the 
banks,  and  it  is  wonderful  to  see  how  fertile  the  made  land  has  become,  growing 
most  excellent  crops. 


CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS  31 

Belgium,  compared  with  most  continental  nations,  is  in  an  unfortunate  position. 
She  has  only  a  small  sea  frontage,  and  on  it  Ostend  is  the  only  port  of  any  import- 
ance. Her  access  to  the  sea  is  mainly  by  the  Scheldt,  a  free  navigation  running 
into  the  interior,  and  this  is  the  means  by  which  her  imports  and  exports  are  chiefly 
conducted.  The  growth  of  the  population  and  importance  of  Antwerp  is  pheno- 
menal, and  it  is  now  one  of  the  great  emporiums  of  the  Continent.  But  Belgium 
has  also  many  other  internal  towns,  hives  of  industry,  and  it  became  necessary 
they  also  should  have  cheap  and  good  communication  with  the  sea. 

Brussels  possesses  a  ship  canal  17^  miles  long  to  the  Rupel  which  connects 
with  the  Scheldt.  By  this  means  ships  of  400  tons  can  reach  the  capital.  The 
present  canal  has  three  locks,  and  is  only  19^  feet  deep,  but  the  State,  the  city, 
and  the  neighbouring  communes  propose,  by  a  joint  expenditure  of  ;£  1,500,000  to 
increase  the  depth  to  20  feet,  and  this  will  allow  vessels  of  2,000  tons  to  pass  up  to 
Brussels. 

Bruges  used  to  be  a  port  connected  with  the  sea  by  the  Zwyn  estuary. 
This,  however,  became  choked  with  sand  and  the  port  was  ruined.  A  large  canal 
to  Ostend  was  of  little  use,  and  in  1 896  the  State  and  local  bodies  determined  to 
try  and  restore  the  past  commercial  prosperity  of  Bruges  by  making  a  ship  canal. 
It  runs  to  Zeebrugge  on  the  sea-coast  and  is  6J  miles  long,  26J  feet  deep,  and  has 
a  bottom  width  of  72  feet  with  flat  slopes,  pitched  with  stone  near  the  water  level. 
The  country  through  which  the  canal  runs,  being  flat,  presents  few  difficulties ;  the 
great  cost  is  on  the  sea-coast,  where  embankments,  jetties,  and  a  breakwater  5,000 
feet  long  are  being  constructed.  To  resist  the  heavy  seas,  the  outer  part  of  the 
latter  is  built  of  concrete  blocks  weighing  250  to  300  tons  each,  the  upper  courses 
weighing  50  tons  each.  The  harbour  formed  by  the  breakwater  will  have  an  area 
of  about  2  70  acres. 

Ghent  is,  perhaps,  the  most  enterprising  of  all  the  Belgian  towns.  The 
present  is  her  third  effort  to  reach  the  sea  by  means  of  canals.  When  an  earlier 
canal  silted  up,  one  20  feet  deep,  with  a  bottom  width  of  56  feet,  was  made  to 
Terneusen  on  the  Scheldt.  There  are  two  locks  295  feet  long  and  39^  feet  wide. 
As  Holland  owns  both  sides  of  the  Scheldt  at  its  mouth,  a  convention  was 
entered  into  with  that  country  in  1883  to  secure  the  working  of  the  canal.  Shortly 
after  it  was  opened  I  travelled  its  whole  length  by  one  of  the  Grimsby  steam- 
boats, and  I  was  exceedingly  pleased  with  the  neatness  of  its  banks  and  the 
quaintness  of  the  scenery.  The  surrounding  country  being  very  flat  our  boat 


32  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

towered  over  it,  affording  us  an  excellent  view.     The  port  of  Ghent  has  com- 
modious docks  and  warehousing  accommodation  of  a  modern  type. 

The  Suez  Canal. — So  much  has  been  written  about  this  canal  that  I  do  not 
propose  to  go  into  its  history.  Its  complete  success  after  years  of  failure  did  more 
than  anything  else  to  stimulate  the  promoters  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal.  Origin- 
ally the  canal  was  26  feet  deep,  with  a  bottom  width  of  72  feet.  The  Committee 
appointed  in  1884  recommended  that  the  depth  should  be  increased  to  27  feet 
6  inches,  and  the  bottom  width  to  121  feet  4  inches.  This  was  completed  in  1898. 
Now  another  effort  is  being  made,  and  dredgers  are  at  work  dredging  to  31  feet. 
The  width  varies  from  220  to  260  feet.  Ships  pass  one  another  at  certain  fixed 
places,  and  can,  with  the  aid  of  electric  light,  travel  by  night  as  well  as  by  day.  It 
has  been  my  lot  to  pass  through  many  times,  and  the  quickest  passage,  when  in  a 
P.  &  O.  mail  steamer,  was  thirteen  hours.  The  canal  is  101  miles  long. 

Canada  has  a  large  number  of  ship  canals,  made  chiefly  to  assist  the  navigation 
of  the  St.  Lawrence.  Of  these  the  most  important  is  the  Welland  Canal,  con- 
necting the  waters  of  Lakes  Erie  and  Ontario,  across  the  Niagara  Peninsula.  The 
locks  are  370  feet  long  and  45  feet  wide.  Depth  of  canal,  14  feet.  It  is  27!  miles 
long  with  twenty-six  locks,  and  has  a  rise  of  327  feet.  In  1842  the  Canadian 
Government  bought  the  old  canal,  and  at  once  commenced  to  improve  the  naviga- 
tion. From  Port  Colborne,  on  Lake  Erie,  to  near  Thorold  is  a  uniform  level,  and 
on  this  length  the  old  course  was  widened  and  deepened.  Then  there  is  a  long 
series  of  locks  with  an  average  fall  of  12  to  14  feet.  Before  coming  to  the  first 
lock  there  are  guard  gates,  in  case  of  accident.  These  series  of  locks  take  a  ship 
down  almost  to  the  level  of  Lake  Ontario,  and  from  the  foot  of  the  bottom  lock 
Government  made  a  new  channel,  running  by  the  side  of  the  old  one,  for  nearly 
1 2  miles,  to  the  lock  at  Port  Dalhousie,  which  has  to  be  passed  on  entering  Lake 
Ontario.  On  the  old  portion  are  wooden  locks,  180  feet  by  24  feet  6  inches  wide. 
It  takes  about  eight  hours  to  pass  through  the  twenty-five  locks,  and  two  to  three 
minutes  to  get  through  each  of  twenty-six  road  swing  bridges.  There  are  tow- 
paths  all  along  the  canals,  and  sailing  vessels  are  sometimes  hauled  by  horses.  I 
paid  my  visit  of  inspection  to  this  canal  in  1884,  and  I  was  much  struck  with  the 
magnificent  stone-work  on  the  canal,  and  the  conveniences  provided.  The  whole 
length  is  lighted  by  gas,  and  can  be  worked  the  full  twenty-four  hours.  There  are 
telegraphic  connections  the  entire  distance.  From  the  top  of  the  locks  the  view 
across  the  country  to  Lake  Ontario,  350  feet  below,  is  simply  magnificent. 


CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS  33 

Sault  Sainte  Marie  Canal. — Another  important  Canadian  waterway  is  the 
Sault  Sainte  Marie  Canal,  connecting  Lakes  Huron  and  Michigan  with  Lake 
Superior.  The  depth  is  20^  feet,  and  the  locks  are  900  feet  long  and  60  feet  wide. 
On  the  American  side  are  other  locks  800  feet  long  and  100  feet  wide.  One  would 
suppose  that  with  this  ample  accommodation  there  would  be  no  delay,  yet  so  huge 
is  the  business  in  corn,  iron  ore,  coal  and  other  merchandise,  that  there  is  often  a 
string  of  huge  steamers  waiting  to  go  through.  If  the  Manchester  Canal  could  do 
one-fourth  of  the  weight  that  passes  through  this  canal,  her  success  would  be  assured. 
The  business  is  done  chiefly  in  huge  long  whaleback  steamers,  of  moderate  draught, 
and  it  was  one  of  the  impressions  of  my  life  when  I  viewed  a  string  of  these  monsters 
passing  through.  In  my  travels  I  met  with  the  President  of  the  Company,  who 
made  a  railway  from  Pittsburg  to  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie,  and  I  repeat  his  story 
to  illustrate  the  wonderful  energy  and  enterprise  that  has  made  America  so  success- 
ful. In  his  early  years  he  had  distinguished  himself  in  the  struggle  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  and  had  become  a  colonel.  When  the  war  was  over  he 
joined  other  capitalists  in  floating  and  carrying  out  various  enterprises.  Hearing 
that  Mr.  Carnegie  was  anxious  to  bring  Canadian  ore  from  the  shore  of  Lake 
Superior  to  his  Pittsburg  works,  he  interviewed  that  gentleman,  and  got  the  offer 
of  5,000, ooo  tons  of  ore  per  year  if  he  would  make  a  line  156  miles  long  and  carry 
ore  at  2s.  per  ton,  or  '16  of  id.  per  ton  per  mile.  The  colonel  and  his  company 
accepted  what  was  thought  by  most  people  a  ridiculous  offer.  They  made  a 
straight  and  cheap  line  through  the  wilderness  to  the  selected  point  on  the  Lake, 
and  worked  it  with  powerful  engines  and  steel  trucks  each  carrying  50  tons.  By 
this  means  they  carried  the  5,000,000  tons  at  the  least  possible  cost,  and  they 
secured  return  cargoes  of  Pennsylvanian  coal,  which  was  wanted  in  Canada.  In  the 
end  their  effort  was  a  complete  success. 

America  does  not  possess  any  deep  ship  canals.  The  Erie  Canal  is  only 
about  9  feet  deep,  yet  an  immense  traffic  (to  a  large  extent  in  grain)  passes  over  it. 
The  canal  divides  with  the  railways  the  30,000,000  of  tons  of  merchandise  that  in 
1899  passed  both  ways  through  the  Detroit  River. 

THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL. 

I  propose  now  to  describe  the  constructed  canal,  the  substance  of  the  informa- 
tion and  the  figures  being  kindly  supplied  to  me  by  Sir  Leader  Williams  and  other 

engineers  engaged  on  the  works. 

VOL.  i.  3 


34  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

The  total  length  of  the  canal  is  35^  miles.  It  runs  for  \2\  miles  alongside  the 
Mersey  estuary  to  Runcorn,  thence  inland  for  8|  miles  to  Latchford,  near  Warrington. 
Here  is  the  first  lock,  and  to  this  point  it  is  tidal.  From  Latchford  to  Manchester  (14^ 
miles)  the  canal  follows  the  course  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell.  Eastham,  where  the  canal 
commences,  is  6  miles  above  Liverpool.  The  entrance  adjoins  a  good  low-water  channel, 
communicating  with  the  Sloyne  deep  at  Liverpool.  It  is  close  by  the  Eastham  Hotel  and 
Pleasure  Gardens,  and  is  quite  picturesque  in  its  character.  There  are  three  entrance  locks 
parallel  with  each  other,  viz.,  600  x  80  feet  wide,  300  x  50  feet  and  150  X  30  feet. 
These  maintain  the  water  level  in  the  canal  at  the  height  of  a  tide  rising  14  feet  2  inches 
above  the  Liverpool  datum,  which  is  rather  below  mean  high  water  level ;  when  the  tide 
rises  above  that  height,  the  lock  gates  are  opened,  and  it  flows  up  to  Latchford,  giving  on 
high  water  spring  tides  an  additional  depth  of  about  7  feet.  On  the  ebb  tide  this  water  is 
returned  to  the  Mersey  through  large  sluices  at  Randies  Creek,  and  at  the  junction  of  the 
river  Weaver  with  the  canal ;  the  level  of  the  canal  is  thus  reduced  to  its  normal  height. 
The  minimum  depth  of  the  canal  is  26  feet ;  the  lock  sills  are  fixed  2  feet  lower  to  enable  the 
canal  some  day  to  be  made  28  feet  deep.  The  minimum  bottom  width  is  120  feet.  This 
allows  large  vessels  to  pass  one  another  everywhere.  The  width  is  much  increased  at 
the  locks  and  other  parts.  The  slopes  are  as  a  rule  i£  to  i  but  flatter  in  places  and 
nearly  vertical  in  rock  cuttings.  From  Eastham  to  Runcorn  the  canal  skirts  the  estuary : 
in  some  places  clay  embankments  have  been  formed  to  exclude  the  tidal  waters,  and  in  others 
it  runs  inland  and  cuts  off  promontories.  One  of  these  has  been  used  for  the  deposit  of 
spoil,  and  it  has  assumed  such  huge  dimensions  as  to  look  like  a  mountain  in  the  distance. 
In  honour  of  the  departmental  engineer,  a  son  of  Mr.  Justice  Manisty,  it  was  christened 
"  Mount  Manisty,"  and  it  has  been  made  famous  on  canvas  by  a  picture  painted  by  Mr.  B.  W. 
Leader,  R.A.,  for  Earl  Egerton,  to  illustrate  the  works  in  progress.  To  protect  the  clay 
embankments  they  are  faced  with  heavy  coursed  stone  on  each  side.  Where  the  foundation 
was  bad,  sheeting  piles  of  timber  had  to  be  used.  Facing  Ellesmere  Port  there  is  an  em- 
bankment 6,200  feet  long,  and  to  secure  its  safety  13,000  whole  sheeting  piles  35  feet  long 
were  driven,  water  jets  under  pressure,  through  \\  inch  wrought-iron  pipes,  being  used  to 
assist  in  sinking  the  piles,  which  were  found  most  difficult  to  drive  by  ordinary  means. 

At  the  river  Weaver  ten  Stoney's  roller-sluices  are  built,  each  30  feet  span,  with 
heavy  stone  and  concrete  piers  and  foundations.  At  Runcorn,  where  the  Mersey  is  narrow, 
a  concrete  sea-wall  4,300  feet  long  was  substituted  for  an  embankment.  At  various  points 
cast-iron  syphon  pipes  are  laid  under  the  canal  to  carry  into  the  estuary  any  land  drainage 
which  is  at  a  lower  level  than  the  canal ;  the  largest  of  these  syphons  was  constructed  to 
allow  of  the  tidal  and  fresh  water  of  the  river  Gowey  to  pass  under  the  canal  at  Stanlow 
Point,  between  Runcorn  and  Ellesmere  Port.  Five  1 2-inch  syphons  are  placed  close  together, 
built  of  cast-iron  segments :  they  are  400  feet  long,  and  were  laid  on  concrete  4  feet  below 
the  canal.  From  Runcorn  to  Latchford  the  canal  is  nearly  straight,  the  depth  of  cutting 
varying  from  35  to  70  feet,  partly  in  rock,  but  generally  in  alluvial  deposit.  The  canal 
passes  through  the  new  red  sandstone  formation,  with  its  overlying  beds  of  gravel,  clay, 
sand  and  silt.  Retaining  walls  of  stone  and  brick-work  had  to  be  built  in  these  places  to 


<- 


* 


, 

o 


3! 

< 

w 


q 
u 

H 


0. 

•y. 


o 
y. 


Q 


X 
H 


H 

D   S 
O   o 


|f 

5)    t>0 

c 


o 


CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS  35 

maintain  the  sides  of  the  canal  from  slips  and  injury  by  the  wash  of  steamers.  Unfortu- 
nately, the  red  sandstone  when  depended  upon  as  a  wall  to  the  canal  proved  treacherous  in 
character.  What  seemed  at  first  very  good  rock  turned  out  to  be  laminated  by  veins  of 
sand,  and  gave  way  under  the  action  of  water  and  weather.  The  brick-work  necessary  to 
remedy  defects  has  been  an  unexpected  addition  to  the  cost  of  the  canal.  The  canal  from 
Latchford  to  Manchester  is  in  a  deep  cutting  through  the  valleys  of  the  rivers  Mersey  and 
Irwell.  Both  these  rivers  abound  in  bends,  and  only  small  portions  of  the  old  course  could 
be  used ;  an  almost  straight  line  was  therefore  adopted,  and  this  involved  many  crossings  of 
the  old  river  channels.  These  had  to  be  kept  open  for  the  discharge  of  flood  and  land  water, 
and  in  some  places  temporary  cuts  of  great  length  had  to  be  made  for  the  same  purpose. 
In  November,  1890,  and  December,  1891,  the  workings  were  drowned  out,  many  miles  of  the 
unfinished  canal  being  filled,  and  great  damage  being  done  to  the  slopes.  In  all  23  miles 
of  the  canal  had  to  be  pumped  out  before  the  work  could  be  completed.  When  the  cutting 
between  the  lengths  of  the  old  river  was  finished,  the  end  dams  were  removed,  and  the  rivers 
Irwell  and  Mersey  turned  into  the  new  channel  now  forming  the  upper  portion  of  the  Ship 
Canal. 

The  total  rise  to  the  level  of  the  docks  at  Manchester,  from  the  ordinary  level  of  the 
water  in  the  tidal  portion  of  the  canal  below  Latchford  Locks,  is  60  feet  6  inches ;  this  is 
obtained  by  an  average  rise  of  about  15  feet  at  each  of  the  locks  at  Latchford,  Irlam, 
Barton  and  Mode  Wheel.  These  are  respectively  14^,  7,  5  and  I  £  miles  from  Manchester. 
At  the  upper  end  of  the  canal  the  bottom  width  is  170  feet,  to  allow  vessels  to  discharge 
cargo  on  wharves  without  interfering  with  the  general  traffic  of  the  canal.  The  interior  locks 
are  in  duplicate,  the  largest  being  600  feet  long  by  65  feet  wide,  the  other  350  feet  by  45  wide, 
each  with  four  Stoney's  sluices  adjacent.  Both  the  locks  have  intermediate  gates,  in  order 
to  pass  small  vessels  with  the  least  possible  waste  of  water.  They  are  filled  or  emptied  in 
five  minutes  by  large  culverts  on  each  side,  with  side  openings  into  the  lock.  Concrete  with 
blue  brick  facing  is  largely  used,  and  the  copings,  quoins  and  fender  courses  are  of  Cornish 
granite.  The  lock  gates  are  made  of  greenheart  timber  from  Demerara.  The  sluices  are 
30  feet  span.  Ordinarily,  surplus  water  passes  over  the  top  of  the  sluices,  which  are  kept 
closed  ;  in  flood  times  they  are  raised  sufficiently  to  pass  off  floods  with  only  a  small  rise  in 
the  canal.  There  are  eight  hydraulic  installations,  each  having  duplicate  steam  engines  and 
boilers ;  the  mains  exceed  7  miles  in  length,  the  pressure  being  700  Ib.  to  the  inch.  They 
work  the  cranes,  lifts  and  capstans  at  the  docks,  lock  gates  and  culvert  sluices,  coal-tips, 
swing  bridges  and  aqueduct. 

At  Barton,  near  Manchester,  means  had  to  be  found  to  maintain  the  Bridgewater  Canal, 
and  yet  permit  large  steamers  to  use  the  Ship  Canal  beneath  it.  Brindley's  Canal  is  one 
level  throughout  its  whole  length ;  it  draws  its  water  from  the  Rochdale  Canal,  a  few  streams 
en  route,  and  an  auxiliary  supply  from  the  Medlock,  but  this  is  only  sufficient  for  the  docks 
at  Runcorn.  To  lower  down  to  the  Ship  Canal  at  Barton  would  have  meant  the  waste  of 
a  lock  of  water,  and  caused  serious  delay  to  the  traffic.  Sir  Leader  Williams  solved  the 
problem  by  means  of  a  swing  aqueduct  for  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  which,  when  closed, 
allows  of  the  traffic  passing  as  heretofore.  The  water  in  the  swing  portion  of  the  aqueduct 


36  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

when  opened  is  maintained  by  closing  gates  at  each  end,  similar  gates  being  shut  at  the 
same  time  across  the  fixed  portion  of  the  aqueduct.  The  swing  portion  is  a  large  steel 
trough,  carried  by  side  girders  234  feet  long  and  33  feet  high  in  the  centre,  tapering  4  feet 
to  the  ends  :  the  waterway  is  19  feet  wide  and  6  feet  deep.  The  whole  works  on  a  central 
pier,  and  is  turned  like  a  swing  bridge;  it  has  two  spans  over  the  canal  of  90  feet  each.  It 
is  somewhat  singular  that  the  first  fixed  canal  aqueduct  in  England  should,  after  the  lapse 
of  136  years,  be  replaced  by  the  first  swing  aqueduct  ever  constructed.  The  structure  is 
moved  by  hydraulic  power,  and  has  never  given  any  trouble  in  working,  even  in  times  of 
severe  frost.  The  weight  of  the  movable  portion,  including  the  water,  is  1,600  tons. 

The  manner  of  dealing  with  the  existing  five  lines  of  railways  crossing  the  proposed 
route  of  the  canal  was  of  importance,  both  in  the  interests  of  the  travelling  public  and  the 
canal  traders.  The  main  line  of  the  London  and  North- Western  to  Scotland  was,  perhaps, 
the  most  important  that  had  to  be  crossed.  No  doubt  swing  bridges  to  cross  navigations 
are  both  dangerous  and  inconvenient.  Tunnels,  like  the  Severn  Tunnel,  are  costly  and 
difficult  to  make,  besides  often  requiring  permanent  pumping  power.  Eventually  high  level 
deviation  lines  were  adopted  for  each  railway  crossing  the  canal.  Parliament  had  never 
hitherto  sanctioned  such  extensive  alterations,  and  it  was  only  the  fact  that  clauses  for  swing 
bridges  existed  and  the  proved  necessity  of  a  ship  canal  to  Manchester,  which  secured  the 
requisite  power  against  the  strong  opposition  of  the  combined  railway  companies.  By  means 
of  embankments,  made  close  to  and  parallel  with  the  old  lines,  and  started  about  a  mile  and 
a  quarter  from  the  canal  on  each  side,  a  viaduct  was  thrown  over  the  canal  itself,  to  give  a 
clear  headway  of  75  feet  at  ordinary  water  level.  The  provision  of  fidded,  or  telescopic 
masts,  will  enable  vessels  of  any  size  to  use  the  canal.  The  gradients  on  the  railways 
rising  up  to  the  viaducts  are  i  in  135.  The  span  of  the  viaducts  is  so  arranged  as  to 
maintain  the  full  width  of  the  canal  for  navigation  ;  and  as  the  railways  generally  cross  the 
canal  on  the  skew,  this  necessitates  girders  in  some  cases  of  300  feet  span.  There  are  nine 
main  roads  across  the  canal,  all  requiring  swing  bridges  ;  those  below  Barton  have  a  clear 
waterway  of  120  feet.  The  width  of  these  bridges  varies  from  20  feet  to  36  feet,  and  they 
are  constructed  of  steel,  their  weight  varying  from  500  to  1,000  tons  each.  They  work  on  a 
live  ring  of  conical  cast-iron  rollers,  and  are  moved  by  hydraulic  power  supplied  by  steam, 
gas,  or  oil  engines.  The  Trafford  Road  Bridge  at  the  Manchester  Docks  is  the  heaviest 
swing  bridge  on  the  canal ;  being  of  extra  width  it  weighs  1,800  tons. 

The  canal  being  virtually  one  long  dock,  wharves  can  be  placed  anywhere  for  the 
erection  of  works.  At  Ellesmere  Port  coal-tips,  sheds  and  a  pontoon  have  been  erected, 
and  the  canal  is  in  direct  communication  with  the  docks  there,  as  well  as  at  Weston  Point 
and  Runcorn,  where  a  large  trade  is  carried  on  with  the  Potteries  and  the  salt  districts. 

At  Partington,  branches  from  the  railways  connect  the  canal  with  the  Lancashire  and 
Yorkshire  coal-fields,  and  the  canal  is  widened  out  65  feet  on  each  side  to  accommodate  six 
hydraulic  coal-tips.  At  Mode  Wheel  there  are  extensive  abattoirs  and  lairages  erected  by 
the  Manchester  Corporation  ;  also  large  petroleum  oil  tanks,  a  graving  dock  and  a  pontoon, 
cold-air  meat  stores  and  other  accommodation  for  traffic.  At  Manchester  the  area  of  the 
docks  is  104  acres,  with  152  acres  of  quay  space,  having  over  5  miles  of  frontage  to  the 


CANALISED  RIVERS  AND  SHIP  CANALS  37 

docks,  which  are  provided  with  a  number  of  three-storey  transit  sheds,  thirteen  seven-storey, 
and  seven  four-storey  warehouses  and  a  large  grain  silo.  These  are  constantly  being  added  to 
as  the  trade  increases.  The  London  and  North- Western,  and  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
Railway  Companies  have  made  branch  lines  to  the  docks,  the  railway  sidings  at  which  are 
over  thirty  miles  in  length.  Much  traffic  is  also  carted  or  dealt  with  by  inland  canals  in 
direct  communication  with  the  docks.  The  deepening,  widening  and  straightening  of  the 
Irwell  and  Medlock,  and  the  use  of  fixed  sluices  in  the  place  of  weirs,  has  been  of  great 
advantage  to  the  district  passed  through,  by  the  prevention  of  floods.  In  some  cases,  land 
that  used  to  be  regularly  flooded  is  now  built  upon. 

The  total  amount  of  excavation  in  the  canal,  docks  and  subsidiary  work  was  fifty- 
four  million  cubic  yards,  nearly  one-fourth  of  which  was  sandstone  rock ;  the  excavated 
material  was  used  in  forming  the  railway  deviation  embankments,  filling  up  the  old  beds 
of  the  rivers,  and  raising  low  lands  near  the  canal.  In  the  latter  case  a  covenant  was  some- 
times entered  into  to  place  18  to  24  inches  of  good  soil  on  the  top,  and  this  has  produced 
excellent  crops. 

As  many  men  were  employed  on  the  works  as  could  be  obtained,  but  the  number  never 
exceeded  17,000,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  excavation  was  done  by  about  eighty  steam- 
navvies  and  land  dredgers.  For  the  conveyance  of  excavations  and  materials,  228  miles  of 
temporary  railway  lines  were  laid,  and  173  locomotives,  6,300  waggons  and  trucks,  and  316 
fixed  and  portable  steam  engines  and  cranes  were  employed,  the  total  cost  of  the  plant  being 
about  £1,000,000.  The  expenditure  on  the  works,  including  plant  and  equipment,  to  1st 
January,  1900,  was  £10,327,666.  The  purchase  in  all  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  and  Bridge- 
water  Canal  Navigations,  £1,786,651.  Land  and  compensation,  £1,223,809.  Interest  on 
capital  during  construction,  £1,170,733.  These  items  with  parliamentary  and  general  ex- 
penses bring  up  the  total  cost  of  the  canal  to  £15,248,437. 

Each  year  since  the  completion  of  the  canal  has  been  marked  by  extensive 
additions,  such  as  the  purchase  of  the  race-course  at  Mode  Wheel,  and  of  50  acres 
adjoining  from  Colonel  Clowes,  the  construction  on  the  added  area  of  a  huge  dock 
900  yards  long  with  a  co-extensive  block  of  warehouses  built  of  fine  concrete 
on  the  Hennebique  system  ;  also  other  extensions  and  additions  too  numerous  to 
mention,  which  really  belong  to  the  history  of  a  later  period. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCK 
AND  TOWN  DUES— THEIR  OPPRESSIVE  CHARACTER— THE 
LIVERPOOL  TOLL  BAR. 

The  fact  that  persons  live  in  Liverpool  is  no  reason  why  they  only  should  take  part  in 
the  government  of  the  docks.  On  the  other  hand,  we  say  that  those  whose  interests  are 
bound  up  in  the  successful  rearrangement  of  the  port  of  Liverpool  ought  not  to  be  excluded 
from  the  government  of  it  because  they  do  not  happen  to  live  in  Liverpool. — Speech  of 
Mr.  Culvert,  Q.C. 

ANY  history  of  the  Ship  Canal  movement  would  be  incomplete  that  did  not 
give  a  brief  account  of  the  controversy  that  raged  for  at  least  half  a  century 
in  respect  to  the  Liverpool  dock  and  town  dues  and  the  management  of 
the  Dock  Trust.  The  Dock  Authority  has  been  by  turns  in  conflict  with  the 
Liverpool  Corporation,  the  merchants  of  Liverpool,  Birkenhead,  Manchester  and 
other  Lancashire  towns.  Certain  it  is  that  the  heavy  shipping  charges  and  dues 
exacted  by  the  Dock  Board  at  Liverpool  mainly  caused  the  advent  of  the  Ship 
Canal. 

In  1207  King  John  granted  a  charter  to  Liverpool,  and  made  it  a  Royal 
borough.  "Liverpool"  was  endowed  with  "all  liberties  and  free  customs  which 
any  free  borough  on  the  sea  hath  in  our  land". 

In  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  another  charter  was  granted  creating  freemen  in 
Liverpool,  who  could  buy  and  sell  in  their  own  port  and  every  free  borough  in  the 
kingdom  without  paying  any  dues.  They  were  also  exempt  from  market  tolls  and 
ferry  rates. 

Sir  James  Picton,  in  his  Memorials  of  Liverpool,  says  that  an  Act  passed  in 
1544  included  Liverpool  in  the  list  of  decayed  towns:  "There  hath  been  in  times 
past  many  beautiful  houses  which  are  now  falling  into  ruin".  Leland,  in  his 
Itinerary,  commenced  in  1533,  says  :  "At  Lyrpole  is  a  small  costome  payid  that 
causeth  marchantes  to  resorte".  Further,  "Good  Marchandis  at  Lyrpole,  moch 

(38) 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  39 

Irisch  yarn  that  Manchester  men  do  by  ther".  On  this  Sir  James  Picton  remarks : 
"The  yarn  here  mentioned  was  doubtless  linen  yarn  spun  in  Ireland  and  woven  in 
Manchester  and  the  neighbourhood.  This  is  the  first  intimation  we  have  of  the 
textile  manufactures  of  South  Lancashire— the  first  feeble  rill  of  that  manufacturing 
industry  and  commerce  which  has  swelled  into  such  a  mighty  stream." 

Ralph  Sekerston  in  addressing  Queen  Elizabeth  in  a  letter  in  1566  calls 
himself  "your  poor  subject,  of  your  Grace's  decayed  town  of  Liverpool,"  and  asks 
that  the  charter  governing  the  town  may  remain  in  her  hands,  pleading,  "  Liverpool 
is  your  own  town.  Your  Majesty  hath  a  castle  and  two  chauntries  clear,  the  fee 
farms  of  the  town,  the  ferry  boat,  two  windmills,  the  custom  of  the  duchy,  the  new 
custom  of  the  tonnage  and  poundage,  which  was  never  paid  in  Liverpool  before 
your  time ;  and  the  commodity  thereof  is  your  majesty's.  For  your  own  sake  suffer 
us  not  utterly  to  be  cast  away  in  your  Grace's  time,  but  relieve  us  like  a  mother." 

In  1581  the  merchants  of  Chester,  being  jealous,  tried  to  repress  the  rising  town 
of  Liverpool,  which  had  hitherto  been  considered  a  mere  dependency  of  the  Dee 
port.  Liverpool  thereupon  invoked  the  help  of  their  neighbour  the  Earl  of  Derby, 
who  brought  the  matter  before  the  Privy  Council  whence  it  was  referred  to  the 
Master  of  the  Rolls.  Secretary  Walsingham  in  making  this  communication  de- 
scribes the  Earl  of  Derby  as  "the  chief  person  in  those  parts,  and  Patron  of  that 
poor  town  of  Ly verpoole  ". 

In  the  whirligig  of  time  what  wonderful  changes  take  place  and  how  history 
repeats  itself!  We  read  that  the  flourishing  port  of  Chester  tried  to  retard  the 
progress  of  "  that  poor  town  of  Ly  verpoole  "  just  as  three  centuries  later  the  wealthy 
and  important  port  of  Liverpool  tried  to  prevent  Manchester  redeeming  her  fortunes 
by  becoming  a  centre  for  shipping.  Strange  to  say  an  Earl  of  Derby  in  both  cases 
befriended  the  town  struggling  for  commercial  freedom.  It  was  largely  owing  to 
the  assistance  rendered  by  the  Earl  of  Derby  that  Lord  Winmarleigh  in  1883  was 
enabled  to  overcome  the  opposition  of  Lord  Redesdale  to  the  Bill  in  the  House  of 
Lords. 

It  remained  a  royal  borough  till  1628,  when  "in  consideration  of  a  past  and 
certain  future  loans  from  the  City  of  London,"  Charles  I.,  after  excepting  a  rent 
due  to  Sir  Richard  Molyneux  of  ^"14  6s.  8d.,  made  over  to  trustees  "his  town  and 
Lordship  of  Liverpool".  This  included  the  market  tolls  and  perquisites  of  the 
courts,  the  ferry,  all  the  Customs  and  anchorage  and  all  rights  appertaining  to  the 
property  to  low-water  mark.  In  1635  the  City  of  London  sold  its  bargain  to 


40  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

Lord  Richard  Molyneux  for  ,£450,  and  he  again  sold  it  for  .£700,  subject  to  an 
annual  rent  of  £14  6s.  8d.  to  be  paid  to  the  Crown.  Afterwards  Lord  Molyneux 
redeemed  this  rent,  and  let  his  entire  rights  over  the  town  on  lease  for  1,000  years 
tlt  £30  Per  year.  His  successors  sold  their  reversionary  interest  for  ,£2,250.  By 
that  purchase  the  Liverpool  Corporation  obtained  possession  of  land,  which,  prior 
to  1856,  brought  in  over  .£50,000  per  annum,  irrespective  of  the  town  dues. 

In  1691  the  freemen  of  Lancaster  complained  of  the  tolls  levied  on  their 
goods  at  Liverpool,  and  there  was  litigation.  The  Attorney-General,  on  behalf  of 
Liverpool,  said  they  owned  the  soil  to  low- water  mark ;  they  kept  the  haven  in 
order  by  clearing  away  rocks  and  sand  banks  ;  they  provided  warehousing,  and  found 
scales  and  weights  for  weighing  goods ;  and  that  for  these  services  they  had  a 
prescriptive  right  to  levy  town's  duty  or  town's  custom.  They  made  no  mention 
of  any  claim  by  purchase  from  Lord  Molyneux.  Liverpool  lost  the  case,  and  it 
was  decided  that  freemen  of  other  ports  were  free  of  Liverpool  and  not  liable  to 
any  tolls.  In  1708  the  Liverpool  Corporation  asked  Parliament  to  let  them  make 
a  dock  and  increase  the  dues.  On  consideration  of  the  services  to  be  rendered  to 
shippers  and  merchants  they  were  allowed  to  do  so,  and  all  future  rights  to  levy 
dues  on  goods  specially  named  were  to  be  on  a  scale  of  charges  which  were  given 
with  great  minuteness.  The  Corporation  retained  the  management  of  the  docks 
till  1785,  at  which  date  they  had  given  fifty-six  acres  of  land  for  dock  purposes, 
and  had  realised  large  sums  for  adjoining  land,  which  they  had  sold  on  seventy-five 
years'  leases,  chiefly  for  storage  purposes.  N 

The  next  change  was  a  transfer  from  the  Corporation  to  a  Dock  Trust,  and 
separate  accounts  were  kept,  but  as  the  Trustees  were  all  members  of  the  Corpora- 
tion they  dominated  it.  It  enabled  the  Corporation,  however,  to  sell  to  the  Trust 
hundreds  of  acres  of  land  (some  of  it  river  bed,  which  cost  them  next  to  nothing) 
at  a  very  substantial  price ;  and  this  has  largely  been  the  means  of  making  Liver- 
pool one  of  the  richest  Corporations  in  England.  In  1840  the  Corporation  sold  to 
the  Dock  Trustees  (virtually  themselves)  the  site  of  the  Albert  Dock  for  ,£221,000, 
and  in  1846  another  plot  for  £250,000.  These,  and  other  lands  sold,  cost  a  mere 
trifle,  and  yielded  a  large  sum  to  the  Corporation ;  it  will  be  readily  seen  how  the 
Dock  Board  debt  had  mounted  in  1851  to  six  millions.  No  wonder  that  at  that 
time  the  merchants  and  shipowners  turned  restive  because  of  the  ever-increasing 
dues  laid  upon  them.  It  is  quite  clear  that,  instead  of  making  a  charge  simply  for 
services  rendered  (the  principal  one  being  the  improvement  of  the  river  and  port), 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  41 

hundreds  of  thousands  of  pounds  that  ought  to  have  been  used  for  the  reduction  of 
the  dues  on  the  imports  and  exports,  chiefly  from  Lancashire,  have  been  applied 
to  pay  the  taxes  of  the  freemen  of  Liverpool,  to  build  its  churches,  to  pave  its 
streets,  and  generally  to  reduce  its  local  taxation.  The  Dock  Trust  seems  to  have 
made  its  own  scale  of  charges,  for  whilst  in  1674  there  were  only  sixty-one  articles 
subject  to  dues,  in  1854  there  were  695  articles,  the  increase  being  unauthorised. 

The  original  grant  defined  the  port  of  Liverpool  as  extending  from  the  Dee  to 
Warrington  ;  so  that  not  only  Lancashire  inland  towns  paid  dues  on  goods  passing  through 
Liverpool,  but  traders  on  the  river,  who  did  not  use  the  port  at  all,  had  to  pay  dues,  and  often 
were  charged  on  articles  not  scheduled  in  the  charter. 

In  1852-53  the  town  dues  levied  principally  on  Manchester  and  other  towns  amounted  to 
£115,000  clear  of  expenses.  Of  this,  only  ^4,770  was  spent  on  the  purposes  for  which  it 
was  raised,  viz.,  the  improvement  of  the  port  and  river.  The  remainder  was  spent  thus : — 

Grant  to  Mayor  of  Liverpool £2,000 

Law  expenses 3.0OO 

Town  Hall  and  Sessions'  expenses 4,  SOD 

Judge's  lodgings  .         . 551 

Mayor's  stables 164 

Churches 3,400 

Public  schools 2,000 

Library,  Museum  and  Observatory 3,ooo 

Rates,  Sanitary  Act 5,000 

Cost  of  elections 1,500 

Constabulary  and  Police 54,000 

Lighting,  etc 5,ooo 

Borough  Gaol      .........  7>oo° 

Prosecutions  and  Clerk  of  Peace 2,500 

Mr.  Lloyd,  of  Birmingham,  calculated  that  his  town  paid  .£4,500  in  dues  for 
the  benefit  of  Liverpool.  If  a  freeman  were  the  agent  he  could  draw  the  dues, 
and  then  they  would  be  remitted,  and  he  could  pocket  them. 

Prior  to  1855  Birkenhead  had  been  pushing  to  the  front,  impelled  largely  by 
the  Great  Western  Railway,  who  had  made  their  terminus  in  that  town.  Liver- 
pool looked  with  a  jealous  eye  upon  the  progress  of  her  neighbour,  and  eventually  a 
costly  Parliamentary  fight  took  place,  into  which  ultimately  Manchester  was  drawn. 
The  exposition  was  an  eye-opener  to  the  traders  of  Lancashire,  who  had  been 
"as  lambs  led  to  the  slaughter".  Birkenhead  and  Manchester  had  been  paying 
heavy  and  questionable  clues,  which  had  been  used  to  reduce  the  taxes  of  the 


42  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

Liverpool  ratepayers.  Whilst  Bristol  had  surrendered  obsolete  and  unjustifiable 
privileges,  gained  under  an  old  charter,  and  so  freed  her  port ;  and  whilst  London 
had  given  up  her  octroi  duty  on  provision  sellers  who  were  not  freemen,  Liver- 
pool exacted  all  she  could  get  from  traders  in  the  interior,  and  thereby  became 
known  as  a  "dear"  port.  At  the  same  time,  the  Corporation  was  coining  money 
by  selling  land  for  building  dock  walls  down  to  low-water  mark,  thus  crippling  the 
river,  and  damaging  the  Birkenhead  side.  They  were  also  buying  land  in  Birken- 
head,  on  the  border  of  the  Wallasey  Pool,  in  order  to  prevent  the  construction  of 
competitive  docks,  and  they  were  allowing  the  Mersey  to  fall  into  a  condition  that 
would  have  been  fatal  to  Liverpool  itself  if  it  had  not  speedily  been  taken  in  hand. 
When  the  Ship  Canal  Company  applied  for  their  Bill  they  were  fully  aware 
the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board  would  be  amongst  their  most  strenuous 
opponents,  and  that  in  order  to  justify  their  attempt  to  emancipate  Manchester  and 
district  from  the  exactions  of  the  Dock  Board,  they  had  to  prove  that  that  body 
had  by  no  means  acted  up  to  their  duties,  and  that  they  unnecessarily  placed  heavy 
burdens  on  trade  and  commerce ;  further,  that  they  could  not  give  the  amount  of 
relief  from  existing  burdens  which  was  imperatively  required  by  the  trade  in  the 
district.  The  charges  they  made  against  the  existing  system  were  :— 

A.  The  retention  by  Liverpool  of  town  dues. 

B.  Misapplication  of  funds,  which  ought  to  have  gone  towards  the  reduction  of  port 

charges  in  goods. 

C.  Wasteful  and  extravagant  expenditure  of  the  funds  of  a  national  trust. 

D.  That  local  and  personal  interests  had  been  fostered  at  the  expense  of  trade  and 

commerce. 

E.  That  though  ample  funds  had  been  raised  by  dock  and  town  dues,  the  Liverpool 

bar  had  not  been  dealt  with. 

A.  Town  dues  were  claimed  on  the  ground  of  a  royal  grant  from  Charles  I. 
In  1854  Liverpool  had  a  Bill  to  borrow  £260,000  on  the  security  of  the  town 
dues,  and  apply  it  to  making  a  new  street  from  the  Town  Hall  to  St.  George's 
Hall,  but  Manchester  and  Birmingham  opposed  the  appropriation  of  money,  part  of 
which  they  had  paid  in  the  shape  of  dues,  and  the  Bill  failed.  In  1855  the  Dock 
Trust  was  at  a  low  ebb,  and  the  Dock  Trustees  (the  Corporation  having  pre- 
ponderating power  on  the  Board)  proposed  to  borrow  three  and  a  half  millions, 
principally  for  warehousing  accommodation  and  new  docks.  As  security  they 
offered  the  dues  of  the  port.  The  same  year  Birkenhead  had  a  Bill  to  give  power 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  43 

to  lease  their  docks.  Parliament  recommended  that  the  docks  on  both  sides  of  the 
Mersey  should  be  incorporated,  and  that  Liverpool  should  purchase  the  Birkenhead 
Docks  and  complete  them  rather  than  extend  in  Liverpool.  In  1856  Liverpool 
asked  for  power  to  buy  the  Birkenhead  Docks,  apparently  with  the  intention  of 
shutting  them  up.  This  was  refused,  and  Parliament  insisted  that  Liverpool  should 
buy  the  Birkenhead  Docks  and  complete  them  by  1st  September,  1858,  at  a  cost 
of  ,£1,000,000.  When  Manchester  found  Liverpool  proposed  to  borrow  large 
sums  on  the  security  of  the  dues,  she  joined  forces  with  Birkenhead  and  the  Great 
Western  Railway  to  obtain  a  Trust  Act,  whereby  the  docks  should  be  vested  in 
trustees,  and  made  a  national  and  not  a  local  trust,  which  should  exist  solely  for  the 
benefit  of  the  commerce  of  the  nation,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  merely  local 
interests.  When  the  Bill  went  before  Parliament  it  was  urged  by  Sir  Joseph 
Heron,  on  behalf  of  Manchester,  that  the  town  dues  were  being  illegally  raised  and 
extravagantly  and  improperly  expended.  In  the  end  a  compromise  was  effected, 
and  an  Act  passed  in  1857,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  the  newly  constituted 
Dock  Board  should  pay  to  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool  .£1,500,000  as  compensa- 
tion for  giving  up  the  town  dues,  and  the  question  of  the  legality  of  the  dues  was 
left  over.  It  was  certainly  understood  that  the  new  Dock  Board  would  levy  no 
more  town  dues  than  would  suffice  to  discharge  the  money  to  be  paid  to  the 
Liverpool  Corporation  and  the  interest  thereon.  Though  Manchester  and  Sir 
Joseph  Heron  were  largely  responsible  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Dock  Trust 
and  the  passing  of  the  1857  Act,  it  ought  to  be  made  quite  clear  they  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Bill  of  the  previous  year,  which  obliged  Liverpool  to  take  over  the 
Birkenhead  Docks.  The  widened  area  from  which  the  new  Dock  Board  was 
elected  gave  hope  that  local  feelings  would  disappear,  and  that  the  Trust  would  be 
managed  as  a  national  one,  reducing,  as  far  as  possible,  all  burdens  that  were  in 
restraint  of  the  trade  of  the  country.  But  these  hopes  were  doomed  to  disappoint- 
ment. The  new  Dock  Board,  through  the  peculiar  way  in  which  it  was  elected, 
represented  a  limited  number  of  interests — sail  and  steam  shipowners  having  a 
decided  majority — and  the  intention  to  secure  a  public  trust  that  would  represent 
national  trade  was  frustrated.  It  was  to  be  expected  the  town  dues  would  bear  an 
equal  incidence  on  goods  and  ships ;  instead  of  which  the  former  were  made  to  pay 
62  per  cent,  of  the  dues  levied  and  the  latter  38  per  cent.  This  caused  the  Liver- 
pool Chamber  of  Commerce  to  make  a  vigorous  protest  in  1867.  They  asked  for 
a  rectification  of  the  charges,  and  that,  inasmuch  as  the  dues  collected  had  been 


44  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

sufficient  to  repay  the  Dock  Board  the  ,£1,500,000  paid  to  the  Liverpool  Corpora- 
tion, the  town  dues  should  cease.  They  also  invited  the  assistance  of  Manchester 
to  make  the  Dock  Board  act  equitably. 

RESOLUTION  PASSED  BY  THE  LIVERPOOL  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  (TOWN  DUES), 

2ND  APRIL,  1867. 

That  the  payment  of  £1,500,000  by  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board  to  the 
Corporation  of  Liverpool  as  compensation  for  the  town  dues  and  anchorage  having  now  been 
repaid  to  them  by  the  dues  collected,  or  will  be  upon  the  23rd  of  June,  the  mercantile  com- 
munity have  a  right  to  be  relieved  from  those  imposts.  That  the  revenue  of  the  dock  estate 
should  be  augmented,  in  case  of  need,  by  an  increase  in  the  dock  dues  on  ships  and  goods, 
levied  upon  equitable  principles,  whereby  tonnage  on  ships  and  dues  on  goods  should  produce 
an  equal  amount  in  accordance  with  the  agreement  of  1809.  That  representations  to  this 
effect  be  made  to  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board,  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool,  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Manchester  and  the  Railway  and  Canal  Companies  having  termini 
in  Liverpool ;  as  also,  at  a  time  hereafter  to  be  fixed  by  the  Council,  to  the  Board  of  Trade 
and  Parliament. 

In  1873  a  highly  respected  merchant  of  Liverpool,  Mr.  John  Patterson,  gave 
evidence  that  the  .£1,500,000  due  to  the  Corporation  had  long  been  repaid,  and 
although  this  money  had  all  come  back  into  the  Dock  Board  coffers,  traders  were 
still  obliged  to  pay  town  dues  on  goods.  In  his  opinion  this  and  other  heavy  charges 
were  diverting  trade  from  the  port.  Other  well-known  merchants  confirmed  Mr. 
Patterson.  In  1879  a  Special  Committee  of  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce 
reported  that  goods  passing  through  Liverpool  were  unjustly  taxed,  and  they  called 
on  the  Dock  Board  to  give  adequate  relief.  In  1880  Mr.  John  Patterson  again 
pointed  out  in  the  Press  that,  of  the  .£1,500,000  paid  to  the  Corporation,  the  Upper 
Mersey  Trust  had  found  ,£105,000,  and  had  abolished  town  dues  on  the  Upper 
Mersey ;  and 

This  latter  body,  acting  as  faithful  stewards,  have  long  since  repaid  the  high  proportion 
they  had  paid,  and  as  a  consequence  flour  can  be,  and  is,  imported  into  Garston  free  of  town 
dues  chargeable  in  Liverpool ;  which  flour  is  actually  carried  past  our  empty  southern  docks 
in  Liverpool. 

Further,  that  the  Dock  Board  had  collected  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  off  the 
rest  of  the  .£1,500,000;  yet  they  had  not  done  so,  and  "the  blistering  and  trade- 
diverting  imposition  still  remained". 

When  accountants,  on  behalf  of  the  Ship  Canal,  investigated  the  Dock  Board 
accounts  in  1882,  they  found  that  not  only  had  the  one  and  a  half  millions,  and 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  45 

interest,  been  raised  in  dues  and  paid  to  the  Corporation,  but  that  a  further  sum  of 
,£3,312,407  had  been  extracted  from  the  traders  of  the  country  in  the  shape  of 
town  dues.  Whilst  in  1857  the  dues  brought  in  £109,000,  in  1882  they  had 
increased  to  ,£245,797.  In  fact,  the  Board  had  not  only  increased  the  rate  at 
which  the  dues  were  levied,  but  had  increased  them  sufficiently  to  make  them 
pay,  in  addition,  the  interest  on  the  ,£1,500,000  for  compensation.  Strange  to  say, 
even  the  interest  paid  by  the  Mersey  Commissioners  was  carried  to  capital  account. 

There  have  been  no  severer  critics  of  Dock  Board  policy  than  leading  Liver- 
pool merchants  ;  indeed,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Dock  Board  have  been 
constantly  at  variance,  but  in  face  of  the  Ship  Canal  (a  common  enemy)  they  closed 
up  their  ranks.  In  1879  Mr.  Coke,  a  leading  member  and  for  some  time  Chairman 
of  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce,  compared  the  relative  costs  of  the  port 
then  with  those  of  1846  and  1856.  In  the  former  year,  on  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Bramley  Moore,  articles  that  in  Hull  were  charged  is.  3d.,  iod.,  is.  gd.  per  ton  were 
charged  in  Liverpool  is.,  gd.  and  is.  6d.  respectively.  Now  the  figures  in  Hull 
were  2s.  4d.,  2s.  iod.,  is.  iod.,  whilst  the  relative  costs  in  Liverpool  were  45.  ncl, 
55.  iod.,  53.  There  had  been  a  rapid  rise,  and  it  was  quite  evident  that  Liverpool 
was  now  the  dearest  port  in  the  kingdom.  Speaking  of  the  comparison  between 
1856  and  1879,  Mr.  Coke  said  the  dock  and  town  dues  on  cotton  had  been  raised  50 
per  cent.  As  a  rule  the  increased  charges  had  been  largely  caused  by  town  dues : 
for  instance,  whilst  the  average  advance  had  been  42  per  cent,  on  flour  in  sacks,  the 
town  dues  had  gone  up  100  per  cent.  Mr.  Coke  went  on  to  say  that  whilst  Liver- 
pool used  to  be  considered  the  gate  to  England  for  trade  from  the  West,  in  1878 
its  trade  from  the  United  States  had  fallen  from  75  per  cent,  to  46  per  cent. 
Glasgow,  Hull  and  other  ports  had  meanwhile  increased  their  business. 

It  was  stated  that  the  dues  and  tolls  in  Liverpool  were  higher  than  any  other 
port  except  London,  and  in  confirmation  Mr.  Harold  Littledale1  showed  the  com- 
parative port  charges  to  be— 

Liverpool ......         33.    4jd.  per  ton. 

Hull is.  ioid. 

The  Clyde is.    ;|d. 

The  constant  complaints  inside  and  outside  Liverpool  in  1880  had  some  effect, 
and  in  that  year  a  deduction  of  10  per  cent,  on  the  Liverpool  charges  was  made  by 
the  Dock  Board.  In  1883  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  again  approached  the  Dock 
Board,  and  reminded  them  of  their  previous  application  for  the  extinction  of  town 

1  A  member  of  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board. 


46  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

dues,  and  asked  that  justice  should  be  done  to  importers  and  exporters,  and 
suggested  that  a  reduction  of  25  per  cent,  should  be  made  for  the  next  four  years, 
when  the  charge  would  die  away.  They  pleaded  that  the  Dock  Board  could  afford 
the  reduction;  that  they  had  a  large  unappropriated  revenue  of  ,£666,562  ;  that  a 
rectification  of  the  terms  for  loans  might  effect  a  large  saving ;  and  they  clearly 
showed  that  previous  reductions  had  been  quickly  made  up  by  increased  trade. 

Mr.  C.  B.  Paris,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Charges  of  the  Port,  said  :  "  If  the 
Dock  Board  wisely  resolved  to  remit,  or  entirely  abolish,  town  dues,  trade  would  be  certain  to 
prosper,  but  if  they  declined  to  touch  the  subject  the  pressure  would  be  such  that  the  Lanca- 
shire people  would  go  to  Parliament  on  the  question,  in  which  case  they  would  get  the  dues 
remitted.  These  were  a  constant  source  of  irritation  and  discontent,  and  the  sooner  the 
matter  was  disposed  of  one  way  or  another  the  better  for  all  interests." 

Mr.  John  Patterson,  at  a  meeting  of  Dock  Ratepayers,  "  thought  that  the  old  standing 
town  dues  ought  to  be  reduced,  for,  by  the  existence  of  heavy  dues,  traffic  was  driven  from 
Liverpool,  and  other  ports  benefited.  As  an  instance  of  that,  he  might  point  to  Garston, 
where  the  town  dues  of  the  Upper  Mersey  had  been  abolished.  Since  1879  tne  dock 
tonnage  of  sailing  vessels  at  Liverpool  had  been  reduced  14,000  tons ;  and  in  the  same  period 
the  steam  tonnage  had  increased  38  per  cent.  But  what  were  the  figures  during  the  same 
period  in  regard  to  the  Upper  Mersey  ?  In  sailing  ships  there  had  been  an  increase  of  22| 
per  cent,  and  in  steam  tonnage  of  70  per  cent. 

"  The  Manchester  Ship  Canal  had  assumed  very  formidable  proportions,  and  if  the 
agitation  should  take  the  form  of  an  attack  on  the  Liverpool  town  dues,  there  would  be 
nothing  to  do  but  surrender  at  discretion,  and  make  the  best  possible  terms  with  the  enemy. 

"  If  the  town  dues  were  abolished,  goods  and  shipping  would  contribute  equally  to  the 
support  of  the  dock  estate ;  and  this,  he  thought,  was  an  argument  for  the  Board  at  once 
addressing  itself  to  their  abolition." 

At  the  February  meeting  of  the  Dock  Board  in  1884,  a  letter  was  read  from 
Mr.  Ismay  (White  Star  Line)  saying,  though  he  was  a  shipowner,  he  would  be 
glad  for  the  dues  on  produce  to  cease,  and  all  revenue  be  collected  from  a  tonnage 
on  ships.  It  was  so  on  the  Suez  Canal.  He  would  sweep  away  dock  and  town 
dues,  making  the  port  absolutely  free  as  regards  produce.  There  would  be 
economy  in  collection — a  saving  of  annoyance  and  of  time,  a  great  benefit  to  the 
prosperity  of  the  port,  and  an  increased  employment  of  tonnage,  which  meant  more 
work  for  the  people.  He  believed  the  costly,  unremunerative  and  dangerous 
project  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  owed  its  origin  to  a  desire  (which  it  would 
certainly  fail  to  satisfy)  for  reducing  the  charges  on  the  raw  material  and  on  manu- 
factured goods.  To  remove  the  dues  would  go  far  to  remove  existing  complaints, 
and  act  beneficially  on  the  trade  of  the  port. 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  47 

The  Liverpool  Courier  wrote  :-— 

Mr.  Ismay's  letter  to  the  Dock  Board,  proposing  the  abolition  of  dock  and  town  dues, 
and  the  collection  of  the  whole  revenue  from  ships,  seems  to  have  excited  a  more  lively 
interest  in  business  circles  than  at  the  Dock  Board.  The  General  Brokers'  Association  were 
emphatic  in  their  opinion  that  the  proposed  change  would  largely  increase  the  importation 
of  produce,  bring  Liverpool  vessels  from  London  and  elsewhere,  and  conduce  not  only  to  the 
benefit  of  the  trade  of  the  port,  but  it  would  also  increase  the  Dock  Board's  revenue. 

"A  Steamship  Owner,"  writing  to  the  Liverpool  Daily  Post  in  1885,  said  : 

A  good  deal  of  the  American  trade  has  already  been  diverted.  Surely  the  Dock 
Board  authorities  are  susceptible  to  the  lessons  which  these  new  docks  and  facilities  teach. 
Some  other  gigantic  scheme  may  be  hatched.  It  may  come  from  any  quarter,  as  the  high 
rates  of  Liverpool  are  a  byeword  in  commercial  centres. 

B.  Misapplication  of  Funds. — The  grievance  of  Manchester,  and  of  the  trade 
generally,  was  that  the  ;£  100,000  per  year  paid  to  the  Sinking  Fund,  as  per  ar- 
rangement, instead  of  being  applied  to  the  wiping  out  of  town  dues,  and  in  reducing 
the  rates  on  food,  was  used  in  capital  expenditure  on  new  works ;  and  that  a  large 
fund  kept  in  reserve  as  unappropriated  revenue  was  not  applied  to  the  reduction  of 
port  charges.  This  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  Williams,  the  Dock  Auditor,  who 
actually  resigned  his  post  rather  than  vouch  accounts  which  he  considered  were 
incorrect  in  principle.  He  also  considered  that  as  borrowing  powers  were  exer- 
cised for  improvements,  the  large  sums  received  for  the  sale  of  lands  ought  to  go 
in  the  cancelment  of  borrowing  powers. 

A  leading  Liverpool  paper,  in  a  financial  article,  wrote  :  "  How  is  it  that  the  Dock 
Board  throw  away  probably  .£100,000  per  annum  in  extravagant  interest?  Why 
should  they  be  paying  4^  per  cent,  when  their  immediate  neighbours,  the  Corpora- 
tion of  Liverpool,  only  pay  3^  per  cent.  ?  It  is  not  the  doubtful  credit  of  the  estate, 
or  the  adequacy  of  the  security :  it  is  the  financial  incapacity  of  the  Board."  The 
finances  were  not  as  well  managed  as  in  some  other  towns.  The  Times  on  24th 
October,  1883,  thus  commented  on  the  Dock  Board  finance  :  "  No  less  than  four  and 
a  quarter  millions  of  the  debt  stands  at  4^  per  cent.  .  .  .  It  is  an  antiquated  and 
wasteful  system,  when  it  is  remembered  that  a  reduction  of  \  per  cent,  represents 
a  saving  of  no  less  than  .£80,000  per  year." 

The  Board  had  resorted  to  the  novel  expedient  of  issuing  perpetual  annuities  ; 
a  very  costly  system  compared  with  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works,  who  found 
no  difficulty  in  borrowing  at  3  per  cent. 


48  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

C.  Wasteful  and  Extravagant  Expenditure  of  Trust  Funds. — People  who  do 
not  find  or  earn  money  are  often  careless  about  its  expenditure,  and  it  was  felt  that 
the  extravagant  and  unnecessary  expenditure  of  the  Dock  Board  was  the  great 
first  cause  of  the  heavy  charges  on  all  Lancashire  exports  and  imports.  A  huge 
debt  had  been  created,  and  the  interest  had  to  be  found  very  largely  by  outside 
traders.  In  1857  the  Dock  Board  debt  was  .£6,099,657  ;  in  1882  it  had  increased 
to  ,£16,373,451,  nearly  trebling  the  interest  that  had  to  be  paid.  In  Birkenhead 
the  estimated  expenditure  to  complete  the  docks  was  ,£1,000,000,  and,  though 
nearly  ,£5,000,000  had  been  spent,  they  were  to  a  great  extent  a  failure.  Quoting 
from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Henry  Coke  in  1879  (the  same  gentleman  who  in  1885  gave 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  Dock  Board)  to  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce  :— 

If  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Bramley  Moore  he  thought  Liverpool  a  dear  port,  "  I  represent  a 
party  who,  in  the  present  time,  consider,  and  with  justice,  that  we  are  not  fairly  treated  by 
the  Dock  Board.  We  go  to  them  and  lay  our  complaints  before  them  in  the  language  of 
the  people  ruled  by  Rehoboam — our  burdens  are  too  heavy  to  be  borne — our  previous  rulers 
gave  us  a  light  yoke,  the  present  one  is  grievous.  Practically  our  constitutional  rulers  of  the 
Dock  Board  reply,  our  fathers  chastised  you  with  whips,  but  we  will  chastise  you  with 
scorpions." 

Instances  without  end  can  be  quoted  of  the  wasteful  and  extravagant  expendi- 
ture which  had  increased  the  debt  of  Liverpool  and  made  it  a  dear  port : — 

1.  When  the  Egerton  Dock  was  made,  the  sides  were  so  high  that  barges 
could  not  land  their  goods  without  cranes,  and  these  had  not  been  provided.     The 
dock  was  made  for  certain  railway  companies  at  a  cost  of  ,£120,000,  but  was  so 
inconvenient  they  would  not  use  it. 

2.  The  Morpeth  warehouses  at  Birkenhead  cost  ,£42,500,  but,  through  fault  of 
construction,  they  were  practically  uninsurable,  and  have  been  worked  at  a  serious 
loss.     Other  Birkenhead  warehouses,  that  cost  ,£225,000,  do  not  pay  2  per  cent,  on 
their  outlay.     A  tenant  took  them  on  the  estimate  they  would  hold  42,000  tons, 
but  as  they  only  held  28,000  tons  he  repudiated  his  lease. 

3.  The  Wallasey  Dock,   Birkenhead,  through  bad  access,  has  been  a  perfect 
failure.      Mr.  Turner,  Chairman  of  the  Warehouse  Committee  of  the  Dock  Board, 
in  a  speech  delivered  in  May,    1878,  twelve  months  after  the  dock  was  opened, 
graphically  described  its  condition :  "  Vessels  scarcely  ever  entered  it,  and  not  a 
package  was  in  the  warehouses.      Day  after  day,  week  after  week,  the  same  state 
of  things  continued.     It  was  melancholy  to  observe  this.     Not  a  hungry  cat  or  a 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  49 

starved  rat  was  to  be  seen  about  the  locality,  and  the  very  policeman  shuddered  at 
the  sight  of  the  place.  The  cost  of  the  alterations  of  this  dock  was  ,£322,000."  A 
correspondent  to  the  Daily  Post  wrote:  "Those  (in  Liverpool)  who  think  the 
Birkenhead  Docks  a  mistake  were  justified  in  opposing  the  converting  the  low- 
water  basin  tooth  and  nail,  but  when  Parliament  decided  against  them,  the  sensible 
course  in  the  interests  of  the  port  was  to  expend  the  money  as  judiciously  as  pos- 
sible ;  make  the  best  dock  they  could,  and  not  spoil  it  for  the  sake  of  fulfilling  their 
own  prophecies  of  its  failure  ". 

4.  The   Langton  Graving  Docks  were  made  in  1874-75  at  a  huge  cost,  but 
soon  after  completion  it  was  found  they  were  too  shallow,  and  vessels  like  the 
City  of  Berlin,  Polynesian,  Virginian  and  many  others  were  compelled  to  go  into 
dock  at  Birkenhead. 

5.  The  Cost  of  the   Birkenhead  Docks,  through   reckless  management  and 
extravagance,  was  .£6,000,000,  or  twice  the  estimated  cost.      The  Dock  Board 
ought  to  have  supplied  deep  water  accommodation  for  the  growing  trade  of  Liver- 
pool.      It    was   because    of  their   faulty   construction,    and   the   determination    of 
Liverpool  not  to  use  them,  that  the  north  and  south  extensions  of  1877,  costing 
^4,000,000,  became  necessary.      The  Birkenhead  Docks  will  be  found  to  have 
yielded  about  i  per  cent,  on  the  outlay ;  at  the  same  time  the  Dock  Board  were 
paying  4  to  4^  per  cent,  on  the  money.     The  difference  was  a  tax  largely  on  the 
traders  of  Lancashire. 

6.  The  rapid  growth  of  cost  in  the  management  of  the  trust  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  whilst  in  1868  the  cost  per  acre  was  ,£493,  in  1878  it  had  risen  to  ^852 
per  acre. 

D.  The  Local  and  Personal  Interests  that  preyed  on  Trade  and  Commerce.— 
When  Liverpool  through  its  proximity  to  the  manufacturing  districts  became  the 
most  important  port  on  the  West  Coast  of  England,  there  grew  up  numerous  guilds 
or  trades  unions  which  monopolised  certain  processes  and  enabled  a  few  favoured 
ones  to  obtain  advantages  or  levy  blackmail  on  all  goods  passing  through  the  port. 
This  caused  the  charges  to  exceed  those  of  other  ports  except  London. 

i.  Master  Porterage. — In  consequence  of  the  careless  way  goods  at  one  time 
were  dumped  clown  on  the  quays,  Parliamentary  powers  were  obtained  for  Master 
Porterage.  There  must  be  a  Master  Porter  for  each  ship  discharged,  and  he  lias 
many  duties  to  perform,  such  as  receiving,  sorting,  weighing,  measuring,  marking, 

watching,  sending  off,  etc.,  etc.     For  these  he  receives  a  stipulated  charge,  and  in 
VOL.  i.  4 


50  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

addition  he  may  charge  extra  for  other  services.  The  office  is  a  lucrative  one ; 
often  the  shipowner  takes  a  licence  and  is  his  own  Master  Porter.  This  applies  to 
open  docks.  Some  are  called  closed  docks,  and  here  the  Dock  Board  them- 
selves do  the  work.  It  had  been  expected  the  system  would  work  well,  and  so  it 
has  done  in  the  closed  docks,  but  in  the  open  docks  there  has  been  chaos,  full 
charges  being  made  for  goods  to  be  tumbled  out  of  ships  on  to  the  quay.  Con- 
signees could  not  get  their  goods,  and  then  they  were  charged  quay  rent  for 
not  removing  them.  Messrs.  Chambres,  Holder  &  Co.  in  January,  1883,  wrote 
a  bitter  letter  of  complaint : — 

We  are  thus  put  to  the  expense  of  sending  men  and  carts  down,  only  to  find  the 
cargoes  so  mixed  up  that  the  latter  have  often  to  come  away  empty,  or  with  only  a  portion 
of  a  load  ;  and  so  our  commission  is  eaten  away  with  extra  charges,  besides  heavy  mending 
expenses  to  put  the  bales  in  merchantable  condition. 

After  the  rejection  of  the  first  Ship  Canal  Bill  in  1883,  a  Liverpool  corre- 
spondent, urging  the  Dock  Board  to  take  the  opportunity  of  putting  their  house  in 
order,  writes  :— - 

The  principal  grievance  is  the  monopoly  enjoyed  by  Liverpool  steamship  owners  in 
dealing  with  unloading  ships  and  delivering  cargo  from  quay.  The  rates  they  are  permitted 
to  charge  are  one  of  the  inflictions  on  the  commerce  of  the  port.  The  system  is  well  known 
to  be  a  source  of  considerable  profit  to  shipowners.  The  work,  when  not  performed  by 
them,  is  undertaken  by  one  of  the  extensive  master-lumpers,  by  arrangement  beneficial  to 
all  parties.  The  calling  is  a  very  lucrative  one,  making  fortunes  for  the  private  individuals 
engaged  in  it. 

Though  the  old  price  paid  well,  the  stevedores  were  afterwards  powerful  enough 
to  raise  their  price  for  the  handling  of  cotton  10  per  cent. 

2.  Appropriated  Berlhs. — Great  difficulty  was  experienced  in  getting  quick 
discharge  for  ships  at  the  docks,  many  of  them  having  to  wait  days  for  their  turn. 
At  the  same  time,  out  of  22  miles  of  quay  space,  6  miles  were  converted  into  ap- 
propriated berths  for  regular  lines  of  steamers,  and  of  the  latter  the  greater  part  was 
let  to  past  or  present  members  of  the  Dock  Board  themselves.  The  Liverpool 
Chamber  of  Commerce  in  1879  resolved— 

That  the  space  allotted  to  appropriated  berths  is  out  of  proportion  to  the  quay  space 
available  for  the  general  trade  of  the  port,  and  that  much  inconvenience  is  caused  thereby. 

Between  1879  and  1882  the  appropriated  space  had  increased  84  per  cent., 
whilst  the  rental  had  only  increased  35  per  cent.  Colonel  Paris,  a  Liverpool  ship- 
owner, said  in  his  pamphlet :— 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  51 

Unless  a  steamer  belongs  to  the  family  party,  or  has  its  influence,  and  so  has  its  ap- 
propriated berth,  she  suffers  more  detention  in  loading  and  discharging  in  Liverpool  than 
in  any  other  port  in  the  kingdom,  and  her  loading  and  discharging  are  more  costly.  It  may 
fairly  be  taken  that  any  of  our  large  steamers  is  worth  in  demurrage  £70  to  £100  per  day. 
Such  an  one  going  to  London  can  be  discharged,  loaded  and  despatched  in  four  days  or  less. 
Coming  to  Liverpool  she  will  be  lucky  to  perform  the  same  operations  in  fourteen  days,  in 
spite  of  all  that  her  owners  can  do  unless  she  has  an  appropriated  berth. 

The  writer  went  on  to  say,  when  there  is  a  berth  to  be  appropriated  instead  of 
the  Dock  Board  allotting, 

Why  not  invite  tenders  and  let  to  the  highest  bidder  ?  I  venture  to  affirm  that  they  could 
thus  obtain  £50,000  instead  of  the  £14,189  received.  Further,  I  am  disposed  to  view  the  Dock 
Board  in  the  aggregate  as  a  gigantic  trade  combination,  more  imperious,  absolute  and  injurious 
to  fair  and  open  competition  than  any  trade  union  could  possibly  be ;  more  restrictive  and 
depressing  to  the  continual  sturdy  growth  of  the  commerce  of  the  port  That  this  large  trade 
combination  has,  in  effect,  appropriated  to  itself,  for  its  own  purposes,  the  cream  of  the 
Liverpool  Dock  accommodation,  leaving  to  the  public  that  which  is  insufficient  to  meet  its 
requirements,  and  depriving  the  public  of  even  that  when  their  own  interests  demand  it. 
Thus  might  we  not  say  that  Liverpool  is  not  the  port  of  Liverpool,  but  the  port  of  the 
Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board  Trades  Union. 

In  August,  1883,  a  writer  to  the  Liverpool  Courier  complained  bitterly  of  in- 
sufficient cranes  and  accommodation  at  the  docks  harassing  trade,  and  ended  with  :— 

Mr.  Hugh  Mason  has  been  eulogising  the  Board,  asserting  "  that  it  is  not  possible  for  any 
railway  company  to  be  managed  with  greater  zeal".  We  in  Liverpool  know  better.  It  is 
freely  asserted  that  till  some  of  the  present  Sachems  are  shunted,  and  the  present  large  staff 
controlled  by  a  paid  chairman  of  the  type  of  Richard  Moon,  Sir  Edward  Watkin  or  Arthur 
Forwood,  the  Board  will  go  on  blundering  and  burdening  the  estate,  becoming  a  bigger 
byword  in  the  future  than  they  even  are  at  present. 

The  same  correspondent,  after  pointing  out  several  other  extravagant  expendi- 
tures, especially  one  connected  with  pumping  apparatus,  which  he  says  cost  ,£26,000 
too  much,  ended  with,  "Yet  Liverpool  wonders  why  Manchester  wants  a  ship 
canal ". 

Another  correspondent  in  the  Liverpool  Courier  wrote  :— 

The  manner  in  which  the  old  docks  are  sacrificed  to  the  new  works  at  the  north  end 
is  little  short  of  a  scandal.  The  docks  in  the  heart  of  Liverpool  are  left  almost  unused, 
their  quays  are  grass-grown,  and  this  simply  because  the  Dock  Board  neglect  to  adapt  them 
to  the  altered  conditions  of  commerce.  They  are  too  shallow  to  receive  large  ships,  their 
entrances  are  too  narrow,  and  their  quays  are  not  equipped  with  the  mechanical  appliances 
indispensable  for  present  necessities. 


52  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

E.  The  Liverpool  Bar. — There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Dock  Board  received 
dock  and  town  dues  which  ought  to  have  been  appropriated  to  the  removal  of  the 
bar  and  other  improvements  on  the  river,  but  were  actually  spent  recklessly,  and 
all  the  time  the  bar  was  allowed  to  remain  a  peril  to  life  and  property.  Yet,  during 
the  Ship  Canal  inquiry,  some  members  of  the  Dock  Board  pleaded  that  if  the  bar 
was  touched  the  entrance  to  the  Mersey  might  become  worse,  and  then  ruin  to 
Liverpool  would  follow. 

Mr.  John  Laird,  M.P.  for  Birkenhead,  always  advocated  its  removal,  and 
strongly  objected  to  dock  dredgings  being  tipped  to  obstruct  the  mouth  of  the 
Mersey. 

He  did  not  blame  Admiral  Evans,  the  Acting  Conservator,  because  that  gentleman  had 
also  strongly  objected  to  dock  dredgings  (amounting  in  one  year  to  213,000  tons)  being 
emptied  into  the  middle  of  the  river,  and  had  urged  improvements  on  the  bar.  The  Dock 
Board  had  full  power  to  raise  funds,  and,  along  with  the  Conservancy  Board,  to  deal  with 
the  question.  Every  manufacturing  interest  in  the  kingdom  was  deeply  concerned  and  would 
applaud  the  spending  of  all  necessary  money.  He  moved  for  a  report  on  the  depositing  of 
silt  and  the  deepening  of  the  bar. 

Yet  during  the  Ship  Canal  struggle,  the  advocates  of  Liverpool  and  the  Dock 
Board  frequently  urged  that  all  had  been  done  that  could  have  been  done,  and  that 
the  traders  of  Manchester  had  no  cause  for  grievance.  The  main  object  of  this 
chapter  has  been  to  show  the  error  of  this  assertion,  and  that  the  Liverpool  Chamber 
of  Commerce  and  the  merchants  of  Liverpool  have  been  in  the  past  constantly  in 
antagonism  with  the  Dock  Board.  No  more  bitter  opponents  of  the  Board's  policy 
could  have  been  found  than  Messrs.  Patterson  and  Coke  and  Colonel  Paris ;  yet 
these  gentlemen  were  induced  to  go  into  the  box  and  oppose  Manchester  freeing 
herself  from  the  Liverpool  toll  bar. 

The  Times  in  an  article  on  i8th  October,  1882,  graphically  described  the 
incubus  on  the  trade  of  Lancashire,  in  the  shape  of  Liverpool  charges  which  the 
Ship  Canal  sought  to  remove  :— 

Five  millions  and  a  half  of  people  are  at  the  mercy  of  a  combination  holding  a  pass 
between  them  and  the  rest  of  the  human  race,  and  making  use  of  their  coign  of  vantage 
as  the  medieval  barons  did  in  the  embattled  toll  gates  thrown  across  the  world's  highways. 
City,  port,  dock  and  railway  vie  in  extortion,  and  levy  duties  to  the  extent  of  human  for- 
bearance. Many  millions  of  material  and  manufactures  pass  annually  to  and  fro  between 
the  port  and  the  industrious  region  at  the  back  of  it,  and  on  every  ton  Liverpool  has  its 
profit.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  a  large  population,  placed  at  the  mercy  of  a  single  port, 


LIVERPOOL  DOCKS— OPPRESSIVE  CHARGES  53 

should  sit  quietly  under  it.  The  more  material  conditions  of  the  question  are  much  in 
favour  of  a  ship  canal  by  one  route  or  other,  and  the  very  idea  of  seeing  a  hundred  acres  of 
ocean-going  steamers  from  one's  own  windows  is  so  charming,  that  one  cannot  be  surprised 
at  Manchester  being  possessed  with  it. 

The  magnificent  local  patriotism  and  self-sacrifice  exhibited  by  Manchester 
when  she  shook  off  the  Liverpool  toll  bar  has  no  parallel  except  perhaps  in  the 
Corn  Law  agitation,  and  it  has  been  necessary  at  the  risk  of  being  wearisome  to 
prove  the  grievances  under  which  Lancashire  laboured  in  order  to  show  that  it  was 
misgovernment  by  the  Dock  Board,  and  self-preservation,  not  hostility  or  a  desire  to 
damage  Liverpool,  that  prompted  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal. 


CHAPTER  V. 
EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  TO  MANCHESTER. 

I  consider  the  time  has  now  arrived  for  Parliament  to  say  once  for  all  to  the  railway 
companies  "hands  off  the  canal".  .  .  .  England  cannot  in  the  face  of  increasing  foreign 
competition  afford  to  see  her  cheapest  means  of  internal  transit  year  after  year  closed  against 
traffic. — PETER  SPENCE,  J.P. 

UP  to  the  year  1721  the  growing  trades  of  Lancashire  had  mainly  depended 
for  their  supplies  on  the  barge  navigation  of  the  Mersey.  As  far  back 
as  1712  a  scheme  was  elaborated  by  Mr.  Thomas  Steers  to  make  a  canal 
for  ships  to  Bank  "  Key,"  Warrington,  and  so  give  Manchester  direct  water  com- 
munication with  Liverpool,  taking  a  line  very  similar  to  the  present  Ship  Canal. 
A  map  was  published  headed  "  A  Map  of  the  Rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell,  from  Bank 
Key  to  Manchester,  with  an  account  of  the  rising  of  the  water  and  how  many  locks 
it  will  require  to  make  it  navigable.1  Surveyed  by  order  of  the  gentlemen  at 
Manchester  by  Thos.  Steers,  1712."  The  plan  shows  the  three  locks  then  existing 
were  to  be  replaced  by  nine.  The  object  of  the  improved  waterway  is  explained 
at  the  foot  of  the  plan  reproduced  herewith. 

Some  ten  years  later  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  undertakers  obtained  an  Act  to 
improve  the  navigation  by  locks,  cuts  and  weirs.  Carriage  was  cheapened,  and  the 
district  benefited.  After  the  Napoleonic  Wars  efforts  were  made  to  further  im- 
prove the  water  communication  with  Manchester.  Enterprising  citizens  in  the 
Press,  at  public  meetings,  and  in  verse,  advocated  a  ship  canal  to  Liverpool ; 
they  realised  the  importance  of  cheap  carriage  both  for  raw  material  and  manu- 
factured goods. 

The  following  lines  were  unearthed  by  Mr.  James  Crossley  in  reference  to  a 
ship  canal  movement.  They  appeared  in  a  song  entitled  "Inland  Navigation" 
in  vol.  xxxvi.  of  the  Gentleman  s  Magazine  for  March,  1766.  Speaking  of  the 
versifier,  Crossley  once  facetiously  remarked  "he,  apparently,  didn't  like  Scotch". 

JSee  Plan  No.  i. 

(54) 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  55 

INLAND  NAVIGATION. 

In  Lancashire's  view,  what  a  laudable  plan, 

And  brought  into  fine  execution 
By  Bridgewater's  Duke ;  let  us  copy  the  man, 

And  stand  to  a  good  resolution  ! 

If  the  waters  of  Trent  with  the  Mersey  have  vent, 

What  mortal  can  have  an  objection — 
So  they  do  not  proceed  to  cut  into  the  Tweed, 

With  the  Scots  to  have  greater  connection  ? 

A  free  intercourse  with  our  principal  ports 

For  trade  must  be  certainly  better ; 
When  traffic's  extended,  and  goods  easy  vended, 

In  consequence  things  will  be  cheaper. 

Our  Commerce  must  thrive,  and  the  Arts  will  revive, 

Which  are  now  in  a  sad  situation, 
If  we  follow  this  notion,  from  ocean  to  ocean 

To  have  a  compleat  (sic)  navigation. 

'Tis  this  will  enable  our  merchants  abroad 

To  vie  with  each  neighbouring  nation  ; 
Who  now,  as  they  tell  us,  in  fact  undersell  us 

For  want  of  this  free  navigation  ! 

In  1824  Mr.  Matthew  Hedley,  a  grocer  of  Manchester,  came  to  the  front  as 
an  advocate^^Rnip  canal,  and  in  1825  a  company  was  actually  organised. 

The  proposed  canal  began  below  Padgate  on  the  Dee,  with  docks  at  Dawpool ; 
and  passing  along  the  Cheshire  side  of  the  Mersey,  crossed  the  Wirral  Canal,  the 
Weaver  above  Frodsham,  and  the  Grand  Canal  near  Preston  Brook,  thence  through 
Lymm  and  Altrincham  to  Didsbury,  where  it  crossed  the  Mersey,  and  so  on  to  the 
south  side  of  Manchester.  The  plans  were  published  by  William  Wales  &  Co.  in 
1824,  the  surveyor  being  Mr.  Wm.  Chapman.1  The  capital  was  to  be  .£1,000,000 
in  100,000  shares  of  £10  each.  At  the  instance  of  a  few  supporters  of  the  move- 
ment, a  meeting  was  held  on  3rd  February,  1825,  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Wm.  Norris, 
solicitor,  in  Old  Exchange,  Major  Watkins  in  the  chair.  At  that  meeting  it  was 
resolved  unanimously  "that  a  navigable  ship  canal,  capable  of  bearing  vessels  of 
400  tons  burthen  and  upwards,  and  to  communicate  with  the  Irish  Sea  direct  from 

!See  Plan  No.  2. 


56  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

Manchester,  would  be  of  great  public  utility  and  advantage,"  etc.  Mr.  Wm.  Norris 
was  appointed  solicitor  to  the  company,  and  Mr.  Wm.  W.  Tail,  of  King  Street, 
secretary.  At  a  subsequent  meeting  at  the  Albion  Hotel  (i4th  February),  Mr. 
Matthew  Hedley  in  the  chair,  the  following  gentlemen  were  appointed  a  Committee 
of  Management :  Major  Watkins ;  Mr.  John  Marshall,  of  Ardwick ;  Mr.  Francis 
Dukinfield  Astley ;  Mr.  Thomas  Appleby,  Bridgewater  Yard ;  Mr.  James  Bremner, 
of  Newmarket  Lane;  Mr.  Richard  Matley,  Calico  Printer ;  Mr.  Charles  Clegg, 
Timber  Merchant;  Mr.  M.  Hedley,  of  New  Cannon  Street;  Mr.  George  Jones,  of 
the  Crescent,  Salford  ;  Mr.  Edmund  Wright,  Calico  Printer ;  and  Mr.  Leonard  Cooper. 
It  was  further  stated  that  from  Dawpool  at  the  mouth  of  the  Dee  (where  Nature  has 
bestowed  what  art  could  never  have  procured — a  safe  and  commodious  harbour)  to 
Manchester  was  45  miles,  and  the  intended  course  of  the  waterway  would  run 
through  a  country  suitable  for  the  formation  of  a  canal. 

This  scheme  was  brought  before  Parliament  in  1825,  but  thrown  out  because 
plans  and  levels  had  not  been  prepared  and  proper  notice  had  not  been  given. 
Curiously  enough  the  1883  Bill  was  subsequently  rejected  practically  for  the  same 
reason.  The  following  lines,  published  in  the  Liverpool  Kaleidoscope  of  igth  April, 
1825,  show  that  the  cynical  and  sceptical  attitude  of  the  great  port  of  the  Mersey  was 
the  same  then  as  now. 

MANCHESTER  GRAND  SHIP  CANAL. 

One  day,  as  old  Neptune,  delighting  to  rove, 
In  the  blue  tinted  empire  assigned  him  by  Jove, 
Resolv'd  on  inspecting  his  ample  domain, 
He  summoned  the  Naiads  and  Nymphs  of  his  train  ; 
And,  mounting  his  car,  o'er  the  wide  ocean  skimm'd, 
Bespangled  with  many  a  vessel  well  trimm'd, 
And  many  a  barque  that  was  coasting  it  too, 
'Till  the  Land's  End  of  England  appear'd  in  full  view : 
Here  the  monarch  abandoned  his  car  and  his  state, 
And  ordered  the  nymphs  his  return  to  await, 
Whilst  he  plunged  in  the  sea  that  to  Liverpool  led, 
And  at  one  stroke  he  made  the  far-famed  Holyhead  ; 
And  here,  as  he  cautiously  rounded  the  coast, 
Fearing  lest  in  the  quicksands  he  might  have  been  lost, 
He  was  often  obliged  on  the  bottom  to  creep, 
To  avoid  the  effects  of  the  steam-paddles'  sweep  ; 
Nay,  'tis  said,  but  I  know  not  how  true  it  may  be 
That  his  back  got  a  scratch  in  his  efforts  to  flee. 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  57 

Be  that  as  it  may,  a  taut  ship  he  espied, 

And  close  in  her  wake  he  went  on  with  the  tide, 

Till,  finding  his  way  rather  cramp'd  and  confin'd, 

He  essayed  to  turn  and  see  what  was  behind ; 

But  vain  were  his  efforts  to  set  himself  free, 

For  he  only  kept  bruising  his  arms  and  his  knee. 

That  the  Monarch  should  thus  be  confin'd  to  a  space, 

Was  an  insult,  he  said,  that  no  time  could  efface ; 

Compell'd  thus  to  move  in  a  different  sphere, 

The  day  seem'd  to  him  like  the  length  of  a  year. 

At  length  he  approach'd  what  the  end  seem'd  to  be, 

For  at  least  he  observed  that  his  arms  were  set  free, 

Then  raising  his  head  above  water,  he  found, 

That  he'd  got  into  what  appear'd  just  like  a  pond. 

Surpris'd  and  astonish'd  at  what  now  appear'd, 

He  mus'd  with  himself,  as  he  strok'd  down  his  beard : 

"  Can  this  be  proud  Liverpool,  famed  for  her  ships, 

Her  wealth  and  her  docks,  and  her  piers  and  her  slips  ? 

What  mean  these  long  chimneys — these  smells  that  confound  ?  " 

Cried  the  Monarch  as  sternly  he  looked  him  around — 

"  Can  these  be  her  riggers,  her  pilots,  her  tars  ? 

Can  these  be  the  men  who,  retir'd  from  the  wars, 

Employ'd  now  as  porters,  or  boatmen  in  wherries, 

To  carry  the  passengers  over  the  ferries  ? 

Surely  these  squalid  fellows  could  never  have  been 

O'er  the  seas  which  fill  up  the  vast  spaces  between 

Both  the  Indies  and  England,  and  Ireland,  and  Spain, 

Surely  these  never  crossed  o'er  the  wide  spreading  main  ? " 

He  paused,  and  survey'd  the  quick  gathering  crowd, 
As  they  welcomed  the  ship  with  cheers  long  and  loud  ; 
But  not  knowing  what  sort  of  a  fish  had  come  in, 
They  survey'd  the  proud  Monarch  with  wondering  din ; 
Some  thought  him  a  porpoise,  some  thought  him  a  whale, 
While  others  observ'd  he  wanted  a  tail ; 
At  length,  one  more  knowing  than  others  drew  near, 
And  having  survey'd  both  his  beard  and  his  spear, 
Set  him  down  as  a  customer,  come  from  abroad, 
And  kindly  he  offer'd  to  show  him  the  road, 
Observing  that,  "  if  you  want  aught  in  my  line, 
I  have  calicos,  muslins,  and  bobbin,  and  twine". 


58  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

"  Avaunt ! "  cried  the  Monarch,  and  brandish'd  his  spear, 

"  I  pray  you  inform  me,  all  you  who  stand  near, 

Where  am  I  ?     Who  are  you  ?  that  thus  dare  confine 

Old  Neptune  as  if  with  a  cord  or  a  line." 

At  the  sound  of  his  name  down  all  fell  on  their  knees, 

As  the  deity  whom  they  most  wish'd  to  appease, 

And  implor'd  his  pow'rful  protection  and  aid, 

In  behalf  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  trade ; 

The  Monarch,  indignant  at  what  he  called  treason, 

And  contrary,  too,  to  the  dictates  of  reason, 

Advis'd  them  in  future  to  stick  to  their  Jennies, 

And  in  aping  their  betters  not  make  themselves  ninnies, 

"  And  as  for  your  ditch  there,  why  take  it  for  granted, 

My  protection  in  this  case  will  never  be  wanted." 

Old  Neptune  on  this  disappeared  from  their  view, 

Leaving  doubts  if  this  prophecy  e'er  should  come  true. 

How  he  got  out  to  sea  I  have  not  heard  it  said, 

Or  the  way  he  crept  back  to  his  usual  bed, 

But  that  he  got  home  there  cannot  be  a  doubt, 

As  the  Manchester  folk  soon  began  to  find  out ; 

For  assembling  his  sea-gods,  and  Boreas  to  aid, 

With  a  good  stiff  north-wester  he  soon  spoil'd  their  trade  ; 

By  means  of  a  land-bank  he  clos'd  their  canal, 

And  to  it  and  their  projects  he  put  a  finale.. 

In  the  same  session,  strange  to  say,  was  brought  up  the  Bill  to  make  a  rail- 
way from  Liverpool  to  Manchester.  It  went  before  the  Commons  Committee  on 
2  ist  March,  1825,  and  after  a  struggle  of  two  months  was  passed  by  a  majority  of 
one.  Difficulties  arose  about  land  clauses  ;  it  was  defeated  in  the  Lords  and  with- 
drawn. 

In  1826  the  preamble  was  proved.  The  cost  of  getting  the  Bill  was  ,£27,000. 
The  railways  urged  they  were  combating  the  high  charges  of  the  waterways,  just 
as  the  Ship  Canal  is  now  designed  to  be  a  check  on  extravagant  railway  freights. 
During  the  inquiry  a  learned  counsel  declared  that  a  train  would  not  be  able  to 
travel  more  than  six  miles  an  hour.  A  parallel  statement  was  made  before  the  Ship 
Canal  Committee,  viz.,  that  it  would  take  at  least  two  days  for  a  ship  to  get  up  to 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  59 

Manchester  from  Liverpool.     Herewith  is  a  copy  of  the  form  of  receipt  that  was 
given  to  the  subscribers  in  1825. 


1825. 


We  acknowledge  to  have  received  from  Mr. 

a  Subscriber  for  Shares  in  the 

intended  "  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL," 

Pounds,  being  a  Deposit  of  One  Pound  per  Share,   to  be  subject  to  the 
Order  of  the  Committee. 

COPY  OF  DEPOSIT  NOTE — MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL,  1825. 

It  was  found  in  a  drawer  at  one  of  the  Manchester  banks  nearly  sixty  years 
afterwards,  and  is  a  curious  document.  The  owner,  Sir  Leader  Williams,  kindly 
lent  me  the  original.  Popular  enthusiasm  was  much  roused  at  the  time,  and 
various  poetical  effusions  were  published.  I  give  one,  with  the  music,  which  was 
sung  by  Mr.  Hammond  at  the  Manchester  Theatre  Royal  in  1825-26. 

I  sing  a  theme  deserving  praise,  a  theme  of  great  renown,  sir, 

The  Ship  Canal  in  Manchester,  that  rich  and  trading  town,  sir ; 

I  mean  to  say  it  once  was  rich,  e'er  these  bad  times  came  on,  sir ; 

But  good  times  will  come  back,  you  know,  when  these  bad  times  are  gone,  sir. 

In  eighteen  twenty-five,  when  we  were  speculating  all,  sir, 
We  wise  folks  clubbed  together,  and  we  made  this  Ship  Canal,  sir ; 
I  should  have  said  we  meant  to  do,  for  we'd  the  scheme  laid  down,  sir, 
That  would  have  made  this  Manchester  a  first-rate  seaport  town,  sir. 

Near  Oxford  Road  the  dry  dock  is,  to  caulk  and  to  careen,  sir ; 
Our  chief  West  India  Dock  is  where  the  pond  was  at  Ardwick  Green,  sir; 
That  is  to  say  they  might  have  been  there,  had  these  plans  been  done,  sir, 
And  vessels  might  have  anchored  there  of  full  five  hundred  tons,  sir. 


60  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL. 
As  sung  by  Mr.  Hammond  at  the  Theatre  Royal,  Manchester. 
^Allegro. 


d   <f  '  i'F  MM 


*    I  j*  IN.  M '  i.  N.  n.  tJ  t*-  Is*  JT  J^i  \  J  i*1  f*  Is  N  •  K>  r*  M 

Y.       i  ^    r*  F*  f* i    ^  n  n  ni .— u-     *•  i  ^  J    p  ni  J  J— .   j  i  .       J '     I 

V       •    '         t    t    f*  f    t    f    t    '  '    '          ^-I'djI^IWdW^ldWW.^I 


I        sing  a  theme  deserving  praise,  a  theme  of  great  renown,  sir.  The  Ship  Canal  in  Manchester,  that  rich  and  trading  town,  sir ;  I 


mean  to  say  if  met  was  rich,  e'er  these  bad  times  came  on,  sir,  But  good  times  will  opme  back  yoti  know — when  these  bad  times  arc  gone,  sir. 


*   B5t 


CHORUS. 


Tow  row     row.          Tol  di    rid  -  dy    rol  di  rid  -  dy,     Tow  row      row. 


""^  "•  *     * 


m 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  61 

Instead  of  lazy  Old  Quay  flats,  that  crawl  three  miles  an  hour,  sir, 
We'd  fine  three-masted  steamships,  some  of  ninety  horses  power,  sir; 
That  is,  had  it  been  made  we  should  ;  and  Lord  !  how  fine  t' would  be,  sir, 
When  all  beyond  St.  Peter's  Church  was  open  to  the  sea,  sir. 

At  Stretford,  Prestwich,  Eccles  too,  no  weaver  could  you  see,  sir, 
His  shuttle  for  a  handspike  changed,  away  to  sea  went  he,  sir; 
I'm  wrong,  I  mean  he  would  have  done  so  had  it  but  been  made,  sir. 
For  who  would  starve  at  weaving  who  could  find  a  better  trade,  sir  ? 

Alas !  then  for  poor  Cannon  Street,  the  hookers-in,  poor  odd  fish  ! 
Instead  of  catching  customers,  must  take  to  catching  cod  fish  ; 
That  is,  supposing  it  was  made,  may  it  ne'er  be  I  wish,  sir, 
These  cotton  baits  for  customers,  would  never  do  for  fish,  sir. 

Alas !  too,  for  poor  Liverpool,  she'd  surely  go  to  pot,  sir, 

For  want  of  trade  her  folks  would  starve,  her  custom-house  would  rot,  sir  ; 

I'm  wrong,  they'd  not  exactly  starve  or  want,  for  it  is  true,  sir, 

They  might  come  down  to  Manchester ;  we'd  find  them  work  to  do,  sir. 

Success  then  unto  Manchester,  and  joking  all  aside,  sir, 

Her  trade  will  flourish  as  before,  and  be  her  country's  pride,  sir ; 

That  is  to  say  if  speculation  can  be  but  kept  down,  sir, 

And  sure  we've  had  enough  of  that,  at  least  within  this  town,  sir. 

A  kind  friend  has  also  supplied  me  with  an  extract  from  a  broadsheet  published 
on  Tuesday,  27th  December,  1825,  and  entitled  "  The  Manchester  Times  and 
Stretford  Chronicle.  Price  6d."  It  is  sarcastic  and  humorous,  after  the  style  of 
the  Free  Lance. 

MANCHESTER  AND  DEE  SHIP  CANAL. 

The  Committee  of  the  Manchester  and  Dee  Ship  Canal  Company  have  great  pleasure 
in  announcing  to  Shareholders,  that  their  hopes  are  not  <&-funct,  nor  their  exertions  de- 
creased  ;  that  everything  continues  to  go  on  swimmingly,  and  that  the  difficulties,  antici- 
pated, and  propagated,  by  persons  opposed  to  this  great  undertaking,  are  proved  to  be  such 
as  can  easily  be  overcome.  With  regard  to  the  procuring  of  a  sufficient  supply  of  Water, 
all  doubts  are  removed,  as  the  Committee  are  not  only  in  treaty  for,  and  confident  of 
obtaining,  the  whole  of  the  Cornbrook  Stream,  in  Hulme,  but  have  also  the  promise  of  the 
waste  Water  from  no  fewer  than  four  PUMPS  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Chorlton,  all  of  which 
are  situated  within  two  miles  of  the  intended  line  of  Canal ;  the  supply  from  these  sources 
would  doubtless  be  found  amply  sufficient,  but  in  addition,  the  Committee  intend  to  erect  at 
Ztew-pool,  an  Engine  of  twenty  ASS  power,  which  will  of  itself  be  calculated  to  raise  water 
sufficient  to  create  a  second  DELUGE.  With  respect  to  the  passing  of  the  Bill  (alluding 


62  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

of  course  to  the  Act  of  Parliament,  not  the  Attornies  Bill),  the  Committee  feel  confident  of 
success  ;  in  the  lower  House  the  two  members  for  NEW-PORT  are  pledged  to  support  it, 
and  although  in  the  House  of  Lords,  LIVERPOOL  will  of  course  be  hostile  to  it,  the  Committee 
have  the  assurance  of  MANCHESTER,  PORT-LAND,  and  many  other  Peers,  that  their  utmost 
and  united  exertions  will  be  used  in  its  favour. 

As  there  are  only  a  few  Shares  remaining  unsold,  those  who  wish  to  become  SHARE- 
HOLDERS must  apply  early. 

Ship-Tavern,  Water-Street. 

Some  verses  to  be  found  in  the  Liverpool  Mercitry  of  i8th  February,  1825, 
show  the  current  feeling  at  the  neighbouring  port  :— 

HUMBLE  PETITION  OF  THE  LIVERPOOL  CORPORATION  TO  THE 
MANCHESTER  PROJECTORS  OF  THE  GRAND  SHIP  CANAL. 

Oh,  ye  Lords  of  the  loom, 

Pray  avert  our  sad  doom, 
We  humbly  beseech  on  our  knees ; 

We  do  not  complain 

That  you  drink  your  champagne, 
But  leave  us  our  port,  if  you  please. 

Sweet  squires  of  the  shuttle, 

As  ye  guzzle  and  guttle, 
Have  some  bowels  for  poor  Liverpool ! 

Your  great  Ship  Canal 

Will  produce  a  cabal, 
Then  stick  to  the  jenny  and  mule. 

Your  sea  scheme  abandon 

For  rail-roads  the  land  on  : 
And  to  save  us  from  utter  perdition, 

Cut  your  throats  if  you  like 

But  don't  cut  the  dyke, 
And  this  is  our  humble  petition. 

The  next  attempt  to  make  a  ship  canal  originated  with  Warrington.  Sir 
John  Rennie,  an  engineer,  was  authorised,  in  1838,  to  make  a  complete  survey 
of  the  river  Mersey,  between  Bank  Quay  and  Runcorn,  with  a  view  of  rendering 
it  navigable  for  vessels  drawing,  at  least,  5  feet  of  water  at  neap  tides.  He  made 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  63 

his  report  on  2ist  April,  1838,  concluding  with — "Finally,  I  beg  to  repeat  that, 
under  all  circumstances,  the  ship  canal  from  Bank  Quay  and  Runcorn  Gap  to 
Liverpool  is  decidedly  preferable  to  improving  the  old  river,  and  if  my  information 
as  to  levels  be  correct,  a  canal  upon  the  same  scale  might  be  readily  extended  to 
Manchester  ". 

He  divided  his  report  under  the  following  heads,  and  as  every  subject  is 
exhaustively  dealt  with,  it  is  a  valuable  document  for  those  who  wish  to  study  the 
early  history  and  navigation  of  the  Mersey,  and  of  the  Bridge  water  Canal  :— 

1 .  History  and  course  of  the  Mersey. 

2.  Rise  of  Liverpool. 

3.  Commencement  of  the  canal. 

4.  Present  state  of  the  Mersey,  winds,  tides,  areas,  etc. 

5.  Conclusions  from  the  state  of  the  Mersey. 

6.  Mode  of  improving  the  river  between  Bank  Quay  and  Runcorn. 

7.  Expense  of  making  the  river  navigable  for  5  feet,  and  10  feet  at  neap  tides. 

8.  Cost  of  canal  between  Bank  Quay  and  Runcorn. 

9.  Canal  preferable. 

10.  Improvement  of  river  between  Runcorn  and  Liverpool. 

11.  Plan  of  improving  the  river  between  Runcorn  and  Liverpool. 

12.  Cost  of  canal  between  Warrington  and  Liverpool. 

13.  Conclusion. 

Bearing  upon  the  position  of  Warrington,  Sir  John  Rennie  says : — 

The  largest  vessels  which  now  navigate  the  Mersey  from  Liverpool  to  Bank  Quay,  draw 
about  8  to  9  feet  of  water,  and  are  from  80  to  100  tons  burden  ;  but  vessels  of  this  class  can 
only  come  up  to  Bank  Quay  at  high  water  of  spring  tides  ;  and  even  then,  unless  assisted  by 
a  favourable  wind,  or  by  a  steam  tug,  they  cannot  get  up  from  Liverpool  in  one  tide.  Indeed, 
it  not  unfrequently  happens  that  they  run  upon  the  banks,  where  they  are  obliged  to  remain 
until  the  next  tide,  or  if  the  spring  happens  to  be  falling  off  they  must  remain  until  the  next 
spring  tide. 

A  comparison  with  the  position  of  to-day  will  show  how  greatly  Warrington 
has  benefited  by  the  Ship  Canal.  That  the  public  and  the  Mersey  and  Irwell 
Navigation  Company  looked  forward  to  having  a  ship  canal  to  Manchester  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  whenever  railway  companies  sought  to  bridge  over  the 
waterway,  clauses  were  inserted  in  the  various  Acts  of  Parliament  that,  if  ever  a 
ship  canal  were  made,  the  fixed  bridges  should  be  converted  into  swing  bridges  to 
allow  the  passage  of  shipping.  This  precaution,  in  one  instance,  was  omitted,  but 
when  the  same  company  subsequently  came  to  Parliament,  they  were  compelled  to 


64  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

repair  the  omission,  and  undertake  to  convert  the  existing  structure  into  a  swing 
bridge  if  called  upon  to  do  so.  Without  these  precautionary  clauses,  the  Ship  Canal 
could  never  have  been  made.  Parliament  obliged  the  railways  to  comply  with  the 
spirit  (if  not  the  letter)  of  the  law,  and  submit  to  bridges  being  raised.  The  London 
and  North-Western  Railway  when  constructing  Runcorn  bridge  were  also  com- 
pelled to  make  it  high  enough  for  the  passage  of  vessels. 

The  following  r^sumtfof  the  important  swing  bridge  clauses  may  be  interesting  : — 

The  Grand  Junction  Railway  Company  (predecessors  of  the  London  and 
North-Western)  was  incorporated  by  an  Act  of  1834,  under  the  authority  of  which 
Act  that  company  carried  their  railway  from  Warrington  to  Birmingham  across  the 
river  Mersey  and  across  the  Runcorn  and  Latchford  Canal  by  means  of  a  viaduct 
between  Warrington  and  Lower  Walton,  known  as  the  Walton  Viaduct.  The  height 
of  the  rails  from  the  surface  of  the  river  was  only  25  feet.  Nothing  was  said  in  this 
Act  about  requiring  the  railway  company  to  assent  to  the  conversion  of  any  part  of 
Walton  Viaduct  into  a  swivel  or  opening  bridge  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  the  pas- 
sage of  vessels  through  the  railway  in  the  event  of  the  future  improvement  of  the 
navigation  of  the  Mersey  towards  Manchester. 

In  1845  tne  Grand  Junction  Railway  Company  promoted  a  Bill  to  construct 
the  "  Huyton  and  Aston  Branch ".  The  plans  for  this  branch  included  a  bridge 
over  the  river  Mersey  at  Runcorn. 

The  Conservators  of  the  river  Mersey  required  the  insertion  in  this  Bill  of  a 
protective  clause  in  regard  to  Runcorn  Bridge,  and  such  a  clause  was  submitted  to 
them  by  the  railway  company  and  was  approved.  The  letter  of  approval,  however, 
which  was  sent  by  the  Acting  Conservator  (Admiral  Evans)  contained  an  additional 
requirement  of  a  remarkable  and  momentous  character  as  will  be  best  understood 
from  the  following  full  copy  of  the  letter  : — 

No.  4. 

GWVDYR  HOUSE,  WHITEHALL, 
28t h  March,  1846. 

SIR, 

Having  laid  before  my  Lords  Conservators  of  the  river  Mersey  the  clause  you 
propose  to  insert  in  the  Huyton  and  Aston  Branch  of  the  Grand  Junction  Railway  Com- 
pany, relative  to  a  bridge  over  the  river  Mersey  at  Runcorn, 

I  am  desired  by  my  Lords  to  inform  you  that  their  Lordships  approve  of  the  clause  ; 
but,  in  addition  thereto,  my  Lords  Conservators  deem  it  to  be  necessary  that  you  further 
insert  a  clause  in  your  Bill  to  the  following  effect: — 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  65 

"  That  in  the  event  of  any  improvement  hereafter  taking  place  in  the  navigation  of  the 
river  Mersey,  eastward  of  the  proposed  bridge  at  Runcorn,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a 
communication  for  ships  or  vessels  with  Manchester,  or  any  other  place  to  the  eastward  of 
the  present  viaduct  of  the  Grand  Junction  Railway  over  the  river  Mersey,  near  Warrington, 
the  Grand  Junction  Company,  or  the  then  owners  of  that  railway,  shall  consent  to  such 
arrangements  for  the  passing  through  their  present  viaduct  over  the  river  Mersey  near  War- 
rington as  my  Lords  Conservators  shall  deem  it  to  be  expedient  to  require." 

I  have,  etc., 

GEO.  EVANS, 

Acting  Conservator  of  the  River  Mersey. 
To  J.  SWIFT,  ESQ., 

Solicitor  for  the  Bill. 

The  Lords  of  the  Admiralty  instructed  Mr.  J.  M.  Rendel,  a  celebrated  engineer 
of  that  period,  to  report  to  them  on  the  project  of  a  bridge  over  the  river  Mersey 
at  Runcorn.  Mr.  Rendel  reported  on  the  3Oth  April,  1845,  and  recommended 
that  if  a  fixed  bridge  were  to  be  allowed  it  should  be  on  condition  that  there  should 
be  a  clear  headway  of  100  feet  under  the  centre  of  each  arch  above  the  level  of  the 
flow  of  the  highest  of  spring  tides.  The  Lords  of  the  Admiralty  adopted  this  re- 
commendation, and  communicated  its  effect  to  the  Secretary  of  the  railway  com- 
pany by  letter  dated  I4th  May,  1845. 

The  Grand  Junction  Company's  Bill  was  passed  in  1846,  and  contained  the 
two  following  provisions,  inserted  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Fereday  Smith  :— 

(i)  That  if  at  any  time  thereafter  any  application  should  be  made  to  Parliament  for  a 
Bill  to  render  the  river  Mersey  east  of  Warrington  Bridge  navigable  for  sea-going  vessels, 
or  to  make  a  river  or  canal  navigable  for  such  vessels  from  any  part  of  the  Mersey  in  the 
said  direction  to  Manchester,  the  line  of  which  river  or  canal  should  cross  the  line  of  the 
Grand  Junction  Railway  at  the  Walton  Viaduct  or  elsewhere,  the  Grand  Junction  Railway 
Company  should  assent  to  a  provision  in  such  Bill  for  authorising  a  swivel  bridge  to  allow 
of  the  passage  of  such  vessels  through  that  railway. 

(2)  That  any  bridge  or  viaduct  for  carrying  the  railway  over  the  Mersey  at  Runcorn 
should  be  constructed  according  to  plans  and  specifications  approved  by  the  Admiralty  and 
the  Conservators. 

There  was  also  a  clause  inserted  in  the  Act  as  to  damages  to  the  river  Mersey 
to  be  made  good  by  the  railway  company,  in  which  it  was  stated  that  it  was  the 
intention  to  carry  the  Huyton  and  Aston  Branch  over  the  Mersey  at  Runcorn  by 
means  of  a  bridge  with  a  clear  headway  of  i  oo  feet  above  the  level  of  high  water. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  swing  bridge  clause  follows  very  closely  the  terms  of 

the  requirement  in  Admiral  Evans'  letter  of  the  28th  of  March,  1846.     The  "river 
VOL.  i.  5 


66  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

or  canal"  mentioned  in  the  clause  is  afterwards  called  (in  the  same  clause)  "the  said 
Ship  Canal  or  River". 

The  railway  company  did  not  construct  the  Huyton  and  Aston  Branch 
authorised  by  the  Act  of  1 846 ;  and  the  construction  of  a  bridge  over  the  Mersey 
at  Runcorn  remained  in  abeyance  until  the  North-Western  Company,  under  the 
powers  of  their  "Lines  near  Liverpool  Act,  1861,"  constructed  the  high-level  fixed 
bridge  known  as  Runcorn  Bridge,  having  a  headway  of  75  feet  above  high-water 
mark  at  ordinary  spring  tides.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  this  reduced  headway 
was  sanctioned  by  the  Admiralty  and  by  the  Conservators. 

From  1825  the  idea  of  a  ship  canal  simmered  in  the  public  mind,  and  it  was 
constantly  referred  to  in  the  Press,  occasionally  in  verse,  as  will  be  seen  from  the 
following  extract. 

The  following  lines,  contributed  by  Wilmot  H.  Jones  to  the  Manchester 
Guardian  in  October,  1 840,  were  suggested  by  the  arrival  of  the  Queen,  a  coasting 
vessel,  at  Warrington  :— 

MANCHESTER  AS  IT  MAY  BE. 

Ye  Manchester  merchants,  let  politics  be  ; 
The  Queen  is  at  Warrington,  up  from  the  sea  ; 
And  Forrest  and  Gill,  like  Columbus  of  old, 
Have  shown  you  the  true  way  to  gather  the  gold. 
Your  mayors  and  commissioner  trade  on  our  stocks, 
And  deepen  your  river,  and  dig  out  your  docks, 
Import  your  own  cargoes  close  up  to  your  doors, 
And  warehouse  and  bond  upon  Manchester  floors  ; 
Your  home  and  your  foreign  trade  both  shall  increase, 
And  yours  be  the  quarters  of  commerce  and  peace ; 
To  London  stand  next  in  the  ledger  of  state, 
And  ships  by  the  score  shall  scarce  carry  your  freight. 

The  other  song  with  a  rattling  chorus  (as  below)  kept  the  enthusiasm  alive, 
and  was  sung  at  many  a  convivial  entertainment : — 

THE  SEAPORT  TOWN  OF  MANCHESTER. 

O  dear,  O  dear,  this  a  curious  age  is, 
Alterations  all  the  rage  is, 
Old  and  young  in  the  steam  are  moving, 
All  in  the  cry — improving. 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  67 

To  Manchester  there  is  news  come  down,  sirs, 
They're  going  to  make  it  a  seaport  town,  sirs, 
Then  'sted  of  weavers,  spinners,  and  tailors, 
Nought  you'll  see  but  ships  and  sailors. 

Thus  'twill  be,  I'll  bet  you  a  crown,  sirs, 

When  Manchester  is  a  seaport  town,  sirs. 

When  the  first  ship  comes  in  sight, 
The  town  will  be  all  joy  and  delight, 
Eating,  drinking,  dancing,  singing, 
And  th'  old  church  bells  will  crack  with  ringing. 
They'll  cover  the  bridge  with  tout  and  prigs,  sirs, 
Aldermen,  too,  in  their  gowns  and  wigs,  sirs, 
The  heads  of  the  town  with  all  their  forces, 
The  Manchester  Mayor,  too,  drawn  by  horses. 

Thus,  etc. 

They'll  cover  the  river  with  boats  and  barges, 

Men-of-war  ships  that  never  so  large  is, 

Steamers  back  and  forwards  towing, 

You  may  ride  for  nought  and  they'll  pay  you  for  going. 

Sailors  swearing,  spars  a  batting, 

Heve  yo  ho-ing,  handspikes  clattering, 

Strange  sails  crowding  every  day,  sirs, 

Anchoring  in  Victoria  Bay,  sirs. 

Thus,  etc 

The  Liverpool  gents  will  be  all  undone, 
Here  there  will  be  nought  but  fun  done, 
Pats,  half  wild,  running  their  rigs,  sirs, 
Landing  butter  there,  bullocks  and  pigs,  sirs. 
Then  to  make  us  jolly  and  friskey, 
Meally  potatoes  and  barrels  of  whiskey, 
New  laid  eggs,  a  twelvemonth  taken, 
Then  all  will  feed  upon  eggs  and  bacon. 

Thus,  etc. 

Such  lots  of  goods  the  boats  will  bring  up, 

Store  rooms  will,  like  mushrooms,  spring  up, 

To  hold  the  wares  of  every  nation, 

The  town  must  have  a  transformation. 

They'll  make  the  Exchange  into  a  storehouse, 

Cotton  and  corn  rooms  out  of  the  poor-house, 

One  for  grocers  to  put  their  figs  by, 

And  the  Temperance  Hall  they'll  make  it  a  pig  stye. 

Thus,  etc. 


68  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

In  time  you  will  have  trade  enough,  sirs, 
Over  the  world  you'll  send  your  stuff,  sirs, 
Goods  for  every  clime  and  nation, 
Will  all  come  here  for  embarkation. 
Ringley  coals,  cabbages  and  carrots, 
And  in  turn  receive  Poll  Parrots, 
Baboons,  racoons  and  Spanish  donkeys, 
Jays,  cockatoos,  and  ring-tailed  monkeys 

Thus,  etc. 

In  a  few  years — say  perhaps  twenty, 

Man-o-war  ships  will  arrive  in  plenty, 

Then  as  the  tide  of  time  encroaches, 

They'll  run  'em  about  the  streets  like  coaches. 

Over  the  marshes,  stones,  or  gorses, 

Tars  for  jarvies,  whales  for  horses. 

But  I'll  be  off — first  make  my  bow,  sirs, 

For  I  really  believe  there's  a  ship  coming  now,  sirs. 

Thus,  etc. 

In  the  Manchester  Reference  Library  are  a  few  numbers  of  The  Herald  of 
Improvement  or  Manchester  as  it  Ought  To  Be.  Its  object  seems  to  have  been  the 
creation  of  bonding  warehouses  in  Manchester.  This  was  bitterly  opposed  by 
Liverpool,  and  No.  2  article  of  the  above  periodical,  dated  May,  1841,  showed 
that  out  of  ,£4,500,000  of  customs  duty  nominally  paid  by  Liverpool,  two-thirds  were 
actually  paid  by  Manchester  and  district.  It  asserted  that  Liverpool  produced 
nothing,  but  depended  mainly  for  her  existence  on  the  milk  of  Manchester,  from 
which  she  took  off  the  cream.  In  the  same  number  we  find— 

THE  WAY  TO  MEND  TIMES  IN  MANCHESTER. 

Tune :  Rory  o'  More. 

Behold  !  "  Men  "  of  Manchester,  now  is  your  time  ! 
Though  Liverpool  gents  cry  out  it's  a  crime ! 
Let's  deepen  old  Irwell  that  vessels  may  glide 
From  Victoria  Bridge  o'er  the  Atlantic  wide. 

Chorus — 

Five  feet  let  us  dig — and  the  coast  let  us  clear ! 
One  million,  at  least,  it  will  bring  us  a  year ! 
Local  strife  let  us  drive  to  Old  Nick  in  a  flame ! 
Ship-building's  our  study,  navigation's  our  game. 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  69 

The  Liverpool  gents  cry  out  "  Smugglers  be  wary  ! 
Whate'er  you  may  do,  touch  not  th'  estuary  ! 
If  you  do  this,  my  boys,  by  the  big  hill  of  Howth, 
You'll  self-murder  commit,  for  you'll  stop  up  the  mouth  !  " 

Chorus. 

Five  feet  let  us  dig — make  the  crooked  parts  straight ! 
From  New  York  let  the  steamers  bring  hither  their  freight ! 
Let  Turks  bring  their  coffee,  dates,  rhubarb,  and  figs  ; 
And  Irishmen  butter,  eggs,  pratees,  and  pigs ! 

Chorus. 

The  Dons  of  Oporto  will  bring  sparkling  wine, 
And  herdsmen  from  Scotland  their  well  fatten'd  kine  ; 
The  Lascars  and  Tartars  will  bring  pure  Howgua, 
With  Lapsang,  and  Souchong,  Congou,  and  Twankey. 

Chorus. 

Let  the  boats  bring  their  codfish,  fluke,  haddock,  and  sole, 
And  even  fat  salmon  with  manorial  toll ! 
To  dock  and  to  bond  we  must  have  working  men, 
And  thousands  employment  are  certain  to  gain ! 

Chorus. 

In  1840  Mr.  H.  R.  Palmer,  F.R.S.,  was  instructed  by  the  Old  Quay  Com- 
pany to  prepare  a  scheme  for  the  improvement  of  the  Irwell.1  About  the  same  time 
Mr.  John  F.  Bateman  (afterwards  water  engineer  to  the  Manchester  Corporation) 
was  also  instructed  to  make  an  alternative  report.  Mr.  Palmer  produced  a  most 
exhaustive  scheme,  and  advocated  a  400  to  600  ton  ship  canal,  1 2  feet  deep,  from 
Liverpool  to  Manchester,  with  six  locks  and  draw  or  swing  bridges  where  the  railway 
crossed  the  waterway.  With  the  report  was  a  plan  showing  how  he  proposed  to 
straighten  the  navigation  for  sea-going  ships.  Mr.  Bateman  was  in  favour  of 
throwing  an  embankment  across  the  Mersey  at  Runcorn  Gap  (where  the  river  is 
400  yards  wide),  with  floodgates  having  a  frontage  of  100  yards  to  admit  and  dis- 
charge water.  By  this  means  deep  water  would  be  secured  up  to  Warrington. 
Both  reports  were  published. 

In  the  Manchester  Guardian  on  6th  February,  1841,  was  an  advertisement, 
stating  that  on  Qth  February,  1841,  would  be  published  No.  I,  of  the  "Manchester 
Gallery  of  Science  and  Art.  Price  4d."  In  its  first  number  was  an  article  "  Facts 
Worth  One  Million  Sterling  to  the  Port  of  Manchester  ".  This  alluded  to  a  conver- 
ge Plan  No.  3. 


7o  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

sazione  at  the  Royal  Victoria  Gallery,  when  Mr.  Thomas  Ogden  Lingard  read  a 
paper  on  "The  Improvement  of  the  Rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell  for  Sea-going  Vessels 
to  Manchester".  Mr.  Lingard,  who  was  agent  for  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation 
Company,  read  to  the  audience  the  principal  portion  of  Mr.  Palmer's  report,  and 
illustrated  it  by  reference  to  a  large  plan  of  the  river  that  was  hung  on  the  wall 
behind  him.  He  advocated  the  amalgamation  of  the  Bridgewater  Trust  and  River 
Navigation,  in  order  to  give  the  greatest  possible  benefit  to  the  trade  of  the  district. 
The  discussion  on  the  reports  lasted  four  days  or  sittings.  Sir  William  Fairbairn, 
Sir  John  Hawkshaw  and  many  eminent  engineers  took  part  in  the  discussions. 
Strange  to  say,  three  of  the  gentlemen  present,  Mr.  Bateman,  Mr.  George  White- 
head  and  Alderman  Curtis,  lived  to  take  part  in  the  Ship  Canal  movement  forty- 
one  years  afterwards.  The  article  in  the  Manchester  Gallery  of  Science  and  Art 
of  1841,  written  on  the  subject,  shows  that  Manchester  at  that  date  was  groaning 
under  trade  disabilities  :— 

At  a  time  when  the  artisans  of  Manchester  are  suffering  great  privations  from  the 
high  price  of  provisions  and  the  scarcity  of  labour,  we  find  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool 
applying  last  session  for  a  loan  of  a  million  pounds  of  the  public  money  to  build  new  ware- 
houses to  hold  the  property  of  the  merchants  of  Manchester  in  bond.  Where  is  the  public 
spirit  of  this  great  manufacturing  metropolis  of  the  world  ?  Does  the  whole  district  contain 
no  local  patriot  to  rid  it  from  the  wasteful  outlay  of  time  and  capital  in  having  the  goods  of 
its  hourly  consumption  bonded  in  Liverpool  ?  Why,  the  very  fact  of  the  Corporation  of 
Liverpool  wanting  a  million  of  money  for  the  purpose  of  building  additional  warehouses 
ought  to  arouse  the  people  en  masse.  The  money  that  is  worse  than  thrown  away  upon 
Liverpool  by  Manchester  in  one  year  would  gladden  the  hearts  of  thousands  of  working 
families  by  an  additional  income  of  los.  per  week.  Surely  the  merchants  of  Manchester 
cannot  be  aware  that  a  vessel  called  the  Nemesis,  650  tons  burthen,  50  men,  168  feet  in 
length,  29  feet  beam,  engine  1 20  horse-power,  and  drawing  only  4^  feet  water,  has  doubled 
Cape  Horn  and  arrived  safely  at  Ceylon.  With  5  feet  of  water  up  to  our  very  doors,  have 
we  amongst  us  neither  science  nor  enterprise  to  imitate  the  noble  example  of  the  people  of 
Glasgow,  who  by  dredging  have  so  improved  the  navigation  of  the  Clyde,  that  where  they 
had  only  2  feet  of  water  they  have  now  i6J  feet,  and  vessels  from  China  discharge  their 
cargoes  at  the  Glasgow  quay?  Are  the  people  of  Manchester  so  blinded  to  their  own 
interests  as  quietly  to  look  on  whilst  Liverpool  increases  her  warehouses  and  accommodation 
for  the  reception  of  the  bonded  goods  of  Manchester  merchants,  so  as  to  increase  her  asserted 
claim  for  vested  interests?  Would  not  the  assessment  alone  of  these  warehouses  (which 
bring  no  poor)  materially  reduce  our  poor  rates. 

Would  not  the  wages  of  the  bonded  establishment,  which  would  be  many  hundred 
pounds  a  week,  be  a  great  help  in  ready  money  to  our  shopkeepers,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
deplorable  fact  that  at  the  present  time  25  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  is  rendered  uncollect- 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  71 

able  by  empty  houses,  which  would  be  filled  in  the  event  of  our  having  bonded  warehouses 
in  Manchester?  We  would  ask  the  spinners  of  Manchester,  Bolton,  Ashton,  Hyde,  Stock- 
port,  Oldham,  etc.,  if,  when  a  prospect  appears  of  trade  improving,  they  do  not  find  them- 
selves  all  at  one  time  in  Liverpool,  and  are  they  not  satisfied  of  the  fact  that  their  presence 
has  been  to  raise  the  market  considerably,  the  brokers  and  speculators  of  Liverpool  acting 
as  one  man,  and  taking  advantage  of  the  demand  ?  We  would  ask  them  again,  having  a 
knowledge  of  this  fact — vis.,  that  all  the  cotton  arriving  at  Liverpool  for  the  consumption  of 
Lancashire  must  first  come  to  Manchester — if  it  improves  that  cotton  in  quality,  or  increases 
its  quantity  by  carting  it  first  up  the  town  of  Liverpool  and  warehousing  it,  and  when  wanted 
for  consumption  re-carting  it  to  the  wharf  to  be  sent  up  to  Manchester,  and  further  that 
large  sums  should  be  paid  for  brokerage  to  see  this  done  ?  And  further,  would  not  all  the 
trouble  and  expense  of  going  to  Liverpool  to  buy  cotton  and  carting  it  up  and  down  the 
streets  of  that  town  and  the  brokers'  charges  for  the  same  be  saved  by  the  spinner  of  that 
cotton  if  it  was  taken  at  once  from  the  import  ships  and  sent  direct  to  Manchester  under 
bond,  the  duty  to  be  charged  there  ?  This  is  performed  every  week  on  the  Clyde,  and  not 
unfrequently  on  the  Thames.  Building  sites  are  far  cheaper  in  Manchester  than  in  Liverpool, 
and  employment  would  be  given  to  our  artificers,  and  when  people  had  their  property  at 
their  own  doors  they  would  look  well  after  it,  and  thereby  make  an  immense  saving  in  leak- 
age, carriers'  samples  and  rats  (sic).  Manchester  has  now  been  asking  Government  for  five 
years  for  what  she  ought  long  since  to  have  demanded  as  a  right — the  privilege  of  having 
bonded  warehouses.  Liverpool  has  proclaimed  the  mighty  advantage  that  privilege  would 
be  to  Manchester  by  her  energetic  and  determined  efforts  to  prevent  its  being  granted.  The 
opposition  of  both  Liverpool  and  London  is  not  based  upon  sound  policy,  but  upon  selfish 
grounds ;  yet,  so  powerful  will  it  be  that  Manchester  will  not  obtain  this  important  right 
without  the  most  unflinching  and  determined  perseverance.  Since  the  advantages  to  be 
derived  from  the  saving  in  dock  and  town  dues  only  would,  as  shown  by  Mr.  Lingard  at  the 
conversazione  at  the  Gallery  of  Practical  Science,  afford  an  expenditure'of  at  least  two  millions 
of  pounds  in  improving  the  navigation,  it  is  much  to  be  hoped  that  our  merchants  and 
manufacturers  will,  with  unity  of  hand,  of  heart,  and  of  purse,  follow  the  advice  given  in 
Mane/tester  as  it  May  Be. 

Liverpool  then,  as  afterwards,  was  death  on  the  new  scheme.  A  Liverpool 
paper  declared  that  "meddling  with  the  river  would  be  an  act  of  felony". 

Singular  to  say,  Dr.  Clay,  a  well-known  Manchester  surgeon,  took  upon  himself 
to  combat  Mr.  Palmer's  report,  and  in  1841  wrote  Mersey  and  Navigation  Improve- 
ments Geologically  Considered  and  New  Plans  Suggested. 

In  the  month  of  November,  1845,  Mr.  James  Acland,  who  lived  at  a  house  (now 
in  ruins)  called  "Acland's  Retreat,"  in  Cheetwood,  issued  a  prospectus  as  sole 
promoter  of  what  he  called  a  "  First  section  of  the  Mersey  and  Manchester  Ship, 
Railway  and  Dock  Company,"  capital  ^"3,000,000  in  100,000  shares  of  .£30  each, 


72  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

deposit  ^3  33.,  three  shillings  per  share  being  required  for  preliminary  expenses, 
payable  on  allotment  of  shares.  This  gentleman  was  an  Anti-Corn  Law  League 
lecturer,  and  was  connected  with  the  Stockport  Press.  He  issued  his  address  from 
his  private  house,  and  is  believed  to  have  had  several  public  meetings  to  consider 
his  proposals.  The  prospectus  was  full  of  facts  and  figures,  and  he  got  very  wroth 
because  a  Liverpool  editor  "  launched  his  puerile  shafts  of  undisguised  malice  at  the 
infantile  port  of  Manchester  ".  The  scheme,  however,  soon  died  a  natural  death. 

From  1845  onwards,  the  trade  of  the  country  improved,  and  things  were 
prosperous  till  1861,  when  the  American  War  plunged  Lancashire  into  dire  distress. 
The  same  cause  (scarcity  of  cotton)  affected  every  other  manufacturing  country,  so 
that  when  the  war  ceased  there  was  a  great  chasm  to  fill,  and  spinners  and  weavers 
had  a  brisk  time  in  supplying  the  wants  of  the  world.  This  went  on  during  the 
Prusso- Austrian  and  Prusso-French  Wars  ;  the  producing  power  of  the  Continent 
was  almost  at  a  standstill,  and  the  trade  of  England  prospered  accordingly  for  another 
ten  years.  Germany,  then  strengthened  by  the  immense  subsidy  paid  by  France, 
became  free  to  turn  her  attention  to  commerce,  and  soon  became  a  competitor  in 
the  markets  of  the  world  ;  other  nations  followed  suit,  and  people  began  to  feel  they 
must  produce  more  cheaply  if  they  were  to  hold  their  own.  Traders  sought 
economies,  and  found  that  the  railways  in  England  were  charging  about  double  as 
much  as  on  the  Continent ;  not  only  so,  but  the  goods  of  foreigners  were  being 
carried  into  England  by  means  of  through  rates  cheaper  than  their  home  manu- 
factures. Further,  that  Liverpool  sat  as  a  toll  bar  and  levied  heavy  contributions 
on  all  imports  and  exports.  Also  that  the  cheaper  carriage  of  goods  by  the  internal 
waterways  was  being  destroyed  by  railways  getting  hold  of  canals  and  navigations, 
and  throttling  them  off  by  degrees.  Notable  instances  occurred  in  Lancashire 
as  before  mentioned.  The  power  thus  acquired  was  exemplified  on  the  Bolton 
Canal  by  the  owners  stopping  it  for  eight  months,  because  they  would  not  re- 
pair sinkages  from  coal  workings,  whilst  they  repaired  the  adjacent  railway  and 
kept  it  in  constant  use,  thus  throwing  the  canal  employees  out  of  work,  and  making 
colliery  proprietors  and  mill-owners  on  the  canal  bank  carry  by  railway.  These 
facts,  and  the  decadence  of  Manchester  in  consequence  of  so  many  trades  being 
driven  away  by  disabilities,  induced  the  writer  to  take  up  his  pen  and  advocate  in 
the  Press  (at  first  anonymously)  the  renewal  of  a  ship  canal  scheme.  He  felt  at  least 
an  effort  ought  to  be  made  to  stem  the  current  that  was  reducing  Manchester  to 
the  position  of  a  second-rate  city.  If  she  had  to  trade  with  a  weight  on  her 


C.KORIJK   HICKS,  AUDITOR  OK  THK  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL,  1886 

S&Q. 

Franz  Bauni.  Tofac(  f,age  ^ 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  73 

shoulders,  her  manufactures  must  decay  and  her  people  be  impoverished.  It  was 
absolutely  necessary  she  must  have  as  cheap  carriage  as  her  competitors.  Not 
only  were  canals  stifled  but  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation,  once  an  important 
waterway,  was  now  reduced  to  an  almost  unnavigable,  huge  sewer.  Other  people 
from  time  to  time  kept  writing  to  the  papers  urging  action  and  suggesting  the 
possibility  of  a  ship  canal,  which  in  years  gone  by  had  been  favourably  reported 
upon. 

Correspondents  pointed  out  that  the  cotton  and  other  industries  of  Manchester 
were  dwindling  away.  The  sugar  trade  had  departed  ;  several  machine  shops  were 
closed ;  some,  like  Sharp,  Stewart's,  were  attracted  to  other  localities,  where  they 
could  carry  on  their  business  more  advantageously.  By  this  time,  too,  the  Suez 
Canal  was  proving  a  success.  Engineers  and  commercial  men  at  first  called  it  a 
-mad  undertaking,  and  shipowners  said  they  would  never  use  it.  They  were  wrong. 
If  a  canal  could  be  made  through  a  desert  101  miles  long,  why  could  not  one  be 
made  to  the  sea  via  Liverpool  when  traffic  would  be  assured  ? 

In  the  autumn  of  1876  Mr.  George  Hicks,  a  Scotch  gentleman  of  commercial 
training  and  progressive  ideas,  during  a  walk  happened  to  notice  the  neglected 
river,  with  boats  actually  stuck  fast  in  it,  and  reflected  what  a  prostitution  it  was  to 
see  a  river,  which  might  be  made  so  useful,  utterly  neglected.  On  his  return  home  he 
wrote  a  letter  (nth  October,  1876),  to  the  Manchester  Guardian,  expressing  his 
regret  that,  whilst  commerce  was  groaning  under  heavy  freight  charges,  such  a  good 
and  cheap  avenue  was  lying  idle  and  becoming  a  nuisance.  He  suggested  it  might 
be  converted  into  a  ship  canal.  This  attracted  the  attention  of  a  London  engineer, 
Mr.  Fulton.  He  wrote  to  Mr.  Hicks  to  say  he  had  just  successfully  restored  the 
Nene  navigation,  and  should  be  very  glad  to  deal  with  the  Mersey,  expressing  his 
willingness  to  come  down,  further  examine  the  river,  and  then  confer  with  any  lead- 
ing citizens  Mr.  Hicks  could  get  to  meet  him.  In  December,  1876,  Mr.  Hicks 
had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Fulton  in  London,  and  in  February,  1877,  he  got  up  a 
petition  to  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  asking  them  to  inquire  into  the  possibility 
of  making  the  river  navigable  for  deep-sea  steamers.  In  addition  he  got  Mr. 
Fulton  to  make  an  engineering  and  Professor  Boyd  Dawkins  a  geological  report, 
whilst  he  himself  drew  up  a  financial  and  commercial  review  of  the  aspects  of  the 
scheme.  He  then  arranged  with  the  Chairman  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Mr. 
Edmund  Ashworth,  that  a  petition  and  the  reports  should  be  brought  before  that 
body  ;  and  to  prepare  the  public  mind  he  wrote  an  article  on  "The  Irwell  Naviga- 


74  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL 

tion  Scheme,"  in  which  he  dealt  with  the  engineering  difficulties  that  would  have  to 
be  encountered.  On  the  23rd  April,  1877,  a  special  meeting  of  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  was  held  to  receive  and  consider  Mr.  Fulton's  scheme.  A  model  of  the 
proposed  tidal  navigation  and  docks  was  exhibited,  and  after  a  discussion  that  body 
passed  a  resolution  that  "it  would  be  of  the  greatest  service  to  the  interests  of 
Manchester  and  the  trade  of  the  district  to  have  an  improved  waterway  ".  Subse- 
quently Mr.  Fulton's  model  was  exhibited  at  the  Royal  Exchange,  and  at  the 
request  of  Alderman  Walmsley,  Mayor  of  Salford,  it  was  on  view  for  some  time 
in  the  Salford  Town  Hall.  Indeed  that  gentleman  suggested  that  his  son,  Mr. 
Clement  Walmsley,  a  young  solicitor,  should  co-operate  with  the  promoters  and 
obtain  signatures  to  a  memorial  to  the  Salford  Corporation.  On  5th  January,  1881, 
this  was  considered,  and  a  resolution  moved  asking  for  a  Government  inquiry  re  the 
application  of  the  I  r well  for  navigation  purposes.  The  motion  was,  however,  negatived. 
In  consequence  of  commercial  depression  and  the  Building  Society  crash  all 
enterprise  came  to  a  standstill.  The  idea  of  a  ship  canal  to  Manchester,  though  in 
general  favourably  entertained,  remained  in  temporary  abeyance  In  October  of  the 
same  year  Sir  William  Harcourt,  in  an  eloquent  address,  eulogised  the  energy  of 
the  Glasgow  merchants,  who,  overcoming  all  difficulties  and  opposition  by  their 
splendid  local  patriotism,  had  brought  the  sea  to  their  doors,  and  made  Glasgow  an 
important  and  busy  port.  His  text  virtually  was :  "  Heaven  helps  those  who  help 
themselves ".  This  speech  caused  quite  a  sensation,  and  brought  a  crop  of  letters 
in  the  papers;  amongst  others  one  on  the  29th  October,  1881,  from  "Man- 
cuniensis"  (Mr.  J.  W.  Harvey),  full  of  cogent  reasoning  and  convincing  argument. 
The  idea  "Go  and  do  likewise"  possessed  the  minds  of  many  enthusiasts,  and  also 
of  traders  who  were  groaning  under  heavy  and  unjust  charges  for  carriage.  They 
reasoned,  "  If  Glasgow  has  achieved  success,  why  should  not  Manchester  follow  suit 
and  try  and  revive  her  industries?"  Amongst  others  who  were  stirred  by  the 
correspondence  was  Mr.  Daniel  Adamson,  of  Hyde.  From  the  time  the  question 
was  brought  before  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  he  had  been  deeply  interested  in  the 
scheme  for  bringing  a  ship  canal  to  Manchester.  The  engineering  difficulties  even 
had  a  charm  for  him ;  he  liked  to  try  and  master  complex  problems  of  the  kind, 
and  once  he  decided  in  his  own  mind  that  the  canal  could  be  made  he  threw 
himself  into  the  work.  He  had  been  approached  early  on  by  Mr.  Hicks,  who 
explained  to  him  the  commercial  advantages  and  financial  prospects,  and  he  had 
consulted  his  old  friend,  Mr.  Abernethy.  the  eminent  engineer,  upon  it,  who  formed 


WILLIAM  J.  SAXON,  SOLICITOR'  TO  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL, 

1883-92. 

Higginson  Bowdon.  To  face  page  74. 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  MAKE  A  SHIP  CANAL  75 

a  favourable  opinion.  His  health,  however,  was  bad ;  indeed  it  had  been  necessary 
that  he  should  leave  business  and  go  abroad  for  some  time.  Fortunately  a  change 
of  air  and  rest  did  him  great  good,  and  his  known  indomitable  energy  pointed  him 
out  as  just  the  leader  who  was  wanted.  When  it  became  necessary  to  draw  up 
preliminaries  the  services  of  Mr.  W.  J.  Saxon,  of  the  firm  of  Grundy,  Kershaw  & 
Co.,  were  enlisted,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  to  him  is  largely  due  the  success 
of  the  subsequent  Parliamentary  proceedings.  An  able  and  shrewd  lawyer,  resolute 
and  determined  in  character,  wise  in  counsel,  of  untiring  energy,  he  threw  himself 
heart  and  soul  into  the  work,  and  a  history  of  the  canal  would  be  incomplete  if  it 
did  not  bear  witness  to  the  Herculean  task  he  achieved  in  fighting  the  Bill  through, 
in  face  of  the  most  powerful  and  persistent  opposition  that  was  ever  offered  to  a 
Parliamentary  Bill.  Poor  fellow!  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  his  health  suffered 
through  his  devotion  to  the  work.  He  died  in  harness ;  his  name  ought  ever  to 
be  green  in  the  memory  of  the  people  of  Manchester. 

Before  Mr.  Adamson  consented  to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  undertaking, 
several  other  gentlemen  had  been  approached  ;  among  the  rest,  in  1878,  was  Mr.,  now 
Sir  William  Bailey.  Other  gentlemen  who  met  in  1879  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Clement 
Walmsley  were:  Mr.  O.  O.  Walker,  M.P. ;  Mr.  W.  T.  Charley,  M.P. ;  Mr. 
Edward  Walmsley,  J.P.,  Stockport ;  Mr.  J.  H.  Walmsley,  J.P.,  Salford;  Richard 
Haworth,  Esq.  and  H.  J.  Leppoc,  Esq.  They  agreed  :  "  That  it  would  be  of  great 
advantage  to  Manchester,  Salford  and  the  surrounding  towns  to  have  a  waterway 
to  the  sea  for  ocean  steamers  and  other  vessels ;  and  that  it  was  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  the  proposed  undertaking  should  be  proceeded  with".  It  should 
also  be  mentioned  that  efforts  were  made  to  induce  Lords  Winmarleigh  and  Derby 
to  head  a  movement  for  a  ship  canal ;  both  were  favourable,  but  declined  to  take  an 
active  part ;  however,  they  ever  afterwards  looked  very  kindly  on  the  canal,  and 
their  Parliamentary  services  in  vanquishing  Lord  Redesdale  and  his  obstructive 
policy  were  invaluable. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
1882. 

DANIEL  ADAMSON    HEADS   THE  SHIP  CANAL   MOVEMENT- 
MEETING    AT    HIS    HOUSE  — PROVISIONAL    COMMITTEE 
APPOINTED-- RESOLUTION    OF    THE     CITY    COUNCIL- 
SCHEME  ADOPTED— SUBSCRIPTIONS— OPINIONS  OF  THE 
PRESS— THOROUGH  ORGANISATION. 

You  may  have  buildings  here  on  the  Pool  Banks,  worth  more  than  £20,000,  if  God 
send  peace  and  prosper  trade. — Sir  Edward  Moore's  advice  to  his  son. 

PRIOR  to  1 88 1,  as  has  been  recorded,  efforts  had  been  made  to  rouse  public 
feeling  in  favour  of  a  ship  canal ;  odd  letters  and  articles  kept  appearing  in 
the  local  journals,  mainly  the  result  of  Mr.  Fulton's  appeal  to  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  in  1877,  which  seemed  to  keep  simmering  in  the  minds  of  the  com- 
mercial community.  Trade  was  rapidly  becoming  worse,  old  manufacturing  con- 
cerns were  either  giving  up  business  or  moving  into  districts  where  the  rents  and 
taxes  were  lower.  The  value  of  property  had  gone  down  and  houses  were  empty- 
ing fast.  Then  there  came  more  pronounced  rumblings.  People  wanted  to  find  a 
reason  for  the  decay  of  Manchester.  When  things  were  prosperous  and  money  was 
being  made,  little  care  was  taken  to  go  into  details  of  expense,  but  when  the  reverse 
was  the  case,  costs  were  carefully  scanned.  People's  eyes  had  been  opened  by  the 
differences  between  the  Liverpool  dock  authorities  and  the  railway  companies. 
Liverpool  said  railway  carriage  to  and  from  that  port  was  the  dearest  in  the  country 
when,  from  the  volume  of  trade,  it  ought  to  be  the  cheapest.  The  railways  retorted 
that  the  docks  in  Liverpool  were  the  worst  equipped  and  the  dearest  of  any  in  the 
country,  except  London.  Manchester  traders  began  to  see  they  were  working 
with  a  mill-stone  round  their  necks,  that  they  were  handicapped  in  their  business, 
and  could  not  compete  with  other  districts  where  goods  and  raw  materials  could  be 

more  cheaply  imported  or  exported      The  toll  bar  at  Liverpool  was  strangling 

(76) 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  77 

industries,  and  railways,  by  securing  canals,  were  putting  an  end  to  cheap  water 
carriage.      "Argonaut"  in  December,  1880,  wrote:— 

Why  cannot  we  pay  the  same  attention  to  our  waterways  that  America,  France, 
Holland,  Belgium  and  Hungary  are  paying  to  their  waterways?  Why  should  not  the 
local  project  for  the  improvement  of  the  Mersey- 1 rwell  channel  be  taken  up  vigorously 
instead  of  being  discussed  in  the  half-hearted  way  it  is  from  time  to  time  ?  Steamers 
making  ocean  voyages  would  count  the  extra  30  miles  to  Manchester  as  a  mere  nothing, 
and  would  come  up  here  for  freight  at  the  bidding  of  shippers.  The  freight  which  costs  IDS. 
per  ton  would  be  virtually  abolished,  and  the  saving  accomplished  by  the  avoidance  of  the 
heavy  Liverpool  charges  would  more  than  pay  the  navigation  tolls.  This  question  of 
making  Manchester  a  port  is  of  very  great  importance.  The  freight  involved  in  Manchester 
is  far  in  excess  of  the  amount  computed  by  those  who  laid  the  project  before  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  a  few  years  ago,  etc. 

"X."  wrote  to  the  City  News:— 

The  immense  value  that  a  ship  canal  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  would  be  to  this 
district  has  been  felt  by  me  for  thirty  years.  But  I  am  far  from  being  singular  in  my 
feelings.  At  times  the  idea  has  seemed  to  take  possession  of  the  mind  of  many  people,  but 
from  the  want  of  public  spirit  it  has  always  been  allowed  to  drop.  I  am  afraid  this  will  be 
so  again.  There  is  a  painful  want  of  unselfish  public  spirit  amongst  our  leading  wealthy 
men.  So  long  as  they  are  heaping  up  great  fortunes,  they  do  not  care  to  put  themselves  to 
any  great  labour  for  the  prosperity  of  the  city.  They  come  to  town  for  business  only,  and 
leave  it  as  soon  as  their  pecuniary  interests  will  allow.  There  is  a  terrible  absence  of 
sympathy  with  our  common  life,  which  shows  itself  in  so  few  persons  manifesting  any  desire 
to  have  their  names  associated  with  anything  concerning  the  town.  What  will  create 
public  spirit  for  the  promotion  of  a  ship  canal  ?  An  appeal  to  the  selfishness  or  unselfish- 
ness of  the  public  ?  I  am  afraid  there  will  have  to  be  an  appeal  to  both. 

The  questionable  transfer  of  the  Bridgewater  Canal  into  railway  hands  in- 
duced the  author  to  urge  in  the  papers  the  emancipation  of  waterways.  In  May, 
1882,  he  wrote  in  the  City  News:— 

Manchester  does  not  keep  pace  with  neighbouring  towns  as  regards  general  prosperity. 
Walk  through  what  used  to  be  our  busiest  districts,  such  as  Ancoats,  and  we  find  many 
shops  closed  and  half  of  the  workshops  and  mills  empty.  In  the  centre  of  the  city  the 
array  of  empty  property  is  distressing,  and  the  last  census  shows  a  decrease  of  population, 
and  that  10  per  cent,  of  the  habitable  houses  are  unoccupied.  Large  employers  of  labour 
have  gone  where  taxes  are  light  and  land  and  labour  cheap.  In  the  future  the  prospect  is 
that  our  city  will  cease  to  be  a  producing,  and  become  entirely  a  warehousing  and  commercial 
centre.  If  this  be  true,  a  ship  canal  is  an  essential  element  of  success,  and  I  cast  my  lot 
most  heartily  with  those  gentlemen  who  desire  it  to  be  carried  out  with  the  view  of  reviving 
the  trade  of  the  city. 


78  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

The  above  are  extracts  from  three  of  the  earliest  letters  that  were  written,  and 
they  were  followed  by  many  others  generally  showing  the  possibilities  and  advan- 
tages of  a  ship  canal,  and  urging  that  the  work  done  at  Glasgow  and  other  ports 
might  equally  well  be  done  in  Manchester  if  the  city  would  rise  to  the  occasion,  de- 
termined to  free  itself  from  the  monopolies  exercised  by  the  railways  and  at  the  port 
of  Liverpool.  It  would  be  impossible  even  to  give  a  rdsumt  of  the  correspondence 
in  the  newspapers,  but  I  purpose  to  attach  an  appendix  with  a  few  of  the  most 
important  letters.  Occasionally  an  opponent  of  the  canal  took  up  the  cudgels  on 
behalf  of  Liverpool  or  of  the  railway  companies.  There  were  also  some  able 
letters  written  by  merchants  of  Manchester  who  did  not  see  their  way  to  support 
the  canal,  notably  by  Mr.  James  Angus,  who  wrote  under  the  pseudonym  of 
"Mercator". 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  success  of  the  Ship  Canal  was  largely  due  in 
its  initial  stage  to  the  forcible  and  convincing  pamphlet  issued  in  May,  1882,  by  Mr. 
J.  W.  Harvey  under  the  pseudonym  of  "  Mancuniensis ".  Mr.  Harvey  was  a  clerk 
with  Mr.  George  Hicks,  agent  for  the  North  China  Marine  Insurance  Company. 
For  years  Mr.  Hicks  had  been  striving  to  bring  before  commercial  circles  in 
Manchester  the  necessity  of  cheapening  carriage  by  means  of  a  ship  canal.  His 
clerk  threw  himself  heart  and  soul  into  the  work,  and  being  of  a  studious  turn  of 
mind,  consulted  all  the  books  that  had  been  written  and  the  speeches  that  had  been 
made  on  the  subject,  besides  searching  out  a  vast  number  of  valuable  statistics. 
These  he  gathered  together  under  the  heading  of  "Facts  and  Figures  in  Favour 
of  a  Tidal  Navigation  to  Manchester,  showing  how  to  solve  the  cheap  transport 
problem  for  the  great  import  and  export  trade  of  Lancashire  and  the  West  Riding  ". 
"  Mancuniensis,"  by  a  comparative  diagram,  showed  the  immense  population  in  the 
towns  round  Manchester.  He  maintained  that  their  industries  were  crippled  by  dear 
carriage,  and  prevented  from  competing  advantageously  with  foreigners,  and  even 
with  cities,  like  Glasgow,  which  were  situated  near  the  sea.  He  demonstrated  how 
inland  towns  were  handicapped  and  their  trades  driven  away  by  shipping  dues  and 
extravagant  railway  rates.  Then  he  showed  how  rivers,  canals  and  railways  had  in 
turn  superseded  one  another,  but  through  becoming  monopolies  had  not  advantaged 
the  public.  He  pointed  out  how  a  toll  bar  at  Liverpool  sapped  the  vitality  of 
Lancashire  industries,  and  how  the  proposed  navigation  would  result  in  immense 
saving,  prevent  goods  being  injured  in  transit,  reinstate  old  industries  and  create  new 
ones,  develop  important  coal-fields  and  cheapen  the  food  of  the  people.  He  traced 


1882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  79 

the  various  efforts  that  had  been  made  in  time  past  to  bring  a  ship  canal  to  Man- 
chester, and  how  our  ancestors  had  left  the  way  clear  by  compelling  the  various 
railways  crossing  the  Mersey  to  give  swing  bridges  when  required.  That  more 
shipping  accommodation  was  necessary  was  evident  by  the  crowded  state  of  the 
Liverpool  Docks,  and  the  figures  given  made  it  clear  that  Manchester  was  even 
better  situated  than  Liverpool  as  a  port  of  distribution.  The  Clyde,  the  Tyne  and 
the  Tees  had  all  become  prosperous  by  widening  and  deepening  the  rivers,  and  why 
should  not  Manchester  follow  suit?  especially  when  the  Suez  Canal  had,  in  spite  of 
evil  prognostications,  turned  out  so  well.  "  Mancuniensis "  then  showed  the  rapid 
strides  made  abroad  both  in  improving  the  navigation  of  rivers  and  in  making  artificial 
canals ;  the  immense  sums  that  were  being  spent  upon  them ;  and  how  goods  were 
being  carried  at  ridiculously  low  rates  as  compared  with  what  was  being  charged  in 
England. 

This  pamphlet  had  an  immense  sale,  passing  through  many  editions.  Origin- 
ally sixpence,  it  afterwards  was  printed  in  a  cheaper  form  and  sold  for  one  penny. 
It  was  pregnant  with  facts  verified  by  authenticated  figures,  and  written  in  terse 
and  plain  language  that  everybody  could  understand.  It  had  the  effect  of  making 
people  think,  and  stimulating  them  to  see  that  if  Manchester  and  Lancashire  meant 
to  hold  their  own,  they  must  be  up  and  doing,  or  other  places  would  run  away  with 
the  kernel  and  leave  only  the  shell. 

The  first  paper  to  take  up  the  Ship  Canal  cause  was  the  City  News.  In  an 
encouraging  article  of  the  27th  May,  1882,  dealing  with  my  letter,  it  pointed  out 
that  cheap  transit  was  as  urgent  a  necessity  as  cheap  production,  and  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  existing  railway  and  canal  combinations,  only  a  Ship  Canal  could 
substantially  reduce  the  cost  of  carriage  from  the  manufacturing  centres  to  the 
distant  markets  of  the  world.  Further,  that  the  excessive  rates  charged  for 
carriage  between  Liverpool  and  Manchester  handicapped  our  industries.  Not- 
withstanding there  were  now  five  routes,  the  cost  of  carriage  had  been  doubled, 
and  it  was  from  25  per  cent,  to  40  per  cent,  higher  than  the  cost  of  carting  by 
road.  The  editor  asked  its  readers  to  study  the  valuable  pamphlet  recently  issued 
by  "  Mancuniensis,"  and  endorsed  his  conclusions  that  a  Ship  Canal  would  cheapen 
food,  bring  a  hive  of  new  industries  into  the  district,  give  an  opening  for  the 
collieries  of  the  neighbourhood  to  supply  ships,  create  new  markets  and  stimulate 
old  ones,  raise  the  value  of  property,  and  in  all  probability  effect  a  saving  of  at  least 
,£1,000,000  a  year  to  Manchester  and  district.  He  prophesied  fierce  opposition 


Ho          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 

by  vested  interests  in  Liverpool  and  elsewhere,  but  counselled  the  promoters  not 
to  be  daunted  by  early  defeats,  but  to  return  to  the  charge  till  they  won  the  day. 

An  extinct  volcano,  the  Lancashire  Figaro,  in  its  issue  of  the  8th  June,  1882, 
after  some  very  complimentary  remarks  on  several  letters  I  had  written  to  the 
City  Neivs  said  :— 

I  trust  Mr.  Leech's  pluck  in  advocating  this  scheme  single-handed  will  meet  its  reward. 
The  Corporation  don't  feel  disposed  to  help  the  agitation.  The  railway  magnates — monopolists, 
I  ought  to  say — cannot  be  expected  freely  to  give  in  an  adhesion.  Mr.  Leech  justly  appeals  to 
those  capitalists  who  are  immediately  interested  by  their  occupation  as  manufacturers,  whose 
cost  of  production  would  be  so  materially  affected.  Mr.  Leech  ought  to  go  further.  He 
ought  to  appeal  boldly  to  every  citizen,  for  all — be  they  rich  or  poor — would  be  benefited  by 
the  carrying  out  of  the  proposal. 

In  the  summer  a  few  gentlemen,  including  Mr.  Peacock  (Beyer,  Peacock  & 
Co.),  Mr.  Lloyd  (Hickson,  Lloyd  &  King),  Mr.  Samson  (Grundy,  Kershaw  &  Co.), 
Messrs.  Fulton,  Leader  Williams,  Henry  Whitworth,  and  others,  took  a  trip  down 
the  river  in  a  barge.  They  were  met  at  Warrington  by  Alderman  Davis,  Dr. 
Mackie,  Mr.  Bennett  (landowner),  Mr.  Darbyshire  and  Mr.  W.  H.  Brooke  (town 
clerk).  After  an  inspection  of  the  waterway  all  seemed  impressed  with  its  possi- 
bilities and  that  they  had  a  practicable  scheme  before  them. 

In  June,  1882,  Mr.  Hicks  waited  on  me  with  a  message  from  Mr.  Adamson 
asking  me  to  assist  in  the  Ship  Canal  movement.  He  had  seen  my  letters  in 
the  newspapers  and  knew  that  I  was  an  enthusiast  .on  the  subject.  I  gladly  con- 
sented. 

The  real  start  of  the  canal  dates  from  a  memorable  meeting  held  at  the  Towers, 
Didsbury,  on  27th  June,  1882.  It  was  summoned  by  Mr.  Daniel  Adamson,  to 
whom  the  credit  is  due  not  only  of  giving  this  great  enterprise  an  effective  start  but 
of  courageously  fighting  its  battles  in  face  of  tremendous  odds  till  success  was 
achieved  and  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  passed.  Since  the  time  when  Mr.  Fulton's 
scheme  was  before  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Mr.  Hicks  had  been  vainly  en- 
deavouring to  find  a  man  of  influence  and  determination  to  head  the  movement. 
At  length,  through  the  medium  of  a  friend,  he  was  introduced  to  Mr.  Adamson, 
who,  after  going  into  the  merits  of  the  scheme  with  Mr.  Fulton  and  Mr.  Hicks, 
undertook  to  captain  the  enterprise.  As  a  first  step  he  invited  the  Mayors  of 
Manchester  and  surrounding  towns,  the  heads  of  the  principal  commercial  houses  in 
the  city,  the  leaders  of  co-operative  and  labour  movements,  and  several  well-known 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  81 

capitalists  to  his  house,  some  to  dinner  and  others  to  an  evening  meeting.  There 
were  present  thirteen  representatives  of  large  Lancashire  towns  and  fifty-five  leading 
merchants  and  manufacturers.  To  meet  them  he  asked  Mr.  Fulton,  C.E.,  who  for 
some  years  had  been  advocating  a  ship  canal,  and  also  Mr.  Leader  Williams,  late 
engineer  to  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company,  who  was  known  to  have  valuable 
local  knowledge  in  respect  to  waterways.  The  historic  evening  meeting  was 
attended  by  the  Mayors  of  Salford,  Ashton,  Warrington,  Macclesfield,  Stockport, 
Rochdale  and  Stalybridge.  Mr.  John  Rylands,  Mr.  Thos.  Ashton,  Mr.  P.  Spence, 
Mr.  J.  A.  Beith,  Mr.  J.  Thewlis  Johnson,  Mr.  E.  B.  Dewhurst,  Mr.  Andrew  Walker 
(Messrs.  T.  G.  Hill  &  Co.),  Mr.  C.  S.  Agnew,  Mr.  Rd.  Peacock,  Mr.  T.  R.  Wilkinson, 
Mr.  W.  W.  Hulse,  Mr.  J.  P.  Higson,  Mr.  Henry  Boddington,  junior,  Alderman 
Thompson,  Mr.  C.  P.  Henderson,  Alderman  Walmsley  (Salford),  Messrs.  W. 
Richardson  and  S.  Andrew  (Oldham),  Messrs.  H.  Bleckly,  F.  Monks  and  Alderman 
Davies  (Warrington),  Mr.  A.  C.  Boyd  (Dukinfield),  Mr.  J.  H.  Nodal,  Mr.  H. 
Dunckley,  Mr.  Mitchell  (Co-operative  Society),  Mr.  G.  Hardman  (Limited  Lia- 
bility Association,  Oldham),  Mr.  Tomkins  (Sharp,  Stewart's),  Mr.  Hicks,  Mr. 
Marshall  Stevens,  myself  and  others.  The  meeting  was  held  in  the  large  hall  at 
the  Towers. 

Mr.  Adamson  was  in  good  form,  and  with  a  strong  Northumbrian  burr  reverted 
to  the  wonderful  success  attending  the  improvement  of  the  Tyne,  the  Tees  and  the 
Clyde,  and  felt  sure  the  Mersey  was  amenable  to  similar  treatment  with  even  better 
results.  If  the  Suez  Canal,  situated  in  a  barbarous  country  and  where  for  50 
miles  there  was  a  solid  cutting  of  the  depth  of  26  feet,  could  be  carried  out,  there 
ought  to  be  no  engineering  difficulties  to  stand  in  the  way  as  far  as  the  Mersey  was 
concerned.  His  own  impression  was  there  ought  not  to  be  any  interruption  in  the 
shape  of  locks,  overhead  bridges  nor  any  lack  of  water  for  navigation.  He  advocated 
coming  into  Manchester  at  a  low  level  and  having  an  underground  railway  connect- 
ing with  all  parts  of  the  city  for  the  distribution  of  goods.  He  advised  all  present 
to  read  the  pamphlet  by  "  Mancuniensis,"  bristling  with  valuable  facts  and  informa- 
tion, and  he  commended  the  scheme,  believing  it  would  be  very  advantageous  to 
the  constructors  and  a  mighty  blessing  to  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire. 

Mr.  Fulton  then  entered  into  a  lengthy  description  of  the  engineering  features 
of  his  scheme,  explaining  it  would  be  tidal  with  22  feet  at  low  and  37  feet  at  high 
water  spring  tides,  and  that  the  basin  at  Manchester  was  to  be  of  an  area  of  128^ 

VOL.  i.  6 


82          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 

acres,  8,000  feet  long  and  700  feet  wide.  The  canal  would  be  228  feet  wide  at  the 
top  and  80  feet  at  the  bottom,  estimated  cost  ^4,5OO,ooo.1 

Mr.  Hicks  placed  before  the  meeting  the  statistical  aspects  of  the  scheme. 
Four-fifths  of  the  export  trade  of  Liverpool  passed  through  Manchester.  He 
believed  Manchester  would  get  5,000,000  tons  of  traffic  which  at  33.  per  ton,  plus 
dues  on  ships  and  rents,  and  minus  expenses,  would  leave  a  revenue  of  ,£750,000 
per  annum. 

The  Chairman  then  moved  a  resolution  in  favour  of  a  tidal  navigation,  which 
was  seconded  in  a  cautious  speech  by  Mr.  Bleckly,  of  Warrington. 

The  Mayor  of  Salford  (Alderman  Husband)  moved  that  a  Committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  inquire  into  the  best  means  of  carrying  out  the  project,  to  consist  of 
Aldermen  Walmsley  and  Davies,  the  Mayor  of  Stockport  (Mr.  James  Leigh),  and 
Messrs.  Daniel  Adamson,  Henry  Bleckly,  Richard  Peacock,  John  Rylands,  W. 
Richardson  and  J.  R.  Pickmere,  with  power  to  add  to  their  number.  The  mover 
said  he  did  not  believe  that  there  would  be  a  grander  sight  under  the  canopy  of 
Heaven  than  the  docks  at  Manchester  crowded  with  shipping  from  all  parts  of  the 
world.  Alderman  Walmsley  moved  "that  the  Provisional  Committee  be  em- 
powered to  obtain  a  detailed  survey  by  a  competent  engineer  or  engineers  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  approximately  the  cost  of  the  construction  of  the  pro- 
posed tidal  navigation,  and  should  the  report  of  such  engineer  or  engineers  be 
satisfactory,  that  the  Committee  be  empowered  forthwith  to  form  a  company  to  be 
called  the  'Manchester  Tidal  Navigation  Company'".2 

Another  resolution  was  passed  to  establish  a  guarantee  fund  of  ,£25,000  for 
preliminary  expenses.  A  few  curious  incidents  connected  with  this  remarkable 
meeting  deserve  recording.  One  of  the  gentlemen  asked  to  speak  to  a  resolution 
was  Mr.  John  Rylands,  always  an  ardent  supporter  of  the  Ship  Canal,  but  on  this 
occasion  he  took  the  side  of  caution,  and  made  a  speech  that  threw  a  wet  blanket 
over  the  meeting.  When  he  came  to  reflect  on  what  he  had  said  he  was  so  vexed 
with  himself  that  he  came  to  town  extra  early  next  morning  to  see  if  he  could  do 
anything  to  qualify  or  nullify  his  speech  of  the  preceding  night,  and  expressed 
himself  willing  and  anxious  to  give  the  Canal  all  the  support  in  his  power. 

One  of  the  most  enterprising  and  courageous  men  of  his  day  was  the  late  Mr. 
Hilton  Greaves,  of  Oldham.  He  loved  anything  that  had  a  dash  of  risk  or 
adventure,  and  in  business  he  recognised  that  difficulties  were  only  raised  to  be 

Mr.  Fulton's  Plan  No.  4,  in  Pocket.  2See  Prospectus,  Appendix  No.  I. 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  83 

conquered.  Therefore,  when  Mr.  Adamson  gave  Mr.  Hicks  a  carte-blanche  Mr. 
Hilton  Greaves  was  one  of  the  guests  invited  by  him.  Careless  of  appearances  as 
he  always  was,  Mr.  Greaves,  when  the  time  of  the  appointment  drew  near,  jumped 
on  his  horse  and  in  mill  costume  rode  from  Oldham  to  Didsbury.  When  he  arrived 
at  the  Towers  and  saw  a  grand  residence,  with  gorgeously  liveried  flunkeys  in 
attendance,  he  was  aghast,  and,  after  a  word  with  Mr.  Hicks,  he  backed  out  and 
returned  post-haste  to  Oldham.  But  this  little  adventure  did  not  daunt  him.  At 
least  once  a  week  he  used  to  invite  me  to  his  office,  where,  over  a  cup  of  tea  we 
sat  for  an  hour  or  two  discussing  Ship  Canal  affairs ;  and,  when  in  the  end  he  had 
his  doubts  removed,  there  was  no  more  enthusiastic  and  liberal  supporter  of  the 
Canal.  In  its  darkest  days  he  cheered  it  on  and  he  never  lost  heart. 

Mr.  Adamson's  meeting  was  the  means  of  introducing  a  gentleman  who  has 
played  a  most  important  part  in  Ship  Canal  history,  and  it  was  by  the  merest 
chance  he  got  there.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  (then  in  partnership  with  Mr.  Nichol- 
son at  Garston)  called  on  my  agents,  Messrs.  Isaac  Neild  &  Son,  about  renting 
some  wharf  land,  with  the  intention  of  introducing  water  carriage,  and  thus  cheapen- 
ing freights  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester.  The  Ship  Canal  project  was  casually 
mentioned,  and  my  agent  said  his  principal  was  much  interested  in  it  as  a  promoter, 
whereupon  an  interview  was  arranged.  I  got  an  invitation  for  Mr.  Stevens  and 
took  him  with  me  to  Mr.  Adamson's  meeting,  after  which  he  became  a  supporter 
and  an  enthusiastic  worker. 

The  statement  that  the  river  would  not  allow  the  passage  of  large  ships  because 
of  the  bridges  received  a  contradiction  from  a  most  unexpected  source.  Captain 
Dutton,  of  the  Allan  Liner  Sardinian,  writing  from  Liverpool,  and  giving  a  sailor's 
opinion,  said  heavily-rigged  ships  were  not  a  necessity,  and  that  it  was  an  easy 
matter  to  arrange  for  a  3,000  ton  ship  to  pass  under  a  bridge  even  with  a  height  of 
50  feet. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  Provisional  Committee,  to  which  my  name  had  been 
added,  was  held  on  /th  July,  1882,  at  the  rooms  of  the  Frodingham  Iron  Company, 
in  St.  Ann's  Square,  and  I  well  remember  Mr.  Adamson  taking  the  chair.  In  a 
spotless  get-up  and  white  waistcoat  he  quite  beamed  upon  us.  In  his  opening  ad- 
dress he  said  God  had  graciously  restored  him  to  health  after  a  most  serious  illness, 
and  that  he  was  determined  to  show  his  thankfulness  by  helping  to  carry  out  the 
great  Canal  scheme,  which  he  believed  would  benefit,  nay  even  restore,  prosperity 
to  the  county  to  which  he  owed  so  much,  and  in  which  he  had  made  his  money. 


84          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 

At  the  same  meeting  Mr.  Henry  Whitworth  was  appointed  secretary,  and  Mr. 
Hamilton  Fulton,  C.E.,  of  London,  and  Mr.  E.  Leader  Williams,  C.E.,  were 
instructed  to  make  the  necessary  surveys,  and  to  prepare  a  joint  report  and  esti- 
mate, to  be  submitted  to  a  future  meeting  of  the  Committee,  and  this,  with  the  least 
possible  delay. 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Manchester  Tidal  Navigation  Committee,  held  on 
1 5th  July,  the  name  of  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  and  others  were  added  to  the  Com- 
mittee, and  a  hope  was  expressed  that  a  guarantee  fund  of  not  less  than  ,£25,000 
would  quickly  be  raised  to  meet  the  preliminary  expenditure. 

The  first  Provisional  Committee  of  the  Tidal  Navigation  Company  consisted  of 
the  nine  gentlemen  nominated  at  Mr.  Adamson's  house  with  the  addition  of:— 

John  A.  Beith  (Beith,  Stevenson  &  Co.),  Manchester. 

A.  C.  Boyd,  J.P.,  Dukinfield. 

George  Hicks,  Manchester. 

Bosdin  T.  Leech,  Manchester. 

C.  P.  Henderson,  Jun.,  J.P.  (G.  &  R.  Dewhurst),  Manchester. 

Richard  Husband,  J.P.,  Mayor  of  Salford. 

Henry  Nevile  (Agent,  Clowe's  Estate),  Manchester. 

Peter  Spence,  J.P.,  Manchester. 

Frank  Spence,  Manchester. 

Marshall  Stevens,  Garston. 

Edward  Walmsley,  J.P.,  Stockport. 

A  list  issued  on  7th  September.  1882,  contains  the  following  additional  names  :— 

James  Boyd,  Manchester. 

Colonel  Bridgford,  Manchester. 

Edward  Collinge,  J.P.,  Oldham. 

Wm.  Henry  Johnson  (Johnson,  Clapham  &  Morris),  Manchester. 

Gibbon  Bay  ley  Worthington,  J.P.,  London. 

When  the  Committee  next  met  it  was  announced  that  further  sums  had  been 
subscribed,  and  that  Warrington  had  sent  word  they  would  support  the  scheme, 
believing  it  would  be  conducive  to  the  interests  of  the  town,  and  also  prevent  flood- 
ing by  the  river. 

At  each  following  assembly  of  the  promoters  adhesions  of  the  leading  men  in 
Lancashire,  accompanied  by  contributions  to  the  guarantee  fund,  were  announced, 
chiefly  stimulated  by  the  Manchester  Tidal  Committee's  explanatory  circular. 

With  the  exception  of  the  City  News,  the  attitude  of  the  Manchester  Press  was 
cautious.  They  gave  a  full  description  of  the  scheme,  but  took  good  care  to  check 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  85 

enthusiasm  by  pointing  out  the  immense  difficulties  that  would  have  to  be  sur- 
mounted. The  Times  spoke  favourably  of  Mr.  Fulton's  efforts  for  the  last  six 
years  to  make  a  ship  canal,  but  approved  of  more  minds  than  one  being  engaged 
on  the  job,  and  wondered  at  the  prescience  of  our  forefathers,  who  sixty  years  ago 
secured  a  clause  for  swing  bridges.  Though  in  the  past  the  whole  scheme  had 
been  considered  visionary,  they  believed  the  time  had  now  come  when  the  people 
had  become  clamorous  for  cheap  communication  by  water,  with  a  desire  to  copy  the 
example  of  Glasgow,  Newcastle,  and  the  Tees. 

The  Morning  Advertiser  of  24th  July,  1882,  did  not  wonder  at  Manchester 
asking  why  Liverpool  should  levy  a  toll  on  everything  that  passed  through.  The 
answer  was  easy :  "  Make  a  canal  to  Manchester  broad  enough  and  deep  enough- 
like  that  of  Amsterdam  and  Bruges — so  that  American  ships  may  sail  up  and  dis- 
charge their  cargoes  without  transhipping  a  single  ounce".  The  editor  doubted 
the  estimate  of  four  and  a  half  millions.  "  But  even  allowing  the  works  cost 
,£15,000,000,  which  would  probably  be  nearer  the  mark,  a  toll  of  35.  per  ton  would 
allow  5  per  cent  if  5,000,000  tons  passed  through  the  waterway." 

The  Liverpool  Post  believed  the  scheme  wholly  chimerical ;  a  promoter's 
project ;  an  engineer's  dream,  which,  if  even  it  were  allowed  to  translate  itself  into 
fact,  would  spread  disappointment  and  ruin  broadcast.  Manchester  was  not  as 
prosperous  as  it  used  to  be.  Its  recovery  from  the  last  commercial  crisis  had  been 
slow  and  doubtful.  It  did  not  figure  as  well  in  the  census  as  had  been  expected. 
Its  political  hegemony  had  been  transferred  to  Birmingham ;  and  so  it  had  con- 
ceived the  grandiose  scheme  of  repairing  all  this  by  making  a  ship  canal.  "  It  will 
not  do  :  all  nature  and  history  are  against  it."  It  was  a  remission  from  half-barbarous 
times  when  ships  went  inland  to  be  out  of  the  way  of  pirates,  etc. 

From  many  surrounding  Corporations  and  from  different  trade  societies  the 
Provisional  Committee  received  the  heartiest  assurances  of  support. 

The  Salford  Town  Council,  at  its  meeting  in  August,  1882,  adopted  a  memorial 
to  the  Board  of  Trade  in  favour  of  the  tidal  navigation  scheme. 

As  early  as  July  in  the  same  year  the  writer  had  placed  the  following  resolution 
on  the  agenda  of  the  Manchester  Corporation,  but,  in  consequence  of  the  pressure  of 
business,  it  did  not  come  on  for  consideration  till  the  second  Wednesday  in  September, 
which  was  specially  allotted  for  the  purpose  :— 

That  the  question  of  widening  and  improving  the  rivers  Irwell  and  Mersey,  and  so 
making  them  navigable  as  a  Ship  Canal,  be  referred  to  the  General  Purposes  Committee  of 
the  Council. 


86  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  Council's  proceedings  :— 

Councillor  Leech  confessed  to  feeling  some  difficulty  in  bringing  business  before  the 
Council  which  did  not  arise  out  of  the  proceedings  of  any  of  its  Committees.  But  he  saw 
that  the  Corporations  of  Oldham,  Salford,  Warrington,  Stockport  and  other  towns  had 
already  taken  up  the  question  of  a  ship  canal,  and  he  was  afraid  that  as  nothing  had  yet 
been  done  by  Manchester  with  regard  to  it,  an  impression  would  be  created  that  there  was 
in  the  City  Council  considerable  apathy  on  the  subject,  if  not  hostility  towards  it.  This 
question  of  tidal  navigation  had  been  advocated  for  the  last  sixty  years,  during  which 
various  schemes  had  been  spoken  of  for  bringing  sea-going  vessels  to  Manchester,  and  at 
the  present  time  a  number  of  gentlemen,  persons  of  influence  in  the  city,  feeling  that 
Manchester  was  placed  in  a  most  unfavourable  position  in  consequence  of  the  heavy  charges 
now  imposed  by  the  railway  companies  or  levied  at  Liverpool,  had  joined  themselves 
together  to  see  if  something  could  not  be  done  to  remove  the  load  which  weighed  upon  the 
commercial  community  and  public  of  Manchester  and  neighbourhood.  These  gentlemen 
had  called  in  the  aid  of  eminent  engineers,  and  it  was  hoped  that  the  result  of  the  surveys 
that  were  being  made  would  convince  the  people  of  this  district  that  the  scheme  contem- 
plated was  practicable.  Either  Manchester  was  losing  thousands  of  pounds  weekly,  or  the 
public  mind  was  being  disturbed  without  just  reason,  and  he  thought  it  was  due  to  the 
public  that  the  Council  should  now  take  cognisance  of  the  movement.  It  seemed  to  him 
that  the  Irwell  was  at  present  practically  wasted,  and  he  wished  members  of  the  Council 
would  go  down  and  see  for  themselves  how  little  was  done  with  it,  and  how  much  better 
use  might  be  made  of  the  river.  He  had  spoken  to  several  engineers  on  the  subject,  and 
they  all  agreed  that  the  scheme  could  be  carried  out  and  that  it  would  be  of  vast  importance 
to  Manchester.  Some  members  of  the  Council  might  think  that  this  was  a  matter  for 
private  enterprise,  and  therefore  did  not  concern  the  Corporation.  That  was  not  his  view. 
He  held  that  the  Council  existed  for  more  than  the  discharge  of  routine  duties.  It  was 
incumbent  on  them  as  far  as  possible  to  stimulate  commerce,  to  protect  the  citizens  from 
the  exactions  of  other  corporate  bodies,  and  see  to  the  removal  of  anything  that  militated 
against  the  welfare  of  the  community.  In  support  of  this  view  he  directed  attention  to  the 
efforts  that  had  been  made  by  the  Corporations  of  Liverpool,  Glasgow,  Newcastle-on-Tyne, 
and  the  benefits  which  were  thereby  secured  to  those  towns.  In  the  case  of  Liverpool  the 
Corporation  laboured  hard  to  extend  the  docks  until  the  business  became  so  great  that  it 
was  transferred  to  a  special  board ;  at  Glasgow  the  Corporation,  in  conjunction  with  the 
local  magistrates,  laid  the  foundation  of  the  prosperity  of  that  city  by  the  action  they  took  to 
improve  the  navigation  of  the  Clyde. 

Again,  at  Newcastle,  a  great  commercial  interest  had  sprung  up  within  the  last  twenty 
years  as  the  result  of  improvements  of  the  Tyne  for  navigation  purposes,  which  though 
effected  by  the  Conservancy  Commissioners  were  strongly  countenanced  by  the  Corporation. 
The  expenditure  incurred  by  these  Commissioners  in  improving  and  maintaining  the  river 
and  in  providing  dock  and  other  accommodation,  amounted  at  the  end  of  1880  to  .£6,500,000 
sterling,  including  interest.  They  were  empowered  to  borrow  ^4,000,000,  but  had  only 


SIR  BOSDIN  LEECH,  AUDITOR,  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL  COMPANY, 
1886-92  ;  DIRECTOR  AND  CHAIRMAN  OF  LAND  COMMITTEE, 
1892  SEQ. 

Wilkinson  Bros.  Tu  face  f  age  86. 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  87 

borrowed  ,£3,500,000,  and  within  the  last  twenty  years  they  had  paid  .£1,000,000  out  of 
revenue.  They  had  also  at  the  end  of  1880  a  surplus  profit  of  £56,800  after  paying  all 
charges.  But  this  was  not  all,  for  as  the  result  of  this  improved  navigation,  numerous  works 
had  sprung  up  on  the  banks  of  the  river  where,  thirty  years  ago,  there  were  none.  After 
referring  to  what  the  Corporations  of  Bristol,  Leeds,  Hull  and  Southampton  had  done  to 
remove  certain  burdens  to  which  the  people  of  those  places  had  been  subjected,  he  said  he 
did  think  it  was  the  duty  of  this  Council  to  take  up  this  question  in  earnest.  One  reason 
for  doing  so  was  the  serious  injury  occasionally  done  by  the  flooding  of  the  Irwell,  the 
widening  and  deepening  of  which  would  to  a  great  extent  obviate  the  danger.  The 
carrying  out  of  such  a  scheme  would  also  be  some  help  to  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  felt 
by  the  local  authorities  in  complying  with  the  Rivers  Pollution  Act.  It  would  also  bring 
into  use  the  river  Irwell,  which  was  at  present  practically  useless  as  a  navigable  river.  He 
submitted  that  the  Irwell  Navigation  Company  had  signally  failed  to  utilise  the  stream  as 
it  might  and  ought  to  be  used.  No  works  had  been  established  along  the  banks  of  the 
river  like  those  about  Newcastle,  and  he  contended  that  as  a  Corporation  they  were  suffering 
a  very  serious  loss  from  the  want  of  proper  facilities  for  the  transmission  of  the  refuse  of 
their  town  yards  to  the  farm  lands  on  the  banks  of  the  stream.  For  nine  months  in  the 
year  the  river  was  not  used,  and  he  submitted  that  it  was  high  time  that  such  a  bountiful 
provision  of  nature  was  fully  utilised.  If  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  were  not 
disposed  to  make  use  of  the  river,  they  were  bound  to  give  up  their  privilege,  and  let  it  pass 
into  other  hands  that  would  employ  it  better. 

Another  reason  why  this  matter  should  receive  attention  from  the  Council  was,  that  it 
was  now  universally  acknowledged  that  water  carriage  was  the  cheapest  mode  of  transit,  and 
he  felt  sure  it  was  necessary  to  the  commercial  prosperity  of  Manchester  that  they  should 
endeavour  to  secure  this  means  of  transit  for  goods  to  the  fullest  possible  extent.  He  did 
not  wish  to  say  an  unkind  word  about  railways,  but  he  believed  as  regarded  Manchester  they 
had  made  the  best  use  of  their  opportunities  ;  they  had  formed  what  might  be  termed  a 
"corner"  and  had  brought  their  charges  to  a  uniform  sum,  and  the  Bridgewater  Navigation 
Company  had  raised  their  charges  to  the  same  amount.  To  show  how  the  trade  of 
Manchester  was  oppressed  by  the  present  charges,  he  would  cite  a  few  instances  illustrating 
their  effect  on  the  cost  of  articles  of  daily  use.  A  charge  of  IDS.  per  ton  was  levied  to  carry 
cheese  and  butter  1,000  miles  in  America,  and  IDS.  per  ton  to  bring  the  same  articles  from 
Liverpool  to  Manchester,  a  distance  of  31^  miles,  whilst  it  was  brought  from  New  York  to 
Liverpool,  3,000  miles,  for  15*.  per  ton.  A  charge  of  4'48d.  per  ton  per  mile  was  levied  on 
refined  sugar  to  bring  it  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester ;  whereas  a  town  like  Greenock, 
which  had  to  carry  it  from  London,  only  paid  i£d.  per  ton  per  mile.  A  fact  like  that 
showed  the  advantage  of  Manchester  having  access  by  means  of  a  tidal  waterway  with  the 
outside  world.  Again,  IDS.  a  ton  was  charged  to  carry  cotton  goods  from  Manchester  to 
Liverpool,  and  the  merchant  had  then  to  pay  2s.  6d.  per  ton  to  get  them  on  board  ship, 
while  the  cost  left  for  transit  to  Calcutta  was  only  6s.  gd.  per  ton ;  75.  8d.  per  ton  was 
exacted  to  carry  corn  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester,  the  charge  for  bringing  it  from  New 
York  to  Liverpool  being  only  6s.  3d.  per  ton.  The  effect  of  heavy  charges  like  these  was 


88          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 

to  drive  away  trade  from  Manchester,  and  merchants  in  different  parts  of  the  country  were 
beginning  to  send  their  goods  by  way  of  Goole,  Glasgow  and  other  ports,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  heavy  railway  charges  and  dock  dues  at  Liverpool.  Manchester,  however,  was  not  only 
burdened  by  heavy  railway  charges,  but  by  being  compelled  to  send  her  goods  through 
Liverpool,  which  was  one  of  the  dearest  ports  in  the  world.  It  was  frequently  the  case 
that  the  charges  in  Liverpool  were  double  what  they  were  in  other  ports.  Raw  sugar  could 
be  laid  down  at  the  refineries  in  Glasgow  at  2s.  6d.  per  ton,  whilst  it  would  cost  I2s.  6d.  to 
bring  it  to  Manchester.  .  It  was  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  one  large  refinery  in  this  city  had 
had  to  close,  and  now  stood  empty.  Shortly  stated,  Manchester  stood  at  a  disadvantage  as 
compared  with  such  places  as  Glasgow  and  Newcastle  in  respect  to  the  charges  for  carriage 
to  the  extent  of  4!  per  cent,  on  foreign  produce  ;  from  3  to  4  per  cent,  as  regards  iron,  and 
2  to  3  per  cent,  on  cotton  goods. 

We  were  at  a  disadvantage  in  many  other  ways  in  consequence  of  the  great  disparity 
between  the  charges  which  Manchester  people  had  to  pay  and  those  which  were  levied  in 
other  towns.  Many  works  were  closed  for  these  reasons.  If  there  was  any  improvement 
in  trade  Manchester  was  the  last  to  get  the  benefit  of  it.  They  got  the  overflow  of  other 
towns,  and  good  trade  left  them  the  first.  Mr.  Fowler,  the  engineer  who  was  rebuilding  the 
Tay  Bridge,  stated  the  other  day  that  iron  could  be  imported  into  London  cheaper  from 
Belgium  than  from  Staffordshire.  This  was  owing  to  the  energy  of  the  Belgians,  who,  by 
means  of  waterways  were  enabled  to  get  into  the  heart  of  Belgium  and  bring  their  iron  and 
lay  it  down  in  London  at  a  cheaper  price  than  Staffordshire  and  North  Country  ironworkers 
could.  Liverpool  was  not  satisfied  with  the  present  state  of  affairs.  She  felt  the  difficulties 
which  he  had  indicated,  and  application  was  this  year  being  made  to  Parliament  to  go  back 
to  the  oldest  system  of  all — carriage  by  road.  It  was  proposed  to  lay  down  a  line  of  rails 
on  the  road  between  Manchester  and  Liverpool.  But  whilst  this  would  help  Manchester  a 
little  in  the  matter  of  carriage,  it  would  not  bring  new  trades  into  the  city,  nor  give  the 
impetus  to  existing  trades  that  a  navigable  river  or  canal  would,  and  it  would  not  lessen  the 
dues  in  Liverpool.  Much  attention  had  recently  been  directed  to  the  desirableness  of  freeing 
the  foods  brought  to  the  Manchester  markets  from  unnecessary  imposts,  but  the  advantage 
to  be  derived  in  that  respect  would  be  as  nothing  compared  with  that  which  would  arise  if 
we  brought  ships  with  fish  and  fruit  as  was  done  in  London.  He  could  scarcely  conceive 
the  impetus  that  would  be  given  if  the  scheme  now  under  consideration  was  found  practi- 
cable. Old  trades  would  come  back  to  us,  new  ones  would  be  created,  and  we  should  be 
able  to  compete  with  foreigners.  It  used  to  be  thought  that  'we  were  ahead  of  Americans 
in  matters  of  trade.  Now  it  was  a  life  struggle  between  them  and  us,  and,  if  Manchester 
was  to  retain  the  proud  position  of  being  the  second  city  in  the  empire,  the  obstacles  which 
now  interfered  with  her  progress  must  be  taken  away.  In  further  support  of  the  scheme,  he 
quoted  the  words  of  Sir  William  Fairbairn  (see  Chapter  IX.),  whose  works  now  lay  silent,  he 
believed,  to  a  great  extent  because  of  the  difficulties  to  which  reference  had  been  made. 
He  (Mr.  Leech)  hoped  the  City  Council  would  take  up  this  question  with  the  vigour  and 
earnestness  which  its  importance  demanded.  Alderman  Sir  John  Harwood  seconded  the 
resolution,  and  it  was  carried  unanimously. 


i88a] 


DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM 


This  meeting  roused  the  indignation  of  the  Liverpool  Courier  whose  editor 
wrote : — 

There  are  even  yet  Manchester  people  who  believe  in  the  ultimate  realisation  of  the 
periodically  revived  scheme  of  a  ship  canal  to  relieve  Cottonopolis  from  the  extortions  of  the 
Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board.  Faith  is  a  very  valuable  possession,  and  has  accomplished 
much  since  the  world  began ;  but  even  faith  cannot  accomplish  things  which  are  impossible, 
and  the  ship  canal  to  Manchester  is  one  of  those  things.  From  an  engineering  standpoint 
we  have  been  taught  that  nothing  is  impossible  except  causing  water  to  stream  uphill,  but 
there  are  other  practical  considerations  besides  the  theory  of  engineers.  The  Manchester 
City  Council  includes  some  of  the  infatuated  people  who  look  confidently  to  the  construction 
of  the  tidal  canal  in  the  near  future.  Could  not  the  Manchester  Council  appoint  a  Committee 
to  investigate  the  subject,  and  ascertain  whether  the  cotton  metropolis  is  not  being  victim- 
ised by  a  huge  conspiracy  of  shipowners,  cotton  brokers  and  dock  bond  holders. 

The  Guarantee  Fund  on  the  7th  of  September,  1882,  amounted  to  .£11,450. 
It  was  subscribed  to  on  the  understanding  that  the  money  was  to  be  used  for  the 
payment  of  all  preliminary  expenses.  If  a  company  were  subsequently  formed 
subscribers  would  then  be  relieved  of  all  obligations,  and  what  they  had  subscribed 
would  be  repaid  to  them  out  of  the  funds  of  the  proposed  company. 

The  following  were  guarantors  of  £100  and  upwards  :— - 


Daniel  Adamson,  Dukinfield 

S.  W.  Clowes,  Ash  bourn    . 

W.  Rumney,  Ramsbottom . 

Wm.  Robinson,  Warrington 

Rd.  Peacock,  Gorton  .... 

G.  &  R.  Dewhurst,  Manchester  . 

Geo.  Benton,  Stretford 

Grundy,  Kershaw  &  Co.,  Manchester 

Lord  Winmarleigh,  Warrington 

Colonel  Blackburne,  M.P.,  Warrington 

W.  Cunlifte  Brooks,  Manchester 

Sir  Joseph  Whitworth,  Manchester    . 

The  Mayor  of  Salford  (Rd.  Husband) 

Alderman  Walmsley,  Salford     . 

John  Lowcock,  Salforcl 

P.  R.  Jackson  &  Co.,  Salford      . 

J.  &  N.  Philips  &  Co.,  Manchester      . 

John  Rylands,  Manchester 

John  Munn,  Manchester     . 

Edmund  C.  Potter,  Manchester. 


£200  W.  C.  Crum,  Manchester    . 

„  E.  B.  Rumney,  Manchester 

„  Michaelis,  James  &  Co.,  Manchester  . 

„  Hickson,  Lloyd  &  King,  Manchester. 
S.  &  J.  Watts  &  Co.,  Manchester 

„  Horrocks,  Miller  &  Co.,  Manchester  . 

,,  George  Robinson  &  Co.,  Manchester. 

„  S.  L.  Behrens  &  Co.,  Manchester 

.£100  James  Jardine,  Manchester 

,,  George  Fraser,  Son  &  Co.,  Manchester 

„  James  Boyd,  Manchester     . 

„  Beith,  Stevenson  &  Co.,  Manchester  . 
The  Strines  Printing  Co.,  Manchester 
De  Jersey  &  Co.,  Manchester  . 

„  S.  Schvvabe  &  Co.,  Manchester  . 

„  J.  R.  Bridgford  &  Sons,  Manchester  . 

„  Oliver  Heywood,  Manchester     . 

„  Peter  Spence,  Manchester  . 

„  John  H.  Garside,  Manchester     . 

„  Bryce  Smith,  Manchester  . 


£100 


90          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 


Deane  Stanley,  Manchester 
Chas.  E.  Schwann,  Manchester  , 
Frank  S pence,  Manchester 
Jacob  Behrens,  Manchester 
James  Holmes,  Manchester 
Chas.  Moseley,  Manchester 
Ellis  Lever,  Manchester 
Thomas  Bradford,  Manchester   . 
Henry  Samson,  Manchester 
Wm.  H.  Johnson,  Manchester    . 
T.  R.  Wilkinson,  Manchester 
Lieut-Colonel  Sowler,  Manchester     . 
C.  C.  Dunkerley,  Manchester 
Henry  Marriott  &  Co.,  Manchester    . 
Isaac  Neild  &  Son,  Manchester 
M.  Kaufman,  Manchester . 
Walmsley  &  Samuels,  Manchester     . 
Brockbank,     Wilson      &      Mulliner, 

Manchester 

Alderman  Sharp,  Manchester     . 
Councillor  Boddington,  Manchester    . 

„          Goldsworthy,  Manchester  . 


£100     Councillor  Leech,  Manchester    . 
„  „          Howarth,  Manchester 

„        J.  T.  Emmerson,  Manchester     . 
„        William  Butcher,  Manchester    . 
„        S.  Kershaw  &  Sons,  Manchester 
„        Rd.  Johnson  &  Nephew,  Manchester . 
„        The  Broughton  Copper  Co.,  Manchester 
„        Joseph  Leigh,  Stockport     . 
„        George  Woodhouse,  Bolton 
„        R.  S.  Collinge,  Oldham 

Sam.  Platt,  Oldham  .... 
„        Wm.  Richardson,  Oldham  . 

Ed.  Collinge,  Oldham 

A.  C.  Boyd,  Dukinfield 
„        Trustees   of  the   late    F.    D.  Astley, 

„  Dukinfield 

„        Alderman  Davies,  Warrington    . 

Peter  Whitley,  Warrington 
„        Edward  Mucklow,  Bury 
„        Thos.  G.  Stark,  Ramsbottom 
„        Marshall  Stevens,  Liverpool 


.£100 


In  addition  there  were  forty-three  subscriptions  of  ^50  each  and  ^200  subscribed 
in  smaller  amounts. 

The  Provisional  Committee  were  busily  employed  in  strengthening  the 
guarantee  fund  and  considering  the  reports  of  the  engineers,  Messrs.  Fulton  and 
Leader  Williams,  who,  finding  they  differed  in  opinion,  agreed  to  send  in  separate 
reports.  These  the  Committee  submitted  to  Mr.  Jas.  Abernethy,  C.E.,  an  eminent 
London  engineer.  The  Chairman,  Mr.  Adamson,  was  strongly  in  favour  of  a  tidal 
canal,  but  after  mature  consideration  the  Committee  felt  they  could  not  take  the 
responsibility  of  rejecting  the  advice  of  such  sound  engineers  as  Messrs.  Abernethy 
and  Leader  Williams,  backed  up  by  Mr.  J.  F.  Bateman,  and  they  passed  a  resolution 
adopting  the  lock  instead  of  the  tidal  scheme. 

In  the  autumn  of  1882  Mr.  Adamson  went  abroad  to  recruit.  During  his 
absence  Mr.  Peacock,  as  Deputy  Chairman,  presided  at  the  meetings  of  the 
Provisional  Committee  held  in  the  B.  room  at  the  Old  Town  Hall.  Things  were 
going  flat,  and  Mr.  Peacock  at  one  of  the  weekly  meetings  said  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  to  get  some  one  experienced  in  organising  and  conducting  agitations  and 


1 88a]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  91 

Parliamentary  fights,  and  it  was  decided  to  try  and  find  a  suitable  man.  At  the 
next  meeting  some  names  were  mentioned  by  the  Deputy  Chairman,  in  particular 
that  of  Mr.  Joseph  Lawrence,  who  said  Mr.  Lawrence  had  been  engaged  in  just  the 
same  kind  of  work  at  Hull.  It  was  decided  to  make  inquiries  about  the  applicants, 
and  I  was  one  of  the  Committee  deputed  to  do  so.  Subsequently  when  the  merits 
came  to  be  discussed,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  Committee  the  very  mild  Deputy 
Chairman  said  we  must  not  be  too  particular ;  it  would  be  hard  to  find  the  right 
man.  We  wanted  a  clever  organiser,  and  it  was  the  Committee's  duty  to  look  after 
him  and  keep  him  in  check.  The  choice  fell  on  Mr.  Joseph  Lawrence,  who  no 
doubt  had  been  largely  instrumental  in  successfully  carrying  out  the  agitation  at 
Hull.  The  Committee  found  him  to  have  an  aptitude  for  organising  which  was 
perfectly  amazing.  He  was  not  to  be  daunted,  and  he  could  write  a  book  or 
arrange  a  large  staff  with  equal  facility :  he  seemed  to  spoil  for  a  Parliamentary 
fight,  and  at  buttonholing  members  he  was  perfection.  With  the  Irish  party  he 
had  special  influence,  and  at  a  division  he  seemed  to  do  just  what  he  liked  with 
them. 

This  brings  us  to  another  era  in  the  Ship  Canal  history. 

On  26th  September,  1882,  a  meeting  of  the  subscribers  to  the  guarantee 
fund  was  held  at  the  Old  Town  Hall,  King  Street,  to  receive  the  report  of  the 
Provisional  Committee.  In  the  absence  of  Mr.  Adamson,  the  Deputy  Chairman 
(Mr.  Rd.  Peacock)  presided.  The  Chairman  said  Mr.  Fulton's  scheme  would  not 
have  allowed  time  for  a  ship  to  come  up  on  the  tide  ;  it  would  have  placed  the  ship  in 
a  cutting  of  70  feet,  and  have  been  very  costly  from  the  great  amount  of  excavating 
to  be  done.  On  account  of  these  objections,  and  because  Mr.  Leader  Williams 
would  give  a  wider  canal  where  two  ships  could  pass,  the  Committee  had  decided 
to  adopt  Mr.  Williams'  canal  with  locks.  The  object  of  the  guarantee  fund  of 
£ 25,000  for  plans  had  been  achieved,  and  now  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  a 
further  fund  of  ,£100,000  for  Parliamentary  expenses,  deposit,  etc.  He  would 
like  the  Corporations  to  take  the  matter  up,  and  make  the  canal  a  public  trust. 
To  substitute  a  ship  canal  for  an  idle  and  sewage-laden  river  was  a  subject  of 
national  importance ;  nothing  more  so  had  come  before  the  public  since  the  making 
of  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester  Railway.  As  a  Manchester  trader  he  found  it 
cheaper  and  better  to  send  his  goods  to  Glasgow  for  foreign  shipment,  though  he 
paid  .£30  an  engine  more  to  get  it  by  railway  to  Glasgow  than  to  Liverpool. 
This  showed  the  necessity  of  better  and  cheaper  communication  abroad.  We 


92          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

ought  to  bring  the  sea  to  our  city  so  that  we  could  load  and  unload  ships  there,  and 
be  in  touch  with  the  world.  He  moved:  "That  steps  be  at  once  taken  by  the 
Provisional  Committee  to  carry  out  the  scheme  as  recommended  in  the  report," 
also  "that  steps  be  forthwith  taken  by  the  Provisional  Committee  to  raise  a  fund 
of  .£100,000,  and  to  apply  for  Parliamentary  powers  to  carry  out  the  scheme  as 
recommended  by  the  report ". 

These  resolutions  were  duly  seconded  and  unanimously  carried. 

The  Chairman  said  a  meeting  was  going  to  be  held  in  Barnsley,  presided  over 
by  the  Earl  of  Wharncliffe,  to  consider  the  scheme,  and  he  announced  several  sub- 
scriptions of  .£1,000  each  to  the  preliminary  fund.  He  also  said  that  the  Manchester 
Corporation  Committee  were  going  to  inspect  the  river. 

These  important  resolutions  brought  out  a  host  of  communications  in  the 
London,  Liverpool  and  Manchester  Press.  Advocates  of  Mr.  Fulton's  tidal  scheme 
expressed  their  disappointment  that  real  salt-water  could  not  come  to  Manchester, 
and  that  the  canal  would  be  impeded  and  disfigured  by  locks. 

The  Liverpool  Courier  wrote  :— 

The  Lancashire  cotton  spinners  have  revived  an  old  project  to  "  corner  "  Liverpool. 
They  are  apparently  afraid  that  the  "  corner-men  "  on  the  Liverpool  'Change  are  more  than  a 
match  for  the  "  corner-men "  in  the  factories.  As  they  cannot  defeat  the  combination  of 
brokers  they  mean  to  attempt  the  complete  annihilation  of  Liverpool.  Several  projects  had 
been  mooted  during  the  past  century  for  making  a  canal,  and  securing  to  Manchester  a 
share  of  the  mercantile  marine  business  of  Lancashire,  but  they  had  soon  been  consigned  to 
the  limbo  of  popular  illusions,  and  they  anticipated  a  similar  fate.  They  had  better  spend 
their  money  in  helping  to  straighten  the  river  and  get  rid  of  the  Pluckington  Bank. 

The  London  Times  said  : — 

No  doubt  it  would  be  a  great  gain  to  manufacturers,  and  in  the  long  run  it  might  prove 
a  paying  and  a  profitable  work.  But  we  must  confess  to  a  misgiving  that  the  first  share- 
holders might  find  themselves  paid  rather  by  the  glory  and  grandeur  of  their  work  than  in 
solid  coin.  The  projectors  say  "  Even  if  the  outlay  were  fourteen  millions — better  say  at 
once  twenty — the  saving  to  the  manufacturing  districts  would  be  such  as  to  secure  a  good 
return  to  the  shareholders".  Have  they  considered  the  costs  and  difficulties  of  training 
walls,  the  competition  of  railways  and  the  dangers  of  accidents  ?  Also  as  to  capital  that 
"  millionaires  are  generally  shy  people  ". 

The  article  ended  by  recommending  a  reconsideration  of  a  canal  to  the  Dee 
rather  than  to  try  and  improve  the  Mersey. 

The  Manchester  Guardian  thought  the  reports  were  not  documents  likely  to 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  93 

increase  the  popularity  of  the  scheme.  There  was  sufficient  to  show  the  tidal 
scheme  must  be  put  aside,  but  there  was  some  question  if  Mr.  Williams'  scheme 
would  stand  the  test  of  close  examination.  Was  it  clear  we  should  not  have  a  re- 
petition of  the  Amsterdam  Canals  with  their  smells?  Then  Mr.  Fulton  had  altered 
his  proposition  of  coming  up  to  Manchester,  and  was  content  to  bring  his  salt-water 
basin  to  Barton.  Had  this  alteration  been  duly  considered  ?  The  cautious  article 
ended  with,  "Whether  the  plan  adopted  by  the  Provisional  Committee  will  in  the 
main  do  all  this,  or  not,  we  must  leave  experts  and  the  future  to  decide  ". 

The  Pall  Mall  Gazette,  whilst  thinking  Mr.  Williams'  scheme  was  the  best, 
deprecated  the  attempt  to  make  a  canal,  and  suggested  that  the  people  of  Man- 
chester learned  a  lesson  in  modesty  and  took  to  making  the  best  of  their  existing 
waterway. 

Of  course  there  were  many  criticisms,  and  these  were  dealt  with  in  a  subse- 
quent pamphlet  by  "Cottonopolis,"  entitled,  "The  Manchester  Ship  Canal:  Why- 
it  is  wanted!  and  why  it  will  payf"  A  second  edition  had  a  chapter  on  "Can 
the  Canal  be  Made  for  the  Money  ? "  These  pamphlets  were  admirably  written  by 
Mr.,  now  Sir  Joseph  Lawrence,  and  were  meant  to  prove  the  Canal  case  out  of  the 
mouths  of  opponents  who  had  given  evidence  on  previous  commercial  inquiries,  to  the 
effect  that  Liverpool  was  a  dear  port,  and  that  sadly  too  heavy  rates  were  being 
charged  for  the  conveyance  of  imports  and  exports.  Amongst  others  quoted  to 
prove  the  Manchester  case  were  Messrs.  W.  B.  Forwood,  Mr.  Guion,  Mr.  Alfred 
Holt,  and  Mr.  John  Williamson,  of  Liverpool,  and  Mr.  Findlay,  of  the  London  and 
North- Western  Railway  Company.  "  Cottonopolis  "  also  gave  quotations  from  leading- 
periodicals  to  prove  that  it  was  water  competition  England  required  if  cheaper  carriage 
was  to  be  secured. 

But  Manchester  having  put  its  hand  to  the  plough  did  not  mean  to  turn  back, 
even  though  the  canal  did  not  meet  with  all  the  encouragement  that  could  be 
desired  from  the  local  Press  and  from  capitalists  who  were  likely  to  give  a 
preference  to  their  own  vested  interests. 

The  Provisional  Committee,  strengthened  by  many  valuable  and  voluntary 
recruits,  at  once  set  to  work  with  vigour..  Their  first  object  was  to  educate  the 
people,  and  let  the  merits  of  the  scheme  be  thoroughly  known.  They  believed  in 
the  power  and  intelligence  of  the  people,  and  wished  to  have  their  support,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  middle  class  tradesman  and  capitalist.  They  arranged  for  Committee 
meetings  in  all  the  wards  of  the  city,  and  also  in  the  neighbouring  towns.  A  certain 
number  of  the  Committee  dedicated  themselves  to  this  work,  and  engaged  to  go 


94          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 

whenever  and  wherever  they  were  wanted  to  address  meetings  or  help  Ward 
Committees. 

Oxford  Ward  opened  the  ball  on  the  4th  of  October,  Councillor  Roberts  in 
the  chair,  and  it  fell  to  the  lot  of  Mr.  Leader  Williams  and  myself  to  address  the 
meeting.  With  the  aid  of  plans  the  main  features  of  the  scheme  were  explained  by 
the  former,  and  I  showed  how  the  creation  of  new  industries  and  the  cheapening 
of  food  would  benefit  all  classes  of  the  community,  venturing  to  predict  a  saving 
of  £1,000,000  a  year  to  the  district.  This  was  followed  by  ward  meetings  all 
over  Manchester  and  Salford,  at  which  resolutions  in  favour  of  the  scheme  were 
passed  and  a  canvass  for  funds  instituted. 

Meetings  also  were  held  in  Oldham,  Ashton,  Stockport,  Warrington  and  other 
surrounding  towns,  and  the  project  was  favourably  received  everywhere,  except  in 
Bolton.  Here  a  resolution  of  support  was  opposed  in  the  Council  on  the  ground 
that  though  the  canal  might  advantage  Manchester,  it  would  be  of  little  utility  to 
Bolton,  and  further  (as  an  Alderman  said),  because  in  the  end  the  canal  would  be 
gobbled  up  by  the  railway  interests,  as  the  Bridgewater  Canal  had  been. 

At  the  October  meeting  of  the  General  Purposes  Committee  of  the  City 
Council  to  whom  the  Ship  Canal  resolution  had  been  referred,  Alderman  Harwood 
moved  :  "  That  the  question  of  widening  and  improving  the  rivers  Irwell  and  Mersey 
and  so  making  them  navigable  as  a  ship  canal,  be  referred  to  the  Parliamentary 
Sub-Committee,  and  that  they  be  instructed  to  consider  whether  the  administration 
thereof  should  be  vested  in  a  public  trust  instead  of  private  individuals,  and  further 
that  they  be  authorised  and  instructed  to  obtain  such  plans  and  opinions  on  the 
subject  and  to  incur  such  expenditure  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  desirable,  with 
the  view  to  presenting  a  complete  report,  and  that  Messrs.  Leech,  Walton-Smith, 
Goldschmidt  and  Howarth,  be  added  to  the  Parliamentary  Sub-Committee  ".  He 
wished  to  strengthen  the  Committee,  and  asked  that  the  Council  should  give  their 
moral  support  to  gentlemen  who  were  spending  their  time  and  money  to  improve 
the  river  and  give  commercial  advantages  to  the  city. 

Alderman  Thompson,  in  seconding,  threw  out  a  suggestion  that  in  view  of 
a  tidal  navigation  there  should  be  one  great  and  extended  Manchester  that  would 
embrace  Salford  and  the  surrounding  districts.  If  Manchester  was  to  maintain  its 
present  position,  they  must  not  throw  away  any  opportunities  for  cheapening  the 
carriage  of  merchandise  whether  it  were  by  water  or  by  land. 

In  my  contribution  I  said  the  promoters  had  no  private  interests  to  serve,  their 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  95 

object  being  to  benefit  the  commerce  of  the  district.  They  would  gladly  work  hand 
in  hand  with  the  Corporation,  and  I  hoped  the  new  Committee  would  start  their  work 
with  energy.  No  time  was  to  be  lost,  as  rival  schemes  by  the  Bridgewater  Canal 
and  by  a  Plateway  Company  would  also  be  before  Parliament. 

The  resolution  was  passed  unanimously. 

At  a  subsequent  Council  meeting  it  was  determined  to  oppose  Liverpool  laying 
the  Vyrnwy  water  pipes  on  the  bed  of  the  Mersey,  and  to  insist  they  should  be 
placed  at  such  a  depth  and  in  such  a  way  "as  will  not  cause  obstruction  to  any 
proposed  improved  navigation".  Inconsequence  there  was  an  inquiry  at  Runcorn, 
and  the  Acting  Conservator  ordered  the  pipes  to  be  carried  at  a  considerable 
depth  as  suggested  by  the  Ship  Canal  Committee.  The  new  Committee  lost  no 
time,  and  arranged  to  inspect  the  whole  length  of  the  river,  dividing  it  into  two 
parts.  On  5th  October,  1882,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Leader  Williams,  they  left 
Manchester  in  a  barge  drawn  by  horses  and  went  as  far  as  Warrington,  and  a 
fortnight  later  did  the  other  half  from  Warrington  to  Runcorn  in  the  same  way. 
The  engineer  explained  his  proposition  of  carrying  the  Bridgewater  Canal  in  a 
swinging  trough  over  the  Ship  Canal,  and  other  interesting  details.  On  the  second 
occasion  Mr.  Abernethy,  C.E.,  was  of  the  party.  Apart  from  the  information  ob- 
tained these  trips  were  very  enjoyable.  The  weather  was  fine,  the  company  good, 
and  there  was  something  novel  in  being  drawn  by  horses  along  an  old-fashioned 
waterway  and  through  a  pleasant  country,  occasionally  dropping  a  few  feet  down  by 
an  old-fashioned  lock.  When  we  had  left  behind  us  the  unfragrant  part  of  the  river 
an  excellent  lunch  was  served  on  board,  and  all  were  very  well  prepared  to  enjoy  it. 

These  visits  were  the  subjects  of  some  innocent  lampooning.  The  comic  paper 
of  the  day  (City  Lantern)  called  Mode  Wheel  "  Mudwheel,"  and  of  the  Irwell  said  :— 

Mud  to  right  and  mud  to  left, 

Mud  oozed  out  of  every  cleft, 

Mud  surged  up  and  mud  dropped  down, 

Mud  and  slush  caused  many  a  frown. 

It  also  issued  a  cartoon  of  the  City  Fathers  at  lunch,  and  many  of  the  faces  are 
quite  distinguishable. 

Ben  Brierley  too  wrote  Ab-otK-Yate  and  the  Skip  Canal,  in  which  he  gave 
"A  Dream  of  1892".  Herein  he  pictured  what  Manchester  would  be  ten  years 
afterwards : — 


96          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1882 

When  "  Owd  Ab  "  tells  his  wife  Sarah  "  They're  gooin  to  bring  th'  sae  here.  What 
dost  think  abeaut  that  ?  "  she  replies,  "  Ab,  hast'  bin  atin  poork,  as  thy  yead's  gone  a-wool- 
getherin  ?  I  know  theau'rt  subject  to  dreeamin  when  theau's  o'er-weighted  thy  inside  ;  but 
neaw  theau'rt  off  at  a  corner,  I  think.  Are  thy  brains  gettin  flee-blown,  or  summat  ?  Theau 
couldno'  talk  crazier  nonsense  if  theau're  stark  mad." 

Then  Ab  goes  to  bed  "  but  before  mornin  coome  I'd  lived  ten  year.  Afore  th'  fust 
clod  wur  delved,  ther  a  good  deeal  o'  pooin  deawn,  an'  shiftin  away  to  be  done.  Th' 
Manchester  Corporation  did  a  wise  thing  for  once,  ut  even  th'  ratepayers  gan  'em  credit 
for.  They  sowd  th'  Knot  Mill  Market  to  th'  Cannell  Company.  Gooin  lower  deawn,  rents 
had  been  doubled  i'  Lower  Broughton  ;  an'  everybody  livin  theere  wur  gettin  new  furniture, 
after  weshin  th'  slutch  eaut  o'th'  owd,  an'  sellin  it.  That  owd  wyndymill  facin  Peel  Park 
wur  to  be  made  int'  a  leetheause ;  an'  owd  Oliver  Crummell  wur  to  have  a  creawn  put  on 
his  yead  ;  but  wur  to  be  a  creawn  o'  fire,  for  one  o'  Edison's  lamps  wur  to  be  put  on  his 
yead,  for  t'  guide  ships  to  their  harbour,  an'  sinners  to  th'  Owd  Church. 

"  Th'  Cannell  wur  finished  at  last ;  an'  neaw  it  coome  to  lettin  th'  wayter  into  it.  This 
wurno'  to  be  a  straightforrad  job.  Liverpool  '  gentlemen '  said  th'  sae  didno'  belong  to  us, 
an'  we  must  ha"  no  wayter  eaut  on't  unless  we  paid  for  it.  They  couldno'  prove  their  title 
to  it,  becose  owd  Noah  laft  no  will.  Th'  biggest  undertakin'  o'th'  nineteenth  century  wur 
creawned  wi'  victory  an  th'  Teawn  Hall  bells — thoose  ut  wurno'  cracked — rung  a  merry 
peeal." 

A  few  days  later  some  of  the  principal  subscribers  finding  the  Corporation 
barge  Eleanor  had  not  been  dismantled,  chartered  her  for  a  cruise  down  the  river, 
and  their  trip  is  humorously  described  in  the  Press  by  one  of  the  party  on  the 
lines  of  Artemus  Ward  when  he  gave  the  history  of  his  famous  cruise  on  the 
Wabash  Canal.  They  had  many  adventures  by  land  and  water,  among  the  rest 
one  of  the  horses  in  crossing  the  river  on  a  floating  bridge  tumbled  in.  They  were 
much  astonished  by  the  primitiveness  of  the  country  and  the  people,  and  still  more 
so  that  a  fine  waterway  should  have  been  allowed  to  go  into  disuse. 

Salford  was  also  enthusiastic  about  the  idea  of  a  Ship  Canal.  The  Council 
on  the  29th  September,  1882,  passed  a  resolution  that  their  borough  engineer, 
Mr.  Jacob,  should  inquire  into  the  proposed  scheme  and  report.  This  he  did 
most  exhaustively.  In  closing  this  report  he  summarises  thus  :— 

First,  that  the  scheme  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  Provisional  Committee  possesses, 
from  an  engineering  point  of  view,  all  the  elements  likely  to  render  the  enterprise  a  success- 
ful one;  secondly,  that  the  canal  will  materially  contribute  to  the  solution  of  the  floods  ques- 
tion as  regards  Salford  ;  and  thirdly,  that  in  my  judgment  the  completion  of  the  undertaking 
must  be  followed  by  the  most  beneficial  results  as  regards  the  trade  and  prosperity,  not 
only  of  Manchester  and  Salford,  but  of  every  manufacturing  centre  in  their  neighbourhood. 


1882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  97 

Alarmed  by  the  enthusiasm  with  which  the  project  was  received,  Liverpool 
devised  a  counterblast  in  the  shape  of  a  Lancashire  Plateway,  which  it  was  said 
would  effect  the  same  end  at  a  much  less  cost.  Practically  this  scheme  was  to 
place  smooth  parallel  iron  plates  on  the  main  roads,  and  draw  trucks  on  them  by 
means  of  steam  traction  engines.  Thus  it  was  said  goods  could  be  cheaply  taken 
from  the  ship's  side  into  the  user's  yard  without  transhipment,  and  many  of  the 
railway  and  shipping  charges  would  be  avoided.  This  idea  emanated  with  Mr. 
Alfred  Holt,  himself  a  large  shipowner  and  a  practical  engineer.  Liverpool  mer- 
chants and  shipowners  saw  the  possibility  of  checkmating  the  new  port  and  also 
of  cheapening  carriage,  and  they  subscribed  ,£75,000  to  float  the  scheme.  It  had, 
too,  the  powerful  support  of  the  London  Times,  in  which  several  favourable 
articles  were  written.  A  deputation  of  the  promoters  waited  upon  the  Man- 
chester Corporation,  but  received  scant  encouragement.  Eventually  the  Plateway 
scheme  collapsed,  in  consequence  of  its  being  found  much  more  costly  than  at  first 
anticipated.  A  preliminary  prospectus  was  advertised  with  some  of  the  best  Liver- 
pool names  attached  to  it,  but  it  was  generally  felt  that  every  argument  urged 
in  Liverpool  in  favour  of  the  Lancashire  Plateway  could  just  as  profitably  be  used 
by  the  promoters  of  the  Ship  Canal. 

About  this  time  the  Manchester  Guardian  published  the  following  series  of 
very  instructive  articles  on  "The  Commercial  Prospects  of  the  Ship  Canal"  :— 

1.  The  Geographical  Question. 

2.  The  Coal  Trade. 

3.  The  Metallurgical  Industries. 

4.  The  Chemical,  Glass  and  Pottery  Industries. 

5.  The  Cotton  Industry. 

6.  The  Cotton  Industry. 

7.  The  Cotton  Market. 

8.  The  Woollen  Industries. 

They  were  admirably  written  by  some  one  who  certainly  was  not  carried  away 
by  enthusiasm  for  the  canal  If  he  had  had  to  rewrite  them  by  the  light  of  after 
events  he  would  possibly  have  had  to  admit  that  his  calculations  in  respect  to 
cotton,  etc.,  were  far  from  being  correct. 

During  October,  1882,  the  Provisional  Committee  was  busily  at  work  organ- 
ising, and  canvassing  for  subscriptions  to  the  ;£  100,000  fund.  They  met  weekly 

and  their  work  was  full  of  encouragement. 
VOL.  i.  7 


98          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

The  following  letter,  enclosing  a  donation  of  £10,  from  a  venerable  old  lady 
shows  the  remarkable  enthusiasm  felt  for  the  Ship  Canal  :— 

Mrs. is  most  deeply  interested  in  the  project  of  a  Ship  Canal  for  her  dear  native 

town  of  Manchester.  She  is  now  seventy-three  years  of  age,  and  during  the  years  1823-24- 
25,  being  in  the  evenings  the  constant  companion  of  her  excellent  father  (a  good,  highly 
respected  man),  she  heard  a  very  great  deal  from  him  about  the  project,  which  was  then 

hoped  might  soon  be  accomplished,  but  it  fell  through,  greatly  to  the  regret  of  Mrs. 's 

father,  who  over  and  over  again  said  to  her,  "  Manchester  and  Manchester  trade  will  never 
really  flourish  until  a  Ship  Canal  be  made  ".  As  she  at  that  time  read  every  document  that 
came  to  her  father  on  the  subject,  she  longed  for  the  Ship  Canal  to  be  made  as  much  as  he 
did,  and  under  these  circumstances  it  is  a  great  delight  to  her  to  send  the  enclosed  small 
sum  of  £10  towards  the  large  fund  required  for  the  revived  project.  Besides  being  so  old, 

Mrs. is  a  very  great  invalid,  and  is  quite  aware  she  may  any  day  die  suddenly,  yet 

whenever  she  reads  anything  in  the  Manchester  Guardian  about  the  Ship  Canal,  she  cannot 
help  wishing  our  Heavenly  Father  may  permit  her  to  live  to  hear  it  is  made  and  proving  to 
her  native  town  as  great  a  benefit  as  expected. 
SOUTHPORT, 

i&th  October,  1882. 

Surrounding  towns  sent  resolutions  in  favour  of  the  scheme,  and  in  Manchester 
and  Salford  candidates  for  the  Municipal  Council,  one  and  all,  supported  the  canal. 
Building  Societies  promised  their  help.  The  Grocers  and  other  trading  Guilds 
recognised  the  benefit  to  their  trades,  and  promised  their  support.  Various  Local 
Boards  tendered  their  services  to  promote  the  success  of  the  undertaking.  Week 
by  week  came  willing  helpers  to  the  cause,  and  the  subscription  list  rapidly  increased. 
Trades  Unions  and  working  men  voluntarily  offered  their  contributions  to  a  scheme 
they  saw  must  make  work  more  plentiful.  The  numerous  letters  and  articles  that 
appeared  in  the  London  and  Provincial  Press  attracted  the  attention  of  the  whole 
of  England  to  the  efforts  Manchester  was  making.  One  of  the  most  able  contribu- 
tions appeared  in  the  Saturday  Review,  and  in  its  opening  paragraph  put  the  case 
very  clearly  :— 

Within  an  area  of  40  miles  round  Manchester  there  is  a  population  larger  than  that 
of  all  Ireland,  a  population  perhaps  the  busiest  and  the  most  productive  on  the  face  of  the 
earth,  to  the  increase  of  whose  prosperity  there  appears  to  be  no  limit  but  that  imposed  by 
the  conditions  under  which  it  exchanges  what  it  produces  for  what  it  requires ;  and  it  is  now 
crying  out  that  these  conditions  are  becoming  so  hard  that  they  threaten  the  industry  with 
paralysis.  .  .  .  Everything  which  tends  to  the  greater  efficiency  and  economy  of  industry 
will  in  the  long  run  augment  both  wealth  and  population,  and  with  the  growth  of  wealth  and 
population  the  traffic  of  the  railways  must  increase. 


1 88a]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  9c) 

With  the  view  of  increasing  the  circulation  of  Ship  Canal  literature,  it  was 
decided  to  publish  a  special  organ,  The  Ship  Canal  Gazette,  which  was  ably  edited 
by  Mr.  Jas.  W.  Harvey  and  Mr.  Joshua  Bury,  of  John  Dalton  Street.  The  first 
number  was  issued  on  8th  November,  1882,  and  the  last  on  i5th  August,  1883; 
it  had  a  large  circulation,  and  by  its  means  a  fuller  report  of  speeches  at  various 
meetings  was  given  than  could  be  expected  from  the  local  Press. 

An  amateur  poet  called  attention  to  the  ship  which  forms  a  prominent  feature 
of  the  City  Arms,  thus  : — 

Mancuniensis ! 

Some  wonder  from  whence  is 
The  arms  of  thy  city  obtained, 
A  shield  'tis  with  three  bars 
(Suggesting  the  three  R's), 
Through  which  all  its  wealth  has  been  gained. 

Now  these  cause  delays, 

And  our  merchandise  pays 

Heavy  dues  ere  it  gets  out  to  sea ; 

Quite  a  bar  to  success 

In  our  trade  you'll  confess 

When  it's  understood  what  these  three  R's  be. 

Rail,  Road,  and  River ! 

But  why  did  they  ever 

O'er  this  shield  put  a  ship  on  the  ocean  ? 

T'was  perhaps  to  convey 

The  idea,  then,  that  they 

Of  the  "  Ship  Canal "  had  a  notion. 

'Tis  no  longer  a  dream, 

So  success  to  your  scheme, 

And  away  with  the  obstacle-dreamers  ; 

We'll  soon  see  the  docks, 

The  canal  with  its  locks, 

And  welcome  the  ocean  steamers ! 

A  well-known  timber  merchant,  Mr.  John  Kirkham,  also  published  some  stimu- 
lating verse  which  did  good  service  : — 


ioo         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

SHIP  CANAL  SONG. 
Written  by  Mr.  John  Kirkham. 

To  bring  big  ships  to  Manchester 

Is  what  we  mean  to  do ; 
If  you  delight  in  smaller  craft, 

Then  "  paddle  your  own  canoe  ". 
From  Throstle  Nest  or  Barton  Bridge, 

Just  as  it  may  suit  you, 
You'll  sail  direct  to  any  port, 

On  board  an  Ocean  Screw. 

Chorus — Then  love  your  neighbour  as  yourself, 
We'll  sing  whilst  sailing  through 
The  Ship  Canal  by  Liverpool 
On  board  our  Ocean  Screw. 

Monopoly  has  vexed  me  long, 

It's  done  the  like  by  you  ; 
Down  with  the  monster  in  the  mud 

And  give  fair  play  its  due. 
Then  cotton,  timber,  corn,  and  beef, 

Will  come  to  us  right  through ; 
And  ham  and  eggs  and  well-filled  kegs 

With  savoury  things  for  you. 

You'll  see  great  ships  from  distant  climes, 

And  men  of  every  hue, 
Lay  earth's  vast  bounties  at  your  feet 

And  take  your  goods  in  lieu  ; 
Then  trade  will  flourish  all  around, 

And  peace  and  plenty  too, 
And  every  thrifty  man,  you'll  see, 

Will  "  paddle  his  own  canoe  ". 

Ye  working  men  of  Manchester 

It  much  depends  on  you  ; 
Come,  put  your  "  shoulders  to  the  wheel," 

And  "  paddle  your  own  canoe  ". 
Hurrah !  then  for  the  Ship  Canal, 

Three  cheers,  my  boys,  for  you  ; 
Look  up  your  rusting  implements, 

There's  lots  of  work  in  view. 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  101 

Ye  merchant  men  oppressed  by  dues 

And  inland  charges  too, 
You  must  support  this  noble  scheme, 

And  "  paddle  your  grand  canoe  ". 
Then  docks  and  wharves  and  work's  you'll  see, 

Like  magic  rise  to  view ; 
You'll  pass  them  all  along  the  line, 

When  on  your  Ocean  Screw. 

Some  men  will  "  rest  upon  their  oars," 

Like  a  faint-hearted  crew, 
You  firmly  grasp  and  "  ply  "  them  well, 

And  "  paddle  your  own  canoe  ". 
And  now,  my  friends,  my  song  is  done, 

One  parting  word  to  you — 
Take  up  its  strains,  and  sing  them  out. 

"  We'll  paddle  our  own  canoe  ". 

Chorus — Then  love  your  neighbour,  etc. 

On  the  3rd  of  November  a  conference  of  the  various  Ward  Committees  was 
held  to  arrange  for  an  extended  canvass  for  funds.  The  Mechanics'  Institute, 
Princess  Street,  was  crowded  by  an  enthusiastic  audience  which  was  addressed 
by  Messrs.  Adamson,  Peacock,  Peter  Spence,  Reuben  Spencer  and  others.  The 
Chairman,  Mr.  Adamson,  appealed  to  the  patriotism  of  the  district  in  aid  of  the  canal, 
and  said  if  that  was  not  forthcoming  they  might  have  to  get  M.  de  Lesseps  to  come 
over  and  do  the  work.  Their  object  was  first  to  make  the  canal,  and  then  to  make 
it  pay.  He  hoped  to  see  one  large  dock  from  Throstle  Nest  to  Mode  Wheel. 
Manchester  must  and  would  have  the  Bill,  and  the  canal  would  be  made  in  spite  of 
all  opposing  difficulties.  Mr.  Peter  Spence  pointed  out  that  Liverpool,  with  a 
population  of  near  500,000,  had  a  smaller  proportion  of  working  men  than  any  other 
city  in  the  country.  Of  its  people  it  might  be  said,  "they  toiled  not,  neither  did  they 
spin".  Upon  whom  then  did  they  live?  Upon  the  Manchester  people  and  others, 
by  doing  work  which  had  been  foolishly  left  in  their  hands. 

Mr.  Henry  Sales  said  freightage  represented  one-third  of  the  value  of  timber, 
and  that  if  the  canal  were  made,  Manchester  would  be  the  depot  for  the  North  of 
England. 

The  meeting  was  adjourned,  and  the  business  completed  at  a  subsequent  meet- 
ing held  in  the  Athenaeum. 


102         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

On  the  1 3th  November  a  mass  meeting  of  working  men  was  held  in  the  Free 
Trade  Hall,  presided  over  by  Mr.  Henry  Slatter,  who  was  supported  by  Professor 
Boyd-Dawkins,  Mr.  Robert  Austin,  Mr.  G.  D.  Kelley,  Mr.  James  Mawdsley,  and  the 
leading  Trade  Unionists  of  the  district.  The  meeting  was  crowded,  and  resolutions 
were  unanimously  and  enthusiastically  passed  in  favour  of  the  canal,  one  being  to 
ask  the  adjoining  Corporations  to  support  the  movement  which,  as  a  speaker  said, 
"would  lower  the  cost  of  production,  would  tend  to  cheapen  the  price  of  clothes 
and  food,  would  exercise  an  enormous  influence  on  trade,  and  increase  the  prosperity 
of  Lancashire  ".  Another  resolution  called  upon  the  members  of  Parliament  in  the 
district  to  give  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  their  strenuous  support  till  it  became  law. 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  on  the  same  day,  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Peter 
Spence  and  Mr.  R.  C.  Richards,  agreed  to  support  the  Bill.  The  latter  said  hence- 
forth they  must  give  up  the  idea  of  a  tidal  navigation  and  go  in  for  a  Ship  Canal 
with  locks,  and  stated  on  the  authority  of  the  Oldham  Cotton  Spinners'  Association 
that  a  total  saving  of  5  per  cent,  would  be  effected  in  the  import  and  export  of 
cotton  and  cotton  goods. 

At  the  Town  Meeting  on  the  succeeding  evening  the  Mayor  said  the  requisi- 
tion for  the  meeting  was  signed  by  5,000  mercantile  firms  in  and  around  Manchester 
— an  unprecedented  requisition.  The  meeting  was  addressed  by  Messrs.  John 
Slagg,  M.P.,  Jacob  Bright,  M.P.,  Messrs.  J.  C.  Fielden,  Daniel  Adamson,  Richard 
Peacock  and  others.  The  large  room  of  the  Free  Trade  Hall  was  densely  crowded, 
as  was  also  an  overflow  meeting  in  the  Assembly  Rooms,  and  the  enthusiasm 
throughout  the  proceedings  was  intense.  Some  incidents  at  this  meeting  are  worth 
recording.  The  late  Mr.  Tom  Nash,  the  barrister,  was  fully  aware  that  at  least  one 
M.  P.  was  not  as  sound  as  he  ought  to  be,  but  had  at  heart  a  wholesome  fear  of  his 
constituents.  He  went  on  to  say,  "  He  was  glad  to  see  that  the  great  meeting  of 
the  Trades  Unionists  held  on  the  previous  evening  had  had  a  most  remarkable 
effect  in  converting  unbelievers  to  the  scheme.  He  was  told  that  the  heathen  were 
coming  in  by  shoals,  and  that  there  was  a  regular  scramble  for  conversion.  There 
must,  however,  be  no  half-hearted  support  of  the  scheme,  and  no  waiting  to  see  how 
the  cat  jumped."  Every  one  knew  for  whom  this  was  intended,  and  it  caused  some 
amusement.  Mr.  Peacock,  one  of  the  most  mild  and  gentlemanly  of  men,  brought 
the  house  down  by  a  story  he  told,  perhaps  a  little  coarse,  but  very  much  to  the 
point.  Alluding  to  the  taunt  that  the  canal  would  not  pay  because  it  would  cost 
too  much,  he  told  the  tale  of  an  Oldham  spinner  and  a  dog  fancier.  Coming  from 


1882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  IC>3 

the  Exchange,  the  former  saw  the  latter  with  a  dog  that  pleased  him,  so  he  asked 
the  price — "Five  pounds,"  said  the  dealer.  Amazed  the  other  said,  "That's  a  hell 
of  a  price,"  to  which  the  latter  at  once  rejoined,  "  But  it's  a  hell  of  a  dog".  "So," 
said  Mr.  Peacock,  "if  the  canal  does  cost  an  immense  sum  the  advantages  will 
outweigh  the  price." 

At  the  same  meeting  Mr.  Jacob  Bright,  M.P.,  made  a  most  enthusiastic  and 
encouraging  speech  : — 

He  believed  it  was  as  good  a  scheme  as  could  be  produced,  and  that  it  was  in  all 
respects  practical.  It  was  quite  true  that  neighbouring  towns  had  not  the  same  interest 
in  this  matter  as  Manchester  and  Salford,  but  at  the  same  time  they  had  a  powerful  interest 
in  it.  Everything  which  they  produced  came  through  Manchester,  and  would  go  by  the 
canal  to  Liverpool  or  the  ocean.  Then  the  vast  mass  of  the  food  and  raw  materials  which 
they  required  would  come  by  the  canal  to  Manchester,  and  in  many  cases  would  be  within 
carrying  distance,  so  that  there  would  be  much  more  independence  of  railways  than  there 
was  at  present.  And  if  it  be  true — and  nobody  could  deny  it — that  there  might  be  industries 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Manchester  which  could  not  possibly  exist  without  the  canal,  the 
whole  of  Lancashire  and  the  whole  of  England  were  at  liberty  to  partake  in  those  industries, 
and  to  profit  by  them,  and  they  would  find  it  much  better  than  emigrating  to  the  antipodes. 
The  notion  of  a  ship  canal  had  been  in  the  minds  of  men  in  this  district  for  many  years  past. 
Only  yesterday  a  friend  of  his  told  him  that  sixty-two  years  ago  his  father  pointed  out  to 
him  a  man  who  was  nicknamed  "  Ship  Canal".  In  those  days  that  man  was  said  to  have 
ship  canal  on  the  brain.  He  (Mr.  Bright)  supposed  he  had  a  brain  somewhat  better  than  his 
neighbours.  Therefore  the  canal  which  had  been  the  dream  of  past  generations  in  this  city 
was,  he  sincerely  believed,  going  to  be  realised  in  our  time.  And  when  the  day  should  come 
— and  those  amongst  them  who  were  no  longer  young  might  see  the  day — for  the  engineer 
told  them  that  in  four  years  the  work  might  be  accomplished,  and  when  he  knew  that  the 
best  labour  in  the  world  was  in  our  midst,  he  did  not  think  that  prophecy  was  a  dangerous 
one.  When  the  day  came  when  the  smoke  of  big  steamers  should  mingle  with  the  smoke  of 
their  tall  chimneys,  he  would  not  undertake  to  say  that  the  external  atmosphere  should  be 
purer  on  that  account,  but  he  would  say  that  thousands  of  homes  would  again  be  prosperous 
which  were  now  in  a  languishing  condition,  and  this  great  community  of  Manchester  might 
occupy  a  yet  greater  place  in  the  position  of  the  world. 

Following  on  the  two  meetings  came  leading  articles  in  all  the  papers.  The 
City  News  commenced  with  : — 

The  movement  in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal  progresses  with  astonishing  rapidity.  Never 
before  in  South  Lancashire  has  any  great  scheme  been  so  quickly  and  generally  approved 
as  this.  The  earnestness  and  warmth  of  public  feeling,  combined  with  the  transcendant 
importance  of  the  subject,  has  silenced  all  opposition. 


io4         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

It  went  on  to  say  that  the  rich  men  of  the  district,  with  a  few  exceptions,  had 
not  rivalled  the  enthusiasm  of  the  general  public.  Though  they  had  accumulated 
their  wealth  in  the  district,  they  were  hanging  back,  possibly  because  they  had 
vested  interests,  and  feared  their  railway  dividends  would  fall  with  the  success  of 
the  canal. 

It  would  be  an  unpleasant  record  if  the  great  Manchester  Ship  Canal  is  carried  out 
without  the  sympathy  and  help  of  many  of  the  men  who  have  grown  rich  by  our  local 
industries.  It  would  never  do  to  let  the  canal  fall  through.  Better  let  the  Corporations 
subscribe  the  capital  pro  rata  and  make  it  into  a  public  trust. 

On  the  1 8th  November  the  Parliamentary  notices  for  the  undertaking  were 
issued,  and  the  necessary  plans  and  sections  were  deposited. 

At  a  special  meeting  of  the  General  Purposes  Committee,  Alderman  Harwood 
spoke  against  a  private  Ship  Canal  being  allowed  to  pass,  and  urged  the  Mayor 
should  confer  with  the  Mayors  of  the  neighbouring  towns  with  the  view  of  forming 
a  public  trust,  as  he  believed  a  private  company  could  not  succeed.  He  urged 
that  the  Parliamentary  Committee  should  quicken  their  steps  as  to  the  report,  and 
moved  that  the  Mayor  should  ascertain  the  views  of  surrounding  municipalities. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  General  Purposes  Committee  on  the  last  Thursday  in 
November,  the  Mayor  moved  the  following  resolutions  which  had  been  passed  by 
the  Parliamentary  Sub-Committee  : — 

That  the  hearty  and  strenuous  support  of  this  Corporation  be  given  to  the  project  of 
improving  the  rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell  to  the  extent  necessary  to  enable  ocean-going  ships 
to  have  direct  access  to  Manchester.  That  the  undertaking  and  administration  of  the  canal 
should  be  so  constituted  as  to  be  a  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  in  general.  That  sub- 
ject to  satisfactory  provisions  being  introduced  into  the  Bill,  it  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
mittee, desirable  that  Manchester  and  other  municipal  bodies  and  local  authorities  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  proposed  Ship  Canal,  should  be  authorised  to  contribute  to  the  cost  of 
the  undertaking,  and  to  take  part  in  supervising  the  execution  of  the  works  and  also  in  the 
general  management  of  the  canal,  to  such  extent  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be  sanctioned 
by  Parliament. 

To  this  resolution  Alderman  King  objected  as  regarded  the  authority  to  con- 
tribute. With  a  debt  of  ,£7,000,000,  and  a  prospective  .£800,000  for  sewage  pur- 
poses, he  was  opposed  to  pledging  the  ratepayers  to  a  contribution  of  .£1,000,000, 
and  possibly  of  ,£5,000,000.  He  twitted  the  promoters  with  having  raised  less 
than  half  of  the  ,£100,000  asked  for,  and  moved  that  the  contribution  clause  be 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  105 

deleted  from  the  resolution.1  Alderman  Grundy  seconded  the  amendment.  He 
was  willing  to  be  friendly  towards  the  promoters,  but  not  to  help  them  financially. 
Only  the  mover  and  seconder  and  Alderman  Heywood  voted  for  the  amendment ; 
all  the  other  members  of  the  Council  voted  for  the  resolution. 

Nothing  daunted,  and  with  his  usual  tenacity,  Alderman  King  returned  to  the 
charge  on  the  following  Wednesday,  when  at  the  Council  meeting  the  proceedings 
of  the  General  Purposes  Committee  came  up  for  confirmation.  He  moved  their 
rejection,  and  was  seconded  by  Alderman  Grundy,  who  remarked  that  it  had  been 
said  the  resolution  committed  the  Council  to  nothing.  This  seemed  to  him  a 
cowardly  remark.  Were  some  members  trying  to  bamboozle  people,  and  to  make 
them  believe  the  Council  were  committing  themselves  to  something  when  they 
were  really  doing  nothing  of  the  sort?  Was  it  not  cowardly,  he  asked,  to  boast  of 
a  back  door  being  left  open  out  of  which  the  Council  could  sneak?  He  held  the 
Council  would  be  morally  bound  to  contribute  if  they  passed  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Goldschmidt  opposed  any  grant  because  it  meant  an  increase  in  the  rates, 
and  because,  as  he  said,  the  docks  being  in  Salford  and  Stretford,  merchants  would 
take  their  warehouses  into  those  districts.  On  the  previous  day  Mr.  Chamberlain, 
M.P.,  had  doubted  the  right  of  Corporations  to  provide  money  for  electric  lighting  ; 
he  was  quite  sure  a  contribution  to  the  Ship  Canal  would  never  be  permitted. 

The  writer  attempted  to  show  that  the  civic  bodies  in  Liverpool,  Glasgow  and 
Newcastle  had,  with  great  advantage,  used  their  funds  to  provide  docks  and  to 
improve  the  access  to  their  ports.  Also  that  the  Corporation  already  traded  in 
gas  and  water  outside  its  boundary.  He  pointed  out  the  many  advantages  to  the 
city  of  a  Ship  Canal,  and  urged  that  a  communion  of  interests  might  present  a 
golden  opportunity  for  amalgamation  with  Salford. 

Alderman  Bennett  said,  of  all  people,  he  would  have  expected  Alderman 
Heywood  to  defer  to  the  popular  voice,  which  no  one  could  deny  was  decidedly 
in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal.  Did  not  Mr.  Goldschmidt  know  that  the  Liverpool 
Docks  were  chiefly  in  Bootle,  and  a  further  extension  was  contemplated  outside 
the  city  of  Liverpool?  It  was  a  serious  loss,  and  a  monstrous  waste,  that  the 
river  should  be  used  simply  as  a  sewer.  Manchester  and  the  authorities  round 
ought  to  join  hands  in  making  the  canal,  and  if  so,  the  capital  might  be  borrowed  at 
3i  per  cent.  For  the  sake  of  Manchester,  for  the  sake  of  Liverpool,  for  the  sake 
of  the  whole  community  of  Lancashire  they  ought  not  to  oppose  a  scheme  required 

1  See  Contribution  List,  Appendix  No.  II. 


106         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

by  the  people.  On  a  division,  six  voted  for  the  amendment  and  forty-six  against. 
The  dissentients  were  Aldermen  Heywood,  Grundy,  King,  Curtis,  George  Booth 
and  Councillor  Goldschmidt. 

December  was  a  month  of  unremitting  work  for  the  Provisional  Committee. 
Its  members  were  very  busy  attending  meetings  and  collecting  subscriptions. 
Personally,  what  with  preparing  for  meetings  and  canvassing,  I  had  little  time  left 
for  my  own  business.  Canvassing  especially  was  ever  full  of  surprises  and  disap- 
pointments. One  of  the  first  men  I  called  on  for  the  guarantee  fund  was  Councillor 
Golds  worthy;  he  heard  my  case,  and  at  once  gave  me  £100,  and  promised  to 
come  on  the  Committee  and  work.  Another  day,  without  solicitation,  and  to  my 
surprise  and  pleasure,  I  opened  a  letter  and  found  ^100  cheque  from  Sir  John 
Harwood.  Some  days  after  my  speech  introducing  the  Ship  Canal  I  was  in  the 
Health  Committee,  opposite  Councillor  Chesters  Thompson,  when  that  gentleman 
asked  for  a  sheet  of  blank  paper,  and,  without  more  ado,  cut  a  slip  off  and  wrote  a 
cheque  for  .£100,  and  threw  it  across  the  table  with  "Owd  lad,  take  that  for  your 
canal ".  Of  course  I  was  much  pleased.  On  the  other  hand,  one  had  some  very 
hard  nuts  to  crack,  and  none  more  so  than  the  county  and  borough  members.  On 
some  of  them  I  called  time  after  time,  plying  them  with  literature  and  statistics, 
but  with  small  effect.  It  was  only  when  popular  feeling  forced  their  hands  that  a 
declaration  was  made,  and  then  in  some  cases  it  was  a  qualified  one. 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright  was  a  remarkable  exception.  No  man  ever  went  more 
thoroughly  into  a  cause,  or  worked  more  heartily  for  it.  He  was  always  pleasant 
to  deal  with,  and  to  be  depended  upon.  I  was  early  brought  into  contact  with  him. 
Coming  down  the  Reform  Club  steps  in  the  autumn  of  1882  Mr.  Bright  stopped 
me,  and  said  he  would  like  to  be  informed  about  the  Ship  Canal,  its  objects,  and 
the  benefits  likely  to  accrue  to  the  city.  He  said  :  "As  M.P.  I  have  promised  to 
give  my  assistance,  but  it  will  be  more  effective  if  I  thoroughly  understand  the 
merits  of  the  scheme  and  all  its  bearings.  Will  you  give  me  a  long  interview  and 
post  me  up?"  This  I  expressed  my  willingness  to  do,  and  after  chatting  some 
time  it  was  arranged  I  should  see  him  in  London,  where  we  were  both  going. 
Accordingly  I  met  him  at  the  House  of  Commons,  and  we  spent  some  hours  in  the 
smoke-room  there  discussing  every  phase  of  the  question.  Just  then  one  of  my 
colleagues  had  been  saying  some  extreme  things,  which  enabled  opponents  to  poke 
ridicule  at  the  cause.  When  I  spoke  of  this  Mr.  Bright,  to  my  surprise,  said  in 
a  kindly  way :  "The  world  cannot  do  without  enthusiasts,  and  you  must  not  be  too 


JACOB  BRIGHT,  M.P.  FOR  MANCHESTER. 


To  face  page  106. 


1 882]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  107 

hard  upon  them".  At  the  end  of  our  interview  Mr.  Bright  thanked  me,  and 
expressed  himself  as  being  both  interested  and  satisfied.  He  promised  that  he 
would  give  all  the  assistance  in  his  power,  and  this  he  faithfully  did.  Manchester 
owes  a  deep  debt  of  gratitude  to  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  for  his  exertions  on  behalf  of 
the  Ship  Canal. 

Not  only  did  large  contributions  come  pouring  in  to  the  Provisional  Committee, 
but  welcome  aid  came  from  various  workshops.  Mr.  Adamson's  men  clubbed 
together  and  sent  the  handsome  sum  of  ,£430.  When  speaking  to  his  men,  Mr. 
Adamson  mentioned  that  a  leading  paper  had  said  the  canal  would  cost 
,£15,000,000,  and  ridiculed  the  idea.  Strange  to  say,  that  sum  was  the  actual  cost, 
but  of  course  for  a  larger  and  very  different  canal.  At  the  Eagle  Foundry, 
Salford,  Mr.  William  Fletcher,  the  head  of  the  firm,  and  a  most  energetic  supporter 
of  the  canal,  established  a  system  by  which  he  found  the  money,  and  the  men 
repaid  him  at  the  rate  of  one  shilling  per  week.  Thus  the  working  classes  grew  to 
have  an  interest  in  the  scheme.  The  Co-operative  Wholesale  Society,  on  showing 
their  members  that  the  canal  would  save  them  ,£5,000  to  £6,000  per  year,  obtained 
power  to  contribute  ,£1,000  to  the  fund,  and  this  sum  was  afterwards  materially 
increased.  A  resolution  to  this  effect  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Belisha,  of  the  Lanca- 
shire Supply  Association,  who  was  an  early  friend  of  the  cause. 

So  much  interest  was  taken  in  the  scheme  that  two  literary  societies  devoted 
special  evenings  to  consider  the  question.  The  Manchester  Scientific  Students  had 
the  benefit  of  an  explanatory  address  by  Alderman  Bailey,  and  the  Manchester 
Statistical  Society  listened  to  a  paper  read  by  Mr.  F.  R.  Conder,  C.  E.  On  both 
occasions  there  was  an  animated  discussion,  and  a  very  decided  feeling  evinced  in 
favour  of  the  canal. 

At  the  monthly  Council  meeting  in  Salford,  on  6th  December,  Alderman 
Walmsley  moved  :— 

That,  in  accordance  with  the  recommendation  of  the  River  Irwell  Conservancy  Com- 
mittee, the  Council  express  its  concurrence  in  and  approval  of  the  projected  Ship  Canal, 
whereby  the  navigation  of  the  rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell  will  be  so  improved  as  to  enable 
vessels  of  large  tonnage  to  come  direct  to  the  borough. 

In  his  speech  he  said  :— 

There  was  also  a  side  issue  looming  in  the  distance.  It  was  a  question  they  could  not 
afford  to  lose  sight  of.  It  was  the  question  of  the  amalgamation  of  the  city  of  Manchester 
with  the  borough  of  Salford.  Their  borough,  besides  having  its  own  interests,  was  an  integral 
part  of  the  greatest  manufacturing  and  commercial  centre  of  England. 


io8         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

The  resolution  was  not  enthusiastic  enough  for  many  of  the  members.  On 
the  other  hand,  Alderman  McKerrow  was  disposed  to  put  on  the  brake.  Eventually 
the  resolution  was  carried  unanimously. 

A  day  or  two  afterwards  a  public  meeting  was  called  in  Salford  in  compliance 
with  a  requisition  to  the  Mayor.  The  senior  member,  Mr.  Benjamin  Armitage, 
moved  the  mildest  possible  resolution;  he  could  not  be  persuaded  to  move  a 
stronger  one.  It  was  the  fear  of  offending  his  constituency  and  not  his  love  of  the 
cause  that  took  him  to  the  meeting.  This  he  himself  made  evident  from  the 
moment  he  commenced  to  speak : — 

I  confess  that  I  do  not  come  forward  prepared  to  advocate  this  cause  with  the  degree 
of  enthusiasm  which  is  shown  by  many  friends  who  are  around  me.  Again,  when  large 
sums  of  money  lie  unemployed,  the  investors  want  convincing  of  the  profitableness  and 
safety  of  the  investment.  With  regard  to  this  hesitation  and  shyness,  some  uncharitable 
things  have  been  said,  even  meeting  me  in  the  form  of  a  threat  this  week  of  the  consequences 
at  another  election  if  I  did  not  go  fairly  into  the  promotion  of  this  thing.  I  am  no  more 
offended  by  this  broad  hint  than  any  of  you  here,  and  could  afford  to  laugh  at  it,  but  it  is  a 
sort  of  boycotting  which  is  not  very  agreeable,  and  after  saying  that,  I  will  not  make  any 
more  complaint  about  it. 

He  went  on  to  remark  he  was  not  sure  the  canal  would  both  reduce  freights 
and  pay  the  shareholders,  but  that  he  had  come  to  say  he  would  give  his  recom- 
mendation and  some  degree  of  material  support  to  the  undertaking. 

This  wet-blanket  speech  was  followed  by  one -from  Mr.  Arthur  Arnold,  M.P., 
who  made  a  good  case  as  regards  the  necessity  of  cheapening  carriage  by  the  means 
of  the  canal,  but  took  care  not  to  commit  himself. 

I  have  been  somewhat  slow  in  giving  encouragement  to  this  scheme  ;  but  there  is  no 
harm,  Mr.  Mayor,  in  being  slow,  provided  we  are  sure,  and  I  thought  till  I  was  prepared  to 
give  the  scheme  material  support,  as  many  of  my  friends  have  done,  it  would  not  look  quite 
the  thing  for  me  to  give  recommendations  in  its  favour  which  might  be  likely  to  influence  the 
opinion  and  judgment  of  others. 

Fortunately  the  speakers  who  followed,  by  their  resolutions  and  speeches, 
raised  some  enthusiasm  in  the  meeting,  but  I  recollect  coming  away  in  anything  but 
a  happy  frame  of  mind,  and  the  M.P.'s  themselves,  when  they  went  to  give 
evidence  on  the  Bill,  found  they  had  provided  their  opponents  with  ammunition 
which  they  were  glad  to  make  use  of. 

The  Press  was  not  slow  in  expressing  its  opinion  on  the  action  of  the  Cor- 
porations of  Manchester  and  Salford. 


158 


PUNCH,  OR  THE  LONDON  CHARIVARI. 


(OOTOBRR.  7,    1882, 


MANCHESTER-SUR-MER.     A    SEA-DUCTIVE    PROSPECT. 


(By  permission  of  the  Proprietors  of  Punch.) 


no         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

The  Manchester  Guardian  which  had  been  unfriendly  to  the  canal  for  some 
time  previously  now  swooped  down  and  condemned  in  a  wholesale  way  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Parliamentary  and  General  Purposes  Committee  and  of  the  City 
Council.  Of  the  former's  report  they  said  :— 

The  main  recommendation  appears  to  us  in  a  high  degree  impolitic  and  dangerous. 
Of  the  suggested  contribution,  the  Committee  has  advocated  a  course  the  gravity  of  which 
every  member  of  the  Council  and  every  responsible  citizen  ought  seriously  to  weigh  well 
before  according  to  it  his  support. 

Again  :— 

The  surprising  thing  is  that  they  allowed  themselves  to  advocate  any  course  which  in- 
volves the  participation  of  the  municipality  as  a  partner  in  what  is  nothing  less  than  a 
gigantic  commercial  adventure.  No  one  can  tell  what  it  will  cost,  or  how  much  it  will 
yield  on  the  outlay.  A  project  which  involves  the  possibility  of  unknown  additions  to  it 
is  one  which  ought  to  be  seriously  discouraged  by  every  one  who  has  an  interest  in  the 
continued  prosperity  of  this  community.  It  is  not  the  amount  of  the  contemplated  invest- 
ment (about  £1 5,000,000  is  the  extreme  estimate),  but  its  risk  which  induces  the  advo- 
cates to  desire  the  Corporation  to  undertake  the  work.  That  proposals  so  vast  in  their 
reach  and  importing  principles  into  the  administration  of  municipal  finance  so  novel  and 
so  questionable  should  have  been  adopted  without  serious  challenge,  would  have  been 
nothing  less  than  a  reflection  on  the  good  sense  and  business  capacity  of  the  Council. 
That  the  governing  body  of  a  great  Corporation,  containing  an  exceptional  number  of 
members  of  tried  character  and  business  capacity,  should  have  lent  its  hand  at  this  stage  to 
a  scheme  of  this  description,  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  amazing  proof  of  the  contagion  of 
a  popular  emotion,  and  the  skill  of  an  organised  army  of  promoters. 

Equally  severe  were  the  Guardians  two  other  articles.  There  were  to  its 
mind  six  wise  and  discreet  men  left  in  the  Council,  who  dare  express  their  opinions, 
and  they  compared  the  prudent  caution  of  the  Salford  Council  with  the  rashness 
of  the  Manchester  Corporation.  The  conclusion  of  the  last  article  runs  thus  :— 

We  venture  to  say  that  a  gigantic  undertaking  was  never  more  heedlessly  entered 
upon  than  when  the  Manchester  City  Council  determined  to  give  the  financial  support  to  a 
vast  engineering  work,  the  very  plans  for  which  were  not  before  it.  Certainly  there  will  be 
need  for  plenty  of  prudence  in  the  future  to  make  up  for  the  plentiful  lack  of  it  in  the  past. 

The  Examiner  and  Times  and  the  Courier  took  up  a  fairly  friendly  attitude, 
particularly  the  latter.  The  former  advocated  that  the  enterprise  ought  not  to  be 
a  trust,  but  that  the  money  should  be  raised  and  the  work  carried  out  by  private 
capitalists. 


i88a]  DANIEL  ADAMSON  TAKES  THE  HELM  in 

The  Council  may  pass  resolutions  in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal.  They  may  give  it  the 
benefit  of  their  best  wishes,  and  assure  the  promoters  of  ready  co-operation  in  carrying  out 
the  enterprise.  But  they  should  go  no  further.  It  is  not  expedient  that  the  ratepayers 
should  be  laid  under  pecuniary  obligations  for  the  construction  of  the  canal. 

They  were  much  opposed  to  impassioned  advocates  recommending  the  canal  as 
an  investment  for  the  savings  of  working  men. 

The  City  News  and  the  Salford  Chronicle  advocated  the  Corporation  contri- 
buting to  an  undertaking  that  would  be  of  such  signal  benefit  to  the  city  by  stopping 
its  decay  and  bringing  new  life  to  its  commerce.  The  City  News  said  if  the 
Tyne  ports  and  Glasgow  had  been  so  materially  benefited  by  municipal  help,  why 
should  the  Manchester  Corporation  withhold  help  from  an  effort  to  remove  the 
monopoly  of  Liverpool  and  the  railways?  It  had  been  said  there  was  no  difference 
between  making  a  railway  and  improving  a  river.  The  former  was  a  private 
adventure,  the  latter  was  a  natural  means  of  transit  belonging  to  the  public  ;  it  ought 
not  to  become  the  monopoly  of  a  private  company,  and  if  it  wanted  improving, 
the  community  should  do  the  work,  and  profit  by  the  result. 

A  few  persons  who  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  canal  scheme  faintly  praised  it,  now 
declare  it  to  be  a  gigantic  speculation,  in  which  the  risk  is  enormous.  But  the  Council  has 
declared  it  shall  not  be  a  commercial  adventure,  but  a  public  trust. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board,  Mr.  W.  B.  Forwood  thought 
Liverpool  had  preserved  a  dignified  attitude  towards  the  canal,  believing  it  would 
not  seriously  injure  the  trade  of  the  port. 

If  the  canal  were  judged  solely  by  its  merits,  it  would  quickly  be  relegated  to  the 
museum  of  exploded  bubbles  which  amused  the  British  public. 

It  seemed,  however,  an  attempt  was  being  made  to  make  it  a  municipal  and 
even  a  political  question. 

On  the  2Oth  December  a  Conference  of  Municipal  Corporations  called  by 
invitation  of  the  Mayor  of  Manchester  was  held,  at  which  the  Mayors  of  most  of 
the  neighbouring  towns  attended.  The  engineer  of  the  Ship  Canal,  Mr.  Leader 
Williams,  was  present,  and  explained  the  plans  and  engineering  details.  Some 
interesting  facts  were  given.  It  was  estimated  more  timber  was  consumed  in 
Lancashire  and  the  West  Riding  than  in  any  corresponding  area  in  the  world. 
Annually  over  a  million  tons  were  used,  valued  roughly  at  ^3, 000,000.  Two-thirds 
of  this  came  through  the  eastern  ports  of  England,  and  paid  8'67d.  per  ton  per  mile 
freightage.  Grain  from  Liverpool  to  Oldham  (station  to  station  rate),  cost  afd.  per 


ii2         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1882 

ton  per  mile,  whilst  grain  was  carried  on  American  railways,  a  similar  distance,  at 
one-eighth  of  that  figure. 

Before  closing  a  history  of  the  year's  proceedings,  I  should  like  to  bear  testimony 
to  the  exertions  put  forth  by  Mr.  Henry  Boddington,  Junior,  in  furtherance  of  the 
canal.  He  not  only  promised  to  devote  .£10,000  if  necessary  to  the  purpose,  but  at 
his  own  cost  he  published  most  useful  plans  of  the  proposed  canal  with  full  explana- 
tions. By  his  permission  I  reproduce  one  that  serves  to  show  the  original  scheme 
before  Parliament  in  1883. l  His  subsequent  ill-health  and  retirement  were  a  matter 
of  deep  regret  to  his  colleagues. 

1  See  Plan  No.  6  in  Pocket. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
1883. 

CHRONICLE   OF   EVENTS— HOSTILE   CRITICISM— MISHAP  ON 
STANDING    ORDERS --LORD    REDESDALE  —  SKETCH    OF 
THE  LORDS  COMMITTEE  AT  WORK— BILL  THROWN  OUT 
-MANCHESTER  IN  EARNEST— LOCAL  MEETINGS. 

(To  A  DEPUTATION  OF  LIVERPOOL  MERCHANTS  AND  SHIPOWNERS.) 

The  deputation  must  not  go  away  without  his  repeating  that  he  considered  Liverpool, 
with  the  exception  of  London,  to  be  the  dearest  port  in  England. — SIR  RICHARD  MOON. 

TO  all  appearance  the  year  1883  opened  auspiciously  for  the  promoters  of  the 
Ship  Canal.  Their  organisation  was  working  admirably.  The  canvass  for 
the  ,£100,000  Fighting  Fund  had  realised  £63,000,  and  encouragement 
and  support  were  being  afforded  not  only  by  surrounding  municipalities  and  local 
Boards,  but  by  Chambers  of  Commerce,  industrial  institutions  of  all  kinds,  and  by 
the  working  classes  through  their  Trades  Unions.  The  Ship  Canal  Bill  had  been 
deposited,  also  plans  and  sections  as  far  as  it  was  thought  necessary,  for  Parlia- 
mentary counsel  had  advised  that  full  powers  already  existed  to  make  the  length 
from  Runcorn  to  Liverpool,  if  only  the  plans  met  with  acceptance  by  the  Mersey 
Commissioners,  who,  under  the  1 842  Act,  were  conservators  of  the  river,  and  could 
admit  or  refuse  as  they  felt  disposed.  Further,  it  was  known  that  the  Lancashire 
Plateway  Company  (opponents  of  the  canal)  who  had  also  deposited  a  Bill,  were 
finding  their  scheme  too  costly,  and  were  likely  to  withdraw  it ;  this  they  did  a  few 
days  afterwards. 

The  horizon  was  not,  however,  cloudless.  On  the  2ist  December,  1882,  Mr. 
A.  D.  Provand,  a  Manchester  and  Glasgow  shipper,  published  "A  Criticism  on  the 
Manchester  Canal  Scheme".  It  was  an  exceedingly  well-written  document,  and 

while  it  cast  somewhat  of  gloom  on  the  promoters,  it  was  much  appreciated  by  their 
VOL.  I.  (1,3)  ,8 


ii4        HISTORY  OF  THE. MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

opponents.  The  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board  bought  thousands  of  copies 
and  distributed  them  broadcast,  one  being  sent  to  each  subscriber  to  the  ,£100,000 
Guarantee  Fund. 

Mr.  Provand  objected  strongly  to  the  Manchester  Corporation  aiding  the  canal. 
He  declared  the  statements  made  as  to  savings  by  the  canal  to  be  erroneous  and 
deceptive ;  said  a  mild  terrorism  prevailed  to  compel  unwilling  people  to  subscribe  ; 
essayed  to  disprove  the  facts  and  figures  given  by  "  Mancuniensis,"  "Cottonopolis" 
and  others ;  declared  Mr.  Adamson  and  other  speakers  were  making  extravagant 
and  erroneous  statements,  and  prognosticated  the  canal  would  be  a  failure.  Further 
he  maintained  the  cost  of  the  canal  and  its  maintenance  would  far  exceed  the 
estimates  given  ;  pointed  out  that  a  huge  sum  must  be  spent  in  equipment ;  pictured 
the  united  railways  crushing  the  canal  in  the  first  year  of  its  existence  ;  doubted  a 
sufficiency  of  water  to  work  the  canal,  and  prophesied  it  would  neither  cheapen 
traffic  between  Liverpool  and  Manchester  nor  earn  a  dividend.  After  deprecating 
the  receipt  of  subscriptions  from  working  men,  Mr.  Provand  gave  his  idea  of  what 
ought  to  be  done,  and  advocated  a  barge  canal  between  Liverpool  and  Manchester. 

This  startling  indictment  fell  like  a  thunderbolt  on  the  promoters,  just  at  the 
time  they  were  doing  their  best  to  augment  their  subscription  list,  and  it  no  doubt 
impeded  progress.  Mr.  Lawrence,  with  wonderful  celerity,  issued  an  able  pamphlet 
in  reply,  controverting  Mr.  Provand's  statements,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  Mr. 
Provand's  pamphlet  supplied  ammunition  with  which  the  canal  was  pelted  for  years 
afterwards. 

He  specially  criticised  the  "four  persons  who  are  authorities  respecting  the 
canal ".  I  happened  to  be  one  of  them,  and  I  freely  admit  that  all  the  statements 
and  predictions  made  in  my  speeches  have  not  worked  out  exactly  as  I  had  ex- 
pected. At  the  same  time  I  firmly  believe  I  was  much  nearer  the  mark  than  my 
critic,  who  must  now  see  that  many  of  his  prophecies  of  twenty-one  years  ago  have 
failed.  Mr.  Provand  specially  criticised  my  assertion  that  the  canal  would  save  43. 
per  bale  on  cotton,  would  cheapen  by  5  per  cent,  the  food  of  the  working  man,  and 
reduce  the  cost  of  the  4-lb.  loaf  Jd.  Whilst  I  embraced  in  my  calculations  not 
only  cheapened  carriage  and  port  charges  but  also  the  effect  of  competition,  con- 
tingent advantages,  and  a  better  supplied  market,  Mr.  Provand  would  only  admit 
direct  savings  (if  any)  on  carriage.  He  wrote  :— 

If  the  whole  cost  of  carriage  were  saved  it  would  not  amount  to  5  percent.,  but  against 
this  carriage  there  would  be  three  or  four  shillings  per  ton  for  canal  tolls  and  five  or  six  shillings 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  115 

for  steamer  freight,  pilotage  and  insurance  coming  up  the  canal.  Any  saving  would  be  im- 
possible, indeed,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  canal  would  be  able  to  do  the  work  at  the  rates 
now  charged. 

In  Chapter  XXV.  I  shall  show  that  the  savings  on  the  carriage  of  sugar  are  70  per 
cent,  and  on  wheat  64  per  cent,  and  other  food  in  proportion.  In  1882  I  obtained  the 
cost  of  the  4-lb.  loaf  in  Glasgow,  Birmingham,  Liverpool  and  London,  and  found  the 
average  was  less  than  in  Manchester,  and  at  one  of  the  meetings  I  held  forth  hopes 
that  the  effects  of  the  canal  would  be  to  reduce  considerably  the  cost  of  bread  in 
Manchester.  My  justification  may  be  found  in  a  speech  by  Mr.  Gerald  Balfour, 
M.P.,  in  the  House  of  Commons  (City  News,  8th.  March,  1905),  who,  when  replying 
to  Sir  Henry  Vincent,  said  :  — 

There  were  some  difficulties  in  making  a  statement  of  prices  of  the  quartern  loaf  of  the 
quality  consumed  by  the  working  classes  strictly  comparable,  but  approximately  the  figures 
were  as  follows  :— 

London.          Manchester. 

March,  1902  .         .  4|d.  4d. 

March,  1903          .         .         4jd.  to  5d.  4d. 

March,  1904          .         .        5d.  to 
February,  1905      .        .  Sd. 


Time  will  not  permit  me  to  go  fully  into  the  question,  therefore  I  will  content 
myself  with  recording  two  other  failures  in  Mr.  Provand's  predictions.  Instead  of 
the  railways  ruining  the  canal,  and  the  use  of  the  docks  being  limited  to  such  goods 
as  could  be  carted  away,  the  railway  companies  are  now  its  best  friends.  Mr. 
Provand  said  :  — 

It  is  certain  the  railways  will  not  make  connections.  They  will  not  spend  millions  to 
enable  the  canal  to  take  away  their  own  business. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire,  the  London  and  North-  Western 
and  other  railway  companies,  have  spent  immense  sums  of  money  to  connect  with 
the  canal,  and  they  are  reaping  a  good  harvest  thereby.  Again,  he  was  utterly 
wrong  as  to  an  insufficiency  of  water,  and  in  his  prophecy  that  in  less  than  a  month 
from  the  start  the  canal  would  have  to  submit  to  whatever  terms  the  railways  might 
impose  upon  it.  "Mr.  Provand's  Epitaph,"  was  thus  written  :— 

Who  killed  the  canal  ? 
I,  said  Provand, 
With  my  pen  in  my  hand, 
I  killed  the  canal. 


n6        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL        [1883 

An   attempt   was   also   made  to  ridicule   the  canal  out  of  existence.1       Mr. 
McArdle,  the  Liverpool  pantomime  writer,  said  :— 

It  looked  well  on  paper 

But  was  likely  to  end  in  vapour. 

He  also  made  the  following  reference  to  it  at  the  Rotunda  Theatre,  Liverpool  :— 

CINDERELLA. 

Cinderella,  Talking  of  Manchester — what's  this  they're  planning, 

To  make  a  seaport  of  it  ? 

Prince.  The  papers  lately  you've  been  scanning 

Cinderella.  It's  very  rare  indeed 

I  ever  get  a  scrap  of  news  to  read. 
Prince.  Well,  you  must  know — the  notion  sets  one  laughing — 

It  sounds  ridiculous,  but  I'm  not  chaffing ; 

They  mean  to  break  the  great  commercial  rule 

And  make  a  ruin  of  old  Liverpool, 

Render  her  miles  of  docks  no  use — no  less, 

Let  it  become  a  howling  wilderness ! 
Cinderella.  Ha,  that  can  never  be !     Her  flag's  unfurled 

In  every  port  and  harbour  in  the  world. 
Prince.  In  maritime  importance  she's  supreme, 

But  certain  folks  in  Manchester  now  dream 

Of  a  vast  Ship  Canal,  so  cotton  ships 

Right  up  our  Mersey  can  take  regular  trips, 

And  land  their  bales  on  quays  'longside  the  Irwell ; 

But  if  the  waters  of  that  ditch  they  stir  well, 

The  awful  scent,  of  which  you  have  no  notion, 

Will  taint  the  Mersey  and  stagnate  the  ocean. 
Cinderella,  But  they'll  work  out  their  scheme. 

Prince.  It  does  sound  prime, 

But  won't  be  worked  out  in  our  children's  time. 

Another  correspondent,  "Mancuniensis,"  puts  the  other  side  of  the  question  in 
his  ode  to  "  Monopoly"  :— 

MONOPOLY. 

Filled  with  traditions  of  the  past, 

To  the  Dock  Board  there  marched  fast 

^ee  Cartoons — "The  Port  of  Manchester  in  1950."  By  permission  of  the  Proprietor  of  Tit- 
Bits.  "Bock  Again."  Re-action  and  how  Manchester  tried  to  become  a  Seaport.  By  permission  of 
W.  T.  Gray,  Esq.,  Liverpool. 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  117 

A  Mersey  Chief,  who  in  a  trice 
A  banner  raised,  with  this  device, 

Monopoly ! 

His  brow  was  sad,  his  eye  beneath 
Flashed  like  a  falchion  from  its  sheath, 
And  like  a  silver  clarion  rung, 
In  accents  of  his  well-known  tongue, 

Monopoly ! 

"  You  know,"  quoth  he,  "  our  Mersey  trade, 
Is  threatened  by  a  strange  crusade, 
So  let  us  with  our  friends  combine, 
And  boldly  fight  e'er  we  resign, 

Monopoly ! " 

Year  after  year,  bold  Harold  l  said, 
"  Do  what  is  just  to  earn  your  bread," 
And  still  the  friendly  critic  plied, 
But  loud  that  clarion  voice  replied, 

Monopoly ! 

While  commerce  groaned  a  protest  vain 
(She  could  no  longer  hear  the  strain), 
Still  said  the  Chief,  "  'tis  all  my  eye ! " 
And  answered  yet,  without  a  sigh, 

Monopoly ! 

"  Yet  pause  awhile,  lest  sure  revanche 
Should  crush  you  like  an  avalanche," 
This  was  the  trader's  last  good-night, 
Yet  still  replied  the  heedless  wightj 

Monopoly ! 

Poor  trade,  at  last,  crushed  to  the  ground, 
Oppressed  by  rates  and  dues  was  found. 
The  Chief  yet  held  as  in  a  vice, 
That  banner  with  the  strange  device, 

Monopoly ! 

So  they  who  buy  and  sell  and  make, 
Themselves  began  the  toll  to  take, 
When,  mindful  of  neglected  prayer, 
A  voice  wailed  through  the  startled  air, 

Monopoly ! 

1  Mr.  Harold  Littledale,  a  critic  of  Dock  Board  management. 


n8         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

Peace !  in  Canning  Place,  cold  and  grey, 
Lifeless,  yet  fondly  cherished  lay 
A  form,  while  from  the  sky  afar, 
A  voice  fell  like  the  morning  star, 

Monopoly ! 

At  the  commencement  of  the  Ship  Canal  agitation  Messrs.  Walmsley  and 
Samuels  were  the  solicitors  introduced  by  Alderman  Walmsley,  of  Salford.  With 
a  stiff  Parliamentary  fight  before  them,  the  promoters  deemed  it  necessary  to  join 
with  them  a  firm  that  had  had  Parliamentary  experience,  and  Messrs.  Grundy, 
Kershaw,  Saxon  and  Samson  were  selected.  Henceforth,  though  both  firms  are 
named  on  the  Bill,  the  latter  firm  conducted  the  whole  of  the  Parliamentary  business. 
Mr.  Samson,  assisted  by  Mr.  M.  J.  Riley,  drew  up  the  brief,  and  I  venture  to  say  it 
was  one  of  the  most  able  and  comprehensive  documents  ever  placed  in  the  hands 
of  counsel.  I  begged  permission  to  make  a  copy,  which  I  prize  highly.  The  Book 
of  Reference,  too,  was  a  huge  volume,  and  was  one  of  the  largest  works  of  its  kind 
ever  produced.  The  first  offices  of  the  company  were  in  Market  Street,  over  the 
shops  near  the  corner  of  Brown  Street.  For  some  months  Mr.  Henry  Whitworth  of 
King  Street  acted  as  secretary,  but  when  the  business  grew,  it  was  thought  well 
to  have  some  one  who  could  devote  the  whole  of  his  time  to  the  work,  and  his  son, 
Mr.  A.  H.  Whitworth,  was  appointed.  Messrs.  Dyson  &  Co.,  of  Westminster, 
were  the  Parliamentary  agents,  Mr.  Coates  of  that  firm  having  charge  of  the  Canal 
Company's  business,  and  most  ably  he  did  his  work.  The  capital  of  the  company 
was  to  be  ^"6,000,000,  in  600,000  shares  of  .£10  each,  shares  not  to  be  issued  till 
one-tenth  of  the  amount  had  been  paid  up.  Qualification  for  a  Director,  200  shares. 

The  first  Provisional  Directors  nominated  were  :— 

*  Daniel  Adamson.  *  R.  B.  Goldsworthy.  *S.  R.  Platt. 

*  Richard  Peacock.                            C.  P.  Henderson,  Junior.  *  John  Rylands. 
Henry  Boddington,  Junior.  *  Richard  Husband.  *  Peter  Spence. 
Joseph  Davies.  *  Joseph  Leigh.  *  Bosdin  T.  Leech. 

The  gentlemen  who,  on  January  5th,  1883,  became  jointly  and  severally  liable  for 
a  sum  of  ,£227,347,  the  necessary  Parliamentary  deposit,  are  named  below.1 

There  was  a  provision  in  the    Bill   that    if  local  authorities  representing  a 

1  The  Provisional  Directors  marked  with  an  asterisk,  and  in  addition  : — 
William  Richardson.  Hermann  Hirsch.  John  Taylor. 

Alexander  Butler  Rowley.  Robert  Bridgford.  Francis  H.  Walmsley. 

Frank  Spence.  William  Henry  Nevile.  Marshall  Stevens. 

George  Hicks.  William  Fletcher. 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  119 

ratable  value  of  .£4,000,000  applied  to  Parliament  for  the  creation  of  a  Trust,  the 

promoters  would  not  oppose  it. 

The  first  sign  of  opposition  was  the  lodging  of  four  petitions  by  the  Mersey 

Docks  Board,  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway,  and  two  others,  alleging 

non-compliance  with  Standing  Orders. 

On  i  gth  January,  1883,  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  came  before  Mr.  Frere,  one  of  the 

Examiners  on  Private  Bills.     The  opponents  complained  of  non-compliance  with 

Standing  Orders,  on  the  ground  that  the  promoters  had  neglected  to  prepare  and 
deposit  plans  and  sections  of  the  Mersey  low- water  channel,  together  with  estimates  ; 
also  that  they  had  not  made  the  Parliamentary  deposit  of  4  per  cent,  on  the  same. 
Mr.  Coates,  for  the  promoters,  brought  evidence  to  prove  that  in  consequence 
of  the  shifting  character  of  the  Mersey,  it  was  impossible  to  deliver  plans,  and  asked 
that  the  same  roving  powers  should  be  granted  as  on  the  Tyne  and  Clyde.  He 
claimed  too  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  ask  for  new  Parliamentary  powers,  inasmuch 
as  the  Mersey  Conservancy  Acts  already  gave  the  Conservators  ample  power  to 
permit  the  promoters  to  dredge  and  also  to  erect  training  walls. 

At  the  end  of  the  second  day's  hearing  the  Examiner  decided  against  the  pro- 
moters, and  threw  the  Bill  out  on  Standing  Orders.  This  necessitated  an  appeal  to 
a  Special  Committee  on  the  opening  of  Parliament,  and  the  Provisional  Committee 
at  once  determined  to  take  this  step.  The  omission  of  the  plans  was  under  the 
advice  of  their  own  Parliamentary  agents.  The  opponents  were  overjoyed  at  this 
first  check  to  the  canal.  The  Liverpool  Mercury  wrote  :— 

This  bungle  at  the  outset  is,  we  are  afraid,  characteristic  of  the  whole  jejune  scheme. 
The  promoters  have  got  hold  of  "  a  big  idea  " ;  but  if  their  capacity  for  dealing  with  it  is 
to  be  measured  by  the  case  submitted  in  answer  to  the  petitioners,  we  may  pity  the  unlucky 
people  who  are  induced  to  embark  in  the  "magnificent  undertaking". 

Because  the  Chairman  of  the  Ship  Canal  asserted  the  omission  of  plans  was 
intentional,  the  same  paper  said  : — 

When  promoters  of  enormous  schemes  adopt  such  crooked  tactics,  one  would  have 
thought  their  common-sense  would  have  bid  them  not  to  blab.  Yet  here  they  are  rather 
rejoicing  in  the  trick,  poor  and  unsuccessful  as  it  was. 

The  Manchester  Guardian  commenced  the  year  in  an  unfriendly  way.  In  an 
article  on  i6th  January  it  took  as  its  text  Mr.  Provand's  conclusion  "that  the 
project  will  benefit  neither  the  producing  nor  mercantile  classes,  nor  yet  the  share- 
holder". Speaking  of  the  recent  reverse  it  was  not  very  cheering  to  say : — 

The  first  practical  movement  that  is  made  proves  a  fiasco.  It  will  not  be  surprising 
if  many  observers  regard  the  incident  as  ominous,  and  seriously  doubt  whether  the  pro- 
moters have  the  capacity  to  carry  on  successfully  a  work  of  such  magnitude. 


i2o        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL        [1883 

The  City  News  considered  the  opponents  had  gained  a  triumph  on  a  technical 
point,  but  that  the  lost  ground  would  be  regained,  and  believed  the  check  might 
have  a  beneficial  influence  on  the  vigour  and  prudence  of  the  promoters,  and  pre- 
pare them  for  the  great  struggles  that  awaited  them  :— 

It  is  not  bold  and  honest  criticism  that  is  objectionable,  but  bitter  hostility  under  the 
guise  of  sapient  friendliness.  If  fair  argument  is  not  strong  enough  to  put  down  the  move- 
ment, it  ought  not  and  will  not  be  put  down. 

The  Provisional  Committee  lost  no  time  in  attempting  to  repair  their  first 
disaster.  They  applied  to  all  the  Corporations,  local  bodies  and  Chambers  of 
Commerce  who  had  supported  them,  asking  that  they  would  petition  in  favour  of 
the  Standing  Orders  being  dispensed  with,  and  that  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  should  be 
dealt  with  by  the  Commons  on  its  merits.  In  addition  to  this,  a  monster  petition 
was  signed  in  Manchester  by  nearly  200,000  persons.  It  required  six  porters  to 
carry  this  to  the  Private  Bill  Office  of  the  House  of  Commons,  where  it  was  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  Jacob  Bright. 

Another  mammoth  petition  from  three  hundred  other  Corporations,  local  boards 
and  public  bodies,  merchants,  bankers,  manufacturers  and  ratepayers  of  Lancashire, 
Cheshire,  and  Yorkshire,  was  deposited  by  the  same  gentleman  ;  it  was  i\  miles  long 
and  weighed  seven  hundredweight.  The  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce  also 
sent  a  strong  petition.  There  were  twenty  petitions  against  dispensing  with  the 
Standing  Orders,  including  one  from  Liverpool,  the  Dock  Board,  various  railway 
companies  and  others. 

As  a  rule  the  boroughs  asked  their  members  to  support  the  Ship  Canal 
petition.  Bolton  and  Warrington  were  exceptions.  The  former  refused  the 
invitation  of  the  Mayor  of  Manchester  to  a  conference,  and  when  a  deputation 
addressed  a  meeting  there,  they  were  told  that  the  scheme  had  been  got  up  by 
lawyers,  engineers  and  interested  parties,  and  that  it  would  not  benefit  the  borough. 
As  the  promoters  were  anxious  to  secure  the  goodwill  of  Bolton,  it  was  arranged 
that  Mr.  Adamson  and  some  of  his  co-Directors  should  meet  the  Corporation  of 
Bolton  and  their  local  M.P.'s.  I  was  one  of  the  party  who  went.  Unfortunately 
defeat  and  disaster  seemed  to  dog  our  steps  whenever  we  tried  to  please  Bolton. 
On  this  occasion  the  deputation  duly  started  by  railway  for  the  conference.  On 
the  way  we  got  into  earnest  conversation,  and  at  the  first  stop  one  of  our  party 
looked  out  of  the  clouded  window  and  said,  "This  is  Farnworth  where  they  take 
tickets".  Directly  after  leaving,  to  our  annoyance  we  found  we  were  passing 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  121 

through  Bolton  and  speeding  on  to  Darwen,  the  station  beyond !  We  shouted  our 
loudest  to  try  and  stop  the  train  but  without  effect.  We  were  obliged  to  disappoint 
the  Bolton  Corporation,  the  very  people  we  hoped  to  propitiate.  There  was  no 
help,  so  we  had  to  make  the  best  of  it.  We  telegraphed  the  mistake  from  Darwen, 
and  said  we  were  returning  by  road  (there  was  no  train) ;  but  it  took  some  time  to 
get  traps,  and  though  we  drove  as  fast  as  we  could,  we  arrived  just  in  time  to  see 
the  last  of  the  wearied  Bolton  Aldermen,  and  tell  him  our  tale  of  woe.  In  turn  he 
told  us  how  much  they  were  disappointed,  as  their  Members  of  Parliament  and 
Aldermen  had  waited  for  us  till  they  were  tired. 

When  Warrington  was  asked  to  petition,  to  the  surprise  of  every  one,  a  difficulty 
was  raised  by  Mr.  Bleckly  (previously  a  warm  supporter  of  the  canal),  and  though 
the  petition  was  adopted,  two  parties  were  formed  in  the  Council ;  and  this  division 
has  since  militated  against  the  existence  of  harmony  between  the  Corporation  and 
the  Ship  Canal.  Even  the  right  of  members  of  the  Town  Council  who  were  also 
Ship  Canal  subscribers  to  take  part  in  Ship  Canal  debates,  has  been  questioned 
many  times. 

When  the  petition  for  dispensing  with  Standing  Orders  was  discussed  in  the 
Salford  Council,  Councillor  Dickins  opposed  it. 

To  send  such  a  petition  as  was  proposed  would  make  people  outside  the  Council  believe 
that  Salford  was  taking  great  interest  in  the  matter.  He  would  like  to  ask  how  much  of  the 
£60,000  subscribed  had  come  from  Salford.  Outside  the  £1,000  his  Worship  had  given,  he 
did  not  think  £2,000  had  been  subscribed  in  the  whole  of  Salford. 

The  Council,  however,  adopted  the  petition  by  a  large  majority. 

The  Manchester  City  Council  raised  no  difficulty,  and  immediately  adopted  a 
petition  for  a  suspension  of  Standing  Orders. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  on  the  5th  February,  Mr.  Peter 
Spence  moved,  and  Councillor  Leech  seconded,  a  resolution  that  the  Chamber 
should  petition  Parliament  to  dispense  with  the  Standing  Orders  as  regarded  the 
Ship  Canal  Bill,  and  they  were  supported  by  Alderman  Bennett.  On  this  Mr. 
H.  M.  Steinthal  moved,  and  Mr.  W.  Fogg  seconded,  an  amendment  to  the  effect 
that  no  petition  be  sent.  The  latter  ridiculed  the  idea  that  dear  carriage  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  failing  trade,  said  the  promoters  had  even  been  to  the  lowest  classes 
to  get  petitions  signed,  and  asked  whether  the  Town  Hall  was  not  a  monument  of 
corporate  folly  if  they  believed  in  a  decaying  Manchester.  This  roused  Mr.  Daniel 
Adamson,  who  made  a  sledge-hammer  speech,  and  told  Mr.  Fogg  he  had  got  into 


122        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

a  great  fog  himself,  and  that  he  had  dragged  them  through  the  dirt  among  the 
dustmen  in  a  way  that  was  uncalled  for.  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  restored  harmony  by 
one  of  his  happiest  speeches,  and  among  much  excitement  it  was  decided  by  39 
votes  to  2 1  to  petition  Parliament. 

The  action  of  the  various  public  bodies  was  severely  criticised  in  the  Press 
and  elsewhere.  Mr.  Moon,  of  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway,  addressing 
his  shareholders,  said  :— 

He  could  not  imagine  that  any  such  outrage  on  the  Standing  Orders  would  be  allowed 
as  was  proposed  by  the  promoters  of  the  scheme.  The  Examining  Officer  had  already 
refused  to  sanction  the  Bill,  and  he  did  not  believe  it  would  go  any  further. 

The  Examiner  and  Times  held  that  the  Examiner  was  right  in  reporting 
against  the  promoters,  because  the  most  important  part  of  the  project  had  not  been 
disclosed,  and  thought  they  would  be  unwise  to  base  new  hopes  on  an  appeal  to 
Parliament. 

The  Guardian  attributed  the  decision  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  to  the 
eloquence  of  Mr.  Adamson  and  Mr.  Jacob  Bright,  but  said  :— 

The  speech  of  the  former  was  in  the  main  merely  the  declamation  of  an  advocate,  and 
however  much  we  may  admire  his  zeal,  we  must  point  out  that  his  remarks  left  the 
Examiner's  decision  practically  unassailed. 

Sir  Edward  VVatkin,  speaking  to  the  Manchester,  Sheffield  and  Lincolnshire 
shareholders,  said  :— 

His  company  had  not  opposed  the  Bill  on  Standing  Orders  and  they  did  not  intend  to 
do  so.  If  Manchester  would  find  capital  for  a  canal,  it  was  not  for  them — if  they  approved 
it  or  not — to  oppose  the  scheme  on  its  merits,  still  less  on  Standing  Orders.  He  had  no 
jealousy  on  the  question  of  competition  between  water  and  railway  carriage.  They  would, 
however,  bitterly  oppose  the  Corporation  finding  capital  for  the  scheme.  He  felt  very 
strongly  that  nothing  had  been  done  to  remove  the  bar.  Was  the  great  commerce  of  this 
district  to  be  dependent  on  the  bar  at  Liverpool  ?  They  must  have  a  harbour  accessible  at 
any  time,  and  if  the  bar  could  not  be  removed,  he  recommended  a  new  entrance  by  the  Dee. 

On  the  2nd  March  the  case  of  the  Ship  Canal  came  before  the  Standing 
Orders  Committee,  with  Sir  John  Mowbray  as  Chairman.  After  a  lengthy 
deliberation  in  private,  they  agreed  to  dispense  with  the  Standing  Orders  on 
condition  that  the  portion  of  the  Bill  which  related  to  the  creation  of  a  navigable 
channel  between  Eastham  and  Runcorn  should  be  struck  out,  and  the  promoters 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  123 

left,  as  they  desired,  to  arrange  with  the  Mersey  Conservancy  in  regard  to  this  vital 
portion  of  the  scheme. 

In  addition  to  Sir  John  Mowbray,  the  Committee  consisted  of  Sir  E.  Cole- 
brooke,  Mr.  Cubitt,  Mr.  Monk,  Mr.  Mulholland,  Mr.  Dennis  O'Connor,  Mr. 
Playfair,  Lord  Arthur  Russell,  Mr.  Whitbread  and  Mr.  Yorke.  Intense  interest 
was  felt  in  the  Lobby  by  those  awaiting  the  result,  broken  only  by  the  Committee 
sending  to  consult  Sir  Erskine  May's  book  on  procedure.  In  the  evening,  to  com- 
memorate their  success,  Mr.  Adamson,  Mr.  Stevens  and  the  officials  dined  with 
Mr.  E.  J.  Reed,  M.P.  for  Cardiff. 

This  move  forward  was  gratifying  to  the  promoters,  but  as  usual  was  received 
with  mixed  feelings  abroad.  The  Bill  next  had  to  go  before  a  Committee  in  the 
usual  course.  If  it  passed  the  Committee  it  would  have  to  go  before  the  Standing 
Orders  Examiner  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

The  Manchester  Examiner  and  Times  thought  the  Committee  would  have 
been  more  than  mortal  if  they  had  not  been  influenced  by  the  unprecedented 
number  of  petitions  for  the  Bill.  It  would  now  remain  for  the  promoters  to  make 
terms  with  the  Mersey  Conservancy  Board  about  the  estuary,  the  members  being 
the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty  and  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster. 

The  Guardian  deemed  the  result  an  additional  testimony  to  the  proficiency  of 
the  art  of  promoting ;  petitions  had  lain  at  every  street  corner,  and  had  been  signed 
by  persons  quite  incompetent  to  form  a  judgment  on  the  case,  but  there  was  no 
doubt  the  petition  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  had  had  great  weight.  But 
without  the  omitted  portions  the  Bill  would  be  of  no  use  at  all,  and  Mr.  Frere  said 
to  deal  with  them  was  outside  the  power  of  the  Conservators.  Even  if  the  present 
scheme  were  doomed  to  failure,  a  close  examination  of  its  details  in  Parliament 
might  throw  light  on  other  possibilities,  and  hasten  the  advent  of  a  really  useful,  if 
less  brilliant  project.  In  another  article,  the  Editor  dealt  with  the  personal  asperi- 
ties which  had  grown  up  between  the  promoters  and  opponents  of  the  canal,  and 
alluded  to  charges  of  inconsistency  made  by  Mr.  Adamson  against  the  Guardian. 
He  noted  a  tendency  to  irritation  on  the  part  of  the  advocates  of  the  Ship  Canal, 
which  might  be  pardonable,  but  still  was  injudicious.  He  then  proceeded  to  deal 
with  Mr.  Provand's  pamphlet  and  the  reply,  criticising  the  latter  very  severely. 
He  objected  to  attempts  to  carry  the  Bill  by  a  series  of  surprises,  and  ended : 
'  Such  tactics  may  be  suitable  in  cases  of  private  rivalry,  but  they  are  uncalled  for 
in  connection  with  a  scheme  which  is  avowedly  promoted  in  the  public  interest 


i24        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

alone,  and  which,  if  sound,  has  everything  to  gain  by  publicity  and  searching 
scrutiny  ". 

The  Bill  was  read  for  the  first  time  in  the  Commons  on  the  6th  March  and 
the  second  reading  was  fixed  for  the  following  week.  In  two  or  three  days  it  had 
also  to  come  before  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Lords,  consisting  of  forty  members, 
and  it  was  known  the  Chairman,  Lord  Redesdale,  was  dead  set  against  dispensing 
with  Standing  Orders  in  case  of  informal  Bills,  and  that  the  Lancashire  peers  who 
presumably  would  be  in  favour  of  the  Bill  could  not  act.  Then,  if  the  Lords 
Standing  Committee  did  throw  it  out,  all  that  had  been  done  would  be  labour  in 
vain,  even  if  the  Bill  succeeded  in  running  the  gauntlet  awaiting  it  in  the  Commons 
Committee.  Further,  all  the  costs  would  be  lost,  and  these  were  very  heavy. 

On  the  Qth  March  the  Manchester  Parliamentary  Sub-Committee  advised 
that  a  friendly  petition  should  be  presented  against  the  Bill,  so  as  to  give  the  Cor- 
poration an  opportunity  to  be  heard  on  clauses.  This  is  a  position  often  adopted 
but  which  cannot  be  too  much  reprobated.  It  means  piling  up  legal  costs  unneces- 
sarily. The  Ship  Canal  Committee  would  gladly  have  consented  to  any  reasonable 
clauses. 

On  the  1 6th  March  when  the  Bill  came  for  second  reading  in  the  Commons, 
Mr.  Raikes  asked  for  an  explanation  of  a  bifurcated  and  incomplete  Bill  being 
allowed  to  go  forward,  and  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  sought  powers  for 
municipal  bodies  to  subscribe  capital  towards  a  private  adventure.  Sir  John 
Mowbray  said  the  decision  of  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  was  unanimous,  and 
that  Mr.  Raikes  was  too  late  in  objecting  now.  Other  members,  including  Mr. 
Bright,  spoke,  and  the  Bill  was  read  a  second  time  amid  cheers,  and  referred  to  a 
Select  Committee. 

When  the  Bill  came  before  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  of  the  Lords, 
only  six  out  of  its  forty  members  were  present.  Out  of  these  it  was  known  that 
Lords  Devon  and  Penrhyn  were  usually  followers  of  Lord  Redesdale,  so  the  pro- 
moters' chance  of  success  depended  on  Lords  Monson,  Camperdown,  and  Cork 
balancing  them,  and  going  for  the  promoters.  An  unusually  long  inquiry  took 
place.  Mr.  Coates  manfully  fought  the  case.  He  showed  the  enormous  interest 
taken  in  the  Bill,  and  the  value  attached  to  it  by  all  classes  in  Lancashire ;  never 
before  had  so  many  and  such  influential  petitions  been  presented  in  favour  of  any 
Bill,  and  he  made  it  plain  that  the  Mersey  Conservators  could  prevent  a  stone 
being  touched  in  the  estuary  unless  they  had  first  been  perfectly  satisfied.  Mr. 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  125 

Coates  had  to  fight  his  case  single-handed  against  the  Parliamentary  counsel  of  the 
various  opponents,  but  so  well  did  he  manage  that  it  is  believed  the  Committee 
were  much  impressed  and  were  evenly  divided.  Lord  Redesdale,  the  Chairman, 
said : — 

After  due  consideration  the  noble  Lords  assembled  here  on  the  Committee  to-day  are 
desirous  that  the  matter  should  be  heard  again  before  a  larger  Committee,  and  considering 
the  state  of  the  session  and  of  the  attendance  in  town  at  the  present  moment,  we  desire  that 
that  shall  not  be  till  after  Easter. 

On  the  26th  March  the  Guardian  wrote  one  of  its  most  scathing  articles  on 
the  canal.  Of  the  Bill  it  said  :— 

It  becomes  increasingly  desirable  that  close  attention  should  be  given  to  its  details. 
This  is  the  more  so  as  certain  prominent  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  whose  voices 
are  likely  to  be  influential,  and  who  might  have  been  expected  to  maintain  a  judicial  tone 
with  respect  to  the  Bill,  have  already — somewhat  hastily,  as  it  appears  to  us — committed 
themselves  to  advocacy  of  the  scheme.  Those  observers  who  have  ventured  to  criticise  the 
project,  to  expose  some  of  the  rash  statements  of  the  promoters,  and  to  call  those  who  were 
allowing  themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  an  organised  agitation  back  to  the  exercise  of 
sober  judgment,  have  been  stigmatised  as  persons  opposed  to  the  trading  interests  of  the 
district,  whom  history  will  regard  with  contempt. 

It  went  on  to  say  that  such  opponents,  while  anxious  to  cheapen  traffic,  saw  germs 
of  future  disappointment  in  the  scheme.  The  article  stated  that  the  promoters  had 
promised  to  bring  the  cotton  market,  the  grain  market,  and  the  timber,  as  well  as 
other  markets,  to  Manchester,  besides  cheapening  the  working  men's  food,  removing 
pollution  from  the  river,  and  earning  dividends  for  the  shareholders.  It  then  went 
on  to  adopt  Mr.  Provand's  "Criticism,"  and  to  show  why  all  this  was  impossible, 
chiefly  because  there  would  not  be  dockage  sufficient  to  do  the  business,  and  because 
of  the  cost  of  the  canal  :— 

We  might  have  trusted  the  watchfulness  of  such  bodies  as  the  Manchester  City 
Council  and  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce,  but  unfortunately  the  former  has 
already  shown  itself  to  be  too  susceptible  to  hasty  enthusiasm,  and  the  latter  has  actually 
petitioned  Parliament  to  abandon  the  most  efficient  safeguard  against  impracticable 
measures.  There  is,  therefore,  some  force  in  the  suggestion  of  a  correspondent  that  a 
special  Vigilance  Committee  should  be  formed. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  many  speeches,  and  also  in  letters  and  articles 
contributed  to  the  Press  by  advocates  of  the  Ship  Canal,  statements  were  made  that 
had  better  have  been  omitted.  They  often  emanated  from  parties  not  recognised  by 


126         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

the  Provisional  Committee,  who  regretted  such  injudicious  statements.  But  when 
gentlemen  were  working  earnestly  and  contributing  both  of  their  time  and  money 
in  the  belief  they  were  serving — with  a  single  eye— the  best  interests  of  their  city,  it 
was  hard  to  bear  not  only  the  indifference  of  merchants  with  vested  interests  and 
bitter  attacks  from  abroad,  but  stinging  articles  from  the  Press  of  one's  own  city. 
Mr.  Adamson,  smarting  under  the  suggestion  of  a  Vigilance  Committee,  replied  in 
a  letter  dated  the  27th  March.  After  appealing  to  the  G^^ard^aris  sense  of  fairness, 
he  said  he  believed  the  subscribers  to  the  Parliamentary  Fund  were  actuated  by  no 
other  desire"  than  to  advance  the  general  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the  community. 

The  only  justification  for  a  Vigilance  Committee  would  be  to  exercise  a  species  of 
espionage  on  a  body  of  gentlemen  whose  sincerity  and  singleness  of  purpose,  I  hold,  are 
beyond  the  shadow  of  suspicion,  and  who  are  prompted  solely  by  a  desire  to  do  public 
good,  with  the  intention  of  offering  the  boon  (if  obtained)  to  a  public  trust.  I  consider  the 
approval  extended  to  the  very  mention  of  such  a  suggestion  is  a  poor  reward  for  the  time, 
money  and  labour  the  Ship  Canal  subscribers  are  devoting  to  the  development  of  a  move- 
ment for  securing  cheap  transit  to  our  already  heavily  handicapped  industries. 

The  eve  of  a  Parliamentary  fight  was  no  time  to  deal  with  the  little  holes  that  Mr. 
Provand  tried  to  pick  in  the  scheme.  But  if  a  Vigilance  Committee  was  wanted  it 
was— 

as  much  to  protect  the  promoters  of  the  canal  as  the  public,  since  I  fear  the  Ship  Canal 
Committee  could  hardly  fare  worse  in  the  criticism  it  receives  in  your  columns  under  such 
a  regime  than  it  does  at  present,  and  which,  I  am  going  to  say,  is  strangely  inconsistent  with 
the  generous,  progressive  and  enterprising  tone  you  adopted  a  few  months  ago. 

The  City  News,  reviewing  the  position,  wrote  an  encouraging  article  :— 

It  is  unfair  for  local  opponents  to  attempt  to  force  the  promoters  at  this  critical  stage 
of  the  measure  to  expose  the  details  which  are  prepared  for  use  in  the  approaching  exami- 
nation before  the  Select  Committee.  .  .  .  The  promoters  of  the  canal  are  charged  with  all 
the  extravagant  predictions  and  unfounded  statements  which  have  been  spoken  or  written 
upon  the  subject.  Praise  and  condemnation  always  exceed  the  bounds  of  discretion  in 
popular  movements.  There  is  much  chaff  carried  along  with  the  grain.  A  distinction 
should  in  fairness  be  drawn  between  the  utterances  of  private  individuals  and  the  statements 
of  responsible  promoters.  ...  It  is  certainly  a  new  phase  in  the  courtesy  of  the  city  to  talk 
about  a. Vigilance  Committee  to  watch  men  spending  their  money,  time  and  labour  in  what 
they  consider  to  be  for  the  public  good. 

In  view  of  the  coming  Council  meeting,  Alderman  King  wrote  a  long,  and 
from  his  point  of  view,  an  able  letter,  to  protest  against  the  Corporation  giving 
any  aid  to  the  canal ;  and  at  the  meeting  of  the  General  Purposes  Committee  he 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  127 

repeated  his  objection  to  the  ratepayers  being  taxed  to  support  the  canal.  "  If," 
said  he,  "the  Council  adopted  the  principle,  they  would  be  establishing  a  precedent 
for  making  railways  or  building  Atlantic  vessels  out  of  the  rates."  He  moved 
there  should  be  a  petition  against  the  Bill,  and  especially  against  this  clause.  It 
was  pointed  out  the  clause  was  only  an  enabling  clause,  and  the  report  of  the 
Parliamentary  Sub-Committee  was  passed. 

On  the  1 4th  April  the  Bill  again  came  before  the  Standing  Committee  of 
the  House  of  Lords.  It  was  known  there  had  been  a  special  whip,  and  fifteen 
out  of  the  forty  noble  Lords  turned  up.  After  the  Parliamentary  counsel  had 
made  their  speeches,  the  room  was  cleared,  and  on  the  re-admission  of  the  public 
Lord  Redesdale  said,  "We  are  of  opinion  the  Standing  Orders  should  be  dispensed 
with  ". 

It  is  understood  Lords  Carrington,  Devon,  Sydney,  Monson,  Cork,  Morley, 
Sudeley,  Lansdowne  and  the  Duke  of  Somerset  voted  for  the  Bill,  and  Lords 
Redesdale,  Hawarden,  Longport,  Lathom,  Donoughmore  and  Henniker  against. 
Lord  Powys  did  not  vote. 

The  suspension  of  Standing  Orders  was  reported  to  the  Lords,  and  the  next 
move  was  the  appointment  of  a  Select  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
report  of  their  proceedings  forms  the  subject  of  a  separate  chapter. 

In  Manchester  the  Committee's  proceedings  were  followed  with  the  greatest 
interest,  and  the  action  of  the  various  local  Members  of  Parliament  was  the  sub- 
ject of  much  criticism.  Mr.  Houldsworth,  M.P.,  wrote  to  the  Examiner:  "  I  am  not 
aware  of  saying  '  I  believe  myself  in  the  success  of  the  scheme'."  Strong  letters 
appeared  in  the  Press  respecting  the  attitude  of  Messrs.  Slagg,  M.  P.,  and  Armitage, 
M.P.  They  were  told  "  it  was  utterly  inexcusable  to  plead  ignorance  of  the  details 
of  an  undertaking  in  which  their  constituents  were  so  vitally  interested,"  and  it 
was  hinted  to  Mr.  Agnew  that  his  cash  would  be  more  valued  than  his  sympathy. 
This  reminds  me  of  a  good  story.  At  one  of  the  many  meetings,  Mr.  Agnew,  M.P. 
(who  was  never  an  enthusiast,  but  now  and  then  made  a  speech  just  to  show  he  did 
not  scout  a  popular  movement)  was  making  an  airy  speech  calling  on  the  people  to 
support  the  canal,  the  while  with  one  hand  in  his  waistcoat  pocket,  when  an  old 
fellow  in  the  far  corner  of  the  room  called  out  that  "  Mester  Agnew  should  take 
his  hand  out  of  his  waistcoat  and  put  it  into  his  breeches'  pocket,  and  bring  out 
some  brass  hissel  for  the  canal ". 

During  the  Parliamentary  fight  the  promoters  made  the  Westminster  Palace 


128        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

Hotel  their  headquarters.  Here  all  the  officials  were  to  be  found  in  conference  at 
the  end  of  each  day's  proceedings.  The  Committee  relieved  one  another,  but 
the  Chairman  never  left  the  case.  It  could  not  be  expected  that  barristers  of  the 
first  rank  could  always  be  in  attendance,  but  at  odd  times  they  were  all  absent,  and 
then  Mr.  Adamson  became  furious.  On  one  occasion  he  declared  he  would  tele- 
graph for  a  new  lot  of  counsel  from  Manchester,  and  if  Mr.  Goldsworthy  had  not 
used  strong  means  to  stop  him,  I  believe  he  would  have  done  so,  for  he  was  a 
very  determined  man. 

Some  of  us  much  feared  a  rupture,  for  we  had  got  a  leash  of  barristers  we 
could  not  replace  ;  the  fiery,  eloquent  Mr.  Pember,  the  genial,  scientific  Mr.  Michael, 
and  the  cross-examiner  par-excellence,  Mr.  Balfour  Browne,  who  was  like  a  terrier 
when  he  once  found  a  hole  in  the  armour  of  a  witness.  Then  there  was  the  deli- 
cate and  juvenile-looking  Mr.  Cripps,  and  the  solid  lawyer  Mr.  Pembroke 
Stephens.  Arrayed  against  them  were  a  host  of  counsel,  and  as  they  all  helped  one 
another,  there  were  very  few  weak  places  in  our  evidence  that  were  allowed  to 
pass  unexposed. 

It  was  very  monotonous  to  sit  day  after  day  in  either  a  stuffy,  or,  if  the 
windows  were  open,  a  draughty  room.  Occasionally  a  little  sparring  between 
counsel,  or  a  humorous  witness  caused  a  welcome  break,  as  when  Mr.  Marshall 
Stevens  confounded  the  whole  of  the  opposing  barristers  and  let  them  drop  into  a 
hole,  or  when  the  burly  good-natured  manager  of  the  Co-operative  Society,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  crossed  swords  with  Mr.  Pope,  Q.C.,  but  these  proceedings  will  be  re- 
counted in  another  chapter. 

It  was  no  child's  play  to  be  for  days  under  examination  and  then  to  be  cross- 
examined  by  such  adepts  as  Messrs.  Pope,  Bidder,  Littler,  etc.  Mr.  Leader 
Williams  and  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  made  admirable  witnesses,  sometimes  even 
being  able  to  nonplus  the  cross-examiner. 

Naturally  the  passing  of  the  Bill  in  the  Commons  was  received  with  great 
jubilation.  Both  sides  admitted  the  great  fairness  and  tact  with  which  Sir  Joseph 
Bailey  had  conducted  the  long  and  tedious  inquiry.  Mr.  Pember's  summing  up 
of  the  vast  mass  of  evidence  on  both  sides  was  a  masterpiece  of  brilliant  and  acute 
reasoning,  and  the  promoters  undoubtedly  owe  much  to  him  for  the  energy  with 
which  he  worked  up  their  case.  His  concluding  speech  drew  such  a  picture  of 
Lancashire  suffering  grievously  from  foreign  competition,  and  anxious  for  the  canal 
as  a  remedy,  as  no  doubt  affected  the  minds  of  the  Committee.  To  give  an  idea 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  129 

of  the  costs  of  a  Parliamentary  fight,  it  is  said  the  leading  counsel  for  the  Ship 
Canal  had  500  guineas  on  his  brief,  besides  a  heavy  refresher  and  consultation  fee. 

When  on  the  nth  July  the  Bill  came  before  the  House  for  a  third  reading, 
Mr.  Whitley,  M.  P.  for  Liverpool,  got  it  deferred  by  asking  for  information  as  to 
the  conditions  under  which  Admiral  Spratt  was  Conservator  of  the  Mersey,  and  Sir 
John  Coode  had  been  called  upon  to  examine  the  plans.  This  was  taken  to  be  a 
device  to  delay  the  Bill,  and  was  an  expedient  which  was  not  effectual. 

After  the  following  pronouncement,  which  Sir  Joseph  Bailey,  as  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  went  out  of  his  way  to  make,  "That  it  appeared  from  the  evidence 
that  if  the  scheme  can  be  carried  out  with  due  regard  to  existing  interests,  the  canal 
will  afford  valuable  facilities  to  the  trade  of  Lancashire  and  ought  to  be  sanctioned," 
it  was  expected  by  both  sides  that  the  fight  in  the  Lords  would  be,  to  a  great  extent, 
a  matter  of  form.  There  were  a  few,  however,  who  distrusted  Lord  Redesdale ; 
they  knew  he  was  unsympathetic,  if  not  hostile,  and  they  could  not  forget  that  at 
its  second  reading  he  had  tried  to  block  the  Bill.  When  a  Committee  was  asked 
for,  he  had  declined  to  move  it  on  the  ground  that  it  was  too  late  to  get  one 
together,  and  the  Earl  of  Cork  had  been  compelled  to  take  the  unusual  course  of 
moving  for  a  Committee.  Of  course  the  selection  of  it  was,  to  a  great  extent,  in 
Lord  Redesdale's  hands,  and  he  knew  the  tone  of  mind  of  those  whom  he  selected. 
Five  Lords  are  necessary  for  a  Committee,  and  only  four  Commons.  Is  this  a 
measure  of  their  capacity?  Anyway  in  this  case,  unfortunately,  the  Duke  of  Bed- 
ford had  to  retire  in  the  midst  of  the  inquiry,  and  rumour  says  the  Committee  were 
evenly  divided,  and  that  as  usual  in  such  cases  the  status  quo  had  to  be  preserved. 
The  unusual  action  of  Lord  Redesdale  was  portrayed  by  Punch  as  follows  :— 

Punch's  ESSENCE  OF  PARLIAMENT.     4TH  AUGUST,  1883. 
Extracted  from  the  Diary  of  Toby,  M.P. 

Tuesday. — Little  row  in  the  House  of  Lords  to-night.     Manchester  Ship  Canal  down 
for  second  reading.     Lord  Redesdale  doesn't  like  ship  canals. 

"  Never  had  them  in  my  day ! "  he  growls.  Content  then  with  ordinary  and  proper 
thing  broad  enough  for  canal  boats.  If  this  thing  goes  on,  have  England  cut  up  into  mince 
meat  in  a  few  years.  Make  a  sort  of  Holland  of  the  island.  Never  be  able  to  drive  half  a 
mile  without  coming  across  ship  in  full  sail.  Have  steamers  pouring  smoke  into  your  front 
bedroom  window,  and  get  hit  on  the  head  with  maintop  mizzen  boom  when  you  look  out  to 
see  where  smoke  coming  from.  Have  enough  of  ship  canals  at  Suez.  Have  no  more  of 
them  here  as  long  as  I  am  "  Chairman  of  Committee  ". 
voi,.  I.  o 


1 30        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

So  puts  his  foot  down  on  proposal.  Warns  House  if  they  agree  to  second  reading  he 
won't  undertake  to  find  Committee.  This  would  have  been  enough  at  one  time  ;  but  House 
sadly  changing.  Growing  quite  radical.  Dares  dispute  what  Redesdale  says.  When  he 
got  up  in  defiance  of  Rules  to  make  second  speech,  there  were  cries  of  "  order"  !  The  stout 
Earl  aghast. 

"  I  am,"  he  gasped,  "  standing  up  for  order."  "  You'd  better  sit  down  for  it,"  Lord 
Granville  smilingly  said. 

Redesdale  mechanically  felt  in  trousers'  pocket  for  his  ruler.  Attempted  to  draw  it 
out.  But  Lordships  only  smile,  and  with  a  scowl  at  unoffending  clerk  at  table,  he  resumed 
his  seat 

"  Take  me  away,  Toby,"  he  said  a  little  later,  in  plaintive  tones,  that  brought  tears  to 
my  eyes,  and  nearly  made  me  howl.  "  Take  me  away,  and  if  it  can  be  conveniently  done, 
bury  me  in  Westminster  Abbey.  The  constitution  is  in  danger ;  the  throne  is  toppling  to  a 
fall ;  the  sunset  of  the  empire  is  at  hand,  and  the  House  of  Lords  has  shouted  me  down." 

With  the  verdict  of  the  Commons  before  them,  vis.,  that  the  canal  would  be  of 
great  use  commercially,  the  Lords  Committee  evidently  entered  on  the  inquiry  with 
the  idea  of  keeping  the  evidence  within  a  narrow  compass.  The  Earl  of  Camper- 
down,  the  Chairman,  specially  pressed  the  promoters  to  curtail  both  their  evidence 
and  the  speeches  of  counsel,  and  made  it  plain  that  the  Committee  were  disposed 
to  let  the  Bill  go  through,  provided  they  could  be  satisfied  on  one  or  two  points. 
So  convinced  were  both  sides  that  the  passing  of  the  Bill  was  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion that  they  were  negotiating  about  clauses.  Great  was  the  disappointment 
when,  after  only  a  quarter  of  an  hour's  discussion,  the  Bill  was  rejected.  It  was 
rumoured  that  Lords  Camperdown  and  Aberdeen  were  in  favour  of  the  Bill,  and 
Lords  Devon  and  Caithness  against  it. 

After  hearing  Mr.  Pember's  reply,  which  to  suit  the  Committee  he  had  cut  very 
short,  I  went  back  to  my  hotel  expecting  to  return  in  time  to  hear  the  result. 
But  on  my  way  back  I  met  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  looking  very  gloomy,  and  in  the 
words  "they  have  slated  our  Bill,"  he  let  me  know  its  fate.  Disappointment,  nay 
almost  despair,  sat  upon  our  faces.  Mr.  Adamson  was  so  depressed  that  he 
decided  the  best  course  was  to  return  at  once  to  Manchester  and  discuss  what 
was  to  be  done  afterwards,  and  without  delay  we  all  returned  home  in  a  very  sub- 
dued frame  of  mind. 

The  only  crumb  of  comfort  to  be  gathered  from  the  decision  was  contained  in 
the  words  "not  expedient  to  proceed  this  session  of  Parliament,"  giving  some 
reason  to  hope  that  the  Bill  was  rejected  because  it  was  incomplete,  and  that  a 
complete  Bill  next  session  would  have  a  chance  of  succeeding.  No  doubt  the 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  131 

Committee  delivered  a  staggering-  blow  to  Lancashire,  and  this  induced  people  to 
ask  what  qualifications  the  noble  Lords  had  to  deal  with  the  weal  or  woe  of  a  great 
commercial  community.  This  was  answered  by  "A  Sketch  of  the  Lords  Com- 
mittee at  Work,"  written  by  a  member  of  the  City  Council  (Alderman  J.  W. 
Southern),  not  then  in  Ship  Canal  harness,  but  who  has  since  taken  a  leading  part 
in  guiding  its  career.  The  article  is  too  long  to  give  in  extenso,  so  I  must  content 
myself  with  a  few  quotations  :— 

There  must  be  many  people  in  Manchester  who  never  enjoyed  the  felicity  of  watching 
the  operations  of  a  Committee  of  live  Lords.  I  sat  for  the  whole  of  a  day  watching  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Lords  Committee  on  the  Ship  Canal,  and  had  I  not  been  made  aware  that  the 
five  gentlemen  at  one  end  of  the  room  were  real  Lords,  I  might  not  have  discovered  their  real 
superior  constitutional  endowments.  The  Lord  nearest  the  door  is  a  very  young  man,  about 
twenty-four,  and  I  should  think  very  good  natured  and  kindly  disposed.  He  has  a  thin  face, 
rather  expressive  mouth,  and  jet  black  hair,  carefully  brushed.  He  smiles  a  good  deal,  and 
seems  quite  interested  in  what  is  going  on.  Evidently  he  has  not  yet  learned  the  Olympian 
attitude  of  sublime  indifference  which  becomes  a  Lord.  For  this  you  must  look  to  his  next 
neighbour,  who  is  a  commonplace  looking  personage  of  about  sixty.  If  I  had  met  him  in 
a  railway  carriage,  and  been  asked  to  guess  his  business,  I  should  have  said  a  cheesemonger, 
and  the  pursed  mouth  and  elevated  nose  I  should  have  referred  to  some  recent  experiences 
with  a  cheese  somewhat  too  far  gone.  He  never  speaks — I  was  going  to  say  never  opens  his 
mouth :  that  would  have  been  incorrect.  He  often  yawns,  and  when  the  attention  of  the 
Committee  is  requested  to  some  plan  or  diagram,  he  ostentatiously  turns  his  face  to  the 
window,  yawns,  and  stretches  his  arms.  The  next  noble  Lord  is  the  Chairman.  He  is  a 
comparatively  young  man,  say  about  forty.  It  is  proper  he  should  be  Chairman.  He  seems 
to  have  common-sense  enough  for  an  ordinary  man.  What  an  enfant  terrible  such  a  person 
must  be  running  in  and  out  among  the  beings  of  a  superior  order.  He  is  a  trifle  caustic,  is 
not  to  be  imposed  upon  by  secondhand  evidence,  is  rather  tart  with  both  witnesses  and 
counsel,  and  seems  particularly  desirous  not  to  have  too  much  evidence  brought  before  the 
Committee. 

To  the  right  of  the  Chairman  is  an  elderly  man,  perhaps  sixty-five  or  seventy,  maybe 
even  more.  He  looks  a  very  superior  person.  He  has  just  the  look  a  man  ought  to  have 
who  had  been  allowed  all  his  own  way  when  he  was  a  child,  and  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
patronising  common  people,  and  receiving  the  reverential  obeisance  of  rustics  ever  since. 
His  eyelids  are  rather  heavy  for  his  eyes  and  this  gives  him  a  sleepy  look.  But  that  you 
know  he  is  endowed  with  hereditary  wisdom,  you  would  say  his  prevailing  expression  was  a 
compound  of  apathy  and  vacuity.  The  only  remaining  member  of  the  Committee  is  a  power- 
fully built  and  military  looking  man.  He  seems  taciturn  and  grave.  He  never  utters  a 
word,  nor  takes  a  note,  but  attends  with  impassive  face  to  everything  that  is  said.  I  should 
say  he  belongs  rather  to  the  fighting  than  to  the  law-making  type  of  man.  There  is  a  look 
of  cool  self-control  that  would  be  invaluable  on  a  battlefield.  Pity  for  such  men  that  times 


132        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

change  and  court  rapiers  take  the  place  of  stout  claymores,  or  councils  of  war  give  place  to 
Committees  on  Private  Bills. 

As  I  reflected  afterwards  on  the  experience  of  the  day  I  could  not  help  feeling  that 
the  whole  business  was  a  monstrous  and  most  expensive  farce.  Here  were  five  men,  none 
of  them  in  any  way  distinguished  for  wisdom,  engineering  skill  or  intellectual  power.  They 
could  not  pretend — no  one  could  put  forward  the  pretence  on  their  behalf — that  even  had  they 
sat  like  the  Commons  Committee  thirty-nine  days  and  heard  all  the  evidence  that  Sir  Joseph 
Bailey's  Committee  heard  they  were  better  endowed  or  more  capable  than  that  Committee 
of  arriving  at  a  wise  conclusion.  But  they  sit  a  few  days — they  limit  the  evidence  they  will 
hear — they  disregard  the  wide  conditions  imposed  in  the  public  interest  by  those  who  repre- 
sented the  public.  These  men  who  represented  nobody  and  nothing  but  an  obsolete  and 
antiquated  feudalism  are  permitted  to  refuse  the  just  desires  of  a  large  and  industrious 
population  fortified  by  the  approval  of  many  municipal  and  commercial  bodies,  to  override 
the  decision  of  a  painstaking  and  representative  Committee  of  the  Commons,  and  to  cast  to 
the  winds  the  efforts  and  the  hard-earned  means  of  the  promoters.  Our  eyes  are  blinded 
by  custom  or  we  should  never  submit  to  such  an  absurdity. 

Of  course  there  was  great  jubilation  in  the  enemy's  camp.  Sir  Wm.  Forwood 
said  the  expenses  of  the  unsuccessful  promoters  were  £57,000,  whilst  Liverpool  had 
spent  ,£5,000.  Mr.  Moon,  Chairman  of  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway 
Company,  remarked  that  they  had  had  to  fight  the  Ship  Canal,  probably  one  of 
the  wildest  schemes  that  had  ever  entered  into  the  mind  of  man  to  conceive. 

At  home  too  there  were  Job's  comforters.     Our  leading  paper  discovered— 

That  the  plea  for  a  canal  was  founded  on  plausible  fallacies.  The  decline  of  industries 
and  in  the  value  of  property  had  little  to  do  with  Liverpool  and  railway  exactions,  or  our  insular 
position.  It  was  mainly  due  to  property  jobbers  and  building  societies,  who  hoped  to  make 
fortunes  rather  by  land  speculations  than  by  industry.  If  the  Ship  Canal  is  simply  to  trans- 
fer money  from  the  railway  companies  to  the  landowners  and  property  jobbers,  how  will  the 
once  flourishing  industries  of  Manchester  be  benefited  ? 

Another  alluring  statement  of  the  promoters  was  that  manufactories  would  spring  up 
along  the  banks  of  the  Ship  Canal.  If  the  argument  is  sound,  Oldham  will  remove  to  the 
banks  of  the  canal,  and  Manchester  itself  will  be  found  "  stepping  westward  ".  Such  an 
outburst  of  industry  along  the  banks  of  the  canal  as  that  dreamt  of  by  the  promoters  would 
entirely  destroy  the  value  of  an  enormous  amount  of  residential  and  rich  agricultural  property 
on  the  Cheshire  side  of  the  city,  and  make  the  city  itself  almost  uninhabitable  by  poisoning 
the  only  fresh  breezes  we  at  present  get. 

Comment  on  this  is  scarcely  necessary.  Events  have  proved  how  erroneous 
were  the  statements  used  in  order  to  throw  cold  water  on  the  scheme  and  dis- 
courage its  promoters.  Trafford  Park  has  become  a  hive  of  industry,  and  neither 
has  the  value  of  property  been  destroyed  nor  the  city  poisoned. 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  133 

The  City  Council  on  the  27th  August,  in  passing  a  vote  of  sympathy  with  the 
promoters,  "deplored  the  vast  expenses  which  had  been  incurred  without  adequate 
result,  and  considered  the  present  to  be  a  striking  instance  of  the  hardship  of  the 
present  mode  of  procedure  upon  Private  Bills". 

After  a  few  days'  breathing  time  the  Provisional  Committee  were  called  to- 
gether, and  they  decided  to  hold  a  conference  on  the  28th  August,  to  which 
representatives  from  the  various  local  bodies  who  had  supported  the  scheme  were 
to  be  invited  to  attend,  the  object  being  to  decide  as  to  the  renewal  of  the  applica- 
tion to  Parliament,  and  to  discuss  the  scheme  with  the  view  to  arrive  at  such  an 
agreement  as  would  secure  for  it  the  approval  and  co-operation  of  all  classes ;  also 
to  have  a  report  on  the  financial  position. 

On  the  day  named  a  large  and  enthusiastic  meeting  was  held  in  the  Town 
Hall,  Manchester.  Mr.  Adamson  made  a  stirring  speech  and  ended  with  : — 

If  they  got  a  canal  their  children  and  their  children's  children  would  bless  them  for  in- 
creased facilities  for  earning  their  bread.  There  must  be  a  development  of  trade  to  provide 
for  an  increase  in  population.  Unless  they  made  reasonable  provision  for  the  future  there 
would  certainly  be  disaster.  If  they  entered  into  this  subject  with  heart  and  soul,  they  would 
overcome  every  obstacle,  and  the  canal  would  be  made. 

He  moved  the  financial  statement  and  report,  and  stated  that  so  far  their  assets 
were  ,£67,000  and  their  expenditure  about  ,£57,000. 

This  Alderman  Bailey  seconded.  After  a  resolution  had  been  passed  deploring 
the  rejection  of  the  Bill,  Alderman  Harwood  moved  :— 

That  having  received  from  the  Provisional  Committee  its  opinion  and  recommenda- 
tion that  if  sufficient  funds  are  forthcoming  an  amended  scheme  should  be  submitted  to 
Parliament,  and  such  assurances  of  renewed  support  having  been  given  to  this  meeting  as 
to  justify  the  belief  that  a  second  Parliamentary  fund  of  sufficient  amount  to  carry  the 
measure  through  Parliament  will  be  provided,  this  meeting  resolves  that  the  Provisional 
Committee  be  authorised  and  empowered  to  promote  a  Bill  in  the  ensuing  session  of  Parlia- 
ment for  the  establishment  of  a  Ship  Canal  to  Manchester,  in  such  manner  as  may  be  found 
most  expedient  or  desirable. 

He  said  that  having  set  their  hands  to  the  plough  it  was  not  the  habit  of  Lan- 
cashire men  and  Yorkshire  men  to  go  back. 

Dr.  Mackie,  of  Warrington,  seconded  the  resolution,  and  the  Chairman  announced 
that  about  ,£5,000  had  been  already  promised  for  a  renewed  struggle,  towards  which 
Mr.  John  Rylands  had  given  .£1,000,  and  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  ,£500.  At  this 
meeting  there  is  no  doubt  the  Chairman,  carried  away  by  his  strong  feelings,  made 


134        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

remarks  that  had  better  been  left  unsaid,  and  which  left  sores.  Speaking  of  Lord 
Camperdown,  "he  must  say  that  he  had  rarely  met  a  more  fractious,  disturbing, 
interrupting  Chairman  than  Lord  Camperdown ".  During  the  inquiry  Mr.  Pope 
had  in  his  cross-examination,  and  subsequent  speech,  roused  Mr.  Adamson's  in- 
dignation, especially  when  he  likened  the  canal  to  a  bubble  which  would  burst  if 
pricked.  So  the  latter  took  the  opportunity  to  retort  in  these  words  :— 

The  great,  renowned,  big,  infallible  Lancashire  Pope  might  misstate  the  figures  and 
misrepresent  the  facts,  but  he  would  never  be  able  to  alter  the  fact  that  the  enterprise  was 
one  of  the  best  paying  that  had  ever  been  placed  before  the  country,  and  when  he  did  prick 
the  great  canal  bubble,  the  contents  would  overwhelm  him  like  an  avalanche,  and  nothing 
would  be  visible  of  him  save  the  dishonoured  wig  of  a  Queen's  Counsel. 

Fortunately  Mr.  Pope,  knowing  his  man,  did  not  treat  the  matter  seriously,  but 
he  now  and  then  humorously  alluded  to  it  in  his  speeches. 

Having  determined  to  make  renewed  application  to  Parliament  in  the  ensuing 
year,  the  Provisional  Committee  set  to  work  with  courage  and  determination  to 
raise  fresh  funds,  to  educate  the  people  by  circulating  literature,  to  consider  the 
various  suggestions  made  to  improve  the  engineering  details,  to  get  experience 
from  the  different  towns  that  had  improved  their  navigations,  and  to  arouse  the 
enthusiasm  of  Manchester  and  the  surrounding  boroughs.  They  asked  the  latter 
to  enlist  their  members  in  the  service. 

Whilst  the  Local  Committees  were  collecting  funds  on  the  outskirts,  a  Central 
Committee  divided  the  city  into  wards  in  the  hope  of  converting  the  wavering 
merchants  and  of  securing  subscriptions.  Many  were  the  rebuffs  the  canvassers 
received,  and  it  is  amusing  now  to  think  of  some  of  the  scenes  that  occurred.  Mr. 
Ben.  Armitage,  M.P.,  was  on  my  list,  and  I  well  remember  the  many  hours  I  spent 
in  trying  to  get  him  out  of  his  shell.  He  wanted  to  please  his  constituents  by 
supporting  the  canal,  and  yet,  as  his  immediate  coterie  of  friends  evidently  were  not 
favourable,  he  could  not  summon  courage  to  throw  aside  their  leading  strings. 
All  through  he  was  an  example  of  the  man  sitting  on  the  fence.  One  of  the  calls 
made  by  a  friend  and  myself  was  on  an  ex-M.  P.,  a  rich  home  trade  merchant,  whose 
firm  had  subscribed  ^"100  to  the  preliminary  fund.  It  was  a  hot  day  and  we  found 
him  in  his  shirt-sleeves.  We  put  our  case  before  him  with  all  the  ability  in  our 
power,  and  he  kept  throwing  in  jocular  remarks,  but  when  we  came  to  ask  for 
money  he  shrugged  his  shoulders  and  said  he  was  too  poor  to  help — that  he  was 
largely  interested  in  railways — and  from  this  position  we  could  not  move  him.  To 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  135 

compensate  for  our  disappointments  we  often  received  the  heartiest  encouragement ; 
comparatively  poor  men  would  subscribe  ^100  when  we  did  not  expect  a  fifth  part 
of  the  amount. 

Meetings  were  arranged  in  the  various  wards  of  Manchester  and  Salford  and 
in  the  neighbouring  towns,  and  a  systematic  canvass  for  funds  instituted.  It  was 
my  lot  to  visit  outside  towns,  and  I  well  remember  one  amusing  incident.  Arrange- 
ments had  been  made  with  the  local  secretary  at  Littleborough  for  a  meeting  to  be 
held  at  7.30  in  a  large  hall.  But  in  consequence  of  some  mistake  about  dates, 
when  with  a  colleague  I  arrived,  no  secretary  met  us  and  no  room  had  been  pre- 
pared for  the  meeting.  On  hunting  up  the  official,  we  found  he  had  arranged  for  a 
room  and  speakers  at  a  later  date.  It  was  a  complete  fiasco.  We  did  not  like 
coming  on  a  fool's  errand,  so,  hearing  there  once  had  been  a  bellman  in  the  place, 
we  hunted  him  up,  paid  him  well  and  sent  him  round  the  town  to  say  some  gentle- 
men from  Manchester  had  come  to  explain  all  about  the  Ship  Canal,  giving  time 
and  place,  admission  free.  After  all  we  had  a  good  meeting  and  an  attentive 
audience,  who  heartily  passed  resolutions  in  favour  of  a  renewed  application.  In 
fact  the  bungle  was  turned  into  a  success. 

When  a  cause  is  struggling  against  adversity  people  are  to  be  found  very 
willing  to  sneer  at  it.  So  it  was  with  the  Ship  Canal.  Many  people  were  ready 
to  say  "  I  told  you  so,"  and  wrote  comical  letters  to  the  Press.  It  was  felt  neces- 
sary not  only  to  combat  every  adverse  statement,  but  to  put  forward  convincing 
arguments  as  to  the  benefits  of  a  canal.  This  work  largely  fell  into  my  hands, 
and  the  midnight  oil  burned  over  it  no  one  will  ever  know.  One  day  I  had  an 
unexpected  reward  that  greatly  encouraged  me.  I  knew  Colonel  Shaw,  the 
American  Consul,  but  he  did  not  know  me.  However,  as  we  were  travelling  to- 
gether to  Bowdon,  he  began  talking  to  a  gentleman  about  the  canal,  and  said  he 
could  not  see  his  way  clearly.  Much  that  was  said  about  it  was  extravagant  and 
foolish,  but  said  he,  "there  is  a  writer  whose  letters  I  read  with  interest,  because 
he  seems  to  have  studied  his  subject,  his  name  is  Leech,  and  I  should  like  some 
day  to  meet  with  him,  and  have  some  further  explanations."  The  gentleman  he 
was  speaking  to  at  once  said,  "  And  he  sits  next  to  you,  let  me  introduce  him ". 
The  Colonel  shook  hands  and  said  a  kindly  word  of  compliment.  We  had  many 
a  talk  afterwards,  and  the  Colonel  eventually  did  the  undertaking  good  service  both 
in  England  and  America. 

The  visit  of  the    Iron  and   Steel    Institute  offered  an  opportunity  for  Mr. 


136        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

Adamson  and  several  engineers  interested  in  the  canal  to  examine  the  improve- 
ments on  Tyne  and  Tees.  A  large  number  of  subscribers,  at  the  invitation  of  the 
Tyne  Commissioners,  visited  the  Tyne.  The  heartiest  goodwill  was  shown  to  the 
Ship  Canal,  and  encouragement  and  promises  of  assistance  given.  They  afterwards 
visited  the  Tees  with  the  same  result.  Mr.  Pember  accompanied  the  party,  in 
order  that  he  might  make  himself  personally  acquainted  with  the  waterways  and 
harbours  about  which  he  had  to  say  so  much. 

At  their  last  meeting  in  October,  the  Salford  Town  Council  passed  a  resolution 
expressing  their  regret  at  the  failure  of  the  first  Bill,  and  congratulating  the  pro- 
moters upon  their  decision  to  make  a  further  application. 

On  3ist  October  an  immense  gathering  of  the  friends  of  the  canal  took  place 
in  the  Free  Trade  Hall  to  support  the  Provisional  Committee  in  their  second 
application  to  Parliament.  Long  before  the  doors  opened  many  hundreds  were 
waiting  for  admission,  and  it  is  supposed  that  nearly  2,000  people  were  turned  away. 
Messrs.  Jacob  Bright  and  John  Slagg,  M.P.'s  for  Manchester,  were  there,  as  were 
also  a  large  number  of  leading  citizens  and  representatives  from  Limited  Liability 
Companies  and  Trades  Union  Societies.  Several  speakers,  fresh  from  their  recent 
visit  to  the  Tyne  and  the  Tees,  recounted  the  wonderful  results  of  energy  and 
perseverance  in  opening  out  what  used  to  be  impassable  rivers,  and  in  making  them 
navigable  for  large  ships.  Mr.  Adamson  made  an  appeal  to  Lancashire  to  come 
to  the  rescue,  saying  he  believed  that  county  possessed  as  much  foresight,  backbone, 
pluck  and  endurance  as  the  men  of  the  North,  who  had  been  successful  in  bringing 
a  vast  volume  of  trade  into  their  district.  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  urged  his  hearers  to 
reject  the  idea  of  a  barge  canal  with  which  Liverpool  wanted  Manchester  to  be 
satisfied.  He  gave  facts  connected  with  the  industries  of  Sheffield  and  Warrington 
to  show  how  the  trade  of  inland  towns  was  crippled  by  heavy  charges,  which  all 
acted  as  a  premium  to  our  German  competitors,  and  he  hoped  a  Ship  Canal  (the 
dream  of  our  forefathers)  would  be  secured.  Mr.  Bright  then  alluded  to  the 
hostile  attitude  taken  up  by  the  Manchester  Press.  "  I  don't  believe  that  our  great 
Manchester  morning  newspapers,  which  have  not  yet  been  very  friendly  on  this  sub- 
ject (Hisses  and  Hear,  hear),  would  deny  that  it  has  to  be  a  waterway  or  nothing. 
Some  of  our  friends  are  afraid  of  a  canal  that  shall  bring  ocean-going  ships ;  the  pro- 
position is  too  bold  for  them,  and  they  ask  us  to  consider  something  else."  He 
concluded  a  most  telling  speech,  which  had  roused  the  audience  to  a  high  state  of 
enthusiasm,  with.  "  I  believe  in  your  success  just  as  Mr.  Adamson  believes  in  it, 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  137 

because  I  believe  in  the  enterprise  of  Manchester  men.  We  cannot  succeed  without 
a  great  effort.  Parliament  must  not  have  the  notion  that  we  are  lukewarm.  Let 
Lancashire  men,  and  especially  the  people  of  Manchester,  Salford,  and  the  neigh- 
bouring towns,  do  their  duty,  and  this  great  enterprise  will  be  carried  to  a  successful 
conclusion"  (Loud  cheers).  Alderman  Thompson,  the  Mayor  of  Salford,  Dr. 
Mackie,  of  Warrington,  Alderman  Bailey  and  others  spoke,  and  the  meeting 
(a  most  enthusiastic  one)  broke  up  with  the  firm  resolve  to  pass  the  Bill. 

Mr.  Houldsworth,  M.P.,  wrote  regretting  that  he  could  not  be  present  at  the 
meeting,  but  said  that  he  should  support  a  Bill  if  it  was  applied  for.  "  Of  course  I 
reserve  to  myself  the  right  to  consider  from  time  to  time  any  facts  which  may  be 
brought  forward  against  it." 

By  the  end  of  November  the  Ship  Canal  Company  issued  the  statutory  notice 
necessary  for  an  application  to  Parliament,  and  the  Bill  was  deposited  in  due  course. 

On  26th  November  a  public  meeting  was  held  in  the  Town  Hall,  Salford. 
Resolutions  in  favour  of  the  canal  were  carried  unanimously  Mr.  Armitage,  M.P., 
and  Mr.  Arnold,  M.P.,  both  spoke,  and  the  former  not  only  gave  his  adhesion  to 
the  cause,  but  promised  a  subscription  towards  the  Parliamentary  Fund. 

Mr.  Adamson  had  great  faith  in  the  judgment  and  ability  of  M.  Lesseps,  and 
more  than  once  he  had  said  in  a  jocular  way  that  if  Manchester  would  not  make 
a  canal  he  should  have  to  fetch  M.  Lesseps.  It  so  happened  the  latter  was  in 
England,  so  an  invitation  was  sent  to  him  to  inspect  the  plans  and  works,  and  attend 
a  meeting  in  the  Free  Trade  Hall.  This  he  did  on  iQth  November.  Mr.  Adamson, 
the  Chairman,  reminded  the  meeting  that  fourteen  years  ago  that  very  day  the  Suez 
Canal  was  opened,  that  it  brought  with  it  peace,  happiness  and  prosperity,  and  that, 
though  the  cry  was  raised  it  would  never  pay,  figures  proved  the  contrary : — 

Ships.        Tonnage.         Revenue. 

1870  .  486  435.9"         £206,000 

1882  3,198        7,122,125         2,421,824 

He  concluded  by  presenting  a  congratulatory  address.  Mr.  Jacob  Bright 
made  an  appropriate  speech,  and  said  that  nine  years  after  the  canal  was  begun 
the  great  engineer,  M.  Lesseps,  had  the  satisfaction  of  steaming  through. 

In  responding,  M.  Lesseps  said  he  had  not,  from  lack  of  time,  been  able  to 
study  the  Ship  Canal,  but  he  should  do  so  on  his  return  with  the  greatest  interest. 
M.  Chas.  Lesseps  accompanied  his  father. 

About  this  time  Mr.  Harcourt  Thompson,  C.E.,  tried  to  propound  a  scheme 


138         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

by  writing  to  the  papers  and  getting  the  assistance  of  the  Manchester  Weekly  Post. 
He  proposed  to  make  a  canal  800  feet  wide,  in  the  present  course  of  the  river,  place 
locks  at  Warrington  and  pump  up  salt  water  from  thence  to  supply  the  higher 
portion.  At  some  of  his  meetings  he  said  he  had  shown  his  plan  to  Mr.  Lyster, 
engineer  of  the  Dock  Board,  who  approved  of  it.  This  was  not  felt  to  be  a 
sufficient  recommendation,  and  the  scheme  eventually  died  a  natural  death. 

Unfortunately,  after  the  rejection  of  the  Bill,  difficulties  arose  amongst  the 
Provisional  Committee.  When  the  question  of  a  renewed  application  to  Parliament 
came  before  them,  there  were  some  of  the  older  members  who  had  a  strong  feeling 
that  there  ought  to  be  a  reorganisation  of  the  staff,  a  reduction  in  expenditure, 
and  a  line  of  policy  adopted  that  would  make  friends,  and  draw  rather  than  repel 
many  of  the  influential  people  of  the  district  whose  help  would  be  essential  when 
capital  had  to  be  raised.  They  felt  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  husband  their 
resources,  and  to  be  very  careful  not  to  alienate  by  hard  words  those  who  could 
not  see  eye  to  eye  at  once  with  the  promoters. 

This  change  in  policy  did  not  commend  itself  to  the  Chairman  or  Organising 
Secretary,  who  preferred  the  bolder  policy  of  carrying  the  war  into  the  opponents' 
camp,  and  taking  the  consequences,  trusting  to  the  public  for  support.  My  own  case 
was  a  typical  one.  In  1883  I  was  a  Director  named  in  the  Bill,  and  signed,  with 
others,  a  joint  guarantee  for  ,£229,905  on  its  deposit,  but  when  asked  again  to  take 
the  same  position  in  1884,  I  demurred  unless  I  could  be  assured  of  a  change  in  policy. 
This  the  Chairman  resented,  and  he  wrote  me  a  characteristic  letter,  and  afterwards 
met  me  on  the  Exchange,  which  we  paced  for  nearly  an  hour  talking  matters  over. 
He  wanted  me  to  resume  my  place  on  the  Directorate  unconditionally,  which  I 
declined  to  do.  I  assured  him  of  my  unabated  faith  in  the  canal,  and  of  my 
intention  and  willingness  to  work  for  it  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  but  said  that 
though  ready  to  assist  in  pulling  the  coach  out  of  a  rut,  or  pushing  it  up  a  hill,  I 
would  not  take  a  seat  in  it  unless  I  felt  fully  assured  it  was  going  to  be  carefully 
driven.  We  parted  good  friends,  and  Mr.  Adamson  invited  me  to  dine  with  him 
a  few  days  later.  When  the  company  was  formed  Mr.  Adamson  himself  asked 
me  to  become  shareholders'  auditor.  I  was  named,  however,  in  the  subsequent 
Bill  simply  as  a  promoter.  Other  gentlemen  shared  my  views  and  declined  the 
directorate. 

On  the  1 5th  December  all  arrangements  were  completed  for  depositing  the 
Bill  which  provided  for  a  capital  of  .£8,000,000  in  800,000  shares  of  ,£10  each,  and 


1883]  STRUGGLE  ON  STANDING  ORDERS  139 

gave  the  company  power  to  borrow  .£2,000,000.  The  Provisional  Directors  were 
Messrs.  D.  Adamson,  Jacob  Bright,  M.P.,  Henry  Boddington,  Wm.  Fletcher, 
C.  P.  Henderson,  Junr.,  Rd.  Husband,  Joseph  Leigh,  S.  R.  Platt,  John  Rylands, 
Marshall  Stevens,  John  Walthew  and  James  E.  Platt. 

The  feeling  in  Liverpool  was  one  of  contempt  for  the  Ship  Canal.  Mr.  Alder- 
man Samuelson  in  the  Council  Chamber  said  :— 

Liverpool  could  always  hold  its  own  against  Manchester,  and  because  there  happened 
to  be  a  dozen  idiots  in  this  world  in  regard  to  a  Ship  Canal,  there  was  no  reason  why 
the  Liverpool  Corporation  should  constitute  itself  the  thirteenth.  The  whole  thing  was  a 
bubble,  and  would,  he  believed,  burst  before  another  twelve  months  passed  over  their  heads. 

Correspondents  in  the  Liverpool  papers  also  advocated  retaliation,  and  said  : — 

Let  us  be  a  manufacturing  town.  Why  should  not  cotton  mills  be  built  near  Liver- 
pool. 

In  Birkenhead  some  of  the  Councillors  were  favourable  to  the  canal,  and  Mr. 
H.  K.  Aspinall,  Chairman  of  the  Woodside  Ferry,  gave  it  his  blessing. 

During  the  Lords'  Parliamentary  inquiry,  Mr.  Rodwell,  Q.C.,  asked  if  Mr. 
Hugh  Mason,  M.P.,  did  not  represent  Manchester  on  the  Dock  Board?  Through 
his  answer  Mr.  Adamson  got  in  conflict  with  that  gentleman.  Mr.  Adamson  un- 
fortunately stated  that  Mr.  Mason  was  an  investor  in  the  Dock  Board  Trust,  and 
a  Director  in  several  railway  companies.  This  gave  Mr.  Mason  the  opportunity 
of  denial,  and  of  saying  that  he  had  refused  to  back  the  Ship  Canal,  or  give  it 
encouragement,  because  he  thought  it  would  be  a  ruinous  failure.  Whilst  Mr. 
Mason  did  not  hesitate  to  condemn  the  canal,  many  of  the  other  Lancashire  members 
were  apathetic.  At  a  meeting  in  Ardwick  an  elector  asked  Mr.  Houldsworth, 
M.P.,  "Whether  he  would  assist  (in  Parliament)  the  promoters  of  the  Ship  Canal 
to  obtain  for  the  scheme  the  sanction  of  the  legislature  ?  "  This  was  to  the  point, 
and  Mr.  Houldsworth  tried  a  diplomatic  answer :  "  I  think  I  am  a  disinterested 
witness,  because  I  have  not  taken  any  active  part  in  the  promotion  of  this  scheme. 
It  is  a  business  scheme,  and,  as  you  are  aware,  I  have  a  great  deal  of  business  of. 
my  own,  and  I  do  not,  as  a  rule,  mix  myself  up  with  any  scheme  that  does  not 
come  into  connection,  more  or  less,  with  my  own  business,  if  I  can  possibly  help 
it,"  etc.  But  his  cruel  heckler  was  not  to  be  shaken  off.  "  I  should  like  a  more 
definite  answer.  I  am  a  Conservative,  and  I  wish  to  know  whether  Mr.  Houlds- 
worth is  prepared  personally  to  support  the  Bill."  There  was  no  escape,  so  Mr. 


1 40        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

Houldsworth  boldly  faced  the  matter,  and  said,  "Yes,  I  am".      Henceforth  he  was 
committed  to  the  canal  scheme. 

During  1883  many  helpful  contributions  were  made  to  Ship  Canal  literature. 
Amongst  them  the  following  series  of  articles  :— 

Our  Masters  of  the  Mersey,  by  "  Verax  "  (Henry  Dunckley). 

The  Liverpool  Toll  Bar,  by  Frank  Rollins. 

Past,  Present  and  Future  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,  by  the  Manchester  Guardian. 

The  last  step  of  the  year  was  taken  by  Mr.  Adamson,  who,  on  2 8th  December, 
wrote  to  the  Corporations  of  Manchester,  Salford,  Warrington  and  other  surrounding 
boroughs,  asking  them  to  contribute  one  penny  in  the  pound  on  their  ratable  value, 
in  order  to  strengthen  the  subscription  list,  and  to  show  the  world  the  reality  of 
the  support  accorded  by  Corporations  and  the  public  generally. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS— SPEECH  OF  MR.  PEM- 
BER  AND  OTHER  COUNSEL  — SUMMARY  OF  EVIDENCE 
BY  THE  SHIP  CANAL  COMPANY— BY  THE  OPPONENTS- 
DECISION  OF  THE  COMMITTEE— CLAUSES. 

The  obstacles  to  the  improvement  of  the  Irwell  between  Warrington  and  Manchester 
are  so  slight  as  to  excite  a  smile  in  the  engineer  of  the  present  time. — BAINES'  History  of 
Lancashire  and  Cheshire. 

THE  Ship  Canal  Bill  having  at  last  passed  the  Standing  Orders,  came  before 
a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  ist  May,  1883,  consisting 
of  Sir  Joseph  Bailey,  Mr.  A.  P.  W.  Vivian,  Mr.  Reginald  Yorke  and  Mr. 
Stafford  Howard,  the  first-named  being  selected  as  Chairman,  and  certainly  a  gentle- 
man better  fitted  for  the  position  could  not  have  been  chosen.  Many  of  the  most 
eminent  barristers  having  been  retained  by  the  railway  companies,  it  became 
difficult  for  the  promoters  to  obtain  counsel  equal  to  the  occasion,  but  eventually 
they  selected  Messrs.  Pember,  Michael,  Balfour  Browne,  Pembroke  Stephens  and 
C.  A.  Cripps.  Arrayed  against  them  were  Messrs.  Pope,  Littler,  Aspinall, 
Bidder,  Saunders,  Ledgard,  Sutton,  Moore,  Mclntyre,  Noble,  etc.,  representing 
the  Railways,  Liverpool,  the  Dock  Board,  and  numerous  other  bodies.  In  all 
there  were  twenty-seven  petitioners.  Manchester  entered  a  friendly  opposition  to 
the  Bill  and  was  represented  by  Mr.  Addison,  Q.C. 

Mr.  Pember,  Q.C.,  in  an  able  speech  opened  the  promoters'  case.  He  stated 
the  proposed  capital  to  be  ,£7,500,000,  ,£6,000,000  of  which  was  to  be  subscribed 
capital,  for  the  rest  he  asked  borrowing  powers.  The  estimate  for  works  was 
-£5-633, 95 1.  It  was  proposed  to  buy  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  navigation  from  the 
Bridgewater  Trustees,  and  to  make  the  Irwell  navigable  to  Hunts  Bank.  The 
worst  railway  gradient  would  be  i  in  1 14,  and  he  pointed  out  there  was  already  one 

(HO 


142        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

of  i  in  85  not  far  away.  He  showed  the  serious  disadvantages  that  trade  endured 
at  Manchester  in  consequence  of  hostile  tariffs  and  costly  transit,  and  that  railways, 
having  in  one  way  or  another  got  hold  of  many  of  the  principal  canals,  had  formed 
a  Carriers'  Trade  Union.  To  meet  this,  competition  by  sea,  that  could  neither  be 
crushed  out  nor  bought  off,  was  the  only  remedy.  Then  he  quoted  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Richard  Moon  (Chairman  of  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway),  viz.: 
"  That  the  sea  and  canals  had  done  more  to  bring  down  railway  rates  than  any  com- 
petition among  the  companies  themselves  ".  Again  by  their  population  and  ratable 
value  Mr.  Pember  showed  the  importance  of  Manchester  and  the  surrounding  towns, 
and  gave  the  amount  of  their  imports  and  exports,  dwelling  on  the  heavy  cost  of 
the  carriage  of  cotton  (raw  and  manufactured),  and  showing  by  a  table  of  distances 
the  saving  that  would  be  effected  if  Manchester  became  a  distributing  centre. 
Liverpool  must  be  a  dear  port  because  she  suffered  from  improvident  finance  in 
the  past,  and  because  she  had  spent  .£6,000,000  in  useless  docks  at  Birkenhead. 
Why  should  Manchester  pay  for  this  ?  He  went  on  to  quote  Mr.  Findlay, 
manager  of  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway  :— 

I  think  that  all  has  not  been  done  that  might,  or  ought  to  have  been  done  at  Liverpool 
for  the  economical  and  proper  accommodation  of  the  traffic.  .  .  .  There  are  no  cranes  or 
appliances,  except  what  the  ships  possess.  If  Liverpool  had  done  what  has  been  done  in 
London,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  cost  with  which  business  could  be  carried  on  in  the  port  of 
Liverpool  would  be  very  materially  reduced,  whilst  the  facilities  would  be  enormously 
increased. 

That  the  Liverpool  dock  accommodation  was  entirely  inadequate,  and  that  the 
port  charges  were  extravagant  was  proved  by  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Findlay  before 
a  Select  Committee  in  1881-82,  when  he  said  that  the  charges  on  a  ton  of  cotton 
landed  at  any  of  the  following  ports — from  ship  to  truck — were  respectively, 
Grimsby  35.  2d.,  Garston  2s.  3d.,  Fleetwood  2s.  7d.,  Barrow  2s.  gd.,  Hull  33.  8d., 
London  6s.  id.,  Liverpool  8s.  i^d.  After  giving  other  statistics,  Mr.  Pember 
went  on  to  argue  that  the  traders  of  Lancashire  could  no  longer  bear  the  expense 
of  Liverpool  as  a  port,  and  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  promoters  to  create 
a  cheap  port  at  Manchester.  Nor  could  they  submit  to  the  excessive  and  unfair 
railway  rates.  As  an  instance,  iron  sent  by  rail  from  Runcorn  to  Manchester 
(23  miles)  was  charged  6s.  3d.,  whilst  from  Middlesborough  to  Manchester  (109 
miles)  it  cost  8s.  4d.  per  ton.  Again,  from  Liverpool  to  Oldham  the  charge  for 
cotton  was  2  '93d.  per  ton  per  mile,  and  from  Liverpool  to  Bolton  4d.  per  ton  per 


E.  H.  I'EMHER,  K.C.,  LEADING  COUNSEL,  MANCHESTER  Sini'  C\\  \i .. 

Alter  portrait  by  Holl.  Tofiu,  /><i/x  i  |.». 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  143 

mile,  whilst  in  France,  from  Havre  to  Rouen,  the  freight  was  ri8d.  per  ton  per 
mile.  He  contended  that  it  was  necessary  to  reduce  the  carriage  of  produce  to 
Manchester  50  per  cent.,  and  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  railways  to  do  this,  but 
that  it  might  be  done  by  water  carriage,  especially  as  regarded  heavy  traffic.  Sir 
Edward  Watkin  (now  an  opponent)  in  a  speech  in  1883  said  :— 

It  is  absurd  to  suppose  you  can  have  any  effective  competition  by  water  throughout  the 
country  unless  you  take  the  thing  boldly  in  hand,  and  improve  the  whole  navigation  of  the 
country.  I  do  not  think  it  will  do  the  railway  property  permanently  any  injury  at  all. 

Again  :— 

The  way  we  looked  at  this  scheme  (speaking  of  the  Ship  Canal)  was  this,  that  the 
people  of  this  great  hive  of  industry  (Manchester)  have  a  right  to  carry  it  out  with  their  own 
money,  if  they  can.  I  repeat  that  I  think  a  greatly  improved  waterway  between  Man- 
chester and  Liverpool  is  bound  to  be  made,  and  that  it  would  be  a  great  blessing  to 
Manchester  and  no  damage  to  Liverpool. 

As  regarded  vessels  coming  up  to  Manchester,  the  figures  proved  that  95  per  cent, 
of  the  vessels  afloat  did  not  exceed  3,000  tons,  and  so  could  come  up  to  Man- 
chester. The  tonnage  he  estimated  at  2,000,000  tons  per  annum. 

After  Mr.  Pember's  opening  address,  the  Chairman  said  it  was  useless  going 
further  into  commercial  or  financial  considerations  till  the  Committee  had  been  con- 
vinced that  a  connection  between  Manchester  and  the  sea  was  possible. 

Mr.  Pember  thereupon  dealt  with  the  various  hostile  petitions.  The  ground 
of  the  Bridgewater  and  Mersey  and  Imvell  Navigation  Company's  petition  was 
that  shifting  sands  in  the  estuary  would  render  it  impossible  to  keep  a  reliable 
channel. 

Of  the  Mersey  Dock  Board — That  they  had  spent  ,£1,500,000  on  the  Birken- 
head  estate  and  ,£16,500,000  at  Liverpool.  That  they  objected  to  the  people  of 
Manchester,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Corporation,  making  the  canal.  That  they 
claimed  the  normal  scour  of  the  tide  in  the  estuary,  and  opposed  any  interference. 
That  in  consequence  of  Runcorn  Bridge,  ships  could  not  get  up  the  canal ;  also 
that  both  the  estimates  and  capital  were  insufficient. 

Of  the  Trustees  of  the  River  Weaver — That  there  would  be  an  interference 
with  their  claim  to  light  and  buoy  the  river. 

Of  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool—  That  the  Bill  would  depreciate  the  value  of 
their  docks,  etc.,  and  interfere  with  the  welfare  of  Liverpool,  which  was  dependent 
on  its  commerce,  and  so  affect  the  security  of  the  rates  on  which  they  had  borrowed 


144         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

money.  That  the  estuary  was  in  the  shape  of  a  bottle,  and  to  reduce  the  area  of 
the  bulb  would  reduce  the  scour  at  the  bar.  That  the  scheme  was  truncated  and 
undefined,  and  the  plans  incomplete.  That  the  financial  position  of  the  promoters 
was  weak.  That  a  Ship  Canal  could  not  compete  with  the  existing  railways  and 
canals.  Lastly,  that  the  course  of  the  Vyrnwy  pipe  would  be  obstructed. 

Of  the  Corporation  of  Birkenhead — That  trade  would  be  abstracted  from 
their  docks  and  the  town  ruined.  That  the  Ferry  would  be  interfered  with.  That 
new  sand  banks  would  be  formed,  and  that  the  free  course  of  sewage  to  the  sea 
would  be  prevented. 

Of  the  Owners  of  Land  at  Warrington — That  their  business  rights  would 
be  injuriously  affected.  That  there  would  be  an  interference  with  a  waterway 
hitherto  free,  by  blocking  up  or  diminishing  the  tidal  flow.  That  the  river  would 
silt  up.  That  they  objected  to  dredging  between  Runcorn  and  the  junction  of  the 
Mersey  and  Irwell.  Also  to  raising  the  water  in  the  canal  above  the  normal  level 
of  the  river. 

Of  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford — That  his  ancestors  had  resided  on  the 
Trafford  estate  for  centuries.  That  the  canal  would  alter  the  natural  boundary  of 
his  park,  and  bring  polluted  water  close  to  his  residence.  Also  damage  his  Barton 
entrance  and  interfere  with  his  drainage. 

Of  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway  Company — That  their  gradients 
would  be  seriously  affected  in  going  under  or  over  the  river.  That  damage  might 
accrue  to  Runcorn  Bridge,  and  that  in  consequence  of  traffic  and  circumstances 
having  changed,  the  promoters  had  no  right  to  avail  themselves  of  existing  clauses 
obliging  railways  to  make  swing  bridges  for  a  waterway. 

Of  the  Cheshire  Lines  and  Midland  Company — That  swing  bridges  ought  not 
to  be  permitted.  That  injury  would  be  done  to  the  working  of  traffic,  especially  in 
marshalling  trains,  and  that  the  scheme  could  not  be  a  success  or  commercially 
of  advantage  to  the  public. 

Of  Mr.  Hargreaves,  the  Owner  of  Mill  Bank  Hall  and  the  adjoining  Paper 
Mills — That  the  canal  would  destroy  the  amenities  and  privacy  of  his  house,  cause 
smoke,  dirt  and  steam,  disturb  his  rookery,  and  possibly  cause  the  subsidence  of 
his  buildings.  Also  put  an  end  to  his  ferry. 

Mr.  Pember  then  read  a  letter  from  Sir  Richard  Wyatt,  Parliamentary  agent 
for  the  Mersey  Conservancy  Commissioners,  saying  that  body  would  raise  no  objec- 
tion to  deepening  the  low- water  channel  provided  they  could  be  satisfied  the  works 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  145 

were  practicable,  could  be  carried  out  without  injury  to  the  navigation  or  the  dock 
approaches,  and  would  not  cause  a  silting  up  of  the  channel. 

Mr.  Pember  then  called  the  following  sixty-seven  witnesses  :— 

Engineers — 

Mr.  Edward  Leader  Williams,  Manchester ;  Mr.  Messent,  Tyne  Trust ;  Mr.  Fowler, 
Tees  Trust ;  Mr.  Deas,  Clyde  Trust ;  Mr.  Abernethy,  C.E.,  London ;  Mr.  J.  F.  Bateman, 
London  and  Manchester;  Mr.  Daniel  Adamson,  Hyde;  Mr.  R.  Price  Williams,  London; 
Mr.  James  Brunlees,  London ;  Mr.  Alfred  Giles,  Southampton ;  Mr.  Fred  E.  Button, 
London. 
Shipowners  and  Builders — 

Marshall  Stevens,  Garston  ;  William  Symons,  Renfrew  ;  Alexander  Adamson,  Glasgow  ; 
William  McMillan,  Glasgow ;  Thomas  B.  Seath,  Glasgow ;  Alexander  Neal,  Glasgow  and 
Manchester;  Frederick  Edwards,  Cardiff;  Peter  Hutchinson,  Glasgow ;  Henry  H.  Briggs, 
Hull. 
Spinners,  Manufacturers  and  Merchants — 

Reuben  Spencer,  Manchester ;  C.  T.  Bradbury,  Ashton-under-Lyne ;  Samuel  Andrew, 
Oldham ;    Edward    Walmsley,   Stockport ;    Joseph   Leigh,   Stockport ;    G.    B.    Dewhurst, 
Lymm  ;    Sam.    Mendel,    Manchester ;    Thomas   Wilson   (Wilson,   Latham    &   Co.),    Man- 
chester ;  Gustav  Behrens,  Manchester ;  J.  C.  Fielden,  Manchester. 
Afachinists  and  Metal  Merchants — 

George  Little,  Oldham ;  Henry  McNeil,  Manchester ;  R.  B.  Goldsworthy,  Manchester. 
Provision  Trade — 

Matthew  Hudson,  Manchester;  J.  T.  W.  Mitchell  (Co-operative  Wholesale  Society), 
Manchester. 
Oil  Trade— 

Patrick  Moir  Crane,  Manchester. 
Coal  Trade — 

Arnold  Lupton,  Leeds ;  Walter  Rowley,  Yorkshire  ;  Joseph  Mitchell,  Barnsley ;  Horace 
Mayhew,  Wigan. 
Timber — 

Rich.  Lovett  Stone,  Hull. 
Corn  and  Flour — 

Frederick  Moss,  Salford. 
Woollen  Trade — 

Louis  J.  Crossley,  Halifax  ;  T.  Smith  Scarborough,  Halifax. 
Carriers — 

Alfred  Hughes  (W.  Faulkner  &  Co.),  Manchester ;  Bold  Aldred,  Manchester ;  William 
Clarke,  Lock  Keeper,  Mill  Bank. 
Chemists  and  Scientists — 

J.  Carter  Bell,  Cheshire;  Dr.  C.  A.  Burghardt,  Manchester;  Dr.  John  Tatham,  Man- 
chester. 

VOL.  I.  10  • 


146        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

Nautical  Men — 

Captain  Andrew  Pearson,  Liverpool ;  Commander  Kingscote,  Royal  Navy. 
Land  Agents  and  Valuers — 

John  Dutton,  Lymm ;    Hugh  Cameron,   Lymm ;  A.   M.  Dunlop,  Manchester  ;  J.   S. 
Paterson,  Manchester;  William  Raby,  Manchester. 
Corporation  Representatives — 

John  Hopkinson,  Mayor  of  Manchester ;  Richard  Husband,  Mayor  of  Salford  ;  Samuel 
Warhurst,  Mayor  of  Stalybridge ;  Thomas  Isherwood,  Mayor  of  Heywood  ;  John  Duck- 
worth, Mayor  of  Bury;  Joseph  Davies,  ex-Mayor  of  Warrington;  F.  H.  Walmsley,  ex- 
Mayor  of  Salford  ;  Henry  Whiley,  Health  Department,  Manchester. 
Members  of  Parliament — 

Jacob  Bright,  Manchester ;  John  Slagg,  Manchester ;  Benjamin  Armitage,  Salford. 

The  Committee  desired  first  to  hear  engineering  evidence  to  satisfy  them  that 
the  work  could  be  carried  out,  and  the  engineer  of  the  Ship  Canal  Company,  Mr. 
Leader  Williams,  was  the  first  witness.  He  explained  the  state  of  the  Mersey  in 
the  past,  the  various  Acts  passed  for  the  management  of  the  river,  and  how  seriously 
the  trade  of  Liverpool  was  affected  by  the  varying  of  channels  in  the  upper  reaches, 
also  by  the  bar  that  had  formed  at  the  mouth  of  the  Mersey.  His  proposition  was 
to  train  a  channel  by  half-tide  retaining  walls  between  Runcorn  and  Garston,  of  a 
width  of  300  feet  at  the  former  and  increasing  to  600  feet  at  the  latter.  The 
navigation  depth  to  be  24  feet  at  neap  and  31  feet  at  spring  tides,  the  depth  at 
low- water  neap  tides  1 2  feet.  The  work  was  to.  be  of  a  similar  character  to  that 
which  had  been  successfully  carried  out  on  the  Tyne  and  the  Tees.  He  estimated 
there  would  be  16,000,000  cubic  yards  of  dredging  at  a  cost  of  gd.  per  yard 
=  ^600,000,  and  that  he  would  use  over  one  million  cubic  yards  of  rock  in  his 
retaining  walls.  He  stated  that  under  the  Conservancy  Act  of  1842  there  were 
powers  to  improve  the  estuary,  and  he  intended  to  use  those  powers  and  in 
addition  those  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  Act  for  the  improvement 
of  the  river. 

The  witness  was  cross-examined  by  the  opponents  who  urged  that  because  of 
shifting  sands  it  would  be  impossible  to  preserve  a  channel,  and  that  outside  the 
retaining  walls  the  river  would  silt  up  and  lessen  the  area  of  water  that  was  neces- 
sary to  keep  down  the  silt  on  the  Pluckington  Bank.  For  the  London  and  North- 
Western  Railway  Company  it  was  claimed  that  the  piers  of  the  Runcorn  Bridge 
would  be  endangered,  and  for  the  Shropshire  Union  that  the  entrance  to  Ellesmere 
Port  would  be  silted  up.  Birkenhead  was  frightened  of  Pluckington  Bank  in- 


Siu  E.  LKADKR  WILLIAMS,  ENC.IXKK.K  DURIXC,  CONSTRUCTION  OK  TIIK 
MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL,  SINCK  CONSULTING  ENGINKER. 

Higginson  Bowdon.  To  face  page  146. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  147 

creasing  and  impeding  the  Ferry ;  the  Cheshire  Lines  Company  seemed  to  dread 
the  scheme  being  hung  up  half-way  in  case  of  financial  failure.  Mr.  Leader 
Williams  suggested  that  in  the  latter  case  it  would  become  a  public  trust. 

At  this  point  Mr.  Aspinall,  Q.C.,  for  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool,  put  in  a 
letter,  dated  I4th  March,  1883,  from  Mr.  Adamson  to  the  Commissioners  for  the 
Conservancy  of  the  river  Mersey,  which  made  clear  the  position  of  the  various 
governing  bodies  on  the  Mersey. 

To  THE  COMMISSIONERS  FOR  THE  CONSERVANCY  OF  THE  RIVER  MERSEY. 

MY  LORDS  AND  GENTLEMEN, 

The  promoters  of  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  consist  of  no  less  than  3,828  firms  of  mer- 
chants and  other  persons  who  have  subscribed  over  £90,000  towards  the  expenses  of  obtaining 
an  Act,  and  they  venture  to  hope  that  now  the  long-looked  for  Manchester  Ship  Canal  is 
before  Parliament  they  will  have  the  support  of  the  Conservancy  Commissioners.  The  neces- 
sity for  the  appointment  of  a  Commission  for  the  conservancy  of  the  river  Mersey  appears  to 
have  been  under  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Huskisson  in  the  years  1828  and  1829,  and  strong 
efforts  were  made  by  him  to  secure  the  appointment,  but  considerable  delay  took  place,  and 
the  Commissioners  were  not  appointed  until  the  year  1842.  In  the  meantime  the  officers  of 
the  Board  of  Trade  had  reported  upon  the  matter,  and  their  report  was  presented  to  the 
House  of  Commons  on  the  4th  August,  1840.  The  report  contains  the  following  statement, 
namely : — 

"  It  is  not  for  Liverpool  alone  that  a  conservancy  is  wanting,  nor  for  the  navigation 
companies  connected  with  the  Mersey.  It  is  of  equal  importance  to  Manchester  and  all 
the  other  manufacturing  towns  in  Lancashire,  Cheshire,  Yorkshire  and  Staffordshire,  and 
to  the  general  commercial  shipping  interests  of  the  kingdom.  If  the  measure  is  properly 
carried  into  effect,  it  will  be  beneficial  to  the  interests  of  the  community  at  large." 

Parliament  accordingly  constituted  a  Conservancy  Commission,  which  represents  not 
only  the  interests  of  Liverpool  and  the  navigation  companies,  but  also  the  interest  of  all 
parties  concerned  in  the  navigation  of  the  Mersey  and  the  trade  of  the  district  generally. 

Further,  by  the  "Upper  Mersey  Dues  Act,  1860,"  Parliament  enabled  a  body  of 
trustees,  including  representatives  of  Manchester  and  Warrington,  to  purchase  the  town  dues 
formerly  levied  by  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool,  and  subsequently  by  the  Mersey  Dock  and 
Harbour  Board,  on  all  goods  carried  to  or  from  any  part  of  the  Mersey  above  Garston,  and 
these  dues  are  now  extinguished  in  the  Upper  Mersey. 

Parliament  has  also  granted  powers  by  an  Act  passed  in  1876  to  a  body  of  Com- 
missioners (known  as  the  Upper  Mersey  Commissioners)  which  include  representatives 
elected  by  Manchester,  Salford  and  Warrington  to  buoy  and  light  the  Upper  Mersey  and 
collect  dues  to  defray  the  cost  thereof.  Further,  these  Commissioners  had  powers  given 
them  by  a  later  Act,  passed  in  the  year  1879,  t°  submit  to  the  Conservancy  Commissioners 
proposals  for  the  removal  of  defined  rocks,  the  object  being  as  stated  by  the  Acting  Con- 


148         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

servator,  Vice-Admiral  Spratt,  C.B.,  F.R.S.,  in  his  annual  report  for  the  year  1880,  to  make 
a  channel  through  a  rocky  barrier  across  the  river  Mersey,  with  a  view  to  utilise  the  part 
of  the  estuary  for  deep-draughted  ships,  by  obtaining  a  deeper  and  more  permanent  direc- 
tion of  the  channel ;  and  the  Act  provides  that  the  Upper  Mersey  Commissioners  shall 
proceed  on  the  same  conditions  as  the  promoters  proposed  in  the  26th  clause  of  the  Bill 
(being  the  clause  having  reference  to  the  proposed  low-water  channel  in  this  part  of  the 
Mersey),  namely,  with  the  consent  in  writing  of  the  Mersey  Commissioners,  and  in  accordance 
with  plans  and  sections  to  be  previously  submitted  to  and  approved  by  them. 

The  valuable  suggestions  of  the  acting  Conservator  in  his  annual  report  for  the  year 
1880,  as  to  the  character  of  the  improvements  necessary  to  allow  ships  of  larger  draught  to 
navigate  the  Upper  Mersey,  have  been  fully  considered  by  the  promoters,  and  they  are 
willing  to  adopt  the  recommendations  therein  contained. 

The  Bill  as  originally  deposited  in  the  Houses  of  Parliament  was  to  make  and 
maintain  a  low-water  channel  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Conservancy  Commissioners. 
The  Examiner  decided  that  a  plan  and  section  of  the  low-water  channel  should  have  been 
deposited,  but  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  unanimously 
allowed  the  Bill  to  proceed,  striking  out  the  portion  of  the  26th  clause  relating  to  the 
low-water  channel. 

The  promoters  having  originally  proposed  to  leave  themselves  in  the  hands  of  the 
Conservancy  Commissioners,  are  still  willing  and  anxious  to  proceed  with  their  Bill  as  now 
altered,  and  consider  their  position  practically  unchanged,  as  they  have  always  contended 
that  the  Conservancy  Commissioners  have  power  under  section  24  of  their  Act  to  authorise 
them  to  make  such  improvements  in  the  low-water  channel  of  the  river  as  will  enable 
vessels  of  deep  draught  to  reach  the  entrance  of  the  proposed  canal. 

The  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  from  Warrington  to  Manchester  is  now  almost 
disused,  having  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company,  a  majority 
of  whose  directors  are  directors  of  railway  companies,  which  own  lines  between  Liverpool 
and  Manchester,  and  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  which  is  in  the  same  hands,  is  the  only  other 
navigation  between  those  places.  The  result  is  there  is  no  competition  in  the  rates  of 
carriage,  which  are  considerably  in  excess  of  those  charged  by  the  same  railway  companies 
in  other  districts  under  the  same  circumstances  where  free  navigation  competes  with 
them. 

The  powers  of  the  proprietors  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  under  their  Acts  of 
7  Geo.  I.  c.  7  and  34  Geo.  III.  c.  37  extend  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester,  and  by  the  first- 
mentioned  Act  they  were  empowered  to  clear,  scour,  open,  enlarge  or  straighten  the  rivers 
Mersey  and  Irwell,  and  from  time  to  time,  and  at  all  times  thereafter,  to  do  all  other  matters 
or  things  necessary  or  convenient  for  making,  maintaining,  continuing  and  perfecting  the 
navigable  passage  of  the  rivers  Mersey  and  Irwell,  or  for  the  improvement  or  prosecution 
thereof,  and  by  section  30  of  the  Mersey  Conservancy  Act,  5  &  6  Viet.,  the  rights  of  the 
proprietors  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  are  expressly  reserved,  and  such  rights  have 
also  been  protected  in  all  subsequent  Acts  relating  to  the  rivers,  or  to  railways,  or  roads 
crossing  the  rivers  and  are  still  in  force. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  149 

The  law  officers  of  the  Crown  reported  on  these  rights,  roth  November,  1829,  as 
follows : — 

"  We  have  seen  the  resolutions  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  Company,  and  the 
letter  of  their  solicitor  Mr.  Eccles.  They  do  not  seem  to  us  to  oppose  the  grant  of  a  Com- 
mission of  Conservancy,  but  require  only  that  none  of  the  Parliamentary  powers  given  to 
them  by  their  Act  of  7  Geo.  I.  should  be  infringed.  We  are  of  opinion  that  no  Royal 
grant  can  impair  these  rights,  which  appear  to  us  not  to  obstruct  the  general  object  of  such 
Commission  but  to  forward  and  promote  it. 

"  The  promoters  by  their  Bill  seek  compulsory  powers  to  purchase  the  Mersey  and 
Irwell  Navigation  and  their  powers,  and  propose  to  convert  the  navigation  into  a  Ship  Canal 
between  Runcorn  and  Manchester,  and  no  fault  has  been  found  by  the  Examiners  as  to  the 
plans  for  this  portion  of  the  project. 

"  The  powers  of  the  proprietors  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  if  transferred  to 
the  promoters  of  the  Ship  Canal  would  enable  them  to  improve  the  present  low-water 
channel  of  the  River  Mersey  from  Runcorn  to  Garston,  subject  always  to  the  approval  of  the 
Conservancy  Commissioners. 

"  If  the  Bill  be  passed  into  a  law  without  the  portion  of  Clause  26,  before  referred  to,  the 
promoters  would  ask  the  Conservancy  Commissioners  to  authorise  them  to  straighten  and 
deepen  the  existing  low-water  channel  to  a  uniform  depth  of  not  less  than  12  feet,  which 
would  enable  vessels  after  crossing  the  bar  to  pass  up  to  the  entrance  of  the  canal  on  the 
flood  tide. 

"  The  present  low-water  channel  is  in  parts,  of  this,  and  even  a  greater  depth. 

"  The  promoters  are  willing  to  insert  clauses  in  the  Bill  to  enable  the  Conservancy 
Commissioners  to  call  in  professional  advisers  to  report  on  the  plans  to  be  submitted  to 
them  for  an  improved  channel  and  to  hold  public  inquiries,  and  the  promoters  will  agree  to 
defray  any  costs  incurred  by  the  Conservators." 

The  Bill  came  before  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  on  the 
pth  instant,  and  the  further  consideration  was  postponed  to  be  re-heard  before  a  larger  Com- 
mittee after  Easter. 

The  opponents  of  the  Bill  then  urged  that  the  effect  of  the  decision  of  the  Standing 
Orders  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  was  to  render  the  proposed  canal  useless,  as 
the  promoters  had  not  the  power  left  to  execute  the  works  in  the  tide-way  necessary  to 
afford  them  an  access  to  the  canal.  The  promoters,  however,  rely  upon  the  powers  of  the 
Conservancy  Commissioners  and  the  rights  they  will  acquire  by  the  purchase  of  the  Mersey 
and  Irwell  Navigation,  but  it  is  now  a  matter  of  importance  to  the  promoters  to  know  whether 
the  Conservancy  Commissioners  will  consider  favourably  the  proposal  for  an  improved  low- 
water  channel  such  as  is  now  suggested. 

That  the  project  is  desired  by  the  public  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  petitions  have  been 
presented  praying  for  the  dispensing  with  Standing  Orders  from  the  Association  of  Chambers 
of  Commerce,  38  Municipal  Corporations,  91  Local  Boards,  31  Chambers  of  Commerce  and 
108  Companies,  representing  upwards  of  ten  millions  of  capital,  and  by  numerous  landowners 
along  the  route  of  the  canal. 


150         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

The  promoters  have  already  incurred  great  expense  in  bringing  the  Bill  forward  to  its 
present  stage,  and  if  it  now  fails  to  ensure  a  hearing  upon  its  merits  it  will  greatly  retard  if 
not  altogether  prevent  another  effort  to  secure  an  improved  and  independent  waterway  into 
the  great  manufacturing  districts  of  Lancashire,  Yorkshire,  Cheshire  and  Staffordshire. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  promoters  trust  the  Conservancy  Commissioners  will 
be  pleased  to  give  this  letter  their  early  and  favourable  consideration  The  promoters  beg 
leave  to  enclose  the  statement  they  laid  before  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  which  shows  the  reasons  why  they  have  relied  on  the  control  and  powers  of 
the  Conservancy  Commissioners. 

I  am,  my  lords  and  gentlemen, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)        DANIEL  ADAMSON, 

Chairman  of  the  Provisional  Committee 
fanned  for  the  promotion  of  the  Bill. 

The  reply  already  alluded  to  from  Sir  R.  H.  Wyatt,  on  behalf  of  the  Mersey 
Commissioners,  was  afterwards  put  in  by  Mr.  Pember  on  behalf  of  the  promoters. 

28  PARLIAMENT  STREET, 
ist  May,  1883. 

MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL  BILL. 
SIR, 

I  am  directed  by  the  Commissioners  for  the  Conservancy  of  the  river  Mersey  to 
inform  you  that  they  have  received  and  considered  your  letter  of  the  I4th  March  in  which 
you  request,  on  behalf  of  the  promoters,  the  favourable  consideration  by  the  Commissioners 
of  the  above  scheme,  particularly  with  reference  to  the  proposed  deepening  of  the  low-water 
channel  of  the  Mersey. 

I  am  to  state  in  reply  that  as  at  present  advised  the  Commissioners  see  no  objection  in 
principle  to  the  proposed  deepening  of  the  low-water  channel,  provided  they  are  satisfied  after 
full  inquiry  that  the  works  are  practicable  and  can  be  carried  out  without  injury  to  the  navi- 
gation or  diminution  of  the  area  of  anchorage  and  mooring  grounds,  and  without  interfering 
with  the  approaches  to  the  docks  or  inducing  a  permanent  silting  up  of  that  part  of  the  channel. 

It  is  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commissioners  essential  for  the  protection  of  the  interests 
which  they  represent  that  provisions  be  inserted  in  the  Bill  to  secure  the  fulfilment  of  the 
above  conditions,  and  I  forward  herewith  a  copy  of  a  draft  clause  which  may  be  taken  as 
substantially  embodying  their  requirements. 

The  Commissioners,  however,  reserve  to  themselves  full  discretion  as  to  making  any 
further  objections  or  requisitions  which  may  occur  to  them  during  the  progress  of  the  Bill 
and  of  taking  all  necessary  steps  to  secure  the  adoption  of  their  suggestions  by  the  Committee 
to  which  the  Bill  is  referred. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  151 

As  there  are  no  funds  available  for  the  purpose,  I  am  requested  to  say  the  Commissioners 
must  ask  for  an  undertaking  that  the  promoters  of  the  Bill  will  pay  all  costs,  charges  and 
expenses  to  which  the  Commissioners  have  been  or  may  be  put  in  connection  with  this 

matter. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Yours  obediently, 
(Signed)         R.  H.  WYATT. 
DANIEL  ADAMSON,  ESQ. 

Resuming,  Mr.  Leader  Williams  showed  that  Birkenhead,  whilst  objecting  to 
any  reduction  of  tidal  area,  had  herself  abstracted  1,200  acres  from  the  Mersey 
estuary  when  she  made  her  docks. 

The  engineer's  evidence  was  corroborated  by  several  eminent  men  who  had 
done  similar  work.  Mr.  Messent,  engineer  to  the  Tyne  Trust,  said  that  whereas 
at  one  time  only  a  few  ships  over  500  tons  could  come  up  the  Tyne,  now  nearly 
5,000  ships  over  that  size  come  up  annually,  a  great  many  being  over  2,000  tons  ; 
that  his  dredging  had  only  cost  3  id.  to  6^d.  per  ton,  and  that  parallel  walls  would 
only  cause  silting  if  cross  walls  were  also  built. 

Mr.  Fowler,  of  the  Tees,  had  failed  with  a  narrow  channel  but  succeeded  with 
a  broad  one  enclosed  by  14  inch  high  half  retaining  walls.  The  Dee  had  silted 
up  because  the  retaining  walls  had  been  specially  designed  to  reclaim  land. 

Mr.  Deas,  of  Glasgow,  stated  that  in  1758  in  the  Clyde  there  was  i  foot  6 
inches  at  low  and  3  feet  8  inches  at  high  water.  Now  at  low  there  were  15  feet 
and  at  high  water  26  feet.  He  had  used  low  rubble  walls  and  groynes.  It  was 
the  cross  and  not  longitudinal  walls  that  caused  mischief.  His  dredging  cost  5id. 
per  cubic  yard. 

Mr.  Abernethy,  consulting  engineer,  considered  the  powers  of  the  Mersey 
Conservators  sufficient,  and  that  no  fresh  Parliamentary  powers  were  necessary  to 
build  training  walls.  He  estimated  the  cost  of  the  canal  at  ,£5,634,000.  If 
deepened  to  24  feet,  ,£291,000  more.  He  rejected  the  idea  that  a  Conservancy 
Board,  consisting  of  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  the  President  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  with  Admiral  Spratt  as  their 
adviser,  existed  simply  to  stop  training  walls  from  interfering  with  the  tide.  They 
had  power  to  sanction  improvements  to  the  navigation. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Bate  man,  C.E.,  gave  evidence  that  the  current  in  the  Mersey  was 
not  due  to  anything  done  above  Liverpool,  but  to  the  way  in  which  Liverpool  and 
Birkenhead  had  themselves  altered  the  river  by  training  walls  opposite  those  towns. 


152         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

After  hearing  counsel  on  both  sides,  the  Committee  retired  to  decide  on  the 
practicability  of  the  engineering  works,  and  whether  there  was  power  under  the 
Mersey  and  Irwell  Acts  to  carry  out  such  works  in  the  estuary.  On  their  return 
they  consented  to  the  Bill  proceeding  on  the  understanding  that  the  work  was 
divided  into  two  sections,  and  they  decided  to  restrain  progress  till  plans  had  been 
deposited  and  approved  of  by  the  Mersey  Commissioners,  showing  the  depth  to  be 
given  throughout  the  estuary,  also  till  the  necessary  certificates  had  been  given 
by  the  Board  of  Trade. 

Thereupon  the  commercial  witnesses  were  called,  the  first  being  Daniel 
Adamson,  J.P.,  Chairman  of  the  scheme.  He  stated  that  the  costs  of  carriage  to 
and  from  Manchester  were  excessive,  and  that  it  often  cost  more  to  send  goods 
from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  than  from  London  to  Bombay.  In  consequence 
some  three  years  previously,  when  attending  an  iron  and  steel  meeting,  he  con- 
sulted Mr.  James  Abernethy,  C.E.,  as  to  the  practicability  of  a  Ship  Canal.  As 
a  result  on  27th  June,  1882,  he  called  a  meeting  at  his  residence  of  leading 
citizens  and  engineers.  Afterwards  he  consulted  Mr.  Fulton,  C.E.,  and  Mr.  Leader 
Williams,  C.E.,  and  arranged  to  form  the  Manchester  Tidal  Navigation  Company. 
A  Committee  of  that  body,  on  the  26th  September  following,  decided  to  instruct 
those  engineers  to  make  a  joint  report.  Not  agreeing  as  to  the  plan  to  be  adopted, 
they  issued  separate  reports,  and  Mr.  Abernethy  was  called  upon  to  advise  which 
was  the  best  scheme,  and  he  gave  the  preference  to  Mr.  Leader  Williams'  Lock 
Canal. 

Prior  to  26th  September,  ;£  14,000  had  been  subscribed  for  preliminary  ex- 
penses, and  afterwards  a  further  sum  of  .£64,000  for  the  Parliamentary  Bill,  which 
was  applied  for  under  the  changed  name  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company. 
The  Bill  was  approved  of  at  a  town's  meeting,  when  6,000  people  were  present. 
Mr.  Adamson  went  on  to  say  there  were  1,561,000  people  within  a  radius  of 
10  miles  of  Manchester,  and  that  there  had  been  an  increase  of  21  per  cent,  in  the 
last  decade.  That  for  timber  and  grain,  taking  into  consideration  mileage,  the 
charge  for  railway  rates  was  50  per  cent,  more  than  in  some  other  districts.  That 
for  imported  cotton  the  charges  for  dealing  with  it  were  Fleetwood  2s.  7d.,  Hull 
33.  8d,  and  Liverpool  8s.  i^-d.,  and  this  with  insufficient  accommodation  at  the 
latter  port.  He  put  in  tables  to  show  that  similar  excessive  charges  existed  more 
or  less  as  regards  railway  rates  and  dock  charges  on  all  raw  material  coming  to 
be  manufactured,  and  for  imported  goods  generally,  also  for  exports.  He  showed 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  153 

how  water  carriage  had  been  practically  destroyed  by  the  railway  interests,  and  how 
concerns  like  Sharp,  Stewart  &  Co.,  Ormerod  Grierson's,  and  others,  had  been 
driven  out  of  the  city  to  places  where  they  could  get  cheap  rates.  Also  that  the 
river  Irwell  being  under  the  control  of  railway  magnates  had  been  utterly  neglected, 
and  had  become  little  more  than  a  huge  sewer.  He  quoted  a  resolution  of  the 
Associated  Chambers  of  Commerce  in  1882,  petitioning  that  waterways  should  be 
emancipated  from  railway  influence.  Also  a  speech  of  Sir  Edward  Watkin :  "  If 
it  can  be  proved  that  the  advantage  of  a  navigation,  which  Parliament  has  given  to 
the  public,  has  been  taken  away,  I  think  it  would  be  quite  reasonable  on  people 
coming  to  amalgamate,  to  say,  'You  shall  give  up  possession  of  this  thing  which 
is  not  properly  used'".  Mr.  Adamson  went  on  to  show  that  the  Ship  Canal  would 
be  a  most  useful  outlet  for  the  coal-fields,  both  of  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire,  and 
the  readiest  and  cheapest  means  for  the  import  of  timber,  and  that  it  would  accom- 
modate all  ocean-going  goods  steamers,  and  even  some  passenger  steamers.  In 
cross-examination  the  opposing  counsel  attempted  to  elicit  that  capitalists  had  no 
confidence  in  the  scheme,  also  that  the  Runcorn  Bridge  offered  an  insuperable 
difficulty,  inasmuch  as  it  would  both  be  costly  and  cause  delay  if  ships  coming  up 
had  to  telescope  or  fid  the  masts  as  was  proposed.  Mr.  Adamson  denied  the  truth 
of  these  suggestions. 

The  next  witness,  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens,  put  in  a  list  of  ships  in  the  Liverpool 
Docks,  and  showed  that  all  goods  steamers  could  come  up  the  canal ;  also  a  com- 
parative list  of  dock  charges  at  Liverpool  and  Garston,  to  show  that  the  average 
charge  on  goods  was  one-sixth  at  Garston  of  what  it  was  in  Liverpool.  He  criti- 
cised the  Liverpool  system  of  appropriated  berths,  stevedores,  master  porterage,  etc., 
and  quoted  Colonel  Paris,  a  Liverpool  Shipping  Agent,  who  had  passed  severe 
strictures  on  the  action  of  what  he  termed  "The  Family  Party"  i.e.,  a  body  of 
shipowners  who  had  too  much  power  on  the  Dock  Board.  In  cross-examina- 
tion Mr.  Littler,  Q.C.,  who  is  not  the  best-tempered  counsel,  allowed  himself 
to  be  worsted  by  this  witness.  He  insisted  on  knowing  the  charge  for  cotton 
from  Plymouth  to  Launceston  (32  miles),  to  which  Mr.  Stevens  replied,  "There 
is  no  charge  ".  He  repeated  the  question  and  got  the  same  reply.  Then  said  the 
counsel,  "Do  you  swear  that?  Will  you  please  answer  my  question?  If  you  are 
to  be  any  use  to  the  Committee,  you  must  tell  the  Committee  what  you  know.  You 
say  there  is  no  rate  between  Plymouth  and  Launceston  for  cotton.  Do  you  know 
the  rate  in  the  rate  book  is  i  is.  8d.  ?  "  "I  may  be  in  error,"  replied  the  witness,  "  in 


154         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

saying  that  there  is  no  such  rate,  but  I  say  there  is  no  such  traffic."  Mr.  Littler 
thought  he  had  the  witness  in  a  trap,  and  charged  him  with  being  contumacious. 
He,  counsel,  had  the  rate  book  before  him,  which  in  triumph  he  handed  to  the 
Chairman,  in  order  possibly  to  have  the  witness  rebuked  for  being  so  obstinate  in 
face  of  facts  that  seemed  so  clear.  However,  when  the  book  was  handed  back  to 
Mr.  Stevens,  he  turned  the  tables,  and  coolly  pointed  out  that  the  counsel  had  not 
noticed  in  the  rate  book  it  was  cotton  goods,  not  cotton,  that  was  quoted,  and  that 
there  was  no  rate  because  it  was  an  unheard  of  thing  to  carry  cotton  from  Plymouth 
to  Launceston.  The  counsel  being  too  confident  thought  he  would  rate  the  witness 
severely;  instead  Mr.  Stevens  quietly  showed  that  his  cross-examiner  was  totally 
ignorant  of  the  difference  between  cotton  and  cotton  goods. 

Mr.  Reuben  Spencer  came  afterwards,  and  impressed  the  Committee  by  saying 
his  firm  employed  11,000  workpeople,  and  annually  imported  £2  50,000  worth  of 
cotton.  Following  him,  Mr.  J.  C.  Fielden  quite  astonished  his  hearers  by  the  facility 
with  which  he  dealt  with  figures  as  regarded  the  imports  and  exports  of  Manchester. 
He  was  listened  to  with  marked  attention,  as  also  was  Mr.  J.  T.  W.  Mitchell, 
Chairman  of  the  Co-operative  Wholesale  Society.  At  first  his  quaint  appearance, 
loud  voice  and  bluff  manners  puzzled  the  Committee,  but  when  he  told  them  he 
represented  500,000  co-operators,  with  a  capital  of  between  five  and  ten  millions, 
and  a  turnover  of  three  millions  per  annum,  and.  that  in  his  opinion  the  working 
classes  whom  he  represented  would  save  by  the  making  of  the  canal  as  much 
money  as  would  pay  for  it  in  twenty  years,  they  seemed  much  surprised.  But 
the  fun  came  when  Mr.  Pope  took  turn  in  cross-examining.  The  two  burly 
men  evidently  knew  one  another,  and  Mr.  Mitchell  was  just  as  much  at  home 
as  if  he  had  met  the  advocate  in  the  streets  of  Rochdale,  and  was  going  to  have 
some  verbal  sparring  with  a  familiar  friend. 

Q. — We  will  forget  that  we  are  not  at  a  co-operative  meeting. 

A. — Then  you  ought  to  be.     "  Come  with  us  and  we  will  do  you  good." 

Q. — Your  society  is  a  wholesale  purchasing  agency. 

A. — That  is  so. 

Q. — I  thought  I  knew. 

A. — You  are  very  well  informed. 

Q. — Better  than  you  think.     You  have  also  the  business  of  shipowners. 

A.—  We  have. 

Q. — How  long  does  your  boat  stop  at  Garston  ?     The  quicker  the  discharge  the  better. 

A. — Hear,  hear. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  155 

Q, — What  do  you  buy  at  Liverpool  ? 

A. — Sugar,  fruits,  etc.  I  need  not  describe  them  ;  it  would  only  waste  your  time  to 
describe  them,  because  you  know  them  so  well. 

Q. — That  is  a  fine  phrase,  but  it  does  not  convey  much  meaning  to  my  mind. 
A. — It  conveys  a  great  deal  of  meaning  because  it  is  a  splendid  phrase. 
Q_ — I  admire  the  phrase,  but  I  cannot  recognise  the  meaning. 
A. — I  am  sorry  for  it. 

The  above  questions  and  answers  are  typical  of  an  examination  that  certainly 
amused  the  Committee.  Passing  over  a  number  of  witnesses,  the  next  who 
specially  gained  the  ear  of  the  Committee  was  Mr.  Richard  Husband,  Mayor  of 
Salford,  who  said  1,100  acres  of  Salford  were  liable  to  be  flooded,  and  he  believed 
the  canal  would  reduce,  if  not  completely  do  away  with,  the  evil. 

Many  coal  owners  gave  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Bill.  Mr.  Arnold  Lupton 
proved  that  with  the  exception  of  Goole,  Manchester  would  be  the  nearest  seaport 
to  the  Yorkshire  coal-fields,  and  the  trade  was  badly  in  want  of  a  port  on  the  west 
side  of  England.  In  this  he  was  supported  by  Messrs.  Walter  Rowley  and  Joseph 
Mitchell,  the  latter  advocating  the  desirability  of  opening  out  the  Barnsley  coal- 
fields. Speaking  for  Lancashire,  Mr.  Horace  Mayhem  pointed  out  the  Wigan 
coal-fields  were  only  9  miles  from  the  Ship  Canal,  whilst  they  were  23  miles  from 
Garston,  and  besides,  the  latter  port  was  crowded  out  with  coal  and  shipping,  and 
to  relieve  the  pressure  they  were  working  day  and  night. 

Evidence  was  given  for  the  timber  trade,  that  in  the  west  coast  they  could  not 
get  Baltic  timber  at  a  reasonable  cost,  whilst  in  the  east  the  cost  of  carriage  helped 
to  preclude  the  use  of  American  timber.  It  was  estimated  that  300,000  tons  of 
timber  would  be  used  yearly  in  Manchester,  and  that  a  new  port  there  would  be  a 
blessing  to  the  timber  trade. 

Following  came  the  evidence  by  representatives  of  the  woollen  trade,  who 
considered  it  a  disadvantage  that  the  wool  market  should  be  in  London  whilst  its 
main  users  were  in  the  North  of  England.  Then  a  number  of  local  Mayors  and 
afterwards  local  M.P.'s  were  in  turn  put  in  the  box.  The  latter  were  certainly  a 
disappointment,  for  whilst  Jacob  Bright,  M.P.,  gave  a  most  hearty  and  loyal  support, 
indeed  capital  evidence,  John  Slagg,  M.P.,  and  Benjamin  Armitage,  M.P.,  made  it 
plain  that  they  were  half-hearted,  and  came  to  please  their  constituents  rather  than 
themselves.  They  were  just  the  men  that  opposing  counsel  love  to  get  hold  of. 
It  was  elicited  from  Mr.  Slagg  that  he  was  not  sanguine  of  success,  and  that  he  had 
not  himself  subscribed  to  the  preliminary  fund  ;  and  from  Mr.  Armitage.,  that  he 


156         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

personally  did  not  understand  the  question,  nor  was  he  persuaded  the  venture  was 
going  to  be  a  financial  success.  He  had  come  to  speak  on  behalf  of  his  working- 
class  constituents  in  Salford,  who  were  enthusiastically  in  favour  of  the  canal,  but 
he  said  the  wealthy  people  were  holding  aloof. 

Joseph  Davies,  J.P.,  of  Warrington,  was  convinced  the  canal  would  prevent 
flooding  in  his  town,  arid  explained  to  the  Committee  that  the  conversion  of  the 
river  into  a  Ship  Canal  had  always  been  contemplated.  Hence  the  authorities  had 
never  consented  to  bridges  being  placed  over  the  river,  except  on  condition  they 
should  be  replaced  by  swing  bridges  if  required.  In  order  to  show  that  many 
leading  capitalists  were  supporting  the  scheme,  Councillor  Goldsworthy  was  put 
in  the  box,  and  the  list  of  the  names  of  leading  supporters  given  with  "Do  you 
know  So  and  So?"  Inadvertently  counsel  said  to  him,  "  Do  you  know  Councillor 
Goldsworthy?"  to  which  question  he  humorously  replied,  "  I  see  him  every  morning 
in  the  looking-glass  ". 

Various  carriers  proved  that  freightage  on  the  river  fell  off  from  1850,  when 
the  Bridgewater  Canal  Company  bought  the  rival  navigation,  and  it  was  shown 
that  the  draught  of  water  had  fallen  from  5  feet  to  3  feet,  or  to  an  extent  that 
made  the  navigation  practically  useless. 

After  hearing  several  chemists  and  land  agents,  Mr.  Price  Williams,  a 
specialist,  stated  that  the  worst  new  railway  gradient  was  to  be  i  in  114,  whilst 
at  present  there  existed  gradients  of  i  in  85  on  the  same  line  between  Warrington 
and  Newton ;  elsewhere  i  in  90,  another  i  in  100,  and  on  the  Great  Eastern  i  in  61. 

A  number  of  shipbuilders  then  gave  evidence  as  regarded  fidding  or  telescoping 
ships'  masts  to  enable  them  to  pass  under  bridges  75  feet  above  water-line.  They 
stated  there  would  be  no  difficulty,  and  little  cost  or  delay,  and  it  was  estimated  that 
a  4,000  ton  ship  would  cost  at  the  outside  ^132.  Captain  Kingscote,  R.N.,  thought 
the  new  canal  would  be  less  difficult  to  navigate  than  the  Suez  Canal,  and  Mr. 
Edwards,  of  Cardiff,  expected  that  it  would  not  take  more  than  eight  hours  between 
Liverpool  and  Manchester,  and  that  this  small  delay  would  not  cause  shipowners 
to  make  any  extra  charge.  Mr.  Leader  Williams  being  recalled,  showed  the  con- 
nection that  would  exist  by  means  of  canals  with  all  parts  of  England,  explained 
the  working  of  the  Barton  aqueduct,  and  showed  there  would  be  enough  water  to 
allow  sixty-nine  steamers  to  pass  each  day. 

The  case  for  the  promoters  closed  on  the  gth  June,  having  occupied  twenty- 
one  days. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  157 

On  the  same  day  the  opponents  of  the  Bill  began  to  call  their  witnesses,  forty- 
three  in  number. 

Captain  Graham  Hills,  R.N.,  said  that  prior  to  1872  the  depth  on  the  Liver- 
pool bar  was  li  feet  at  low  water.  Then  a  freshet  brought  down  5,800,000  cubic 
yards  of  soil,  and  the  bar  was  reduced  to  7  feet.  The  Pluckington  Bank  was  also 
increased  to  180  acres,  but  by  flushing  it  had  since  been  reduced  to  134  acres. 
Even  if  it  were  washed  away,  the  fear  was  that  the  sand  would  lie  in  the  front  of 
the  other  docks.  Placing  barriers  on  the  Dee,  and  excluding  the  tide,  had  made 
usable  8,000  acres  of  land.  In  cross-examination  Captain  Hills  admitted  that  in 
some  estuaries  tidal  walls  had  been  beneficial,  but  thought  that  in  the  Mersey  they 
would  cause  a  reduction  of  the  tidal  area.  He  admitted  little  had  been  attempted 
to  improve  the  river,  and  said  no  dredging  had  been  done  for  the  last  twenty-seven 
years.  About  forty-seven  years  ago,  when  Admiral  Denham  was  in  charge,  he  had 
made  some  experiments  to  improve  the  bar,  and  this  was  the  only  attempt  that  ever 
had  been  made. 

Mr.  George  F.  Lyster,  engineer  to  the  Dock  Board,  objected  to  the  promoters' 
estimate  for  the  new  channel,  and  believed  that  instead  of  ,£600,000  it  would  cost 
,£3,000,000.  In  cross-examination  he  did  not  believe  railways  round  docks  a  neces- 
sity. In  some  cases  they  were  useful.  In  docks  made  seventeen  or  eighteen 
years  ago  there  were  rails  which  were  never  used,  and  in  the  new  docks  they  would 
not  have  them.  He  knew  for  a  fact  that  shippers  preferred  to  cart  goods  from  the 
docks  to  the  railway  stations  rather  than  send  by  rail  from  the  ship's  side.  "To 
have  rails  within  a  shed  would  be  simply  ridiculous.  It  would  be  utterly  absurd, 
and  simply  throwing  away  money,  and  obstructing  the  working  to  put  rails  through 
the  sheds  and  then  expect  them  to  be  used."  When  Mr.  Findlay's  evidence, 
given  before  the  Railway  Rates  Commissioners,  regarding  insufficient  railway 
accommodation  at  the  docks,  was  quoted,  the  witness  replied,  "  I  heard  of  it,  and 
I  met  him  in  the  lobby  a  few  minutes  afterwards  and  said,  '  What  an  extraordinary 
statement  to  make ! '  and,  from  my  knowledge  of  it,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  exact 
condition  of  the  Mersey  estate  ". 

Mr.  Lyster  then  attacked  the  estimates,  maintaining  that  instead  of  700  to  800 
acres  of  land  being  required  he  should  say  3,000  to  4,000  would  be  wanted.     How- 
ever, he  failed  to  make  good  his  contention.     He  also  stated  that  instead  of  the  gd.  per 
cubic  yard  given  by  Mr.  Leader  Williams  for  excavations,  the  cost  would  be  is.  8£d. 
—this,  in  face  of  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Deas  that  the  cost  on  the  Clyde  had  been  5-'d. 


158         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

A  curious  episode  occurred  during  the  examination  of  this  witness  which 
caused  some  warmth.  He  had  attacked  the  figures  given  by  Mr.  Messent,  of  the 
Tyne,  for  rock  excavation,  and  thinking  this  gentleman  had  been  under  a  misap- 
prehension Mr.  Lyster  privately  wired  him  for  information.  Mr.  Messent  sent  a 
reply  and  also  a  copy  of  it  to  the  promoters.  Next  day  as  the  reply  was  un- 
favourable Mr.  Lyster  intended  to  lie  low,  but  Mr.  Pember  would  not  let 
him  off  so  easily.  By  degrees  he  pumped  everything  out,  and  induced  the  angry 
reply,  "Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  have  got  my  confidential  reply?"  Mr. 
Lyster  ought  not  to  have  communicated  with  his  opponents'  witness  without  their 
knowledge,  and  could  not  expect  a  witness  to  keep  correspondence  from  his 
principals. 

Several  engineers  followed  in  support  of  Mr.  Lyster,  their  main  theme  being 
there  would  be  accretion  behind  the  retaining  walls,  and  that  in  time  the  area  of  the 
estuary  would  be  reduced,  and  less  water  pass  out  to  scour  the  bar. 

Captain  Kennedy,  of  the  Inman  Line,  was  of  opinion  there  would  be  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  passing  up  the  canal,  because  of  the  fogs  and  insufficiency  of  water ; 
that  it  was  not  safe  to  go  to  sea  without  ample  masts ;  that  ships  would  have  to  go 
up  stern  first,  as  he  believed  they  did  to  Garston,  and  that  a  ship  could  not  prepare 
to  go  under  Runcorn  Bridge  without  losing  a  tide. 

The  next  witness  called  was  Mr.  T.  D.  H.ornby,  the  very  courteous  and  able 
Chairman  of  the  Dock  Board,  who,  however,  seemed  imbued  with  the  idea  that  an 
attack  was  being  made  on  the  managerial  capacity  of  the  Dock  Board,  which  it 
was  his  mission  to  repel.  He  stated  that  in  1852  the  revenue  of  the  Dock  Board 
was  ,£246,000  from  21,500  vessels,  and  the  tonnage  3,912,000.  In  1882  the 
revenue  was  .£929,000  from  21,000  vessels,  with  a  tonnage  of  8,104,000  tons, 
the  debt  owing  at  the  latter  date  being  .£16,373,000.  In  1881  reductions  in  rates 
had  been  made  of  ;£  120,000  per  annum.  He  said  there  were  twenty-four  members 
of  the  Board  elected  by  people  who  shipped  through  Liverpool,  wherever  they 
might  reside,  but  as  there  was  no  proxy  voting,  everybody  must  come  to  Liverpool 
to  vote.  In  addition  there  were  four  members  appointed  by  the  Conservancy 
Commissioners,  of  whom  Mr.  Hugh  Mason,  of  Ashton,  was  one,  and  he  considered 
if  Manchester  had  had  any  special  grievance,  that  gentleman  would  have  brought 
it  forward.  He  complained  that  Manchester,  under  the  direction  of  Sir  Joseph 
Heron,  had  compelled  them  to  make  a  large  expenditure  on  the  Birkenhead  Docks, 
and  also  to  pay  .£1,500,000  for  the  town  dues  which  had  previously  been  appropri- 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  .59 

ated  for  town  improvements,  building  of  churches,  etc.,  in  Liverpool,  these  same 
clues  being  partly  provided  by  Manchester. 

He  defended  the  master  porterage  system,  and  believed  it  must  be  adopted 
in  Manchester ;  also  he  admitted  complaints  about  the  insufficiency  of  dock  accom- 
modation. Mr.  Pember  in  cross-examination  drew  the  attention  of  the  witness  to 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Moon,  Chairman  of  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway 
Company,  when  he  said  :— 

Liverpool  must  have  forgotten  that  it  was  the  dearest  port  with  which  they  traded  ; 
their  wages  were  23  per  cent,  more  than  anywhere  else  ;  they  had  no  facilities  for  traffic  ;  no 
room  on  the  dock  quays,  and  in  the  case  of  timber  no  place  to  stow  it.  If  timber  came  to 
Fleetwood  there  was  room  for  it  to  be  stowed  ;  and  it  was  taken  away  in  a  week  or  a  month, 
at  the  convenience  of  the  consignee;  but  if  it  came  to  Liverpool,  Mr.  Hornby  fined  them  if 
it  lay  on  the  quay  twenty-four  hours. 

Again  :— 

Mr.  Hornby  knew  that  he  could  not  undertake  to  do  any  cheap  trade  in  Liverpool. 

In  reply,  Mr.  Hornby  said  this  was  a  controversial  speech  by  Mr.  Moon,  of 
which  he  would  not  admit  the  accuracy. 

Mr.  Hornby,  in  his  evidence,  having  said  the  trade  preferred  carting,  Mr. 
Pember  read  the  opinion  of  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce,  "that  the 
charges  for  housing  and  carting  produce  press  heavily  and  seriously  upon  the  trade 
of  the  port,  and  are  largely  the  cause  of  diverting  to  out-ports  trade  which  otherwise 
would  flow  to  Liverpool".  Again,  "that  there  is  a  want  of  steam  and  mechanical 
appliances  for  discharging  vessels  and  handling  cargo  on  the  quay,  and  that  the 
large  amount  of  manual  labour  now  employed  in  those  processes  is  a  source  of 
much  of  the  extra  expense  incurred  in  the  port  of  Liverpool,  as  compared  with 
other  ports  ". 

In  reply,  Mr.  Hornby  would  not  admit  the  statements,  and  gave  it  as  his 
experience  that  there  were  always  complainers,  and  that  it  was  impossible  to  satisfy 
everybody. 

Mr.  Ismay,  of  the  White  Star  Line,  considered  Manchester  would  not  be  a 
safe  port.  Shipowners  would  require  53.  per  ton  more  freight.  Insurance  would 
be  higher,  and  he  would  not  let  his  ships  go  up  the  canal. 

Mr.  Alfred  Holt  agreed  entirely  with  Mr.  Ismay,  and  said  the  proposed  canal 
would  be  much  worse  to  navigate  than  the  Suez  Canal.  Cross-examined  by  Mr. 
Pember,  he  admitted  the  securing  a  cheaper  system  of  inland  conveyance  had  been 


160         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

his  justification  for  introducing  the  Lancashire  Plateway  scheme,  and  that  the  cost 
of  carriage  by  rail  between  Liverpool  and  Manchester  had  increased  in  the  last 
fifty  years. 

Mr.  Rod-well,  Q.C.,  then  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  Dock 
Board,  and  got  into  an  awkward  fix  about  the  Pluckington  Bank,  for  the  Chairman, 
Sir  Joseph  Bailey  (than  whom  no  one  had  more  accurately  watched  the  case),  asked 
if  he  could  explain  the  fact  that  his  two  chief  witnesses,  Mr.  Lyster  and  Captain 
Graham  Hills,  had  given  contradictory  evidence — one  saying  the  Bank  had  in- 
creased and  the  other  it  had  decreased.  Mr.  Rod  well  leaned  to  the  view  of  the 
Captain  (that  the  length  had  decreased),  and  quoted  his  evidence:  "I  dare  not 
touch  the  Pluckington  Bank.  I  have  told  the  Mersey  Dock  Board  to  leave  it  as  it 
is.  I  do  not  know  what  danger  would  ensue  if  I  were  to  disturb  it."  (In  other 
words,  they  dare  not  do  right  for  fear  of  doing  wrong.) 

Mr.  Rod  well's  peroration  ran  thus  :— 

To  bring  the  sea  to  Manchester  is,  I  believe,  a  thing  which  cannot  be  done.  There 
may  be  plenty  of  Manchesters ;  there  can  be  but  few  Liverpools,  and  when  my  learned  friend 
makes  it  a  grievance  that  Manchester  has  been  suffering  under  high  dues  which  Liverpool 
has  charged,  I  think  he  ought  to  have  recollected  that  the  prosperity  of  Manchester  is  due  to 
the  prosperity  of  Liverpool :  they  have  flourished  and  grown  together,  one  is  the  centre  of 
commerce,  the  other  is  a  great  manufacturing  centre ;  they  have  prospered  together,  and  I 
believe  it  would  be  an  evil  day  for  Manchester  if  she  estranges  her  relations  with  Liverpool, 
and  becomes  a  rival  instead  of  an  ally. 

He  also  portrayed  the  engineering  difficulties,  and  said  the  sea  was  so 
capricious  that  it  was  impossible  to  make  it  a  slave,  as  you  could  land.  He  con- 
cluded by  saying  :— 

I  ask  you,  in  the  interests  of  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead,  not  for  a  moment  to  imperil  the 
grand  estuary  of  the  Mersey,  the  magnificent  docks  'on  its  banks,  and  I  ask  you  not  to 
imperil  those  large  and  grand  interests  which  are  matters  of  national  concern,  in  order  to 
satisfy,  it  may  be  the  jealousy  or,  perhaps,  the  cupidity  of  the  Manchester  people,  who  are 
promoting  this  Bill. 

Mr.  Clement  Higgins,  for  Birkenhead,  and  Mr.  Dugdale,  for  Ellesmere  Port, 
then  presented  their  respective  cases. 

Mr.  Jebb,  C.E.,  for  the  latter,  spoke  of  the  difficulty  of  keeping  Ellesmere  Port 
open,  and  said  that  they  had  1 1  to  12  feet  of  water  and  could  take  vessels  up  to 
200  tons.  He  admitted  no  money  had  been  spent  to  keep  the  channel  clear. 

The  Liverpool  commercial  case  was  next  taken.     Mr.  W.  B.  Forivood  being 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  161 

the  first  witness,  said  only  50,000  tons  of  cotton  went  to  Manchester,  whilst  Oldham 
consumed  157,700  tons.  It  was  quite  certain  the  freight  would  be  5  per  cent, 
more  to  Manchester,  and  that  this  in  addition  to  1  per  cent,  extra  insurance  would 
run  away  with  the  benefit  obtained  in  other  ways.  He  twitted  Manchester  with 
never  helping  to  get  cheaper  railway  rates.  "  I  may  say  that  I  have  been  nearly 
seventeen  years  one  of  the  leaders  to  agitate  for  cheaper  railway  rates,  and  I  never 
heard  a  single  complaint  from  Manchester,  or  received  one  single  iota  of  assistance 
in  our  agitation."  He  admitted  saying  that  if  railways  charged  the  same  to  and  from 
Liverpool  as  they  did  at  some  other  ports,  there  would  be  a  saving  of  ,£400,000 
per  year.  In  his  view  a  barge  canal  only  was  required  between  Liverpool  and 
Manchester,  and  he  believed  one  would  be  established  within  the  next  few  years. 

At  this  point  Mr.  Pember  informed  the  Committee  that  the  promoters  had 
come  to  an  arrangement  with  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  to  buy  their 
concern,  the  price  to  be  fixed  by  arbitration. 

Mr.  Aspinall,  Q.C.,  then  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  Liverpool,  and 
called  several  witnesses.  His  argument  was,  "that  the  canal  would  not  create  any 
fresh  trade,  but  simply  abstract  it  from  Liverpool.  The  latter  would  be  poorer, 
and  the  former  no  richer  because  she  would  have  to  pay  a  high  price  for  the  trade. 
The  risk  was  enormous,  and  the  gain  problematical." 

Mr.  Thomas  Bar  ham  Foster,  C.E.,  in  giving  evidence  for  the  Trafford  Estate 
and  describing  the  Irwell  and  its  weirs  in  1868  to  1870,  said:— 

I  have  seen,  I  say,  the  whole  river  from  weir  to  weir  covered  with  dirty  froth,  so  that 
you  could  not  see  any  water  at  all,  and  through  this  froth  countless  bubbles  rising.  Certainly 
one  in  every  square  foot  of  surface.  I  went  down  professionally  upon  this  river,  in  those 
years,  and  the  stench  was  something  incredible.  The  river  gets  worse  and  worse  till  you  get 
to  Irlam,  where  the  Mersey,  which  is  a  purer  stream,  joins  it. 

The  next  witness,  Mr.  W.  H.  Watson,  agreed  that  while  at  Springfield,  Lane, 
and  Throstle  Nest  there  was  but  a  slight  smell  from  the  Irwell,  at  Irlam  it  was 
very  bad.  He  differed  entirely  with  Mr.  Bateman's  opinion  that  the  deeper  the 
water  the  less  the  smell,  and  believed  the  increased  depth  would  have  a  tendency 
to  increase  the  putridity  by  depriving  it  of  oxidation  by  the  atmosphere. 

Following  the  evidence  of  the  chemists  and  the  land  valuers,  came  a  number  of 
engineers,  and  Mr.  George  Findlay,  General  Manager  of  the  London  and  North- 
Western  Railway  Company,  who  stated  that,  in  1882,  104  passenger  trains  ran 
daily  through  Warrington,  carrying  1,800,000  passengers  in  the  year,  and  that  in 

VOL.    I.  II 


i62        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1883 

addition  to  3,500,000  tons  of  goods  and  minerals,  25,000  waggons  of  live  stock 
went  through  the  same  station.  He  objected  to  the  canal  seriously  increasing  the 
gradients  and  destroying  the  utility  of  the  pick-up  water  troughs.  Also  to  the 
tunnel  under  the  Warrington  and  Garston  line.  He  considered  the  handling  and 
warehousing  accommodation  at  the  Ship  Canal  docks  quite  insufficient,  and  he 
looked  upon  the  idea  of  bringing  Yorkshire  coal  to  the  Ship  Canal  as  quite 
chimerical ;  this  remark  also  applied  to  St.  Helens  and  the  Wigan  coal-fields,  for 
which  Garston  must  remain  the  cheapest  and  best  outlet.  He  was  quite  sure  the 
conferences  of  the  shipowners  who  dominated  the  trade  to  India,  China  and 
America,  and  who  not  only  pooled  the  freightage,  but  fixed  what  was  to  be 
sent  from  each  port,  would  neutralise  any  effort  to  bring  the  shipping  trade  to 
Manchester,  and  benefit  merchants  by  lower  freights.  The  chance  of  getting  it 
there  would  be  small. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pember,  Mr.  Findlay  had  to  admit  that  the  same  kind 
of  tunnel  he  objected  to  had  successfully  worked  in  London  ;  also  that  large  quantities 
of  South  Yorkshire  coal  might,  for  various  reasons,  come  to  the  canal. 

The  next  witness,  Sir  Frederick  Bramwell,  was  perhaps  the  best-known  man 
in  the  Parliamentary  Committee  Rooms.  He  stood  over  six  feet  high  and  was 
more  than  wide  in  proportion.  He  had  a  large  head  with  curly  white  hair,  and 
a  face  that  always  beamed  with  humour.  He  .was  a  consulting  engineer  with  a 
large  experience,  but  it  was  said  he  had  not  constructed  any  works  of  importance 
in  his  life.  Hence  counsel  generally  bantered  him  on  the  point  His  cross- 
examination  ran  thus  :— 

Q. — Mr.  Pember. — Into  the  question  of  practical  working  I  am  not  going  to  enter  with 
you,  because  of  the  practical  working  of  a  railway  I  believe  you  have  no  experience  whatever  ? 

A. — I  do  not  quite  know  about  that.  At  all  events,  I  may  say  that  I  have  been  con- 
sulting engineer  to  two  railway  companies,  and  I  know  something  about  engineering.  I  am 
familiar  with  mechanical  engineering,  and  I  know  as  much  about  railway  breaking  as  any 
man  in  England. 

Q. — Now,  Heaven  help  me,  when  I  come  to  ask  you  about  your  figures  ! 

A.— I  trust  it  will. 

(After  a  fight  upon  mechanical  figures.) 

The  Cliairman. — Both  you  learned  gentlemen  are  thrashing  away  at  this  question.  I 
despair  myself  of  understanding  it,  and  I  doubt  if  any  one  else  in  the  room  does. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  London  and  North- Western  case,  Mr.  Pope  addressed 
the  Committee.  He  maintained  the  capital  was  insufficient.  That  the  project  would 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  163 


injury  and  risk  to  many  important  undertakings  without  any  commensurate 
benefit  to  Manchester.  That  the  damage  to  the  railways  was  absolute  and  certain 
if  they  were  compelled  to  carry  out  their  Parliamentary  obligations,  and  put  swing 
bridges  over  the  canal.  That  the  clauses,  passed  in  1  846,  when  a  Ship  Canal  for 
small  ships  and  barges  could  only  have  been  anticipated,  and  when  there  were  few 
trains,  should  not  be  held  to  be  operative  now  in  the  changed  state  of  affairs.  He 
was  quite  sure  shippers  would  always  charge  5  per  cent,  more  to  Manchester  than 
to  Liverpool.  That  coal-tips  and  sheds  would  be  required  and  they  had  not  been 
estimated  for.  He  concluded  a  magnificent  speech  by  saying,  "  That  sufficient  unto 
the  day  is  the  mischief  thereof".  That  a  Ship  Canal  was  the  clumsiest  and  most 
expensive  way  of  reducing  the  cost  of  carriage.  "  What  would  happen,  think  you,  if 
the  railways  did  find  themselves  pinched  by  the  Ship  Canal  ?  They  would  run  it  off 
the  road  in  a  week.  There  is  nothing  for  it  but  to  reduce  the  railway  rates,  and 
what  becomes  of  the  Ship  Canal  ?  I  ask  you  without  hesitation  and  with  a  clear 
conscience  to  reject  it  absolutely.  The  kindest  thing  you  can  do  for  South  Lanca- 
shire is  to  prick  the  bubble  now." 

Of  all  the  opposing  counsel  no  one  commanded  the  respect  of  his  adversaries 
more  than  Mr.  Pope.  He  had  had  his  early  business  training  in  Manchester,  he 
understood  the  honesty  and  bluntness  of  the  Lancashire  character,  he  liked  to 
surprise  witnesses  by  a  few  words  in  the  native  dialect,  but  he  was  candid  and  fair 
in  all  his  examinations  and  transactions  ;  he  never  descended  to  bullying  witnesses, 
and  he  scorned  to  take  a  mean  advantage  of  any  one. 

The  case  of  the  Midland  Company  was  next  brought  before  the  Committee. 
Their  General  Manager,  Mr.  Noble,  admitted  they  had  a  gradient  of  i  in  90  on 
part  of  their  system,  against  i  in  1  14  on  the  proposed  Bill  ;  but  he  explained  that 
the  steep  gradient  had  compelled  his  company,  at  a  great  cost,  to  make  sidings  at 
Heaton  Mersey  and  Rowsley.  He  always  viewed  the  obligation  as  to  swing 
bridges  as  not  likely  to  be  put  in  force.  It  was  a  fact  that  the  export  and  import 
trade  of  Liverpool  grew  rapidly  from  year  to  year  and  he  thought  before  seven 
years  were  over  they  ought  to  quadruple  their  traffic,  notwithstanding  competition 
from  other  lines. 

Mr.  Pember,  Q.C.,  then  replied  to  the  opponents'  case.  He  urged  that  the 
promoters  having  powers  under  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Act  to  deal  with  the 
estuary,  antecedent  to  the  Conservancy  Act  of  1  842,  could  not  be  debarred  from 
making  the  proposed  alterations  in  the  estuary.  To  his  mind,  the  very  fact  that 


164         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1883 

on  an  important  main  line  like  the  Midland  there  were  gradients  of  i  in  90  and 
i  in  100,  killed  the  case  for  the  Railway  Companies,  who  now  objected  to  i  in  1 14. 
On  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Adamson,  which  had  been  fully  corroborated,  there  would 
be  a  saving  of  ,£440,000  per  year  to  the  cotton  trade  alone.  The  cost  by  canal  in 
freight  and  charges  to  Newton  Moor  Mills  would  be  95.  3d.  against  i8s.  4|cl.  per 
ton  by  railway.  Replying  to  Mr.  Pope,  who  had  called  the  scheme  a  gigantic 
bubble  which  he  implored  the  Committee  "to  prick  now,"  Mr.  Pember  addressing 
the  Chairman  said  : — 

Sir,  Lancashire  is  not  in  the  habit  of  blowing  bubbles.  Everybody  else  connected  with 
the  case  admits  that  the  Lancashire  men  mean  it.  Everybody  admits  the  money  will  be 
found  in  Lancashire,  except  Mr.  Slagg  and  Mr.  Armitage.  I  say  to  them — the  only  persons 
who  have  thrown  cold  water  upon  the  chances  of  the  scheme — I  say  to  them,  "  Pray,  stay  away," 
as  I  said  to  the  Inman  steamers.  And  just  let  me  say  when  people  talk  about  the  stake  of 
Liverpool  in  the  Mersey,  I  should  like  to  know  whether  all  the  towns  in  Lancashire  have  not 
got  a  stake  in  the  Mersey.  If  we  ruin  the  Mersey  we  ruin  them.  Surely  the  Mersey  is  more 
important  to  them  than  Liverpool  which  is  only  their  emporium.  The  Mersey  does  not  exist 
for  Liverpool :  it  is  equally  for  those  towns  which  employ  Liverpool.  To  suggest  that  those 
who  have  a  primary  interest  in  the  Mersey  want  to  ruin  it,  is  to  suggest  suicide  to  them.  No, 
sir,  they  want,  not  to  ruin,  but  to  save  the  Mersey,  which  Liverpool  has  neglected,  and  will 
neglect  till  the  end  of  time. 

Mr.  Pember  then  went  into  the  question  of  capital,  and  after  giving  a  long 
list  of  subscribers  and  supporters  of  the  canal,  said  : — 

Are  all  these  men  mad  ?  Are  they  ignorant  ?  Are  they  visionary  ?  All  dreamers  ? 
Or  do  they  represent  a  group  of  wild  enthusiasts,  about  whom  my  friend,  Mr.  Pope,  was  so 
eloquent  ?  Or  are  they  really,  as  I  said  before,  the  representatives  of  the  trade  of  this  im- 
portant country  ?  talking  about  what  they  do  know  very  well,  and  what  they  have  considered. 

Mr.  Pember  ended  an  eloquent  and  impassioned  speech  thus  :— 

In  the  days  of  one  of  the  early  Roman  emperors  a  man  invented  a  process  for  toughen- 
ing pottery  and  glass.  Any  one  who  has  ever  been  to  Rome  and  seen  the  Monte  Testaccio 
at  Rome,  a  thing  about  the  size  of  Primrose  Hill,  consisting  entirely  of  potsherds,  will  be 
able  to  realise  the  waste  involved  in  the  fragility  of  earthen  vessels  in  the  days  before  iron 
came  into  household  use.  Well,  sir,  one  day  the  inventor  displayed  his  new  wares  before  the 
emperor,  and  threw  pots  and  pans  on  the  marble  floor  of  the  Basilica.  The  emperor  ex- 
pressed his  wonder  and  delight,  and  he  said  to  the  inventor :  "  Have  you  confided  this 
process  to  any  one  ?  "  "  No."  "  Have  you  committed  the  recipe  to  writing  ?  "  "  No." 
"Do  you  mean  to  say  that  it  would  die  with  you  if  you  died  to-day?"  "Yes,"  said  the 
honest  potter.  "  Then,"  said  the  emperor  to  the  lictors,  "  take  him  out  and  strangle  him," 
and  they  did  so  forthwith.  Now  the  emperor  no  doubt  thought  the  invention,  beneficent  as 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  165 

it  was,  might  injure  the  potters  as  a  class ;  so  the  inventor  was  strangled,  his  invention 
smothered,  the  potters  were  left  to  fatten,  and  the  Monte  Testaccio  to  grow. 

Now  my  clients  are  as  this  inventor,  their  canal  the  toughened  pottery,  Liverpool  and 
the  London  and  North-Western  Railway  Company  the  potters,  the  bar  of  Liverpool  the 
Monte  Testaccio.  I  pray  you,  sir,  not  to  let  the  Parliament  of  England — and  I  say  it  with 
all  respect — in  your  person,  and  that  of  your  colleagues,  complete  the  parallel  by  playing  the 
part  of  the  reckless,  the  complacent  and  the  short-sighted  emperor. 

The  Committee  room  was  then  cleared.  When  the  parties  were  called  in 
the  Chairman  intimated  they  would  allow  the  Bill  to  proceed  provided  the  pro- 
moters accepted  their  clauses,  eight  in  number,  which  must  be  inserted  in  the  Bill, 
to  be  approved  by  the  Committee  before  insertion. 

They  were  as  follows  : — 

I.  The  canal  shall  be  divided  into  two  sections,  the  lower  section  to  include  all  works 
authorised  in  the  Bill  below  and  including  Walton  Lock  ;  the  upper  section  to  commence  at 
Walton,  and  include  all  works  above  that  point. 

II.  The  company  shall  be  restrained  from  proceeding  with  any  of  the  works  authorised 
by  the  Bill  unless  and  until  they  shall  have  obtained  the  necessary  powers  to  construct  the 
estuary  works. 

III.  The  company  shall  apply  to  Parliament  to  sanction  the  details  of  any  scheme  on 
which  they  may  have  agreed  with  the  Mersey  Conservators  for  the  construction  of  the  works 
in  the  estuary. 

IV.  The  company  shall  be  restrained  from  proceeding  with  the  upper  section,  that  is 
to  say,  the  works  above  Walton,  until  the  estuary  works  have  been  so  far  completed  as  to 
show  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Board  of  Trade  whether  or  not  they  are  likely  to  injure  the 
estuary  or  the  approaches  thereto ;  and  until  a  certificate  shall  have  been  obtained  from  the 
Board  of  Trade,  that  in  the  opinion  of  that  department  and  of  the  Mersey  Conservators  the 
works  will  not  be  injurious  and  can  be  permitted  to  remain. 

V.  The  company  shall  bind  themselves  to  continue,  alter  or  remove,  at  their  own  cost, 
the  said  estuary  works  if  directed  to  do  so  by  the  Mersey  Conservators,  and  in  such  way  as 
may  be  directed  by  them. 

VI.  The  company  shall  give  such  security  as  the  Board  of  Trade  may  from  time  to 
time  direct,  to  ensure  the  observance  of  the  foregoing  stipulations. 

VI  I.  The  company  shall  be  restrained  from  making  the  railway  deviations  Nos.  i  and  2 
until  the  aforementioned  certificate  as  to  the  satisfactory  nature  of  the  works  has  been 
obtained  from  the  Board  of  Trade. 

VIII.  The  promoters  must  bring  up  a  series  of  paragraphs  to  be  added  to  the  preamble 
giving  an  argued  history  of  the  case,  as  regards  the  estuary  works  and  the  bearing  thereof  on 
the  other  works. 

The  decision  was  given  on  the  4th  July.  The  hearing  occupied  thirty-nine 
days. 


1  66         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1883 


On  the  following  day  (sth  July,  1883)  Mr.  Pember  produced  his  clauses, 
whereupon  the  Railway  Companies,  the  Dock  Board,  Liverpool,  and  other  chief 
opponents  formally  withdrew,  and  intimated  they  should  oppose  in  the  Upper 
House. 

It  was  then  decided  to  take  the  Warrington  clauses,  and  the  Chairman 
mentioned  the  views  of  his  Committee  as  to  the  formula  of  the  preamble  to  the 
Bill.  He  wished  it  to  be  made  clear  that  whilst  the  promoters  considered  that 
under  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Act  of  1721  and  the  Mersey  Conservancy  Act  of 
1842,  they  had  power  to  do  the  estuary  work,  the  Committee  thought  express 
Parliamentary  sanction  ought  to  be  sought  in  the  next  session. 

This  Mr.  Pember  accepted,  and  the  Committee  considered  the  Warrington 
and  the  Race-course  clauses.  One  clause,  viz.,  the  right  of  the  Warrington  Cor- 
poration to  contribute  to  the  funds  of,  or  hold  shares  in  the  Ship  Canal  Company, 
was  the  subject  of  much  discussion.  It  was  urged  that  the  Corporations  of 
Liverpool,  Bristol,  Preston  and  Boston  had  at  one  time  or  another  all  obtained 
sanction  to  assist  undertakings  of  advantage  to  their  towns,  and  that  in  1872 
there  was  a  report  in  favour  of  public  bodies  promoting  branch  railways.  The 
Committee,  however,  deleted  the  clause,  it  being  thought  that  it  would  subsidise 
a  competitor  to  railways. 

On  the  6th  July  Mr.  Hargreaves,  an  opponent,  intimated  that  he  could  not 
agree  to  the  clause  offered,  and  he  should  oppose  in  the  Lords.  Mr.  Pember 
then  took  the  somewhat  unusual  course  of  thanking  the  Committee  for  the  great 
attention  they  had  paid  to  the  case. 

During  the  Commons  inquiry  15,594  questions  were  asked.  The  speeches 
and  evidence  occupy  1,702  pages  of  foolscap. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS— EFFORT  TO  WRECK  IT 
ON  STANDING  ORDERS— LORD  WINMARLEIGH  RESCUES 
THE  BILL— SPEECHES  OF  COUNSEL— EVIDENCE  BY  PRO- 
MOTERS AND  OPPONENTS— UNFAVOURABLE  DECISION. 

Any  improvement  which  will  enable  ocean-going  vessels  to  discharge  their  cargoes  in 
a  commodious  wet-dock  in  Manchester,  would  form  an  epoch  of  such  magnitude  in  the  history 
of  Manchester  as  would  quadruple  her  population,  and  render  her  the  first,  as  well  as  the 
most  enterprising,  city  of  Europe. — Sir  WILLIAM  FAIRBAIRN  on  the  Improvement  of  the 
Irwell. 

WHEN  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  came  before  the  Standing  Orders  Committee 
of  the  Lords,  its  Chairman,  Lord  Redesdale,  wished  it  to  be  thrown 
out,  which  would  have  ended  the  Bill  for  the  session.  However,  to 
his  great  chagrin  he  was  outvoted,  the  Standing  Orders  were  suspended,  and  the 
Bill  allowed  to  proceed.  The  usual  course  is  for  the  Chairman  to  move  the  second 
reading  in  the  Lords,  but  Lord  Redesdale  blocked  the  way  by  refusing  point  blank 
to  do  so,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  against  the  custom  of  the  Lords  to  proceed 
with  any  Bill  that  came  from  the  Commons  after  the  2ist  June.  In  the  dilemma 
Lord  Winmarleigh  very  kindly  undertook  to  perform  the  duty  on  24th  July,  1883. 
On  the  second  reading  being  moved,  Lord  Winmarleigh  asked  that  the  Stand- 
ing Orders  might  be  dispensed  with,  and  explained  the  delays  that  had  occurred 
to  cause  the  Bill  to  be  after  date.  The  Earl  of  Redesdale  vigorously  opposed  the 
suspension,  and  said  the  Bill  came  up  at  a  time  when  it  was  impossible  to  make  a 
good  Committee  on  account  of  the  want  of  attendance  in  the  House.  He  com- 
plained that  the  Bill  in  its  present  shape  was  imperfect  and  gave  no  power  to  get 
ships  from  deep  water  into  the  canal.  He  said  the  completion  of  a  scheme  was 

one  of  the  conditions  on  which  private  legislation  was  allowed  to  proceed,  and  that 

(16;) 


1 68         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1883 

any  other  course  would  be  introducing  a  most  objectionable  and  flagrant  principle. 
He  objected  to  the  imperfect  character  of  the  Bill  as  shown  by  the  provisions  laid 
down  in  it  by  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons,  which  proposed  to  divide 
the  work  into  two  sections ;  the  channel  in  the  estuary  and  the  canal  itself.  The 
company  would  first  have  to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  Mersey  Commissioners  to 
the  estuary  works  before  applying  to  Parliament  to  execute  the  same.  It  was 
avowedly  an  imperfect  measure,  and  the  Bill  ought  not  to  be  passed.  If  it  were 
it  would  create  a  precedent  of  a  dangerous  character. 

Lord  Winmarleigh  in  reply  explained  the  enormous  interests  that  were  at 
stake,  and  said  that  the  capital  embarked  in  the  cotton  trade  alone  amounted  to 
;£ 1 00,000,000.  He  showed  that  the  whole  trade  of  the  district  was  oppressed  and 
strangled  by  the  cost  of  the  carriage  of  goods,  and  that  whilst  in  1 863  the  carriage 
of  goods  from  Manchester  to  Liverpool  was  6s.  6d.  per  ton,  it  had  eventually 
arrived  at  a  charge  of  us.  per  ton.  The  cost  of  timber  from  Liverpool  to  Man- 
chester used  to  be  2s.  6d.  per  ton,  now  it  was  75.  6d.  per  ton.  He  urged  that  the 
preliminary  expenses  of  this  Bill  were  already  .£50,000,  and  that  the  House  should 
not  lightly  stop  a  Bill  on  which  so  much  money  had  been  expended.  He  quoted 
Mr.  Pember's  story  of  the  Roman  emperor  and  the  glass  manufacturer  which  has 
been  related  in  a  previous  chapter.  Lord  Winmarleigh  hoped  the  House  of  Lords 
would  not  follow  the  example  of  the  Roman  Emperor,  and  so  lose  this  wonderful 
canal. 

The  Earl  of  Derby  sympathised  with  Lord  Redesdale  in  his  anxiety  to  stand 
up  for  the  regularity  of  proceedings,  but  reminded  him  that  the  House  of  Lords 
had  frequently  suspended  the  Standing  Orders,  and  allowed  Bills  to  be  read  a 
second  time.  In  this  case  the  promoters  were  not  responsible  for  the  delay  that 
had  occurred.  The  inquiry  in  the  House  of  Commons  had  lasted  for  thirty-eight 
days,  a  very  unusual  length  of  time  to  be  given  to  any  Parliamentary  inquiry. 

He  might  remind  the  House  that  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons 
had  sanctioned  the  canal,  and  reported,  "that  if  the  scheme  could  be  carried  out,  it 
would  afford  valuable  facilities  to  the  trade  of  Lancashire".  Also  "that  if  the  Bill 
pass,  the  company  will  be  incorporated,  who  then  can,  and  will,  at  once  lay  before 
the  Mersey  Commissioners  plans  and  sections  which  the  discussion  and  evidence 
in  the  House  of  Commons  has  rendered  possible,  with  a  view  to  obtaining  their 
approval  and  the  subsequent  sanction  of  Parliament,  whereas,  if  the  Bill  be  rejected, 
a  whole  year,  at  least,  will  be  lost,  as  the  promoters  will  have  no  status  to  go  to 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  169 

the  Commissioners  for  their  approval,  and  the  whole  contest  will  have  to  take 
place  again  in  the  House  of  Commons  without  the  Bill  ever  having  been  investi- 
gated by  the  House  of  Lords".  He  added,  on  the  highest  authority,  that  the 
Mersey  Commissioners  were  now  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  clauses  that  had  been 
inserted  in  the  Bill,  and  that  no  opposition  would  come  from  them.  If  their  lord- 
ships rejected  the  Bill,  the  promoters  would  think  it  very  hard  that,  after  bearing 
all  the  enormous  expense,  they  should  be  thrown  back,  and  have  all  their  money 
wasted  in  consequence  of  a  mere  technical  objection.  The  House  then  divided, 
with  the  result  that  87  voted  for  and  24  against  the  suspension  of  the  Standing 
Orders.  This  welcome  result  enabled  the  Bill  to  proceed,  and  it  was  remitted  to 
a  special  Committee,  consisting  of  the  Earl  of  Camperdown,  the  Earl  of  Devon, 
Lord  Methuen,  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen  and  the  Duke  of  Bedford. 

This  Committee  met  on  3Oth  July,  1883,  the  Earl  of  Camperdown  in  the 
chair.  The  promoting  and  opposing  interests  were  generally  represented  by  the 
same  counsel  that  had  appeared  before  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

Mr.  Pember  again  opened  the  promoters'  case. 

The  Chairman  called  attention  to  the  lower  part  of  the  estuary  works  being 
struck  out  of  the  Bill,  when  Mr.  Pember  said  that  the  Bill  was  practically  on  all 
fours  with  the  measure  as  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons,  except  that  there 
had  been  a  modification  as  regarded  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  purchase,  and  that 
now  it  was  not  proposed  to  carry  works  into  the  deep-water  channel  of  the  Mersey. 
The  former  Bill  took  power  to  make  a  deep-water  channel  with  retaining  walls  in 
the  Mersey  between  Runcorn  and  Garston,  and  would  have  enabled  the  scheme  to 
have  been  dealt  with  as  a  whole,  but  to  this  a  technical  objection  in  the  Commons 
had  been  raised  by  the  opponents  of  the  Bill.  They  urged  that  the  promoters  had 
not  deposited  plans  and  sections  of  the  deep-water  channel  between  Runcorn  and 
Garston.  The  reason  for  this  was  that  it  was  not  deemed  necessary  to  do  so,  the 
promoters  believing  that  they  had  powers,  under  existing  Acts,  to  do  the  estuary 
work,  provided  they  obtained  the  sanction  of  the  Mersey  Commissioners.  The 
Bill  passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  obliged  the  promoters  to  get  the  consent 
of  the  Mersey  Commissioners,  and  to  bring  forward  a  Bill  in  the  ensuing  session 
to  do  the  estuary  works,  at  the  same  time  depositing  the  necessary  plans  and 
sections.  He  might  say  the  original  Bill  would  have  enabled  the  promoters  to 
have  begun  their  canal  without  the  consent  of  the  Mersey  Commissioners,  but  they 
could  not  have  begun  the  deep-water  channel,  and  they  would  not  have  been  such 


170         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1883 

fools  as  to  attempt  it.  Mr.  Pember  then  went  into  the  early  history  of  the  Mersey 
and  Irwell  Navigation,  and  called  attention  to  the  ample  powers  given  in  the 
original  Acts  of  Parliament,  and  specially  to  the  provision  that  had  been  inserted 
in  all  Acts  connected  with  the  river,  that,  if  ever  the  Navigation  were  converted 
into  a  Ship  Canal,  all  authorised  bridges  should  be  converted  into  swing  bridges. 
In  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board  petition,  it  was  urged  that  the  Mersey 
ought  not  to  be  touched,  and  never  ought  to  be  touched,  but  it  was  ridiculous  to 
suppose  that  the  Mersey  was  the  only  estuary  in  Great  Britain  that  could  not  be 
improved.  He  urged  that  whilst  practical  men,  like  the  engineers  of  the  Tees, 
the  Tyne  and  the  Clyde,  gentlemen  who  had  studied  that  branch  of  their  profession, 
saw  no  difficulty  in  the  way,  they  were  confronted  by  gentlemen  who  were  not 
engineers,  but  critics  of  engineers,  some  of  whom  had  never  carried  out  a  single 
engineering  work,  and  had  not  made  a  special  study  of  estuaries.  The  idea  of  a 
Ship  Canal  was  not  a  new  one.  In  1824  there  was  an  application  for  a  Ship  Canal 
from  the  Dee,  and  since  then  numerous  schemes  had  been  proposed  to  make  a 
waterway  from  Manchester  to  Liverpool  which  should  be  available  for  sea-going 
ships. 

Even  recently,  in  order  to  secure  cheap  rates  between  Liverpool  and  the 
interior  of  Lancashire,  a  scheme  had  been  brought  forward  by  a  number  of  Liver- 
pool gentlemen,  namely,  the  Lancashire  Plateway  scheme.  This  showed  the  exist- 
ence of  a  state  of  things  which  called  for  a  remedy,  and  the  Ship  Canal  would 
supply  it.  Mr.  Pember  then  dealt  with  the  necessity  of  cheaper  transit  into 
Lancashire,  and  showed  by  figures  how  the  various  trades  were  suffering  from  the 
excessive  rates  charged  in  the  district  in  comparison  with  the  much  smaller  rates 
paid  both  at  home  and  abroad.  He  pointed  out  too  that  Liverpool  was  over- 
crowded, and  could  not  accommodate  a  growing  trade.  In  consequence  it  was 
diverted  abroad.  He  dealt  with  the  interest  taken  by  the  main  Lancashire  towns 
in  the  provision  of  a  Ship  Canal,  and  stated  that  not  only  had  the  various  Town 
Councils  petitioned  in  its  favour,  but  that  it  had  the  monetary  support  of  the 
mercantile  classes  from  a  large  area  round  Manchester.  He  gave  many  instances 
of  dear  rates,  and  then  proceeded  to  deal  with  the  petitions,  commenting  on  the 
fact,  that  whilst  there  were  twenty-eight  petitions  in  the  Commons  there  were  now 
only  twelve  in  the  Lords. 

There  was  considerable  argument  when  the  petition  of  the  Shropshire  Union 
and  Canal  Company  was  raised,  Mr.  Pember  contending  that  the  Ellesmere  Port 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  171 

channel,  about  which  they  petitioned,  was  outside  the  purview  of  the  present 
Committee,  and  that  it  was  under  lease  to  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway 
Company,  who  were  already  petitioners. 

Mr.  Dugdale,  in  reply,  contended  that  Ellesmere  Port  would  be  included  in 
the  limits  of  the  harbour  and  port  of  Manchester,  that  the  water  coming  down  the 
Mersey  would  affect  his  port,  and  that  the  Shropshire  Union  Canal  Company's  com- 
plaint was  not  included  in  the  London  and  North-Western  petition.  The  Committee 
decided  that  the  Shropshire  Union  Canal  Company  could  not  appear  against  the 
Bill,  but  might  have  a  technical  ground  for  appearing  against  the  preamble. 

Mr.  Daniel  Adamson,  the  first  witness,  said  that  so  long  ago  as  1880  he  had 
consulted  Mr.  Abernethy  as  to  the  possibilities  of  a  Ship  Canal.  As  far  back  as  1712 
Mr.  Steers  had  proposed  a  Ship  Canal  between  Manchester  and  the  sea.  In  1720 
the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Act  was  obtained  to  improve  those  rivers.  In  1824  an 
attempt  was  made  to  float  a  company  for  a  waterway  from  the  Dee  to  Manchester. 
In  1838  Sir  John  Rennie  prepared  a  report  for  Warrington,  in  which  he  discussed 
an  improved  navigation  between  Liverpool  and  that  town.  In  1843  Mr.  Palmer, 
an  engineer  of  that  date,  made  a  report  as  to  a  navigation  suitable  for  large  sea- 
going vessels,  and  afterwards  Sir  William  Fairbairn,  an  engineer  of  great  experi- 
ence, spoke  of  the  feasibility  of  the  scheme.  He  repeated  the  evidence  he  had 
given  in  the  House  of  Commons,  showing  the  vast  increase  there  had  been  in  the 
cotton  industries  of  the  district,  and  how  they  were  oppressed  by  the  toll  that  was 
levied  on  goods  passing  through  Liverpool,  and  the  subsequent  heavy  railway 
carriage.  At  this  point  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  intervened  and  urged 
that,  in  consequence  of  the  lateness  of  the  session,  the  evidence  should  be  abridged 
as  far  as  possible.  Mr.  Adamson  on  subsequent  days  gave  the  estimated  saving  to 
the  cotton  trade  by  a  canal  as  .£500,000  per  annum.  He  showed  how  industries 
had  been  driven  from  Manchester,  especially  locomotive  making.  How  the  once 
active  water  navigation  on  the  Irwell  had  died  away.  How  railways  would  benefit 
by  the  encouragement  of  industries  which  would  give  them  an  increased  passenger 
traffic,  very  much  more  remunerative  than  goods  traffic,  instancing  that  a  ton  of 
third-class  passengers  produced  is.  3d.  per  mile,  whilst  a  ton  of  minerals  did  not 
bring  aid.  per  ton  per  mile. 

He  stated  that  a  deepened  and  widened  navigation  would  prevent  the  floods 
which  now  at  times  devastated  the  district,  and  that  a  new  opening  would  be 
afforded  to  the  coal  districts  of  Lancashire,  the  Midlands  and  South  Yorkshire. 


i72         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

He  concluded  his  evidence  by  saying  that  in  Lancashire  there  had  been  nothing 
ever  approaching  the  enthusiasm  attached  to  this  project  since  the  Anti-Corn  Law 
agitation,  and  that  he  felt  sure  the  requisite  capital  would  be  found  when  it  was 
required. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Rodwell,  he  said  that  though  they  might  not  be  able 
to  bring  5,ooo-ton  ships  to  Manchester,  drawing  22  feet  of  water,  he  was  quite 
convinced  they  could  bring  up  96  per  cent,  of  the  carrying  trade  of  the  country 
which  was  carried  in  ships  not  exceeding  2,500  tons  burden.  Also  he  was  sure 
that  ships  in  the  docks  would  tranship  into  barges,  and  so,  by  means  of  the  various 
canals,  cheap  distribution  would  be  assured.  Pressed  as  to  the  ability  to  find 
capital  for  purchasing  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  he  said  there  would  be  no  difficulty 
in  finding  money  to  buy  a  concern  that  already  paid  a  handsome  dividend. 

Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  said  that  the  Liverpool  docks  were  over-crowded,  and 
the  charges  there  heavy,  also  that  there  was  no  room  for  dock  extension.  It  was 
a  matter  of  history  that  though  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool  had  sold  the  town 
dues  to  the  Dock  Board,  with  the  intention  that  they  should  be  done  away  with 
directly  the  latter  body  had  collected  sufficient  money  to  recoup  the  cost,  yet, 
when  the  Dock  Board  had  received  all  the  money  back,  they  still  continued  to 
collect  the  dues  from  the  traders  of  Lancashire.  Loaf  sugar  had  to  pay  ;s.  id.  per 
ton  (Liverpool  charges),  whilst  the  proposed  charges  in  Manchester  would  be  2s,  6d. 
per  ton.  Comparing  the  Liverpool  charges  and  railway  freight  with  the  canal  rate 
and  charges  to  Manchester,  there  would  be  a  saving  of  1 2s.  4d.  per  ton  by  the 
latter.  It  had  been  stated  there  would  be  an  extra  freight  charged  by  shipowners 
for  coming  the  40  miles  between  Liverpool  and  Manchester.  This  would  not  be 
the  case,  because  that  distance  would  not  enter  into  the  calculation  when  thousands 
of  miles  had  to  be  traversed.  As  a  matter  of  fact  his  ships  charged  no  more  from 
Garston  to  Rouen  than  they  did  to  Havre,  though  the  former  was  90  miles  up 
a  tortuous  river.  In  all  the  schedules  he  had  not  reckoned  ships'  dues,  which 
would  allow  a  margin  of  about  is.  8d.  per  ton  (extra  charge)  if  necessary.  Liver- 
pool always  charged  ships'  dues.  The  port  of  Manchester  would  certainly  in- 
fluence and  develop  traffic  coast-wise.  The  charge  for  Manchester  goods  to 
Plymouth  varied  from  453.  to  6os.  per  ton,  whilst  by  sea  they  could  be  profitably 
carried  for  125.  Garston  is  now  a  much  cheaper  port  than  Liverpool.  Goods 
could  be  brought  there,  stored  for  a  month  free,  and  taken  by  rail  to  Liverpool 
cheaper  than  they  could  be  landed  in  Liverpool  direct. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  173 

When  Mr.  Bidder  came  to  cross-examine  this  witness  about  master  porterage 
and  other  Liverpool  charges,  the  Chairman  said  he  was  utterly  puzzled  how  a  shipper 
could  be  his  own  master  porter.  To  which  Mr.  Pember  replied  that  it  seemed 
rather  like  a  gentleman  jumping  down  his  own  throat.  Eventually  it  was  ex- 
plained that  in  Liverpool  a  merchant  could  act  as  his  own  master  porter,  and 
charge  himself  for  what  he  had  done. 

Following  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  came  several  commercial  witnesses.  Mr. 
Sam.  Mendel,  a  retired  Manchester  merchant,  said  that  in  his  time  the  rate 
to  Liverpool  had  advanced  from  53.  to  iis.  per  ton,  and  that  railway  com- 
petition had  not  stopped  the  increase.  He  hoped  for  a  saving  on  dock  dues, 
charges  and  railway  rates  of  from  6s.  6d.  to  1 1  s.  per  ton  on  Manchester 
goods. 

Mr.  J.  C.  Fielden,  a  manufacturing  agent,  estimated  a  saving  by  the  canal  to 
the  cotton  trade  of  at  least  ,£450,000  per  year,  and  that  there  would  be  a  great 
cheapening  of  the  food  supply  to  the  million  people  round  Manchester.  So 
severely  was  the  cotton  trade  of  Lancashire  punished,  that  in  four  years,  from  1876 
to  1879  inclusive,  there  had  been  an  aggregate  loss  of  .£24,000,000  sterling.  In 
fact  he  knew  of  one  concern  where  there  had  been  no  dividend  for  seven  years. 
He  instanced  the  position  of  Todmorden,  where  there  were  now  only  four  concerns 
left  out  of  twenty-nine  firms  who  were  in  existence  ten  years  ago.  In  the  Bacup 
Valley  there  were  twenty-three  mills  empty,  which  used  to  be  engaged  in  the  pro- 
duction of  heavy  cotton  goods.  The  turnover  of  the  Lancashire  cotton  trade  was 
enormous — £80,000,000  exports,  and  over  .£20,000,000  for  the  home  trade.  Not 
only  would  the  Ship  Canal  effect  a  great  saving  in  carriage,  but  it  would  alter  the 
brokerage  system  of  Liverpool,  which  was  a  trades  union  on  a  gigantic  scale,  and 
levied  ,£1 20,000  a  year  on  the  cotton  that  came  through  that  town.  Mr.  Andrew, 
Secretary  to  the  Oldham  Masters'  Cotton  Spinners'  Association,  gave  the  carriage 
of  cotton  as  6s.  6d.  per  ton  in  1852  against  ics.  which  was  paid  to-day.  On  being 
cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bidder,  he  said  that  if  the  canal,  estimated  to  cost  over 
.£5,000,000,  should  for  any  reason  cost  £10,000,000,  it  would  abundantly  pay  the 
people  of  Oldham  and  Lancashire  to  make  it. 

Alderman  Husband,  Mayor  of  Salford,  was  of  opinion  that  the  canal  would 
be  of  the  greatest  advantage  in  relieving  his  town  from  the  disastrous  floods  that 
had  afflicted  it,  because  the  water-level  of  the  river  would  be  reduced  10  feet.  He 
believed  that  if  the  canal  were  made,  even  at  a  cost  of  anything  like  £10,000,000, 


i74         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

the  traffic  that  would  come  would  make  it  one  of  the  busiest  waters  on  the  face  of 
the  earth. 

Mr.  L.  J.  Crossley,  of  Halifax,  spoke  of  the  large  quantities  of  wool,  hemp 
and  jute  that  were  consumed  in  Yorkshire,  and  said  that  the  high  charges  in 
Liverpool  had  obliged  them  to  import  some  of  the  latter  through  Hull.  He  could 
see  no  reason  why  the  wool  consumed  by  him  should  have  to  pass  through  London, 
when  it  added  something  like  ,£3  a  ton  to  the  cost  of  the  wool  to  get  it  from  there. 
He  estimated  that  almost  one-half  of  the  colonial  wool  sold  in  London  was  manu- 
factured in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bradford.  Yorkshire  people  paid  403.  per  ton 
for  the  carriage  of  manufactured  goods  to  London,  whilst  the  manufacturers  of 
Scotland  could  carry  theirs  double  the  distance  for  the  same  price.  He  believed 
that  as  Manchester  would  be  the  nearest  port,  it  would  effect  a  great  saving  in 
the  carriage  of  the  raw  wool  from  London,  and  on  the  manufactured  woollens  ex- 
ported. The  wool  coming  annually  from  London  was  valued  at  from  ,£8,000,000 
to  ;£  1 0,000,000. 

Mr.  Mitchell,  of  the  Co-operative  Wholesale  Society,  Limited,  said  they  had 
diverted  a  share  of  their  trade  from  Liverpool  to  Goole,  because  the  charges  of  the 
former  port  were  35.  3d.  to  33.  gd.  per  ton  against  6d.  at  the  latter.  If  the  canal 
were  made,  they  would  use  Manchester  and  save  the  railway  freight.  They  could 
now  bring  goods  from  New  York  to  Liverpool  at  the  rate  of  9  miles  for  id.,  and 
to  carry  those  same  goods  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  (30  miles)  cost  4d.  per 
ton  per  mile.  He  believed  they  would  carry  to  Manchester  at  the  ocean  rate,  just 
as  they  carried  from  America  to  Rouen  at  the  same  rate  as  to  Havre.  If  so,  there 
would  be  a  saving  of  IDS.  8d.  per  ton,  which  it  now  cost  between  Liverpool  and 
Manchester.  He  estimated  that  the  canal  would  save  their  firm  ,£5,000  a  year. 

Mr.  Henry  McNiel  estimated  the  saving  on  the  iron  that  would  come  by  the 
Ship  Canal  would  amount  from  ,£100,000  to  .£150,000  a  year. 

Mr.  Arnold  Lupton  repeated  the  evidence  he  gave  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  said  that  in  the  Barnsley  coal-field  alone  they  raised  30,000,000  tons  per  year, 
all  of  it  a  good  steam  coal  of  pure  and  hard  quality,  and  well  suited  for  bunker  use 
or  shipment  on  the  Mersey  at  Partington.  This  would  be  by  far  their  nearest  port. 

Mr.  R.  B.  Goldsworthy,  speaking  of  the  support  given  to  the  project  in  the 
district,  thought  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  capital  being  raised,  and  expressed  his 
intention  to  make  further  subscription  in  addition  to  the  ,£1,000  he  had  already 
subscribed. 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  175 

Mr.  Joseph  Davies,  of  Warrington,  in  answer  to  the  question  by  Mr.  Pope, 
"  What  will  the  canal  do  for  Warrington  ?  "  said  :— 

At  present  we  have  a  river  that,  comparatively  speaking,  does  little  or  nothing  from  the 
sea  upwards  to  Warrington.  It  is  only  at  certain  times  of  spring  tides  that  we  are  enabled  to 
have  vessels  come  up  to  Warrington  of  about  1 20  tons  burden,  whereas,  if  we  have  this  Ship 
Canal,  we  expect  to  have  all  the  advantages  that  you  have  heard  set  forth  for  Manchester  as 
they  pass  Warrington. 

After  several  witnesses  from  Cardiff  and  Glasgow  had  given  evidence  as  to 
the  possibilities  of  the  canal,  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  made  an  appeal  to 
the  promoters  to  limit  their  evidence,  in  view  of  the  risk  there  would  be  through 
the  approaching  end  of  the  session,  and  no  more  commercial  evidence  was  tendered. 

Mr.  Leader  Williams  commenced  the  engineering  evidence  by  giving  the 
history  of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell,  and  Bridgewater  Navigations.  He  then  described 
the  canal,  and  went  into  the  question  of  estimates.  An  attempt  had  been  made  to 
discount  the  Ship  Canal  on  the  ground  of  the  insufficiency  and  impurity  of  the 
water.  He  maintained  the  large  body  of  water  impounded  would  not  be  more 
impure  than  at  present.  The  polluted  water  would  remain  a  constant  quantity,  and 
the  large  amount  impounded  in  flood  time  would  diminish  the  pollution.  The 
sluices  when  raised  would  allow  the  polluted  water  to  pass  away,  and  this  would 
be  replaced  by  a  fresh  supply  in  times  of  rain.  The  red  sandstone  surrounding 
the  docks  was  full  of  water  and  could  be  drawn  upon  if  necessary.  When  in  times 
of  drought  the  Bridgewater  Canal  required  more  water,  he  had  sunk  a  well,  put  in 
a  turbine  of  80  horse-power,  and  utilised  the  fall  of  the  river  to  pump  a  large 
quantity  of  good  water.  This  he  could  do  for  the  canal,  in  case  of  emergency,  but 
the  rainfall  figures  showed  him  that  there  would  be  an  ample  quantity  to  provide 
69  large  locks  of  water  for  full-sized  steamers,  or  1,141  small  locks  for  barges  per 
day.  The  Suez  Canal  paid  its  dividend  upon  ten  or  twelve  large  steamers  per  day. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  lock  full  of  water  was  not  lost  on  the  passage  of 
each  vessel,  inasmuch  as  the  upper  half  of  one  lock  would  pass  into  the  lower  part 
of  another.  The  pollution  of  the  river  Irwell  arose  largely  from  the  dye  stuffs, 
which,  though  they  made  it  dark  in  colour,  were  not  really  injurious.  Indeed,  they 
helped  to  deodorise  the  water.  He  might  say  that  the  Local  Government  Board 
were  forcing  the  neighbouring  authorities  to  purify  their  sewage,  and  he  believed 
that  the  river  was  improving  every  year.  No  doubt  the  design  for  passing  the 
Bridgewater  over  the  Ship  Canal  was  a  novelty.  He  had,  however,  had  experience 


176         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

on  the  Weaver  of  raising  vessels  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  level,  and  this  experiment 
had  been  successful.  He  felt  quite  assured  that  what  he  proposed  could  be  carried 
out  without  any  risk. 

Mr.  Leader  Williams'  evidence  was  corroborated  by  Mr.  Abernethy  and 
other  engineers,  one  of  whom  criticised  a  statement  that  timber  ponds  were  a 
necessity.  At  Millwall  they  had  no  timber  ponds,  and  they  were  only  wanted 
by  merchants  for  a  certain  class  of  timber. 

Mr,  Richard  Price  Williams  repeated  his  evidence  before  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  said  it  was  quite  possible  to  alter  the  junction  near  Warrington  to 
suit  the  railway  companies ;  also  to  have  both  a  swing  and  a  high-level  bridge  on 
the  Warrington  line  if  it  were  desired. 

Mr.  Alexander  Adamson,  of  Glasgow,  gave  evidence  that  the  cost  of  fidding 
a  mast  on  a  4,ooo-ton  ship  to  pass  under  the  bridges  would  not  exceed  ,£132,  and 
Captain  Pearson,  of  Liverpool,  an  experienced  navigator,  saw  no  difficulty  in  ocean 
ships  passing  up  the  canal. 

Dr.  C.  A.  Burghardt  spoke  of  the  improvement  of  the  Irwell,  and  predicted 
that  in  a  few  years  it  would  be  a  fairly  pure  river. 

Mr.  Joseph  Carter  Bell,  another  eminent  chemist,  spoke  of  the  general  good 
health  of  the' people  living  close  to  the  river,  and  said  that  he  himself  lived  near  it, 
and  had  his  garden  going  down  to  the  edge,  and  would  certainly  have  known  if  any 
injury  had  accrued  to  the  public  health. 

Mr.  Dunlop  stated  the  land  required  for  the  canal  proper  as  714  acres,  valued 
at  .£268,000;  for  the  Warrington  docks  as  24  acres,  and  for  the  Manchester  docks 
1425  acres;  total  value,  .£175,500.  The  railway  deviations  would  cost  £478,000. 

Mr.  Potter,  Q.C.,  opened  the  case  for  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool.  He 
objected  to  the  extra  cost  caused  by  having  to  sink  the  Vyrnwy  water  pipes,  for 
the  supply  of  Liverpool,  under  the  canal  and  the  river  Mersey.  Also  that  no  plans, 
sections  or  estimates  had  been  submitted  for  the  estuarial  work.  He  stated  that  the 
canal  would  only  serve  a  limited  area  outside  Manchester,  that  there  would  not  be 
sufficient  headway  for  large  ships  to  pass  up,  and  that  of  every  1 50  ships  engaged 
in  the  carrying  trade,  only  twenty  would  be  able  to  use  the  canal.  He  character- 
ised the  canal  as  "a  bit  of  a  scheme"  which  would  be  absolutely  useless  unless 
supplemented  by  another  Act  of  Parliament.  He  asked  their  Lordships  not 
to  take  a  leap  in  the  dark,  inasmuch  as  the  advantage  to  be  gained  was  not 
commensurate  with  the  risk  involved.  He  hoped  the  Committee  would  oblige 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  177 

the  promoters  to  withdraw  the  Bill,  and  bring  forward  a  complete  scheme  next 
year. 

Sir  William  B.  Forwood  was  the  first  Liverpool  witness.  He  at  once  attacked 
the  evidence  of  Mr.  Leigh,  of  Stockport,  one  of  the  promoters,  and  said  :— 

I  know  Mr.  Leigh's  business  intimately,  and  I  can  say  that  he  could  not  possibly  im- 
port anything  except  a  very  small  portion  of  the  cotton  he  uses. 

Mr.  Pember. — Mr.  Leigh  has  been  here,  and  I  am  told  distinctly  he  imports  every  ton. 

Mr.  Pope. — This  gentleman  buys  it  for  him  in  Liverpool,  and  Sir  William  Forwood 
knows,  for  he  imports  every  ton. 

The  Witness.—  I  buy  in  America. 

The  Chairman. — If  Sir  William  Forwood  says  that  he  buys  it  all  for  Mr.  Leigh,  that  is 
a  different  thing. 

Mr.  Pope. — He  said  he  knows  Mr.  Leigh's  business. 

The  Chairman. — I  decline  to  accept  any  person's  knowledge  of  anybody's  business.  If 
Sir  William  Forwood  says,  "  I  buy  Mr.  Leigh's  cotton,  and  I  know  that  Mr.  Leigh  could  not 
buy  it,"  that  is  a  statement ;  but  if  he  says,  "  I  know  Mr.  Leigh's  business,"  that  means 
nothing.  I  infinitely  prefer  to  hear  Mr.  Leigh  about  his  own  business. 

On  this  Sir  William  Forwood  explained  that  it  was  necessary  for  a  cotton 
spinner  to  mix  different  descriptions  of  cotton  before  he  could  spin  them,  and  that 
in  his  opinion  a  large  spot  cotton  market  was  absolutely  essential  to  secure  the 
necessary  selection  of  cotton.  His  experience  of  the  grain  trade  was  that  from 
as.  6d.  to  53.  per  ton  more  was  charged  to  Rouen  than  to  Havre.  He  calculated 
that  it  would  cost  ^101  195.  6d.  to  bring  100  bales  of  cotton  from  New  Orleans  to 
Manchester,  whilst  the  charge  from  New  Orleans  to  the  railway  station  in 
Liverpool  would  be  ,£98  os.  lid.  Of  course  when  railway  carriage  was  added, 
Manchester  would  have  an  advantage.  Modern  ships  bringing  9,000  to  10,000 
bales  of  cotton  could  not  go  near  the  canal.  He  produced  a  list  to  show  that  no 
towns  in  Lancashire  would  have  cotton  cheapened  by  the  canal,  except  Manchester, 
and  here  the  advantage  would  only  be  zod.  per  ton.  He  complained  that  whilst 
Liverpool  had  been  for  the  last  seventeen  years  struggling  to  get  the  railway 
rates  into  the  interior  reduced,  Manchester  had  never  given  any  assistance.  Indeed 
the  various  traders  in  Manchester,  when  appealed  to,  made  no  complaints  worth 
bringing  before  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons.  In  his  opinion,  if  the 
canal  were  made  to-morrow,  Manchester  could  not  successfully  compete  with 
Liverpool,  because  if  a  port  has  a  large  miscellaneous  freight  to  deal  with,  it  can 

afford  to  take  any  special  article  at  a  comparatively  low  cost.      Recently,  through 
VOL.  i.  12 


178         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

improvements  in  marine  engines  and  increased  ocean  competition,  rates  to  Calcutta 
had  been  reduced  from  6os.  to  225.,  to  Bombay  from  405.  and  505.  to  205.,  and  to 
New  York  from  6os.  to  203.  per  ton.  In  order  to  reduce  inland  traffic  rates  a  barge 
canal  would  be  more  economical  than  a  ship  canal.  Indeed,  the  latter  was  a  very 
clumsy  and  expensive  method,  and  like  trying  to  make  water  run  up  a  hill. 
Personally,  he  would  never  send  a  steamer  to  Manchester,  but  would  barge  or 
lighter  every  ton  up  to  that  town.  He  feared  there  was  no  guarantee  the  Ship 
Canal  would  not  be  bought  up  by  the  railway.  It  was  a  scheme  entirely  of 
engineers  and  promoters.  He  had  helped  forward  the  Cheshire  Lines  Company 
to  secure  competition,  but  even  before  the  new  line  was  finished  a  joint  purse 
agreement  was  made  with  the  other  companies  running  to  Liverpool.  Lancashire 
would  have  to  provide  interest  on  a  capital  of  from  £10,000,000  to  ,£15,000,000 
for  a  Ship  Canal,  whilst  a  barge  canal  could  be  made  at  a  cost  of  from  ,£2,000,000 
to  ,£3,000,000.  Coasting  vessels,  on  account  of  the  extra  time  taken  going  up  the 
canal,  would  have  at  least  to  pay  double  freights.  Indeed,  looking  into  the  matter 
as  a  man  of  business,  the  canal  seemed  to  him  the  most  visionary  scheme,  got  up 
without  due  deliberation,  that  was  ever  brought  before  Parliament. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pember,  he  admitted  there  might  be  a  chance  of 
obtaining  a  back  cargo  from  Manchester.  Also  that  Manchester  had  just  cause  to 
complain  of  the  cost  in  obtaining  raw  material  9f  all  kinds,  and  he  characterised 
the  railway  rates  to  that  city  as  exorbitant.  He  had  since  ascertained  that  there 
were  high  local  charges  at  Rouen  which  might  cause  a  higher  freight  than  to 
Havre,  but  he  still  believed  that  Rouen  was  a  much  more  convenient  port  than 
Manchester  would  be.  In  his  calculation  he  had  put  .£3  133.  6d.  per  ton  as  the 
cost  of  freight  to  Liverpool  from  New  Orleans,  and  he  considered  it  would  cost  an 
extra  5  per  cent,  on  this,  or  33.  8d.  per  ton.,  to  bring  cotton  up  the  river  to  Man- 
chester. When  it  was  pointed  out  that  40  per  cent,  of  the  .£3  133.  6d.  went  in 
local  charges  in  New  Orleans,  the  only  answer  he  could  give  was  that  it  was  a 
perfect  fallacy  to  take  it  in  that  way,  and  the  extra  cost  to  Manchester  would  be 
35.  8d.  per  ton. 

The  witness  believed  he  was  the  first  person  to  propose  a  plateway  which 
was  afterwards  taken  up  by  Mr.  Alfred  Holt.  The  object  was  to  cheapen  and 
improve  the  conveyance  of  goods  and  minerals..  The  contemplated  cost  of  the 
plateway  was  ,£800,000,  but  when  the  estimates  came  out  at  £8,000,000  he 
advised  Mr.  Holt  not  to  pursue  the  matter  further.  It  did  not  strike  him  that  a 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  179 

preliminary  fund  of  .£75,000  was  out  of  proportion  to  an  expenditure  of  .£800,000. 
He  had  stated  in  the  House  that  the  Leeds  and  Liverpool  and  the  Bridgewater 
Canals  were  under  the  influence  of  railway  companies,  and  that  though  they  were 
only  permitted  to  charge  6s.  per  ton,  under  a  penalty,  they  had  for  many  years 
been  charging  at  the  rate  of  IDS.  per  ton.  He  was  still  of  opinion  there  was  a 
very  close  alliance  between  the  different  canals  and  the  railways,  and  that  the  rates 
were  too  rigid  and  exorbitant.  Indeed  they  were  double  what  they  ought  to  be, 
and  he  would  be  glad  to  see  competition.  Then  there  would  be  rivalry,  and  the 
rates  ought  to  come  down  30  to  40  per  cent.  The  Leeds  and  Liverpool  now  pay 
20  per  cent.,  and  the  Bridgewater  8  per  cent,  dividend.  If  this  Bill  passed  the 
House  of  Lords  it  would  inflict  serious  and  terrible  injury  to  the  Mersey,  and 
therefore  he  was  hostile  to  it.  He  understood  that  20  feet  would  be  the  limit  of 
the  draught  of  water  in  the  canal,  and  a  2,5OO-tons  gross  register  cotton  ship 
would  draw  close  on  23  feet.  In  his  evidence  before  a  Select  Committee  of  the 
House  of  Commons  in  March,  1881,  he  had  stated  that  if  Liverpool  had  the  same 
advantages  as  other  ports  as  regards  interior  carriage,  there  would  be  a  saving  of 
^"400,000  per  annum.  In  other  words,  they  were  overcharged  that  sum. 

Though  he  would  like  to  see  the  Bridgewater  out  of  railway  control,  he  would 
prefer  a  barge  canal,  made  by  merchants  and  manufacturers,  to  the  proposed  Ship 
Canal.  He  understood  the  latter  was  got  up  by  promoters  and  engineers,  such  as 
Mr.  Leader  Williams,  Mr.  Adamson  and  Mr.  Peacock,  and  it  was  his  belief  that 
the  scheme  had  been  engineered  from  beginning  to  end,  and  that  the  moneyed 
classes  were  not  going  to  take  it  up. 

Mr.  Alexander  Rendel,  consulting  engineer  for  the  Indian  State  Railways, 
was  of  opinion  that  the  estimates  were  insufficient,  and  the  reason  the  Glasgow 
engine  builders  had  beaten  Manchester  out  of  the  market  was,  not  because  of  the 
locality,  but  that  the  men  did  more  work  in  the  former  place. 

Mr.  Francis  Stevenson,  engineer  to  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway 
Company,  said  that  the  increased  gradients  would  put  his  company  to  the  cost  of 
an  extra  bank  engine.  He  did  not  consider  the  Ship  Canal  Company  had  provided 
either  sufficient  sidings  or  quay  space  to  work  their  traffic,  and  they  had  not  in- 
cluded paving  with  square  setts  in  their  estimates.  To  his  mind  the  dock  area 
was  not  sufficient,  neither  were  the  estimates  for  excavations,  cement,  concrete,  or 
pitching  the  slopes,  and  he  put  in  tables  to  show  what  similar  work  had  cost  him 
elsewhere. 


i8o         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

Mr.  John  Wolfe  Barry  did  not  think  the  Ship  Canal  work  had  a  precedent  in 
this  country,  and  he  was  entirely  opposed  to  making  a  tunnel  under  the  canal 
near  Warrington. 

Mr.  Elias  Doming  said  there  was  no  person  living  who  had  had  any  experi- 
ence in  the  buying  of  land  for  canals,  because  there  had  not  been  a  canal  constructed 
in  this  country  for  the  last  seventy  years.  He  was  of  opinion  that  the  estimates 
for  the  disposal  of  soil  were  not  sufficient.  It  would  be  costly  to  provide  places 
for  tipping,  and  he  added  an  extra  £200,000  for  their  provision. 

Mr.  Frederick  Leyland,  shipowner  of  Liverpool,  believed  that  vessels  carrying 
Manchester  goods  would  invariably  bring  mixed  cargoes,  and  that  would  compel 
them  to  go  to  Liverpool  even  if  they  went  up  to  Manchester. 

Mr.  George  Findlay,  general  manager  of  the  London  and  North- Western 
Railway  Company,  gave  the  annual  value  of  the  imports  and  exports  of  Lancashire 
as  ;£ 1 95,000,000.  His  company  carried  1,800,000  passengers  over  the  lines 
proposed  to  be  diverted  at  Warrington,  and  104  passenger  trains  and  103  goods 
trains  passed  through  Warrington  daily.  If  the  gradients  were  increased  to  i  in 
114,  it  would  mean  an  extra  pilot  engine  for  all  trains  exceeding  fourteen  carriages, 
at  a  cost  of  a  ,£1,000  a  year  for  each  engine.  He  preferred,  however,  this  gradient 
to  taking  a  tunnel  at  a  gradient  of  i  in  60,  and  he  thought  in  proposing  the  latter 
the  promoters  were  injuriously  affecting  them  in  .the  worst  possible  way.  Cross- 
examined  by  Mr.  Pember,  the  witness  said  he  could  not  interpret  what  his  Chair- 
man, Mr.  Moon,  meant  when  he  said  that  the  sea  and  the  canals  did  more  to 
bring  down  rates  than  all  the  competition  between  the  railways  themselves.  He 
admitted  there  were  many  gradients  varying  from  i  in  70  to  I  in  100  on  their 
existing  lines,  and  also  that  there  was  a  Liverpool  and  Manchester  conference, 
which  comprised  all  the  railway  and  canal  companies,  and  that  this  conference  fixed 
rates  for  traffic  and  the  warehouse  and  carting  charges,  but  he  would  not  accept 
that  this  was  a  combination  against  the  interests  of  the  public. 

Mr.  James  Grierson,  of  the  Great  Western  Railway  Company,  objected  to  the 
lack  of  warehouse  accommodation  at  the  Ship  Canal  docks,  and  was  of  opinion  that 
a  railway  tunnel  at  Latchford  ought  not  to  be  allowed.  His  company  had  made  the 
Severn  tunnel,  but  it  was  i  in  90  at  one  end  and  i  in  100  at  the  other,  with  a  flat 
length  between,  against  the  i  in  60  proposed  for  the  Latchford  tunnel. 

Mr.  Pope,  Q.C.,  then  addressed  the  House  on  behalf  of  the  London  and 
North-Western  Railway  Company.  He  felt  sure  that  no  Committee  ever  sat 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  181 

before  for  ten  days  patiently  listening  to  a  Bill  which,  if  passed,  could  have  no 
possible  operative  effect  unless  another  Bill  were  passed  in  another  session  by 
another  Committee.  He  maintained  the  engineering  estimates  were  ,£2,000,000 
too  low,  that  instead  of  the  1,000  acres  of  land  estimated  for,  an  extra  area  of 
i, 600  acres  would  be  required,  and  ridiculed  what  he  called  the  ingenious  answer  of 
Mr.  Dunlop,  that  they  would  not  require  to  pay  for  the  land  not  needed  for  works, 
and  that  the  owner  would  be  glad  to  let  them  have  land  for  the  deposit  of  soil, 
without  payment.  By  means  of  an  agitation,  clever,  persistent  and  systematic  as 
ever  was  brought  to  bear  upon  a  political  question,  the  promoters  had  succeeded 
in  evoking  in  Manchester  a  certain  amount  of  enthusiasm  upon  the  subject.  He 
knew  perfectly  well  they  had  started  to  raise  a  preliminary  fund  of  ,£100,000,  and 
had  succeeded  in  raising  ,£65,000,  but  still  the  moneyed  classes  of  Manchester 
were  not  at  the  back  of  this  scheme.  In  the  House  of  Commons  Mr.  Armitage, 
M.P.,  and  Mr.  Slagg,  M.P.,  the  district  members,  distinctly  stated  that  neither 
they  nor  those  they  represented  as  the  great  commercial  classes  of  Manchester 
had  made  up  their  minds  that  this  scheme  was  anything  but  a  delusion.  There 
had  been  plenty  of  enthusiasts  like  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Fielden,  but  where  were 
the  leading  men  from  Ashton  and  Bolton  and  Stockport,  and  other  large  towns  ? 
He  believed  Mr.  Adamson  was  possessed  with  this  scheme,  and  that  he  and  his 
friends  would  do  all  in  their  power  to  support  it.  But  they  must  remember  that 
Mr.  Fielden  had  told  their  Lordships  that  within  the  last  six  years  Lancashire  had 
lost  .£24,000,000  of  its  capital,  and  had  no  money  to  spare.  He  had  never  heard 
of  a  Bill  in  which  all  Parliamentary  guarantees  and  checks  had  been  so  systemati- 
cally disregarded.  To  a  limited  extent  Mr.  Adamson  and  his  friends  knew  their 
own  business,  but  they  were  all  of  them  mad  upon  the  question  of  the  Ship  Canal, 
because,  except  in  their  own  ranks,  they  would  not  find  in  England  a  calm  and 
sensible  merchant  who  would  not  at  least  hesitate  as  to  the  probabilities  of  this 
Ship  Canal  ever  doing  anything  for  the  trade  of  Lancashire.  If  cotton  was  at  New 
Orleans  or  Galveston,  the  shipping  agent  would  find  vessels  eager  to  go  to  Liver- 
pool, but  few  would  ever  risk  altering  their  masts  for  a  single  voyage,  and  then 
encountering  the  navigation  to  Manchester.  Besides,  only  a  third  of  the  vessels, 
and  these  the  smaller  ones,  could  go  up  to  Manchester,  and  these  would  insist  on 
a  higher  rate  of  freight.  It  was  difficult  to  divert  traffic,  every  ounce  of  which  had 
to  be  brought  from  some  other  port.  Glasgow  was  not  a  diversion  but  a  develop- 
ment. On  the  Thames  ships  were  leaving  the  East  India  and  West  India  Docks 


1 82         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1883 

;md  going  to  Tilbury,  lower  down  the  river.  The  tendency,  begotten  of  the 
necessities  of  the  time,  was  to  bring  the  docks  to  the  sea-board,  and  give  the 
railways  the  free  access  to  them,  so  that  they  might  be  the  distributive  agencies 
over  the  country.  It  was  not  in  the  interests  of  the  country  for  the  railway  in- 
terests to  perish  in  order  that  the  Ship  Canal  might  survive.  It  was  a  cool 
proposition  for  the  sake  of  this  Ship  Canal  that  the  railway  companies  would  be 
placed  in  the  power  of  an  arbitrator,  who  might  put  upon  them  the  whole  cost  of 
making  these  deviations.  He  ridiculed  the  idea  that  the  clauses  passed  in  the 
early  days  of  railways,  in  respect  to  substituting  swing  bridges,  should  now  be  put 
in  force.  At  the  time  they  were  passed  a  ship  canal  of  the  present  magnitude 
could  not  have  been  contemplated,  and  no  idea  could  have  been  formed  of  the  vast 
extension  of  railway  traffic.  He  concluded  by  saying  that  the  whole  scheme  had 
been  shown  to  be  so  speculative  and  problematical  in  its  benefit,  that  the  Committee 
was  not  justified  in  inflicting  certain  and  serious  injury  upon  the  interests  of  his 
clients.  He  invited  them  to  say  that  the  scheme  was  incomplete  and  ill-considered, 
and  ought  not  to  receive  the  sanction  of  Parliament,  except  as  a  whole,  and  after 
the  full  plans  had  been  received  and  considered. 

Mr.  Francis  Ellis,  land  agent,  believed  that  the  canal  would  render  Trafford 
Hall,  the  seat  of  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford,  uninhabitable,  and  that  gentleman 
would  have  to  give  up  his  home  and  leave  the  place.  On  cross-examination  he 
admitted  that  the  river  was  not  now  in  a  satisfactory  condition,  and  that  the  canal 
would  be  farther  from  the  house  than  the  river  was  at  present. 

Mr.  John  Noble,  of  the  Midland  Railway  Company,  agreed  there  was  an 
obligation  on  his  company  that  they  should  provide  a  swing  bridge  in  lieu  of  a 
fixed  bridge  if  called  upon  to  do  so.  He  thought,  however,  the  clause  was  in- 
equitable and  ought  not  to  be  enforced.  There  was  no  doubt  there  were  existing 
gradients  on  the  Midland  lines  worse  than  those  proposed  by  the  Ship  Canal. 

Mr.  Charles  Scatter,  of  the  Manchester,  Sheffield  and  Lincolnshire  Railway 
Company,  said  that  in  his  experience  the  working  expenses  of  docks  were  from  40 
to  50  per  cent.,  and  that,  like  the  Amsterdam  docks,  they  often  cost  double  the 
estimates.  He  was  quite  sure  that  no  South  Yorkshire  coal  would  be  shipped  at 
the  canal  docks,  because  there  was  no  physical  connection.  The  witness  put  in 
the  Parliamentary  notice  when  it  was  proposed  in  1871  to  sell  the  Mersey  and 
Irwell  Navigation  and  the  Bridgewater  Canal  to  the  railway  companies,  and  the 
circumstances  seemed  to  cause  considerable  interest  to  their  Lordships,  who  were 


I 


X 

U 


O 
H 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  183 

amazed  at  the  attempt  by  the  railway  companies  to  possess  themselves  of  these 
waterways.  They  tried  to  get  the  fullest  information  from  Mr.  Scotter,  when  Mr. 
Littler,  Q.C.,  intervened. 

The  Chairman  (to  Mr.  Littler). — You  are  proceeding  to  answer  questions  put  to  this 
witness.  I  should  prefer  he  should  answer  my  question  before  I  allow  you  to  put  any 
question  to  him  at  all.  I  said,  "  Do  you  know  about  this  ? "  and  he  replied,  "  Yes,"  and  I  said, 
"  Do  you  know  it  officially  ? "  and  he  said,  "  Yes,"  and  now  he  tells  me  that  he  does  not  know. 

Mr.  Littler. — Upon  that  particular  point. 

The  Chairman. — He  evidently  knows  nothing  about  the  negotiations,  or  else  he  would 
tell  me.  I  prefer  to  get  the  answers  out  of  his  mouth  instead  of  out  of  yours.  Then  I  may 
have  any  conversation  you  like  with  you  presently. 

The  Chairman  expressed  regret  that  the  witness  had  attempted  an  explana- 
tion on  a  subject  about  which  he  was  evidently  ignorant. 

The  witness  went  on  to  say  that  if  all  the  tonnage  carried  by  the  Bridgewater 
Navigation  Company  on  their  canal  was  reduced  8d.  a  ton,  their  dividend  would 
be  gone,  but  their  Lordships  objected  to  this  unsustained  testimony. 

In  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pember,  the  question  of  the  purchase  of  the 
Bridgewater  interests  by  Sir  Edward  Watkin  and  Mr.  Price,  M.P.,  was  again 
mentioned,  when  the  Chairman  said  :— 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  go  further  into  this  matter  with  this  witness.  The  reason 
I  asked  my  question  was  at  once  to  see  whether  he  had  any  knowledge  of  this  matter. 
Clearly  he  has  not.  It  is  a  mystery,  that  I  am  bound  to  say,  such  as  I  never  heard  of  before, 
viz.,  two  Chairmen  going  and  purchasing  an  undertaking  and  then  re-issuing  the  capital  to 
their  own  shareholders — the  whole  matter  being  perfectly  independent  of  railways,  and  so 
on — and  then  when  we  have  Mr.  Price  and  Sir  Edward  Watkin,  well-known  gentlemen,  we 
know  that  they  do  not  usually  act  independently  of  railway  interests.  Perhaps  Mr.  Littler 
will  explain  it — it  is  the  strangest  case  in  the  world.  Just  show  me  how  it  is  that  these  two 
people,  for  the  first  time  in  their  lives,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  took  this  trouble  to  negotiate 
with  everybody,  and  then,  finally,  although  their  shareholders  were  not  in  any  way  concerned, 
they  turn  round  to  the  shareholders  and  make  the  whole  concern  a  matter  amongst  them- 
selves. Will  you  just  tell  me  quite  shortly? 

Mr.  Littler  replied  that  the  two  gentlemen  named  conceived  the  idea  they 
would  like  to  have  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  for  their  two  companies.  They 
entered  into  negotiations,  but  in  the  year  1872  the  Amalgamation  Committee  said 
that  Parliament  ought  not  to  allow  a  canal  to  be  bought  up  by  a  railway  company. 
The  Chairman  thought  they  must  have  circumvented  the  Parliamentary  Committee, 
but  he  would  like  to  know  how  the  Council  for  the  opposition  could  maintain  that 


1 84         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

Mr.  Price  and  Sir  Edward  Watkin  acted  independently  of  railway  interests. 
"Why  did  these  two  gentlemen,  who  are  notoriously  railway  men,  act  entirely 
independent  of  railway  interests,  and  having  done  so,  why  did  they  issue  the  capital 
to  their  shareholders,  who  were  in  no  way  concerned  ? " 

Mr.  Littler  in  reply  said  that  as  the  Bridgewater  Trustees  had  sought  Parlia- 
mentary power  to  sell  their  property  to  various  railway  and  canal  companies,  Sir 
Edward  Watkin  and  Mr.  Price  thought  it  a  very  good  thing  to  buy  it  for  their  two 
companies,  and  they  entered  into  an  absolute  contract  to  do  so.  When  a  Parlia- 
mentary Committee  declined  to  sanction  the  sale  of  an  independent  navigation 
to  a  railway  company,  these  two  gentlemen  offered  the  shares  to  their  respective 
proprietors.  The  witness  admitted  that  a  shipping  trade  had  been  created  at 
Grimsby,  which  had  increased  enormously,  also  he  did  not  deny  that  at  the  Alex- 
andra Docks,  Newport,  the  working  expenses  were  only  25  per  cent,  of  their 
receipts. 

Mr.  T.  B.  Foster  said  that  in  consequence  of  the  large  area  of  water  in  the 
docks  it  would  take  81  hours  to  flow  away,  whilst  the  present  area  of  water  only 
took  3^  hours.  Also  that  whilst  it  required  only  14  hours  rain  to  fill  the  present 
channel  below  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford's  property,  it  would  require  264  hours 
rain  to  fill  the  enlarged  area.  Owing  to  the  small  velocity,  the  water  would 
become  corrupt  and  offensive.  In  cross-examination  he  admitted  that  the  large 
quantity  of  comparatively  pure  compensation  water  would  sensibly  mitigate  the 
evil. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Watson  said  that  at  present  it  was  only  oxidation  of  the  water 
which  prevented  the  Irwell  being  an  intolerable  nuisance  to  Sir  Humphrey  de 
Trafford,  and  that  if  the  depth  of  the  water  was  increased  from  3  feet  to  26  feet, 
and  the  velocity  proportionately  decreased,  the  water  would  undoubtedly  putrify 
and  cause  a  serious  nuisance.  Ships  might  disturb  it,  and  the  water,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  gases  given  off,  would  be  most  injurious  to  health.  In  cross-examina- 
tion he  said  that  at  present  the  river  reached  Irlam  before  giving  off  its  most 
putrid  smell.  Reduce  the  velocity  and  the  smell  would  be  produced  much  nearer 
the  Trafford  property. 

Mr.  Littler  now  addressed  the  Committee.  He  taunted  the  promoters  that 
their  leading  capitalists,  Messrs.  Platt  and  Peacock,  had  not  given  evidence,  and  said 
he  was  not  surprised  at  them  giving  each  ,£1,000,  because  they  had  been  influenced 
by  a  sort  of  wild  terrorism,  which  was  rampant  in  Lancashire.  Any  one  who  did 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  185 

not  give  would  be  morally  boycotted.  The  agitation  had  been  fomented  by 
publications  of  every  kind  which  were  seasoned  with  a  good  spice  of  hatred  for 
Liverpool.  Mr.  Adamson  had  been  lured  by  the  glowing  accounts  of  the  18  per 
cent,  earned  on  the  Suez  Canal,  and  his  mouth  watered  for  a  similar  dividend  in 
Manchester.  Mr.  Hamilton  Fulton,  who  was  the  original  engineer  of  the  scheme, 
whose  experience  was  as  ten  to  one  compared  with  that  of  Mr.  Leader  Williams, 
had  been  thrown  overboard.  He  characterised  the  scheme  as  having  been  hastily 
brought  forward,  and  said  he  proposed  to  show  that  it  was  Manchester  against  all 
England.  "  Manchester  may  be  great,  Manchester  may  be  powerful,  and  Man- 
chester may  be  rich,  but  it  is  not  only  that,  my  lord,  that  is  understating  it,  because 
it  is  a  section  of  Manchester,  and  that  not  the  most  moneyed,  influential,  or  even  the 
most  intelligent  portion  of  Manchester  against  the  more  intelligent  and  more 
moneyed  people  of  England.  That  is  the  issue."  He  said  there  was  the  strongest 
reason  why  swivel  bridges  should  not  be  authorised.  The  condition  of  things  in 
1 845  was  so  different  that  obsolete  provisions  then  made  should  not  be  put  into 
operation  if  they  affected  the  interest  of  the  public  who  travel  on  railways.  He 
ridiculed  the  idea  of  the  promoters  doing  the  proposed  work  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  Act,  or  of  the  Act  passed  in  1842,  and  said 
Parliament  ought  not  now  to  set  a  precedent  by  passing  an  incomplete  Bill.  On 
his  complaining  that  an  undue  outside  influence  had  been  used  by  the  friends  of 
the  promoters  to  interfere  with  the  Chairman's  judgment,  the  Earl  of  Aberdeen, 
one  of  the  Committee,  said  he  too  had  had  a  similar  communication  on  the  other 
side.  Mr.  Littler  went  on  to  say  that  no  time  had  been  fixed  for  the  completion 
of  the  works,  nothing  had  been  estimated  for  spoil  banks,  and  he  predicted  that  the 
rates  and  tolls  contemplated  were  so  inadequate  that  in  a  few  years  the  promoters 
would  be  asking  Parliament  to  increase  them,  as  had  been  the  case  with  the 
Regent's  Canal.  He  said  the  scheme  was  rotten,  and  asked  the  Committee  to  throw 
out  a  Bill  which  was  intended  to  make  profits  for  a  private  company,  and  which 
would  interfere  with  the  large  vested  interests  of  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour 
Board,  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford,  and  many  others. 

At  the  instance  of  Mr.  Rodwell,  Q.C.,  Mr.  Adamson  was  recalled  to  explain 
his  evidence  that  Mr.  Hugh  Mason  was  a  director  of  two  or  three  railways,  and 
had  considerable  investments  in  the  Mersey  Dock  Board.  Mr.  Adamson  admitted 
that  he  had  been  somewhat  in  error,  and  ought  to  have  said  that  Mr.  Mason  was 
a  member  of  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board,  and  also  a  director  of  the  Bridgewater 


1 86         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

Navigation  Company  and  of  the  Midland  Railway  Company,  in  both  of  which 
latter  concerns  he  was  an  investor.  Mr.  Mason's  letter  to  the  Manchester  Guardian, 
correcting  the  mistake,  was  read,  in  which  he  said :  "  I  could  not  join  the  Canal 
Company  because  I  thought  it  would  prove  a  ruinous  failure". 

Mr.  Rodwell,  Q.C.,  then,  on  behalf  of  the  Mersey  Dock  Board,  recalled 
Captain  Graham  Hills.  He  was  of  opinion  that  shutting  off  the  flow  of  the  tide 
at  Bank  Quay  would  deprive  the  lower  part  of  the  river  of  the  accustomed  flow  of 
tidal  water,  and  do  away  with  the  scour.  That  particular  part  of  the  river  would 
become  a  settling-point  for  silt,  and  the  tidal  area  would  be  diminished. 

Mr.  /.  5.  Swire,  a  London  shipowner,  was  sure  an  extra  freight  would  be 
charged  to  Manchester,  and  that  all  vessels  would  have  to  call  at  both  Liverpool 
and  Manchester,  because  the  latter  could  not  provide  outward  cargoes. 

Mr.  T.  B.  Hornby,  Chairman  of  the  Mersey  Dock  Board,  admitted  Mr. 
Hugh  Mason  did  not  represent  Manchester  in  an  official  capacity,  but  said  he 
afforded  a  medium  for  all  grievances,  and  that  he  had  never  yet  made  any  com- 
plaints. Since  the  commencement  of  the  Ship  Canal  agitation  the  Liverpool 
charges  had  been  reduced  ,£112,000  per  annum,  and  he  pleaded  that  the  scheme 
should  be  deferred  and  considered  as  a  whole.  In  cross-examination  he  stated 
that  the  Dock  Board  paid  the  Corporation  .£1,500,000  in  order  to  do  away  with 
the  town  dues.  He  considered  they  were  only  town  dues  in  name,  because  they 
were  applied  for  trade  purposes,  though  he  admitted  they  were  bringing  in  about 
.£250,000  a  year. 

Mr.  Rodwell,  Q.C.,  then  addressed  the  Committee.  He  asked  them  to  reject 
the  Bill  as  an  innovation  on  the  principles  of  legislation  which  had  hitherto  pre- 
vailed, inasmuch  as  it  was  an  incomplete  Bill  which  threatened  the  estuary  of  the 
Mersey.  It  was  too  great  a  power  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  officials  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  to  deal  with  the  interests  of  Liverpool  and  the  Mersey,  and  to  say 
if  the  Bill  ought,  or  ought  not,  to  go  before  Parliament.  It  was  obvious  the 
Chairman  in  the  other  House  felt  the  difficulty  when  he  said  that,  "  If  we  should 
hereafter  pass  the  Bill,  and  works  were  executed  above  the  estuary,  the  works  of 
the  canal  proper,  costing,  say,  .£6,000,000,  very  great  pressure  would  be  put  upon 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Mersey".  Appealing  to  the  Committee  to  pass  the  Bill, 
Mr.  Pember  would  be  sure  to  say,  "  If  you  don't  pass  it,  all  this  will  be  thrown 
away  and  wasted ".  The  Bill  and  estimates  were  crude.  They  provided  for  no 
conveniences  or  accommodation  at  Manchester.  No  railway  communications,  no 


1883]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  187 

sidings,  and  no  warehouses  were  included.  If  the  moneyed  people  of  Manchester 
were  so  liberal  and  bountiful,  why  did  these  great  Manchester  merchants  borrow 
the  shillings  of  the  working  classes  for  preliminary  expenses?  Why  did  not  these 
gentlemen  put  down  their  names  for  ,£20,000?  instead  of  saying,  "Oh!  we  do  not 
care  what  it  costs  ".  The  scheme  was  brought  forward  by  promoters  and  engineers, 
and  as  Sir  William  Forwood  said,  "it  had  been  engineered  from  beginning  to  end 
at  Manchester,"  where  they  had  attempted  to  carry  the  thing  through  by  agitating 
the  popular  mind,  and  not  the  moneyed  classes.  He  intimated  that  if  the  Bill  had 
been  for  simply  purchasing  the  Bridgewater  Canal  and  Mersey  and  Irwell  Naviga- 
tion there  could  have  been  no  possible  objection,  and  he  concluded  by  asking  for 
the  rejection  of  the  Bill. 

Mr.  Pember,  in  his  final  reply,  said  he  had  pleaded,  and  would  plead  to  his 
dying  day,  that  the  powers  contained  in  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Acts,  and  in  the 
Act  of  1842  constituting  the  Mersey  Commissioners,  were  amply  sufficient  to  enable 
the  promoters  to  carry  out  all  estuarial  works,  if  the  officials,  representing  the 
Mersey  Commissioners,  reported  favourably  on  the  plans  and  estimates  of  the 
promoters,  and  would  give  their  certificate  that  they  entailed  no  damage  to  the 
Mersey,  nor  to  the  interests  of  the  towns  thereon,  nor  to  the  shipowners  using  it. 
But  when  the  Chairman  of  the  House  of  Commons  Committee  heard  the  lawyers 
upon  both  sides  argue  it,  he  said  with  perfect  frankness  :— 

I  am  a  layman,  these  arguments  have  gone  to  a  point  I  am  utterly  unable  to  cope 
with.  All  we  shall  consider  is,  whether  those  grounds  are  such  at  this  moment  as  to  stop 
the  Bill. 

Finally  the  Commons  Committee  reported  :— 

And  whereas  it  seemed  doubtful  whether  the  said  Acts  were  not  in  excess  of  the  powers 
conferred  by  the  said  Acts,  and  might  lead  to  much  contest  in  the  Courts  of  Law. 

Further : — 

And  whereas  there  are  divers  interests  requiring  careful  protection,  and  it  seemed  to 
the  Committee  that  works  such  as  those  proposed  ought  not  to  be  undertaken  except  under 
the  express  sanction  of  Parliament. 

It  was  this  decision  that  obliged  the  promoters  to  come  before  the  Lords 
Committee  with  their  present  Bill,  which  had  been  characterised  as  incomplete. 
They  were  not  asked  to  pass  an  incomplete  Bill  and  to  take  a  step  in  the  dark, 
as  had  been  represented.  It  was  true  that  their  estimates  would  be  exceeded,  but 
that  was  because  instead  of  buying  merely  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation,  they 


1 88         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1883 

were  now  going  to  buy  the  Bridgewater  Canal  as  well.  But  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  latter  concern  was  paying  8  per  cent,  dividend,  and  was  a  concern 
on  which  money  could  be  raised.  Even  supposing  they  were  from  £200,000  to 
.£400,000  short,  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  come  to  Parliament  again,  when  they 
came  next  year  for  their  estuarial  powers.  It  had  been  said  that  this  was  a  vicious 
scheme,  because  it  must  be  consented  to  by  the  Mersey  Commissioners.  But  this 
meant  that  such  eminent  men  as  Admiral  Spratt  or  Sir  John  Coode  must  have 
reported  favourably.  As  regards  the  taunt  of  shilling  subscriptions,  he  would  say 
that  only  ,£830  had  been  received  in  subscriptions  of  under  £\.  So  far  as  the 
bubble  Mr.  Pope  spoke  about,  and  which  he  intended  to  prick,  he  might  say  there 
were  dozens  of  Bills  which,  like  this,  had  suspensory  clauses.  There  was  a  precedent 
in  the  Holyhead  and  Chester  line  in  which  the  Admiralty  had  a  veto.  Mr.  Pope 
had  no  need  to  distress  himself  about  the  sword  of  Damocles  hanging  over  the 
trade  of  Lancashire.  The  people  were  not  afraid  of  the  dire  misfortune  he  pre- 
dicted. If  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway  Company  had  to  provide 
three  bank  engines  at  a  cost  of  ,£3,000  per  year,  what  was  this  to  the  benefit  they 
got  by  getting  rid  of  the  swing  bridge  clauses  ?  It  simply  meant  one  seven- 
hundredth  part  of  their  income.  After  dealing  with  the  immense  savings  which 
would  be  effected,  and  would  help  the  trades  of  Lancashire  (now  very  seriously 
handicapped),  and  the  industries  which  would  certainly  settle  down  on  the  banks 
of  the  canal,  Mr.  Pember  pointed  out  the  advantages  of  a  progressive  policy  to 
Glasgow  and  Goole,  and  urged  that  they  must  keep  pace  with  the  cheapening  of 
transit  abroad.  He  pleaded  that  a  frustration  of  the  promoters'  efforts  would  mean 
disappointment,  rejection  and  despondency,  from  which  it  would  be  difficult  for 
even  the  resolute  and  courageous  Lancastrian  projectors  of  this  Bill  to  rise.  After 
alluding  to  the  importance  of  the  industries  supporting  the  Bill,  and  the  subscrip- 
tions from  large  employers  of  labour,  he  asked  that  the  Bill  might  be  allowed  to  pass. 
The  Committee  then  cleared  the  room.  After  some  time,  when  the  public 
were  readmitted,  the  Chairman  gave  the  decision,  vis.  :— 

The  Committee  have  arrived  at  the  decision  that  it  is  not  expedient  to  proceed  with 
this  Bill  in  the  present  session  of  Parliament.  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  in  the  opinion  of 
the  Committee  the  promoters  are  very  much  indebted  to  their  counsel  for  the  very  great 
ability  and  energy  with  which  the  case  has  been  presented  to  the  Committee. 


CHAPTER  X. 


MANCHESTER  THOROUGHLY  ROUSED  —  EVENTS  OF  THE 
YEAR— ACTION  OF  THE  CITY  COUNCIL— OF  THE  CHAM- 
BER OF  COMMERCE— PUBLIC  MEETINGS-ODD  INCIDENTS 
CONNECTED  WITH  THE  PARLIAMENTARY  FIGHT  — DE- 
MONSTRATION AT  POMONA  GARDENS --OPINIONS  OF 
THE  PRESS -- LIVERPOOL  UNEASY --BILL  REJECTED - 
CORPORATION  AID— DETERMINATION  TO  APPLY  NEXT 
YEAR. 

Bid  harbours  open,  public  ways  extend  ; 
Bid  temples,  worthier  of  God,  ascend  ; 
Bid  the  broad  arch  the  dangerous  flood  contain, 
The  mole  projected  break  the  roaring  main  ; 
Back  to  his  bounds  their  subject  sea  command, 
And  roll  obedient  rivers  through  the  land. 
These  honours,  peace  to  happy  Britain  brings  ; 
These  are  imperial  works,  and  worthy  kings. 

— POPE. 


T 


HE  Ship  Canal  Bill  having  been  deposited,1  the  first  business  of  1884  was  to 
prepare  and  hand  in  the  estimates,  the  amounts  being  :— 


Dock  works  at  Manchester  and  Warrington £1,121,263 

Branch  and  deviation  railways         .......  456,172 

Canal  works 3,920,172 

Estuary  works 1,390,419 

New  roads 16,161 


£6,904,187 


1  See  Plan  7  in  Pocket. 
(189) 


1 9o         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

Strange  to  say  both  in  1883  and  1884  the  Bill  bore  precisely  the  same  number, 
"57".  This  was  unique  in  the  history  of  private  bill  legislation.  Mr.  Adamson 
started  the  campaign  at  Ashton,  where  he  had  a  most  enthusiastic  reception ;  his 
prophecies,  however,  astonished  even  his  friends. 

The  1 5th  January  being  the  last  day  for  making  the  Parliamentary  deposit, 
arrangements  were  made  to  pay  early  into  the  Bank  the  ,£280,729  required,  and 
Mr.  Adamson,  with  two  other  directors,  went  to  London  for  the  purpose.  They 
found  memorials  against  Standing  Orders  had  been  presented  by  Liverpool  and 
the  Dock  Board,  who  pleaded  want  of  compliance,  because  certain  plans  of  devia- 
tions had  not  been  deposited.  The  various  railway  companies  did  not  this  year 
attempt  to  oppose  the  Bill  on  Standing  Orders. 

On  the  24th  January  the  promoters  gained  their  first  success.  Though  the 
Dock  Board  offered  a  strenuous  opposition  on  the  ground  that  the  plans  were  not 
sufficiently  explicit,  the  Examiner  on  Standing  Orders  decided,  "That  for  all 
practical  purposes  the  promoters  had  complied  with  the  Standing  Orders  ". 

Meetings  now  became  an  every  night  occurrence.  At  one  held  at  Withington 
Mr.  J.  A.  Beith  said  :— 

There  was,  in  his  opinion,  a  most  cruel  monopoly  of  carriage  between  Liverpool  and 
Manchester  in  the  combination  of  three  railways  and  one  canal.  That  monopoly  was  pre- 
judicial in  every  way  to  Manchester  and  to  Lancashire  generally.  Besides  that  monopoly 
there  was  in  Liverpool  a  Dock  Board  which  was  antddiluvian  in  its  management  and  ex- 
pensive beyond  all  necessity.  There  was  an  immense  future  for  a  canal  between  Liverpool 
and  Manchester.  The  heavy  trades  were  being  killed  out  of  Manchester  for  want  of  a 
canal.  If  the  canal  could  be  made  for  £6,000,000  he  thought  it  would  pay,  but  he  did  not 
think  it  would  pay  at  first. 

The  irony  of  fate  afterwards  placed  Mr.  Beith  on  the  very  Dock  Board  he  so 
derided,  and  it  is  a  singular  fact  that  it  was  his  casting  vote  that  ensured  the 
dredging  away  of  the  Liverpool  bar  that  had  been  a  stumbling-block  to  the  shipping 
trade  of  Liverpool  for  numberless  years.  Mr.  Beith  was  very  proud  that  the  voice 
oi  Manchester  enabled  such  a  success  to  be  achieved.  His  own  words  to  me 
were  :— 

I  reached  the  Dock  Board  meeting  late,  and  found  them  in  the  midst  of  a  discussion 
about  the  bar.  The  progressives  were  urging  an  attempt  should  be  made  to  dredge  away  the 
Bar  ;  the  fossils  were  declaring  Liverpool  would  be  ruined  if  any  failure  occurred  and  pleaded 
for  it  to  be  left  alone — the  parties  were  just  equal.  My  casting  my  vote  with  the  progres- 
sives sealed  the  fate  of  the  bar,  and  caused  a  work  to  be  carried  out  that  might  well  have 
been  done  years  before. 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  191 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright  made  a  most  stirring  speech  at  Oldham : — 

My  belief  is  that  the  commercial  prizes  of  the  future  will  be  as  great,  if  not  greater, 
than  those  of  the  past.  But  they  won't  be  won  by  communities  that  are  guided  by  timid 
councils.  They  won't  fall  into  the  hands  of  men  who  dare  risk  nothing,  and  who 
cannot  lift  their  thoughts  above  the  routine  occupations  in  which  their  lives  have  been 
passed.  I  say  the  commercial  prizes  of  the  future  are  greater  than  those  you  yet  have 
seen.  What  will  our  trade  with  the  United  States  be  when  that  country  instead  of  having 
50,000,000  people  will  have  100,000,000  people? — and  the  time  is  not  remote  when  there  will 
be  100,000,000  people  there — and  when  probably  duties  will  be  moderate,  or  when  she  may 
even  approach  to  the  free  trade  system  which  we  ourselves  adopt. 

Following  this  meeting  the  Oldham  Chamber  of  Commerce  passed  strong 
resolutions  in  favour  of  the  Bill,  and  many  of  the  Limited  Spinning  Companies 
volunteered  contributions  of  IDS.  to  2os.  per  thousand  spindles. 

The  attitude  of  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce,  with  Messrs.  Lord 
and  Steinthal  at  its  head,  was  termed  in  the  Press  as  one  of  "masterly  inactivity" 
and  came  in  for  severe  criticism.  One  correspondent,  Mr.  Frank  Hollins,  held 
that  the  merchants  and  packers  to  the  East  were  of  opinion  that  their  trade  would 
be  entrenched  upon  and  inwardly  felt, 

Let  spinning,  weaving,  trade  and  commerce  die 
But  leave  us  still  our  packing  industry. 

As  a  result  there  was  a  semi-revolt,  and  the  intention  was  openly  expressed  of 
altering  the  composition  of  the  Board  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  at  the  coming- 
election  by  infusing  some  new  blood.  When  the  day  of  meeting  arrived,  the 
attendance  was  so  large  that  an  adjournment  took  place  to  the  Mayor's  parlour, 
in  the  Town  Hall.  The  President,  Mr.  George  Lord,  announced  his  intention 
not  to  seek  re-election.  Mr.  Adamson's  name  was  included  in  the  new  Board, 
and  a  series  of  resolutions  were  passed  in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal,  the  only  dis- 
sentient being  Mr.  Joseph  Spencer.  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  argued  that  the  Chamber 
should  not  be  "too  fastidiously  scrupulous,"  and  it  was  evident  that  Messrs.  Slagg 
and  Houldsworth  were  being  impelled  forward  by  public  opinion  rather  than  of 
their  own  volition.  Eventually  a  compromise  was  effected,  and  Mr.  Adamson  and 
some  of  his  friends  were  placed  on  the  Board,  with  Mr.  Hutton  as  Chairman. 
Shortly  after  a  meeting  took  place  between  the  new  Board  of  Directors  and  a 
deputation  from  the  Ship  Canal  Committee,  when  Mr.  Leader  Williams  attended 
with  his  plans,  and  fully  explained  the  scheme. 


192         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

One  of  the  burning  questions  of  the  day  was  Mr.  Adamson's  suggestion  that 
the  Corporations  of  Manchester  and  Salford  should  contribute  from  the  rates 
towards  the  fund  for  promoting  the  Bill.  The  Guardian  in  a  leading  article 
said  :— 

There  ought  not  to  be  a  moment's  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  City  Council  in  giving 
a  negative  reply,  and  that  even  if  a  vast  majority  of  the  ratepayers  would  sanction  the  ap- 
propriation of  the  money,  the  principle  involved  would  be  not  one  whit  the  less  pernicious  and 
dangerous. 

And  when  the  Salford  General  Purposes  Committee  decided  to  recommend 
financial  assistance,  the  same  paper  said  it  was  illegal,  and  it  was  unlikely  such  a 
clause  would  receive  the  sanction  of  Parliament.  But  the  unkindest  cut  of  all  came 
from  Mr.  Bleckley,  of  Warrington  (once  a  supporter  of  the  canal),  who  said  the  Ship 
Canal  Committee  had  to  send  the  hat  round  to  get  civic  support,  and  ridiculed  the 
idea  of  vested  railway  interests  being  affected. 

If  the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  Company  did  nothing  until  the  capital  for  the  Ship 
Canal  was  got  they  would  wait  a  long  time. 

The  Liverpool  Daily  Post  thought  people  would  hesitate  before  they  threw 
good  money  after  bad,  and  it  was  not  an  exhilarating  process  in  bad  times  to  pay 
money  which  would  never  bear  a  shilling  of  interest.  Liverpool  was  not  afraid  of 
the  canal. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  money  to  make  the  canal  will  ever  be  found,  or  that  it 
would  pay  if  it  were  made.  No  canal  that  could  be  dug  would  tempt  our  great  steamers  to 
undertake  a  difficult  and  dangerous  inland  navigation. 

The  article  ended  by  urging  a  barge  canal.  Mr.  Ismay,  the  broad-minded 
Liverpool  shipowner,  would  fight  the  canal  in  another  way.  "  Sweep  away  dock 
and  town  dues,"  he  urged,  "and  substitute  port  charges  according  to  a  tonnage 
scale.  The  costly,  unremunerative  and  dangerous  Ship  Canal  owes  its  origin  to  a 
desire  to  reduce  the  charges  on  raw  material  and  manufactured  goods."  The 
Dock  Board  should  adopt  a  scientific  and  economical  system  of  taxation,  more 
conducive  to  the  public  interest,  than  its  present  cumbersome,  capricious  and 
vexatious  mode  of  collecting  its  dues.  Strong  words  to  come  from  Liverpool ! 
Early  in  February  it  was  announced  that  Lord  Redesdale,  who  the  previous  year 
refused  to  touch  the  Bill,  would  this  session  move  the  second  reading,  and  that 
this  year  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  would  first  consider  the  Bill.  During 
the  month  large  and  enthusiastic  meetings  in  its  support  were  held  in  all  parts  of 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  193 

the  county,  and  on  the  29th  May  the  Manchester  Corporation,  in  view  of  the 
advantages  to  the  city,  decided  to  contribute  ,£10,000  in  case  the  Bill  passed. 
The  Directors  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  also  selected  four  influential  members 
to  give  evidence  in  its  favour. 

The  bitterness  entertained  in  some  quarters  to  the  canal  was  exemplified  in 
a  letter  to  a  daily  contemporary  signed  "Truth,"  the  writer  of  which  declared  the 
promoters  were  the  instigators  of  the  agitation  among  the  unemployed  of  Man- 
chester and  Salford.  The  writer,  a  Bank  Manager,  was  traced,  confessed  his 
guilt,  and  apologised.  The  proposition  that  the  Ship  Canal  should  pay  interest 
out  of  capital  during  construction  was  also  the  subject  of  severe  criticism  in  the 
Press.  It  was  urged  that  in  the  Hull  and  Barnsley  case  this  had  been  prevented 
by  an  injunction  filed  by  a  Manchester  gentleman,  but  on  the  other  side  it  was 
shown  that  Parliament  had  afterwards  legalised  such  payments  in  the  case  of  the 
Regent's  Canal  Company. 

From  the  24th  April  to  the  23rd  May  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  was  under  inquiry 
by  a  Lords  Committee,  who,  strange  to  say,  sat  for  longer  hours  each  day  than 
did  a  Committee  of  the  Commons.  Whilst  the  Lords  were  sitting  and  discussing 
the  possibility  of  ships  passing  under  the  bridges,  an  incident  bearing  on  this  part 
of  the  case  was  pointed  out  by  the  leading  counsel  for  the  promoters.  A  shrill 
whistle  was  heard,  and  attention  was  at  once  directed  to  the  river,  which  flows  past 
the  Houses  of  Parliament.  A  large  screw  collier  of  1,000  tons,  plying  between 
London  and  the  Tyne,  was  seen  steaming  slowly  down  the  river.  Her  masts  were 
lying  flat  on  the  decks,  and  but  for  her  size  one  would  have  thought  she  was  an 
ordinary  river  boat.  Her  passage  was  witnessed  with  evident  interest  by  all  the 
noble  Lords  as  she  glided  under  Westminster  Bridge.  Besides  lowering  her 
masts  she  also  lowered  her  funnel,  thus  showing  how  easy  it  is  for  vessels  of  large 
tonnage,  specially  designed  to  navigate  inland  waters,  to  pass  under  even  ordinary 
roadway  bridges.  Another  incident  of  the  inquiry  was  the  appearance  of  Mr. 
A.  J.  Hunter,  of  Messrs.  Wm.  Graham  &  Co.,  Manchester.  It  is  said  he  went  to 
London  about  six  weeks  previously  to  give  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal 
Bill,  but  somehow  the  opponents  got  hold  of  him  and  he  became  a  witness  for  the 
Corporation  of  Liverpool,  but  in  cross-examination  he  really  gave  strong  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  Bill.  This  inconsistency  was  much  commented  upon  in  the  Press 
of  the  day. 

One  argument  of  Sir  William  Forwood's  was  that  though  Glasgow  was  a  port, 
VOL.  i.  ,3 


194         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

and  could  get  cheap  cotton,  yet  the  spinning  trade  had  almost  died  out  there.  It 
was  proved,  however,  that  a  powerful  organisation,  which  dictated  its  own  terms 
to  the  employers,  had  helped  to  stamp  out  the  trade.  This  organisation  refused 
to  permit  (without  their  sanction)  even  the  sons  of  a  master  to  learn  the  practical 
working  of  the  business,  and  when  they  gave  their  permission,  it  was  clogged  with 
irritating  and  foolish  stipulations.  It  was  shown  this  was  one  of  the  reasons  why 
the  Glasgow  families  once  connected  with  spinning  had  separated  themselves  from 
it,  and  that  the  cotton  trade  was  driven  away  mainly  by  the  arbitrary  action  of 
trades  unions. 

As  the  inquiry  in  the  Lords  neared  its  close,  speculation  became  rife. 
Friends  were  very  anxious  because  the  Duke  of  Richmond  from  time  to  time  made 
it  plain  he  was  not  captivated  by  the  Bill,  and  the  unusual  course  of  having  a 
private  sitting,  lasting  three  hours  on  Ascension  Day,  showed  there  were  differences 
on  the  Committee.  It  was  evident  the  opposition  had  impressed  the  Committee 
with  the  feeling  that  moneyed  men  were  not  backing  the  canal,  and  that  the  scheme 
had  been  got  up  by  speculators  and  engineers.  Counsel  urged  the  promoters  to 
strengthen  their  case  as  regarded  capital.  In  this  pass  they  telegraphed  me  on  the 
Thursday  to  put  myself  in  communication  at  once  with  Mr.  Samson,  a  member  of 
the  promoters'  legal  firm,  who  was  in  Manchester,  to  try  and  beat  up  some  capital, 
and  then  go  up  to  London  and  give  evidence  not  later  than  the  following  Wednes- 
day week.  Mr.  Samson  and  I  started  on  the  Saturday  afternoon  by  calling  on 
Mr.  Rylands,  at  Longford  Hall.  He  was  alone,  and  received  us  very  kindly ;  we 
explained  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  pointed  out  to  him  the  signal  service  he 
would  render  the  Ship  Canal,  in  which  he  had  always  been  deeply  interested,  by 
taking  ,£50,000  in  shares.  He  received  the  suggestion  more  favourably  than  we 
had  expected,  promised  he  would  help,  and  arranged  for  us  to  call  on  him  at  his 
Manchester  warehouse  on  the  following  Monday  morning  at  8.30  A.M.  for  a  reply. 

On  the  Sunday  I  dined  with  Mr.  Samson  at  the  Conservative  Club,  and  then 
went  to  see  Mr.  Hilton  Greaves,  at  Oldham,  and  got  from  him  a  conditional 
promise  of  .£15,000  in  shares.  On  the  Monday  morning  when  we  called  on  Mr. 
Rylands  we  were  met  by  Mrs.  Rylands,  who  absolutely  refused  to  let  us  see  him. 
She  did  not  know  us,  and  had  got  the  idea  that  we  had  been  pressing  her  husband 
unduly,  and  that  as  an  old  man  he  ought  to  be  protected.  We  explained  that  Mr. 
Rylands  had  already  contributed  largely  to  the  preliminary  expenses,  and  this  would 
be  lost  if  the  Bill  were  thrown  out.  All  explanations  and  entreaties  were  useless, 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID          195 

she  would  not  allow  her  husband  to  be  disturbed.  This  was  a  dreadful  blow  to  us, 
and  we  retired  to  take  counsel  with  a  mutual  friend,  who  suggested  we  should  ask 
to  see  Mr.  Rylands  in  the  presence  of  his  wife  (under  the  promise  not  to  push 
business),  and  simply  ask  him  to  talk  the  matter  over  with  two  gentlemen  who  were 
his  confidential  advisers.  Our  request  was  acceded  to,  and  the  next  morning  I 
was  overjoyed  to  receive  a  letter,  asking  me  to  call,  when  Mr.  Rylands  in  my 
presence  signed  a  promise  to  take  ,£50,000  in  shares.  For  some  days  I  was  on  the 
track  of  Mr.  George  Benton,  between  his  house  and  the  hotel  where  he  did  his 
business.  At  last  I  went  to  his  house  and  waited  till  he  got  up  about  noon.  We 
then  had  a  long  chat,  and  I  induced  him  to  sign  a  promise  to  take  ^50,000  in 
shares.  He  told  me  the  curious  fact  that  he  laid  his  plans  and  made  his  calculations 
for  the  big  works  he  had  on  hand  whilst  he  lay  in  bed  in  the  morning. 

The  hunt  for  money  ended  on  the  Tuesday  night,  when  I  went  to  London 
with  promises  for  ,£130,000  in  shares,  all  obtained  in  five  days. 

When  Mr.  Pember  started  to  make  his  final  speech,  the  Lords  had  sat  thirty- 
eight  days  of  five  hours  each,  equal  to  forty-seven  days  of  a  Commons  Committee. 
They  had  heard  25,367  questions  asked  from  151  witnesses,  occupying  1,861  folio 
sheets  of  printed  matter.  Mr.  Pember's  speech  was  a  masterpiece  of  eloquence. 
Feeling  the  Committee  were  impressed  by  the  opponents'  statement  that  the  capital 
could  not  be  raised,  and  that  the  works  might  be  left  in  an  unfinished  condition,  he 
met  it  by  volunteering  that  .£5,000,000  should  be  subscribed  before  they  were 
commenced.  The  prediction  of  damage,  nay  ruin,  to  the  estuary,  he  met  by 
showing  that  it  had  actually  improved,  notwithstanding  Liverpool  herself  had  made 
large  abstractions  and  he  argued  she  ought  not  to  prohibit  other  people  doing  what 
she  herself  had  done.  He  twitted  the  Dock  Board  on  the  disgraceful  state  of  the 
bar,  and  said  they  did  not  dare  to  do  right  from  the  pusillanimous  fear  that  they 
might  do  wrong.  The  excitement  in  the  corridor  whilst  the  Committee  were  de- 
liberating was  such  as  rarely  has  been  experienced.  For  over  two  hours  hundreds 
of  people  blockaded  the  door  of  the  Committee  Room,  and  when  it  was  opened 
the  excited  partisans  rushed  in  pell-mell  regardless  of  consequences.  When  the 
Duke  of  Richmond,  in  a  few  crisp  sentences,  declared  the  preamble  proved,  all  the 
rules  of  the  House  were  set  at  defiance,  and  the  supporters  burst  into  a  hearty 
cheer,  which,  of  course,  was  at  once  suppressed. 

The  news  quickly  passed  to  Manchester  and  Oldham,  and  in  both  places  the 
liveliest  feelings  of  satisfaction  were  expressed.     Outside  the  Market  Street  Com- 


196         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

mittee  Rooms  the  street  was  blocked  by  people  anxious  to  read  the  telegrams ;  on 
the  Manchester  Exchange  there  was  much  cheering,  and  peals  were  rung  on  the 
Cathedral  bells  till  late  in  the  evening. 

On  Mr.  Adamson's  return  he  met  with  a  triumphant  reception,  both  on  his 
way  home  and  at  his  works,  where  his  workmen  presented  him  with  an  address  of 
congratulation.  From  the  station  a  band  escorted  him  home,  playing  "See  the 
conquering  hero  comes,"  and  the  populace  insisted  on  taking  the  horses  out  of  the 
carriage  and  drawing  him  home. 

The  Press  of  the  country  outside  Liverpool  joined  in  a  psean  of  praise  on  the 
courage  of  Manchester  in  attacking  a  vast  monopoly,  and  congratulated  them  on 
their  success.  Even  the  Manchester  Guardian  had  a  good  word  to  say  on  the 
perseverance  and  determination  that  had  been  displayed,  but  they  guarded  them- 
selves in  a  warning  article,  and  said : — 

Engineers  may  be  wrong,  and  although  the  preamble  of  the  Bill  has  passed  the  searching 
ordeal  of  the  Lords,  the  duty  of  guarding,  in  every  reasonable  way,  against  a  disastrous 
failure,  remains  not  the  less  imperative. 

The  Liverpool  Mercury  wrote  :— 

Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  truth  than  the  idea  that  Liverpool  is  afraid  of  Manchester 
competition.  We  repudiate  the  idea,  as  we  have  a  right  to  do,  that  our  sea-going  steamers 
will  trust  themselves  to  the  inland  navigation,  or  that  any  mere  volition  on  the  part  of  Man- 
chester manufacturers,  however  strong,  can  change  the  course  of  the  world's  trade.  Natural 
forces  are  too  strong  for  the  most  obstinate  wills,  and  all  the  world  over  natural  forces  are 
taking  trade  from  inland  ports  down  to  the  sea,  but  not  in  the  opposite  direction. 

Another  Liverpool  paper  professed  to  know  the  preamble  was  only  passed  by 
a  majority  of  one,  and  that  whilst  Lords  Norton,  Dunraven  and  Lovat  voted  for 
it,  the  Duke  of  Richmond  and  Lord  Barrington  were  in  opposition. 

A  third  paper  said  Manchester  had  succeeded  in  giving  Liverpool  a  back- 
handed slap  in  the  face,  but  it  was  her  own  fault. 

It  is  useless  to  disguise  the  fact  that  the  Dock  Board  and  some  of  their  officials  are  in 
no  small  degree  responsible  for  the  initiation  of  the  Ship  Canal  scheme,  and  the  pertinacity 
with  which  it  has  been  fought.  Excessive  rates  and  snobbish  sauciness  angered  many 
influential  Manchester  men,  who  felt  it  would  be  unsafe  to  allow  the  Dock  Board  to  have  its 
hand  perpetually  at  their  throat.  Hence  the  zeal  (almost  vindictiveness)  with  which  the  canal 
scheme  has  been  fought.  No  doubt  Manchester  will  now  have  a  big  crow.  They  are  wel- 
come to  their  victory.  We  sincerely  hope  that  the  scheme  may  improve  the  trade  of  Man- 
chester, whilst  we  are  not  amongst  those  who  think  that  it  will  do  a  vast  deal  of  harm  to  the 
port  of  Liverpool  and  the  great  interests  connected  with  it. 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  197 

Sir  William  Forwood  wrote  to  the  press  protesting  against  the  decision,  and 
repeating  a  previous  statement  that,  as  only  2,400,000  tons  of  produce  were  con- 
sumed in  Manchester  and  1 5  miles  round — and  this  was  now  divided  between  four 
railways  and  a  canal — the  Ship  Canal  could  really  have  little  to  carry,  and  that  if 
only  5  per  cent,  increased  ocean  freight  were  charged  there  could  be  no  advantage 
by  the  canal. 

Does  any  sane  man  suppose  that  the  railway  companies  will  stand  idly  by  and  allow 
the  canal  to  take  their  traffic  ?  A  reduction  of  35.  per  ton  would  still  leave  them  a  paying 
trade,  but  would  effectually  starve  out  the  canal  and  reduce  it  to  bankruptcy. 

This  letter  provoked  a  long  correspondence,  and  on  it  the  Liverpool  Daily 
Post  wrote  I—- 
Sir William  Forwood  does  not  anticipate  that  anything  he  can  say  will  prevent  those 
who  have  the  money  from  being  imposed  upon  by  those  who  have  the  brains :  he  places 
before  the  public  a  compact  array  of  uncontrovertible  facts,  which  should  induce  intending 
investors  to  hesitate  ere  pitching  their  money  into  Mr.  Leader  Williams'  ditch. .  .  .  The  pro- 
moters set  their  faces  against  the  probability  of  higher  freights  to  Manchester  than  to  Liver- 
pool. They  labour  under  the  delusion  that  if  there  is  a  canal  there  must  be  trade,  and  that 
the  great  ships  and  steamers  that  bridge  the  ocean  could  not  resist  the  temptation  to  struggle 
between  the  reefs  leading  to  the  seaport  of  Manchester.  They  appear  to  have  no  doubt 
whatever  that  all  the  additional  expense  involved,  and  risks  incurred,  will  be  cheerfully  borne 
by  shipowners  as  tributes  to  Manchester  ambition.  Except  so  far  as  the  training  walls 
imperil  the  navigation  of  the  Mersey,  Liverpool  cares  nothing  for  the  advance  of  civilisation 
indicated  by  this  wild  enterprise  for  enriching  lawyers,  engineers  and  contractors. 

A  demonstration,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Manchester  and  Salford  Trades 
Council,  took  place  on  Saturday,  the  24th  June,  in  the  large  Agricultural  Hall  at 
Pomona  Gardens,  which  was  filled  to  overflowing.  There  were  about  50,000  people 
present.  The  procession  started  from  Albert  Square,  and  had  five  bands  with 
them  to  enliven  the  proceedings.  The  object  was  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the 
Provisional  Committee  in  the  coming  struggle  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Mr. 
H.  Slatter  was  in  the  chair.  Alderman  J.  J.  Harwood  moved  the  first  resolution  : — 

That  the  thanks  of  this  assembly  of  the  industrial  classes  be  given  to  the  Chairman  and 
members  of  the  Provisional  Committee  for  their  untiring  energy  and  their  successful  efforts 
in  establishing  before  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  the  necessity  and  advantage  of 
connecting  Manchester,  Salford  and  the  district  with  the  sea  by  means  of  a  Ship  Canal. 
And  this  meeting  earnestly  desires  that  the  Provisional  Committee  will  continue  to  press 
forward  the  Ship  Canal  scheme  to  its  final  completion,  and  they  pledge  themselves  to  render 
all  possible  assistance  to  accomplish  that  object,  believing  the  result  will  be  the  establishing 
of  new  industries  and  the  further  development  of  those  already  in  existence. 


198         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [i 

This  was  carried  unanimously.  The  meeting  was  a  magnificent  success,  and 
showed  the  extraordinary  popularity  of  the  Ship  Canal. 

From  the  Lords  the  Bill  was  remitted  to  the  Commons,  and  it  became  evident 
that  if  it  were  to  go  through  no  time  must  be  lost,  both  from  the  natural  effluxion 
of  the  session,  and  because  Government  was  in  a  perilous  position  as  regarded  the 
Franchise  Bill,  which,  if  rejected,  might  lead  to  a  dissolution.  It  was  at  one  time 
hoped  to  secure  Mr.  W.  E.  Forster  as  Chairman,  but  neither  he  nor  Mr.  Corry  was 
available,  so  Mr.  Sclater  Booth  was  ultimately  made  Chairman. 

Liverpool  was  now  thoroughly  aroused.  Hitherto  the  Corporation,  the  Dock 
Board  and  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  had  not  always  worked  in  unison  :  they  had 
even  been  disposed  to  blame  one  another  and  the  railway  companies  for  Liverpool 
being  a  dear  port — really  the  cause  of  the  Ship  Canal  movement;  now  they  were 
banded  together  against  the  common  foe,  resolved  to  strenuously  oppose,  and 
if  possible  upset  the  Bill.  As  the  Liverpool  Courier  put  it  :— 

The  question  at  issue  is  not  whether  Parliament  will  allow  Manchester  to  compete  with 
Liverpool  for  maritime  supremacy,  but  whether  Manchester  shall  be  allowed  to  utterly  destroy 
this  port  in  futile  efforts  to  make  itself  into  a  seaport.  If  the  Mersey  navigation  be  materially 
injured,  Liverpool  trade  will  be  crippled,  if  not  annihilated,  and  Manchester  trade  will  share 
in  the  catastrophe. 

Up  to  this  time  Liverpool  had  laughed  at  the  idea  of  the  capital  being  raised, 
but  now  Sir  William  Forwood  told  them  they  were  labouring  under  a  delusion. 
He  was  convinced  Manchester  could  and  would  raise  the  money.  The  same 
gentleman,  by  repeating  his  extraordinary  statements,  induced  a  special  meeting  of 
the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce  (the  presence  of  only  about  twenty  members 
showed  their  interest  in  the  matter)  to  send  a  strong  petition  against  the  Bill. 

A  leading  Liverpool  paper,  commenting  on  this  meeting,  wrote  :— 

There  is  a  fear  that  many  people  will  be  deluded  into  the  belief  that  it  is  really  a  practic- 
able project,  and  thus  ^5,000,000  may  be  raised  to  fill  up  the  Mersey  with  sand  so  that  where 
great  ships  now  ride  at  anchor  grass  may  be  grown. 

At  a  subsequent  monthly  meeting  of  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
it  was  decided,  in  consequence  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Samuel  Smith,  M. P.,  to  take, 
what  Sir  Richard  Cross  warned  them  would  be  an  unusual  course,  viz.,  to  promote 
opposition  to  the  second  reading  of  the  Ship  Canal  Bill.  In  the  course  of  the 
debate  surprise  was  expressed  that  neither  Lord  Derby  nor  Lord  Sefton  opposed 
the  Bill,  and  Colonel  Paris  cautioned  his  colleagues  to  look  before  they  leaped,  and 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  199 

recalled  to  their  memories  the  prophecy  of  an  eminent  engineer,  that  if  the  Leasowe 
embankment  were  built,  the  port  of  Liverpool  would  be  blocked  up ;  and  also  that 
of  another  engineer,  that  if  training  walls  were  not  built  for  a  distance  of  i^  miles 
in  a  straight  line  from  New  Brighton,  they  would  lose  the  entrance  over  the  bar. 
Mr.  Aspinall,  of  Birkenhead,  went  further.  He  wrote : — 

The  costly  and  really  foolish  opposition  by  our  local  bodies  to  the  Ship  Canal  is 
unworthy  of  this  great  seaport.  I  write  as  a  practical  man,  for  twenty  years  in  our  Local 
Board,  and  Chairman  of  the  Woodside  Ferry  Committee,  and  thoroughly  acquainted  with  our 
river  from  Runcorn  to  the  North-west  Light  Ship.  Born  and  bred  here  on  the  banks  of  the 
river,  spending  many  years  in  steamers  and  boats,  my  knowledge  of  the  tides,  in  fact,  the 
entire  area  of  its  estuaries,  is  fairly  accurate,  and  I  confess  my  surprise  at  the  reports  of  the 
local  evidence  brought  before  the  Lords  Committee  by  the  opponents  of  the  Bill,  most  of 
which  was  easy  of  refutation. 

On  the  26th  June,  when  the  Ship  Canal  came  up  for  the  second  reading,  Mr. 
Samuel  Smith,  M.P.,  told  the  House  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  highest  authorities 
the  works  which  it  was  proposed  to  construct  in  the  upper  part  of  the  river  would 
have  the  effect,  in  time,  of  closing  up  the  Mersey,  and  reducing  to  beggary  the 
800,000  people  who  resided  within  5  miles  of  the  Liverpool  Exchange.  To  many  of 
them  it  meant  a  sentence  of  death,  and  though  he  did  not  intend  to  oppose  now,  he 
asked  that  the  Bill  be  referred  to  a  very  strong  Committee,  reserving  full  liberty  to 
oppose  it  at  a  later  stage.  This  extraordinary  speech  brought  up  Mr.  Jacob  Bright. 
He  said  people  had  come  to  the  conclusion  the  Mersey  was  not  safe  in  the  hands  of 
Liverpool  alone,  that  they  had  utterly  neglected  it  and  the  bar,  and  that  the  whole 
system  of  shipping  at  Liverpool  was  antiquated  and  costly ;  indeed,  that  Liverpool 
was  the  dearest  port  in  the  country  outside  London.  He  was  supported  by  Mr. 
Houldsworth,  who  said  that  60  per  cent,  of  the  whole  cost  of  conveying  goods  to 
Calcutta  was  incurred  before  the  ship  left  Liverpool.  Though  Messrs.  Rathbone, 
Whitley  and  Mclver  followed  Mr.  Smith  in  his  opposition,  the  House  became 
impatient  at  this  unusual  attempt  to  damage  a  Bill  that  had  already  passed  the 
Lords,  and  it  was  read  a  second  time.  Sir  John  Mowbray  promised  on  behalf  of 
the  Selection  Committee  that  the  Bill  should  be  relegated  to  a  strong  Committee. 

The  discussion  was  unfortunate  for  some  who  took  part  in  it.  Poor  Mr. 
Smith  got  small  thanks  for  his  action.  He  was  told  by  the  Liverpool  Press  that 
he  had  rushed  into  the  fray  unnecessarily,  and  without  previous  consultation  and 
instruction  ;  indeed,  he  had  done  more  harm  than  good,  that  his  alarmist  speech  had 
come  to  a  lame  conclusion  and  that  it  showed  a  gross  want  of  tact. 


200         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

Mr.  Houldsworth,  M.P.,  wrote  to  the  Manchester  Guardian  that  he  was 
reported  as  having  said  in  his  speech,  "  I  believe  myself  in  the  success  of  this 
scheme,"  and  he  was  not  aware  of  having  said  so.  This  provoked  some  very 
plain  letter-writing.  One  correspondent  asked  if  he  intended  making  a  sphinx  of 
himself,  and  wanted  an  official  interpretation  of  the  speech.  Another  wrote,  "  Let 
him  at  once  tell  us  if  he  has  written  this  letter  to  damn  the  scheme  by  having  it 
used  by  the  enemy,  as  Mr.  Hugh  Mason's  letter  formerly  was,  or  tell  us  what  he 
does  mean — that  is,  if  he  knows  himself." 

Warrington  lying  half-way  between  Manchester  and  Liverpool  had  hitherto 
held  aloof,  but  at  a  town's  meeting  held  at  the  end  of  June,  and  addressed  by  Mr. 
Adamson,  strong  resolutions  were  passed  in  favour  of  the  Bill. 

On  27th  June  a  deputation  from  the  Mersey  Dock  Board  and  the  Liverpool 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  accompanied  by  the  Mayors  of  Bootle  and  Birkenhead  and 
several  others,  waited  on  Lord  Northbrook  and  Admiral  Spratt,  two  of  the  Con- 
servators of  the  Mersey,  who  listened  to  them  and  promised  due  consideration. 
A  few  days  later,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Dock  Board,  the  Chairman,  Mr.  Hornby, 
made  the  important  statement : — 

If  they  (the  promoters)  were  to  drop  the  estuary  works,  and  bring  up  a  scheme  which 
would  not  touch  the  estuary,  and  would  be  free  from  the  objections  arising  on  that  point — 
if  they  were  to  bring  such  a  scheme,  the  language  we  have  used  and  the  line  we  have  taken 
would  preclude  us  offering  opposition  against  what  Would  simply  be  a  communication 
between  Manchester  and  the  sea.  We  might  still  have  considered  it  an  injudicious  proceed- 
ing, and  a  dreadful  waste  of  money,  but  as  regarded  our  opposition,  the  point  we  wished  to 
lay  stress  upon  would  be  gone. 

These  words  ought  to  be  well  remembered,  inasmuch  as  they  turned  out  to  be  a 
complete  will-o'-the-wisp  to  the  promoters. 

Meanwhile  petitions  against  the  Bill  were  asked  for  and  secured  from  all  the 
Liverpool  trading  bodies  who  had  been  practically  apathetic  before,  and  the  Liver- 
pool Press  was  teeming  with  antagonistic  articles.  One  paper  wrote : — 

Imagine  shipowners  spending  hundreds  of  pounds  on  adapting  the  masts  of  their  vessels 
to  the  necessities  of  a  bridge  canal,  and  incurring  the  extra  expense  of  lowering  and  hoisting 
the  top  masts — and  all  to  gratify  Manchester  vanity  !  and  fancy  underwriters  accepting  risks 
on  the  same  terms  as  for  vessels  which  complete  their  voyages  at  Liverpool  or  Birkenhead ! 

These  sarcasms  are  amusing  in  the  light  of  after  events. 

On  the  7th  July  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  commenced  their 
labours,  an  account  of  which  is  given  in  another  chapter.  From  the  first  it  was 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  201 

a  fight  against  time.  The  promoters  knew  full  well  that  under  most  favourable 
circumstances  there  was  a  risk  of  Parliament  dissolving  before  the  Bill  could  get 
through,  and  then  all  their  labours  would  be  lost ;  but  they  were  buoyed  with  the 
hope  that  the  searching  and  prolonged  inquiry  in  the  Lords  would  be  read  by  their 
successors  in  the  Commons,  and  have  an  influence  upon  them.  Most  reluctantly 
they  decided  to  cut  down  their  evidence  and  counsels'  speeches  to  a  narrow  limit. 
The  opponents,  on  the  other  hand,  were  fully  alive  that  this  was  their  last  chance ; 
they  must  bring  all  the  evidence  and  all  the  influence  in  their  power  to  scotch  the  Bill, 
and  if  they  could  only  spin  out  the  hearing,  the  effluxion  of  time  would  give  them 
the  victory.  From  the  beginning  they  therefore  opposed  or  parried  every  sugges- 
tion of  the  Chairman  to  quicken  the  pace.  The  general  feeling  in  Liverpool  was 
that  the  die  was  cast  and  that  the  passing  of  the  Bill  was  a  foregone  conclusion. 
Their  only  chance  to  avert  this  was  to  talk  the  Bill  out,  or  divert  the  attention 
of  the  Committee  by  illusive  promises.  "Reject  the  estuary,"  said  they,  "and  we 
will  not  oppose  you  going  on  its  borders."  As  the  Daily  Post  said  :— 

If  Manchester  is  pining  for  the  smell  of  salt  water,  her  olfactory  nerves  can  surely  be 
gratified  in  a  less  perilous  way.  Let  her  cut  a  canal  to  the  sea  in  any  other  direction  she 
pleases.  .  .  .  Let  them  cut  it  through  by  land  to  Garston,  where  they  will  find  deep  water, 
and  where  their  pet  project  will  be  unable  to  work  much  mischief. 

Lured  by  these  promises  made  over  and  over  again  both  inside  and  outside  the 
House,  the  Committee  (never  a  strong  one)  on  the  ist  August  came  to  the  unex- 
pected conclusion  to  reject  the  Bill.  It  was  a  staggering  blow  to  the  promoters. 
They  reeled  under  it,  but  neither  lost  their  heads  nor  their  courage,  and  at  once 
started  to  repair  the  breach.  It  did  seem  hard  that,  after  an  inquiry  by  a  Committee 
of  five  in  the  Lords,  who  had  spent  over  ten  weeks  in  going  into  the  case  most  fully 
and  passing  the  Bill,  their  decision  should  be  reversed  by  four  Commoners  who 
had  hurried  through  the  inquiry  in  under  four  weeks.  On  the  fatal  day  I  had  gone 
with  the  City  Council  over  the  waterworks  at  Longdendale,  all  the  time  burning 
to  know  how  things  were  going  in  London.  My  friends  were  very  confident,  but 
somehow  I  had  my  misgivings,  for  throughout  the  promoters'  case  had  been  unduly 
hurried  by  the  Committee.  On  returning  to  London  Road  Station  there  was  a 
depressing  silence,  as  if  some  mishap  had  taken  place.  When  we  got  outside 
I  heard  a  cabman  in  furious  tones  denouncing  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  and 
sending  them  all  to  perdition.  A  cold  sweat  came  over  me,  and  I  said  to  my 
friends,  "Sure  enough  they  have  thrown  us  out,"  and  so  it  was.  The  cabman  in 


202         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

his  vexation  was  relieving  his  feelings  by  strong  language.  For  a  second  time 
our  hopes  were  wrecked,  and  all  our  time,  trouble  and  money  were  lost.  Every 
one  was  asking,  "what  shall  we  do  next?"  It  is  impossible  to  gauge  the  minds 
of  a  Committee,  but  the  general  feeling  was  that  the  additional  weight  of  engineer- 
ing evidence  by  the  opponents,  backed  by  the  statement  they  had  made,  that  a 
canal  less  costly  and  as  useful,  could  be  made  without  even  running  the  risk  of 
damaging  the  estuary,  turned  the  scale  in  their  favour.  The  greatest  sympathy 
was  expressed  for  Mr.  Adamson.  If  he  had  not  secured  success,  it  was  felt  that 
by  his  hard  work  and  his  dogged  determination  he  had  earned  it,  and  that  he 
deserved  the  gratitude  of  all  well-wishers  of  the  canal. 

It  took  some  days  for  the  Provisional  Committee  to  recover  from  the  crushing 
blow.  However,  on  the  5th  of  August  they  met  and  unanimously  resolved  to  per- 
severe in  their  efforts  to  make  Manchester  a  port,  though  it  was  admitted  it  might 
be  necessary  to  change  the  route  and  modify  the  scheme.  At  the  meeting  Mr. 
Adamson  called  attention  to  the  pledge  given  by  Sir  William  Forwood,  and  ratified 
by  Mr.  Aspinall,  Q.C.,  counsel  for  the  Dock  Board,  that  if  these  changes  were 
made  Liverpool  would  desist  from  further  opposition.  On  the  motion  of  Mr.  John 
Rylands,  seconded  by  Mr.  Hilton  Greaves,  of  Oldham,  and  supported  by  Mr. 
James  E.  Platt,  the  Mayor  of  Salford,  Dr.  Mackie,  of  Warrington,  and  others,  it  was 
resolved  :— 

That  this  Committee  notwithstanding  the  rejection  of  the  Bill  lately  by  the  House  of 
Commons,  is  of  opinion  that  the  movement  to  connect  Manchester  with  the  sea  by  a  Ship 
Canal  should  be  continued  and  prosecuted  to  a  successful  issue,  and  further,  that  the  con- 
cessions made  by  the  opposition  warrant  the  consideration  of  an  alternative  scheme  avoiding 
the  estuary,  which  will  secure  a  satisfactory  canal.  This  Committee  is  also  of  opinion  that  a 
meeting  of  subscribers,  as  well  as  a  public  meeting  should  be  summoned  at  an  early  date  to 
receive  the  report  of  the  Provisional  Committee,  and  to  test  the  feeling  of  the  district  as  to 
further  operations. 

On  the  7th  August,  the  Chairman,  Mr.  Adamson,  with  a  deputation  from  the 
Provisional  Committee  had  an  interview  with  the  Corporation  Special  Committee 
"Re  Ship  Canal ".  They  represented  that  the  ,£10,000  already  voted  could  not  be 
claimed  now  that  the  Bill  was  rejected,  and  that  they  feared  being  able  to  continue 
the  struggle  unless  Manchester  and  other  municipalities  came  to  their  aid.  The 
Chairman  suggested  a  contribution  of  2d.  in  the  pound  on  the  rates  towards  the 
Parliamentary  expenses,  and  stated  that  now  they  were  adopting  a  route  suggested 
by  Liverpool,  the  expenses  of  a  Bill  in  the  coming  session  could  not  be  heavy. 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID           203 

Subsequently  a  proposition  was  made  to  the  Council  by  the  Special  Committee 
that  on  an  indemnity  being  given  against  any  further  liability,  the  sum  of  ,£18,000, 
or  2d.  in  the  pound,  on  the  city  rate  be  contributed  towards  the  proportion  of  the 
Bill.  This  was  approved  of  by  the  Council  subject  to  its  receiving  the  sanction  of 
the  ratepayers  at  a  Borough  Funds  Meeting. 

One  service  done  by  the  rejection  of  the  Bill  was  to  arouse  an  overwhelm- 
ing feeling  in  its  favour.  From  all  sides,  from  corporations,  local  boards,  trading 
bodies,  limited  companies,  trades  unions,  etc.,  came  letters  of  sympathy,  words 
of  encouragement  and  offers  of  help — even  working  men  came  forward  to  pro- 
mise a  day's  wages  to  the  fund.  When  a  deputation  waited  on  the  Manchester 
City  Council  with  a  petition  signed  by  2,272  ratepayers,  the  Mayor  at  once  pro- 
mised to  call  a  town's  meeting  to  consider  it. 

This  meeting  was  held  in  the  Free  Trade  Hall  on  the  i5th  August.  Earlier 
in  the  day  the  subscribers  had  been  called  together.  At  the  subscribers'  meeting 
the  auditor  stated  the  balance  in  hand  was  ,£12,500,  but  there  were  still  some 
liabilities.  The  Chairman,  Mr.  Adamson,  said  that  the  solicitor,  engineer  and 
others,  in  view  of  the  defeat,  would  make  considerable  deductions  in  their  charges, 
and  were  prepared  to  throw  their  energies  into  another  fight,  when  he  was  sure 
they  would  win ;  he  hoped  with  an  altered  route,  sanctioned  by  Liverpool,  and  a 
scheme  improved  by  experience,  that  the  Corporations  of  Manchester,  Salford, 
Olclham,  Warrington  and  other  towns  would  render  still  greater  assistance  than 
they  had  done  in  the  past ;  indeed,  he  trusted  they  would  subscribe  to  the  great 
undertaking,  and  become  co-promoters  of  the  Bill.  A  resolution,  authorising  the 
Committee  to  secure  a  new  route  and  go  for  a  new  Bill  was  moved  by  Alderman 
Mark,  seconded  by  Alderman  Walton  Smith,  and  supported  by  Mr.  Houldsworth, 
M.P.,  who  liked  the  spirit  of  the  promoters  not  to  cry  after  spilled  milk,  and  had 
great  faith  that  heaven  helped  those  who  helped  themselves.  The  public  meeting 
the  same  night  was  even  more  enthusiastic  and  determined.  It  was  addressed  by 
Mr.  Adamson,  the  members  for  Manchester  and  other  influential  citizens,  and  by 
resolution  it  pledged  itself  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  canal,  and  expressed  a  hope 
that  the  Corporations  of  Manchester  and  the  neighbourhood  would  give  financial 
support.  Mr.  Adamson  was  exceedingly  severe  on  the  action  of  the  Bridgewater 
Navigation  Company.  "  The  greatest  enemy  the  promoters  of  the  canal  had  in 
the  House  of  Commons  was  the  solicitor  for  the  Bridgewater  Canal.  He  trusted 
that  gentleman  would  get  his  deserts."  He  fell  foul,  too,  of  the  Liverpool  op- 


204         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [i 

ponents,  and  said  they  had  made  a  promise  not  to  oppose  if  the  new  scheme  kept 
clear  of  the  estuary,  and  they  would  be  kept  to  it,  though  from  the  day's  papers 
it  would  be  seen  that  Liverpool  had  commenced  the  first  dance  in  the  double 
shuffle.  He  asked,  "Was  it  right  that  the  Liverpool  Corporation  should  oppose 
the  scheme  out  of  public  funds,  if  the  friends  of  the  project  have  not  the  right  to 
ask  Manchester  to  step  in  and  help  them?"  Then  Mr.  Houldsworth,  M.P.,  in  a 
careful,  non-committal  speech  said  :— 

The  scheme  in  order  to  be  successful  should  commend  itself  not  merely  to  people  who 
dream  but  to  commercial  men,  who  were  asked  to  put  their  money  in  it. 

He  roused  a  strong  feeling  of  indignation,  and  a  man  in  the  body  of  the  hall 
shouted,  "He's  on  the  Liverpool  side". 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright  carried  the  meeting  with  him  by  an  able,  courageous  and 
cheering  speech. 

He  did  not  understand  the  reasoning  of  people  who  could  applaud  a  Town  Council  for 
spending  money  in  pictures  and  books,  and  who,  in  the  next  moment,  could  condemn  the 
Town  Council  if  it  took  part  in  opening  a  great  highway  to  the  sea,  by  which  every  man, 
woman  and  child  in  this  city  would  be  benefited,  and  by  which  the  city  of  Manchester 
would  be  placed  on  equal  terms  commercially  with  the  foremost  communities  in  the  world. 

Great  things  had  been  done  by  Lancashire  men  in  the  past.  There  were  ways  of 
accomplishing  the  object  they  had  in  view,  and  the  enterprising,  courageous  and  hard-working 
people  of  Manchester  would  find  out  a  successful  way. 

The  splendid  spirit  shown  by  the  citizens  of  Manchester  and  the  subscribers, 
together  with  the  offers  of  assistance,  left  the  Provisional  Committee  no  option,  and 
they  determined  to  lose  no  time  in  inquiring  into  the  suggestions  for  avoiding  the 
estuary  made  by  Liverpool  in  the  Parliamentary  Committee.  A  consultation  was 
held  in  Liverpool  with  some  broadminded  shipowners  there  who  had  a  kindly 
feeling  towards  the  canal.  Both  the  Lancashire  and  Cheshire  shores  were  visited 
by  the  Committee  to  seek  for  a  good  entrance.  I  well  remember  the  autumn  day 
when,  accompanied  by  the  Chairman,  Mr.  Hilton  Greaves,  Mr.  William  Johnson, 
the  well-known  Liverpool  shipowner,  and  others,  we  walked  several  miles  along 
the  Lancashire  side  from  Garston.  How  fagged  we  all  were,  and  how  welcome 
a  cup  of  tea  was  to  our  parched  throats  when  we  reached  the  hotel !  We  saw 
enough  to  convince  us  that  the  Lancashire  side  would  not  do,  and  that  the  en- 
trance to  the  canal  must  be  from  the  Cheshire  side.  Mr.  Leader  Williams,  the 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  205 

engineer,  also  being  of  this  opinion,  he  was  instructed  to  get  out  plans  and  esti- 
mates, and  submit  them  to  the  Committee. 

Meanwhile,  the  papers  were  full  of  a  controversy  on  the  propriety  of  the  Cor- 
poration giving  financial  help  to  the  promoters.  A  few  correspondents,  headed 
by  Mr.  E.  H.  Fuller,  opposed  vigorously,  and  that  gentleman  compared  the  under- 
taking with  the  South  Sea  scheme,  which  became  the  South  Sea  Bubble.  He 
prophesied  the  same  fate  would  attach  to  the  Ship  Canal  scheme,  and  he  objected 
to  any  addition  to  the  rates.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  shown  that  most  successful 
ports  had,  at  some  time  or  other,  been  helped  from  the  rates,  and  with  great  advan- 
tage. Without  such  assistance  Liverpool,  Glasgow,  Newcastle,  Bristol  and  other 
places  would  have  been  scotched  in  their  infancy.  The  public  was  reminded  of 
the  dictum  of  Sir  Edward  Watkin,  himself  a  railway  magnate  :— 

I  repeat  that  I  think  a  greatly  improved  navigation  between  Manchester  and  Liverpool 
is  bound  to  be  made,  and  that  it  would  be  a  great  blessing  to  Manchester  and  no  damage  to 
Liverpool. 

The  position  of  the  Weaver  Navigation  was  also  pointed  out,  where  the  rates 
of  Cheshire  were  assisted  by  that  waterway. 

In  order  to  prevent  Corporation  assistance  being  given,  a  ratepayers'  memorial 
to  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  Home  Secretary  was  got  up,  headed  by  such 
well-known  citizens  as  Mr.  Roby,  M.P.  ;  J.  F.  Hutton  &  Co.,  Dale  Street ;  Schunck. 
Souchay  &  Co.  ;  Fogg,  Braddock  &  Co.  ;  Railton  &  Son,  East  Street ;  Earle,  Sons 
&  Co.,  Brown  Street;  J.  Clapham,  J.P.,  King  Street,  and  others.  Their  fear  was 
that  if  the  Corporation  once  embarked  as  promoters  of  the  scheme,  it  would  be  an 
easy  step  to  levy  a  further  and  permanent  canal  rate,  and  they  regarded  the  canal 
as  a  speculative  scheme  and  a  private  venture.  It  was  also  urged  that  to  fight 
railway  and  vested  interests  owning  £190,000,000  capital  was  hopeless.  On  the 
other  side  it  was  ably  argued,  especially  by  Mr.  Reuben  Spencer,  Mr.  J.  W. 
Harvey,  Mr.  J.  M.  Fletcher  and  others,  that  it  was  a  case  of  "nothing  venture, 
nothing  win,"  and  that  if  the  Corporations  of  the  leading  commercial  cities,  includ- 
ing Glasgow,  Liverpool,  Bristol  and  Hull,  had  laid  the  foundation  of  their  success 
by  giving  monetary  assistance  to  dock  enterprise,  Manchester  must  either  follow 
suit  or  be  content  to  take  a  back  seat.  Further,  that  it  was  good  policy  for  the 
city  to  levy  a  rate  of  2d.  in  the  pound  to  aid  the  Bill,  and  identify  itself  with  a 
valuable  scheme.  If  the  railways,  because  of  their  unity  and  wealth,  were  allowed 
to  dominate  the  trade  of  the  country,  then  good-bye  to  its  success. 


206         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [i 

We  should  have  been  a  nice  pigmy  race  of  slaves  to  the  Romans  and  others  had  our 
forefathers  had  no  more  pluck  than  some  of  this  degenerate  race  who  bow  their  knee  to  the 
power  of  the  railway  interest. 

The  Manchester  Guardian,  dealing  with  the  position  in  an  article  on  iQth 
September,  1 884,  said  :— 

We  are  not  concerned  at  this  moment  to  decide  whether  all  this  is  economically  sound 
or  not ;  what  we  have  to  point  out  is,  that  we  are  in  the  presence  of  a  movement,  observable 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree  in  all  the  leading  countries  of  the  world,  for  embodying  in  a 
practical  form  the  idea  that  it  is  in  the  interests  of  the  public  to  provide  traders  with  ample 
and  cheap  facilities  for  transport ;  even  if  this  is  to  be  done  only  by  the  help  of  the  taxpayer. 

The  City  News  thought : — 

The  reasoning  of  the  objectors  might  have  had  weight  a  score  of  years  ago  ;  it  has  none 
now.  Parliament  has  long  recognised  the  expediency  of  allowing  corporate  authorities  with 
the  sanction  of  a  majority  of  the  ratepayers  and  the  Local  Government  Board  to  levy  rates 
for  promoting  in  Parliament  bills  that  will  benefit  inhabitants,  .  .  .  and  it  is  the  cheapest 
mode  of  carriage  which  Lancashire  wants  to  fit  her  to  maintain  her  industries. 

A  further  reason  for  Manchester  contributing  was  to  prevent  so  great  a  scheme 
now  or  hereafter  falling  entirely  into  the  hands  of  private  individuals.  Dr.  Pank- 
hurst  had  a  tilt  with  Mr.  Henry  H.  Howorth,  of  Salford,  over  the  question,  the 
latter  protesting  that— 

If  it  be  right  and  just  that  our  Aldermen  and  Councillors  should  call  upon  us  to  devote 
our  money  to  constructing  the  Ship  Canal,  I  cannot  see  how  they  can  refuse  to  do  the  same 
for  any  other  venture  which  is  steered  in  the  same  masterly  manner,  and  we  shall  presently 
be  found  embarked  in  a  scheme  for  the  extraction  of  good  palm  oil  from  worn-out  paving 
stones,  a  process  which,  if  successful,  must  of  course  be  of  immense  benefit  to  Manchester. 

On  the  6th  October,  1884,  the  Borough  Funds  Meeting  was  held.  The 
Mayor  (Councillor  Goldschmidt),  whilst  objecting  to  the  Corporation  being  in  any 
way  concerned  in  the  execution  of  the  works,  thought  a  Ship  Canal  would  be  of  the 
greatest  benefit  to  the  town,  and  moved  that  ,£18,000,  equal  to  2d.  in  the  pound  on 
the  rates,  be  voted  towards  assisting  the  promoters  to  secure  the  Bill.  This  was 
seconded  by  Alderman  Harwood ;  he  estimated  the  canal  would  effect  a  saving  of 
.£508,035  to  the  trades  of  the  city,  and  remove  an  anomaly  he  was  told  now  existed, 
viz.,  that  the  working  men  of  Liverpool  could  live  15  per  cent,  cheaper  than  the 
working  men  of  Manchester.  The  contribution  meant  2d.  in  the  pound  on  the 
rates  for  one  year  only.  There  was  nothing  to  lose  and  everything  to  gain  by 
this  project. 


1884]       EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID  207 

The  resolution  was  put  to  the  meeting  and  the  vast  audience  held  up  both 
hands.  There  were  only  about  a  score  of  dissentients.  The  result  was  received  with 
much  cheering.  Several  ratepayers  rose  to  demand  a  poll,  among  the  rest  Mr. 
Lynde,  solicitor  to  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway  Company,  who  announced 
that  in  demanding  a  poll  he  was  acting  professionally  for  that  company.  At  once 
there  were  cries  of  "who  is  to  pay  the  cost? "  A  reply  of  "the  London  and  North- 
Western"  caused  an  irate  ratepayer  to  exclaim  "stop  their  traffic".  Sir  Joseph 
Heron  said  there  was  nearly  always  room  for  repentance,  and  if  Mr.  Lynde  should 
receive  those  instructions  which  he  hoped  might  come  from  headquarters,  he  would 
still  be  in  a  position  to  withdraw  his  request  for  a  poll. 

There  were  loud  and  frequent  complaints  about  the  course  adopted  by  Mr. 
Lynde.  It  was  said  it  was  hard  lines  to  make  the  city  spend  ,£1,500  on  a  poll. 

Next  day  Mr.  Lynde  wrote  :— 

I  am  instructed  to  inform  you  that  having  entered  a  protest  against  public  funds  being 
used  for  private  enterprises,  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway  Company  will  not  put  the 
city  to  the  expense  of  a  poll,  and  therefore  I  withdraw  the  demand  I  made  yesterday. 

Had  this  step  not  been  taken  there  is  no  doubt  a  great  many  tradespeople 
would  have  shown  their  displeasure  by  withdrawing  their  traffic.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  action  of  Mr.  Lynde  had  prevented  other  ratepayers  demanding  a  poll, 
and  many  angry  letters  appeared  in  the  Press,  one  correspondent  saying  that 
a  private  arrangement  between  Mr.  Lynde  and  Sir  Joseph  Heron  had  practically 
superseded  the  vote  of  the  citizens  of  Manchester.  This  Mr.  Lynde  indignantly 
repudiated.  His  graphic  description  of  the  feeling  of  the  meeting  when  he  demanded 
a  poll  is  worth  recording  :— 

A  poll  was  demanded  in  the  midst  of  such  yells  and  execrations  as  rarely  fall  to  the  lot 
of  a  murderer. 

Several  bitter  letters  afterwards  appeared  signed  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Lynde,  but  he 
subsequently  withdrew  them,  saying  they  had  been  published  without  his  authority. 

At  the  Warrington  Borough  Funds  Meeting  the  resolution  to  subscribe  2d. 
in  the  pound  was  passed  with  only  two  dissentients,  and  these  demanded  a  poll. 
When,  however,  the  opponents  called  a  meeting  they  were  defeated,  and  a 
resolution  in  favour  of  the  rate  was  passed. 

The  legality  of  the  Manchester  Corporation  assisting  the  Ship  Canal  was 
fully  discussed  in  the  Press.  The  result  of  the  town's  meeting  fomented  the 
previous  opposition.  Mr.  Roby,  M.P.,  wrote  to  the  Guardian:— 


208         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [i! 

I  question  the  expediency,  if  not  the  right,  of  the  Council  to  force  ratepayers  to  contribute 
to  it. 

Committees  were  formed  both  in  Manchester  and  Salford,  and  signatures  obtained 
to  petitions  to  the  Local  Government  Board.  In  Manchester  Mr.  Charles  Pierson 
and  Mr.  F.  A.  Woodcock  were  the  secretaries ;  the  latter  was  vigorously  attacked 
as  being  a  solicitor,  and  the  nominee  of  the  London  and  North-Western  Railway 
Company,  and  without  doubt  the  statements  made  and  the  carelessness  exhibited  in 
yetting  signatures  were  very  reprehensible.  Many  men  disowned  their  signatures 
attached  to  the  petition.  Still  it  cannot  be  denied  that  many  leading  citizens  signed 
it ;  amongst  others,  Barbour  Brothers,  William  Graham  &  Co.,  George  Frazer,  Son 
&  Co.,  Carver  Brothers,  G.  H.  Gaddum,  Robert  Barclay  &  Co.,  J.  H.  Agnew  & 
Brothers,  A.  &  S.  Henry,  Chamberlain,  Donner  &  Co.,  D.  Matheson  &  Co.,  and 
others.  The  legal  questions,  both  as  regarded  the  poll  and  the  power  of  the  Cor- 
poration to  contribute,  were  ably  argued  in  the  Press  by  Mr.  W.  H.  S.  Watts  for 
the  Corporation,  and  Mr.  F.  A.  Woodcock  for  the  memorialists. 

On  the  2 ist  November  the  Local  Government  Board  wrote  to  say,  "the 
matters  referred  to  in  the  Bill  (and  memorial)  will  not  be  such  as  come  within  their 
jurisdiction,"  and  on  the  3rd  December  Mr.  John  T.  Hibbert,  M.P.,  forwarded  the 
decision  of  the  Home  Secretary  (Sir  William  Harcourt)  giving  his  assent  to  the 
proposal  of  the  City  Council  to  contribute  2d.  in  the  pound  out  of  the  rates.  The 
following  is  a  copy  of  his  letter  :— 

WHITEHALL,  yd  December,  1884. 
SIR, 

I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to  transmit  to  you  herewith,  to  be  laid 
before  the  Town  Council  of  Manchester,  with  reference  to  your  letter  of  the  5th  ultimo,  an 
instrument  under  his  hand  signifying  his  approval,  pursuant  to  the  Act  35  &  36  Viet.,  cap. 
91,  of  a  resolution  passed  by  them  on  the  2pth  October  last,  to  the  effect  that  it  is  expedient 
for  the  Corporation  of  Manchester  to  contribute  to  promote  in  the  first  session  of  Parliament 
a  Bill  for  the  purpose  of  incorporating  a  company,  and  empowering  such  company  to  construct 
a  canal  from  the  river  Mersey  to  the  city  of  Manchester,  navigable  for  ocean  steamers  and 
ships  of  large  burden,  and  for  that  purpose  to  apply  the  funds  under  the  control  of  the  Town 
Council,  or  such  portion  thereof  as  may  be  necessary,  to  the  payment  of  the  costs  attending 
the  same,  not  exceeding  a  sum  produced  by  a  rate  of  twopence  in  the  pound  upon  the  annual 
rateable  value  of  the  city. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  T.  HIBBERT. 


1884]        EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR— CORPORATION  AID          209 

During  the  sessions  1883-84  the  Ship  Canal  promoters  had  silenced  the 
opposition  of  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  by  offering  to  buy  their  pro- 
perty, but  stimulated  no  doubt  by  the  many  suggestions  of  a  barge  canal,  the 
Directors  of  that  undertaking  at  an  Extraordinary  General  Meeting  held  in  Novem- 
ber, 1884,  suggested  that  instead  of  selling  their  concern  to  the  Ship  Canal,  they 
should  spend  ,£324,000  in  improving  the  river  Mersey,  and  thus  make  it  very 
remunerative.  The  Chairman,  Mr.  Cropper,  took  much  pains  to  prove  that  the 
project  was  but  the  revival  of  an  old  scheme,  but  he  admitted  that  it  must  be  in 
opposition  to  the  Ship  Canal,  as  both  could  not  be  carried  out.  That  the  Naviga- 
tion Company  were  working  in  collusion  with  Mr.  Woodcock  and  the  memorialists 
is  evident,  for  the  latter  pleaded  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company's  action  would 
make  the  canal  unnecessary. 

The  plans  and  books  of  reference  for  the  1885  Bill  were  deposited  in  the 
middle  of  November,  1884.  They  differed  from  those  of  the  previous  year  inas- 
much as  training  walls  in  the  river  were  dispensed  with ;  the  channel  commenced  at 
Eastham,  and  was  carried  through  land  skirting  the  Cheshire  shore.  The  docks 
designed  to  be  made  on  the  race-course  were  given  up,  and  docks  for  coasting  ships 
placed  in  Manchester  on  the  site  of  the  Pomona  Gardens.  A  list  of  advantages  put 
forth  included  the  carrying  of  main  sewers  alongside  the  canal,  and  the  widening  and 
deepening  of  the  river  to  prevent  floods. 

The  reply  of  the  Home  Secretary  to  the  memorialists  of  Manchester,  and  the 
fact  that  the  result  of  the  Warrington  poll  showed  6,355  'n  favour  of  a  twopenny 
rate  and  only  515  against,  choked  off  the  Salford  memorial  against  contributing, 
which  contained  the  names  of  some  very  influential  men,  among  the  rest  Messrs. 
Charles  Hey  wood,  Elkanah  Armitage,  George  W.  Agnew,  Andrew  Knowles, 
Nathaniel  Shelmerdine  and  others.  A  counter-memorial  in  favour  of  the  rate  was 
presented  by  Mr.  J.  G.  Groves,  but  it  was  felt  the  decision  at  Manchester  disposed 
of  the  case. 

The  action  of  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  stirred  up  the  Liverpool 
Press.  The  Daily  Post  thought  :— 

Manchester  people  are  at  length  awakening  to  the  fact  that  the  Ship  Canal  scheme  is 
far  too  colossal  a  project  to  have  any  practical  chance  of  being  carried  into  effect.  They  had 
better  look  at  the  state  of  the  river  nearest  home  before  finding  fault  with  Liverpool,  for  they 
had  said  very  unkind  things  about  Liverpool  not  removing  the  bar,  and  not  improving  the 
condition  of  the  river. 

VOL.  I.  14 


aio         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

Sir  Edward  Watkin  had  recently  written  a  scathing  article  to  the  Times  saying 
that  on  his  return  from  America  he  was  kept  hours  outside  Liverpool  because  there 
were  only  8  feet  of  water  on  the  bar;  also  that  "Liverpool  is  a  place  where  the 
dogma  of  absolute  perfection  is  accepted  as  a  religion,"  but,  that  if  a  change  did 
not  take  place,  Antwerp  and  other  ports  would  run  away  with  our  trade.  Mr. 
Gibbons,  of  Liverpool,  in  another  local  paper  said :— - 

Talk  about  the  so-called  conservatism  of  the  House  of  Lords !  Why  they  are  en- 
lightened liberal  reformers  compared  with  the  studied  conservatism  in  some  important 
matters  in  the  administration  of  our  Dock  Board. 

Mr.  Falk,  of  Liverpool,  also  wrote  :— 

Where  there  is  no  will  there  is  no  way.  In  view  of  my  own  experience,  I  should  advise 
any  sanguine  inventors  who  enter  the  dock  offices  to  bear  in  mind  Dante's  instruction  over 
another  place,  "  He  who  enters  here  must  leave  all  hope  behind  him  ". 

Criticisms  and  suggestions  from  Mr.  Russel  Aitken,  Mr.  Harold  Littledale 
and  others,  following  on  Captain  Eads'  evidence  before  the  Parliamentary  Com- 
mittee, no  doubt  created  a  public  feeling  that  ended  in  the  removal  of  the  bar. 
Admiral  Spratt,  the  acting  Conservator  of  the  Mersey,  in  his  yearly  report  gave 
it  as  his  opinion  that  the  deepening  of  the  bar  would  be  a  comparatively  economical 
work,  and  said  he  could  see  no  reason  to  oppose  the  alternative  plan  of  taking  the 
Ship  Canal  from  Runcorn  close  to  the  Cheshire  side  of  the  estuary,  and  he  believed 
it  would  be  both  feasible  and  less  costly  in  the  end  than  to  take  it  through  the 
estuary.  Nevertheless,  directly  the  particulars  of  the  new  route  became  known, 
instead  of  mollifying  the  Liverpool  opponents,  they  seemed  to  become  more  bitter 
in  their  opposition,  and  Sir  William  Forwood,  who  had  been  most  definite  in  his 
promises,  appeared  glad  to  find  an  excuse  for  not  keeping  them. 

The  Ship  Canal  Bill  for  the  coming  session  was  duly  deposited  on  i6th 
December,  1 884. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   PARLIAMENTARY  BILL   IN  THE  LORDS- 
COUNSEL'S   SPEECHES— EVIDENCE    PRO   AND   CON— CAP- 
TAIN   EADS    OF    NEW    ORLEANS  — THE    DUKE   OF    RICH- 
MOND NO  FRIEND— INCIDENTS  IN  THE  HOUSE— BILL  TO 
PROCEED. 

There  can  be  no  question,  of  course,  of  the  great  advantage  of  cheap  carriage  in  these 
times.  It  is  almost  as  essential  as  quick  transit.  If  the  canal  were  made,  merchants  would 
be  able  to  put  their  goods  on  board  at  their  own  quays  with  much  less  risk  of  damage,  and 
greatly  decreased  cost  of  carriage. — Daily  News,  ipth  October,  1882. 

THE  Ship  Canal  Bill  was  introduced  to  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords 
on   nth  March,    1884.     The  Committee  consisted  of  the  Duke  of  Rich- 
mond (Chairman),  Lords  Norton,  Shute,  Lovat  and  Dunraven. 
Counsel  for  the  promoters — Messrs.  Pember,  Michael,  Balfour  Browne,  Cripps, 
Nash  and  Sington.     With  five  counsel  engaged,  there  were  times  during  the  1883 
session  when  not  one  of  them  was  at  liberty  to  conduct  the  case.     This  year  the 
Chairman  made  up  his  mind  not  to  be  in  the  same  fix,  so  he  determined  to  take  up 
two  local  barristers  who  would  always  be  present,  watching  the  case.     One  of  them, 
Mr.  Tom  Nash,  who  had  been  very  helpful  at  Manchester,  was  an  effective  speaker, 
and  had  delighted  the  Chairman  at  one  of  the  meetings  by  an  onslaught  he  made 
on  the  capitalists,  who  were  then  severely  holding  aloof,  as  the  speaker  said,   "to 
see  how  the  cat  jumped  ".      He  characterised  them  as  a  cowardly  lot. 

In  London  the  juniors  were  unused  to  the  work,  and  one  of  them  made  a  great 
mistake  by  asking  a  witness,  "  Do  you  know  any  reason  why  Manchester  should 
not  be  a  port  of  call  ? "  Every  one  was  aghast  at  the  question,  and  Mr.  Pember 
turning  round  was  very  cross  and  used  strong  language. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Bill  was  to  a  great  extent  on  similar  lines  to  the  one  of 

(211) 


212         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

the  previous  year,  it  is  intended  here  as  far  as  possible  to  avoid  the  duplication  of 
evidence  and  of  counsels'  speeches,  new  evidence  and  new  matter  only  being  dealt 
with. 

There  were  twenty-six  petitioners  against  the  Bill,  eight  of  whom  appeared  by 
counsel  at  the  opening  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Pember,  Q.C.,  said  except  for  trivial  matters  the  scheme  was  the  same  as 
the  one  presented  in  1883.  Last  year  the  Bill  had  been  in  jeopardy,  because  plans 
and  details  of  the  estuarial  works  had  not  been  presented.  On  the  present  plans  the 
works  were  shown  in  blue.  Last  year  the  promoters  believed  the  consent  of  the 
Mersey  Commissioners  was  sufficient,  now  it  was  proposed  to  take  Parliamentary 
powers.  After  describing  the  main  features  of  the  canal,  he  stated  that  the  Ship 
Canal  was  the  same  depth  as  the  Suez  Canal,  and  nearly  double  the  bottom  width. 
Also  that  it  would  accommodate  all  the  cotton  ships  afloat,  and  all  others  except 
a  few  passenger  steamers.  He  then  explained  how  floods  would  be  prevented,  and 
mentioned  that  it  was  proposed  this  year  to  carry  the  Warrington  and  Stockport 
line  over  the  canal  instead  of  in  a  tunnel  as  previously  arranged.  There  was  an 
alteration  too  in  the  estimates  ;  they  now  came  to  ,£10,000,000,  of  which  ,£6,904, 1 86 
was  for  works.  The  former  sum  included  interest  during  construction,  and  the 
purchase  of  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  properties. 

They  proposed  with  the  Mersey  to  follow  the  example  of  the  great  industrial 
rivers  of  Great  Britain,  the  Tyne,  the  Clyde  and  the  Tees.  Ten  miles  only  out 
of  a  length  of  40  miles,  and  700  feet,  out  of  a  breadth  of  3  miles,  were  affected  in  the 
estuary,  and  only  one-fiftieth  part  of  the  cubical  capacity  of  the  estuary  would  be 
dealt  with.  It  was  a  disgrace  to  a  community  like  that  of  Lancashire  that  the 
estuary  should  remain  in  its  present  neglected  condition.  Liverpool  was  too  timid 
to  take  the  matter  up — she  was  secure  in  her  monopoly ;  and  the  ports  above  her 
had  to  be  content  with  tortuous,  dangerous  and  shifting  channels. 

It  was  time  commercial  England  stirred  up,  and  utilised  and  extended  her 
waterways.  Continental  nations  were  going  ahead  and  profiting  by  cheap  carriage, 
and  if  the  Dutch  could  spend  ,£4,000,000  on  canals,  etc.,  at  both  Rotterdam  and 
Amsterdam,  surely  Manchester  and  Lancashire  ought  to  spend  .£8,000,000  or 
£  1 0,000,000  to  improve  their  main  water  avenue. 

Within  45  miles  of  Manchester  there  was  a  population  of  7,000,000 ;  and  whilst 
the  population  of  England  and  Wales  in  the  last  decade  had  increased  14  per  cent, 
that  of  Lancashire  had  increased  22  per  cent. 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  213 

Mr.  Pember  then  showed  numerous  cases  of  Manchester  freightage  rates  being 
dearer  than  elsewhere  in  England,  and  put  in  tables  to  prove  this.  He  also  gave 
many  instances  of  continental  rates.  For  example,  cotton  from  Rotterdam  to  Mul- 
house,  432  miles,  cost  253.  6d.  per  ton,  whilst  for  40  miles  out  from  Liverpool  the 
cost  was  i8s.  4d.  Hamburg  to  Elberfeld,  236  miles,  cost  143.  for  goods,  whilst  40 
miles  out  from  Liverpool  it  was  i8s.  "Can  you  wonder,  then,"  said  he,  "that  we 
are  beaten  by  competition  ?  "  Cotton  from  Liverpool  to  Oldham  used  to  be  6s.  6d. 
per  ton,  now  it  is  iis.  The  enormous  increase  in  the  capital  account  of  railways, 
and  the  increase  of  expenditure,  made  it  impossible  for  them  adequately  to  reduce 
their  rates  and  give  the  necessary  relief  to  trade,  and  it  was  only  cheap  water  car- 
riage that  could  give  it.  The  tonnage  of  ships  entering  Liverpool  had  increased 
77  per  cent,  in  twenty  years.  The  port  was  crowded  out  now,  and  if  a  propor- 
tionate increase  went  on,  a  new  port  on  the  Mersey  was  an  absolute  necessity. 
There  was  no  fear  of  the  capacity  of  the  canal ;  it  was  broader  and  as  deep  as 
the  Suez  Canal.  "If  they  can  take  a  ship  of  5,000  tons,  so  can  we."  The  ton- 
nage of  goods  in  and  out  of  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead,  was  at  least  15,000,000 
tons,  and  he  claimed  that  one-third  of  it  must  naturally  adopt  Manchester  as  its 
most  convenient  port/  Mr.  Pember  then  dealt  with  the  petitions  against  the  Bill. 

First  that  of  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board,  who  claimed  they  had 
expended  over  .£16,000,000  on  their  estate,  and  that  if  the  canal  were  made  the 
passage  of  ocean-going  steamers  and  ships  of  large  burden  would  be  impracticable, 
through  the  silting  up  of  the  channel.  They  also  asserted  that  damage  would  be 
done  to  the  Vyrnwy  line  of  water-pipes,  that  the  estimates  were  insufficient,  and  they 
objected  to  the  payment  of  interest  out  of  capital  during  construction.  Mr.  Pember 
denied  any  intention  to  damage  the  dock  estate ;  he  said  the  scheme  was  intended 
to  protect  the  trade  investments  of  Manchester  and  district,  amounting  to  at  least 
.£100,000,000.  If  ,£16,000,000  had  been  spent  at  Liverpool,  Manchester  could 
surely  find  the  capital  for  the  canal.  The  opposition  was  really  prompted  by 
commercial  fear  and  jealousy,  and  the  idea  that  if  Manchester  became  a  rival  port 
the  trade  would  go  up  the  river.  As  regards  a  trust  the  clause  was  intended  to 
prevent  railways  ever  getting  possession  of  the  canal,  but  the  public  must  have 
gone  to  sleep  if  ever  they  allowed  this  to  take  place. 

Mr.  Pember  then  referred  to  the  petition  of  the  London  and  North-Western 
Railway  Company,  who  in  addition  to  the  objections  of  last  year  said  :  "  The  scheme 
would  wholly  fail  in  affecting  the  object  of  making  Manchester  a  port ".  They  also 


2i4         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

denied  "that  the  scheme  could  ever  succeed  as  a  financial  speculation,   nor  did 
they  believe  that  even,  if  authorised,  funds  would  be  forthcoming  for  its  execu- 


tion ". 


As  regarded  the  petition  of  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford,  who  complained  of 
the  large  area  of  polluted  water,  Mr.  Pember  pointed  out  that  the  present  river 
was  nearer  to  him  than  the  proposed  canal  would  be,  and  that  he  had  the  Salford 
sewage  works  close  by. 

Mr.  Daniel  Adamson,  the  first  witness,  said  that  since  the  rejection  of  the  Bill 
in  1 883,  there  had  been  a  large  and  enthusiastic  meeting,  in  favour  of  the  renewed 
Bill,  that  overflowed  the  large  room  in  the  Free  Trade  Hall.  He  estimated  7,000 
people  came  to  support  the  Bill,  and  in  all  that  number  only  one  hand  was  held  up 
against  it.  The  Chamber  of  Commerce,  too,  in  the  largest  meeting  of  that  body 
ever  held,  was  similarly  unanimous.  They  had  also  appointed  four  of  their  members 
to  give  evidence  before  Parliamentary  Committees-  The  Manchester  Corporation 
had  voted  £,\ 0,000  and  the  Salford  Corporation  id.  in  the  pound,  equal  to  ^3,000, 
in  aid  of  the  cost  of  a  Parliamentary  Bill.  The  Manchester  Guardian  Society  for 
the  Protection  of  Trade  had  voted  ,£150,  and  the  London  Cotton  Brokers'  Associa- 
tion had  passed  a  resolution  in  favour  of  the  Bill.  Defeat  had  only  aroused  the 
enthusiasm  of  the  people,  and  a  very  great  number  of  meetings  had  been  held,  not 
only  in  Manchester  but  all  over  the  county,  and  they  were  in  the  heartiest 
sympathy  with  the  movement.  In  his  opinion  the  many  millions  wasted  at  Birken- 
head,  and  the  .£1,500,000  paid  to  Liverpool  for  the  dock  dues,  must  tend  to  make 
Liverpool  a  dear  port.  He  then  put  in  a  large  number  of  statistical  tables  showing 
amongst  other  facts  that  for  short  distances  the  Liverpool  railway  rates  were  dearer 
than  the  average  rates  to  other  English  towns — on  grain  to  the  extent  of  47.95  per 
cent,  and  on  timber  55.73  per  cent.  That  whilst  the  dock  dues  on  cotton  at 
Liverpool  were  35.  6d.  per  ton,  at  Bristol  they  were  2s.  and  at  Hull  6d.  That  the 
charges  from  the  ship  to  the  railway  truck  were  8s.  at  Liverpool,  33.  4d.  at  Glasgow, 
and  2s.  6d.  at  Hull.  That  whilst  the  railway  rates  for  cotton  from  Liverpool  to 
Lancashire  towns  were  3. id.  per  ton  per  mile,  the  charge  in  other  parts  of  the 
kingdom  quoted  by  railway  companies  averaged  i.67d.  per  ton.  Also  that  at  the 
same  time  that  2. 53d.  per  ton  per  mile  was  the  rate  from  Liverpool,  the  average  rate 
in  other  parts  of  the  kingdom  was  1.176.  per  ton.  The  witness  was  quite  sure  that 
about  95  per  cent,  of  the  vessels  coming  to  Liverpool  could  safely  use  the  Ship 
Canal.  He  believed  the  increase  of  population  and  trade  going  on  would  soon 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  215 

block  the  present  means  of  transit  to  Liverpool,  and  that  the  canal  would  relieve 
the  over-pressed  lines  by  carrying  the  heavy  goods,  which  were  the  least  remuner- 
ative to  railways.  Since  the  Ship  Canal  came  to  the  front  the  Dock  Board  had 
reduced  the  Liverpool  charges  on  cotton  14  per  cent,  a  saving  to  the  trade  of 
.£18,693  Per  annum. 

In  cross-examination,  Mr.  A  spinal/,  Q.C.,  took  occasion  to  question  the  witness 
about  what  he  called  his  "popular  oratory,"  when  at  a  meeting  he  criticised  one  of 
the  Parliamentary  Chairmen  of  the  preceding  year  as  "a  most  fractious,  disturbing 
and  interrupting  Chairman,"  and  alluded  to  his  attack  on  Mr.  Pope,  referred  to  in 
Chapter  VII.,  about  pricking  the  bubble  which  would  eventually  burst  and  over- 
whelm him.  As  to  the  first  charge,  Mr.  Adamson  replied  that  he  believed  he 
was  speaking  the  truth,  and  about  the  Q.C.  that  it  was  retribution  for  the  counsel's 
treatment  when  cross-examining  him ;  indeed,  it  was  the  only  sentence  he  wrote  out 
when  he  made  the  speech. 

Mr.  Reuben  Spencer  (of  Messrs.  Rylands  &  Co.,  Limited)  complained  that 
whilst  the  present  freight  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  was  3d.  per  ton  per  mile, 
the  cost  of  bringing  the  same  goods  from  Hull  to  Leeds  was  i  f  d.  per  ton.  Mr. 
Edward  Walmsley,  of  Stockport,  said  the  carrying  ring  was  so  oppressive  that  they 
(the  railways  and  canals)  settled  the  rates  between  them,  and  though  the  canal 
flowed  by  his  door,  cotton  was  actually  taken  past  to  the  terminal  warehouse,  and 
he  had  to  pay  cartage. 

Following  on  many  commercial  witnesses  came  Alderman  Hopkinson,  ex- 
Mayor  of  Manchester,  who  hoped  to  see  a  main  sewer  along  the  bank,  constructed 
pari  passu  with  the  canal,  which  should  convey  the  sewage  of  Manchester  to  tidal 
waters.  This  gentleman  created  much  amusement  by  declaring  that  11,000  was 
the  number  of  water-closets  put  into  his  mouth,  and  this  was  accentuated  by  the 
witness  being  unconscious  of  having  said  anything  out  of  the  way — he  meant  the 
figures  had  been  supplied  to  him. 

The  next  witness,  Sir  Joseph  Heron,  Town  Clerk  of  Manchester,  had  so  often 
crossed  swords  with  Liverpool  before  about  the  management  of  the  docks,  that  it 
was  expected  his  well-known  ability  as  a  witness  would  be  put  to  the  test.  He 
claimed  that  the  anxiety  of  the  leading  merchants  of  Liverpool  to  get  a  plateway  to 
Manchester  at  the  cost  of  ,£7,000,000  in  order  to  cheapen  carriage,  was  the  admis- 
sion of  a  grievance  that  required  rectifying.  His  answer  to  the  suggestion  that  the 
Ship  Canal  would  soon  join  the  band  of  monopolists  was,  that  the  reduced  rates 


2i6         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

fixed  by  the  Bill  would  secure  the  public  from  loss ;  besides,  there  was  a  clause  in 
reference  to  a  public  trust.  From  public  reports  it  appeared  there  was  a  constant 
crying  out  for  more  dock  accommodation  in  Liverpool,  and  he  was  told  the  Dock 
Board's  debt  (in  1857,  £6,000,000),  had  now  become  nearly  ,£18,000,000.  He 
considered  the  dock  dues  now  levied  were  an  unnecessary  and  unjustifiable  burden 
on  trade.  Of  old  the  Liverpool  Corporation  had  levied  town  dues  on  every  article 
that  went  in  or  out  of  the  port,  which  in  1857  amounted  to  .£180,000  per  year,  of 
which  not  a  sixpence  was  spent  on  the  port,  but  applied  for  the  benefit  of  the 
borough.  He  had  in  hand  the  carrying  through  of  the  1857  Act  which  dealt  with 
this  abuse.  The  Dock  Board  were  to  pay  the  Corporation  .£1,500,000  in  lieu  of 
the  town  dues,  and  it  was  understood  as  soon  as  the  Dock  Board  had  repaid  them- 
selves the  town  dues  were  to  cease,  as  they  had  done  at  Garston  under  similar 
circumstances.  Instead,  they  still  remained,  and  a  sum  of  ,£300,000  per  year  was 
now  improperly  collected  from  the  goods  passing  through  Liverpool.  He  repudiated 
the  suggestion  that  Manchester  had  compelled  the  Dock  Board  to  buy  the  Birken- 
head  Docks,  or  were  in  any  way  responsible  for  .£6,000,000  wastefully  spent  there, 
and  he  quoted  the  speech  of  Mr.  Moon  (Chairman  of  the  London  and  North- Western 
Railway)  to  the  Dock  Board  :  "Gentlemen,  do  not  forget  that  you  are  the  represent- 
atives of  the  dearest  docks  in  Great  Britain,  with  the  exception  of  London".  He 
objected  strongly  to  the  system  of  election  to  the  Dock  Board,  and  when  he  con- 
sidered the  wealth  of  the  district,  he  felt  sure  the  capital  for  the  Ship  Canal  would  be 
subscribed. 

In  cross-examination,  Mr.  Aspinall  pressed  the  witness  hard  as  to  the  prob- 
ability of  the  capital  being  found,  and  went  so  far  as  to  put  the  pertinent  but  incon- 
venient question,  "  Have  you  any  intention  yourself  of  putting  any  money  into 
this  ? "  Without  the  least  perturbation,  and  in  the  coolest  manner  possible,  Sir 
Joseph  Heron  replied  by  another  question,  "Did  you  ever  know  a  Town  Clerk 
who  had  money  to  invest  ?  "  This  clever  reply  caused  a  burst  of  laughter,  in 
which  the  Committee  joined,  and  the  examining  counsel  dropped  the  question  with 
the  remark,  "Pointing  at  one  Town  Clerk,  I  should  anticipate  it  very  strongly". 
Counsel  tried  hard  to  justify  the  continuance  of  town  dues,  and  to  prove  the 
Birkenhead  Docks  had  been  thrust  on  Liverpool  by  the  action  of  Manchester,  but 
Sir  Joseph  could  not  be  shaken. 

After  hearing  the  Corporation  witnesses,  one  of  them  (Alderman  Thompson}, 
speaking  of  the  burdens  on  local  trade,  said :— 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  217 

The  people  have  been  something  like  the  old  man  of  the  sea,  they  have  a  burden  upon 
their  shoulders  that  they  cannot  shake  off,  and  it  has  been  in  vain  for  them  to  appeal  to  the 
railway  companies  and  others. 

Mr.  Joseph  Leigh,  of  Stockport,  denied  the  statement  that  he  bought  the  bulk 
of  his  cotton  through  the  firm  of  which  Sir  William  Forwood  was  a  member. 

Then  followed  the  commercial  witnesses. 

Mr.  Wilson  (Wilson,  Latham  &  Co.)  said  it  cost  as  much  to  carry  goods  from 
Manchester  to  Liverpool  as  from  Liverpool  to  Bombay,  via  the  Suez  Canal.  The 
freight  from  Manchester  to  Bombay,  including  10  per  cent,  primage,  being  195.  3d. 
per  ton. 

Mr.  Gustav  Behrens  estimated  that  77  per  cent,  of  the  whole  through  rate 
from  Manchester  to  Bombay  was  swallowed  up  by  carriage  to  the  port  and  port 
charges  ;  he  bore  witness,  too,  that  no  extra  charge  was  made  by  long-distance  ships. 
The  freights  to  Hong  Kong  and  Shanghai  were  the  same,  though  it  took  four  days 
longer  to  reach  the  latter  place.  The  rates  were  the  same  to  Genoa,  Leghorn, 
Naples  and  Palermo,  though  the  distances  vary  considerably.  He  had  no  doubt 
in  time  the  freights  to  Liverpool  and  Manchester  would  be  identical.  By  having 
a  man  to  look  to  his  own  shipping  charges  he  hoped  to  save  ,£500  per  year,  and 
there  would  be  less  damage  done  to  the  packages. 

Mr.  Joseph  Lieben  (of  Nathan  &  Sons)  estimated  the  Ship  Canal  would  save 
his  firm  ,£1,000  per  year. 

Sir  Joseph  Lee  (of  Tootal,  Broadhurst  &  Lee),  after  stating  that  in  1877  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  passed  a  resolution  in  favour  of  a  Ship  Canal,  said  that  the 
saving  at  their  Bolton  Mills  would  be  45.  per  ton,  and  that  they  were  now  paying 
255.  per  ton  railway  freight  to  London  on  goods  not  requiring  speed,  whilst  a 
coasting  steamer  could  well  carry  them  at  los.  per  ton.  The  witness  confessed  in 
cross-examination  that  up  to  that  date  he  had  given  no  monetary  support  to  the 
scheme. 

Mr.  George  Woods,  representing  the  Warrington  wire  trade,  pointed  out  that 
Germany  was  fast  beating  England  out  of  the  foreign  markets  in  consequence  of 
the  burdens  and  difficulties  they  had  to  contend  with.  Australia  was  a  great 
market  for  wire.  Germany  could  deliver  wire  in  London  for  shipment  at  los.  6d. 
per  ton,  whilst  the  cost  from  Warrington  to  London  was  1 75.  6d.  The  position 
now  was  that,  unless  a  special  brand  be  specified,  England  had  no  chance  against 
Germany  in  the  Australian  market.  There  was  no  extra  freight  charged  to  Natal 


218         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

over  Cape  Town,  though  there  was  a  difference  of  some  hundreds  of  miles.  To 
make  the  canal  would  be  a  great  godsend  to  Lancashire,  and  to  the  wire  interest 
in  particular.  He  believed  that  the  wool  market  would  eventually  come  to  Man- 
chester ;  he  understood  wool  was  handicapped  to  the  extent  of  ^3  per  ton  in 
coming  200  miles  from  London,  whilst  the  average  distance  from  Manchester  of 
the  wool-using  towns  was  38  miles.  The  land  that  grows  the  wool  is  fenced 
with  wire,  and  there  ought  to  be  an  advantageous  interchange. 

Mr.  Bowes  (of  Barningham  &  Co.,  Pendleton)  said  it  cost  ;s.  6d.  per  ton  to 
take  railway  tie  bars  between  30  and  40  miles  to  Birkenhead,  and  125.  6d.  thence 
to  Calcutta,  8,500  miles,  and  the  burdens  on  the  iron  trade  had  driven  it  from  the 
inland  towns  to  the  seaports.  By  the  canal  scale  of  charges  it  would  cost  6s.  i  id. 
per  ton  from  Ardrossan  to  Manchester,  against  the  present  charge  of  125.  id.  by 
railway.  Belgian  manufacturers  could  send  iron  to  London  at  a  lower  rate  than 
his  firm  was  charged  from  Salford  to  London.  A  great  deal  of  iron  work  was  now 
exported  from  Antwerp  to  the  East  Indies  and  Australia  through  the  cheapness  of 
continental  rates.  There  the  railways  largely  belong  to  the  Government,  who 
foster  the  various  trades.  This  enables  the  Belgian  iron  girders  to  undersell 
British  productions.  He  estimated  his  firm  would  save  ,£1,350  per  year  by  the 
canal. 

Other  iron  merchants  confirmed  the  above  statements.  One  of  them,  Mr. 
Thomas  Ashbury,  of  Openshaw,  gave  an  instance  of  a  German  firm  carrying  off 
an  order  of  ,£50,000  simply  through  their  cheaper  carriage.  He  calculated  the 
Ship  Canal  would  save  their  firm  close  on  ,£5,000  per  year. 

Mr.  Moir  Crane,  an  oil  merchant,  complained  that  the  charge  on  his  goods  to 
London  was  253.  per  ton,  whilst  his  rival  at  Liverpool  could  send  for  i6s.  8d. 
because  there  was  competition  by  water. 

Mr.  Samuel  Ogden,  an  overseer  of  Manchester,  spoke  of  the  terrible  depres- 
sion that  had  come  over  the  city.  The  assessments  of  one  township  increased  on 
an  average  ,£6,000  per  year  up  to  1879.  Thence  up  to  1882  they  decreased  on 
an  average  .£900  per  year.  He  put  in  a  long  list  of  factories,  workshops  and 
warehouses  that  had  been  closed  during  the  last  few  years. 

Mr.  Thomas  Garnett,  of  Bradford,  said  within  the  last  ten  years  property  in 
his  town  had  depreciated  40  per  cent.,  and  that  if  wool  could  be  brought  through 
Manchester  there  would  be  relief  to  the  extent  of  .£1  per  ton.  That  city  was  31 
miles  nearer  to  Bradford  than  Liverpool. 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  219 

Mr.  Max  Baerlein  said  the  cost  of  exporting  waste  at  Manchester  would  be 
6s.  7d.  against  133.  now  charged  at  Liverpool.  Besides  avoiding  damage,  the 
charge  for  exporting  machinery  would  be  53.  7d.  in  place  of  125.  8d.  now  paid  at 
Liverpool. 

Mr.  Fred.  Render,  a  corn  miller,  estimated  the  canal  would  save  him  (if  going 
full  time)  ,£7,000  per  year. 

Mr.  William  Warburton,  also  a  corn  merchant,  considered  the  present  rail- 
way charge  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  exorbitant;  it  came  to  8s.  nd.  per  ton 
for  32  miles,  whilst  at  Dublin  the  cost  was  8s.  for  140  miles.  It  cost  for  freight 
and  charges  395.  per  ton  to  bring  wheat  from  Bombay  to  Manchester.  A  saving 
of  los.  per  ton  would  be  made  if  the  ship  came  direct  to  Manchester.  He  believed 
the  saving  in  corn  and  grain  brought  to  Manchester  by  water  would  be  .£90,000 
per  annum. 

Mr.  James  Platt  (Platt  Brothers,  Oldham)  stated  that  the  canal  would  effect 
a  saving  to  his  firm  of  .£7,000  to  ,£8,000  per  year  on  his  machinery  exports  and 
timber  imports  at  Liverpool  alone.  In  addition  they  would  make  a  considerable 
saving  on  goods  passing  through  eastern  and  other  ports.  The  Oldham  Council 
were  quite  willing  to  support  the  canal  up  to  id.  per  £,\  on  their  rental. 

Mr.  W.  A.  Nicholls  complained  of  existing  burdens ;  it  cost  as  much  to  bring 
apples  from  Faversham  in  Kent  (230  miles)  as  it  did  from  New  York  to  Liverpool 
(3,000  miles).  The  cost  of  fruit  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  was  173.  id.  per 
ton.  By  the  canal  (if  no  extra  sea  carriage)  it  would  be  8s.  2d.,  or  a  saving  of 
53  per  cent.  Coming  through  Liverpool,  there  were  ten  different  handlings  of  the 
goods,  causing  much  damage.  If  sent  by  Ship  Canal  there  would  be  four  handlings. 
Potatoes  from  the  Channel  Islands,  via  Southampton,  cost  405.  per  ton  ;  they  could 
come  by  canal  for  243.,  or  a  saving  of  40  per  cent.  If  from  Cornwall  it  would  amount 
to  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  Harrison,  another  fruit  merchant,  said  70,000  tons  of  potatoes  came  into 
Manchester  from  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  a  few  from  Yorkshire.  If  these  came 
by  canal  there  ought  to  be  a  saving  of  ,£10,000  per  year. 

Mr.  Capper,  to  show  existing  inequalities,  said  that  fish  coming  from  Ireland 
cost  ;£4  i os.  for  carriage  to  Liverpool,  whilst  to  Manchester  the  cost  would  be 
£7  per  ton. 

Mr.  George  Brown,  shipowner,  Glasgow,  had  no  doubt  of  the  freights  from 
abroad  being  the  same  to  Liverpool  and  Manchester.  They  were  the  same  to 


220         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

Glasgow  as  to  Greenock,  and  ships  from  San  Francisco  sent  to  Falmouth  for  orders 
charged  no  more  to  Leith  than  to  Liverpool. 

In  re-examination,  Mr.  Balfour  Browne  asked  witness,  who  spoke  with  a  strong 
Scotch  accent,  what  was  the  distance  between  Glasgow  and  Ardrossan  "as  the 
crow  flies?"  This  puzzled  him,  but  at  last  he  replied,  "but  ships  dinna  gang  that 
way".  When  the  witness  came  out  of  the  box  he  asked  why  the  people  had 
laughed?  He  had  not  realised  what  a  quaint  reply  he  had  made. 

Mr.  Wharton  (of  the  Salford  Cattle  Market)  estimated  a  saving  by  coming 
direct  to  Manchester  of  2s.  per  head  in  cattle,  and  7-|d.  in  sheep ;  besides,  they 
would  be  in  a  better  condition. 

Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  repeated  his  previous  evidence,  and  was  sanguine  of  the 
canal  carrying  5,000,000  tons  per  year,  or  one-third  of  Liverpool's  present  business. 

Several  gentlemen  spoke  of  the  benefit  to  the  Lancashire,  Yorkshire  and 
Midland  coal-fields,  and  of  the  advantage  to  them  of  a  new  and  convenient  outlet 
for  coal,  such  as  would  be  provided  by  coal-tips  at  Partington. 

Mr.  Leader  Williams,  after  giving  a  full  description  of  the  canal  works,  went 
on  to  explain  the  changes  on  the  previous  year's  scheme.  The  Warrington  Cor- 
poration were  now  friends  instead  of  opponents.  Their  difficulty  as  to  saline  water 
had  been  overcome ;  the  river  was  cut  off  by  a  dam  so  that  it  stopped  at  Latchford 
Locks,  and  no  tidal  water  could  get  into  the  river.  .  By  a  change  of  position  better 
gradients  were  given  to  the  railways,  and  where  the  depth  of  the  canal  was  24  feet 
it  had  been  increased  to  26  feet.  Many  of  the  slopes  had  been  flattened,  and  this 
year  they  had  provided  ample  land  for  spoil.  In  reply  to  the  Chairman,  witness 
said  he  understood  Manchester  contemplated  a  culvert  for  sewage  alongside  the 
canal,  and  either  taking  it  to  the  tidal  waters  or  else  pumping  it  on  to  Carrington  Moss. 

The  engineers  of  the  Clyde,  Tyne  and  Tees,  as  well  as  Mr.  Abernethy,  repeated 
their  evidence  of  last  year,  approving  the  scheme,  and  declaring  emphatically  there 
would  be  neither  reclamation  of  land  nor  loss  of  capacity  in  the  estuary.  Following 
came  a  whole  bevy  of  shipowners  from  Glasgow,  Cardiff  and  London,  who  were 
quite  sure  the  same  freight  and  insurance  would  be  charged  to  Manchester  as  to 
Liverpool,  and  that  when  ships  came  with  cargo  to  Falmouth  and  other  ports  for 
orders,  Manchester  would  not  be  excepted  from  the  charter  party. 

Mr.  Croft  (of  the  Cork  Steamship  Company)  said  he  had  been  sending  ships 
up  the  Amsterdam,  Rotterdam  and  Ghent  Canals,  of  sizes  varying  from  750  to 
3,500  tons  without  any  difficulty. 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  221 

Mr.  Adam  Stott,  /.P.,  Flixton,  estimated  the  damage  done  by  floods  to  the 
valley  of  the  Mersey  in  the  year  1872  at  ,£80,000,  and  floods  of  less  magnitude 
were  of  constant  recurrence.  He  believed  the  effect  of  the  canal  would  be  to  do 
away  with  them,  and  explained  that  at  the  locks  there  was  a  fall  of  nearly  1 8  feet, 
and  that  this  drop  would  prevent  backing  up,  especially  at  Irlam  Locks,  close  to 
which  the  Irwell  and  Mersey  joined.  To  his  mind  they  would  never  in  future  be 
afraid  of  a  flood. 

Mr.  Alfred  Hughes  stated  that  when  railways  came  to  the  front,  there  was 
fierce  competition  with  carriers  by  water,  and  in  1849  the  rate  to  Liverpool  by 
water  came  down  to  2s.  6d.  per  ton,  but  when  the  railways  and  water  carriers 
entered  into  a  conference,  the  rate  went  up  to  8s.  4d.  by  water  and  IDS.  by  rail. 
Shortly  afterwards  the  rate  became  uniform  at  xos. 

Mr.  Charles  Ross,  yarn  agent,  felt  sure  there  would  be  sufficient  cargo  to  fill 
daily  one  8oo-ton  steamer  either  way,  to  and  from  Glasgow,  and  where  they  were 
now  paying  255.  per  ton  by  rail,  and  i6s.  8d.  via  Liverpool,  he  believed  the  charge 
would  not  exceed  izs.  per  ton  by  Ship  Canal. 

Mr.  Lionel  Wells,  engineer,  speaking  of  the  Runcorn  Bridge,  showed  that  the 
piers  of  the  bridge  were  driven  over  40  feet  deep  in  the  rock  to  provide  for  deepen- 
ing the  channel  at  some  future  time. 

Mr.  Jacobs,  borough  surveyor  of  Salford,  believed  the  canal  would  prevent  a 
recurrence  of  flooding  both  in  his  borough  and  from  Throstle  Nest  downwards,  and 
that  deeper  water  would  lessen  the  liability  to  smell.  Various  chemists  were  called 
to  prove  there  would  be  a  reduction  of  existing  nuisances,  and  that  there  would  be 
no  danger  from  secondary  decomposition. 

The  Writer  of  this  History  was  the  next  witness.  The  reasons  for  his  being 
called,  and  the  episodes  connected  therewith,  are  related  in  a  previous  chapter. 
He  deposed  to  the  enthusiastic  support  given  to  the  scheme ;  he  had  promises  to 
take  up  shares  to  the  extent  of  about  .£130,000,  producing  letters  in  support  of 
this  statement.  When  the  first  was  handed  in,  viz.,  one  from  Mr.  John  Rylands, 
f°r  £50,000,  objection  was  at  once  taken  on  the  ground  that  he  should  have  come 
in  person.  Mr.  Pember  replied  that  old  age  prevented  him,  and  the  witness  was 
his  accredited  agent.  Upon  this  the  Committee  clustered  round  the  Chairman, 
and  there  was  an  animated  and  almost  angry  conversation  for  five  minutes.  The 
Chairman  was  determined  to  stop  the  evidence,  but  his  colleagues  out-voted  him. 
The  witness  heard  one  of  the  noble  Lords  say :— 


222         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

But  they  have  brought  this  upon  themselves ;  all  along  they  have  been  saying  that  no 
men  of  capital  are  willing  to  support  the  scheme,  and  now  when  we  have  a  person  who  can 
give  us  definite  information  we  ought  to  hear  what  he  has  to  say. 

The  Chairman  in  no  pleasant  tone  replied  :— 

Against  my  judgment  my  colleagues  feel  rather  inclined  to  admit  it.  I  thought  myself 
it  was  too  irregular.  I  do  not  think  it  so  irregular  as  not  to  admit  it,  and  my  colleagues 
think  it  is  better  possibly  to  hear  something  about  it. 

The  Chairman  :— 

Q. — (To  the  witness.)  Before  we  allow  you  to  read  the  letter,  I  must  ask  you,  is  it  in 
the  shape  of  an  authoritative  document  to  you  ? 

A. — It  is.  1  was  coming  to  London,  and  I  wished  to  be  fortified  with  some  authority 
for  the  statements  I  made,  and  I  got  two  letters  from  two  gentlemen  who 

Q. — Does  this  bind  this  gentleman,  so  far  as  he  is  capable  of  being  bound,  to  subscribe 
whatever  he  may  specify  in  this  letter  ? 

A. — It  expresses  his  intention. 

Q. — Let  me  look  at  the  letter.     Did  you  see  him  sign  it  ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did  you  write  the  body  of  the  letter  ? 

A. — No.     His  clerk  wrote  it  for  him. 

Q. — And  he  signed  it  ? 

A.— Yes. 

You  may  put  it  in.     Perhaps  you  had  better  read  it.     The  witness  then  read  it. 

NEW  HIGH  STREET, 
MANCHESTER,  March  29,  1884. 

DEAR  SIR, 

I  authorise  you  to  state  to  the  Lords  Committee  on  the  Manchester  Ship 
Canal  Bill,  that  I  am  willing,  in  case  the  Bill  is  passed  and  the  company  formed,  to  subscribe 
for  at  least  £50,000  of  shares. 

I  am, 

Yours  truly, 


On  an  attempt  being  made  to  put  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  George  Benton,  also 
promising  ,£50,000,  the  Chairman  declined  to  receive  it  on  the  ground  that  Mr. 
Benton  could  have  come  himself,  but  the  witness  succeeded  in  making  this  and  other 
promises  known  to  the  Committee.  Asked  by  the  opposing  counsel :— 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  223 

How  long  will  it  take  the  canal  to  get  fairly  to  work.     Ten  years  ? 

The  reply  was  :— 

It  will  pay  in  a  much  shorter  time,  but  traders  through  cheapened  carriage  will  benefit 
at  once. 

Q. — When  you  say,  as  a  gentleman  in  business  and  a  promoter,  that  you  are  going  to 
take  shares,  do  you  mean  that  you  will  do  it  from  your  enthusiasm  for  the  scheme,  or  as  an 
investment  ? 

A. — Jointly,  on  both  scores. 

Q. — You  have  thought  about  it  a  great  deal  ? 

A. — I  believe,  first  of  all  for  the  benefit  of  the  district,  and  secondly  for  investment. 
The  benefit  to  the  district  will  come  immediately,  and  the  investment  will  come  shortly 
afterwards. 

Q. — Your  first  reason  is  patriotism,  and  your  second  profit  ? 

The  witness  replied  that  his  patriotism  would  lead  at  once  to  remuneration, 
because  business  men  will  at  once  reap  a  substantial  advantage  by  the  canal  being 
made. 

Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  originally  estimated  Manchester  would  get  5,000,000 
tons  of  the  Liverpool  traffic,  but  thought  with  additions  from  collateral  sources  and 
the  increase  out  of  succeeding  years,  there  was  a  probability  of  9,000,000  tons. 
He  put  in  tables  showing  a  traffic  of  9,650,850  tons,  a  revenue  of  ,£1,491,505,  and 
a  reserve  revenue  of  ,£187,500,  if  and  when  ship  dues  were  charged  as  at  Liverpool. 

Mr.  George  Hicks,  insurance  agent,  was  sure  that,  as  on  the  Suez  Canal,  no 
extra  premium  would  be  charged.  He  was  one  of  the  people  who  first  brought 
the  question  of  a  Ship  Canal  before  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  1877,  when  favour- 
able resolutions  were  passed.  He  believed  in  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens'  figures  on  the 
ground  that  two  tons  per  head  of  the  population  represented  the  foreign  trade  of  the 
country.  When  last  year's  Committee  reported,  "  If  the  scheme  could  be  carried  out 
with  due  regard  to  existing  interests,  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  would  afford 
valuable  facilities  to  the  trade  of  Lancashire,  and  ought  to  be  sanctioned,"  the 
Chairman  remarked,  "That  is  the  strongest  preamble  I  ever  heard  put  into  a  Bill." 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright,  M.P.,  put  the  position  in  a  nutshell :  "  We  do  not  seek  in  the 
slightest  degree  to  injure  any  other  interest,  to  injure  Liverpool,  or  to  injure  the 
railways.  We  seek  to  benefit  ourselves ;  if  in  benefiting  ourselves  we  injure  these 
other  interests,  we  regret  it,  but  we  cannot  help  it."  He  believed  the  list  of  sup- 
porters of  the  canal  which  he  put  in  was  such  a  list  as  probably  had  never  been 
seen  in  Manchester  in  connection  with  one  single  object.  Mr.  Pope,  in  cross- 


224         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [i 

examination,  tried  hard  to  make  capital  out  of  Mr.  Armitage's  qualified  evidence  of 
last  year,  but  failed,  the  witness  replying,  "  I  am  happy  to  say  the  doubts  in  Mr. 
Armitage's  mind  have  been  removed ;  the  moneyed  classes  of  Manchester  have  got 
riper  on  this  question,  and  Mr.  Armitage  is  one  of  them".  The  witness  then  put 
in  the  list  of  subscribers  of  over  ,£50  to  the  Parliamentary  Expenses  Fund,  viz.  :— 

31  subscribers  of  £2,000  and  not  less  than  £500  each. 

28  „  „      500  „  „        250     „ 

154  ,,  >.      250  „  „         100     „ 

176          „          ,,      ioo  „  „          50     „ 

Mr.  John  Slagg,  M.P.,  having  sat  on  a  Parliamentary  Committee  to  inquire 
into  the  question  of  canals,  said  England  did  not  keep  pace  with  the  Continent 
or  America.  France  alone  had  voted  ,£40,000,000  sterling  for  the  improvement 
of  inland  navigation.  He  had  always  spoken  warmly  in  support  of  the  scheme, 
and  since  last  year  had  given  a  subscription  as  a  manifestation  of  his  interest.  He 
believed  if  the  Committee  passed  the  Bill,  the  capital  would  be  found.  He  put  in 
tables  to  show  that  as  regards  cotton,  machinery,  timber  and  wool,  the  average  cost 
of  carriage  in  Lancashire  was  more  than  twice  as  much  as  that  on  the  Continent. 

Mr.  Arnold,  M.P.,  advocated  the  scheme  as  a  prevention  of  flooding  in 
Salford.  He  also  said  the  great  local  wants  of  Manchester  were  cheap  food  and 
cheap  transit. 

Mr.  A.  M.  Dunlop,  land  agent,  then  put  in  his  revised  land  estimates,  in- 
cluding the  race-course,  the  total  being  £\,  168,003,  and  these  were  confirmed  by 
other  valuers. 

Mr.  Aspinall  then  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  Dock  Board. 
He  gave  a  history  of  the  Liverpool  Docks  and  of  the  struggle  about  dock  dues, 
claiming  they  had  been  kept  in  existence  because  they  were  non-ratable,  whereas, 
if  revenue  was  raised  by  dock  rates,  such  would  have  to  contribute  to  the  city  rates 
to  the  extent  of  ,£20,000  per  year.  He  claimed  that  no  competitive  scheme  should 
be  passed  that  would  affect  the  bondholders  of  the  Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour 
Board,  who  held  securities  to  the  extent  of  about  ^"16,000,000,  which,  he  said, 
existed  by  the  authority  of  Parliament,  asked  for  by  Manchester.  He  contended 
that  city  had  forced  Liverpool  to  buy  the  Birkenhead  Docks  and  made  it  a  dear 
port,  and  now  they  wanted  to  be  relieved  from  it.  In  respect  to  master  porterage, 
he  said  the  system  was  a  safeguard  and  convenience  to  shipowners  and  buyers. 
He  admitted  the  railway  freights  were  unjust  and  excessive,  but  said  Manchester 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  225 

had  never  exerted  herself  to  get  them  reduced.  He  denied  the  contemplated 
saving  could  be  made,  even  if  ships  did  come  up  the  canal,  and  pointed  out  the 
length  of  time  that  must  elapse  before  it  could  be  remunerative.  He  ridiculed  Mr. 
Marshall  Stevens'  idea  that  rice  and  many  other  similar  articles  on  his  list  would 
ever  find  a  market  in  Manchester.  He  doubted  the  financial  power  of  the  pro- 
moters to  carry  out  the  work,  and  pictured  the  disaster  if  they  broke  down  in  the 
middle  of  it.  Speaking  of  the  Lancashire  people,  he  said  they  would  be  lunatics  to 
find  these  millions  of  money,  unless  they  did  it  by  way  of  public  subscription  and 
for  the  sake  of  patriotism. 

He  then  dealt  with  the  engineering  difficulties,  and  attacked  the  estimates 
on  the  lines  of  previous  inquiries.  He  called  Mr.  A.  T.  Sguarey,  solicitor  to  the 
Mersey  Dock  Board,  who,  after  giving  a  history  of  the  creation  and  working  of 
the  Dock  Trust,  stated  the  total  debt  was  now  ,£16,322,000.  In  addition  to  the 
ordinary  dock  receipts,  there  was  a  conservancy  fund  for  lighthouses,  etc.,  to  which 
all  vessels  using  the  Mersey  contributed.  Out  of  ,£46,609  collected  last  year, 
.£3,306  came  from  ships  using  the  upper  Mersey  ports.  In  1880  the  Board  made 
reductions  in  their  dues  amounting  to  ,£124,240  per  annum,  and  in  1884  a  further 
remission  on  cotton  of  £29,707  a  year.  Some  time  back  the  Board  of  Trade  fixed 
the  rates  for  master  porterage,  but  on  the  representation  of  the  steam  shipping 
trade  that  they  were  too  low,  10  per  cent,  was  added.  The  majority  of  the  master 
porters  were  themselves  mercantile  men  and  shipowners.  In  cross-examination, 
the  witness  admitted  the  liability  of  town  dues  to  rates  was  an  undecided  question, 
and  that  the  receipts  at  Birkenhead  were  ,£89,000  on  an  expenditure  of  ,£6,000,000. 
Further,  that  the  opposition  to  town  dues  was  led  by  Liverpool  merchants,  who 
also  opposed  the  system  of  master  porterage.  He  did  not  deny  that  in  1880  before 
a  Committee  in  the  Lords  he  gave  evidence  as  follows  :— 

I  know  over  and  over  again  we  have  had  at  the  Board  instances  where  the  master 
porterage  of  a  vessel  has  been  sold  by  the  man  who  was  entitled  to  it  to  another  man,  on 
the  consideration  of  the  payment  of  money — that  means,  there  is  a  profit  in  it. 

Dock  and  town  dues  were  collected  for  the  maintenance  and  improvement  of 
the  port,  as  expressly  stated  in  the  Act  of  Parliament  in  the  words— 

To  remove  any  article  or  thing  being  in  their  judgment  an  obstruction  or  impediment 
to  such  use  or  navigation  in  any  dock,  sea  channel  or  elsewhere. 

Witness  was  asked  :— 
VOL.  i.  15 


226         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

Q. — Is  that  a  clause  which  you  say  is  compulsory  ? 

A. — Upon  the  opinion  of  Justices  Quain  and  Day  it  is  compulsory,  and  not  optional. 

Q. — Have  you  expended  any  money  whatever  in  improving  the  estuary  of  the 
Mersey  ? 

A. — No.  I  do  not  think  any  money  has  been  spent  upon  other  improvements  of  the 
upper  estuary. 

Q. — Or  upon  any  work  whatever  in  order  to  improve  the  estuary  itself? 

A. — No;  and  that  has  been  advisedly  because  it  was  thought  that  the  estuary  was  best 
allowed  to  remain  in  its  present  condition. 

Q. — Has  the  desirability  of  works  for  the  improvement  of  the  estuary  been  discussed 
at  the  Board  ? 

A. — It  has  been  thought  Pluckington  Bank  might  be  removed,  but  the  opinion  was 
that  if  you  removed  it  no  one  could  tell  where  it  would  go,  and  it  was  better  to  leave  it 
alone. 

Q. — Have  any  reports  been  received  as  to  the  necessity  and  possibility  of  improving 
the  upper  estuary  ? 

A. — None.  No  application  has  been  made  to  any  engineer,  nor  report  received,  till 
quite  recently  from  Mr.  Eads. 

Q. — Has  any  action  been  taken  as  to  the  desirability  of  removing  the  bar? 

A. — None.  No  report  received  from  any  engineer,  or  action  taken,  except  from  Mr. 
Eads. 

Q. — Did  the  Board  consult  any  eminent  engineer  with  respect  to  the  bar  or  any  works 
rendered  necessary. 

A. — I  do  not  think  they  consulted  any  one  but  their  own  officers. 

This  evidence  shows  that  though  Liverpool  had  been  receiving  dues  applicable 
to  the  removal  of  the  bar  she  practically  had  done  nothing,  the  bar  remaining  all 
the  time  a  hindrance  to  the  harbour  and  a  peril  to  shipping. 

Captain  Eads,  on  the  representation  of  counsel  that  he  must  return  to 
America,  was  allowed  to  interpolate  his  evidence.  This  witness  got  perhaps  the 
largest  retaining  fee  ever  paid,  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board  giving  him  ,£4,000  to 
come  to  England.  He  said  he  was  an  American,  but  had  been  fourteen  years  a 
member  of  the  London  Institute  of  Civil  Engineers.  He  had  been  identified  with 
the  Mississippi  for  forty  years,  and  during  that  time  till  he  took  it  in  hand  the 
river  was  obstructed  by  a  bar  at  its  mouth,  which  gradually  grew  worse,  and  was  a 
great  detriment  to  shipping.  By  means  of  the  jetty  system  he  had  dealt  with  one 
of  the  mouths,  and  increased  the  depth  from  8  feet  to  30  feet,  and  this  was  main- 
tained. There  was  considerable  analogy  between  that  river  and  the  Mersey.  The 
Mississippi  brought  down  large  quantities  of  heavy  silt,  and  spreading  out  its 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  227 

waters  at  the  mouth  like  the  veins  of  a  fan  lost  its  force,  and,  in  consequence,  the 
heavy  matter  settled  and  formed  a  bar  a  distance  out  to  sea.  Across  the  bar  were 
three  places  deeper  than  the  rest,  through  which  ships  passed  at  high  water.  He 
was  allowed  to  operate  on  one  of  these.  By  means  of  wire-sunken  grids  with 
weights  he  caught  and  utilised  the  detritus,  consisting  of  tree-roots,  branches,  etc., 
thus  forming  piers  about  2  miles  long  on  either  side  of  the  opening.  The  water 
rushing  through,  by  its  velocity  forced  a  deepened  channel  across  the  bar.  Thus, 
by  using  the  forces  of  nature,  he  had  made  the  delta  of  the  Mississippi  navigable  at 
a  very  moderate  cost,  and  restored  the  trade  of  New  Orleans.  In  one  season's 
floods  1 6  feet  of  deposit  had  been  captured  by  the  grids.  He  maintained  the  pro- 
posed tidal  channel  in  the  Mersey  would  stop  the  fretting  away  of  the  banks  so 
necessary  to  maintain  the  capacity  of  the  estuary,  that  in  consequence  there  would 
be  less  water  to  carry  away  detritus  to  sea,  and  that  it  would  settle  on  Pluckington 
Bank  and  the  bar,  and  probably  silt  up  the  docks. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pember,  the  witness  admitted  the  drainage  area  of  the 
Mersey  was  a  pigmy  compared  with  the  Mississippi,  and  no  comparison  between 
the  two  could  in  any  respect  hold  good.  Also  that  the  character  of  the  silt  in 
suspension  at  ebb  and  flood  tide,  as  demonstrated  by  the  examinations  of  Dr. 
Burghardt,  varied  from  that  of  the  Mississippi,  and  if  correct  would  upset  his  theory. 
He  did  not  know  of  any  immediate  effects  of  the  frets  of  the  Mersey  on  the  Liver- 
pool bar,  and  when  reminded  that  Captain  Graham  Hills,  a  Liverpool  witness,  had 
stated  that  the  fret  of  1872  had  carried  down  5,800,000  yards  of  matter,  and  that 
afterwards  the  bar  was  shoaled  from  1 1  feet  to  7  feet,  the  witness  expressed  his 
doubts,  and  said  he  was  not  prepared  to  admit  Captain  Graham  Hills  was  right  in 
his  assumption. 

Captain  Eads  after  parrying  the  question  a  long  time  agreed  the  habits  of  the 
two  rivers  were  entirely  different,  the  tidal  rise  of  the  Mersey  being  30  to  3 1  feet 
against  i  foot  2  inches  in  the  American  river.  Mr.  Pember  closed  his  examination 
thus  :  "A  man  who  comes  here  to  say  the  Mersey  is  comparable  with  the  Mississippi 
will  say  or  admit  anything,  and  I  have  no  further  questions  to  ask  him  ". 

Captain  Graham  Hills,  marine  surveyor  to  the  Dock  Board,  described  the 
estuary  of  the  Mersey,  and  generally  repeated  his  evidence  of  the  1883  inquiry. 
He  was  in  the  box  the  greatest  part  of  three  days.  The  question  whether  training 
walls  at  the  mouth  of  the  Seine,  which  had  admittedly  benefited  Rouen,  had,  or 
had  not  damaged  Havre,  was  a  bone  of  contention  for  a  whole  day.  The  engineer 


228         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [i 

of  the  Seine  works  calculated  it  would  take  21,000  years  to  silt  up  the  estuary ;  the 
witness  maintained  that  in  twenty-five  years  serious  damage  had  been  done.  He 
explained  that  when  last  year  he  said  the  great  fret  of  1872  in  the  river  Mersey 
was  coincident  with  the  shoaling  of  the  bar  to  7  feet,  he  had  intended  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  process  had  been  gradual.  It  was  quite  true  that  in  last  year's  evidence 
he  had  said  the  shoaling  of  the  bar  followed  upon  a  fret  in  the  upper  reaches  of  the 
river,  but  that  answer  was  not  correct,  because  he  had  already  said  it  was  coincident 
with  it.  He  maintained  Dr.  Burghardt's  conclusions  on  the  amount  of  silt  in  the 
ebbing  and  flowing  tides  were  based  on  a  fallacy,  because  he  had  not  calculated  the 
volume  of  water  in  the  river  when  he  took  the  samples.  Speaking  of  ships  crossing 
the  bar,  and  getting  into  the  canal  on  one  tide,  he  ventured  the  opinion  that  vessels 
of  20  feet  would  be  exceptional  in  the  canal,  and  if  any  of  that  size  came  up,  they 
would  have  to  wait  for  high  tide.  In  cross-examination,  he  admitted  that  though 
he  pictured  all  kinds  of  accidents  through  ships  getting  on  training  walls  and  banks, 
yet  the  Tyne,  the  Clyde  and  the  Tees,  with  similar  walls,  were  navigated  in  the 
dark.  Also  that  though  he  was  now  objecting  to  small  encroachments,  yet  in  the 
past  Birkenhead  and  Liverpool  had  taken  1,000  acres  of  the  tidal  area  without 
having  any  bad  effect  on  the  bar.  Further,  that  the  Dock  Board  were  tipping 
yearly  an  average  of  500,000  cubic  yards  of  dock  dredgings  in  the  Narrows  between 
Prince's  Wharf  and  Seacombe.  Now,  they  only  tipped  it  there  in  bad  weather. 
In  reply  to  the  Chairman,  the  witness  said  the  Board  had  power  to  dredge,  but  the 
bar  had  not  been  dredged  in  past  years,  because  even  at  a  10  feet  neap  tide  they 
had  30  feet  of  water,  and  that  was  as  much  as  there  was  in  New  York  and  other 
ports.  He  opposed  the  scheme  because  it  meant  the  loss  of  tidal  water  and  tidal 
power.  The  accretion  caused  by  training  walls  would  exclude  fully  half  the  tidal 
water  now  flowing  up  the  river,  and  that  meant  shoaling  the  channel  up  to,  and 
over  the  bar.  In  reply  to  the  noble  Lords,  witness  said  that  from  1835  to  1838 
Admiral  Denham  did  not  dredge  but  tried  to  harrow  or  rake  the  bar,  so  as  to 
disturb  the  silt,  but  his  successor  gave  up  the  attempt.  Personally,  his  opinion 
was  that  dredging  would  be  a  very  difficult  operation,  and  that  it  was  decidedly 
better  that  everything  to  do  with  the  bar  should  be  left  entirely  to  natural  causes. 
Mr.  Thomas  Stevenson  came  to  support  the  evidence  of  Captain  Graham 
Hills,  but  he  was  the  unfortunate  writer  of  a  work  on  estuaries,  and  when  he  was 
cross-examined  by  Mr.  Michael  his  book  was  quoted  against  him,  and  he  replied, 
"  I  put  in  many  things  I  am  not  responsible  for".  Also  as  regards  Captain  Graham 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  229 

Hills'  tidal  velocity,  "  I  do  not  place  the  least  value  on  that,  he  merely  guessed  it". 
When  asked  by  Mr.  Bidder,  "  I  want  the  consequences  which  will  follow — which  you 
say  always  do  follow — where  the  space  is  limited  and  the  silt  is  present,"  witness 
replied :  "  There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  in  my  mind  that  the  whole  of  the 
estuary  of  the  Mersey  would  be  silted  up  and  covered  with  grass.  I  cannot  tell 
you  at  what  date."  Further  asked  by  Mr.  Aspinall  what  would  be  the  effect  of 
these  walls?  witness  replied:  "I  have  no  doubt  whatever  upon  the  subject,  that 
the  whole  of  that  area  will  be  in  the  end  accreted  up  to  high-water  spring  tides  ". 

Mr.  R.  N.  Dale  believed  extra  insurance  would  be  charged  for  the  canal,  but 
admitted  no  difference  was  made  on  the  Bristol  Channel  ports. 

Afr.  L.  F.  Vernon-Harcotirt  and  Mr.  John  Wolfe-Barry,  both  said  the 
Mersey  was  a  most  exceptional  river,  dependent  on  the  tidal  capacity  of  the  estuary 
to  maintain  a  channel,  and  prevent  the  bar  shoaling  up.  They  considered  training 
walls  dangerous  unless  carried  to  deep  water.  The  latter  ventured  to  remark  that 
if  Manchester  wanted  a  canal,  it  might  be  made  in  a  less  objectionable  way. 

Mr.  George  F.  Lyster,  engineer  of  the  Dock  Board,  after  describing  the  docks 
and  stating  the  amount  of  money  spent  thereon,  said  his  objection  to  the  Ship  Canal 
arose  from  a  belief  that  the  interference  with  the  river  would  involve  physical  results, 
which  would  go  far  to  destroy  the  working  conditions  of  the  dock  estate,  and  injure 
the  approaches  to  the  Mersey.  It  meant  ruination  to  the  docks  and  river.  No 
indemnity  would  cover  it.  Manchester  could  not  pay  for  the  damage  that  would 
be  done.  The  proposed  slopes  would  not  stand ;  they  should  not  be  laid  at  a 
less  angle  than  i\  to  i.  He  thought  the  promoters  were  entirely  wrong  as  to  the 
character  of  the  rock  they  expected  to  find.  On  cross-examination,  he  admitted 
that  1,400  acres  of  the  estuary  had  been  enclosed  by  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead,  and 
that  civil  engineers  in  1852  informed  the  Liverpool  authorities  that  if  they  con- 
structed large  docks  and  made  such  encroachments  upon  the  river  the  port  of 
Liverpool  would  be  ruined.  Also  that  a  vessel  drawing  24  feet  of  water  could  not 
enter  the  new  north  docks  in  a  10  feet  neap.  He  did  not  agree  with  Mr.  Stevenson, 
a  witness  on  his  own  side,  when  he  said  there  was  nothing  to  say  against  Mr.  Leader 
Williams'  design.  When  asked  what  steps  had  been  taken  to  get  rid  of  the  bar, 
witness  replied  "none".  Some  attempts  were  made  many  years  ago  by  raking  the 
b;ir,  but  it  was  a  failure — the  work  of  one  day  was  destroyed  by  the  sea  the  next. 
They  had  not  tried  to  blast  away  the  bar,  because  it  was  all  sand — live  sand. 
When  asked  if  he  had  tried  to  dredge  away  the  Pluckington  Bank,  he  replied : 


230         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

"  Never,  except  at  the  tail  end,  and  as  the  sills  of  the  adjacent  docks  had  been 
fixed  to  suit  the  bank,  it  really  did  not  do  much  harm ;  even  sluicing  it  away  might 
involve  serious  consequences.  He  estimated  the  cost  of  channel  work  at  ,£2,870,675 
against  the  estimate  of  .£1,390,417  by  the  promoters. 

Sir  Frederick  Bramwell  was  of  opinion  that  training  walls  did  no  damage  on 
the  Tyne  and  Tees  because  they  were  carried  out  to  the  bar,  nor  did  they  damage 
Havre  at  the  mouth  of  the  Seine  because  there  was  no  bar.  In  the  latter  case 
training  walls  caused  accretions  in  the  Estuary,  and  they  would  do  so  in  the  Mersey 
estuary,  and  allow  less  water  space  for  flushing  the  bar.  In  cross-examination,  he 
admitted  cross  walls  in  the  Seine  had  helped  accretion,  and  that  such  were  not  to 
be  placed  in  the  Mersey.  He  did  not  see  any  possibility  of  dredging  the  Liverpool 
bar,  and  he  thought  if  Manchester  wanted  a  canal  she  should  take  it  to  deep 
water. 

Mr.  T.  D.  Hornby,  Chairman  of  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board,  repeated  his 
defence  of  the  policy  of  the  Board,  and  claimed  that  in  1 880  and  1 884  they  had 
made  reductions  in  their  charges  to  the  amount  of  .£154,000  per  annum.  In  cross- 
examination,  it  was  elicited  that  between  1855  and  1879  the  rates  and  dues  had  been 
raised  50  per  cent.,  and  that  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce  was  bitterly 
complaining  still  about  master  porterage  and  other  charges.  When  it  was  pointed 
out  that  the  charges  on  sugar  were  at  Liverpool.  2 s.  id.  against  lod.  at  Greenock 
and  is.  3d.  at  Glasgow,  the  witness  said  it  was  absurd  to  compare  such  towns.  He 
admitted  that  in  Liverpool  goods  transhipped  in  the  river  paid  dock  dues,  though 
they  never  used  the  docks,  also  that  in  December,  1883,  Mr.  Harrison,  chief  of  the 
Works  Committee,  said  "  we  have  more  trade  than  we  can  accommodate  ".  Further, 
that  the  City  of  Brussels  was  run  down  by  collision  when  waiting  for  water  out- 
side the  bar,  but  he  maintained  the  latter  was  through  injudicious  anchoring.  He 
agreed  with  Captain  Graham  Hills  that  the  bar  must  be  left  to  natural  causes; 
nothing  could  be  done  to  improve  it  except  at  an  enormous  cost. 

Admiral  Grant  had  constantly  known  vessels  get  athwart  of  the  Suez  Canal. 
He  admitted,  however,  that  it  was  narrower  at  the  bottom  and  had  worse  bends 
than  any  on  the  Ship  Canal. 

Mr.  Dugdale  then  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  Shropshire  Union 
Railway  and  Canal  Companies,  and  called  their  engineer,  Mr.  G.  R.  Jebb,  who 
said  that  ships  of  300  to  400  tons  now  came  up  the  Mersey  to  Ellesmere  Port, 
and  that  he  feared  any  interference  with  the  channel  caused  by  the  river  Gowey. 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  231 

Mr.  Thomas  Hales,  traffic  manager,  said  the  usual  size  of  ships  trading  to 
Ellesmere  Port  was  150  to  250  tons;  the  largest  he  had  seen  was  340  tons,  but  a 
vessel  of  500  tons  had  discharged  in  the  tidal  basin  at  that  port. 

Mr.  Thomas  H.  Jackson,  Chairman  of  the  Liverpool  Steamship  Owners' 
Association,  thought  ships  could  not  well  anchor,  and  that  it  would  not  be  safe 
for  vessels  of  any  considerable  size  to  navigate  the  canal,  and  if  they  did,  it  would 
require  two  tides  to  reach  Manchester,  and  in  winter  the  ice  would  be  liable  to 
damage  propellers.  Rather  than  let  one  of  his  ships  with  a  consignment  deliver 
at  Manchester,  he  would  pay  the  freight  by  railway  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester. 

Mr.  John  Laird,  of  Birkenhead,  objected  to  an  increased  number  of  hopper 
barges  which  might  obstruct  shipping  on  the  river.  By  claiming  the  Mersey  as  a 
semi-private  domain  of  Liverpool,  he  caused  some  astonishment ;  but  he  admitted 
that  though  Manchester  might  secure  some  trade,  the  general  effect  of  the  canal 
would  be  to  make  the  Mersey  a  more  important  emporium  than  at  present.  Mr. 
Pember  twitted  witness  about  the  attack  his  father  had  made  on  the  management 
of  the  docks,  about  the  heavy  dues  and  charges,  and  the  lack  of  railway  accommo- 
dation ;  also  as  regards  the  delay  of  a  week  or  ten  days  that  sometimes  occurred 
before  large  ships  had  a  sufficiency  of  water  to  enter  the  Liverpool  Docks.  The 
witness's  reply  was :  "You  must  leave  my  father's  sayings  to  speak  for  themselves". 

Mr.  Alexander  J.  Hunter,  partner  in  the  firm  of  William  Graham  &  Co.  (the 
only  Manchester  shipper  who  ventured  in  Parliament  to  oppose  the  canal),  said  it 
would  effect  a  saving  of  about  33.  gd.  per  ton  on  goods  for  Bombay,  equal  to 
i  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the  goods  exported,  but  he  did  not  think  this  would 
have  the  slightest  effect  in  altering  the  course  of  the  export  trade  as  at  present 
constituted.  His  experience  was  that  when  the  5  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on 
Indian  goods  was  repealed  in  1882,  the  people  engaged  in  the  trade  did  not  benefit, 
and  were  disappointed  that  the  change  neither  developed  trade  nor  made  it  more 
remunerative.  Manchester  goods  would  never  provide  a  whole  outward  cargo, 
and  he  could  not  see  how  Manchester  could  provide  miscellaneous  goods  to  fill 
up  or  afford  the  facility  of  despatch  equal  to  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead.  It  was 
a  matter  of  opinion,  but  he  did  not  believe  the  required  ,£8,000,000  would  ever 
be  raised. 

In  cross-examination,  witness  admitted  his  firm  shipped  25,000  to  30,000  tons  of 
Manchester  goods,  which  would  give  a  saving  of  .£5,625  per  annum  at  35.  gd.  per  ton 
either  to  his  own  firm  or  somebody  else,  and  this  would  be  an  important  matter  ;  but  he 


232         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1884 

maintained  the  abolition  of  the  5  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  was  no  benefit  whatever. 
"  If  the  abolition  had  done  good  it  would  show  itself  in  the  increase  of  the  exports 
from  England  of  Manchester  goods.  It  has  not  done  so."  Three  years  ago 
freights  to  India  came  down  from  503.  to  223.  6d.,  yet  no  benefit  came  into  the 
pocket  of  the  shipper,  it  went  to  the  ultimate  consumer  in  India.  He  felt  sure 
more  insurance  and  freight  would  be  charged  to  Manchester  than  to  Liverpool. 
In  reply  to  a  noble  Lord,  he  said  it  now  cost  nearly  as  much  to  send  goods  from 
Manchester  to  Liverpool  (31  miles)  as  from  Liverpool  to  Bombay  (6,500  miles). 

Mr.  Frederick  Massey  (George  Warren  &  Co.),  Liverpool,  maintained  it  would 
take  ,£1,200  to  alter  a  4,ooo-ton  ship  so  as  to  pass  under  the  Ship  Canal  bridges, 
and  that  it  would  need  five  weeks  to  do  the  work.  In  his  opinion  it  would  cost 
30  to  50  per  cent,  more  to  do  the  coasting  trade  to  Manchester  than  to  Liverpool, 
and  the  former  port  could  not  compete  with  his  rate  of  discharge,  viz.,  about  73 
tons  per  hour.  In  cross-examination,  he  said  his  firm  had  an  appropriated  berth, 
and  admitted  having  made  many  complaints  to  the  Dock  Board  about  the  costs  of 
cartage  and  other  inconveniences  at  the  Liverpool  Docks. 

Mr.  Hoult,  of  Liverpool,  estimated  that  it  would  take  a  day  and  a  half  to  come 
to  Manchester  and  the  same  to  return,  and  that  it  would  not  be  safe  for  ships  to 
navigate  the  canal  during  the  night. 

Sir  William  B.  Forwood  was  under  examination  and  cross-examination  for  the 
greater  part  of  two  days,  and  as  he  had  been  a  principal  witness  in  each  previous 
inquiry,  only  a  brief  resume'  of  his  examination  will  be  necessary.  He  denied  any 
feeling  of  rivalry  in  Liverpool ;  there  was  a  feeling  of  indifference  as  regarded  com- 
petition, and  in  the  scheme  they  failed  to  recognise  either  thinking  or  moneyed 
Manchester.  Glasgow  spinners  had  failed  to  create  a  cotton  market,  and  so  would 
Manchester.  Liverpool  had  had  to  succumb  to  London  in  the  wool  trade.  The 
cost  of  lowering  the  masts,  and  the  dangers  and  difficulties  of  the  canal  must 
cause  such  a  heavy  freightage  as  to  be  prohibitive.  Sailing  vessels  never  could 
go  up.  He  had  always  believed  Liverpool  had  suffered  from  heavy  railway  rates 
to  and  from  the  interior,  and  he  had  taken  a  prominent  part  in  getting  the  Railway 
Commission  appointed,  but  they  could  get  no  assistance  from  Manchester  and  neigh- 
bouring towns,  and  now  they  wanted  a  most  clumsy  and  costly  method  of  reducing 
railway  charges,  devised  by  ambitious  lawyers  and  engineers  who  were  raising  a 
spurious  agitation  to  support  it. 

Mr.  Pember  in  cross-examination  obtained  an  admission  that  a  difference  of  a 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  233 

day  or  two  in  a  long  journey  would  not  necessarily  increase  freightage  to  Man- 
chester. It  was  not  the  depressed  condition  of  trade  that  induced  the  Ship  Canal 
agitation.  "  It  is  chronic  for  Manchester  people  to  complain  of  the  condition  of 
their  trade — I  never  knew  it  otherwise.  They  do  not  reckon  their  profits  till  they 
have  put  away  a  large  sum  for  depreciation  and  all  sorts  of  things ;  but  notwith- 
standing their  complaints  they  wax  rich  and  grow  fat."  Speaking  of  heavy 
brokerage  charges,  the  witness  admitted  Messrs.  Paton  &  Co.,  of  Liverpool,  were 
fined  ,£50  for  selling  to  the  Oldham  Cotton  Buying  Company  without  charging  double 
brokerage,  the  latter  firm  not  being  members  of  the  Liverpool  Association.  He 
attributed  provisions  being  5  per  cent,  dearer  in  Manchester  than  Liverpool  to  the 
fact  that  Liverpool  had  a  better  market,  and  that  it  cost  more  to  get  to  Man- 
chester. 

Mr.  Pember  then  questioned  Sir  William  Forwood  on  statements  made  in 
1 88 1  before  the  Committee  on  Railways,  when  he  said  that  Liverpool  had  suffered 
great  injuries  from  unfair  and  excessive  railway  rates,  and  that  thereby  the  Calcutta 
trade  had  been  driven  to  London,  and  the  grain  trade  to  Fleetwood,  Hull,  etc. 
He  had  to  admit  the  heavy  charge  of  433.  per  ton.  ocean  freight  was  a  main  factor, 
and  that  when  they  reduced  to  225.  6d.  the  trade  came  back  again.  During  his 
examination  witness  stated  that  Mr.  Adamson's  saving  of  .£158,000  on  goods  within 
carting  distance  was  incorrect,  and  ought  to  be  .£73,562,  and  that  it  would  cost  8d. 
per  ton  per  mile  by  cart  to  Oldham  and  Bolton.  He  was  now  confronted  by  his 
own  evidence  in  1881,  that  the  maximum  charge  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  by 
canal  was  zd.  per  ton  per  mile,  and  as  to  carriage  by  road  for  a  large  quantity,  that 
a  teamster  had  offered  to  carry  at  3d.  per  ton  per  mile.  Again  witness  corroborated 
Mr.  Hunter  when  he  said  53.  per  ton,  or  ^  per  cent.,  was  a  trifle  on  the  value  of  a 
commodity,  whilst  in  1881  he  had  given  in  evidence,  "a  difference  of  53.  upon 
manufactured  goods  is  sufficient  to  turn  the  trade ".  Mr.  Pember  also  reminded 
Sir  William  of  his  statement  the  same  year,  that  if  the  railways  carried  as  cheaply  to 
and  from  Liverpool  as  they  did  from  other  ports,  there  would  be  a  saving  to  certain 
trades  only  of  £400,000  per  year,  thus  justifying  the  application  of  Manchester  to 
cheapen  her  carriage.  And  further,  that  he  had  said  that  Liverpool  was  no  better 
off  with  railways  than  she  was  before  they  were  constructed.  Certain  it  was  that 
in  the  skilful  hands  of  Mr.  Pember,  Sir  William  Forwood's  previous  evidence  placed 
him  in  a  singularly  embarrassing  position. 

After  Mr.   Francis   Stevenson,  engineer  of  the  London  and  North-Western 


234         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [i 

Railway,  had  criticised  the  estimates,  Mr.  Pember  read  to  the  Committee  the  terms 
for  purchase  by  arbitration  of  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  property. 

Then  followed  the  examination  of  several  engineers,  one  of  whom,  Mr.  A.  M. 
Rendel,  suggested  that  instead  of  following  the  Mersey  channel  they  should  bring 
the  canal  round  the  edge  of  the  estuary  from  Runcorn  and  avoid  the  channel 
altogether. 

Mr.  George  Findlay,  manager  of  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway, 
repeated  his  previous  evidence  that  outside  a  1 2  mile  limit  of  Manchester  no  benefit 
could  be  conferred  by  the  Ship  Canal,  and  justified  the  charge  of  95.  2d.  on  bale 
traffic  from  Manchester  to  Liverpool,  of  which  he  said  43.  8d.  was  the  terminal  cost 
for  handling,  etc.,  2s.  gd.  was  the  cost  of  delivering  and  collecting,  and  only  is.  gd. 
went  to  the  railway  company  for  haulage.  In  cross-examination,  he  admitted  that 
Lancashire  imported  largely  through  east  coast  ports  like  Hull,  Grimsby,  etc.,  but 
did  not  think  that  avenue  of  trade  would  be  displaced.  He  did  not  deny  that  it  cost 
more  to  carry  iron  girders  from  the  ship  side  at  Liverpool  to  Manchester  than  it  took 
to  carry  the  whole  way  from  Antwerp  to  Manchester,  via  the  east  coast  ports,  or 
that  Californian  wheat  came  to  Manchester  via  Hull.  He  admitted  cotton  goods 
paid  255.  per  ton  to  London  if  exported,  and  405.  per  ton  if  used  there,  and  that  it 
was  almost  as  cheap  to  carry  from  Manchester  to  Bombay  as  from  Manchester  to 
London  ;  also  that  goods  could  be  sold  as  cheaply  jn  Calcutta  as  in  the  Metropolis. 
He  doubted  the  statement  that  the  export  rate  of  253.  by  railway  would  be  affected 
by  the  proposed  IDS.  canal  rate  to  London,  but  he  admitted  that  in  time  past  there 
had  been  a  pooling  of  receipts  by  shippers  and  carriers,  a  certain  portion  of  goods 
being  attributable  to  London  and  another  portion  to  Liverpool.  Re-examined  by 
Mr.  Pope:— 

Q, — I  daresay  you  know  that  Mr.  Leader  Williams  described  his  system  of  sluices 
and  locks  and  hydraulic  machinery  for  the  working  of  them,  everything  to  be  as  perfect  as  it 
can  be  in  the  great  Ship  Canal :  it  will  not  be  worked  or  maintained  for  nothing  ? 

A. — No ;  and  granting  they  were  absolutely  correct  with  regard  to  their  own  estimate 
of  the  amount  of  traffic  they  were  likely  to  get,  and  they  were  actually  to  get  the  tolls  they 
have  estimated,  the  cost  of  working  would  be  so  much  greater  than  they  have  calculated  that 
it  could  not  be  less  than  50  per  cent.  I  am  of  opinion  that  there  is  not  a  sufficient  basis  to 
enable  them  to  go  to  the  public  and  say,  now,  this  is  an  undertaking  which  is  likely  to  be 
profitable  and  advantageous ;  they  would  not  be  able  to  raise  a  shilling  on  such  a  prospect 
of  traffic  estimate  and  working  expenses. 

If  they  were  successful  in  getting  their  Bill,  the  whole  thing  would  have  to  become 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  235 

a  question  of  dealing  with  financial  agents,  and  giving  preferences  to  one  part  of  the  work 
over  the  other,  and  it  would  end  in  nothing  but  ruin  and  confusion  to  all  the  people  associated 
with  it. 

Mr.  Francis  Ellis,  speaking  of  Trafford  Hall,  said  the  Trafford  family  had 
lived  there  since  before  the  Conquest,  and  would  have  continued  to  live  there  as  long 
as  they  were  allowed  to  do  so.  He  opposed  the  Bill  because  of  the  nuisance  that 
was  sure  to  arise  from  a  huge  body  of  polluted  water. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Findlay's  evidence,  Mr.  Pope  addressed  the  Com- 
mittee on  behalf  of  Liverpool  and  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway  Company. 
He  assured  the  Committee  there  was  no  jealousy  on  the  part  of  Liverpool,  and  that 
but  for  the  estuary  works,  that  Corporation  ought  not,  could  not,  and  would  not 
have  raised  a  single  word  upon  the  question.  Speaking  of  the  obligations  by  various 
railways  to  place  swing  instead  of  fixed  bridges  in  case  of  a  Ship  Canal  being  made, 
he  said  they  were  utterly  dead,  because  no  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  under 
the  changed  circumstances  would  dream  of  giving  his  certificate  for  such  a  crossing 
that  would  inflict  permanent  injury  on  the  railways  and  the  public.  As  to  raising 
the  capital,  he  asked  :— 

Does  anybody  believe  that  if  your  Lordships  were  to  grant  this  Bill  the  capital  would 
be  found  for  the  Ship  Canal  ?  What  have  they  got  to  raise  ?  they  talk  about  millions  as  if 
they  were  threepenny  bits. 

After  reviewing  the  evidence  and  repeating  his  previous  arguments,  he  asked 
for  the  rejection  of  the  Bill ;  his  conclusion  being  :— 

My  old  friend,  Mr.  Adamson,  may  perhaps  take  the  opportunity  of  preparing  some 
joke  at  my  expense,  which  though  coarse  is  harmless,  and  not  without  a  certain  amount  of 
humour ;  he  may  even  go  so  far  as  to  lampoon  some  of  your  Lordships,  but  that  will  be 
easier  to  bear  than  the  regret  of  having  sanctioned  a  scheme  which  can  do  but  a  limited 
amount  of  good,  and  which  may  result  in  irreparable  mischief  to  one  of  the  greatest  com- 
munities of  the  Empire. 

Mr.  Littler,  on  behalf  of  the  Trafford  estate,  addressed  the  Committee  in  a 
most  caustic  speech.  He  prophesied  that  either  Lancashire  would  be  taxed  with  ten 
millions  of  unremunerative  capital,  or  that  ruinous  competition  would  force  the  canal 
into  the  Railway  and  Canal  Conference — a  public  trust  he  held  to  be  illusory. 
"  Before  many  years  are  over,"  said  he,  "you  will  find  Mr.  Adamson  presiding  at 
the  Conference  with  the  railway  companies  to  fix  the  rates  and  divide  the  traffic." 
He  was  specially  severe  on  obtaining  the  fifth  part  of  the  fifteen  millions  of  Liver- 


236         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

pool  traffic  which  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  had  estimated  for  the  canal,  and  declared 
the  whole  of  the  traffic  of  Manchester  and  i  2  miles  round  only  came  to  2,400,000 
tons,  i.e.,  of  Liverpool  traffic,  and  compared  Manchester  and  Liverpool  to  Kilkenny 
cats  trying  to  destroy  one  another,  with  the  former  as  the  aggressor. 

Mr.  Aspinall  followed  on  behalf  of  Birkenhead  and  Bootle,  and  after  pouring 
a  broadside  into  the  promoters  and  raking  their  evidence,  declared  the  object  of 
the  opposition  was  to  save  the  port  of  Liverpool  and  its  harbour  and  river  (the 
greatest  emporium  in  the  world)  from  destruction. 

Mr.  Pembcr  then  replied  on  the  whole  case.  What,  he  asked,  was  the 
.£16,000,000  of  Dock  Boards  to  the  .£100,000,000  invested  in  the  cotton  trade 
of  Lancashire  alone?  If  part  of  the  Liverpool  traffic  was  transferred  to  Manchester, 
what  harm  would  be  done?  He  denied  that  Mr.  Hunter's  evidence  betokened  a 
want  of  faith  by  the  people  of  Manchester.  Mr.  Hunter  was  alone,  and  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  his  was  also  a  Liverpool  firm — he  was  an  unimportant  ex- 
ception. Could  not  the  energy  of  the  opposition  find  one  man  to  join  Mr.  Pope  in 
saying,  "This  is  all  moonshine"?  Could  not  Sir  William  Forwood,  with  his 
ingenuity  and  hate  of  the  scheme,  find  one  man  to  back  him  out  in  all  Lancashire? 
He  criticised  the  Cotton  Brokers'  monopoly  that  cost  Lancashire  ,£152,600  per 
annum,  and  showed  Sir  William  Forwood's  error  as  to  cartage.  Then  one  after 
another  he  dealt  with  the  evidence  given  by  the  witnesses  on  both  sides,  making  it 
clear  that  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  did  not  volunteer  his  views  on  prospective  traffic, 
but  that  they  were  drawn  out  of  him  in  cross-examination.  Then  he  dealt  exhaus- 
tively with  the  question  of  raising  capital,  reminding  the  Committee  that  the  Suez 
Canal,  which  cost  .£8,000,000,  was  originally  considered  a  wild  bubble;  yet  the 
cost  had  gone  up  to  .£20,000,000  and  still  it  had  succeeded.  As  a  climax,  and 
to  show  the  sincerity  of  the  promoters,  he  said  :— 

If  you  give  us  this  Bill,  to  show  that  there  is  no  danger  on  the  subject  of  capital,  you  shall 
put  a  clause  in  that  we  shall  not  turn  a  sod  until  ^5,000,000  of  money  has  been  subscribed. 

Turning  to  the  impossibility  of  the  canal  competing  with  the  railways,  a  point 
constantly  raised  by  Mr.  Littler,  and  which,  said  Mr.  Pember  "that  gentleman 
worries  as  a  terrier  does  a  rat,"  he  pointed  out  that  though  the  allied  railways  might 
have  ,£260,000,000  capital  against  the  £,  10,000,000  of  the  canal  company,  they 
could  not  kill  the  canal.  "A  waterway  once  made  was  made  for  ever."  It  did 
not  wear  out  like  the  rolling  stock  of  a  railway.  If  a  railway  carried  for  nothing, 
the  working  expenses  would  not  be  reduced  a  single  sixpence ;  the  shareholders 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  237 

would  soon  call  out  if  their  dividend  was  being  frittered  away.  Speaking  of  the 
Liverpool  bar  and  the  remissness  of  the  Dock  Board  in  not  removing  it,  he  pictured 
that  body  as  "  Secure  in  a  monopoly,  secure  in  the  invincible  attractions  of  Liver- 
pool for  shipping  in  consequence  of  its  contiguity  to  the  great  consuming  and  pro- 
ducing districts  of  this  country,  the  Mersey  Board  has  been  apathetic  up  to  this 
time,  and  has  left  the  estuary  untouched.  Startled  now  by  the  awakening  of 
Manchester  they  have  become  just,  so  that  their  apathy,  so  to  speak,  and  their 
jealousy  both  appeal  to  you  ;  their  apathy,  if  I  may  be  excused  the  metaphor,  yawns, 
'  Leave  the  Mersey  alone,  it  will  do  for  us,'  and  their  jealousy  almost  screams,  '  For 
goodness'  sake  do  not  let  it  be  improved  so  much  as  to  make  it  good  enough  for 
them'."  All  this  in  the  face  of  the  serious  warning  conveyed  by  the  fact  that, 
whereas  there  used  to  be  1 7  feet  of  water  over  the  bar,  there  are  now  only  9  feet. 
When  the  canal  comes  into  existence,  Manchester  will  be  glad  to  co-operate  with 
Liverpool  in  anything  that  may  be  required  for  the  improvement  of  the  bar,  and  it 
the  new  works  should  by  any  accident  (really  impossible)  deteriorate  the  bar,  she 
will  pay  any  cost  that  may  be  incurred. 

Mr.  Pember  spoke  during  the  greater  part  of  three  days.  It  was  a  magnificent 
effort  to  do  justice  to,  a  most  important  case,  and  those  who  were  present  will  never 
forget  it.  He  concluded  with  :— 

Surely !  surely !  my  Lords,  I  am  entitled  to  be  somewhat  confident  in  this  matter. 
Upon  the  whole,  surely  it  is  a  crisis  in  which  the  issue  ought  not  to  be  seriously  in  doubt. 
Great  necessities  are  proved,  and  great  destinies  are  shown  to  be  imperilled,  by  one  thing 
and  the  other,  and  greater  elements  than  my  poor  powers  of  exposition  have  been  able  to 
explain  to  you  are  at  stake  in  the  commercial  interests  of  England.  The  contest  is  one  of 
resolution  against  timorousness,  of  energy  against  apathy,  of  progress  against  inevitable 
retrogression,  and  your  Lordships  will  not  be  slow  to  see  it,  and  I  leave  with  all  confidence 
the  determination  in  your  hands.  My  Lords,  that  brings  to  a  close,  for  the  present,  at  all 
events,  the  severest  task  of  forensic  labour  that  I  have  ever  undertaken.  I  am  almost  ready 
to  hope  that  I  shall  never  have  so  heavy  a  one  again.  Perhaps  you  will  think  that  some 
part  of  the  labour  I  have  gone  through  is  self-imposed,  but  I  was  anxious,  so  far  as  my  poor 
powers  allowed  me,  to  do  justice  to  this  vast  case.  I  wanted  to  be  able  to  say,  if  I  may  venture 
to  repeat  an  old  story,  what  Hyperides,  the  Athenian  advocate,  said  to  the  Athenian  judges  when 
he  drew  away  the  veil  of  Phryne :  "  At  least  I  have  shown  you  what  you  are  asked  to  destroy  ". 

The  Committee  adjourned,  and  next  day,  when  the  parties  were  called  in,  the 
Chairman  gave  their  decision  :— 

The  Committee  are  of  opinion  it  is  expedient  to  proceed  with  the  Bill,  subject  to  the 
insertion  of  a  clause  offered  by  Mr.  Pember,  prohibiting  the  commencement  of  the  works  until 
£5,000,000  of  money  has  been  subscribed  and  issued. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


PARLIAMENTARY    PROCEEDINGS    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    COM- 
MONS—EVIDENCE OF  WITNESSES— A   RACE   FOR  TIME- 
CASE   CURTAILED— LIVERPOOL   AND   THE   DOCK    BOARD 
GIVE   PLEDGES    NOT   TO   OPPOSE   A  CHANGED   ROUTE- 
UNFAVOURABLE  DECISION. 

When  we  consider  the  enormous  competition  to  which  we  are  subjected  by  foreign 
nations,  and  the  almost  costless  canal  traffic  extending  in  France  to  every  foreign  market  and 
centre  of  industry,  he  thought  we  should  see  the  necessity  of  bestirring  ourselves  to  make  the 
best  possible  use  of  similar  advantages  in  this  country. — JOHN  SLAGG,  M.P. 

AFTER  passing  the  Lords  Committee,  the  Bill  on  the  7th  July  came  before 
a  select  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons,  consisting  of  Mr.  Sclater 
Booth,  Chairman,  the  Marquis  of  Tavistock,  .and  Messrs.  Lewis  Fry  and 
James  Campbell. 

Practically  the  same  senior  counsel  again  represented  both  parties.  The 
hearing  of  the  promoters'  case  lasted  nearly  eight  days,  and  they  called  thirty-one 
witnesses.  The  opponents'  case  commenced  on  i6th  July  and  was  continued  to  the 
3  ist  July,  in  all  nearly  twelve  sitting  days.  On  their  behalf  thirty-five  witnesses  were 
called.  Mr.  Pember  alone  addressed  the  Committee  in  favour  of  the  Bill,  whilst 
there  were  six  leading  counsel  who  spoke  on  behalf  of  the  various  opponents. 
Eleven  petitions  were  presented  against  the  Bill. 

Mr.  Pember  reminded  the  Committee  this  was  the  eighth  speech  he  had  made 
on  behalf  of  the  Bill.  He  reiterated  the  Ship  Canal  case,  giving  the  history  of  the 
agitation,  and  stated  the  disabilities  under  which  the  trade  of  Manchester  laboured  in 
consequence  of  the  toll-bar  placed  on  raw  material  and  finished  manufactures  by  the 
railway  companies  and  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board.  He  showed  by  past  legislation 

that  a  Ship  Canal  had  been  contemplated  for  at  least  forty  years,  and  he  asserted 

(238) 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  239 

that  Manchester  had  equal  rights  with  Liverpool  to  the  use  of  the  Mersey  waterway. 
He  enlivened  his  speech  by  referring  to  some  of  the  evidence  given  in  the  previous 
inquiry  "by  gentlemen  who  were  good  enough  to  say  they  were  not  engineers  but 
yet  professed  to  be  critics  of  engineers ".  One  gentleman,  Mr.  Stevenson,  showed 
great  tact  and  talent  in  doing  his  best  for  our  opponents,  but  luckily  for  us  the 
writings  of  himself  and  his  brother — for  he  had  written  books  on  the  subject  and  so 
had  his  brother — were  far  too  strong  in  our  favour,  and  they  corrected  very  brightly 
the  gloomy  prognostications  of  other  witnesses.  Mr.  Pember  humorously  alluded  to 
Captain  Eads  as  the  gentleman  who  had  come  all  the  way  from  America  to  tell  them 
"there  was  not  a  particle  of  sand  in  the  Mersey  that  was  not  amenable  to  natural 
laws  ".  "  When  I  asked  him  what  works  he  had  carried  out  himself,  he  oddly  enough 
said  he  had  carried  out  training  walls  at  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  to  get  rid  of 
the  bar.  'Did  you  do  it?'  said  I.  'Indeed  I  did,'  said  he.  'I  shot  the  bar  and 
its  contents  25  miles  out  to  sea,  and  we  have  heard  no  more  of  the  bar.'  I  said, 
"  Did  you  ever  hear  anything  in  the  shape  of  prognostication  of  evil  before  you 
began?'  'Oh,  yes,'  he  said;  'a  great  number  of  gentlemen  told  me  I  should  ruin 
the  Mississippi ;  that  at  the  end  of  my  training  wall  another  bar  would  start,  even  if 
I  did  not  make  the  original  bar  worse.'  But,  he  said,  'It  is  not  so'."  So  Mr. 
Pember  argued  that  people  were  fearful  lest  the  Ship  Canal  works  might  damage  the 
bar,  but  he  could  tell  them  it  was  a  needless  alarm. 

He  went  on  to  say  that  just  lately  he  had  been  receiving  instruction  from  Sir 
William  Forwood,  who  was  no  friend  of  his,  but  had  settled  the  question  of  capital 
as  he  hoped  for  ever.  After  all  the  adverse  evidence  as  to  raising  the  capital  which 
he  had  given  to  the  Committee  when  he  spoke  in  the  Liverpool  City  Council  in 
June  last,  he  said,  "the  feeling  has  been  that  even  if  Manchester  got  her  Act  of 
Parliament  she  would  not  get  the  money.  This  is  a  mistake."  There  was  no 
better  judge  than  Sir  William  Forwood,  and  he,  Mr.  Pember,  was  satisfied  with  his 
opinion.  The  great  cry  of  the  opponents  was  that  the  scheme  would  be  fatal  to 
Liverpool  because  it  would  destroy  the  entrance  to  the  Mersey.  "Was  it  likely," 
asked  Mr.  Pember,  "that  these  Lancashire  gentlemen  would  be  so  foolish  as  to 
spend  ten  millions  of  money  to  damage  Liverpool,  when  such  damage  would  mean 
that  they  lost  every  penny  of  the  money  they  had  spent? "  He  then  called  on  Mr. 
Daniel  Adamson,  Chairman  of  the  Canal  Company,  who  repeated  his  evidence 
given  before  previous  Committees.  Sir  William  Forwood  having  attacked  his 
evidence  as  regarded  the  consumption  per  spindle  of  cotton,  Mr.  Adamson  showed 


240         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

his  figures  were  correct,  being  the  result  of  inquiries  from  Mr.  Ellison,  the  Liverpool 
cotton  statist,  and  confirmed  by  numerous  large  spinners. 

Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  followed  with  a  mass  of  shipping  and  commercial 
evidence,  and  put  in  numerous  schedules  and  comparative  tables  showing  the 
advantage  the  canal  would  have  over  the  existing  means  of  carriage.  As  an 
instance,  on  loaf  sugar  he  stated  there  would  be  a  saying  of  125.  id.  per  ton  on 
dues  and  Liverpool  expenses,  or  more  than  the  railway  carriage  from  Liverpool 
to  Manchester.  Again,  whilst  the  present  railway  rate  to  London  was  405.  and 
to  Plymouth  463.  8d.,  the  charge  if  carried  all  the  way  by  sea  would  be  155.  To 
be  on  the  safe  side,  he  had  not  taken  into  consideration  ship  dues  charged  at  all  the 
chief  English  ports  of  from  $d.  to  2S.  per  ton.  At  first,  while  competition  was  fierce, 
it  might  not  be  wise  to  levy  ship  dues,  but  he  felt  sure  some  day  they  would  be  an 
additional  source  of  revenue. 

Mr.  Henry  Walmsley,  cotton  spinner,  Stockport,  objected  to  dual  brokerage, 
and  as  an  instance  of  the  arbitrary  conduct  to  which  spinners  were  subjected  he 
mentioned  the  case  of  Messrs.  Ralli  Brothers,  of  Manchester,  who  opened  a  very 
extensive  connection  in  Manchester  for  the  sale  of  cotton  to  spinners,  and  did  a 
large  business.  The  Cotton  Association  of  Liverpool  insisted  this  should  be  closed, 
and  Ralli's  cotton  business  at  Manchester  was  transferred  to  Liverpool. 

Alderman  Bennett  said  the  ,£10,000  voted  by  the  Corporation  of  Manchester 
to  the  Ship  Canal  Fund  was  to  some  extent  in  view  of  advantages  that  would  be 
afforded  to  the  Corporation  in  carrying  a  culvert  alongside  the  river.  To  his  mind 
Manchester  was  not  adding  to  the  pollution  of  the  river.  His  opinion  was  that  it 
was  purer  when  it  left  Manchester  than  when  it  entered  the  city  boundary.  He 
submitted  a  resolution  in  favour  of  the  Bill  passed  at  the  largest  meeting  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  ever  held,  there  being  only  two  dissentients  out  of  the 
400  people  present.  Also  from  the  Guardian  Society  for  the  Protection  of  Trade, 
of  which  he  was  President. 

After  hearing  Sir  Joseph  Lee,  and  many  other  commercial  witnesses  who  were 
t;iken  very  briefly,  Mr.  Pember,  on  9th  July,  thus  addressed  the  Chairman  :— 

Sir,  there  are  moments  when  a  leading  counsel  must  act  with  nerve  and  take  upon 
himself  that  amount  of  responsibility  which  the  moment  throws  upon  him,  and  he  must  do 
it  without  any  hesitation.  In  this  case  I  have  but  one  anxiety,  and  that  is  the  question  of 
the  effluxion  of  time.  The  event  of  last  night  (the  Government  in  peril)  has  not  by  any 
means  contributed  to  lessen  that  anxiety,  and  I  have  thoroughly  considered  the  matter  with 


1884]  SHIP   CANAL   BILL    IN   THE   COMMONS  24! 

my  clients,  and  given  every  possible  hope  of  the  extension  of  the  session.  I  have  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  I  shall  only  just  have  time  in  the  event  of  your  being  persuaded  upon 
another  clause  of  the  case  that  the  Bill  should  be  proceeded  with  to  get  it  through  Parliament. 
With  regard  to  the  commercial  evidence  we  have  yet  only  practically  entered  upon  the 
threshold.  You  have  got  all  the  evidence  of  this  year  (Lords  inquiry)  referred  to  you. 
You  know  what  the  clause  is  that  was  inserted  in  the  preamble  in  the  House  of  Commons 
last  year,  and  you  have  abundant  indirect  knowledge  of  what  I  might  be  in  a  position  to 
prove.  I  do  not  mean  to  call  any  more  commercial  witnesses.  I  cannot  afford  the  time. 
I  am  determined  one  thing  shall  not  beat  me,  and  that  is  time.  Therefore,  to-morrow  I  shall 
put  the  engineer  in  the  box.  It  is  perfectly  clear  to  my  mind  that  if  I  must  go  through  the 
whole  story,  as  I  did  in  the  House  of  Lords,  my  Bill  must  fail.  Therefore,  I  must  run  any 
risk  that  I  do  run  by  the  course  I  have  taken. 

Mr.  Leader  Williams,  engineer  to  the  scheme,  then  repeated  his  previous 
evidence.  Exception  having  been  taken  to  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  Irwell 
water,  he  showed  that  even  with  the  low-water  flow  there  was  sufficient  to  pass 
twenty-five  steamers  a  day  of  2,000  to  3,000  tons  each ;  fifty,  from  500  to  2,000 
tons  each,  and  100  barges.  Admitting  the  Irwell  was  an  open  sewer,  so  many 
chemicals  were  poured  in  that  they  acted  as  a  kind  of  mordant.  He  had  been 
engineer  of  the  Navigation,  and  he  never  knew  any  men  take  harm  from  the  smell 
even  in  hot  weather.  In  addition,  measures  were  being  taken  by  all  the  large 
towns,  and  he  hoped  shortly  to  have  the  river  very  much  improved.  The  witness 
referring  to  the  opponents'  contention  as  to  harm  arising  from  the  reduction  of 
tidal  area  in  the  estuary,  said  :— 

When  the  Liverpool  people  wished  to  make  the  docks  they  never  raised  this  question 
of  the  importance  of  the  tidal  area.  They  have  taken  in'  1,100  or  1,200  acres  of  land,  and 
it  is  only  when  we  want  to  do  something  in  the  Manchester  direction  that  they  raise  an 
objection. 

Witness  went  on  to  show  that  erosion  in  the  estuary  was  going  on  along  the 
line  of  cliffs  at  the  rate  of  i  foot  per  annum,  and  that  a  trained  channel  in  the 
middle  of  the  estuary  would  prevent  this.1 

During  the  proceedings  the  Chairman  more  than  once  intimated  that  he  wished 
the  engineering  evidence  shortened. 

Pressed  in  cross-examination,  Mr.  Leader  Williams  said  he  did  not  see  his 
way  to  bring  his  Ship  Canal  down  to  the  Mersey  below  the  estuary,  because  if  he 
did  Liverpool  would  object  to  the  abstraction  of  any  water  that  would  diminish  the 

^ee  Plan  in  Pocket,  No.  5. 
VOL.  I.  1 6 


242         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

quantity  passing  down  the  estuary,  or  that  would  diminish  the  scour  in  the  upper 
estuary,  and  so  cause  accretion. 

A  succession  of  eminent  engineers,  Messrs.  Abernethy,  Brunlees,  Messent, 
Wheeler,  Lionel  Wells,  and  Giles,  M.P.,  supported  Mr.  Leader  Williams'  plans 
and  estimates. 

Mr.  Fowler,  engineer  of  the  Tees,  called  attention  to  the  grass  Sir  Frederick 
Bramwell  asserted  he  had  seen  growing  on  land  that  was  being  reclaimed,  and  it 
was  a  curious  sight  to  see  a  crowd  of  eminent  men  standing  round  a  box  Mr. 
Fowler  had  brought  up,  and  discussing  if  the  greenery  was  seaweed,  as  he  declared 
it  to  be,  or  common  grass. 

After  the  engineers  came  the  land  valuers  and  shipowners,  all  repeating 
previous  evidence. 

Captain  Pearson,  Marine  Nautical  Assessor  of  Liverpool,  was  of  opinion  that 
it  was  as  easy  to  get  up  to  Runcorn  in  one  tide  as  to  dock  in  Liverpool,  and  that  it 
was  safer  to  be  out  of  the  reach  of  heavy  seas  up  the  river  than  to  be  waiting  in  a 
rough  sea  to  enter  a  Liverpool  Dock. 

The  last  witness,  Mr.  Ernest  Deshayes,  of  Rouen,  declared  that  Rouen  was 
not  an  excluded  port  in  bills  of  lading,  that  large  ships  came  up  the  Seine  with 
safety,  and  that  no  damage  had  been  done  to  Havre,  a  town  situated,  like  Liverpool, 
at  the  river  entrance. 

Amongst  the  junior  counsel  for  the  opponents  was  Mr.  A.  M.  Sullivan,  M. P., 
the  eminent  politician  and  Home  Ruler,  who  had  recently  joined  the  English  Bar. 

The  case  for  the  opponents  was  then  taken. 

Mr.  John  Bowden,  C.E.  for  the  Trafford  estate,  said  the  promoters  to 
appease  Salford  had  agreed  to  let  them  have  a  sewage  wharf  opposite  Trafford 
Hall,  and  that  it  would  be  a  nuisance. 

Mr.  T.  B.  Foster  called  attention  to  the  agreement  with  Manchester  whereby 
one-fifth  of  the  usual  water  flow  might  pass  by  a  culvert  to  the  lower  reach  of  the 
river.  He  was  of  opinion  this  would  lessen  the  water  usable  for  locks,  and  increase 
the  nuisance  at  Trafford  Hall. 

After  Mr.  I.  M.  Fox,  Medical  Officer  of  Health  for  Mid  Cheshire,  had  con- 
demned the  canal  as  an  unmitigated  nuisance, 

Mr.  Littler,  Q.C.,  addressed  the  Committee.  If  in  the  Lords  Committee  he 
had  lashed  the  Ship  Canal  scheme  with  whips,  in  the  Commons  he  now  used 
scorpions.  He  accused  Mr.  Pember  of  making  a  bid  in  the  Lords,  i.e.,  to  plank 


1884]  SHIP   CANAL   BILL   IN   THE   COMMONS  243 

.£5,000,000,  and  so  to  get  his  Bill  by  the  skin  of  his  teeth.  He  said  with  five 
ways  to  Liverpool  the  cry  for  another  meant  that  a  lot  of  manufacturers  wanted  to 
cut  one  another's  throats  at  the  cost  of  the  railway  companies.  He  tried  to  show 
there  was  an  attempt  to  dodge  the  deposit  clause  by  fictitious  shares  and  deposits 
thereon.  He  pictured  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford  turned  out  of  his  ancestral  home 
by  a  company  who  would  become  insolvent  and  not  be  able  to  complete  the  work. 
Instead  of  five  he  was  sure  the  work  would  take  ten  years.  He  complained  the 
usual  clause  about  the  reversion  of  superfluous  land  was  omitted,  and  that  the  ninety- 
nine  year  lease  clause  would  enable  factories  and  warehouses  to  be  built  in  Trafford 
Park  "under  our  very  noses".  Also  that  the  canal  company  proposed  to  take 
their  land  for  the  Corporation  to  make  sewers  on  it.  Because  Manchester  and 
Salford  hate  one  another,  the  former,  to  suit  its  vanity,  places  a  public  wharf,  three- 
quarters  of  a  mile  long,  opposite  and  as  a  counterpart  to  the  wharv.es  in  Salford. 
"  Fancy  their  coming  and  perpetrating  such  a  piece  of  vanity  as  that !  It  is  simply 
to  please  the  vanity  of  Manchester  that  they  say,  we  will  acquire  land  from  Sir 
Humphrey  de  Trafford  which  we  do  not  want,  and  we  will  enable  others  to  put 
that  upon  his  land  which  will  make  his  house  intolerable  and  uninhabitable."  Then 
Mr.  Littler,  by  figures',  tried  to  show  that  all  private  docks  were  killed  by  the  cost  of 
maintenance,  and  that  the  Ship  Canal  could  only  get  and  distribute  such  goods  as 
came  by  cart  from  a  limited  area  or  by  narrow  boats  on  the  canal.  Railways  would 
never  come  and  help  them.  How  could  this  eastern  port  with  ^10,000,000  capital 
compete  with  the  iron-clad  of  the  combined  railways  with  ^267,000,000  of  capital  ? 
The  end  must  be  that  this  poor  little  canal  company  when  it  is  bankrupt  will  be 
bought  up  by  the  railway  companies  at  their  own  price.  The  tables  of  rates  put 
in  by  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  and  Mr.  Adamson  were  made  to  suit  their  own  theory, 
and  must  have  been  made  by  some  one  who  had  no  practical  experience  of  carrying. 
The  audacity  and  absurdity  of  the  tables  made  them  hardly  worth  dealing  with. 
He  said  the  calculator  for  the  Ship  Canal  was  the  same  Mr.  Lawrence  who 
had  been  the  prime  mover  in  the  Hull  and  Barnsley  Company.  As  regarded  the 
latter  "there  was  hardly  a  house  in  the  East  Riding  of  Yorkshire  where  the  whole 
ol  the  housemaids  and  footmen  had  not  sacrificed  the  whole  of  the  money  they 
had  got  in  the  Savings  Bank  and  put  it  in  the  Hull  and  Barnsley".  So  with 
the  Ship  Canal;  "they  got  50,000  people,  with  the  assurance  that  there  would 
be  a  lot  of  labour  required,  to  demonstrate  at  the  Pomona  Gardens  in  a  torch- 
light procession  in  favour  of  this  thing.  Just  in  the  same  way  they  will,  induce 


244          HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [i! 

people  all  over  the  country  to  put  their  wretched  earnings  into  this  miserable  con- 
cern." 

He  denied  there  was  any  comparison  between  the  Tyne,  Tees  and  Clyde, 
and  the  Mersey,  and  said  the  latter  was  a  dangerous  wild  beast,  and  almost  untame- 
able,  and  ended  his  speech  thus  :— 

At  least  see  what  you  are  about  to  destroy,  and  for  whom  ?  You  will  destroy  the 
Mersey  and  injure  the  whole  trade  of  Lancashire  all  for  the  sake  of  a  certain  number  of 
speculators,  flattering  their  vanity  and  bringing  themselves  to  ruin. 

Mr.  A.  T.  Sguarey,  solicitor  to  the  Dock  Board,  after  confirming  previous 
evidence,  contended  that  an  attempt  to  improve  the  bar  would  be  of  doubtful  result, 
and  would  be  a  burden  on  the  port. 

Captain  Graham  Hills,  surveyor  to  the  Dock  Board,  was  under  examination  for 
three  days.  He  gave  his  evidence  as  before.  In  cross-examination,  he  admitted 
his  views  as  to  the  formation  of  sand  banks  in  the  Mersey  differed  entirely  from  those 
of  Admiral  Spratt,  the  Conservator  of  the  Mersey  appointed  by  Government,  and  he 
also  differed  from  that  gentleman  as  to  reclamation  in  the  Tees.  Attention  being 
called  to  other  reclamations  on  the  Mersey,  specially  at  Ditton  Brook  in  1873,  the 
witness  made  a  remarkable  statement,  viz.,  that  the  Dock  Board  objected,  and  so 
did  Admiral  Evans,  the  then  Conservator,  but  that  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of 
Lancaster,  being  one  of  the  Commissioners  and  also  a  landlord  interested  in  the 
sale  of  land,  was  too  strong  for  them,  and  it  could  not  be  prevented. 

Mr.  George  Fosbery  Lyster  did  not  think  the  canal  scheme  well  devised ;  it 
would  destroy  the  river  and  the  practical  working  of  the  docks.  Training  walls 
stopping  midway  in  an  estuary  ought  not  to  be  permitted.  "  He  was  assured 
that  the  promoters  might  attain  the  object  they  seek,  namely,  an  approach  to  the 
upper  river  docks,  by  a  much  better  plan  than  theirs,  and  by  one  that  would  obviate 
all  the  difficulty  and  danger  involved  in  the  works  they  now  propose,  and  not 
imperil  Liverpool."  As  regarded  estimates,  his  were  double  those  of  the  promoters 
—^"2,800,000  as  against  .£1,400,000.  The  moneyed  merchants  in  Liverpool  had 
never  asked  for  the  improvement  of  the  bar ;  they  would  hesitate  to  pay  increased 
rates.  His  opinion  was  that  it  would  be  impracticable  to  make  any  permanent 
effect  on  the  bar  by  dredging.  The  only  way  was  by  breakwaters,  and  these  would 
cost  millions  of  money. 

Mr.  Thomas  Stevenson  believed  in  training  walls,  and  said  accretion  only  followed 


1884]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  245 

when  there  was  a  soft  bottom,  as  in  the  Mersey.  He  believed  in  the  principle,  but 
did  not  like  Mr.  Leader  Williams'  training  walls.  He  did  not  agree  with  what  his 
brother  had  written  about  no  damage  arising  from  training  walls.  He  could  not 
for  his  life  tell  why  the  promoters'  engineer  had  come  down  into  this  wretched 
estuary.  There  could  be  no  difficulty  in  carrying  a  canal  to  Liverpool  without 
going  into  the  upper  estuary  at  all,  by  keeping  on  dry  land. 

Sir  William  Thomson,  Messrs.  Manning  and  Leveson  Harcourt  all  opposed 
any  interference  with  the  estoary ;  the  latter  was  in  favour  of  bringing  the  canal 
along  the  shore  of  the  estuary,  and  not  in  its  centre. 

Captain  Eads  again  described  the  means  he  took  to  remove  the  Mississippi 
bar.  Asked  if  it  was  necessary  to  take  training  walls  through  the  estuary  in  order 
to  get  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  he  replied  : — 

I  do  not  think  it  is.  Works  could  be  constructed  along  the  Cheshire  shore  and  the 
canal  brought  along  there  with  decided  benefit  to  many  interests  and  at  quite  as  little  cost  as 
taking  it  through  the  estuary,  and  it  would  not  be  liable  to  so  many  contingencies  and  difficulties. 

In  his  opinion,  to  remove  the  bar  would  cost  many  millions  of  pounds. 

Mr.  Stephen  Williamson,  M.P.,  would  consider  adventurous  experiments  at 
the  bar  as  money  thrown  away.  In  Liverpool  the  Ship  Canal  was  considered  a 
mad  scheme  that  would  never  be  carried  into  effect,  and  no  serious  attention  was 
given  to  it.  As  a  shipowner  he  considered  the  hazard  would  be  too  great  to  send 
a  ship  up  if  he  could  avoid  it.  The  Hall  Line  of  steamers  running  to  Bombay  could 
not  come  up  because  of  the  height  of  their  masts.  Wheat  from  California,  Chili 
and  Australia  could  never  come  to  Manchester  as  it  was  brought  in  sailing  ships. 

Sir  Frederick  Bramwell  could  see  no  difficulty  in  going  round  the  side  of  the 
estuary  instead  of  in  the  middle. 

Mr.  Thomas  H.  Jackson,  of  Birkenhead,  believed  no  time  was  lost  by  ships 
waiting  at  the  bar ;  supposing  they  could  get  over,  they  must  wait  in  the  river  till 
there  was  water  enough  to  enter  the  docks.  He  believed  if  the  canal  were  made 
the  navigation  would  be  stopped  in  the  winter.  It  would  take  a  ship  two  or  three 
days  to  go  up  to  Manchester  and  the  same  time  to  come  down. 

Mr.  T.  D.  Hornby,  Chairman  of  the  Dock  Board,  had  heard  a  great  deal 
about  dredging  the  bar.  This  would  have  to  be  done  in  the  open  sea.  It  would 
require  an  Act  of  Parliament  unless  the  nation  did  it ;  the  cost  would  fall  upon  the 
commerce  of  the  port,  and  engineers  had  talked  of  millions  of  money.  He  was  not 
in  favour  of  experiments  of  the  kind.  When  the  Bill  passed  the  Lords  a  Liverpool 


246         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

deputation  went  to  see  the  Admiralty  with  a  petition,  Admiral  Spratt,  of  the  Con- 
servancy Board,  being  present.  They  represented  that  the  clauses  prepared  at  the 
instance  of  the  Conservancy  Commissioners  had  seriously  prejudiced  them,  and  did 
not  give  them  sufficient  protection,  and  they  asked  that  the  company  should  be  called 
upon  to  give  security  to  the  Board  of  Trade  so  as  to  procure  the  observance  of  all 
stipulations.  The  witness  in  cross-examination  admitted  that  the  Conservancy  who 
would,  under  the  Bill,  have  the  power  of  vetoing  the  estuary  plans  had  secured 
Sir  John  Coode,  an  eminent  engineer,  to  advise  them. 

Mr.  Bidder,  Q.C.,  then  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  Mersey 
Docks  and  Harbour  Board,  and  applied  himself  chiefly  to  reviewing  the  engineering 
evidence. 

Sir  William  Forwood  spoke  seriously  of  the  condition  of  the  bar,  and  said  it 
was  only  practicable  now  by  vessels  drawing  24  feet  of  water.  He,  too,  thought 
the  security  of  the  estuary  of  primary  importance  :— 

And  to  show  the  absolute  bona-fides  of  what  I  have  stated,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the 
Corporation  of  Liverpool,  I  have  no  objection  whatever  to  this  scheme  being  passed  by  this 
Committee  as  far  as  Runcorn,  and  if  the  promoters  will  bring  in  a  Bill  next  year,  carrying 
out  their  estuary  works,  as  they  can  carry  them  out  without  interference  with  that  estuary, 
either  along  the  northern  or  southern  shores,  we  will  not,  upon  principle,  oppose  that  Bill 
next  year.  I  can  say  nothing  stronger  to  show  the  entire  bona-fides  of  Liverpool. 

He  again  challenged  the  whole  of  the  commercial  tables  put  in  by  Mr.  Marshall 
Stevens,  who,  as  he  said,  had  assumed  to  speak  as  if  with  the  authority  of  the  com- 
mercial interests  of  the  Mersey  : — 

I  must  say,  with  my  knowledge  of  Liverpool,  and  within  my  own  public  life  in  Liverpool, 
I  never  heard  of  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  until  I  entered  the  Committee  Rooms  of  this  House. 
Mr.  Balfour  Browne. — It  is  very  sad  for  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens. 

The  witness  claimed  he  was  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Railway  Commission, 
and  said  it  gave  power  to  the  Commissioners  to  propose  rates  over  a  canal  system, 
but  not  over  canal  systems  plus  the  Ship  Canal,  to  Bombay  or  any  other  part  of  the 
world.  To  this  Mr.  Balfour  Browne  dissented  entirely. 

Mr.  Aspinall,  speaking  in  the  case  of  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead,  and  Mr. 
Littler,  for  the  North  Staffordshire  Railway,  briefly  reviewed  the  evidence.  During 
Mr.  Aspinall's  speech,  he  said  that  he  represented  the  Dock  Board,  and  was  au- 
thorised in  the  strongest  possible  sense  to  ratify  the  offer  of  Sir  William  Forwood 
in  the  precise  words  in  which  he  made  it.  The  effect  being  that  if  Manchester 


1884]  SHIP   CANAL   BILL  IN   THE   COMMONS  247 

would  give  up  training  walls  in  the  estuary,  and  take  the  canal  on  the  borders  on 
either  side,  neither  Liverpool  nor  the  Dock  Company  would  oppose  them.  After 
this  the  London  and  North- Western  case  was  heard.  Mr.  Findlay,  their  general 
manager,  recapitulated  his  evidence  before  the  Lords  Committee. 

Mr.  fames  Grierson  (of  the  Great  Western  Railway)  believed  it  might  be 
possible  to  get  full  cargoes  of  timber  and  grain,  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  make 
Manchester  a  port  for  the  general  trade  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Scatter  (of  the  Manchester,  Sheffield  and  Lincolnshire  Railway)  showed 
the  Cheshire  Lines  Company  only  got  £  per  cent,  on  an  expenditure  of  ^10,000,000, 
and  he  considered  the  estimated  profit  on  the  Ship  Canal  fallacious.  The  Amster- 
dam Canal,  15  miles  long,  took  seventeen  years  to  construct,  and  cost  double 
the  estimates.  It  had  not  paid  anything  and  was  now  in  liquidation.  Hull 
and  Grimsby,  with  all  conveniences,  shipped  1,030,000  tons  of  coal  in  1883,  and 
he  considered  the  estimate  of  2,000,000  tons  at  Manchester  an  impossibility. 
In  cross-examination,  witness  admitted  Amsterdam  had  been  a  success  com- 
mercially. 

Mr.  Henry  Oakley  said  it  was  absurd  to  do  a  traffic  of  5,000,000  tons  on 
67  acres  of  dockage  and  3  miles  of  quays,  especially  when  there  was  no  provision 
for  railway  connections  at  the  docks.  It  meant  2,700  loads  of  3  tons  each  to  be 
brought  in  and  out  by  horses. 

Mr.  Francis  Stevenson,  engineer  (London  and  North-Western  Railway),  had  a 
firm  and  deliberate  conviction  that  if  the  proposed  channel  was  made  the  Garston 
Docks  would  be  done  for. 

Mr.  Pope  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  London  and  North-Western 
Railway  Company.  He  contended  that  in  Manchester  and  1 2  miles  round  the  pro- 
duction and  consumption  did  not  exceed  2,400,000  tons  yearly,  and  if  the  canal  filched 
every  ounce  from  the  railways,  it  would  not  even  then  pay ;  that  goods  in  and  out 
would  have  to  be  carted,  and  that  railways  would  not  help,  and  so  bring  competition 
in  themselves.  His  other  main  point  was  that  the  approach  channel  to  Garston 
Docks  would  be  silted  up.  He  asked :  "  Is  the  good  which  this  scheme  can  ac- 
complish for  one  moment  to  be  measured  against  the  absolute  injury  and  the  terrible 
risk?"  If  not,  let  them  amend  their  Bill  next  year  and  profit  by  the  criticisms  they 
have  had  to  endure. 

Mr.  Pember  then  made  his  final  reply.  He  regretted  time  was  running  so 
very  close  that  he  had  been  compelled  to  omit  a  great  share  of  his  commercial  case, 


248         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1884 

and  pointed  out  his  opponents  had  not  similarly  striven  to  save  time.  Forty  days 
work  in  the  Lords  had  been  condensed  into  twenty  in  the  Commons.  He  ridiculed 
the  idea  that  the  volume  of  business  of  Manchester  was  only  2,400,000  tons,  whilst 
Hull,  with  283,000  inhabitants,  had  4,250,000  tons  of  traffic.  Much  had  been  said 
about  the  danger  of  accretion  in  the  estuary,  but  he  pointed  out  that  Mr.  Stevenson, 
a  great  authority,  and  one  of  the  opponents'  witnesses,  had  said,  "Accretion  or  non- 
accretion,  I  never  knew  one  of  my  works  that  impaired  the  bar".  It  could  not  be 
disputed  that  within  the  memory  of  living  man  there  had  been  1 7  feet  of  water  upon 
the  bar,  now  there  were  only  9  feet,  and  at  one  time  only  7  feet.  The  cubical 
capacity  of  the  estuary,  too,  on  which  so  much  stress  was  laid,  and  which  was  said 
to  be  vital  to  the  river,  had  been  reduced  in  the  last  twenty  years  by  18,000,000 
yards.  Captain  Graham  Hills  said  the  proposed  training  walls  would  destroy  frets 
in  the  estuary,  yet  when  there  had  been  a  phenomenal  fret,  the  estuary  had  lost 
capacity  and  the  bar  had  gone  to  the  bad. 

After  all,  the  Mersey  bar  was  a  small  affair  in  area ;  the  opponents  admitted 
the  water  to  be  only  9  feet  deep  for  100  yards.  In  a  quarter  of  a  mile  on  either 
side  absolutely  deep  water  was  reached.  "  Is  it  not  a  crying  shame  that  with  so  small 
an  obstacle  to  deal  with  Atlantic  Liners  are  kept  waiting  close  to  port  sometimes 
even  for  seven  hours?"  "Why  not  do  there  on  a  small  scale  something  analogous 
to  what  Captain  Eads  had  done  on  a  large  scale  on  the  Mississippi?  Looked  at 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  enormous  industries  that  would  be  resuscitated  it  is  a 
trumpery  and  trivial  work,  and  ought  to  have  been  done  long  ago,  and  the  Com- 
pany I  represent  would  be  the  very  first  to  co-operate  with  Liverpool  in  carrying 
it  out,  and  would  force  her  hand  if  she  were  sluggish.  Lancashire  would  rise  as 
one  man  to  support  Liverpool  in  such  a  great  work." 

On  previous  occasions,  Mr.  Pember  had  concluded  his  speeches  with  an  elo- 
quent peroration,  but  for  once  he  ended  by  tamely  asking  that  the  Bill  might  be 
passed.  Possibly  he  felt  all  through  his  speech  that  his  wings  were  clipped  by 
having  to  fight  against  time. 

The  Committee  room  was  cleared.  Previously  it  had  taken  a  considerable 
time  to  arrive  at  a  decision,  but  on  this  occasion  after  a  short  time  the  parties  were 
called  in,  and  the  Chairman  announced  :— 

The  Committee  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  preamble  of  the  Bill  has  not  been 
proved  to  their  satisfaction. 


1884]  SHIP   CANAL   BILL   IN   THE   COMMONS  249 

This  unexpected  decision  was  an  intense  disappointment  to  the  canal  sup- 
porters in  the  lobby,  and  was  received  with  much  jubilation  by  the  opponents  who 
attributed  their  success  largely  to  the  bait  thrown  out  by  Liverpool  and  the  Dock 
Board  to  the  Committee,  that  if  the  Ship  Canal  would  avoid  the  estuary  in  a  subse- 
quent Bill  their  opposition  should  cease. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
1885. 

THE  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  RECAST  ON  MR.  LYSTER'S  LINES- 
LIVERPOOL  VIEWS— WITHDRAWAL  FROM  PLEDGE  NOT 
TO  OPPOSE  BILL— BILL  PASSED  IN  THE  COMMONS— PUB- 
LIC REJOICINGS— PREPARATORY  STEPS  TO  RAISE  THE 
CAPITAL. 

Communications  make  the  trade,  not  trade  the  communications. — Sir  ARTHUR 
COTTON. 

DURING  the  two  previous  years  the  fortunes  of  war  had  oscillated.  In  1883 
the  Ship  Canal  Bill  was  passed  by  the  Commons  and  rejected  by  the 
Lords,  whilst  in  1884  the  Lords  passed  the  Bill  and  the  Commons  rejected 
it  Nearly  half  a  million  of  money  had  been  spent  by  the  contending  parties  and 
no  progress  had  been  made.  There  were  signs  of  exhaustion.  The  opponents 
had  declared  they  did  not  fear  any  damage  to  the  trade  of  Liverpool,  and  would  be 
content  if  only  they  could  be  assured  that  nothing  done  to  the  estuary  would 
damage  it,  or  silt  up  the  bar.  Their  counsel  had  put  forth  a  scheme  which,  as  they 
said,  would  enable  the  canal  to  be  made  and  that  would  be  accepted  by  them.  The 
promoters  had  discovered  how  easy  it  was  to  alarm  a  Parliamentary  Committee 
who  naturally  wanted  to  protect  Liverpool  and  the  estuary.  They  had  open 
minds  to  consider  any  feasible  alternative  scheme,  and  when  the  dock  engineer, 
Mr.  Lyster,  proposed  the  canal  should  be  made  alongside  the  estuary  instead  of 
through  the  middle  of  it,  they  gave  the  suggestion  their  best  consideration. 

The  result  was  a  new  scheme,  following  to  a  very  large  extent  Mr.  Lyster's 
lines,  and  making  the  canal  debouch  into  the  estuary  at  Eastham.1  For  this  plans 
and  specifications  were  deposited  in  due  course. 

1  See  Plan  No.  8,  in  pocket,  Vol.  II. 
(250) 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  251 

But  it  soon  became  evident  that  Sir  William  Forwood  and  his  friends  regretted 
the  promises  they  had  made  under  pressure  when  they  feared  the  1884  Bill  would 
certainly  pass.  They  showed  a  disposition  to  forget  all  previous  assurances  and 
the  statement  that  traders  of  Liverpool  had  no  fears  of  damage  from  the  canal,  inas- 
much as  their  ships  would  never  go  to  Manchester. 

The  year  1885  started  with  Liverpool,  the  Dock  Board  and  the  Railways 
being  more  virulent  than  ever  against  the  Bill.  They  were  determined  to  scotch  it 
at  all  costs,  and  this  notwithstanding  their  repeated  assertions  that  they  did  not  look 
upon  the  Ship  Canal  as  a  serious  undertaking.  The  plans  and  estimates  having 
been  deposited,  the  promoters  paid  into  the  Bank  of  England  the  usual  deposit. 
This  done,  the  Bill  passed  through  Standing  Orders  without  opposition. 

During  January  "  Mancuniensis "  (Mr.  J.  W.  Harvey)  published  some  valuable 
statistics  showing  how  dear  transit  was  in  England  compared  with  the  Continent. 
For  the  same  weight  and  distance  raw  silk  cost  ,£5  in  England  and  2  is.  in 
Belgium;  butter,  IDS.  id.  against  43.  lod.  ;  timber,  igs.  2d.  against  93.;  pig  iron, 
153.  against  6s.  ;  and  grain  123.  6d.  against  6s.  lid.  In  France  coal  was  carried 
at  -28d.  and  limestone  at  'i8d.  per  ton  per  mile,  whilst  in  the  Midland  counties  the 
charge  on  heavy  material  was  as  much  as  i.4od.  per  ton  per  mile. 

On  the  29th  January  the  Dock  Board  officially  informed  the  Board  of  Trade 
that  the  Ship  Canal  was  unnecessary,  and  the  works  might  cause  serious  injury  to 
the  estuary  of  the  Mersey,  also  might  interfere  with  the  approach  to  the  docks 
and  the  transit  of  vessels  in  the  Mersey,  and  that  it  would  be  their  duty  to  oppose 
the  Bill  in  Parliament. 

On  the  nth  February  Sir  William  Forwood  told  the  Liverpool  Council  that 
the  pledge  not  to  oppose  would  have  been  carried  out  if  the  promoters  had  not 
sought  to  make  a  800  yards'  channel  in  the  estuary  from  Eastham  to  Bromborough 
and  to  dredge  a  similar  channel  500  yards  broad  from  Runcorn  to  Eastham.  He 
believed  this  would  cause  irreparable  damage  to  the  estuary. 

This  brought  an  indignant  letter  from  Mr.  William  Price,  of  Wm.  Price  &  Co., 
shipowners,  of  Liverpool,  who  objected  to  the  attempt  to  strangle  a  new  enterprise 
"by  petty  jealousies,  or  any  tactics  unworthy  of  a  great  trading  and  shipowning 
community  like  Liverpool".  He  complained  of  the  immense  waste  of  money  in 
opposing  the  Bill,  and  said  it  had  been  spent  illegally,  inasmuch  as  a  Borough 
Funds  meeting  had  never  been  called  at  Liverpool.  He  quoted  the  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment to  show  this  was  necessary,  and  undertook,  if  one  were  called,  to  ask  for  a  poll. 


252         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

In  proof  that  his  contention  was  valid,  Birkenhead  did  have  a  Borough  Funds 
meeting  to  sanction  opposing  the  Bill.  One  of  the  speakers  said  he  believed  a  Ship 
Canal  to  Manchester  would  benefit  Birkenhead,  and  another  was  quite  satisfied 
Liverpool  looked  upon  Birkenhead  as  a  rival,  and  would  not  care  if  the  whole  of 
their  docks  were  silted  up.  Eventually  Birkenhead  decided  to  oppose  the  Bill. 

Sir  William  Forwood's  speech  to  the   Liverpool,  City  Council  evincing,  as  it 
did,  a  desire  to  draw  back  from  his  undertaking,  caused  Mr.  Adamson  to  write  him 

the  following  letter : — 

MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL  OFFICES, 

70A  MARKET  STREET,  MANCHESTER, 
February  igth,  1885. 

DEAR  SIR, 

My  attention  has  been  called  to  your  speech  at  a  meeting  of  the  Liverpool 
City  Council,  as  reported  in  the  Liverpool  Courier  of  the  I2th  inst.,  in  which  you  made  the 
following  statements  in  reference  to  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal :  "  But  there  was  still  a  worse 
clause,  vis.,  3 1,  by  which  the  promoters  took  power  to  dredge  a  deep-water  channel  800  yards 
broad  from  Eastham  to  Bromborough  and  to  dredge  a  similar  channel  500  yards  broad  from 
Runcorn  to  Eastham,  which  would  not  only  be  as  mischievous  as  the  channel  proposed  last 
session,  but  would  do  infinitely  greater  damage.  .  .  .  He  himself  believed  that  it  was  quite 
possible  to  make  the  canal  without  infringing  upon  the  estuary  at  all,  and  he  had  still  a  strong 
hope  that  they  should  be  able  to  get  the  promoters  so  to  modify  the  plan  as  to  obviate  the 
necessity  on  the  part  of  the  Corporation  of  appearing  in  opposition.  But  if  they  persisted  in 
constructing  these  channels  they  would  inflict  irreparable  injury  to  our  port  and  harbour." 
From  these  remarks  it  is  evident  that  you  have  misunderstood  the  object  of  the  3ist  clause. 
The  promoters  have  no  intention  whatever  of  dredging  any  continuous  channel  in  the  estuary 
between  Runcorn  and  Eastham,  or  any  channel  800  yards  wide  between  Eastham  and  Brom- 
borough. The  widths  mentioned  in  the  clause  are  merely  to  define  limits  within  which  the 
company  may  dredge.  The  main  object  of  taking  this  dredging  power  is  to  enable  the  com- 
pany to  maintain  efficient  accesses  to  the  entrance  locks  to  be  provided  at  Eastham,  and  for 
the  upper  Mersey  ports,  and  to  secure  river  and  drainage  outfalls.  As  I  am  thus  able  to 
assure  you  that  the  promoters  have  no  intention  of  constructing  the  channels  mentioned  by 
you,  I  think  if  you  and  your  friends  would  further  carefully  examine  the  clauses  of  the  Bill 
you  would  come  to  the  conclusion  set  forth  in  this  letter,  that  Liverpool  has  nothing  to  fear 
from  any  act  or  intention  of  ours  to  disturb  the  fretting  action  of  the  Mersey,  upon  which  you 
founded  your  opposition  to  our  late  application  to  Parliament  However,  should  any  mis- 
apprehension and  distrust  exist,  I  am  sure  if  you  and  your  colleagues  desire  to  meet  the 
promoters  with  the  view  of  coming  to  a  clear  understanding,  my  Committee  would  be  willing 
to  have  a  conference  so  as  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  settlement  without  your  incurring  further 

unnecessary  expense. 

I  am,  etc., 

(Signed)         DANIEL  ADAMSON  (Chairman). 
Sir  W.  B.  FORWOOD. 


1 885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  ,253 

This  was  intended  to  show  Sir  William  that  he  misinterpreted  the  intentio'h  of 
the  promoters,  and  was  wrong  in  his  facts.  Further,  that  there  was  a  desire  on 
behalf  of  the  promoters  to  discuss  any  differences  of  opinion  at  a  conference,  with 
the  view  of  saving  a  Parliamentary  fight.  Strange  to  say  no  reply  was  ever 
received,  thus  showing  the  opponents  had  no  wish  to  come  to  a  settlement.  They 
desired  to  kill  the  Bill. 

There  were  not  wanting,  however,  warning  voices  in  Liverpool.  Sir  James 
Picton  asked  to  what  extent  the  Liverpool  Corporation  were  committed  as  to  the 
further  opposition  to  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Bill  ?  The  expense  hitherto  had 
been  so  frightful  as  really  almost  to  make  one's  hair  stand  on  end,  and  he  wanted 
to  know  if  this  was  to  go  on  interminably?  It  seemed  to  him  that  the  opposition 
ought  now  to  be  confined  to  obtaining  satisfactory  clauses.  The  Liverpool  Courier 
also  thought  Mr.  Adamson's  letter  deserved  favourable  consideration,  because  its 
tone  was  moderate  and  conciliatory,  and  because  it  declared  that  danger  to  the 
estuary  was  to  be  carefully  guarded  against  in  the  new  project  now  before  Parlia- 
ment. 

If  Manchester  chooses  to  convert  itself  into  a  seaport — or  even  tries  to  do  so — we  have 
no  reasonable  right  to  thwart  the  ambition.  We  do  not  regard  the  scheme  as  being  either 
practicable  or  profitable,  but  that  is  the  affair  of  the  people  who  are  foolish  enough  to  put 
their  money  in  it  It  will  be  altogether  a  mistake  for  us  to  oppose  the  scheme  on  the  pre- 
tence that  it  may  damage  the  estuary  if  the  real  motive  is  to  defeat  it  by  a  side  wind,  not 
because  the  estuary  is  imperilled,  but  because  we  fear  the  competition  of  a  rival  port.  This 
is  a  point  which  will  have  to  be  carefully  watched. 

On  the  24th  February,  when  the  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means  reported  the 
Ship  Canal  Bill,  Mr.  Jacob  Bright  asked  that  in  order  to  get  it  through  in  time  it 
should  be  relegated  to  a  joint  Committee  of  both  Houses,  but  Sir  A.  Otway  said 
such  a  proposition  must  originate  in  the  House  of  Lords,  who  had  the  Bill  in  hand 
tind  who  could  invite  the  Commons  to  join  if  they  so  desired.  No  such  request 
bdng  made,  the  Bill  was  read  a  second  time  on  the  3rd  March,  and  passed  on  to 
a  Committee  with  Lord  Cowper  as  Chairman. 

It  was  a  sensible  relief  when,  after  twelve  days'  hearing  of  the  engineering  case, 
the  Bill  was  allowed  to  proceed.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  Committee 
were  much  impressed  by  the  fact  that  whilst  Liverpool  was  professing  to  be  the 
guardian  of  the  Mersey,  bent  on  preventing  an  accumulation  on  the  bar,  and  with 
the  power  of  fining  a  sailor  .£50  if  he  threw  a  bucket  of  ashes  overboard  into  the 


254         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

river,  she  herself  was  pitching  into  it  wholesale  the  dredgings  of  the  docks  and  the 
sewage  of  the  city.  And  this  notwithstanding  the  protest  of  Admiral  Spratt,  the 
acting  Conservator,  who  urged  the  refuse  should  be  deposited  north  of  the  Rock 
Lighthouse.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  hoppers  had  in  ten  years  deposited  3,500,000 
cubic  yards  of  dredging,  how  was  it  that  the  bar  had  got  no  worse  ? 

The  Liverpool  Daily  Post,  in  its  article  on  the  Lords  passing  the  engineering 
portions  of  the  Bill,  wrote  :— 

This  year  the  canal  company  claim  to  have  adopted  Mr.  Lyster's  plan.  Therefore, 
unless  the  Dock  Board  can  show  that  the  new  canal  differs  essentially  from  Mr.  Lyster's 
suggestions  they  cannot  oppose  the  scheme  on  its  general  merits  very  creditably. 

And  it  went  on  to  say  :— 

An  eminent  man,  who  had  occasion  to  visit  Manchester  two  or  three  years  ago,  was 
asked  on  his  return  to  London  what  he  thought  of  the  place  ?  And  this  was  his  answer, 
"  Manchester  is  to  let ".  The  fact  is  Manchester  is  no  longer  a  centre  of  distribution  as  it 
was  ten  or  twenty  years  ago.  Therefore,  Manchester  wants  to  take  the  place  of  Liverpool  as 
the  only  way  of  retaining  its  supremacy  as  a  centre  of  manufacturing  industries.  Manchester 
is  ambitious.  She  is  ready  to  make  any  sacrifice  to  be  the  recognised  head  of  Lancashire 
industries  and  political  influence. 

On  the  7th  May,  the  Committee  of  the  Lords  passed  the  preamble  of  the  Bill. 
The  news  was  received  with  the  greatest  enthusiasm,  but  warned  by  previous  dis- 
appointments, people  seemed  determined  to  reserve  their  shouting  till  the  Bill  was 
safely  through  the  second  House.  The  coolness  of  the  Manchester  papers  was  such 
as  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  Liverpool  Press,  and  the  Mercury  wrote : — 

The  Manchester  papers  are  not  in  an  ecstatic  mood  over  the  passing.of  the  Ship  Canal 
Bill  by  the  Lords.  The  leading  morning  papers,  indeed,  have  never  been  able  to  work 
themselves  up  to  a  high  pitch  of  enthusiasm  about  the  scheme.  In  dealing  with  it  there 
has  been  an  unmistakable  undercurrent  of  misgiving.  Perhaps  it  is  that  they  are  acting 
on  the  wise  precaution  of  withholding  the  song  of  triumph  and  the  editorial  benediction  until 
all  the  preliminary  difficulties  have  been  safely  got  over. 

It  went  on  to  say  that  the  Manchester  Guardian  was  beginning  to  take  a  more 
hopeful  view  of  the  situation,  and  that  the  Examiner  and  Times,  which  had  blown 
hot  and  cold  according  to  the  varying  prospects  of  the  scheme,  was  now  relieving 
itself  by  a  tirade  against  "the  gentlemen  of  Liverpool"  who  had  broken  faith  by 
promising  to  accept  a  scheme  on  the  lines  laid  down  by  Mr.  Lyster,  and  then 
refusing  to  carry  out  the  promise. 


1885]  EVENTS   OF  THE  YEAR  255 

This  practice  of  stone-throwing  (said  the  article)  will  defeat  its  own  ends.  The  terms 
of  the  concession  upon  which  the  Bill  has  been  passed  are,  after  all,  very  much  like  presenting 
the  promoters  with  a  very  huge  white  elephant. 

The  Liverpool  Cottrier,  speaking  of  Mr.  Findlay  (of  the  London  and  North- 
Western  Railway),  said : — 

A  gentleman  tolerably  familiar  with  the  ways  of  the  moneyed  world  is  confident  the 
canal  company  will  not  be  able  to  raise  the  enormous  sum  mentioned. 

And  further  :— 

With  such  prospects  before  them  as  we  have  briefly  outlined,  is  it  likely  that  capitalists 
will  subscribe  the  five  millions  necessary  to  allow  the  works  to  proceed  ? 

The  Liverpool  Daily  Post  said  that 

The  Liverpool  authorities  should  start  with  the  irrevocable  determination  to  kill  this 
ridiculous  and  mischievous  scheme. 

The  same  paper  attributed  their  want  of  success  to  the  division  of  the  engineer- 
ing and  commercial  cases,  and  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  Lords  Milltown  and 
Romilly  would  have  thrown  out  the  Bill  on  the  engineering  case,  and  Lords 
Romilly  and  Arran  on  the  commercial  case,  and  that  then  Lord  Arran  was  so 
anxious  to  throw  out  the  Bill  that  he  wanted  to  hark  back  and  join  the  minority  on 
engineering,  but  that  his  colleagues  would  not  allow  him  to  change  his  mind.  This 
extraordinary  statement  induced  Mr.  J.  C.  Fielden  (of  Manchester)  to  write  and 
protest  against  the  unpardonable  liberty  that  had  been  taken  in  professing  to  publish 
the  private  views  of  the  Committee,  and  to  say  the  statement  was  both  absurd  and 
untrue. 

It  had  been  said  with  truth  that  much  apathy  existed  in  Liverpool,  and  that 
many  thought  well  of  the  canal.  An  attempt  was  now  made  to  rouse  the  com- 
mercial element  to  a  sense  of  danger,  and  persuade  them  that  the  future  prosperity 
of  Liverpool  depended  on  the  defeat  of  the  Bill  in  the  Commons. 

Sir  William  Forwood  assured  the  City  Council  that  the  Lords  passed  the  Bill 
though  three  members  out  of  five  were  against  it.  He  said  many  gentlemen  in 
Liverpool  thought  there  was  little  need  to  oppose  it,  because  if  carried  the  canal 
would  never  be  made  He  was  certain  the  advantage  to  Manchester  of  a  Ship 
Canal  would  be  practically  nil,  and  that  if  it  were  made  the  effect  on  the  bar  would 
be  to  deteriorate  it  by  the  accumulation  of  silt  and  detritus,  and  to  imperil  the 
£200,000,000  of  commerce  that  passed  through  Liverpool.  The  result  of  this 


256         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

alarming  speech  was  a  resolution  by  the  Liverpool  Corporation  to  vigorously  oppose 
the  Bill.  At  the  instance  of  Mr.  Henry  Coke,  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce 
also  passed  a  similar  resolution. 

When  argument  failed,  ridicule  was  brought  to  bear.  Speaking  of  the  canal, 
a  Liverpool  paper  called  it 

The  greatest  bubble  ever  thrust  upon  the  credulity  of  the  British  public  since  the  South 
Sea  Bubble. 

And  went  on  to  say  :— 

"  The  people  who  live  and  work  in  Manchester  have  had  called  before  their  mind's  eye 
delightful  visions  of  a  future  when  they  will  be  able  to  gaze  on  the  sea  and  the  ships  without 
taking  a  trip  to  Liverpool."  "Liverpool  citizens  have,  as  a  rule,  viewed  the  design  of  Mr. 
Leader  Williams  with  a  mixture  of  wonder  and  contempt,  and  have  never  conceived  the 
possibility  of  Parliament  endorsing  a  scheme  which  is  certain  to  fail  for  either  scientific  or 
commercial  reasons."  "  The  question  for  Parliament  is  :  should  the  very  existence  of  Liver- 
pool '  the  Port  of  the  World '  be  jeopardised  on  the  very  doubtful  chance  of  Manchester  people 
deriving  some  advantage  ?  "  "  The  Manchester  '  men  of  light  and  leading '  should  do  some- 
thing to  put  an  end  to  the  expensive  fizzle  on  which  engineers  and  lawyers  have  been 
fattening  for  many  months." 

Such  were  some  of  the  expressions  used  in  the  Liverpool  Press  with  the  evident 
intention  of  rousing  the  feelings  of  the  people  against  the  canal,  and  to  a  great 
extent  they  succeeded.  Though  many  shipowners  believed  that  the  monopolist 
policy,  which  made  Liverpool  a  very  dear  port,  was  more  harmful  than  ever  the 
Ship  Canal  could  be,  yet  the  masses  were  alarmed  at  the  war  cry  that  "  Liverpool 
would  be  ruined"  just  to  please  the  ambition  of  Manchester.  The  different  trading 
interests  which  had  been  in  conflict  before  now  were  invited  to  resist  the  common  foe. 

The  Mayor  of  Liverpool  wrote  to  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  :— 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  trade  competition.  It  is,  to  my  mind,  no  less  a  question  than 
whether  the  estuary  of  the  Mersey  shall  be  so  tampered  with  as  to  destroy  its  advantages 
as  a  port,  and  thus  ruin  not  Liverpool  only  but  all  interests — and  they  are  many — which 
depend  for  their  existence  upon  the  preservation  of  this  harbour,  I  cannot  but  think  the 
House  of  Commons  will  throw  out  the  Bill,  and  put  a  stop  for  ever  to  this  mischievous 
project. 

The  Chairman  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  said  :— 

If  the  operation  succeeded  it  might  be  death  to  Liverpool.  It  certainly  would  be  an 
enormous  injury. 

Sir  William  Forwood  blamed  the  people  of  Liverpool  for  their  apathy.  They 
had  believed  the  capital  to  make  the  canal  never  would  be  raised,  but  he  assured 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  257 

them  this  was  a  mistake.  The  men  of  light  and  leading  and  the  capitalists  in 
Manchester  were  not  supporting  the  Bill,  but  the  working  classes  were  enthusiastic 
in  its  support.  The  Chairman  was  Mr.  Adamson,  a  great  promoter  of  companies, 
not  all  of  which  were  successful,  and  he  was  supported  by  Mr.  Lawrence  of  the  Hull 
and  Barnsley  Railway,  a  most  disastrous  concern. 

Nearly  all  the  trading  companies  of  Liverpool  petitioned  against  the  Bill  in  the 
Commons.  Alluding  to  the  prevailing  excitement,  Mr.  Pember  once  said,  "they 
have  lost  their  heads,  you  can  do  no  good  with  them.  You  can't  reason  with 
a  startled  horse." 

When  the  question  of  again  giving  evidence  against  the  Bill  came  before  the 
Birkenhead  Corporation,  some  of  the  members  objected  to  such  repeated  wasteful 
expenditure,  and  it  was  urged  that  it  would  be  better  to  try  and  come  to  terms  with 
the  promoters.  It  was,  however,  decided  to  oppose  the  Bill. 

On  the  4th  June  the  Bill  was  read  a  second  time  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  referred  to  a  Select  Committee,  of  which  Mr.  W.  E.  Forster  (M.P.  for  Bradford) 
was  appointed  Chairman.  Full  particulars  of  the  Committee's  proceedings  will  be 
found  in  another  chapter.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  on  the  2Oth  July  Mr.  Forster 
cheered  the  hearts  of  the  promoters  by  announcing  that,  whilst  pronouncing  no 
opinion  on  the  commercial  case,  there  was  nothing  in  the  engineering  case  which 
would  cause  the  Committee  to  reject  the  Bill.  The  opponents  had  rather  hoped 
Mr.  Forster's  idea  of  pushing  the  canal  farther  inland  would  mean  taking  it  beyond 
the  limits  of  deviation,  and  thus  cause  a  collapse  of  the  Bill.  When  the  commercial 
case  came  on,  Sir  William  Forwood,  who  had  previously  been  the  chief  witness  for 
the  opponents,  disappeared.  His  friends  said  it  was  not  from  a  disinclination  to  be 
called,  but  because  his  evidence  did  not  need  repetition  in  face  of  the  strong  fresh 
evidence  that  had  been  presented,  whilst  the  promoters  attributed  it  to  an  unwilling- 
ness to  face  another  raking  examination  by  Mr.  Pember,  who  would  charge  him 
with  a  breach  of  his  promise  not  to  oppose  the  Bill. 

The  Provisional  Committee  were  very  indignant  with  what  they  termed  the 
faithlessness  of  Sir  William  Forwoocl  and  the  Dock  Board.  To  expose  it  they 
published  a  list  of  the  pledges  given  not  to  oppose  the  Bill  provided  the  suggested 
new  course  was  adopted.  There  can  be  no  question  the  alternative  scheme  pro- 
pounded, which  Liverpool  said  would  enable  the  canal  to  be  made  without  damaging 
their  interests  in  the  estuary,  materially  helped  in  the  rejection  of  the  Bill  of  1 884. 

When  these  pledges  were  given,  it  was  evidently  believed  that  the  promoters  would 
VOL.  i.  17 


258        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

have  neither  courage  nor  endurance  enough  to  bring  forward  a  third  scheme. 
Space  will  not  allow  me  to  give  the  evidence  in  full,  but  the  following  witnesses  then 
said  they  would  withdraw  their  opposition  if  the  promoters  would  fall  in  with  Mr. 
Lyster's  proposal,  viz.  :—^ 

1.  Captain  J.  B.  Eads,  America. 

2.  Sir  Frederick  Bramwell,  London. 

3.  Mr.  Thomas  Stevenson,  Edinburgh. 

4.  Mr.  G.  F.  Lyster,  Liverpool. 

5.  Mr.  Henry  Law,  Liverpool. 

6.  Mr.  Leveson  Vernon-Harcourt,  London. 

7.  Mr.  T.  D.  Hornby,  Liverpool. 

8.  Sir  William  B.  Forwood,  Liverpool. 

9.  Mr.  Stephen  Williamson,  M.P.,  Liverpool. 

Mr.  Bidder,  Q.C.,  and  Mr.  Aspinall,  Q.C.,  in  their  speeches  both  confirmed  the 
pledge,  the  latter  usingt  hese  words  :— 

I  represent  the  Dock  Board  also,  and  I  am  authorised  in  the  strongest  possible  sense 
upon  behalf  of  the  Dock  Board,  to  ratify  that  offer  of  Sir  William  Forwood's  in  the  precise 
words  in  which  he  made  it. 

Meanwhile,  the  Liverpool  Press  were  pouring  out  the  vials  of  their  wrath  on  the 
devoted  canal.  They  gave  a  precis  of  Mr.  Collier's  evidence  on  behalf  of  the 
Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  to  show  that  a  canalised  river  and  a  barge 
navigation  would  fulfil  all  the  requirements  of  Manchester,  also  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Patterson  who  said  : — 

I  am  quite  aware  the  capitalists  in  London  treat  the  proposal  as  sure  to  collapse  from 
internal  weakness. 

The  Liverpool  Courier,  commenting  on  the  engineering  evidence,  wrote  :— 

It  is  worth  remembering  that  if  these  expectations  of  the  engineers  should  be  realised, 
the  canal,  for  which  so  much  is  risked,  will  itself  be  utterly  useless  except  as  a  memorial  of 
stupendous  folly. 

Poor  Mr.  Lyster,  the  engineer  of  the  Dock  Board,  was  not  spared,  because  in 
his  innocence  he  had  suggested  a  canal  that  would  be  free  from  objection : — 

What  shall  we  say  of  Mr.  Lyster?  Least  said  soonest  mended.  The  well-intended 
suggestion  of  the  Dock  Board  engineer  has  coloured  with  perplexity  the  management  of  the 
Liverpool  case  this  year  in  Parliament. 

The  3Oth  July,  1885,  was  a  day  memorable  in  the  annals  of  Manchester,  for 
then  Mr.  Forster's  Committee  declared  the  preamble  proved,  subject  to  certain  con- 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  259 

clitions  and  clauses  to  be  afterwards  arranged.  These  occupied  three  days,  and  on 
the  3rd  of  August  the  Bill  was  formally  passed  and  reported  to  the  House  the  same 
night.  Seldom  has  a  Bill  been  pushed  through  with  such  celerity.  It  was  read  for 
the  third  time  on  the  5th  August  and  received  the  Royal  assent  on  6th  August,  1885. 
From  the  first  there  had  been  fears  of  a  dissolution  before  the  Bill  could  be  got 
through.  Thus  after  three  years  of  incessant  fighting,  during  which  the  battle 
favoured  each  side  in  turn,  a  final  and  decisive  victory  was  achieved  by  the  pro- 
moters. Their  success  was  welcomed  most  heartily,  not  only  in  Lancashire,  but  all 
over  England,  for  by  this  time  the  struggle  against  vested  interests,  in  order  to  free 
the  trade  of  a  district  from  the  thraldom  of  an  oppressive  monopoly,  had  attracted 
general  attention,  and  even  those  who  did  not  understand  the  question,  admired  the 
pluck  and  perseverance  exhibited  by  the  Manchester  Provisional  Committee,  with 
Mr.  Adamson  at  their  head.  The  fact,  too,  that  a  district  should  be  compelled 
to  spend  between  two  and  three  hundred  thousand  pounds  in  order  to  conduct 
its  own  business  in  its  own  way,  called  forth  much  comment,  and  roused  some 
indignation. 

Whilst  the  Manchester  papers  commented  on  the  success  with  becoming  modesty, 
some  very  hard  things  emanated  from  the  Press  of  the  sister  city.  The  Manchester 
Guardian  was  sure  the  public  would  not  be  slow  to  see  "the  motives  which  actuate 
those  gentlemen  who,  until  very  lately,  loudly  declared  they  did  not  fear  the  com- 
petition of  the  canal,  and  who  now  take  every  step  in  their  power  to  prevent 
its  construction ".  It  regretted,  too,  that  when  Mr.  Adamson  offered  to  meet  the 
opponents,  and  discuss  the  altered  line  of  the  canal,  they  had  declined  to  meet  him. 
It  hoped  the  conditions  inserted  would  not  be  too  onerous,  urged  that  the  question 
of  capital  should  be  faced  boldly  and  at  once,  congratulated  the  opponents  on  not 
attempting  to  defeat  or  obstruct  the  Bill  on  false  issues  or  as  regarded  time,  and 
quoted  Mr.  Forster  that,  "the  promoters  would  not  be  like  themselves  if  they 
gave  in  ". 

The  Liverpool  papers  did  not  think  it  possible  for  Manchester  to  raise  nearly 
,£7,000,000  of  money  in  two  years. 

The  whole  project  is  visionary  in  the  extreme,  and  one  should  not  be  surprised  if  it 
should  finally  dwindle  down  into  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  extension,  which  could  have 
been  obtained  without  so  much  fuss  and  expense. 

A  rather  rabid  prophet  wrote  to  the  Liverpool  Mercury :— 


a6o         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

It  will  be  a  sickening  day  on  'Change  in  Manchester  and  Liverpool  when,  after  only  a 
short  period,  the  river  channel  having  been  induced  to  flow  along  the  hard-defined  boundary 
of  the  canal,  silting  up  takes  place  and  a  shoaling  of  the  bar  follows. 

He  then  pictured  a  huge  ship  stranded  on  it,  and  the  commerce  of  Liverpool 
ruined,  also  further  damage  done  to  the  upper  estuary  by  the  new  channel  which 
"it  would  take  millions  to  restore".  Another  correspondent  in  the  Daily  Post 
advocated  paying  Manchester  off  in  her  own  coin  by  starting  cotton  mills  on  the 
banks  of  the  Great  Float  and  Wallasey  Pool. 

Manchester  proposed  to  throw  £10,000,000  into  a  big  ditch.  Let  Liverpool  put  half 
as  much  into  cotton  mills  at  Wallasey,  and  long  before  the  big  ditch  is  dug,  most  of  the  need 
for  it  will  have  disappeared. 

Mr.  Adamson's  homecoming  on  the  yth  August  was  made  the  occasion  of  a 
remarkable  demonstration.  He  was  met  at  Stockport  by  a  brass  band  and  a  large 
concourse  of  people  who  escorted  him  home.  On  the  way  he  passed  under  triumphal 
arches  which  bore  the  inscriptions  "Well  deserved  success"  and  "Welcome".  A 
stop  was  made  opposite  the  Didsbury  Hotel,  where  addresses  of  congratulation 
were  presented  to  him  by  Mr.  Kelley  (Secretary  of  the  Trades  Council)  on  behalf 
of  the  working  classes,  who  were  deeply  interested  in  the  canal,  and  by  Mr.  William 
Marsland,  on  behalf  of  the  workmen  of  Messrs.  Adamson  &  Co.,  of  Hyde.  In 
reply,  Mr.  Adamson  thanked  his  friends  most  heartily  for  their  kindness  and  en- 
thusiasm, and  said  they  had  won  one  of  the  greatest  battles  of  the  kind  that  had 
ever  been  fought.  Unfortunately,  in  the  hour  of  triumph  he  made  some  statements 
which  gave  his  opponents  a  subject  for  criticism. 

He  had  no  hesitation  in  asserting  that  in  five  years  after  the  canal  had  been 
opened  ^"10  shares  would  be  worth  £20,  and  before  it  had  been  opened  ten  years 
they  would  be  worth  ,£30.  Mr.  Adamson  here  was  too  optimistic,  but  his  prophecy 
that  the  canal  would  save  ^1,000,000  a  year  to  the  trade  of  the  district  has,  how- 
ever, been  realised. 

At  Eccles  on  receipt  of  the  news  cannons  were  fired,  the  church  bells  were 
rung,  flags  were  put  out  and  bands  of  music  paraded  the  streets.  It  was  also 
decided  to  present  an  illuminated  address  to  Mr.  Adamson,  prior  to  which  there 
was  to  be  a  trades  procession,  and  an  ox  roasted  in  a  public  place,  which  was 
afterwards  to  be  divided  among  the  poor  people. 

At  Warrington  a  public  meeting  was  held  and  an  address  presented.  Sir 
Gilbert  Greenall  and  Mr.  Adamson  were  among  the  speakers ;  the  latter  was  very 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  261 

severe  on  Sir  William  Forwood,  saying,   "he  merited  all  the  contempt  he  got  in 
Committee  "  for  making  a  promise  and  not  keeping  it. 

Similar  demonstrations  were  made  in  Stockport,  Oldham,  Widnes,  and  a  great 
many  other  Lancashire  towns  where  the  Ship  Canal  struggle  had  all  along  been 
watched  with  the  keenest  interest.  The  Corporation  of  Manchester  decided  to 
invite  Mr.  Adamson  to  a  banquet  in  honour  of  the  event.  Motions  of  congratula- 
tion were  also  passed  by  most  of  the  local  boards  and  public  bodies  round  Man- 
chester. 

On  the  i  Qth  August  a  meeting  of  the  subscribers  was  held  in  the  Free  Trade 
Hall,  Mr.  Adamson  in  the  chair.  He  was  received  with  great  enthusiasm,  and 
went  on  to  thank  the  subscribers  and  the  Manchester  Corporation  for  their  unwaver- 
ing and  cordial  support,  which  he  trusted  would  be  continued  now  the  capital  had  to 
be  raised.  He  recounted  the  almost  insuperable  difficulties  the  promoters  had  met 
with,  and  said  it  was  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  a  great  contention  that  not 
a  sixpence  was  paid  for  getting  rid  of  opponents'  claims.  He  admitted  clauses 
had  been  wrung  from  them  which  they  thought  unjust,  but  they  were  compelled 
often  to  settle  in  view  of  the  limited  time  at  their  disposal.  He  went  into  the 
savings  to  be  wrought  by  bringing  a  full  ship's  cargo  to  Manchester,  and  combated 
the  contention  of  his  kind  friend  Mr.  Patterson,  of  Liverpool,  that  a  barge  canal 
would  have  been  sufficient.  This  meant  helping  Liverpool  ten  times  as  much  as 
Manchester.  Unfortunately,  he  could  not  resist  the  opportunity  of  pouring  contempt 
on  his  old  antagonists,  Sir  William  Forwood,  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford  and  Mr. 
Pope.  The  first  he  called  the  Prince  of  Prevaricators,  the  second  turned  his  sewage 
into  the  Irwell,  and  then  was  the  first  to  seek  an  injunction  against  every  one  else ; 
and  as  for  "The  great  Northern  Pope,  Q.C.,"  as  he  called  him,  that  gentleman  had 
at  any  rate  done  them  the  justice  to  say,  "they  deserved  the  Bill  for  their  endurance, 
if  otherwise  they  had  no  right  to  have  it".  He  appealed  to  the  working  men  of 
Lancashire  to  help  in  finding  the  money,  and  said  that  if  they  smoked  and  drank  a 
little  less,  is.  per  week  would  soon  help  towards  paying  for  a  share.  If  it  did  no- 
thing else  but  encourage  thrift  and  sobriety,  the  Bill  would  be  a  blessing  to  Lanca- 
shire and  the  whole  district.  If  the  subscribers  got  no  other  reward  they  might  be 
sure  that  they  would  receive  the  thanks  and  prayers  of  thousands  who  succeeded 
them  for  the  good  work  they  had  done  in  their  day  and  generation.  Mr.  William 
Agnew,  M.P.,  in  proposing  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Chairman  and  the  Provisional 
Committee,  paid  a  high  compliment  to  the  sturdy  endurance  and  solid  weight-bear- 


262         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

ing  power  of  the  Chairman,  and  also  to  the  close  reasoning  and  marvellous  eloquence 
of  Mr.  Pember,  the  leading  counsel.  Such  service  could  not  be  bought  for  money ; 
his  heart  and  soul  were  in  the  business.  He  (Mr.  Agnew)  had  never  listened  with 
more  enraptured  satisfaction  to  any  man's  utterances  in  a  Committee  room  than  he 
had  done  last  year  to  part  of  the  speech  which  Mr.  Pember  took  thirteen  hours  to 
deliver. 

Alderman  W.  H.  Bailey  as  usual  could  not  refrain  fromajoke.  He  observed  that 
a  good  deal  had  been  said  concerning  the  Liverpool  Nebuchadnezzar,  Sir  William 
Forwood,  but  they  could  not  blame  that  gentleman  for  refusing  to  worship  at  the 
shrine  of  their  prophet  Daniel.  As  to  the  railways  reducing  their  fares  and  ruining 
the  canal,  he  assured  the  meeting  this  was  impossible — they  would  first  ruin  them- 
selves. 

At  another  congratulatory  meeting  he  contrasted  the  wear  and  tear  of  railways 
with  the  easy  passage  of  ships  over  waterways,  and  quoted  Byron  : — 

Time  writes  no  wrinkles  on  thine  azure  brow, 
Such  as  creation's  dawn  beheld,  thou  rollest  now. 

He  then  read  the  following  letter  which  he  had  received  from  the  venerable 
Lancashire  poet,  Edwin  Waugh  :— 

ABERFELDY,  N.B., 

August  loth,  1885. 

DEAR  BAILEY, 

I  have  just  been  reading  with  very  great  pleasure  your  able  review  of  the 
extraordinary  behaviour  of  Sir  William  Forwood  in  relation  to  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal. 
The  unscrupulous  bitterness  of  Liverpool  at  the  loss  of  its  great  marine  toll-bar  will  need 
constant  watching  and  careful  exposure  for  a  while.  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  great  deter- 
mination and  ability  which  has  achieved  the  passing  of  the  Canal  Bill  will  also  succeed  in 
raising  the  necessary  funds  within  the  stipulated  time ;  but  the  opponents  of  the  Bill  are 
evidently  determined  to  stick  at  nothing  to  prevent  it.  If  Mr.  Adamson  and  Mr.  Pember 
never  do  another  stroke  of  business  in  their  lives,  they  deserve  the  gratitude  of  the  whole 
kingdom  for  the  noble  way  in  which  they  have  fought  out  that  great  battle,  and  their  names 
will  be  honourably  connected  with  it  long  after  they  are  gathered  to  their  fathers. 

EDWIN  WAUGH. 

The  Liverpool  Press  commented  strongly  on  Mr.  Adamson's  attempt  to  de- 
preciate the  value  of  the  Dock  Board  property,  and  on  the  various  attacks  on 
Sir  William  Forwood,  also  on  his  optimism  in  believing  in  a  20  per  cent  dividend. 
The  Chairman  of  the  Dock  Board  (Mr.  Hornby)  at  the  next  meeting  after  the  Bill 


Slk    \\~II.I.1AM    IT.    IiAll.KV,   DIRECTOR,    M.XXCHKSTKR    SHIP    CANAL 

COMPANY. 

Guttenburg.  To  face  page  262. 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  263 

was  passed,  consoled  his  colleagues  by  saying  that  though  they  had  lost,  they  had 
succeeded  in  introducing  monetary  and  other  clauses  with  which  it  would  be  difficult 
for  the  promoters  to  comply,  for  they  were  unusually  onerous.  In  some  cases  these 
clauses  conferred  a  freer  use  of  the  canal,  and  in  others  imposed  very  serious  liabili- 
ties on  the  promoters  for  carrying  out  works  of  various  kinds,  including  keeping  open 
communications  with  the  Mersey  and  maintaining  a  fixed  depth  of  water,  construct- 
ing roads,  wharves,  locks  and  working  ferries  and  bridges.  He  complained  of  the 
evil  speaking  to  which  the  Dock  Board  had  been  subjected  when  it  was  said  "neither 
on  engineering  nor  on  commercial  grounds  have  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board  or  Cor- 
poration the  slightest  ground  for  honourably  opposing  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  in  the 
ensuing  session ".  He  was  of  opinion  if  their  engineer  had  not  devised  an  alter- 
native scheme  the  Bill  would  have  been  doomed.  It  was  hurried  and  they  did  not 
get  the  clauses  for  protection  they  wished,  but  clauses  were  given  to  the  Mersey 
Conservancy  Commissioners  which  it  was  to  be  hoped  would  protect  the  river.  On 
the  whole,  he  considered  the  Liverpool  opposition  was  vindicated  by  the  result,  and 
they  had  prevented  interest  being  paid  out  of  capital  during  the  construction  of  the 
works.  At  a  subsequent  meeting  Mr.  Littledale,  a  member  of  the  Board,  pointed 
out  that  Mr.  Lyster's  plan,  which  Sir  William  Forwood  promised  not  to  oppose,  had 
been  declared  by  their  own  expert,  Captain  Graham  Hills,  to  be  most  injurious  to 
the  estuary. 

Directly  the  Bill  was  passed  Sir  William  Forwood,  Messrs.  Patterson,  Coke 
and  others  commenced  a  correspondence  in  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester  papers, 
with  the  evident  intention  of  disparaging  the  canal  and  preventing  the  capital  being 
subscribed.  These  letters  and  the  replies  to  them  are  very  interesting,  but  space  will 
not  allow  of  their  insertion. 

When  Mr.  Forster  reported  the  Ship  Canal  Bill,  Sir  A.  Otway  moved  that  the 
report  be  received,  and  the  Standing  Orders  having  been  suspended,  the  Bill  was 
read  a  third  time,  and  thus,  after  three  years'  hard  fighting,  the  right  was  obtained  of 
making  a  Ship  Canal  to  Manchester. 

The  Provisional  Committee  then  began  seriously  to  form  plans  for  raising  the 
money.  As  power  to  issue  £i  shares  could  not  be  obtained,  they  were  fixed  at 
^"10  each.  It  was  proposed  to  make  the  payments  easy;  the  calls  were  not  to 
exceed  £\,  and  not  more  than  £2  IDS.  was  to  be  called  up  in  any  twelve  months. 
It  was  felt  that  the  refusal  to  allow  payment  of  interest  during  construction  would  be 
a  serious  block,  and  it  was  determined  early  on  to  apply  for  that  power  in  the  next 


264         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

session  of  Parliament,  especially  as  it  had  been  granted  elsewhere.  Various  sug- 
gestions were  made  for  raising  the  capital.  The  City  News  urged  that  Manchester 
and  the  surrounding  towns  should  contribute  liberally,  and  if  there  were  legal  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  their  doing  so,  that  an  application  should  be  made  to  Parliament 
to  give  the  necessary  powers.  Suggestions  came  from  several  working  men  that 
means  should  be  taken  to  allow  them  to  contribute  small  sums,  and  it  was  quite 
evident  that  the  working  classes  were  thoroughly  in  earnest,  and  willing  to  help 
according  to  their  means.  To  meet  their  case  it  was  arranged  to  issue  is.  coupons 
in  books  of  ten  each,  the  Ward  Committees  to  collect  the  money  till  there  was  a 
sufficiency  to  purchase  a  share.1 

The  Civic  Banquet  in  celebration  of  the  passing  of  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  took 
place  on  6th  September,  Sir  John  Harwood,  the  Mayor,  in  the  chair.  He  was 
supported  by  his  colleagues  in  the  City  Council,  the  Mayors  of  surrounding  towns, 
the  Consular  body,  the  local  M.P.'s  and  many  leading  citizens.  Mr.  Adamson  and 
the  Ship  Canal  Directors  and  staff,  with  their  leading  counsel,  Mr.  Pember,  Q.C., 
were  the  guests  of  the  evening.  The  Chairman  heartily  congratulated  the  Ship 
Canal  promoters  (and  especially  Mr.  Adamson)  on  their  success ;  they  deserved  well 
at  the  hands  of  Manchester,  and  he  hoped  a  good  providence  would  spare  them  to 
complete  their  labours.  "  If  there  be  any  man  of  wealth  in  our  midst  who  will  not 
come  forward  at  this  time  to  the  help  of  those  who  have  this  project  in  hand,  and 
will  not  do  something  beyond  his  own  selfish  interest  and  self-gratification,  something 
in  the  interests  of  humanity"  (to  use  the  words  of  Sir  Walter  Scott),  "he  shall  go 
down  to  the  dust  from  which  he  sprung,  unwept,  unhonoured  and  unsung".  Mr. 
Adamson,  in  responding,  paid  a  high  compliment  to  his  colleagues,  the  engineer,  the 
solicitors,  and  the  four  counsel  (of  whom  Mr.  Pember  was  the  leader),  and  asked  for 
the  monetary  support  of  the  mercantile  men  of  Manchester — of  the  support  of  the 
working  classes  he  was  already  well  assured. 

Mr.  Pember  made  a  very  happy  speech.  Manchester  had  now  been  married 
to  the  sea,  or  rather  he  should  say  betrothed,  for  her  true  marriage  morning  would 
be  that  on  which  the  rising  flood  tide  on  the  Mersey  rippled  through  Mr.  Leader 
Williams'  flood  gates  at  Eastham.  He  had  been  so  long  a  witness  to  the  heroic 
refusal  of  Lancashire  and  Cheshire  to  acknowledge  or  tolerate  defeat,  that  he  could 
not  imagine  they  would  now  basely  repudiate  victory.  All  great  enterprises  must 
be  started  to  some  degree  on  chance,  and  must  involve  some  risk,  but  he  looked 
hopefully  on  the  monetary  prospects  of  the  canal.  In  the  future  of  England  there 

1  See  Specimen. 


o 

U 

o  w 

5  £ 

i-l  W 

•J  > 

~  W 


Ed  D 
Z  Z 
O  < 

S 


en 


z  3 
w  u 
a,  > 


a  "i 

<s  a 


2  3 


W   W 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  265 

would  be  room  enough  and  to  spare  for  both  Manchester  and  Liverpool,  and  he 
trusted  both  of  them  would  advance  along  the  paths  of  commerce,  at  once  the  greatest 
rivals  and  the  greatest  friends. 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright  thought  it  childish  to  suppose  the  capital  required  for  the 
scheme  would  not  be  forthcoming,  and  the  Mayor  in  replying  to  his  health  said  he 
considered  the  2d.  in  the  £\  added  to  the  rates  for  the  Bill  had  been  well-spent 
money. 

On  Saturday,  3rd  October,  the  people  of  Manchester  gave  vent  to  their  jubilant 
feelings  in  a  great  trades  procession,  with  subsequent  public  meetings.  From  the 
first  the  various  trade  guilds  of  Manchester  had  been  some  of  the  heartiest  supporters 
of  the  canal ;  they  saw  in  it  more  work,  cheaper  food  and  greater  general  prosperity, 
and  they  were  anxious  to  further  the  cause  and  show  their  gratitude  to  the  men  who 
had  so  successfully  fought  the  battle  in  London. 

So  it  was  arranged  to  have  a  general  holiday,  and  that  the  Trade  Societies  of 
the  town,  with  their  flags,  banners  and  insignia  of  office,  should  meet  in  Albert 
Square  and  walk  to  Belle  Vue  Gardens.  They  met  at  noon  to  the  number  of 
about  30,000,  and  were  headed  by  Mr.  Adamson,  who  had  with  him  in  his  carriage 
Mr.  Pember,  Q.C.,  and  Mr.  Leader  Williams.  Following  were  Mr.  Jacob  Bright, 
M.  P.,  Mr.  Houldsworth,  M.P.,  the  Provisional  Committee,  and  many  of  the  leading 
subscribers.  In  the  procession  were  also  the  Mayors  and  Corporations  of  Man- 
chester and  Salford,  and  bringing  up  the  rear  were  the  various  Temperance  Societies 
of  the  city.  For  want  of  room  it  was  arranged  the  latter  should  hold  their  meetings 
in  Alexandra  Park.  The  procession  of  the  societies  was  original  and  characteristic. 
The  boilermakers  and  shipbuilders  carried  a  model  of  a  large  screw  steamer. 
The  engineers,  3,000  in  number,  hoisted  various  emblems.  The  bakers  bore  aloft 
an  enormous  loaf,  with  the  name  of  Daniel  Adamson  on  it.  The  tinplate  workers 
had  made  a  suit  of  armour  for  their  standard-bearer  which  was  much  admired. 
Each  of  the  glass-workers  wielded  a  glass  sword,  and  many  had  glass  helmets 
which  sparkled  and  were  very  effective.  The  Orders  of  Foresters  and  Oddfellows, 
arrayed  in  their  insignia,  with  green  and  red  sashes,  made  a  most  imposing  sight. 
They  carried  a  large  model  of  a  powerful  steam-tug  bringing  a  ship  freighted 
with  cotton  up  the  canal.  The  bookbinders  held  aloft  an  enormous  volume  entitled 
The  Revival  of  Lancashire  Industries,  by  Daniel  Adamson.  The  umbrella 
makers  appropriately  carried  umbrellas,  which  were  of  various  colours,  and  were  a 
striking  feature  in  the  show.  Unfortunately,  the  weather  was  somewhat  boisterous  : 


266         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

with  this  exception  the  procession  was  a  conspicuous  success ;  it  was  four  miles  long, 
and  the  van  had  reached  Belle  Vue  before  the  rear  had  left  the  Square.  The  crowd 
in  the  streets  was  most  enthusiastic,  especially  in  the  reception  they  gave  to  Mr. 
Adamson  and  Mr.  Pember.  Speeches  were  made  by  Mr.  Adamson,  Mr.  Pember, 
the  Mayor  of  Manchester  and  several  Trades  Union  leaders,  but  the  noise  and 
weather  combined  prevented  them  being  heard  by  every  one. 

Afterwards,  Mr.  Adamson  and  party  hurried  off  to  Alexandra  Park,  where  the 
temperance  contingent  had  assembled,  with  the  Mayor  of  Salford  as  Chairman. 
Here  another  round  of  speeches  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Adamson,  Dr.  Pankhurst 
and  others. 

The  demonstrations  in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal  were  continued  on  the  suc- 
ceeding Monday  night  in  the  Free  Trade  Hall,  a  citizens'  meeting  being  held  to 
hear  addresses  from  Mr.  Adamson,  Mr.  Pember,  Mr.  H.  M.  Stanley  and  other 
eminent  citizens.  The  hall  was  densely  packed.  Mr.  Adamson  desired  the 
audience  to  give  a  hearty  welcome  to  Mr.  Pember,  who  had  fought  the  Ship  Canal 
battle  with  great  zeal  and  ability  ;  he  then  went  into  the  question  of  the  large  savings 
that  would  be  effected  to  the  traders  of  Manchester  and  the  surrounding  towns. 
Speaking  of  his  times  of  depression  and  encouragement,  he  mentioned  that  when 
he  returned  from  London  sick  at  heart  at  losing  the  1883  Bill,  the  very  next 
morning's  post  brought  him  a  promise  of  ,£500  from  Mrs.  Jacob  Bright  and  of 
;£  1,000  from  Mr.  John  Rylands,  and  this  encouraged  him  to  go  on.  Mr.  Pember 
followed,  and  astonished  his  audience  by  his  eloquence  and  wonderful  memory. 
He  went  through  all  the  figures  of  his  commercial  case,  and  the  particulars  of  the 
principal  witnesses'  evidence  almost  without  a  note.  He  indulged  in  some  pleasantry 
about  Sir  William  Forwood  who,  in  1884,  put  the  traffic  of  Liverpool  at  25,000,000 
tons  when  he  had  no  reason  to  say  otherwise,  and  then  when  he  wanted  to  show 
that  Manchester  could  get  no  traffic,  he  tried  to  back  out  of  his  previous  statements. 
Mr.  Pember  would  not  wonder  if  for  once  in  his  life  Sir  William  was  right  in  his 
25,000,000  tons,  adding,  "  It  is  a  perfectly  legitimate  thing  to  be  taught  even  by  an 
enemy  ". 

He  recounted  how  when  first  he  was  retained  as  counsel  his  friends  used  to 
say  of  the  canal,  "  Of  course  you  do  not  like  to  say  so,  but  it  is  all  moonshine,  is  it 
not?  Parliament  will  never  pass  it — it  is  a  mischievous  idea."  Others  said,  "Why 
the  deuce  can't  they  let  things  alone"  (laughter).  This  was  said  by  excellent 
people  who  knew  nothing  of  the  nature  or  merits  of  the  project. 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  267 

Mr.  H.  M.  Stanley  said  when  he  came  to  Manchester  the  previous  Saturday 
in  the  same  carriage  with  a  Frenchman,  there  was  so  much  stir  in  the  town,  crowds, 
Hags,  etc.,  that  his  companion  got  anxious,  thinking  there  was  a  revolution,  but  on 
asking  a  young  man  at  the  station,  "What  is  the  matter?"  the  reply  was,  "Oh, 
Manchester  has  gone  mad "  (laughter).  "In  what  way?"  "Oh,  don't  you  know 
— have  you  never  heard  of  the  Ship  Canal  ? "  He  really  had  never  thought  of  it 
till  that  time,  though  he  recollected,  when  on  the  Congo,  reading  of  some  Ship  Canal 
inquiry  from  some  interior  town  called  Manchester.  If  he  could  only  persuade  Mr. 
Adamson  to  assist  them  in  building  the  Congo  railways,  that  and  the  cheapening  of 
carriage  by  the  Ship  Canal  would  assist  in  realising  his  beautiful  vision  of  the 
millions  of  yards  of  cotton  cloth  and  other  materials  that  would  go  to  the  Congo, 
and  they  would  then  have  a  better  chance  of  beating  their  German  competitors. 

It  could  not  be  expected  that  the  jubilation  in  Manchester  could  pass  by  without 
comment  in  the  Liverpool  papers.  The  Echo  poked  fun  at  the  ox  roasted  at 
Eccles,  and  said : — - 

If  the  promoters  are  going  to  raise  their  millions  through  the  instrumentality  of  popular 
shows,  they  should  capture  the  great  Barnum,  and  profit  by  his  experience  in  working  up 
sensations  and  appealing  to  the  imagination  of  the  mob.  There  should  be  a  substantial 
practical  outcome  of  all  this  exuberance  :  processions,  banners,  bands,  feasting,  and  a  profuse 
interchange  of  compliments  are  all  very  well  in  their  way,  but  much  more  will  be  necessary 
before  the  sea  finds  its  way  to  Manchester. 

The  Courier  wrote  : — 

But  why  Manchester  should  go  into  ecstasies  over  the  Canal  Bill  in  chill  October  may 
not  perhaps  be  intelligible  to  the  unsophisticated  public,  yet  the  reason  is  very  plain.  They 
have  got  the  Bill,  now  they  want  the  cash.  That  Manchester  will  ever  see  masts  of  the  great 
steamships  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  East  Indies  mingling  with  its  chimney  stacks  is  a  pictur- 
esque scene  never  to  be  realised.  This  sober  fact  should  be  borne  in  mind  by  those  who 
put  their  money  in  the  gutter. 

Mr.  Henry  Coke  told  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce  that  the  demon- 
strations in  Manchester  reminded  him  of  a  Bombay  company  in  1864,  got  UP  to 
cut  a  new  channel  to  Back  Bay  with  ,£2,000,000  capital.  Shares  worth  .£500  went 
up  to  ,£2,500,  then  the  bank  failed :  it  was  a  great  fiasco.  The  channel  never  was 
made,  all  the  illuminating  and  tom-tomming  was  a  fraud,  and  the  people  lost  all  their 
money.  Evidently  he  expected  the  same  fate  would  befal  the  Ship  Canal. 

Two  controversies  at  this  time  occupied  much  space  in  the  Manchester  papers. 
One  between  Sir  Joseph  Heron  and  Mr.  John  Patterson,  of  Liverpool,  and  the 


268        HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL       [1885 

other  on  "What  is  a  Port?"  Mr.  Patterson  stated  that  it  was  under  the  lead  of 
Sir  Joseph  Heron  that  Liverpool  was  compelled  to  buy  the  Birkenhead  Docks,  and 
so  increase  the  dock  debt.  This  Sir  Joseph  indignantly  repudiated.  There  was 
not  the  slightest  ground  for  such  a  statement.  The  ,£1,143,000  paid  by  the  Liver- 
pool Corporation  for  docks  in  1855  to  get  rid  of  the  opponents  of  town  dues,  was 
the  act  solely  of  the  Liverpool  Corporation,  and  the  after  expenditure  was  largely 
under  Acts  obtained  as  early  as  1853,  whilst  the  first  Act,  for  which  Manchester 
was  responsible,  was  dated  1857.  He  admitted  it  was  a  mistake  that  Act  did  not 
stipulate  the  dues  should  cease  when  the  money  paid  by  the  Corporation  had  been 
recouped  out  of  the  dues  collected,  but  it  was  always  expected  this  would  be  done. 
Mr.  Patterson  in  reply  argued  that  though  the  Liverpool  Corporation  had  the  then 
moribund  Birkenhead  Docks  to  deal  with  in  1855,  it  was  not  till  1857,  and  at  the 
instance  of  Manchester  and  other  parties,  that  the  Dock  and  Corporation  properties 
were  merged.  He  taunted  Sir  Joseph  with  never  having  attempted  to  correct  the 
mistake  he  admitted  was  made  as  to  the  dues. 

Sir  Joseph  Heron  rejoined  that  in  1855-56,  and  before  Manchester  actively 
interfered,  the  Dock  Board  and  Corporation  were  negotiating  as  to  the  Birkenhead 
Docks,  and  that  the  former  knew  they  were  incomplete  and  would  need  a  large 
expenditure. 

Mr.  Patterson  then  explained  that  if  Manchester  did  not  interfere  prior  to  1857 
it  was  not  their  fault,  for  they  tried  to  get  a  locus  standi  and  were  refused,  and  he 
again  charged  Sir  Joseph  with  want  of  prevision  about  the  dues  which  had  remained 
to  be  a  blister  on  the  trade  of  Liverpool.  He  ended  by  saying,  "To  this  statement 
I  firmly  adhere  ". 

The  "What  is  a  Port  ?  "  controversy  was  started  by  a  letter  from  Mr.  Howard 
Livesey,  of  Lancaster,  to  the  London  Times.  He  maintained  there  must  be  a 
good  waterway  and  an  existing  market  to  make  a  port : — 

To  suppose  the  merchants  of  Liverpool  would,  in  case  the  canal  were  made,  vacate  and 
establish  their  base  of  operations  in  Manchester  is  too  absurd,  and  yet  nothing  short  of  such 
an  issue  would  give  Manchester  the  smallest  chance  of  becoming  a  port. — There  is  no  room 
or  occasion  for  more  marts  for  foreign  produce,  at  least  in  this  part  of  the  Kingdom.  In  the 
nature  of  things  centres  for  the  sale  of  foreign  produce  cannot  be  too  numerous.  If  Man- 
chester is  ever  connected  with  the  sea,  and  if  anything  is  ever  imported  there,  the  least  likely 
of  any  foreign  produce  to  come  is  cotton,  and  yet  the  importation  of  cotton  is  made  the  basis 
of  the  hope  of  the  canal  enthusiasts. — We  have  one  port  in  this  part  of  England  which  is 
quite  adequate  and  which  cannot  be  rivalled  or  opposed.  We  have  one  exchange  for  the 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  269 

home  cotton  trade  which  is  established  in  Manchester.  This  is  exactly  what  I  say  in  regard 
to  the  importing  trade,  which  cannot  be  taken  from  Liverpool  where  it  is  firmly  and  perman- 
ently established. 

The  above  are  extracts  from  a  long  letter,  and  were  not  encouraging  to  pro- 
moters just  about  to  raise  ^10,000,000  of  money. 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright,  M.  P.,  in  an  excellent  letter,  showed  the  transparent  fallacies 
in  Mr.  Livesey's  letter,  and  said  that  the  same  argument  could  have  been  used 
even  by  Lancaster  and  Chester,  which  towns  Liverpool  in  bygone  times  had  sup- 
planted. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Raeburn,  shipowner,  of  Glasgow,  also  wrote  showing  Glasgow's 
being  farther  up  the  Clyde  had  not  prevented  her  progressing  much  faster  than 
Greenock,  and  that  trade  would  go  where  there  was  population  to  manufacture 
goods  and  consume  food.  Also  that  the  sea  carriage  was  as  cheap  for  the  longer 
distance  to  Glasgow. 

Many  other  correspondents  joined  in  the  prolonged  newspaper  war.  The 
London  Times,  in  an  article  summarising  the  correspondence,  said  : — 

Direct  sea  communication  with  a  town  like  Manchester,  with  the  consequent  saving  of 
the  break  in  the  conveyance  of  the  material  of  its  industry,  is  like  an  invention  of  improved 
machinery  for  the  sole  benefit  of  cotton  spinners.  They  will  be  enabled  to  work  more 
cheaply.  Liverpool  does  not  endeavour  to  mitigate  the  strain  of  the  yoke.  Its  tolls  on  the 
goods  which  have  to  pass  its  docks  are  heavy  and  complicated.  Its  cotton  rings  irritate  to 
frenzy  the  Manchester  spinners,  who  find  their  industry  subjected  to  the  schemes  of  knots  of 
speculators  whom  they  regard  as  no  better  than  gamblers  at  their  expense.  In  the  Ship 
Canal  project  they  see  the  means  of  breaking  the  Liverpool  chain  from  off  their  necks. 
It  has  awakened  in  Manchester  an  enthusiasm  not  inferior  to  that  for  the  Anti-corn  Law 
League. 

On  the  1 5th  October  the  Salford  Town  Council  agreed  to  contribute  ,£250,000 
towards  the  Ship  Canal  capital,  and  deposited  a  Bill  for  that  purpose. 

The  Press  and  the  Public  were  divided  as  to  the  best  means  of  raising  the 
;£8, 000,000  required.  On  one  hand,  it  was  held  that  the  working  classes  ought  not 
to  be  asked  to  risk  their  earnings,  and  that  Corporations  had  no  right  to  help  what 
was  termed  a  private  enterprise  that  might  end  in  disappointment  and  loss,  and  that 
unwilling  ratepayers  ought  not  to  be  compelled  to  contribute.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  contended  that  the  wage-earning  classes  were  more  interested  in  the  Ship 
Canal  than  any  other,  and  that  even  if  no  dividend  were  earned,  cheap  living,  good 
wages,  and  a  good  supply  of  work  would  be  advantages  that  would  yield  an  indirect 


270         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

dividend.  As  a  reason  that  Corporations  should  take  shares,  it  was  urged  that  the 
canal  would  be  a  great  highway  upon  which  the  future  prosperity  of  Lancashire 
would  depend,  and  that  they  should  have  such  an  interest  in  the  canal  as  would  give 
them  influence  and  voting  power,  so  as  to  prevent  it  becoming  merely  a  money- 
making  concern  or  passing  into  the  hands  of  monopolist  railway  companies.  It  was 
further  urged  that  if  the  various  Corporations  of  Lancashire  had  an  interest,  this 
would  facilitate  the  canal  gliding  into  a  public  trust. 

Mr.  Adamson  had  an  idea  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  raising  the  capital, 
and  on  the  8th  October,  1885,  a  private  and  confidential  preliminary  prospectus  was 
sent  out.  No  portion  was  to  be  underwritten,  and  no  brokers  were  retained  to  assist 
with  the  capital.1  The  prospectus  was  issued  to  capitalists  and  others,  and  asked  for 
,£8,000,000  in  ,£10  shares.  Application  was  to  be  made  to  the  National  and  Pro- 
vincial Bank  of  England,  and  other  Manchester  and  local  banks.  The  estimated  cost 
put  before  Parliament  for  the  works  was  ,£6,311,137.  A  contract,  however,  had 
been  entered  into  with  Messrs.  Lucas  &  Aird  to  execute  the  work  for  ,£5,750,000, 
and  the  contractors  had  engaged  to  pay  4  per  cent,  interest  on  capital  during  con- 
struction. 

Each  subscriber  to  the  Parliamentary  Fund  had  a  prior  right  to  have  shares 
allotted  up  to  twenty  times  the  amount  of  his  subscription,  and  what  he  had  already 
paid  up  was  to  be  taken  as  part  payment  of  the  shares.  When  the  Bill  was  passed 
most  of  the  subscribers  availed  themselves  of  their  right,  and  the  .£750,000  allotted 
shares  afterwards  referred  to,  were  largely  taken  up  by  original  subscribers  to  the 
Parliamentary  Fund. 

When  the  Commons  had  passed  the  1885  Ship  Canal  Bill,  there  was  a  general 
feeling  that  the  Board  should  be  strengthened,  and  in  the  1885  prospectus  the  follow- 
ing gentlemen  were  stated  to  be  willing  to  join  the  Board  at  the  first  ordinary  meet- 
ing of  shareholders,  viz. : — 

William  Henry  Houldsworth,  Esq.,  M.P.,  Knutsford. 

Sir  Joseph  Cocksey  Lee,  J.P.,  Manchester. 

Alderman  W.  H.  Bailey,  Salford. 

John  Rogerson,  Esq.,  Durham. 

(The  latter  an  old  friend  of  Mr.  Adamson's.) 

The  result  of  the  first  prospectus  was  very  disappointing ;  the  response  was 
most  feeble,  only  £750,000  of  ordinary  shares  were  applied  for,  and  the  issue  was 
at  once  withdrawn ;  it  became  very  evident  that  to  obtain  the  capital  it  would  be 

1  See  Appendix  No.  IV. 


1885]  EVENTS  OF  THE  YEAR  271 

necessary  to  get  legal  power  to  pay  interest  during  construction,  so  on  the  I3th 
November  a  Bill  was  deposited  for  that  purpose. 

The  necessity  for  a  Ship  Canal  to  Manchester  has  often  had  to  be  justified. 
It  received  confirmation,  however,  from  an  unexpected  quarter.  Sir  A.  B.  Forwood, 
addressing  the  Liverpool  Dock  ratepayers  on  the  nth  December,  told  them,  "He 
did  not  believe  they  would  have  heard  one  word  about  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal 
scheme  if  the  Dock  Board  had  not  kept  the  rates  so  high  ". 

During  November  a  most  determined  attack  was  made  by  a  professedly 
nautical  man  who  wrote  under  the  name  of  "  Navigator,"  and  who  declared  the 
water  in  the  canal  would  be  inadequate  for  a  large  trade,  that  it  would  be  frozen  for 
weeks  together,  and  that  when  the  ice  broke  up  the  injury  to  screws  and  paddle- 
wheels  from  floating  ice  would  make  the  canal  unusable.  Mr.  Leader  Williams 
and  Mr.  Jacob,  the  surveyor  of  Salford,  gave  convincing  answers  founded  on 
evidence  given  before  the  Parliamentary  Committee,  but  still  "Navigator"  went 
on  trying  to  alarm  the  public  by  the  contention  that  because  Rostherne  Mere  froze 
in  winter  the  canal  must  do  so  likewise.  The  result  has  shown  what  illegitimate 
arguments  were  used  to  damage  the  canal. 

The  year  closed  on  the  Directors  as  they  were  busily  engaged  in  preparations 
to  obtain  the  necessary  capital  to  make  the  canal. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
1885. 

SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS— EVIDENCE 
BEFORE  COMMITTEE  — SPEECHES  OF  COUNSEL— BILL 
PASSED  WITH  ONEROUS  CONDITIONS. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  have  never  had  any  jealousy  whatever  on  the  question  of  com- 
petition between  water  and  rail.  I  believe  there  is  a  trade  for  the  water  and  a  trade  for  the 
rail.  In  addition  to  that,  I  think  there  is  a  traffic  sometimes  carried  by  railway  which  might 
be  carried  more  profitably  by  water. — Sir  E.  W.  WATKIN. 

ON  1 2th  March,  1885,  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  was  for  the  fifth  time  brought 
before  a  Parliamentary  Committee.  It  consisted  of  the  following  members 
of  the  House  of  Lords:  Earl  Cowper  (Chairman),  Earl  of  Milltown,  Earl 
of  Arran  (Baron  Sudley),  Lord  Harris  and  Lord  Romilly.  The  promoters  practi- 
cally made  no  change  in  their  counsel,  but  inasmuch  as  the  alteration  of  front  as 
regarded  the  estuary  involved  fresh  interests,  several  new  counsel  appeared  for  the 
opponents,  notably  Mr.  Reader  Harris  for  the  Salt  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  Mr. 
Meysey  Thompson  for  the  borough  of  Widnes,  and  Wigg  Bros,  of  Runcorn. 

The  Committee  being  quite  ignorant  of  the  case  and  its  varying  aspects,  it  was 
necessary  to  begin  de  novo  with  the  engineering  and  commercial  evidence.  This 
will  not  be  recapitulated,  the  intention  being  to  direct  attention  to  evidence  regard- 
ing the  changed  course  of  the  canal,  and  any  fresh  matter  connected  with  the  case. 

The  hearing  commenced  on  the  1 2th  March,  and  the  decision  was  given  on 
6th  May.  The  promoters  had  seventy-six  engineering,  commercial  and  other  wit- 
nesses, the  chief  engineer  being  under  examination  for  four  days.  The  opponents 
had  forty-two  witnesses.  There  were  thirty-one  petitions  against  the  Bill,  of  which 
twelve  were  supported  by  counsel. 

Mr.  Pember,  Q.C.,  after  alluding  to  the  history  and  vicissitudes  of  the  Ship 

Canal  Bill,  said  that  last  session  the  opponents,  in  their  desire  to  get  rid  of  the 

(272) 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  273 

proposed  channel  down  the  middle  of  the  estuary,  promised  that  if  it  were  with- 
drawn, and  next  year  the  promoters  would  come  for  a  Bill  to  skirt  the  side  of  the 
estuary,  they  would  not  oppose  it.  He  quoted  the  evidence  of  Sir  F.  Bramwell, 
and  Messrs.  Eads,  Lyster,  Thomas  Stevenson,  Law,  Vernon-Harcourt,  Hornby, 
and  last,  but  not  least,  of  Sir  William  Forwood,  who  had  pledged  Liverpool  not  to 
oppose.  He  expressed  himself  much  astonished  that,  after  practically  adopting  the 
plan  of  Mr.  Lyster,  the  dock  board  engineer,  he  should  still  meet  with  opposition, 
even  more  intense  than  before. 

After  describing  the  new  line  of  canal  from  Eastham  to  Runcorn,  Mr.  Pember 
explained  the  system  of  sluices  at  Weston,  whereby  the  waters  of  the  Weaver, 
after  crossing  the  canal,  passed  into  the  estuary,  and  showed  that  the  total  tidal 
abstraction  by  the  new  scheme  would  not  be  more  than  a  tenth  of  that  caused  by 
making  the  walls  of  the  Liverpool  Docks ;  it  only  amounted  to  about  3,000,000 
cubic  yards,  out  of  a  total  tidal  capacity  of  960,000,000  yards.  The  estimates 
for  the  works  exceeded  those  in  the  last  Bill  by  ,£388,000.  Speaking  of  the 
necessity  of  cheap  freightage,  he  said  England's  commercial  supremacy  often  rested 
on  a  balance  as  fine  as  a  razor's  edge,  and  that  the  transit  of  goods  between  Man- 
chester and  Liverpool  represented  2\  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the  manufactured 
article,  and  7  J  per  cent,  on  the  labour  it  took  to  produce  it.  Further,  that  whilst  on 
the  Continent  the  carriage  of  manufactures  averaged  one  penny  per  ton  per  mile, 
between  Liverpool  and  Manchester  the  average  was  over  threepence. 

At  this  point  the  Chairman  suggested  that  in  view  of  the  commercial  advantages 
being  acknowledged  twice  by  the  House  of  Commons  and  last  year  by  the  Lords, 
there  was  no  need  to  go  into  that  branch  of  the  case.  To  this  the  counsel  for  the 
Railways  and  the  Trafford  Estate  strongly  demurred.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the 
Lords  spent  twenty-one  days  the  previous  year  entirely  on  the  commercial  portion, 
but  after  the  protest  the  Committee  decided  to  hear  the  whole  case. 

Mr.  Pember  went  on  to  prove  there  was  a  reasonable  prospect  of  the  canal  pay- 
ing, "but,"  said  he,  "we  should  be  prepared,  and  I  will  undertake  to  say  the  whole 
of  Lancashire  will  be  prepared,  to  see  this  canal  made,  and  never  return  a  single 
sixpence  upon  its  working  expenses  for  the  sake  of  the  emancipation  they  would  get 
by  it".  He  then  dealt  with  the  petitions.  Of  the  one  from  the  Dock  Board  he 
said  it  complained  of  damage  to  the  estuary,  and  seemed  to  be  a  copy  of  that  of  last 
year,  notwithstanding  the  promoters  had  virtually  taken  the  canal  out  of  the  estuary 

for  a  length  of  13  miles.      It  stigmatised,  too,  the  provisions  in  the  Bill  regarding  the 
VOL.  i.  1 8 


274         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

return  of  the  land  water  above  and  below  Runcorn  as  illusory.  In  reply,  he  pleaded 
he  was  giving  three  or  four  times  more  capacity  for  passing  away  water  than  had 
previously  existed  at  the  Frodsham  openings.  As  to  the  complaint  of  encroachment, 
Liverpool  in  making  her  docks  had  taxed  the  estuary  to  the  tune  of  about  ten  times 
what  the  promoters  proposed  to  take,  and  themselves  said  they  had  done  no  harm. 
Of  the  Weaver  petition,  he  said  the  opponents  complained  of  loss  of  access  by  the 
interposition  of  the  canal  in  front  of  the  Weaver  and  the  works  at  Weston  Point. 
All  he  could  say  was  that  the  promoters  were  giving  far  better  openings  than  before  ; 
the  entrance  to  the  Weaver  itself  would  be  safer  and  deeper,  and  if  there  was  any 
difficulty  the  canal  could  be  used  by  paying  for  it. 

The  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company  for  two  years'  running  had  come  to 
a  formal  agreement  with  the  promoters  to  sell  them  their  undertakings.  These 
gentlemen  had  now  wakened  up  to  the  fact  that  for  ,£350,000  they  could  make  their 
navigation  9  feet  deep,  and  said  they  did  not  feel  bound  by  any  arrangements  they 
had  previously  made  to  sell  their  property.  Mr.  Pember  denied  such  a  waterway 
as  they  proposed  to  make  would  be  satisfactory.  The  petition  was  simply  that 
of  a  company  objecting  in  order  to  make  terms. 

Here  the  Chairman  again  intervened  and  asked  the  opponents  :— 

If  they  really  denied  that  this  canal,  if  it  can  be  made,  will  be  a  great  commercial 
advantage  to  Manchester? 

Mr.  Pope. — My  Lord,  we  assert,  and  think  we  can  prove  conclusively,  that  it  is  as  great 
a  delusion  as  the  South  Sea  Bubble.  We  are  prepared  with  a  great  deal  of  evidence. 

Earl  of  Milltown. — Because  you  are  asking  us  to  reverse  a  decision  of  a  Committee 
of  this  House  last  year  given  after  a  prolonged  investigation,  enormous  expense  to  the  pro- 
moters and  a  great  taking  up  of  public  time. 

Mr.  Pope. — Which  we  are  quite  entitled  to  do.  All  I  can  say  is,  that  one  House 
did  undoubtedly,  as  your  Lordship  says,  last  year,  after  inquiry,  pass  the  Bill  by  a  majority 
of  one. 

Earl  of  Milltown. — I  beg  your  pardon.  The  Committee  last  year  were  agreed  as  to 
the  commercial  advantages  of  the  proposal. 

Mr.  Pope. — Members  of  that  Committee  did  not  make  any  secret  of  what  their  opinions 
were,  and  we  know,  therefore,  as  my  learned  friend  very  rightly  said,  that  three  members  of 
that  Committee  were  of  one  opinion  and  two  of  the  other. 

Earl  of  Milltown. — That  was  on  the  engineering  question.  Pardon  me,  I  also  have 
the  means  of  ascertaining  their  views  in  the  same  manner  as  you  have,  and  I  do  not  believe 
there  was  the  smallest  difference  in  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  Committee  as  to  the  com- 
mercial question. 


a 
o 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  275 

Mr.  Pope. — I  undertake  to  say  that  the  Duke  of  Richmond  at  all  events  was  entirely 
with  me  in  my  argument  on  the  commercial  question. 

Earl  of  Milltown. — At  any  rate  the  evidence  is  before  us. 

After  a  prolonged  discussion  it  was  agreed  to  take  the  engineering  case  first, 
and  the  Chairman  asked  Mr.  Pember  to  shorten  the  case  as  much  as  possible. 
The  Earl  of  Milltown  then  asked  Mr.  Pember  a  puzzling  question  :— 

Are  you  going  to  call  Messrs.  Eads,  Lyster,  Law,  Vernon-Harcourt  and  Sir  William 
Forwood  as  your  witnesses?  They  stated  last  year  that  if  you  adopted  your  present  line 
they  would  be  satisfied.  If  they  are  still  of  that  opinion,  do  not  you  think  it  very  material 
to  your  case  to  call  them  first  ? 

Mr.  Pember  in  reply  said  he  feared  such  a  course  would  be  impossible.  Mr. 
Eads  was  safe  at  the  bottom  of  the  Mississippi — at  least  he  was  not  in  England. 

Great  as  would  be  my  delight  to  find  myself  on  the  same  side  for  once  in  my  life  with 
Mr.  Lyster,  he  is  hardly  the  gentleman  I  take  him  for  if  I  could  call  him  as  a  witness  without 
the  use  of  something  approaching  physical  force,  and  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  he  will 
still  come  and  say  something  on  the  other  side,  when  I  shall  have  the  pleasure  of  dealing 
with  him  in  cross-examination.  But  Mr.  Vernon-Harcourt,  who  was  what  I  may  term 
another  independent  engineer,  I  shall  have  great  pleasure  in  calling  on  behalf  of  the  pro- 
moters. 

Touching  the  petition  of  Liverpool  "that  the  tidal  scour  would  be  diminished 
which  might  lead  to  the  silting  of  the  bar,  and  that  by  training  a  new  channel  to  the 
Eastham  Locks  the  course  might  permanently  be  diverted  to  the  Cheshire  side,"  all 
the  promoters  wanted  was  to  keep  their  channel  open,  just  as  Garston  and  Runcorn 
were  in  the  habit  of  now  doing,  by  dredging.  They  were  willing  to  adopt  clauses 
limiting  the  dredging  to  be  done.  To  the  locus  standi  of  the  Salt  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  the  North  Staffordshire  Railway  and  the  Rochdale  Canal  Company,  Mr. 
Pember  offered  opposition  with  the  result  that  the  locus  of  the  former  was  disallowed, 
as  was  also  that  of  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway  in  the  North  Stafford- 
shire Railway  petition,  but  the  locus  of  the  Bridgewater  and  Rochdale  Canals  were 
allowed.  Mr.  Pember's  opening  speech  occupied  two  days. 

Mr.  Leader  Williams  was  then  called,  and  gave  the  early  history  of  the 
Bridgewater  Navigation  undertakings.  He  mentioned  that  in  1827  the  Liverpool 
Corporation,  as  owners  of  the  Liverpool  Docks,  failed  in  their  litigation  when  they 
tried  to  prevent  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  taking  water  from  Latchford  to 
Runcorn  for  local  purposes.  Also  that  when,  in  1846,  the  Mersey  Conservator  and 
the  Admiralty  fixed  the  height  of  a  Mersey  bridge,  they  inserted  a  clause  to  make 


276         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

all  crossings  by  swing  bridges,  and  this  was  the  case  a  few  years  ago  when  the 
Trafford  Bridge  was  erected  at  Old  Trafford.  Before  the  Ship  Canal  was  thought 
of  Parliament  insisted  that,  if  the  Liverpool  water  pipes  crossed  the  Mersey  it  must 
be  at  a  depth  of  20  feet  below  datum  line,  so  that  the  river  could  be  deepened  for 
navigation.  He  corrected  the  opponents'  evidence,  and  said  eight  hours  would  be 
ample  time  for  lockage  and  passage  up  the  canal,  and  explained  that  the  plans  of 
this  year  changed  the  location  of  the  docks,  and  brought  them  three-quarters  of  a 
mile  nearer  Manchester.  In  consequence,  the  very  costly  race-course  would  not  be 
required,  and  the  areas  of  Trafford  Park  to  be  taken  would  be  reduced  to  1 1 5  acres. 
At  Partington  the  disused  Cheshire  lines  on  both  sides  of  the  river  would  be  made 
available  to  convey  Lancashire  coal  on  one  side  and  Yorkshire  coal  on  the  other  to 
special  tips  to  be  erected. 

Mr.  Williams  stated  that  this  year's  plans  showed  an  entirely  changed  treatment 
as  regarded  the  estuary.  When  in  Committee  last  year  Mr.  Lyster,  the  engineer  of 
the  Dock  Board,  said  that  if  the  promoters  would  so  alter  their  scheme  as  to  skirt  one 
side  of  the  estuary  with  the  canal  and  do  away  with  training  walls  in  its  centre,  the 
Dock  Board  would  no  longer  oppose  the  scheme.  Admiral  Spratt,  the  Acting  Con- 
servator, speaking  of  an  alternative  plan  designed  by  Mr.  Lyster,  and  which  that 
gentleman  believed  would  be  more  feasible  and  less  costly,  said  he  had  examined  it 
by  the  desire  of  the  Dock  Board,  and  he  was  enabled  to  say  that  he  saw  no  reason 
for  the  Conservancy  Commissioners  opposing  it  on  the  ground  of  interference  with 
the  navigation  of  the  estuary.  This  had  caused  the  promoters  to  see  if  they  could 
fall  in  with  the  suggestions  of  the  opponents,  and  they  had  adopted  Mr.  Lyster's 
views,  practically  in  their  entirety,  and  now  proposed  to  bring  the  canal  on  the. 
Cheshire  side  to  Eastham,  whence  they  would,  by  dredging,  widen  and  deepen  the 
present  channel,  and  make  a  good  entrance  into  the  deep  waters  of  the  Sloyne. 
The  ground  was  favourable,  and  the  whole  of  the  work  could  be  carried  on  for 
twenty-four  hours  a  day,  if  necessary,  instead  of  working  in  a  treacherous  estuary 
and  only  in  calm  weather.  They  could,  too,  use  the  most  modern  French  and 
German  machinery  and  work  by  electric  light.  In  the  past,  whilst  the  Mersey 
estuary  was  under  the  care  of  the  Dock  Board,  he  had  never  known  them  spend  a 
penny  on  improvements  or  in  stopping  the  erosion  of  the  cliffs.  One  reason  why 
Eastham  had  been  chosen  as  the  terminus  of  the  canal  was  that  it  was  outside  the 
zone  wherein  the  Liverpool  Dock  Board  could  collect  dues.  In  1875  the  Upper 
Mersey  ports  collected  ,£105,000  and  extinguished  all  town  dues  on  the  upper  part 


•8. 


. 


H 
S5 

< 

u 

a 
a! 

p 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  277 

of  the  river.  Really  his  (Mr.  Williams')  plan  was  almost  identical  with  Mr.  Lyster's. 
If  there  was  any  difference,  he  trenched  less  in  the  estuary,  and  whilst  Mr.  Lyster 
proposed  to  take  the  whole  width  of  one  of  the  London  and  North-Western 
Runcorn  arches,  he  only  proposed  to  take  half.  On  a  high  tide  he  would  only 
abstract  from  the  estuary  2,000,000  cubic  yards  against  1 2,000,000  proposed  by  Mr. 
Lyster.  Along  the  banks  of  the  estuary,  and  especially  on  the  Cheshire  side,  the 
sea  was  making  constant  encroachments,  carrying  away  great  quantities  of  soil,  and 
often  large  trees  and  shrubs  with  it,  and  these  helped  to  obstruct  the  estuary.  By 
placing  stone  embankments  in  front  of  the  crumbling  cliffs,  the  promoters  would 
largely  benefit  the  navigation  of  the  river. 

The  witness  contended  that  water  being  indestructible  the  carriage  thereby 
must  be  much  cheaper  than  carriage  by  rail  or  road ;  once  get  a  waterway  with 
paved  slopes  and  the  expenses  would  remain  in  an  almost  normal  condition,  whilst 
the  traffic  receipts  steadily  increased.  He  instanced  the  Suez  Canal,  the  traffic  of 
which  in  1870  was  436,000  tons,  whilst  in  1883  it  was  5,775,861  tons,  with  working 
expenses  very  little  increased.  The  maintenance  of  a  railway  was  over  50  per  cent, 
against  under  10  per  cent,  on  the  Suez  Canal.  There  was  no  intention  to  make  a 
continuous  channel  in  the  estuary  and  so  divert  water  from  the  Garston  side. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bidder,  Mr.  Leader  Williams  said  the  utmost  abstrac- 
tion entailed  by  his  plan  was  \  per  cent,  of  the  contents  of  the  whole  tidal  estuary,  and 
could  not  affect  the  bar.  The  witness  then  underwent  a  severe  and  critical  examina- 
tion on  plans  and  estimates  in  turn  by  Messrs.  Bidder,  Aspinall,  Saunders,  Littler, 
Dugdale,  Meysey  Thompson,  Ledgard  and  Pope  on  behalf  of  their  respective 
clients,  but  without  being  shaken  in  any  respect.  He  was  in  the  box  nearly  four 
days,  during  which  time  he  successfully  confronted  some  of  the  most  able  counsel  at 
the  bar.  At  times  he  carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  camp,  as  when  he  stated 
that  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford  was  a  direct  contributor  to  the  sewage  nuisance 
about  which  he  complained,  also  when  he  showed  the  Committee  that  opening  out  a 
channel  from  Eastham  to  the  Sloyne  deeps  was  similar  to  what  the  London  and 
North-Western  Company  had  done  when  they  connected  their  Garston  Docks  with  a 
deep  channel  in  the  estuary  some  distance  away.  Again,  that  the  limited  ab- 
straction proposed  could  not  affect  the  bar,  because  whilst  the  Dock  Board  were 
themselves  abstracting  tidal  area  in  order  to  construct  clocks,  at  that  very  period 
the  sectional  area  of  the  bar  increased. 

Mr.  James  Abernethy  said  he  had  not  changed  his  mind  about  the  soundness 


278         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

and  practicability  of  the  original  scheme ;  but  if  it  were  necessary  to  adopt  other  lines 
he  was  of  opinion  the  next  best  course  was  to  form  a  line  of  channel  connecting  the 
canal  at  Runcorn  with  the  sea  at  Eastham.  He  believed  the  Weaver  and  its 
navigation  would  be  enormously  benefited  by  the  change,  also  the  bar. 

Mr.  Leveson  Vernon-Harcourt  was  of  opinion  the  promoters'  bill  of  this 
session  carried  out  the  alternative  plan  he  suggested  when  last  session  he  was  giving 
evidence  for  the  opposition.  The  interference  with  the  estuary  was  insignificant 
compared  with  the  proposition  of  last  year.  Putting  a  stop  to  cliff  erosions  would 
be  a  great  benefit. 

Mr.  Fowler  (of  the  Tees)  said  that  the  channel  to  the  Sloyne  deeps  could  not 
possibly  deflect  the  flow  from  the  Lancashire  side,  nor  was  it  at  all  probable  that  the 
water,  passing  through  the  lock  and  tidal  openings,  could  form  a  channel  on  the 
Cheshire  side.  In  this  opinion  Mr.  Messent,  of  the  Tyne,  and  Mr.  Deas,  of  the 
Clyde,  concurred. 

Mr.  Giles,  M.P.  (Southampton),  put  in  plans  of  the  Mersey  made  in  1822  by 
his  father,  Mr.  Francis  Giles,  showing  that  the  tidal  capacity  of  the  estuary  had 
altered  very  little,  notwithstanding  about  13,000  acres  of  land  once  flooded  at  high 
tides  had  been  reclaimed,  and  he  was  quite  sure  the  very  small  abstraction  now  com- 
templated  would  not  be  felt.  Inasmuch  as  the  tidal  openings  would  discharge  at 
right  angles  no  channel  could  be  formed  on  the  Cheshire  side. 

Mr.  Duckham  (of  Millwall  Docks),  to  prove  the  capacity  of  the  locks  for  busi- 
ness, showed  that  in  1884  he  had  passed  58,498  ships  and  barges  through  one  lock 
with  a  tonnage  of  5,795,266  tons ;  he  estimated  with  three  locks,  side  by  side, 
Manchester  could  pass  through  a  set  of  locks  1 5,000,000  tons  her  annum. 

At  this  point  there  was  a  discussion  between  the  Committee  and  counsel  as  to 
what  was  to  be  included  in  engineering  evidence.  Mr.  Pember  was  quite  willing 
to  follow  the  suggestion  of  the  Chairman,  and  have  the  engineering  case  taken  and 
decided  upon  first.  Some  of  the  opponents  now  wanted  to  change  their  minds ; 
this  induced  Mr.  Pember  to  say,  "  My  learned  friends  are  like  horses  at  a  ford, 
pawing  before  they  begin  to  drink  and  then  complaining  the  water  is  muddy  ".  After 
clearing  the  room  the  Committee  maintained  their  previous  decision,  that  everything 
connected  with  the  estuary  and  bar  must  be  kept  separate.  Various  pilots  were 
then  examined,  who  all  said  it  was  impossible  that  fresh  water  from  the  openings 
could  make  a  fresh  channel. 

Mr.  Leader  Williams  recalled,  showed  that  though  he  embanked  4 1 7  acres,  or 


1 


6 


5j 

H 


w 
o 

M 

u 


as 

H 
W 


H 


§ 


U 
X 

W 


rt 

oa 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  279 

5,904,950  cubic  yards,  he  gave  additional  tidal  capacity  to  the  extent  of  3,530,439 
cubic  yards,  and  thus  all  he  abstracted  was  2,374,513  cubic  yards. 

On  behalf  of  the  opponents  the  first  witness  called  was  Captain  Grakam  Hills ; 
he  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  result  of  the  work  now  proposed  would  be  similar 
to  that  of  last  year;  It  would  bring  a  fixed  channel  on  the  Cheshire  shore.  It 
would  stop  the  erosion  of  the  banks  by  the  shifting  channels  in  the  estuary,  but  only 
to  the  extent  to  which  that  channel  was  carried.  The  loss  of  that  erosion  would  cause 
the  silting  up  of  the  bulb  of  that  great  receptacle,  the  estuary,  and  that  loss  would  re- 
duce the  depth  upon  the  bar  and  would  bring  banks  into  the  lower  part  of  the  Mersey, 
extending  them  much  lower  down  than  they  were  at  present  and  would  eventually 
affect  the  foreshore  in  front  of  the  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead  Docks.  It  would  take 
away  from  Garston  whatever  were  its  present  chances  of  a  natural  deep  channel. 
He  estimated  a  reduction  of  1,000  acres  in  the  tidal  area.  Channels  were  always 
shifting  and  affecting  ports ;  his  conviction  was  that  the  Mersey  was  so  thoroughly 
impartial,  that  if  it  served  one  man's  interest  to-day  it  would  serve  another  man's 
to-morrow,  and  if  Ellesmere  Port  got  its  turn  for  a  few  years,  Garston  on  the  other 
side  would  get  its  turn  in  due  time.  He  was  quite  sure  Mr.  Williams'  channel  from 
the  lock  entrance  to  the  Sloyne  would  form  a  new  channel  on  the  Cheshire  side. 
It  was  ancient  history,  but  he  admitted  Liverpool,  since  the  first  dock  was  made  in 
1710,  had  been  constantly  encroaching  on  the  estuary.  The  dock  wall,  north,  was 
extended  in  1863,  but  whether  it  had  been  for  good  or  bad,  what  they  had  done 
had  been  sanctioned  by  Parliament  with  the  belief  that  the  estuary  would  not  be 
damaged.  It  was  true  that  when  Birkenhead  wanted  to  enclose  tidal  area  Liver- 
pool opposed  them.  Of  12  miles  of  clay  cliff  liable  to  be  eroded  the  proposed  canal 
would  protect  only  i  mile  2  furlongs,  and  he  estimated  it  would  take  1,100  years  to 
make  a  saving  equivalent  to  the  tidal  area  abstracted.  In  cross-examination,  witness 
admitted  he  was  in  error,  having  calculated  certain  embankments  as  abstractions,  and 
they  must  be  eliminated. 

On  Mr.  Pember  asking  the  witness  if  the  openings  from  the  Ship  Canal 
into  the  estuary  were  not  what  Mr.  Lyster  also  proposed,  he  at  once  disowned 
the  plans  of  the  Dock  Board  engineer  saying,  "  But  Mr.  Lyster's  plan  is  not  my 
plan,"  also  "As  regards  Mr.  Lyster's  plan,  I  should  recommend  that  it  should 
be  opposed  by  any  body  interested  in  maintaining  the  estuary  of  the  Mersey  as 
much  as  yours".  The  plan  he  should  favour  would  be  that  Manchester  should 
abandon  the  Mersey  and  take  her  canal  to  the  Dee. 


28o         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

He  was  aware  that  last  year  when  it  seemed  extremely  probable  that  very 
serious  damage  was  about  to  befal  the  estuary  of  the  Mersey  (passing  the  Bill),  a 
suggestion  was  made  that  less  mischief  would  occur  if  a  scheme  could  be  arranged 
along  the  shores  of  the  Mersey,  but  Mr.  Lyster  did  not  put  forward  a  complete 
scheme  for  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal.  He  certainly  was  in  the  House  when  Mr. 
Lyster  suggested  aa  alternative  plan,  but  he  took  care  not  to  know  anything  more 
about  it  until  it  was  necessary  to  compare  Mr.  Lyster's  plan  with  the  one  deposited. 
Witness  said  the  total  of  Liverpool's  Dock  estate  was  1,600  acres,  and  of  this  1,300 
acres  had  been  taken  out  of  the  tideway  at  one  time  or  other,  but  he  did  not  think 
that  the  encroachment  had  done  any  serious  damage  to  the  estuary.  The  loss  of 
water  inside  the  bar  had  a  bad  effect  on  it.  Also  he  admitted  that  channels  had 
been  dredged  to  Garston  and  to  some  Liverpool  Docks  in  the  same  way  that  it  was 
now  proposed  to  dredge  from  Eastham  to  the  Sloyne.  Last  year  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  promoters  to  stereotype  a  fixed  channel  in  the  estuary;  this  year  he  was  sure 
the  results  would  be  the  same,  though  it  was  not  intended. 

Mr.  George  Fosbery  Lyster,  though  he  had  designed  an  alternative  plan, 
believed  the  canal  to  be  the  most  Utopian  idea  he  had  ever  heard  of  in  his  life  ;  it  was 
not  a  desirable,  and  could  not  be  a  remunerative  undertaking.  By  his  plan  he 
meant  on  the  average  to  abstract  nothing  from  the  estuary ;  he  put  back  as  much  as 
he  took  out.  Neither  had  he  intended  to  use  any  water  for  lockage,  except  what 
was  pumped ;  then  he  had  fixed  the  level  of  his  locks  1 2  feet  higher  than  Mr. 
Williams,  and  this  would  interfere  less  with  the  estuary.  Also  he  had  intended  to 
have  a  tidal  basin  and  six  locks  against  three  side  by  side  on  the  promoters'  plan. 
Whilst  Mr.  Williams  was  intending  to  make  the  excavation  on  the  foreshore  at  a 
level  coincident  with  the  sills,  he  proposed  to  excavate  the  channel  4  feet  deeper 
outside.  He  believed  the  effect  of  the  promoters'  plans  would  be  to  stereotype  a 
new  channel  on  the  Cheshire  side,  and  damage  the  Lancashire  side.  He  had  never 
heard  of  a  sea-going  ship  being  lifted  24  feet,  and  if  that  could  not  be  done  their 
deep  sill  would  be  perfectly  useless.  Also  he  did  not  believe  Mr.  Williams  could 
prevent  his  sills  being  blocked.  He  could  not  conceive  him  making  either  towing 
paths  or  roads  on  his  embankments.  Cross-examined,  witness  did  not  deny  that  as 
he  followed  the  contour  of  the  coast  and  the  promoters  went  inland  and  took  a 
straight  course  they  abstracted  less  of  the  estuary  than  he  did.  His  idea  was  to  put 
a  small  lock  on  the  embankment  opposite  the  entrance  to  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  the 
Weaver  Canal,  and  Ellesmere  Port,  to  enable  an  interchange  of  traffic  between  the 


-JL 
O 

su 

a 
a! 

w 
- 


W 
v) 

a 
a: 


O 


_) 

o" 


D 

u 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  281 

Lancashire  and  Cheshire  shores  of  the  Mersey,  but  he  thought  it  very  unfair  to  put 
an  embankment  in  the  front  of  those  undertakings,  and  not  to  give  them  the  freedom 
of  the  canal.  He  believed  the  interest  on  the  cost  of  putting  down  and  maintaining 
very  expensive  locks  would,  if  the  money  were  not  spent,  provide  a  subsidy  for 
allowing  small  boats  to  use  the  canal  free  of  charge.  Such  small  traffic  had  now 
the  free  use  of  the  Liverpool  Docks. 

Mr.  Lyster  in  the  Session  of  1884  placed  on  the  walls  of  the  Committee  room 
a  plan  prepared  by  himself  for  construction  of  a  canal  along  the  Cheshire  shore,  by 
adopting  which  the  promoters  would  (he  said)  be  able  to  avoid  injury  to  the  estuary 
and  not  imperil  Liverpool.  The  promoters,  before  the  plan  was  removed  from  the 
wall,  took  a  careful  copy,  and  it  was  fortunate  they  did  so,  as  evidently  the  opponents 
regretted  the  exhibit,  and  did  not  afterwards  allow  the  identical  plan  to  reappear  in 
the  room.  They  had,  however,  previously  submitted  it  to  Admiral  Spratt,  the 
Acting  Conservator,  for  his  approval,  and  the  report  of  that  official  saying  he  saw  no 
reason  for  opposing  the  plan  had  been  issued.  The  Dock  Board  subsequently  were 
anxious  to  give  the  go-by  to  the  plan  exhibited  by  Mr.  Lyster,  but  the  promoters 
pinned  them  down  to  it  as  being  the  one  on  the  adoption  of  which  Sir  William 
Forwood  and  others  had  made  their  promises  not  to  oppose  a  future  Ship  Canal 
Bill. 

Mr.  Adamson,  writing  to  the  Liverpool  papers  on  the  igth  February,  1885, 
on  the  subject  of  the  action  taken  by  Mr.  Samuel  Smith,  M.P.  for  Liverpool, 
said  : — 

Mr.  Smith  has  evidently  overlooked  the  engineering  evidence  and  the  undertakings  given 
by  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  Dock  Board  and  Corporation  in  Parliament  last  Session  with  re- 
ference to  Mr.  Lyster's  alternative  plan,  a  copy  of  which  evidence  I  shall  be  happy  to  furnish 
on  application  to  any  of  the  shipowners  and  merchants  of  Liverpool  who  may  be  sufficiently 
interested  in  the  question. 

I  am  also  prepared,  on  behalf  of  my  Committee,  to  present  to  the  Liverpool  Royal  Ex- 
change for  public  exhibition  in  their  rooms  a  copy  of  the  deposited  plans  and  sections  of  the 
Manchester  Ship  Canal  of  the  present  Session,  provided  the  Mersey  Dock  Board  will  agree 
to  hang  up  with  them  a  copy  of  the  plan  prepared  by  their  engineer,  Mr.  Lyster,  for  a  Ship 
Canal  along  the  Cheshire  shore,  which  was  referred  to  in  the  evidence  given  by  the  Dock 
Board's  engineering  witnesses  in  the  House  of  Commons  last  Session,  and  to  which  scheme,  it 
was  stated,  no  objection  would  be  raised  by  Liverpool. 

I  will  leave  it  to  the  shipowners  and  merchants  of  Liverpool  to  decide  whether  the  pro- 
moters of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  have  not  made  a  bond  fide  effort  to  meet  the  objections 
of  Liverpool.  I  am  confident  that  any  unprejudiced  person  on  inspecting  the  two  sets  of 


282         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1885 

plans  and  sections  will  be  of  opinion  that  those  deposited  by  the  promoters  of  the  Ship  Canal 
interfere  even  in  a  less  degree  with  the  estuary  than  those  prepared  by  the  engineer  of  the 
Mersey  Docks  and  Harbour  Board,  and  which  by  their  instructions  were  submitted  to  the 
Acting  Conservator  of  the  river  Mersey,  and  approved  by  him  in  his  annual  report  lately 
published. 

Mr.  John  Wolfe-Barry  thought  Eastham  the  proper  terminus  for  a  canal  like 
Mr.  Lyster's,  but  that  Mr.  Williams'  canal  with  a  lower  sill  ought  to  have  gone  to 
Bromborough,  where  deep  water  could  more  easily  be  reached.  When  reminded  in 
cross-examination  that  the  promoters  must  get  the  sanction  of  the  Mersey  Commis- 
sioners for  their  works,  he  said  he  did  not  think  Liverpool  interests  should  be  placed 
in  their  hands.  He  believed  the  proposed  works  must  destroy  Garston  as  a  dock 

The  Committee  then  inquired  of  the  promoters  if  the  depth  of  their  lock  at 
Eastham  was  essential  to  them?  In  reply  Mr.  Pember  offered  to  raise  the  lock  sill 
4  feet  if  the  Committee  thought  it  expedient. 

Sir  Joseph,  Bazalgette  gave  his  experience  on  the  Thames.  There  it  was 
found  that  when  dredging  was  carried  out  on  the  north  side  the  south  side  of  the 
river  silted ;  in  fact  there  was  an  equilibrium  as  Barking  side  became  dredged  the 
Crossness  side  shoaled,  and  the  same  result  had  followed  dredging  in  the  Erith 
reach.  He  was  of  opinion  if  dredging  was  resorted  to  for  the  z\  miles  between 
Eastham  Locks  and  the  deep  water  of  the  Sloyne,  the  Garston  side  would  be  starved. 
In  cross-examination,  it  was  elicited  that  he  had  given  evidence  in  1880  that  dredging 
in  one  particular  part  did  not  affect  the  general  regime  of  the  river  and  was  com- 
paratively of  small  consequence.  Witness  admitted  dredging  below  the  level  of  low 
water  did  not  increase  the  quantity  of  tidal  water  or  interfere  with  its  flow.  He 
did  not  agree  with  Mr.  Lyster  in  dredging  4  feet  below  lock  sill. 

Messrs.  Henry  Law,  G.  F.  Deacon,  Francis  Stevenson  and  A.  M.  Rendel 
confirmed  the  engineering  evidence  previously  given. 

Sir  Frederick  Bramwell,  for  the  Bridgewater  Company,  objected  to  limiting 
the  tidal  area  at  Runcorn  Bridge.  In  answer  to  a  noble  Lord  he  said  if  the 
promoters'  lock  sill  was  raised  4  feet  it  would  make  a  considerable  difference,  but 
the  dredging  would  still  be  a  serious  thing. 

The  Chairman  then  announced  that  the  Committee  would  hear  counsel  speak 
on  the  question  of  the  bar  and  Garston  Docks. 

At  the  adjournment  on  I4th  April  Mr.  Pember  complained  that  though  Mr. 
Lyster  had  offered  a  conference  where  some  engineering  figures  and  facts  could  be 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  283 

adjusted,  yet  when  the  promoters  tried  to  arrange  a  time  of  meeting  Mr.  Lyster 
replied  that  he  was  engaged,  and  that  there  was  no  need  of  the  conference  which  he 
himself  had  first  suggested. 

Mr.  Bidder  was  astonished  that  notwithstanding  Mr.  Lyster  had  pointed 
where  and  how  to  make  the  canal,  Mr.  Williams  should  have  exercised  such  perverse 
ingenuity  and  made  his  scheme  as  objectionable  as  possible.  The  promoters  were 
drawing  on  their  imagination  if  they  conceived  he  was  going  to  throw  Mr.  Lyster 
overboard,  even  though  Mr.  Barry,  Sir  Joseph  Bazalgette  and  others  had  criticised 
his  scheme  and  thought  that  gentleman  too  venturesome.  It  was  an  individual 
opinion  of  Captain  Graham  Hills  when  he  said  he  was  as  much  opposed  to  the  plans 
of  Mr.  Lyster  as  to  those  of  the  promoters.  If  Mr.  Leader  Williams  wanted  to 
shelter  himself  under  the  wing  of  Mr.  Lyster,  he  should  have  accepted  his  conditions, 
which  were  essential,  but  he  had  not  done  so.  Mr.  Lyster  had  been  amiably 
benevolent  in  drawing  a  plan  of  how  a  canal  should  be  made,  and  putting  notes  of 
instruction  on  it,  and  had  taken  a  higher  view  of  his  duty  to  his  opponents  than  he, 
as  an  advocate,  would  have  done.  He  complained  that  the  promoters  had  never 
realised  the  magnitude  of  the  work,  or  the  danger  there  would  be  in  dredging  from 
Eastham  to  the  Sloyne.  Further,  it  was  a  certainty  that  the  outfalls  of  fresh  water 
would  aid  the  dredging  in  making  a  new  channel  on  the  Cheshire  side.  Mr.  Leader 
Williams  had  laid  it  down  as  an  essential  condition  that  the  land  water  should  not 
be  interfered  with,  and  had  actually  suggested  putting  down  pumps  to  provide  sea 
water  for  lockage.  Now  he  was  proposing  to  utilise  the  fresh  water.  Again,  he 
was  going  to  put  his  dock  sills  12  feet  deeper  than  Mr.  Lyster.  It  was  all  very 
well  to  say  that  the  Mersey  Commissioners  and  Admiral  Spratt  had  a  veto,  and 
could  stop  any  work  calculated  to  damage  the  estuary,  but  that  body  had  showed 
themselves  weak-kneed,  and  poor  Admiral  Spratt  had  been  so  worried  that  he  had 
abrogated  his  functions.  Besides,  he  had  no  funds  to  fight  with  even  if  he  were  dis- 
posed to  do  so,  and  there  was  a  clause  in  the  Bill  to  have  an  eminent  engineer  to 
appeal  to  if  the  Commissioners  were  against  the  promoters. 

Whilst  there  were  conflicting  engineering  opinions,  was  it  right,  was  it  safe,  to 
pass  a  scheme  that  might  imperil,  nay  ruin,  the  port  of  Liverpool  with  its  enormous 
interests  all  over  the  world?  He  renewed  his  pledge  of  last  year,  that  if  the 
promoters  would— as  they  could — bring  forward  a  plan  that  would  not  jeopardise 
the  estuary,  his  clients  would  not  oppose  it.  If  they  had  raised  the  level  of  the  canal 
and  gone  down  to  deep  water  at  Bromborough,  he  would  have  been  happy  and 


284         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

contented ;  the  reason  this  had  not  been  done  was  the  cost  and  a  desire  to  avoid  the 
Liverpool  town  dues. 

Mr.  Aspinall,  for  Liverpool,  said  :— 

Talk  about  the  enormous  importance  and  greatness  of  Manchester!  They  anticipated 
that  if  the  scheme  were  carried,  an  equally  great  city  (Liverpool)  would  not  only  be  disastrously 
affected,  but  virtually  destroyed.  Damage  to  the  bar  and  estuary  meant  little  to  Manchester, 
but  it  was  utter  destruction  to  Liverpool. 

Mr.  Pope,  Q.C.,  for  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway  Company,  said 
it  was  a  hydrostatic  law  that  no  river  or  estuary  can  permanently  maintain  a  larger 
sectional  area  than  the  forces  of  nature  have  enabled  it  to  maintain  ;  therefore,  if  a 
deep-water  channel  were  dredged  from  Eastham  to  the  Sloyne,  followed  by  a  new 
channel  on  the  Cheshire  side,  the  sectional  area  would  be  altered,  and  injury  to 
Garston  and  its  channel  would  be  certain. 

The  whole  scheme  was  reckless  in  its  character,  reckless  of  any  outside  interests,  carried 
forward,  I  admit,  with  a  courage,  I  may  almost  admit  with  an  enthusiasm,  which  probably  is 
not  often  equalled  in  the  promotion  of  public  undertakings,  with  a  determination  to  bear  down 
every  obstacle  and  every  cause  which  may  interfere  with  the  crotchet  they  have  chosen  to 
adopt  as  a  sort  of  national  work. 

Mr.  Saunders,  for  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company,  having  also 
addressed  the  Committee,  Mr.  Pember,  in  reply,  was  amused  at  Mr.  Bidder's  self- 
complacency  in  speaking  of  the  education  his  side  had  provided  for  the  promoters' 
eminent  engineers,  in  teaching  them  how  to  make  the  canal,  and  then  rebuking  them 
for  not  following  instructions.  Speaking  of  damage  to  the  estuary  and  bar,  Mr. 
Pember  asked,  would  not  Manchester,  when  she  had  spent  .£10,000,000,  have  the 
strongest  interest  in  preventing  damage  to  either  ?  The  great  engineer  Rennie  said 
for  the  expenditure  of  half  a  million  (and  Admiral  Spratt  confirmed  him)  the  pier 
perdu  of  the  bar  could  be  swept  away.  "Give  us  our  Bill,  I  say,  and  there  shall  be 
no  bar  to  maunder  over."  Mr.  Bidder  asked,  "Why  did  you  not  bring  in  a  Bill 
acceptable  to  Liverpool  ? "  That  would  have  been  impossible.  Whatever  we  do 
there  will  be  a  chorus  of  complaints.  "Go  to  deep  water  at  Bromborough,"  says 
Mr.  Bidder,  and  shakes  the  phrase  before  us  as  a  terrier  does  a  rat.  But  this  is 
deviating  from  Mr.  Lyster's  plan  which,  he  says,  we  should  adhere  to.  As  to  the 
Mersey  Commissioners'  clauses,  if  Mr.  Bidder  and  Mr.  Pope  cannot  agree,  what  are 
the  promoters  to  do?  Mr.  Pember  alluded  to  his  having  been  twitted  about  his 
"bids,"  and  said  surely  Mr.  "Bidder"  imagined  he  ought  to  change  patronymics 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  285 

with  him.  Though  he  did  not  think  it  necessary,  he  had  offered  to  meet  the  op- 
ponents by  raising  his  dock  sill  4  feet,  and  the  evidence  showed  the  new  channel 
would  be  most  beneficial  in  preventing  erosion  of  the  land  on  the  verge  of  the 
estuary.  If  the  estuary  and  the  bar  reacted  upon  one  another,  as  Messrs.  Hills 
and  Barry  affirmed,  how  was  it  that  at  the  very  time  Liverpool  was  abstracting 
large  areas  from  the  estuary  to  make  the  docks  the  bar  improved?  This  very 
fact  upset  the  theory.  Mr.  Vernon-Harcourt,  a  man  of  the  greatest  authority,  and 
last  year  opposed  to  the  canal,  said  of  the  Eastham  dredging,  "Whatever  it 
might  do  to  Garston,  the  elongation  of  the  Sloyne  could  not  affect  the  bar  the  least 
bit".  And  further,  "I  would  not  have  come  if  Garston  Dock  had  been  affected". 
Captain  Graham  Hills  admitted  the  Pool  Hall  rocks  extended  into  the  estuary,  and 
these  would  render  a  channel  on  the  Cheshire  side  impossible.  It  would  seem  that 
Liverpool,  Garston  and  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company,  may  all  enclose  or 
deal  with  estuarial  lands,  "but  the  moment  Manchester  lays  a  finger  on  the  mere 
rim  of  this  estuary  it  is  fatal".  Now  for  Mr.  Pope's  dictum,  "A  good  Sloyne 
makes  a  poor  Garston".  Recently  his  clients,  the  London  and  North- Western 
Railway,  put  in  a  plan  by  which  they  were  going  to  dredge  a  fixed  channel  on  the 
Garston  side — just  what  they  object  to  us  doing  on  the  other  side.  Again,  Mr. 
Rendel's  theory  that  there  was  a  kind  of  see-saw  between  Garston  and  Eastham 
was  proved  to  be  a  fallacy,  because  he  admitted  both  were  affected  when  a  central 
channel  appeared.  Mr.  Pember  ended  : — 

If  I  cannot  convince,  I  do  not  care  to  persuade.  My  learned  friend  asked  you  not  to 
pass  the  Bill  if  there  is  a  risk  of  harm  ;  in  other  words,  if  eight  or  ten  adverse  witnesses  come 
forward,  they  are  to  put  an  end  to  any  enterprise,  however  valuable.  If  this  is  to  be  the 
case,  good-bye  once  and  for  all  to  the  material  progress  of  Great  Britain. 

The  Committee  retired,  and  on  re-entering,  the  Chairman  said,  "  We  allow  the 
Bill  to  proceed,  and  I  have  a  suggestion  to  make  that  in  the  commercial  case  the 
opponents  take  the  initiative,  and  state  their  objections".  The  Earl  of  Milltown 
further  said  "that  the  commercial  advantages  of  the  case  had  been  already  estab- 
lished before  a  Committee  of  this  House".  Objections  being  raised  it  was  decided 
to  take  the  Bill  in  its  usual  course. 

Daniel  A  damson  was,  as  usual,  the  first  witness  for  the  promoters.  He  repeated 
his  previous  evidence.  Speaking  of  depression  in  the  iron  trade,  he  said  that  iron 
in  1872-73  fetched  £6  per  ton  ;  it  could  now  be  bought  at  335.  to  343.  per  ton.  To 


286         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

show  that  Manchester  had  long  been  seeking  a  cheap  waterway,  he  produced  a 
Manchester  halfpenny  dated  1795  with  the  inscription  on  one  side  "Success  to 
Navigation".1  He  stated  that  to  convey  the  cargo  of  a  3,ooo-ton  ship  from  Liver- 
pool to  Manchester  would  require  1,500  carts  or  1,000  rail  way  waggons,  and  that  there 
would  be  the  same  number  of  loadings  and  unloadings.  He  showed,  too,  that  the 
canal  would  effect  a  saving  in  carriage  of  5 1  "85  per  cent,  on  wheat,  5675  on  potatoes, 
and  58*53  on  timber,  and  he  estimated  a  traffic  of  3,000,000  tons  per  annum, 
realising  ,£750,000  in  freightage.  Competition  with  water  carriage  by  railways  was 
impossible  when  by  the  former  goods  could  be  carried  at  one-tenth  of  a  penny  per 
ton  per  mile.  Since  the  Ship  Canal  agitation  commenced,  the  railway  reductions 
in  the  Lancashire  district  equalled  ,£80,000  per  annum.  Eventually  he  believed 
there  would  be  a  saving  to  the  cotton  trade  of  ,£450,000  per  year,  and  to  Lanca- 
shire, Yorkshire  and  Cheshire  of  one  million  to  one  million  and  a  quarter  pounds 
annually. 

Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  showed  the  insufficient  and  costly  accommodation  at 
Liverpool,  and  that  95  per  cent,  of  the  vessels  using  that  port  had  a  tonnage  of  less 
than  2,000  tons.  Also  that  Garston  was  now  doing  a  traffic  of  2,000,000  tons  a 
year,  which  was  increasing.  Further  that  the  Weaver  Navigation  did  about  the 
same  weight  as  Garston.  If  a  vessel  arrived  at  the  Liverpool  Bar  about  high  water 
and  was  too  late  for  the  tide  to  get  into  dock,  she  would  have  to  lie  outside  ten  hours, 
sufficient  time  for  her  to  get  to  Manchester  by  canal. 

At  this  point  Mr.  Pope  intervened,  and  asked  (on  behalf  of  the  opposing 
counsel)  if  the  impression  which  had  been  conveyed  to  them  that  their  Lordships 
would  be  bound  by  what  transpired  last  year,  was  or  was  not  correct,  because  it 
would  be  useless  to  go  into  a  detailed  inquiry  that  would  be  to  some  extent  per- 
functory. The  Chairman  assured  counsel  that  whatever  expressions  of  opinion  had 
come  from  individual  members,  the  present  Committee  would  not  be  bound  by  the 
decision  of  previous  years :  they  would  not  in  any  way  cut  short  the  opponents' 
evidence. 

In  cross-examination,  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  said  his  statement  about  limited 
accommodation  in  Liverpool  was  but  a  reflex  of  the  openly  expressed  opinion  of 
many  members  of  the  Dock  Board.  Till  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company 
bought  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  it  was  quite  free  from  railway  influence.  Once  the 
rates  between  Liverpool  and  Manchester  were  2s.  6d.,  now  they  were  95.  His 
statement  was  virtually  correct  that  the  same  charge  was  made  for  conveyance  when 

1  See  Specimens,  page  264. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  287 

goods  were  passed  over  the  ship's  side  into  barges  as  when  they  were  carted  to  a 
railway  station. 

The  Chairman  again  appealed  to  the  parties  to  shorten  the  evidence.  The 
Earl  of  Milltown  said,  "  If  the  engineering  question  had  been  decided  in  the  Com- 
mons in  favour  of  the  promoters  last  year,  that  Bill  would  now  have  been  the  law  of 
the  land  ".  The  opposing  counsel,  however,  would  not  consent  to  any  abridgment. 
The  case  must  be  fought  out  to  the  bitter  end. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Cornforth  estimated  the  brokerage  of  both  buyer  and  seller  in  the 
Liverpool  cotton  market  at  ,£400,000  per  year,  and  believed  that  in  most  cases  one 
brokerage  would  be  saved  if  the  trade  was  done  in  Manchester ;  with  the  Ship  Canal 
in  existence  he  considered  this  quite  feasible.  To  protect  the  middleman,  the  Liver- 
pool Association  rules  prohibited  a  merchant  selling  direct  to  a  spinner.  This  rule 
obliged  the  firm  of  which  Sir  William  Forwood  was  a  member  to  give  up  their 
office  in  Manchester,  but  they  still  had  an  agent  who  did  a  large  business  without 
the  intervention  of  Liverpool  brokers.  In  Manchester  there  was  no  such  thing- 
known  as  trades  unionism  among  brokers.  Yarn  and  cloth  agents  had  no  restric- 
tions, they  enjoyed  free  trade. 

Mr.  Samuel  Ogden  said  the  cotton  trade  was  so  bad  in  the  Rossendale  Valley 
that  one-fourth  of  the  mills  were  absolutely  stopped,  or  working  short  time.  India 
spun  yarns  competed  closely  with  English  spun  coarse  yarns  for  export,  and  i  \  to 
2  per  cent,  would  turn  the  scale.  Speaking  as  an  overseer  he  might  say  that  whilst 
years  ago  the  assessments  in  Manchester  averaged  an  increase  of  ^6,000  per  annum, 
they  had  lately  receded  to  an  average  of  .£900  yearly,  so  that  they  were  going  to 
the  bad  at  the  rate  of  ,£7,000  per  annum.  He  felt  sure  the  canal  would  attract 
capital — the  Suez  Canal  did  so ;  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce  was  laughed 
at  for  recommending  the  Suez  Canal,  but  they  proved  to  be  right. 

Mr.  Samuel  Andrew  said  the  Liverpool  Cotton  Association  had  boycotted  the 
Oldham  Cotton  Buying  Company,  and  the  Liverpool  brokers  were  not  allowed  to 
sell  to  them. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Ross  gave  the  cost  of  freight  of  ten  bales  of  yarn  from  Bombay  to 
Liverpool  as  .£2  155.  (6,500  miles),  whilst  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  (31  miles) 
the  cost  for  the  same  goods  would  be  £2  8s. 

Mr.  Charles  Holt,  corn  merchant,  Manchester,  brought  cargoes  from  all  ports 
in  North  and  South  America,  and  paid  in  1883  .£4,000  for  Liverpool  Dock  and 
town  dues,  importing  400,000  sacks  of  flour  and  50,000  tons  of  wheat.  Roughly 


288         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

speaking,  the  expenses  in  Liverpool  (independently  of  warehousing)  were  53.  per 
ton.  In  addition  he  paid  8s.  2d.  per  ton  carriage  to  Manchester.  At  these  rates 
the  Ship  Canal  would  have  saved  him  £21,000  in  the  year.  Possibly  he  might 
have  to  reduce  his  prices  is.  per  sack,  but  this  would  be  a  gain  to  the  public.  In 
1883  he  had  ships  waiting  for  ten  days  to  discharge  at  Liverpool,  and  when  he 
wanted  warehousing  it  was  scarce  and  dear.  The  Alexandra  Dock  was  7  miles 
from  the  Corn  Exchange,  and  it  took  him  as  long  to  get  to  his  ship  as  it  did  to  come 
to  Manchester.  The  Corn  Exchange  in  Manchester  was  commodious  and  well 
arranged ;  it  did  a  large  distributing  business. 

When  Mr.  Pope  came  to  cross-examine  this  witness  there  was  considerable 
friction.  Pressed  as  to  why  millers  did  not  use  Fleetwood,  he  replied,  "Common- 
sense  would  tell  you  that  they  would  have  bought  there  if  it  had  been  to  their 
advantage,"  which  brought  the  rejoinder,  "  Kindly  answer  my  questions,  and  neither 
compliment  me  nor  chaff  me  ". 

The  witness  was  asked  if  the  millers  intended  to  revolutionise  the  trade  and 
take  all  the  breadstuffs  to  Manchester  ? 

In  reply  he  said  :— 

It  is  time  the  trade  out  of  Manchester  was  revolutionised ;  they  have  been  taxing  our 
produce  for  the  last  fifty  years,  and  it  is  time  we  untaxed  them.  First  look  at  the  trade 
heavily  taxed  by  Liverpool.  I  tell  you  this,  that  if  an.  angel  from  heaven  had  traced  out  the 
Ship  Canal,  and  no  human  being  could  say  it  was  wrong,  you  would  represent  a  clique  in 
Liverpool  who  would  endeavour  by  hook  or  by  crook  to  throw  out  the  Ship  Canal. 

Mr.  Pope. — I  have  not  yet  recognised  the  finger  of  heaven  in  Mr.  Leader  Williams  ! 

A. — I  hope  you  have. 

Q. — Heaven  has  derived  a  good  deal  of  assistance  from  the  other  place  in  the  last  two 
years  at  any  rate  ? 

A . — I  know  more  about  Liverpool  than  you  do.  I  am  older  than  you  are.  I  have 
been  fifty  years  in  trade  in  Liverpool,  and  I  must  know  more  than  you. 

Q. — Not  much  ? 

A. — I  have  known  you  for  many  years,  and  I  know  you  are  very  clever,  but  practical 
experience  counts  for  something.  I  know  this,  it  is  high  time  that  the  Ship  Canal  did  come 
to  Manchester,  not  only  for  corn  but  for  all  provisions  as  I  say.  Just  look  to-morrow  in  the 
Corn  Exchange  and  see  the  grocers'  market — it  would  surprise  you — and  even  you  would 
come  round  to  us  then. 

Later  on  Mr.  Pope  and  witness  got  very  angry. 

Q. — Would  you  rather  make  impertinent  speeches  or  answer  questions  ? 
A . — You  have  been  as  impertinent  as  anybody,  and  you  ought  to  know  better ;  I  am 
straightforward  enough,  and  I  have  evidence  for  all  I  have  said. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  289 

Mr.  John  Burgess,  Alderman  of  Warrington,  bore  witness  that  for  ordinary 
carriage  the  river  between  Warrington  and  Liverpool  was  not  made  much  use  of. 
The  tides  prevented  any  regularity,  and  it  was  only  when  they  were  high  that  ships 
could  get  up.  Somewhere  about  seven  tides  each  fortnight  allowed  vessels  to  do 
so,  and  then  they  were  simply  barges  of  70  to  80  tons.  Between  Runcorn  and 
Warrington  there  was  very  little  traffic  by  river. 

Mr.  Joshua  W.  Radcliffe,  Mayor  of  Oldham,  said  1,400,000  tons  of  traffic 
came  in  and  out  of  his  borough,  of  which  350,000  tons  were  cotton. 

Mr.  John  C.  Fielden  reiterated  the  valuable  and  interesting  evidence  given 
before  previous  Committees,  and  maintained  the  Ship  Canal  would  effect  a  great 
saving  in  heavy  traffic.  He  disputed  Sir  William  Forwood  being  an  authority  on 
the  cotton  trade ;  his  attempt  to  prove  Lancashire  cotton  spinning  was  prosperous 
because  the  shares  in  certain  cotton  mills  had  gone  up,  was  a  ludicrous  failure.  If 
shares  nominally  worth  55.  in  1879  were  quoted  at  ^3  in  1884,  he  called  it  pros- 
perity, whereas  calls  of  f,\  los.  may  have  been  made  in  the  interim,  and  the  shares  be 
at  a  discount.  Anyway  Mr.  Ellison,  a  Liverpool  authority,  put  forward  ,£19,000,000 
as  the  loss  in  the  cotton  trade  between  1877  and  1880.  Sir  William  Forwood 
stated  last  year  in  public-  that  he  had  no  doubt  the  capital  would  be  raised.  The 
same  gentleman  said  to  the  Select  Committee  on  Railways  in  1881  that  he  had  seen 
an  offer  (if  1,000  tons  each  way  were  guaranteed)  to  cart  from  Manchester  to  the 
ship's  side  at  Liverpool  at  8s.  per  ton  for  35  miles ;  now  the  opponents  profess  to 
disbelieve  the  promoters  can  cart  19  miles  for  6s.  8d. 

Mr.  Bosdin  T.  Leech  bore  witness  to  the  disgraceful  state  of  the  Irwell,  and  to 
the  efforts  that  were  being  made  by  Manchester  and  other  towns  to  purify  their 
sewage.  He  believed  "the  manufacturers  and  merchants  would  get  a  return  for 
their  money  if  they  did  not  get  any  dividends ;  the  saving  in  the  carriage  on  the 
Ship  Canal  would  be  so  considerable  that  it  would  be  a  handsome  dividend  if  the 
canal  never  paid  a  penny  ". 

Mr.  Gustav  Behrens  was  of  the  opinion  that  a  1 2-mile  radius  was  no  criterion 
of  the  trade  of  Manchester ;  and  to  show  the  disadvantage  under  which  Lancashire 
laboured  he  said  the  same  vessel  charged  1 55.  from  Glasgow  to  Calcutta  that  charged 
2os.  from  Liverpool  to  Calcutta,  though  a  shorter  voyage. 

Mr.  James  W.  Southern  said  the  carriage  of  timber  from  Hull  to  Manchester 
was  1 2s.  6d.  for  89  miles,  whilst  from  Liverpool  to  Manchester  (little  over  one-third 

the  distance)  it  was  93.     Dear  carriage  pressed  heavily  on  a  cheap  article  like  timber, 
VOL.  r.  19 


29o         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

often  it  was  25  per  cent,  of  its  value.  He  estimated  300,000  tons  came  into  Man- 
chester and  district,  and  on  this  he  expected  there  would  be  a  saving  of  .£75,000  per 
annum.  Australian  goods  were  sent  to  London  to  be  packed,  because  casing 
timber  could  be  bought  more  cheaply  there. 

Mr.  /.  T.  W.  Mitchell,  Chairman  of  the  Co-operative  Wholesale  Society, 
with  its  head  establishment  in  Manchester,  said  that  his  society  had  a  share  capital 
of  nine  million  pounds,  and  had  a  banking  business  with  a  turnover  of  sixteen  million 
a  year.  The  society  paid  .£75,000  per  annum  for  carriage,  and  he  expected  the 
canal  would  effect  a  saving  of  at  least  ,£5,000  per  year.  This  induced  a  noble  Lord 
to  ask  in  amazement,  "  What  are  the  objects  of  your  society  ?  "  Without  a  moment's 
hesitation,  in  stentorian  tones  and  almost  in  a  breath,  the  witness  replied:  "The 
objects  of  the  society  are  to  buy  the  produce,  everything  that  is  required  by  the 
members,  at  the  cheapest  possible  cost  by  the  use  of  their  own  capital.  We  have  a 
soap  works  at  Durham,  and  we  manufacture  dry  soap  at  Crumpsall,  and  there  we 
have  biscuit  works,  and  there  we  manufacture  different  kinds  of  spices.  Ours  is  the 
Co-operative  Wholesale  Society  of  Manchester.  If  your  Lordships  will  not  mind,  I 
will  hand  you  this  book — it  will  give  you  a  particular  account  of  who  we  are  and 
what  we  are,  and  I  leave  it  with  you."  Suiting  the  action  to  the  word,  the  witness 
dived  into  a  black  bag  he  had  close  by  and  produced  a  large  book.  Without  more 
ado  he  stalked  across  the  room  and  astonished  the  Chairman  by  placing  the  volume 
in  his  hands.  Addressing  the  other  noble  Lords,  he  told  them  he  would  be  glad  to 
send  each  of  them  a  copy.  He  kept  repeating,  "Ours  is  the  Co-operative  Society," 
and  told  them  if  they  would  read  the  book  they  would  know  a  great  deal  about  the 
society.  The  Committee  enjoyed  the  episode,  and  evidently  thought  Mr.  Mitchell 
a  typical  Lancashire  man  who  had  little  fear  of  dignitaries. 

Mr.  Balfour  Browne  humorously  said  to  the  Chairman,  "  It  is  a  very  handsome 
volume,  but  I  don't  want  it  to  be  considered  as  bribery  and  corruption  ". 

Mr.  William  Berisford,  wholesale  grocer,  Manchester,  estimated  that 
^"4,000,000  was  the  value  of  the  sugar  consumed  yearly  in  his  district.  From 
Glasgow  the  mileage  rate  per  rail  was  seven-eighths  of  a  penny  per  ton,  while  from 
Liverpool  to  Manchester  it  was  3fd. 

The  Chairman  here  intimated  that  no  evidence  as  to  the  impurity  of  the  water 
would  induce  the  Committee  to  throw  out  the  Bill.  The  opponents' case  then  began. 

Mr.  Dugdale,  Q.C.,  on  behalf  of  the  Shropshire  Union  Company,  said  the  new 
route  would  entirely  cut  off  Ellesmere  Port  from  the  sea,  and  prevent  his  clients 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  291 

from  utilising  the  land  they  had  bought  near  the  Pool  Hall  rocks,  with  the  view  of 
taking  their  navigation  down  to  deep  water.  Several  witnesses  were  called  to  prove 
this.  One  of  them  said  a  ship  of  420  tons  had  come  into  Ellesmere  Port.  On 
cross-examination,  it  was  elicited  that  in  six  months  only  sixteen  vessels  of  over  100 
tons  had  entered  that  port. 

After  Mr.  Saunders  had  spoken  for  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company, 
he  called  Mr.  William  H.  Collier,  who  gave  the  history  of  that  company,  and  said 
that  in  1884  they  carried  2,815,018  tons  over  their  system.  The  minimum  depth 
of  the  Mersey  and  Irwell  Navigation  was  4  feet  6  inches,  and  the  state  of  repair  was 
good.  In  the  two  previous  years  they  had  contemplated  an  arrangement  with  the 
promoters,  and  had  not  actively  opposed  the  Canal  Bill,  but  this  year  they  had  a 
scheme  of  their  own  for  deepening  the  river  to  10  feet  and  carrying  with  large 
barges  hauled  by  steam  power.  These  would  each  carry  300  to  400  tons.  The 
estimated  cost  was  ,£300,000  to  £350,000.  Cross-examined,  witness  defended  the 
power  of  charging  a  bar-toll  of  is.  2d.  per  ton  to  the  Rochdale  Canal  as  a  means  of 
preventing  suicidal  opposition.  The  carriage  of  cases  to  Liverpool  was  now  93.  2d. 
per  ton,  notwithstanding  the  maximum  toll  on  the  river  was  33.  4d.,  and  on  the 
canal  as.  6d.  The  maximum  freight  from  Runcorn  to  Manchester  was  6s.  per  ton, 
the  extra  35.  2d.  was  for  taking  goods  from  Runcorn  to  Liverpool. 

Mr.  Bartholomew,  of  the  Aire  and  Calder  Navigation,  did  not  believe  it  was 
an  economical  means  of  conveyance  to  take  a  large  ship  up  an  inland  navigation. 
Barge  traffic  would  be  cheaper. 

Mr.  George  Findlay,  general  manager  of  the  London  and  North- Western 
Railway,  admitted  he  had  been  pressed  by  the  traders  for  more  accommodation  at 
Garston,  and  he  would  have  liked  to  go  to  deep  water  nearer  Liverpool,  only  that 
then  he  would  be  subject  to  Liverpool  dues,  and  Garston  was  just  outside  the  limit. 
In  face  of  the  is.  2d.  rate  given  by  the  London  and  North- Western  Railway  Com- 
pany to  collieries,  he  did  not  believe  the  Ship  Canal  would  ever  carry  more  coal 
than  was  now  carried  on  the  Bridgewater  Canal.  If  any  line  of  steamers  ever  came 
to  Manchester,  they  must  come  into  the  Liverpool  conference  and  agree  to  rates,  or 
they  would  be  run  off  the  road  by  the  rich  companies.  He  thought  Mr.  Marshall 
Stevens'  estimate  of  an  average  of  53.  per  ton  an  extravagant  one ;  that  gentleman 
formulated  his  information  like  a  schoolboy  with  a  rule  of  three  sum.  At  the  end  of 
last  year  Sir  William  Forwood's  Committee  of  Liverpool  traders  approached  his 
company  with  their  grievances,  especially  asking  for  equal  mileage  rates,  and  he 


292         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

had  reason  to  believe  these  would  be  met,  and  they  would  be  satisfied.  The  cost 
of  conveyance  in  England  and  France  was  not  comparable,  because  in  the  latter 
country  the  means  of  conveyance  were  owned  by  the  State. 

In  cross-examination,  witness  admitted  that  he  had  built  his  criticisms  on  the 
trade  of  the  "Town  of  Liverpool,"  whilst  Mr.  Pember  had  spoken  of  the  "Port  of 
Liverpool,"  which  made  a  difference  of  close  on  5,000,000  tons.  Also  that  it  would 
be  fallacious  to  estimate  the  business  of  a  town  by  the  trade  done  within  a  radius  of 
12  miles.  Having  given  the  working  expenses  of  the  Ship  Canal  Docks  at  77  per 
cent.,  he  was  confronted  with  the  cost  at  Glasgow  being  23  per  cent,  and  at  Bristol 
27  per  cent.  He  still  believed  that  (with  the  exception  of  London)  Liverpool  was 
the  dearest  port  in  the  Kingdom. 

Mr.  James  Harrison,  timber  merchant,  of  Liverpool,  felt  sure  that  any  ships 
coming  up  the  canal  would  require  an  extra  2s.  6d.  per  ton,  and  as  the  10,000  tons 
of  timber  used  in  Oldham  would  all  have  to  be  carted,  even  to  supply  that  town 
would  not  be  practicable. 

Mr.  Henry  Coke,  of  Liverpool,  was  the  Chairman  of  a  Liverpool  Committee 
when  an  effort  was  made  to  reduce  the  dock  charges  in  Liverpool,  and  he  had  tried 
to  get  these  reduced,  also  the  railway  charges.  He  was  quite  sure  Manchester  had 
never  helped  them  in  their  efforts,  and  that  the  Ship  Canal  would  not  tend  to  the 
reduction  of  charges  at  Liverpool. 

In  cross-examination,  witness  agreed  that  since  1879  there  had  been  a  re- 
duction in  Liverpool  dock  rates  and  dues  of  15  per  cent.,  and  that  the  reduction  of 
10  per  cent,  in  railway  rates  might  have  been  since  the  introduction  of  the  Ship  Canal 
scheme.  Also  he  admitted  that  he  went  to  London  with  a  deputation,  who  suggested 
that  the  way  to  emancipate  Liverpool  from  the  railway  monoply  was  to  have  a  new 
independent  line  to  Manchester. 

Mr.  C.  W.  Cayzer  thought  the  delays  in  bringing  a  3,000  to  4,000  ton  steamer 
to  Manchester  would  be  such  that  it  would  be  far  better  for  a  shipowner  to  pay  the 
railway  carriage  than  bring  his  ship  up  the  canal.  Whole  return  cargoes  could  not 
be  got  from  Liverpool,  and  there  was  less  chance  of  getting  them  in  Manchester. 

In  cross-examination,  witness  admitted  that  after  deducting  carriage  from  Man- 
chester, Liverpool  and  Suez  Canal  charges  and  dues,  and  Bombay  rates  there  only 
remained  35.  4d.  for  carrying  a  ton  measurement  to  Bombay  in  twenty-five  days,  or 
a  little  over  id.  per  day,  and  therefore  the  idea  of  charging  2s.  6d.  per  ton  for  the 
single  or  double  journey  up  the  canal  was  singularly  disproportionate. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  293 

At  this  point  Mr.  Pember  informed  the  Committee  that  the  promoters  had  agreed 
to  buy  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  property  for  ;£  1,7 10,000. 

Admiral  H.  D.  Grant,  of  H.M.S.  Serapis,  said  ships  exceeding  five  knots  an 
hour  could  not  steer  in  the  canal,  and  not  at  any  time  so  well  as  in  the  Suez  Canal, 
because  the  sectional  area  was  less.  A  vessel  rarely  went  through  the  Suez  Canal 
without  grounding  eight  or  ten  times,  but  little  damage  was  done  because  the  bottom 
and  sides  were  soft  sandstone.  The  banks  of  the  Manchester  Canal  being  of  masonry 
would  make  it  very  risky  for  navigation,  because  the  heavy  winds  ships  would  en- 
counter must  drive  them  on  to  the  sides.  Under  the  most  favourable  circumstances 
it  would  take  twelve  hours  for  a  ship  to  come  up,  and  if  the  tide  did  not  suit  for 
entry,  a  vessel  might  lose  two  days.  Two  ships  meeting  and  passing  one  another 
would  be  attended  with  great  risks.  He  disagreed  with  a  witness  on  his  own  side 
who  said  it  would  be  impossible  to  steam  under  six  knots  on  the  canal. 

Captain  French  had  seen  screw  steamers  on  the  Clyde  throw  a  wave  20  feet 
up  the  banks,  and  no  vessel  would  be  safe  at  its  moorings  in  the  canal.  He  would 
say  the  insurance  would  be  four  times  as  much  as  the  usual  Mersey  rate,  and  it 
would  take  nineteen  hours  from  Eastham  to  Manchester.  Cross-examined,  he  ad- 
mitted he  had  never  been  through  the  Suez  or  Amsterdam  Canals. 

Mr.  Samuel  L.  Mason,  late  traffic  superintendent  of  the  Great  Northern  Rail- 
way, was  sure  short  distance  traffic  did  not  pay  railways,  because  of  costly  terminal 
expenses ;  they  swallowed  nearly  the  whole  rate.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  had  calcu- 
lated that  a  ton  register  was  equal  to  40  cwt.  His  investigations  in  various  trades 
showed  that  in  Glasgow  a  ton  register  averaged  15  cwt.  and  in  Liverpool  19  cwt. 
This  was  the  cause  of  the  promoters'  mistakes  as  to  the  traffic  that  could  be  got. 
His  estimate  of  the  tonnage  of  the  port  of  Liverpool  was  12,000,000  tons,  and  he 
differed  both  from  Sir  William  Forwood  and  Mr.  Alfred  Holt  when  in  their  tram- 
way scheme  they  stated  that  the  inland  traffic  only  was  15,000,000  tons. 

Mr.  Alfred  Holt  was  of  opinion  that  railways  were  superseding  water  traffic 
where  there  was  competition,  and  he  gave  reasons  for  preferring  a  barge  to  a  ship 
canal.  There  was  no  analogy  between  the  Suez  and  Ship  Canals.  If  the  former 
had  only  been  meant  to  take  goods  to  Suez  it  would  not  have  been  made.  A  ship 
would  be  delayed  at  least  three  days  each  voyage  in  coming  to  Manchester.  He 
estimated  gd.  per  ton  per  day  on  the  registered  tonnage  for  demurrage,  and  ships 
must  charge  a  higher  freight.  He  thought  this  a  foolish,  useless,  and  wasteful  scheme 
likely  to  do  injury.  In  cross-examination,  witness  owned  he  had  written  "As  for 


294         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

the  present  canal  project,  were  it  not  for  standing  in  the  way  of  the  plateway,  I  am 
in  favour  of  it ". 

Sir  William  B.  Forwood,  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pember,  said  that  in  the 
autumn  of  1884,  thinking  the  Ship  Canal  was  dead  and  buried,  and  not  likely  to  be 
revived,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Chairman  of  the  London  and  North- Western  Rail- 
way Company  and  asked  them  to  take  into  consideration  the  railway  rates  between 
Liverpool  and  Manchester,  with  the  result  that  a  modus  vivendi  had  been  happily  hit 
upon.  "On  the  supposition  you  can  get  a  happy  modus  moriendi  for  the  promoters 
of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal,"  replied  Mr.  Pember. 

Witness  said  in  the  interview  following  the  letter,  no  mention  was  made  of  the 
Ship  Canal,  and  he  denied  the  statement  about  the  interview  in  the  newspaper  which 
said,  "The  Manchester  Ship  Canal  formed  an  important  element  in  the  discussion". 
Twitted  by  counsel  with  having  entirely  changed  his  opinions  since  1881  in  order  to 
try  and  defeat  the  Ship  Canal  Bill,  witness  replied  that  though  he  had  then  said  that 
it  was  immaterial  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  if  goods  took  twice  as  long  by  road  as  by 
rail,  there  had  been  a  great  change  since  then.  He  could  not  agree  with  Mr. 
Findlay  when  he  said,  "  I  do  not  think  I  know  of  any  port  that  is  so  favourably 
placed  with  regard  to  railway  rates  as  Liverpool".  It  was  true  when  he  said, 
"Practically  Liverpool  is  the  milch  cow  of  the  railway  companies;  they  get  a  large 
profit  out  of  their  Liverpool  traffic  which  they  spend  in  developing  other  ports".  He 
believed  Liverpool  was  overcharged  .£400,000,  and  though  they  worked  with  the 
railways  against  the  Ship  Canal,  there  was  no  combination. 

He  still  maintained  that  the  practice  of  sending  goods  from  Blackburn  to  Liver- 
pool was  a  growing  one. 

Mr.  Henry  Oakley,  general  manager  of  the  Great  Northern  Railway,  believed 
the  canal  would  be  a  failure ;  there  was  neither  ground  space  nor  warehousing,  and 
as  there  were  no  railway  connections,  it  was  a  practical  impossibility  to  remove 
3,000,000  tons  by  carts.  He  did  not  believe  there  were  200,000  tons  carted  out  of 
the  Victoria  Docks  in  a  year. 

Mr.  Aspinall,  Q.C.,  addressed  the  Committee  for  the  Liverpool  Corporation. 
He  characterised  Mr.  Adamson  as— 

An  honest,  able,  energetic  man  of  business,  a  man  who,  when  he  once  forms  an  opinion, 
holds  to  and  adheres  to  it  with  the  strongest  tenacity,  but  who  himself  would  be  most  difficult 
to  convince  that  any  opinion  of  his  was  not  founded  upon  the  strongest  grounds. 

He  was  the  sort  of  man  who  could  persuade  people,  and  no  doubt  the  energetic 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  LORDS  295 

measures  he  had  taken,  promising  success  and  a  good  dividend,  had  roused  the 
country.  But  in  Liverpool  no  one  believed  in  the  scheme,  not  because  of  competition, 
but  because  they  believed  the  river  Mersey  and  its  navigation  were  imperilled.  He 
asked,  "  Who  is  going  to  establish  a  line  of  vessels  for  any  purpose  to  Manchester?  " 
For  small  purposes,  and  for  the  use  of  the  immediate  neighbourhood,  such  as 
bringing  potatoes  from  Glasgow,  he  admitted  it  might  be  used.  "  Can  your  Lord- 
ships conceive  that  for  years  and  years  after  the  completion  of  the  canal,  even  if  it 
were  an  absolute  success,  there  will  be  such  a  trade  formed  at  Manchester  as  would 
induce  shipowners  to  establish  a  line  to  go  to  Manchester  and  back  from  anywhere 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth  ? "  To  make  shipping  profitable  a  whole  cargo  must  be 
ready  to  go  back  to  the  port  whence  the  ship  comes,  or  to  some  other  port.  The 
idea  of  the  promoters  was  wild  and  visionary,  and  calculated  to  be  delusive  in  the 
strongest  possible  way.  Unless  the  Committee  were  satisfied  the  canal  would 
pay  in  a  reasonable  time,  and  not  hang  over  and  stop  other  improvements,  or  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  present  monopolist-carrying  companies,  he  asked  for  the 
rejection  of  the  Bill. 

Mr.  Pope,  Q.  C.,  said  there  was  hardly  a  period  in  his  own  career  when  some  one 
or  other  of  the  promoters  had  not  exhibited  to  himself  some  personal  friendship  or 
kindness,  therefore  he  would  like  to  treat  them  with  great  consideration,  and  he  must 
respect  the  feelings  of  Manchester.  But  he  must  object,  by  raising  the  railways,  to 
the  construction  of  a  wall  between  Lancashire  and  Cheshire  at  least  70  feet  high, 
also  to  dangerous  swing  bridges  affecting  not  only  any  future  but  the  existing  lines 
which  carried  an  enormous  traffic  from  Scotland  and  the  northern  counties  to  the 
South  of  England.  It  was  claimed  this  was  an  alternative  to  the  swing  bridges 
reserved  by  ancient  Acts  of  Parliament,  but  he  believed  no  Board  of  Trade  would 
ever  listen  to  the  enforcement  of  such  antiquated  obligations.  With  the  greatest 
respect  to  Sir  William  Forwood,  he  doubted  his  estimated  25,000,000  tons  as  the 
traffic  turnover  of  Liverpool ;  but  even  admitting  the  promoters'  estimate  of  15,000,000 
tons,  the  evidence  he  had  adduced  proved  they  could  only  get  1,140,000  tons  instead 
of  the  3,000,000  they  built  upon.  He  ridiculed  the  idea  of  the  ,£5,000,000  which 
the  promoters  were  willing  to  find  before  they  started,  or  the  protective  clauses 
they  offered  ;  these  gave  no  security  in  case  of  a  constructive  or  monetary  breakdown. 
He  believed  if  the  money  was  locked  up,  as  it  should  be,  till  the  completion  of  the 
Bill,  the  promoters  would  never  go  on. 

Mr.  Littler,  Q.C.,  said  the  Cheshire  lines  only  carried  669,000  tons  of  traffic. 


296         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

How  could  the  promoters  hope  to  get  3,000,000  tons  in  face  of  fierce  competition  ? 
The  figures  were  absurd.  The  promoters'  case  was  a  beautiful  picture  seen  at  a 
distance,  nearer  it  was  ordinary,  closer  still  the  paint  was  laid  on  too  thick,  and  on 
the  spot  it  was  a  simple  daub.  It  was  very  tempting,  and  its  glamour  may  have 
attracted  their  Lordships  as  it  had  many  Lancashire  people,  who  ought  to  have 
commercial  knowledge.  He  ventured  to  say  few  people  were  more  ignorant  of  the 
carrying  business  than  traders  themselves. 

Mr.  Adamson  knows  absolutely  nothing  about  railway  carrying ;  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens, 
with  great  submission,  knows  less.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens'  figures  are  simply  a  collection  of 
arithmetical  puzzles,  and,  as  Mr.  Findlay  said,  not  very  good  at  that.  That  is  the  class  of 
evidence  on  which  your  Lordships  are  asked  to  sanction  an  expenditure  of  £10,000,000.  The 
moment  the  canal  is  opened,  all  that  the  London  and  North-Western  and  other  railways 
have  to  do  is  to  reduce  their  rates,  and  they  can  drive  these  people  out  of  the  field.  No 
Bill  was  ever  so  encumbered  with  protective  clauses  for  everybody.  They  have  bought  off 
opposition  right  and  left  so  that  they  might  triumphantly  say,  "We  have  settled  with  the 
various  landowners  and  interests  ".  The  probable  result  will  be  that  having  forced  the  hands 
of  the  railway  companies,  not  one  inch  of  these  works  will  ever  be  carried  out  at  all. 

Mr.  Littler  trusted  the  Committee  would  feel  justified  in  throwing  out  the  Bill. 

You  are  dealing  with  interests  counted  by  hundreds  of  millions,  with  the  interests  of 
shareholders  all  over  the  country,  many  of  them  exceedingly  poor,  persons  who  are  to  be 
sacrificed  simply  because  some  of  these  rich  people  in  Lancashire  think  they  can  make  a  little 
more  money  out  of  their  cotton  than  they  do  now. '  This  scheme,  concocted  during  the 
unfortunate  illness  of  Mr.  Adamson,  is  nothing  more  than  the  frenzied  fancy  of  a  sick  man's 
dream. 

After  clearing  the  room  for  consultation  the  Chairman  said  :— 

We  will  allow  the  Bill  to  proceed  subject  to  the  insertion  of  the  clause  with  regard  to 
the  £5,000,000  which  has  been  agreed  to.  We  are  also  disposed  to  impound  the  4  per 
cent,  interest  deposit  mentioned  in  clause  39,  amounting  to  £276,539,  either  by  omitting 
clause  41,  or  in  any  other  such  way  as  may  satisfactorily  effect  that  object.  With  regard 
to  this  last  point,  we  are  ready  to  hear  any  objections  which  the  promoters  may  have  to 
urge. 

Mr.  Pember  objected  to  impounding  the  4  per  cent  deposit,  and  after  a  long 
discussion  the  Committee  agreed  not  to  insist  upon  the  clause. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
1885. 

BILL  BEFORE  MR.  FORSTER'S  COMMITTEE  IN  THE  COMMONS 
-EVIDENCE— MR.  PEMBER'S  POWERFUL  APPEAL-OTHER 
SPEECHES  BY  COUNSEL— FINAL  DECISION— CLAUSES. 

With  regard  to  the  canal  itself,  I  repeat  that  I  think  a  greatly  improved  waterway 
between  Manchester  and  Liverpool  is  bound  to  be  made,  and  that  it  would  be  a  great  blessing 
to  Manchester  and  no  damage  to  Liverpool. — Sir  EDWARD  WATKIN. 

THE  Ship  Canal  Bill  having  passed  the  Lords  on  i5th  June,  1885,  was  intro- 
duced to  a  House  of  Commons  Committee  consisting  of  the  Right  Honourable 
W.  E.  Forster,  (in  the  Chair),  Lord  Eustace  Cecil,  Mr.  Dalrymple  and  Mr. 
William  Fowler.  Practically  the  same  leading  counsel  again  appeared  for  the  pro- 
moters and  opponents.  Many  of  the  petitioners  in  the  Lords,  having  been  satisfied 
by  protective  clauses,  dropped  out,  as  did  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company 
whose  concern  the  Ship  Canal  had  agreed  to  buy.  Commercial  fear,  however, 
prompted  some  dozen  Liverpool  Trading  Associations  to  oppose  the  Bill,  and  they 
were  represented  by  Mr.  Potter,  Q.C. 

Again  it  was  virgin  soil,  and  the  new  Committee  had  to  begin  at  the  A  B  C  of 
the  case  and  have  everything  explained  to  them.  The  very  able  Chairman  said  it 
was  their  duty  to  hear  fully  both  counsel  and  new'evidence,  but  in  view  of  the  great 
costs  that  were  being  incurred  and  the  danger  of  not  getting  through  before  the 
session  closed,  he  asked  counsel  on  both  sides  to  do  their  best  to  shorten  the  case, 
and  he  promised  his  Committee  should  read  the  past  evidence  and  give  it  the  same 
attention  as  if  it  had  been  produced  in  the  room. 

The  case  lasted  from  the  1 5th  June  to  3rd  August  when  the  decision  was  given. 
There  were  thirty-four  witnesses  for  and  forty-five  against  the  Bill.  Of  the  petitioners 
seventeen  of  them  appeared  by  counsel. 

Mr.  Pember  in  opening  his  case  pointed  out  how  his  Bill  had  been  played 

(297) 


298         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

shuttlecock  with  in  the  two  previous  years  by  the  Commons  and  Lords.  He  gave 
the  history  of  the  Bill  from  the  commencement,  and  showed  how  the  business  of  Man- 
chester was  suffering  from  dear  railways  and  a  dear  seaport,  so  much  so  that  trades 
were  leaving  the  city,  which  was  fast  going  to  decay.  He  complained  that  having 
given  up  the  channel  through  the  estuary  and  virtually  adopted  the  scheme  of  Mr. 
Lyster,  the  Liverpool  engineer,  they  were  still  bitterly  opposed  notwithstanding 
repeated  pledges  given  on  the  part  of  Liverpool  in  the  previous  session  that 
opposition  would  cease.  He  showed  by  diagrams  on  the  walls  that  the  canal  would 
be  deeper  and  wider  than  the  Suez  and  Amsterdam  Canals,  and  said  that  vessels  of 
over  5,000  tons  were  now  navigating  the  former.  He  stated  that  to  meet  public 
requirements  his  company  had  given  up  their  right  to  swing  bridges  and  contented 
themselves  with  a  75  feet  headway.  Also  that  the  railway  gradients  to  be  given 
were  fairly  easy.  After  explaining  the  Weaver  sluices  he  showed  that  the  abstrac- 
tion of  water  from  the  estuary  was  small  and  non-important,  indeed  it  was  only  a 
tenth  part  of  what  Liverpool  abstracted  in  order  to  make  her  dock  walls.  He  was 
of  opinion  that  in  the  end  50  percent,  of  the  costs  of  transit  would  be  saved  by  the  canal, 
and  he  pointed  out  how,  on  the  Continent,  goods  were  carried  at  an  average  rate  for 
id.  per  ton  per  mile  against  3d.  at  home.  He  also  showed  the  unfairness  of  the  rates 
charged  on  Manchester  goods,  thus  giving  a  great  advantage  to  foreign  competitors. 
The  result  was  that  the  selling  prices  of  staple  articles  of  food  were  5  per  cent,  dearer 
in  Manchester  than  in  some  other  ports.  He  argued  that  if  Sir  William  Forwood's 
estimate  of  25,000,000  tons  (being  the  weight  passing  through  Liverpool)  was  correct, 
Manchester,  as  the  great  consuming  centre,  might  justly  hope  to  get  3,000,000  tons 
of  traffic.  Again  that  as  the  working  expenses  of  the  Suez  Canal  varied  from  5  to  9 
per  cent,  it  was  a  reasonable  assumption  to  place  15  per  cent,  as  the  working  expenses 
of  the  Ship  Canal.  He  treated  the  sheaf  of  petitions,  which  the  indefatigable  hostility 
of  Sir  William  Forwood  had  produced,  as  simply  moves  to  wreck  the  Bill. 
Mr.  Daniel  Adamson  put  in  the  following  tables  :— 

1.  Population  of  Manchester  and  District. 

2.  Value  of  imports  and  exports  of  chief  ports  of  United  Kingdom. 
2a.        „      „         „          „          „        „  London  and  Liverpool. 

3.  „      „         „  of  foreign  and  colonial  produce  from  Liverpool. 

4.  „      „  principal  exports  of  British  produce  from  Liverpool. 

5.  Shipping  statistics,  tonnage  of  vessels  conveying  cargo  in  and  out  of  principal 

ports  in  1883. 

1  For  further  particulars  see  Appendix  No.  III. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS                 299 

6.  Comparison  of  railway  rates — grain. 

7.  „  „         „          „        of  square  timber,  long  and  short  distances. 

8.  „  „         „          „        raw  cotton. 

9.  „  „         „          „        pig  iron  to  Manchester. 

10.  „           „        „          „          „      „     „             „       conveyed  from  different  ports 

I  r.  „           „         „          „        undamageable  iron. 

12.  ,,  „         „          ,,        machinery  in  cases  or  frames. 

13.  „  „        „          „        machinery  and  boilers. 

14.  Dock  charges  on  imports  at  certain  principal  ports. 

1 5.  „  „      on  exports   „       „             „ 

16.  Growth  of  gross  revenue  at  the  Liverpool  Docks  from  1864  to  1884. 

17.  Cotton  statistics.     Number  of  factories,  spindles,  looms,  workers. 

1 8.  „  „            Distribution  of  spindles. 

19.  „  .,                      „           „    looms. 

20.  „  „           Deliveries  of  cotton  at  home  and  abroad. 

21.  ,,  „           Resume  of  cotton  consumption  and  production. 

22.  „  „           Value  of  exports  abroad  in  1883. 

23.  „  „            Exports  of  cotton.yarn  and  cloth  from  British  India,  1872101884. 
233.  „              „            Exports  of  Indian  cotton  to  the  Continent. 

23b.  ,,              ,,           Depression  in  cotton  trade,  decline  in  profit. 

24.  „  „           Cotton  brokers'  cash  statements. 

25.  ,,  „           Charges  for  cotton  to  Newton  Moor  Mills. 

253.  „              „           Summary  of  savings  to  Newton  Moor  Company. 

26.  „  „           Estimateof  annual  savings  within  carting  distance  of  Manchester. 

27.  „  „           Summary  of  entire  savings  in  cotton  trade. 

28.  General  trades.     Comparison  of  charges  via  Liverpool  and  Ship  Canal  (inwards). 

29.  „  „                   ,,            „         „         „           „            „        „          „     (outwards). 
293.  Shipping  statistics.     Increase  tonnage,  Glasgow  and  other  towns. 

30.  Coal  statistics.     Production  of  chief  fields  in  1882. 

31.  „  „             Exports  abroad  in  1883. 

32.  Shipping  statistics.     Shipbuilding  in  1884. 

33.  Timber  statistics.     Imports  of  foreign  and  colonial  timber  in  1883. 

34.  Shipping  statistics.      Number  and  tonnage  of  English  ships  (under  3,000  tons). 

35.  „  „             Applied  to  Liverpool  in  1884. 

36.  „  „             Examples  of  large  vessels  able  to  use  the  canal. 

37.  „  „            Tonnage,  also  arrivals  and  departures,  Dutch  Canal,   1877 

to  1883. 

37a.  „               „             Arrival  of  vessels  at  Antwerp,  1873  to  1884. 

38.  „  „             Increase  of  tonnage  entering  Liverpool  1864  to  1884. 

39.  Bridgewater  Navigation  Company.     Statement  of  tonnage,  capital  and  nett  revenue. 

40.  Working  expenses.     Comparison  with  the  Suez  and  Amsterdam  Canals. 


300         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

Also  table  showing  the  growth  of  tonnage  of  vessels  passing  through  the  Suez  Canal 
and  receipts  derived  therefrom  from  1870  to  1884. 

Witness  gave  evidence  in  support  of  the  above  tables,  and  said  Manchester  had 
subscribed  ,£18,000,  Salford  .£6,000  and  Warrington  £2,000  out  of  their  rates 
towards  the  Parliamentary  expenses  of  the  current  year.  He  also  pointed  out  that 
already  the  dock  dues  had  been  reduced,  and  is.  per  ton  had  been  taken  off  the 
carriage  of  cotton.  Speaking  of  the  coal  business  to  be  built  up,  he  said  Dublin 
alone  took  nearly  1,000,000  tons  of  English  coal.  In  cross-examination,  Mr.  Pope 
said  they  did  not  intend  to  contest  the  sufficiency  of  the  estimates. 

Mr.  S.  T.  Bradbury,  of  Messrs.  Gartside  &  Company,  Limited,  who  had 
been  a  witness  before  on  each  previous  Committee,  but  had  been  taken  briefly,  now 
underwent  a  long  and  searching  examination  both  by  the  opponents  and  the  Com- 
mittee, the  latter  evidently  being  anxious  thoroughly  to  master  the  cotton  business, 
especially  as  to  the  distribution  of  cotton  and  cotton  goods  by  carts,  and  the  system 
of  dual  brokerage  in  Liverpool.  The  Chairman,  at  the  conclusion,  said  though  it 
had  been  long,  it  had  been  useful,  and  he  did  not  think  it  had  been  a  waste  of  time. 

Mr.  Reuben  Spencer,  of  Manchester,  and  Mr.  F.  H.  Bowman,  cotton  spinner, 
of  Halifax,  followed.  The  latter  said  he  ran  130,000  spindles,  turning  out  3,000,000 
Ibs.  of  yarn  yearly,  and  that  he  had  the  largest  mill  in  Yorkshire.  He  showed  how 
the  canal  would  benefit  the  cotton  trade,  and  denied  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Findlay 
"that  there  were  no  cotton  mills  in  Halifax  at  all". 

Mr.  Michael  Spitz,  of  Manchester,  estimated  the  canal  would  save  on  the 
shipment  of  cotton  waste  43.  7d.  per  ton  as  compared  with  Liverpool,  and  8s.  gd.  as 
compared  with  Hull. 

Mr.  Charles  Holt,  corn  merchant,  of  Manchester,  repeated  his  evidence.  Mr. 
Pope:  "  I  shall  not  cross-examine  Mr.  Holt".  This  was  no  doubt  the  result  of  the 
sharp  passage  between  them  in  the  Committee  of  the  Upper  House. 

Mr.  John  C.  Fielden,  of  Manchester,  astonished  the  Committee  by  estimating 
the  canal  would  save  £3,000,000  sterling  to  the  community,  and  he  certainly  gained 
their  ear  by  the  arguments  he  used  to  make  good  his  statements.  As  regarded  food 
he  said : — 

We  should  develop  the  growth  at  home  instead  of  getting  it  from  abroad  ;  they  can 
bring  food  from  New  York  as  cheaply  as  from  the  South  of  England — they  can  bring  it 
cheaper.  They  can  bring  worked  timber,  doors,  etc.,  from  Chicago  to  London,  700  miles  by 
rail  and  3,000  miles  by  sea,  cheaper  than  they  can  carry  the  same  goods  from  London  to 


\Vii.i.i.\\i    |.   Cknssi.KY,    M.P.,   DIRKATOK,    MANCHKSTKU   SHIP  CAN  \i 

COMPANY. 

Franz  Baum.  Ti>  face  page  300. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  301 

Manchester,  and  they  are  taxing  our  goods  deliberately  1 53   per  ton  in  order  to  carry  foreign 
trade. 

Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  bore  witness  to  vessels  at  Liverpool  having  sometimes 
to  wait  ten  hours  in  the  river  before  they  could  dock,  and  at  other  times  having  to 
complete  loading  in  the  river ;  in  both  cases  because  of  tidal  difficulties.  Loading 
and  discharging  in  the  river  was  free  in  London,  but  in  Liverpool  ships  had  to  pay 
dock  dues.  It  had  been  said  that  a  traffic  of  3,000,000  tons  could  not  be  done  on 
64  acres  of  dock  land,  but  Garston  did  1,800,000  tons  on  14  acres.  Again,  Mr. 
Oakley  had  spoken  of  the  impossibility  of  distributing  by  cart  and  water  from  Man- 
chester; yet  at  the  Alexandra  Dock,  Liverpool,  in  1884,  on  44  acres,  3,250,000  tons 
of  goods  were  distributed  by  similar  means.  Liverpool  arrangements  were  such 
that  merchants  there  need  not  pay  quay  attendance,  but  this  had  to  be  paid  by  in- 
land merchants.  Garston  was  crowded  out,  and  ships  sometimes  had  to  wait  two  or 
three  weeks  for  a  berth.  It  was  is.  per  ton  cheaper  to  bring  goods  there  and  pay 
the  railway  carriage  and  expenses  back  to  Liverpool  than  to  unload  in  Liverpool 
direct  If  cotton  could  come  to  Garston,  there  would  be  a  saving  of  33.  6d.  per  ton. 
In  1822  cotton  to  Manchester  cost  153.  per  ton.  After  the  advent  of  railways  and 
in  time  of  competition  it  went  down  to  as.  6d.  per  ton,  and  now  it  was  93.  2d.  by 
canal  or  rail.  It  had  been  said  that  the  railways  by  reducing  their  rates  would  easily 
ruin  the  canal,  but  he  pointed  out  that  as  the  present  cost  of  cotton  freight,  dues 
and  expenses  was  145.  6d.  per  ton,  out  of  which  railway  freight  was  8s.  and  the  total 
cost  by  Ship  Canal  73.  :  the  railway  companies  must  practically  carry  for  nothing  in 
order  to  compete  with  the  canal.  The  terminal  and  Liverpool  charges  had  even 
more  to  do  with  dear  freightage  than  the  mere  haulage.  To  run  the  canal  off  the 
road  the  railways  would  have  to  give  the  haulage,  and  the  shareholders  would 
certainly  object  to  no  dividends. 

The  Chairman  here  asked  to  hear  the  engineering  evidence  at  once.  He  did 
not  wish  to  shorten  the  case  unduly,  but  he  thought  both  sides  must  wish  to  bring 
this  costly  inquiry  to  an  end :  the  promoters  had  yet  1 1 9  witnesses  to  call,  and 
possibly  the  opponents  as  many.  If  they  did  not  quicken,  the  chances  of  a  decision 
were  nil.  He  asked  for  a  few  leading  commercial  witnesses  to  be  called  that  day, 
and  that  on  the  next  they  should  go  on  with  the  engineering  case.  To  this  Mr. 
Pember  at  once  agreed. 

Mr.  Stevens,  the  witness,  said  he  had  taken  no  revenue  for  animals,  but  he 
believed  there  would  be  large  shipments  of  cattle.  It  was  quite  fallacious  to  draw 


302         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

a  zone  of  12  miles  round  Manchester  and  limit  the  canal  traffic  to  it.  Take  the 
traffic  1 2  miles  round  Liverpool  and  it  will  not  include  5  per  cent,  of  the  traffic  done 
in  that  city.  Though  the  opponents  declared  the  railway  companies  would  not 
convey  goods  brought  by  canal,  he  was  perfectly  sure  directly  the  canal  and  docks 
were  made  there  would  be  an  actual  race  between  the  companies  for  the  traffic.  It 
was  said  the  bulk  of  the  timber  came  by  sailing  ships  unsuitable  for  the  canal ;  he 
believed  in  ten  or  fifteen  years  it  would  all  come  by  steamers. 

When  Mr.  Littler  cross-examined  witness  he  took  a  personal  tone,  and  said  the 
London  and  North- Western  Railway  did  not  know  of  Mr.  Stevens'  agencies,  and 
that  as  he  had  made  scandalous  charges,  he  ought  to  give  the  name  of  any  of  their 
servants  who  had  influenced  traffic  against  him.  This  the  witness  at  once  did,  and 
said  the  manager  had.  Upon  this  the  Chairman  said  Mr.  Littler  had  brought  the 
answer  upon  himself  by  his  sneers.  In  conclusion  Mr.  Littler  said  after  witness's 
attack  on  Mr.  Findlay's  figures,  he  would  not  attempt  anything.  To  which  the  retort 
came,  "  I  think  you  had  better  not". 

Mr.  Edward  Leader  Williams  gave  a  lengthy  and  exhaustive  description  of 
the  canal  works,  and  explained  how  they  differed  from  the  scheme  of  the  two  previous 
years.  He  was  encouraged  to  do  this  by  the  Chairman,  who  said  he  commenced 
the  inquiry  literally  knowing  nothing  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  Witness  said  one 
of  the  principal  objections  was  that  there  would  be  a  small  abstraction  of  tidal  water. 
The  same  argument  was  used  when  Birkenhead  wanted  to  build  docks  similar  to 
Liverpool.  This  necessitated  stopping  the  tidal  flow  up  the  Wallasey  Creek.  "  The 
fight  was  intense — as  bad  as  this."  Liverpool  said  the  Wallasey  Creek  water  was  of 
great  value  to  the  bar,  and  there  must  be  no  abstraction  from  the  estuary.  Birken- 
head replied  :  "You  have  been  always  doing  it  yourselves.  Why  not  we?"  It  has 
been  admitted  that  neither  this  abstraction,  which  was  allowed,  nor  the  20,000,000 
cubic  yards  taken  from  the  estuary  by  Liverpool  to  make  her  docks,  had  done  any 
damage  to  the  bar.  This  latter  abstraction  is  five  times  as  much  as  we  propose  to 
take.  "  It  is  only  when  Manchester  comes  into  the  upper  estuary  and  takes  a 
minor  quantity  that  mischief  is  done." 

The  Chairman  again  interposed  and  asked  if  the  opponents  would  follow  the 
promoters  with  the  estuary  case ;  he  did  not  consider  they  would  be  damaged  thereby. 
After  a  night's  deliberation  counsel  for  the  opponents  refused  to  take  a  course,  which, 
as  they  said,  meant  taking  their  case  piecemeal ;  they  would,  however,  consent  that 
if  the  consideration  could  not  be  finished,  the  Bill  might  be  carried  over  as  a  remanet 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  303 

to  be  heard  by  the  same  Committee  next  session.  This  suggestion  being  found 
impossible,  the  case  proceeded. 

The  Chairman  here  made  the  announcement  that  one  of  the  Committee,  Mr. 
Dalrymple,  had  accepted  office  under  the  Crown,  and  either  Parliament  must  appoint 
a  substitute,  or,  with  the  consent  of  both  parties,  the  remaining  three  could  finish  the 
case.  The  latter  course  was  at  once  adopted. 

The  Chairman  also  asked  Mr.  Pember  if  the  promoters  could  adopt  Mr. 
Lyster's  plan  instead  of  their  own?  In  reply  the  witness  showed  how  far  the  two 
plans  could  be  assimilated,  and  further  that  if  abstraction  was  the  bugbear,  Mr.  Lyster's 
plan  on  a  14  feet  tide  abstracted  5,000,000  cubic  yards  of  water,  whilst  the  promoters 
only  abstracted  4,250,000  cubic  yards.  But  all  negotiation  was  cut  off  when  Mr. 
Pope,  on  behalf  of  Liverpool  and  Garston,  refused  assent  to  Mr.  Lyster's  plan. 
Concessions  seemed  useless.  When  the  engineer  offered  to  meet  an  objection  as  to 
curves,  Mr.  Bidder  said,  "  I  do  not  know  what  you  would  not  do  to  get  the  Bill/' 
to  which  Mr.  Williams  replied,  "  I  do  not  know  anything  Liverpool  would  stop  short 
of  to  prevent  us  getting  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal ".  Witness  said  it  was  evident 
more  dock  accommodation  was  wanted  somewhere ;  Liverpool  could  not  supply  it. 
The  question  was  whether  Garston  or  Manchester  had  to  do  so. 

Mr.  James  Abernethy  gave  his  full  support  to  the  plans  and  estimates,  and  to 
his  mind  it  was  sheer  nonsense  to  say  because  a  sunken  ship  blocked  the  Suez  Canal, 
only  wide  enough  for  one  vessel,  that  of  necessity  the  same  mishap  would  block  the 
Ship  Canal,  made  wide  enough  for  two  vessels  to  pass. 

Mr.  G.  M.  Cunningham,  of  Edinburgh,  did  not  believe  the  small  abstraction 
would  damage  the  estuary  or  bar  ;  the  proposed  embankment  would  be  most 
beneficial. 

Mr.  James  Deas,  of  Glasgow,  Mr.  Messent,  of  the  Tyne,  Mr.  Fow/er,  of  the 
Tees,  and  Mr.  G.  H.  Hill,  of  Manchester,  highly  approved  of  the  scheme,  and  Mr. 
H.  J.  Martin,  of  the  Severn,  who  had  declined  to  support  last  year's  scheme,  gave 
his  hearty  assent  to  a  canal  skirting  the  Cheshire  side  of  the  estuary. 

Mr.  David  Cunningham,  of  Dundee,  was  sure  the  proposed  works  would  have 
a  beneficial  and  not  a  prejudicial  effect  on  the  Mersey,  and  Mr.  Lionel  B.  Wells  had 
a  similar  opinion. 

Mr.  Giles,  C.E.,  of  Southampton,  was  sure  no  one  could  detect  the  abstraction. 
It  meant  i  inch  in  25,000  acres  of  estuary,  and  no  one  could  be  sure  to  an  inch  in  his 
soundings.  He  approved  of  the  engineer's  deep  sill  at  Eastham,  and  he  pointed  out 


304         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

that  at  one  time  Mr.  Lyster,  in  order  to  get  under  Runcorn  Bridge,  placed  his  sill 
6  feet  4  inches  deeper  than  that  of  Mr.  Williams,  of  which  he  now  complained. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Wheeler,  of  Boston,  supported  the  scheme.  The  Pool  Hall  rocks 
and  other  headlands  must  prevent  a  channel  on  the  Cheshire  side,  and  any  abstrac- 
tion was  infinitesimal  compared  with  Liverpool  abstractions,  which  would  do  much 
more  harm  :— 

The  neck  gets  wider  as  you  near  the  bulb  of  a  bottle.  If  I  want  to  fill  the  bottle  it 
would  be  easier  if  the  part  near  the  cork  was  wider ;  but  the  Liverpool  people  have  contracted 
it  just  where  you  want  to  fill  it,  therefore  they  stop  the  water  getting  in ;  and  therefore  the 
abstraction  is  one  which  is  likely  to  prevent  water  coming  into  the  upper  estuary. 

Mr.  T.  S.  Hudson,  shipowner,  West  Hartlepool,  expressed  himself  satisfied 
as  to  the  canal  being  safe  for  navigation.  Cross-examined  as  to  why  only  650,000 
tons  of  coal  were  shipped  at  Liverpool  against  10,000,000  tons  at  Cardiff,  witness 
said  it  was  largely  owing  to  defective  apparatus.  At  Birkenhead  the  North  Wales 
coal  was  loaded  by  barrows,  and  it  took  double  the  time  to  fill  a  ship. 

Mr.  L.  F.  Vernon-Harcourt  believed  that  just  as  the  Liverpool  Docks  trained 
the  channel,  so  would  the  regulated  sides  of  the  Ship  Canal ;  and  he  believed  making 
the  Liverpool  Docks,  if  there  was  any  sensible  abstraction,  would  be  more  damaging 
to  the  bar  than  an  abstraction  in  the  broad  part  of  the  upper  estuary.  He  could 
not  believe  the  fresh  waters  of  the  Mersey  and  Weaver  would  be  diverted  from  their 
usual  course  and  form  a  new  Channel  on  the  Cheshire  side.  Had  he  thought  so  he 
should  not  have  supported  the  Bill. 

The  opponents  then  put  forward  their  case. 

Captain  Graham  Hills,  marine  surveyor  of  the  Dock  Board,  described  the 
Liverpool  bar  as  being  one-fourth  of  a  mile  across  at  the  top  and  about  half  a  mile 
at  the  base,  and  predicted  as  the  tide  rose  higher  at  the  Weaver  than  at  Liver- 
pool there  would  be  a  stream  coming  through  the  openings  and  down  the  canal  that 
would  prevent  the  opening  of  the  Eastham  gates,  just  the  contrary  of  what  was 
expected.  As  regarded  abstraction  damaging  the  bar,  witness  said  that  in  1873  the 
landowners  reclaimed  240  acres  from  the  estuary,  and  he  admitted  after  that  date 
the  bar  improved.  The  Chairman  asked  if  this  was  so,  why  was  he  so  afraid  of  the 
1 1  acres  now  to  be  absorbed  ?  Witness  went  on  to  say  that  in  consequence  of  the 
crowd  of  ships  at  anchor  it  would  be  dangerous  to  navigate  the  Sloyne,  and  in  flood 
time  ships  would  have  to  go  stern  first  into  the  Eastham  lock.  He  had  been  in  the 
North  Holland  and  Amsterdam  Canals,  and  they  were  both  failures,  and  he  thought 


-' 


a; 

X 


o 
o 


z 
EC 
a: 

U 

a. 
y. 

I 
C/3 


\ 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  305 

the  very  look  of  the  place  sufficient  to  cause  Dutchmen  to  run  away.  He  believed 
past  abstractions  had  seriously  damaged  the  bar,  that  last  year's  scheme  would  have 
destroyed  half  the  inner  estuary  in  time,  and  this  year's  plan  would  defer  the  injury 
for  a  longer  period.  He  had  not  changed  his  view  of  Mr.  Lyster's  plan,  to  which 
he  objected  in  the  Lords  Committee. 

Mr.  George  F.  Lyster  said  whilst  Liverpool  and  Birkenhead  had  twenty-four 
graving  docks  for  533^  acres  of  dockage,  Manchester  had  made  no  provision  at  all. 
Cartage  was  the  only  way  by  which  in  Liverpool  they  could  remove  goods  from  the 
quays  to  the  stations  and  warehouses ;  and  the  railway  managers  found  this  the 
most  convenient  way  of  removing  them.  Railway  lines  had  been  laid  along  some 
of  the  docks,  but  after  three  or  four  years'  experience  as  they  were  never  used  they 
were  pulled  up,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  railway  people.  He  presumed  the  rail- 
ways charged  for  the  carting  and  included  it  in  their  charges.  Both  Liverpool  and 
Birkenhead  had  been  fitted  out  with  the  best  coal  loading  appliances  at  a  cost  of 
,£280,000.  The  promoters  had  made  no  such  provision.  He  considered  they  had 
been  guilty  of  very  serious  plagiarism  in  copying  his  plans,  but  unfortunately  they 
had  mutilated  his  ideas,  and  what  they  proposed  was  both  objectionable  and 
dangerous.  The  promoters  could  not  keep  their  lock  entrances  (18  feet  deep)  open  ; 
the  sand  would  overwhelm  their  platforms  and  gates,  and  they  would  neither  open 
nor  shut  after  a  gale  of  wind.  A  passage  through  the  Sloyne  would  be  equivalent 
to  destroying  it  as  an  anchorage.  In  cross-examination,  witness  was  reminded  of 
his  statement  in  1867  at  the  Surveyors'  Institution,  that  the  abstraction  of  the  whole 
of  Wallasey  Creek,  when  making  Birkenhead  Docks,  had  not  damaged  the  bar 
though  it  was  thought  at  the  time  it  would  do  so.  This  he  fully  admitted.  He  did 
not  believe  a  canal  on  the  Cheshire  side  would  injure  Garston.  Time  had  convinced 
him  that  his  other  objections  in  the  Lords  Committee  still  held  good. 

Mr.  G.  F.  Deacon  at  once  began  to  puzzle  the  Committee  by  highly  technical 
terms,  such  as  "hydraulic  mean  depth"  and  "wetted  perimeter," — against  which 
the  Chairman  mildly  protested.  Witness  ended  by  supporting  Captain  Graham 
Hills'  views. 

Str  William  Thomson  compared  the  action  of  sand  on  the  sea-shore  driven 
by  currents  and  wind  to  the  dust  of  the  air  which  is  driven  about  and  seeks  shelter  in 
all  kinds  of  crevices  and  recesses,  to  be  moved  possibly  by  the  next  wind  blowing  in 
a  different  direction.  The  tide  takes  the  place  of  wind  in  the  Irish  Channel.  He 
believed  the  promoters'  scheme  would  have  a  tendency  to  make  a  channel  on  the 

VOL.  I.  20 


306         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

Cheshire  side,  and  would  be  disastrous  to  Liverpool.  The  tide  would  follow  the  line 
of  least  resistance.  If  the  question  of  damage  to  Garston  did  not  exist,  he  could  see 
no  objection  to  deepening  the  Eastham  channel.  He  feared  Garston  would  in  time 
be  silted  up. 

Even  if  Mr.  Pember  consented  to  reduce  his  dredging  from  20  feet  to  16  feet, 
the  result  would  still  be  disastrous ;  Mr.  Lyster's  1 2  feet  he  thought  might  be  perilous. 
Cross-examined,  witness  said  he  had  never  done  any  estuary  work.  In  reply  to  the 
Chairman  he  maintained  his  theory  of  sectional  area,  i.e.,  if  the  same  quantity  of 
water  came  into  a  river,  a  channel  made  deeper  on  one  side  must  lessen  it  on  the 
other.  If,  however,  the  water  coming  in  deposited  silt,  it  might  slightly  alter  the 
equilibrium  of  the  channels.  If  the  entrance  bar,  against  which  the  estuary  may 
contend,  was  raised  say  5  feet  by  extra  deposit,  he  was  of  opinion  the  same  amount 
of  water  would  still  come  in,  because  the  tidal  capacity  inside  the  bar  still  remained 
the  same.  This  induced  the  Chairman  to  ask,  "  Do  you  admit,  Mr.  Vernon-Harcourt, 
what  Sir  William  Thomson  has  just  said?"  "No,  I  do  not,"  was  the  reply. 
Witness  objected  entirely  to  letting  tidal  water  into  a  canal  24  miles  long,  and  he 
did  not  believe  flap  boards  to  the  14  feet  tidal  openings  would  mitigate  the  current. 
Carrying  the  proposed  canal  further  inland  would  not  prevent  interference  with  the 
mouth  of  the  Weaver,  and  this  he  considered  the  most  serious  part  of  the  whole 
thing. 

Mr.  Thomas  Stevenson,  of  Edinburgh,  thought  it  a  most  dangerous  thing  to 
interfere  with  the  mouth  of  the  Weaver.  He  objected  to  the  proposed  abstraction, 
but  could  not  account  for  the  fact  that  the  bar  had  improved  after  previous  abstrac- 
tions ;  it  might,  after  all,  be  more  of  a  theoretical  than  a  serious  evil.  He  approved 
of  the  canal  being  taken  alongside  of  the  estuary,  and  the  fact  that  there  were  only 
eight  extra  high  tides  in  the  year  made  him  think  better  of  the  scheme. 

Sir  William  Thomson  having  written  two  letters  to  the  Chairman  to  alter  his 
evidence,  Mr.  Balfour  Browne  objected,  and  it  was  arranged  the  witness  should  be 
recalled,  also  Mr.  Vernon-Harcourt,  and  it  was  found  they  were  entirely  at  variance 
as  to  the  effect  of  dredging  from  Eastham  to  the  Sloyne,  whether  it  would  or  would 
not  cause  a  channel  to  form  on  the  Cheshire  side,  and  thus  damage  the  Garston  side. 

Admiral  H.  D.  Grant  recapitulated  previous  evidence,  and  believed  the 
velocity  of  the  current  would  prevent  the  navigation  of  the  canal,  and  there  would 
always  be  danger  of  collision  in  the  Sloyne.  It  would  be  a  perfect  whirlpool  at  the 
proposed  lock  gates ;  they  could  not  be  kept  closed,  a  flood  tide  would  force  them 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  307 

open.  Dock  gates  ought  to  be  at  right  angles  to  the  stream  to  be  safe.  Going 
down  against  tide  a  ship  would  never  steam  through  a  lock,  the  resistance  and 
pressure  of  water  being  so  great.  Eastham  was  the  most  exposed  spot  that  could 
possibly  be  fixed  upon  for  an  entrance,  and  he  did  not  support  Mr.  Lyster's  plan. 
In  cross-examination,  the  Admiral  admitted  he  had  never  navigated  a  ship  through 
a  lock  in  his  life,  though  he  had  seen  lock  gates  working,  and  also  said  that  at 
Hull  there  were  dock  entrances  similar  to  those  of  the  Ship  Canal. 

Mr.  Henry  Law  had  advocated  that  the  Ship  Canal  should  come  along  the 
Cheshire  shore,  and  last  year  he  had  had  a  glimpse  of  Mr.  Lyster's  plan  but  he  did 
not  approve  of  it. 

Sir  Frederick  Bramwell  repeated  the  substance  of  former  evidence.  On 
cross-examination  by  Mr.  Cripps,  that  gentleman  probed  a  weak  point  in  the  knight's 
armour.  Sir  Frederick  had  given  evidence  in  the  Lords  for  the  Bridgewater  Navi- 
gation Company,  and  now  for  the  Mersey  Dock  and  Harbour  Board,  and  to  further 
the  interests  of  either  clients  had  given  diametrically  different  evidence.  The  witness 
knew  he  was  in  a  corner,  and  for  some  time  cleverly  parried  the  barrister's  questions. 
At  last  Mr.  Cripps  put  the  pertinent  question,  "Do  the  laws  of  nature,  as  regards 
the  Mersey,  differ  when  giving  evidence  for  the  Bridgewater  Navigation  or  for  the 
Mersey  Dock  and  Harbour  Board?"  This  brought  the  angry  rejoinder,  "I  think 
that  a  very  improper  question ;  but  if  you,  as  counsel  are  inclined  to  put  it,  I  say,  no  ". 
For  once  this  very  clever  witness  was  fairly  caught. 

Mr.  F.  C.  Stileman,  of  Birkenhead,  believed  dredging  to  the  Sloyne  deep 
would  coax  a  channel  on  the  Cheshire  side  as  it  was  in  1822  and  1882.  He 
objected  to  this  and  to  the  impounding  of  the  Weaver  and  Gowy.  A  large  ship 
crossing  the  bar  could  not  possibly  get  to  Manchester  by  the  same  tide.  In  cross- 
examination,  witness  confessed  he  had  not  allowed  for  the  fifty  minutes'  difference  in 
the  tide  between  the  bar  and  Eastham. 

Mr.  E.  R.  Peel,  nautical  assessor,  believed  it  would  not  be  safe  to  moor  a 
vessel  alongside  the  canal  banks ;  she  must  be  moored  in  the  centre  of  the  canal  and 
thus  block  it.  In  good  weather  it  would  take  i  if  hours  to  steam  to  Manchester. 

Mr.  A.  M.  Rendel  thought  the  Ship  Canal  would  destroy  Garston.  Admiral 
Spratt,  the  Conservator,  in  approving  Mr.  Lyster's  plan,  had  shown  a  most  complete 
contempt  for  the  interests  of  Garston.  He  had  the  Sloyne  on  the  brain.  The 
Chairman  said  Garston  had  dredged  (just  as  it  was  now  proposed  to  do)  on  the  other 
side.  How  was  it  Garston  had  been  allowed  by  Ellesmere  Port  to  do  the  very 


308         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

thing  she  now  objected  to.  All  this  time  the  Sloyne  had  been  suffering  from 
Garston.  Witness  replied,  "Still  the  Sloyne  is  master".  Mr.  Lyster  was  highly 
enamoured  with  his  own  plan,  but  he  did  not  agree  with  him. 

Mr.  J.  Wolfe-Barry  was  in  favour  of  the  canal  being  placed  on  the  north 
side  of  the  estuary,  and  Mr.  Pope  did  not  express  his  views  when  he  said  the 
opponents  approved  the  south  side.  Tilburn  was  the  only  place  that  had  sills 
26  feet  deep. 

A  number  of  sea  captains  and  pilots  then  gave  evidence ;  they  supported  one 
another  in  saying  crossing  the  Sloyne  was  dangerous,  and  that  it  would  take  at  least 
twenty-four  to  forty-eight  hours  for  a  large  ship  to  come  up  the  canal. 

Mr.  John  Hughes,  of  Liverpool,  shipowner,  said  it  would  be  cheaper  and  better 
to  discharge  in  Liverpool  and  tow  barges  than  send  a  ship  to  Manchester,  as  it 
would  take  two  extra  days  to  get  there.  Shipping  rates  were  so  much  lower  to 
Liverpool  than  to  other  ports  that  the  difference  would  pay  the  railway  carriage,  and 
he  instanced  a  case  where  they  could  deliver  via  Liverpool  cheaper  than  to  Garston 
direct 

Mr.  A.  T.  Squarey,  solicitor  for  the  Mersey  Dock  Board,  defended  the  reten- 
tion of  town  dues  on  the  ground  that  the  same  money  would  have  to  be  raised  by 
some  other  assessable  tax,  and  this  meant  ,£25,000  more  to  pay  in  rates  and  taxes. 
Liverpool  had  managed  to  do  the  largest  traffic  in  the  world,  and  now  to  try  and 
remove  the  bar  would  involve  serious  risk,  and  the  cost  would  be  enormous.  The 
Dock  Board  never  thought  it  desirable  to  meddle  with  the  bar.  The  urgency  of  the 
case  did  not  justify  such  a  tremendous  experiment. 

Q. —  The  Chairman. — In  fact  whatever  may  be  the  fluctuations  in  politics  generally,  there 
is  no  doubt  about  Liverpool  being  conservative  as  regards  the  bar. 

A. — And  the  bar  is  conservative  also,  for  it  always  lets  our  traffic  pass  in  and  out. 

Q. — Nobody  does  anything  to  revolutionise  it — it  seems  as  if  it  would  remain  in  that  sense 
conservative. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Mr.  Fowler. — You  seem  very  uneasy  about  it  ? 

A. — The  Liverpool  people,  about  the  bar !     Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Francis  Muir,  cotton  broker,  said  it  would  be  physically  impossible  to 
do  the  carting  from  the  docks  contemplated  by  Mr.  Adamson.  There  were  508,000 
tons  of  cotton  alone,  and  he  estimated  shippers  would  require  2s.  6d.  to  55.  per  ton 
to  come  up  the  canal.  The  reason  why  the  Cotton  Buying  Company  of  Oldham 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  309 

could  not  join  the  Cotton  Exchange  was  that  they  wanted  to  do  the  business  of  fifty 
large  limited  liability  companies  and  pay  only  one  subscription.  He  believed  the 
idea  of  a  cotton  market  in  Manchester  was  visionary. 

At  this  point  the  Chairman  informed  counsel  that  if  the  Committee  had  to  decide 
the  question  on  engineering  evidence  they  would  allow  the  Bill  to  proceed,  but  after 
consideration  of  Mr.  Lyster's  plan,  the  promoters'  limits  of  deviation,  and  Mr.  Pember's 
statement  about  abstraction  and  dredging,  they  wished  attention  to  be  given  to  the 
necessary  clauses  on  these  matters.  They  desired  Mr.  Pember  to  give  a  plan  show- 
ing what  he  could  do  to  meet  the  opponents  within  his  limits  of  deviation,  and  to 
define  exactly  what  he  could  do  (under  a  promise  made  them  on  the  26th  June)  to 
limit  abstraction  and  dredging.  This  Mr.  Pember  undertook  to  do,  supplying  the 
other  side  with  clauses,  plans,  sections,  etc. 

Mr.  Henry  Coke  said  every  previous  effort  to  secure  freight  competition  had 
tended  to  increase  the  charges.  Manchester  had  been  a  party  to  make  Liverpool 
spend  six  to  eight  millions  on  the  Birkenhead  Docks,  and  this  cost  had  ever  since 
been  a  drag,  and  instead  of  the  new  Midland  line  cheapening  carriage,  the  contrary 
had  been  the  case.  He  had  no  faith  in  a  costly  Ship  Canal  helping  them.  Trade 
would  have  to  pay  the  interest  on  twenty-six  instead  of  on  sixteen  millions. 

Mr.  John  Patterson,  of  Liverpool,  speaking  for  the  corn  trade,  thought  the 
Bridgewater  Canal  immensely  valuable  and  capable  of  great  improvement.  He 
objected  to  its  sale  to  the  Ship  Canal,  because  it  was  a  great  public  highway,  and  in 
the  new  hands  the  object  would  be  to  divert  trade  from  Liverpool.  He  strongly 
advocated  a  barge  canal,  and  was  sure  a  barge  could  carry  at  one-eighth  to  one-tenth 
of  what  it  would  cost  to  bring  an  ocean  steamer  to  Manchester. 

Mr.  John  Hargreaves,  provision  merchant,  said  in  1882  the  value  of  the 
provisions  imported  to  Liverpool  was  .£12,000,000,  and  this  did  not  include  cattle, 
dead  meat,  or  eggs.  The  latter,  strange  to  say,  were  termed  green  fruit,  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  trade.  The  value  of  the  American  hog  crop  was  ^80,000,000,  or 
twice  the  value  of  the  cotton  crop.  Freight  to  Liverpool  was  53.  to  75.  6d.  per  ton 
less  than  to  any  other  port. 

Mr.  Harvey  C.  Woodward  was  sure  that  as  corn  could  be  landed  in  Liverpool 
2s.  7d.  per  ton  less  than  in  Manchester,  the  distributing  trade  must  remain  at  the 
cheaper  port.  Besides,  Manchester  had  no  warehouse  accommodation.  "You 
might  as  well  compare  a  donkey-cart  with  a  four-in-hand  as  Manchester  with  Liver- 
pool for  accommodation  for  grain." 


3io         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

Mr.  E.  Brownbill  admitted  that  some  of  the  general  brokers  in  Liverpool  said, 
"  Let  the  canal  be  made ;  we  want  a  competing  line  for  traffic".  Also  that  he  was 
ignorant  of  the  business  of  Messrs.  Vickers  of  Manchester,  and  Crosfield  of  Warring- 
ton,  as  regards  phosphates  and  manures. 

Mr.  Pember,  on  23rd  July,  produced  the  promised  plans  and  clauses  as  offered 
by  the  promoters.  The  Bill  showed  the  Eastham  Dock  sill  28  feet  below  the  old 
dock  sill.  He  proposed  now  to  make  it  23  feet,  dredging  15  feet  instead  of  20 
feet  at  Eastham.  Mr.  Lyster's  depth  was  1 2  feet.  As  regards  the  line  of  the  canal 
it  was  proposed  to  carry  it  farther  inland  to  the  line  of  deviation.  By  these  altera- 
tions the  tidal  abstraction  would  as  a  rule  be  less  than  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Lyster. 

Mr.  George  Findlay  still  maintained  his  1 2  mile  radius  theory,  and  that  the 
only  means  of  distribution  from  the  docks  would  be  by  cart  and  limited  to  that 
distance.  Railway  connections  they  would  not  have,  and  he  did  not  think  the  canals 
would  be  available,  except  for  coal  and  local  traffic.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens  and  the 
promoters  were  utterly  at  sea  about  their  traffic  estimates.  Tramp  steamers  might 
come  to  Manchester,  but  regular  liners  would  not,  because  the  latter  were  as  a  rule 
in  trade  conferences.  It  was  not  fair  to  stigmatise  Liverpool  and  Manchester  railway 
rates  as  very  dear,  because,  say,  on  iron,  they  included  unlimited  storage,  and  on  cotton 
two  months'  free  warehousing.  Docks  were  not  remunerative  investments — those  at 
Garston  did  not  pay  2  per  cent.  Cross-examined,  witness  admitted  that  over  and 
above  the  1 2  mile  radius,  Manchester  would  get  traffic  from  Scotch  and  east-country 
ports,  and  from  Barrow,  etc.  ;  also  that  he  had  not  included  Runcorn  and  Warrington 
traffic.  He  was  amazed  at  Mr.  Leigh,  M.P.,  for  Stockport,  speaking  of  the  import 
of  Irish  cattle.  Witness  admitted  "there  was  a  considerable  trade,  but  not  an  ounce 
will  ever  go  by  the  Ship  Canal ". 

The  evidence  of  other  railway  managers  was  by  agreement  taken  as  it  had  been 
given  in  the  House  of  Lords  Committee. 

Mr.  Bidder,  Q.C.,  then  addressed  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  Dock  Board. 
He  could  not  disguise  from  himself  that  his  task  was  a  difficult  one,  because  of  the 
frank  confession  that  the  Committee  did  not  take  his  views  on  the  engineering 
question ;  but  he  was  glad  they  had  an  open  mind  as  regarded  the  estuary.  The 
promoters  were  constantly  changing  their  ground  to  suit  circumstances  :— 

I  know  my  learned  friend  is  very  indignant  whenever  we  accuse  him  of  bidding  for  a 
Bill,  but  he  has  developed  talents  as  a  Parliamentary  huckster  which  are  quite  unparalleled. 
He  is  very  anxious,  and  not  unnaturally  anxious,  to  get  a  Bill  of  some  sort. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  311 

They  wanted  to  go  back  with,  at  any  rate,  a  measure  of  success,  and  possibly 
they  deserved  it  for  their  pluck  and  perseverance.  It  was  true  they  had  reduced 
their  abstractions  from  6,000,000  cubic  yards  to  5,000,000  cubic  yards  by  pushing 
the  canal  inland ;  also  the  dredging  by  5  feet,  and  so  the  evil  would  be  reduced,  but 
only  for  a  time.  This  simply  modified  the  danger.  He  proceeded  to  combat  Mr. 
Leader  Williams'  contention  that  the  rocks  at  Pool  Hall  rendered  a  channel  on  the 
Cheshire  side  impossible,  and  asserted  the  Weaver  and  Gowy,  entering  at  right 
angles,  would  impinge  on  the  outflow  of  the  Mersey,  and  joining  it  fix  a  channel  to 
skirt  the  shore  to  Eastham  and  then  join  the  new  cutting  from  the  Sloyne.  He 
denied  that  in  entering  Liverpool  Docks  great  delays  took  place,  and  said  that  in 
consequence  of  cross  currents  at  the  tidal  openings  the  navigation  of  the  canal  would 
be  dangerous ;  worse  than  that  of  the  Suez  Canal,  where  1 2  per  cent,  of  the  ships 
stranded.  He  claimed  to  have  discovered  that  at  the  first  ebb  of  the  tide  the  water 
would  run  into  and  down  the  Ship  Canal,  and  so  rob  the  estuary,  and  he  severely 
commented  on  the  absurdity  of  the  flap  boards  proposed  by  Mr.  Williams  to 
remedy  this.  He  could  not  understand  an  engineer  venturing  to  commit  himself  to 
a  scheme  so  novel,  so  wild,  and  so  full  of  risk : — 

The  way  to  make  a  good  work  being  put  before  Mr.  Leader  Williams,  he  goes  out  of 
his  way  and  makes  a  bad  one,  and  gains  nothing  by  it,  because  all  that  nonsense  about  the 
vessels  being  taken  in  at  all  times  is  perfect  rubbish. 

The  Committee  were  asked  to  incur  a  terrible  risk  and  responsibility,  for  if  the 
canal  were  allowed  it  would  be  practically  useless,  inasmuch  as  the  currents  in  it 
would  be  such  as  no  sensible  shipowner  would  dare  to  encounter.  The  promoters 
had  been  warned,  and  had  the  opportunity  of  making  a  good  scheme.  By  the 
present  Bill  there  was  a  chance  that  Liverpool  might  be  destroyed.  He  therefore 
asked  for  its  rejection. 

Mr.  Pope,  Q.C.,  would  address  the  Committee  on  the  commercial  aspects  of 
the  case.  As  a  man  born  and  bred  in  Manchester,  and  for  many  years  engaged  in 
commerce  there,  he  had  a  personal  interest  in  the  city,  and  could  scarcely  approach 
the  question  with  the  indifference  of  an  advocate.  However,  it  was  his  duty  to  deal 
simply  with  the  evidence  that  had  been  given.  For  thirty-two  days  he  had  (like  the 
late  Lord  Abinger — who  gained  his  great  success  by  trying  to  consider  himself  a 
juryman  instead  of  an  advocate)  tried  to  imagine  himself  the  fourth  Committee  man  in 
this  case. 


312         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

The  Chairman  (slyly).— I  have  heard  he  obtained  his  success  because  he  tried  never  to 
talk  for  more  than  half  an  hour,  on  the  principle  that  every  extra  word  drove  out  something 
he  had  said  before. 

Mr.  Pope. — Lord  Abinger  had  another  great  secret.  He  would  never  cross-examine  a 
witness  when  he  found  he  was  well  up  in  his  subject. 

He  himself  would  try  and  take  the  Chairman's  hint  and  be  brief.  His  own 
opinion  was  that  the  scheme  meant  a  wasteful  expenditure  of  enormous  capital,  and 
that  it  would  end  in  disappointment,  injury  and  risk.  Comments  had  been  made 
that  this  was  the  first  time  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Liverpool 
traders  had  come  forward  at  an  inquiry,  but  they  had  always  been  to  the  forefront 
in  all  efforts  to  cheapen  freights,  and  now  they  were  bearing  fruit,  inasmuch  as  they 
had  a  promise  of  a  reduction  in  the  rates,  which  no  Ship  Canal  agitation  could  have 
accomplished.  Liverpool  wanted  to  prevent  the  Bridgewater  Canal  getting  into  the 
hands  of  an  adverse  interest,  and  for  .£300,000  the  Mersey  could  have  been  dredged 
and  deepened.  If  the  Ship  Canal  got  both  navigations  they  would  charge  maximum 
rates  in  order  to  transfer  traffic  to  their  own  canal.  He  argued  that  the  new  under- 
taking, like  railways,  should  be  prevented  from  buying  the  Bridgewater  Canal. 
Speaking  for  the  railways,  his  fear  was  that  the  Ship  Canal  Company,  when  they 
found  cash  hard  to  raise,  would  buy  the  Bridgewater  undertaking,  improve  the 
river  and  never  make  the  canal.  The  Committee  ought  to  be  satisfied  it  would 
save  money  and  how  much  it  would  save.  Further,  that  the  saving  would  continue 
and  not  be  like  the  case  of  a  battle  of  rates  when  freights  go  down  to  an  abnormal 
figure  and  then  go  up  higher  than  before.  Success  in  Manchester  depended  on 
being  able  to  get  return  cargoes,  and  railways  preferred  carrying  to  Liverpool 
because  they  got  more  out  of  it.  Shippers  now  pay  2s.  6d.  per  ton  out  of  their 
freight  to  deliver  at  Hull  rather  than  go  up  the  river  to  Goole ;  so  it  would  be  on 
the  canal.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens'  idea  of  a  cotton  market  in  Manchester  was  one 
of  the  absurdities  which  only  that  gentleman  would  be  capable  of  conceiving.  He 
declined  to  be  handed  over  to  the  Mersey  Commissioners  and  the  decision  of  their 
Conservator,  Admiral  Spratt,  to  whose  salary  the  Ship  Canal  contributed.  He 
knew  his  predecessor  well,  and  a  more  agreeable  "old  lady"  he  never  sat  next  to. 
Parliament  had  allowed  the  Dock  Board  to  borrow  close  on  ^20,000,000  on  bonds. 
Were  they  going  now  to  damage  those  securities  and  destroy  the  trade  and  port 
of  Liverpool?  Those  who  proposed  to  tamper  with  a  great  river  ought  to  show 
clearly  they  were  not  endangering  vested  and  valuable  interests. 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  313 

Mr.  Aspinall,  Q.C.,  was  sure  the  tradesmen  of  Liverpool  did  not  fear  com- 
mercial competition.  Call  a  meeting  to-morrow  to  oppose  on  these  grounds  and 
not  a  hundred  people  would  attend.  They  did  fear  the  delay  and  suspense  which 
would  paralyse  all  other  efforts  to  cheapen  and  benefit  the  port.  He  heartily  endorsed 
the  remarks  of  Mr.  Bidder,  and  Mr.  Pope 

Mr.  Littler,  Q.C.,  repeated  his  arguments  in  previous  speeches.  Capital  would 
not  be  forthcoming,  so  the  canal  could  not  be  made ;  but  even  if  it  were  made,  it 
could  not  secure  the  traffic  to  pay ;  and  the  cost  of  working  and  for  maintenance 
would  eat  up  the  revenue.  He  brought  forward  numerous  instances  to  prove  his 
case.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens'  evidence  as  to  traffic  was  absolutely  ludicrous  from  end 
to  end.  At  his  instigation  the  promoters  had  adopted  a  guess-work  scale  of  half  the 
previous  charges.  This  would  be  found  too  low  to  pay,  and  then,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  there  would  be  an  appeal  to  Parliament  for  permission  to  raise  the  scale.  The 
Hull  fiasco  would  be  repeated ;  people  who  could  not  afford  would  put  their  money 
in  the  canal,  but  he  would  recommend  no  sane  man  to  put  a  halfpenny  in.  He  could 
not  deny  there  were  enthusiasts  who  believed  in  it,  men  with  the  faith  of  Mr. 
Adamson,  who  regarded  disbelief  in  this  scheme  as  almost  as  great  a  crime  as  dis- 
belief in  the  Christian  religion.  To  controvert  the  figures  of  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens, 
who  conceived  himself  the  apostle  of  the  business,  and  fit  to  teach  Mr.  Findlay  and 
Mr.  Oakley,  he  showed  that  old  ports  like  Hull,  Grimsby  and  Bristol  did  not 
equal  the  business  expected  at  Manchester.  He  vouched  no  South  Yorkshire  coal 
would  come  to  the  canal,  because  heretofore  not  an  ounce  had  come  by  the  Man- 
chester, Sheffield  and  Lincolnshire  Railway,  and  as  for  tea,  Mr.  Stevens'  revenue  of 
.£1,600  for  it  was  absurd.  Mr.  Littler  went  on  to  argue  on  behalf  of  the  Trafford 
estate,  that  the  stagnant  water  in  the  docks  would  render  Trafford  Hall  unbearable, 
and  be  a  danger  to  public  health.  He  concluded  by  showing  how  easy  it  would  be 
to  dodge  the  authorities  as  to  raising  the  £5,000,000  deposit  and  the  £"1,710,000 
for  the  Bridgewater  Canal,  and  he  submitted  that  as  the  scheme  was  both  doubtful 
and  dangerous  it  ought  not  to  proceed  further. 

Mr.  Pember,  Q.C.,  said  the  subject  divided  itself  into  (i)  Abstraction,  (2)  danger 
of  fixing  a  permanent  channel  in  the  Mersey,  (3)  danger  to  Garston,  and  asked  if  it  was 
necessary  to  take  up  time  by  dealing  with  the  question  of  actual  abstraction  ?  To  this 
the  Chairman  replied,  "  I  do  not  think,  considering  the  value  of  time,  that  this  need 
be  dealt  upon ".  That  being  so,  he  would  first  deal  with  the  Weaver  question,  it 
being  the  point  on  which  Mr.  Bidder  had  concentrated  his  attack.  It  was  singular 


3H         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

the  many  knights  who  now  supported  that  gentleman  should  all  at  once  have 
blossomed  out  on  a  subject  on  which  at  least  one  of  them  had  been  examined  before, 
and  professed  he  could  not  understand.  Their  contention  was  that  as  the  tide  rose 
higher,  up  the  river,  than  at  its  mouth,  it  would  at  its  ebb  rush  in  by  the  openings  and 
go  down  the  canal  instead  of  flowing  back  down  the  estuary  ;  in  other  words,  flow  into 
and  not  out  of  the  canal.  It  was  absurd  to  say  the  Weaver  water  would  not  flow  into 
the  estuary  through  the  side  openings  provided  for  them.  No  one  doubted  this 
would  be  the  case  when  the  receding  tide  had  fallen  to  14  feet  or  below  it  All 
they  could  question  was  the  top  layers  of  the  ebbing  tide  for  the  first  hour  or  so. 
The  bar  could  not  be  directly  affected  by  Weaver  water.  The  opponents'  witness, 
Mr.  Stevenson,  had  said  that  it  is  on  an  ebb  tide  and  during  its  latter  portion  that 
the  influence  is  most  beneficial,  and  ought  to  be  conserved.  The  Weaver  weir  was 
objected  to  as  being  vertical ;  this  was  valuable  as  giving  force  to  the  current.  "  Like 
as  with  a  hunting  man  (which  I  know  you  are)  a  vertical  fall  means  a  horizontal 
position  afterwards."  True,  in  1885  Mr.  Lyster  talked  of  passing  the  Weaver 
under  the  canal,  but  in  1884  he  himself  proposed  regulating  weirs.  Mr.  Pember 
then  compared  the  evidence  of  Sir  William  Thomson  and  Mr.  Deacon  with  that 
of  Mr.  Henry  Law,  and  showed  how  their  levels  were  at  complete  variance  as 
regards  the  Weaver  estuary.  Further,  he  pointed  out  the  admission  by  Mr.  Deacon, 
that  the  closing  of  Mr.  Leader  Williams'  lock  gates  to  turn  the  tide  would  alter  all 
his  calculations. 

As  regarded  the  Eastham  entrance  from  the  Sloyne,  they  were  simply  going  to 
put  a  tail  to  the  tadpole ;  in  other  words,  to  add  a  narrow  channel  to  connect  the 
lock  entrance  with  the  deep  water  of  the  Sloyne,  and  this  would  be  2  miles  below 
the  Pool  Hall  rocks.  If  by  any  chance  the  channel  could  be  carried  to  them,  it 
must  end  there.  It  could  not  become  a  channel  entirely  on  the  Cheshire  side.  If 
such  danger  was  to  be  apprehended,  how  came  it  that  when  the  entrance  to  Garston 
was  dredged  no  channel  was  formed  on  the  Lancashire  side  ?  Mr.  Pope's  dictum 
"Good  Sloyne — Poor  Garston,"  and  vice  versa,  was  not  maintainable  or  true,  for 
his  own  witnesses  had  clearly  proved  that  they  had  been  good  and  bad  together. 

Replying  to  Mr.  Pope's  speech,  Mr.  Pember  expressed  surprise  that  at  the 
eleventh  hour  the  Liverpool  commercial  element,  who  had  hitherto  professed  to 
despise  rather  than  fear  the  canal,  should  now  come  forward  to  oppose  the  Bill. 
He  did  not  wonder  that  Sir  William  Forwood  should  give  vent  to  his  heat  and 
spleen,  using  every  weapon  in  his  armoury  against  them,  but  he  ought  to  remember 


•« 


id 
u 

5 

J 

CAJ 

a 
w 
> 
< 

Id 


o 
So 

I 
•£ 


t; 
n 


1885]  SHIP  CANAL  BILL  IN  THE  COMMONS  315 

that  he  had  said,  "  I  have  no  objection  whatever  to  this  scheme  being  passed  by  this 
Committee  as  far  as  Runcorn".  He  thereby  assented  to  the  purchase  of  the 
Bridgewater  Canal,  which  he  now  opposed.  It  would  have  suited  Liverpool  to 
have  barges  on  the  river  with  a  maximum  of  35.  4d.  against  as.  6d.  per  ton  on  the 
Bridgewater  Canal  because  they  would  have  retained  all  their  dock  charges,  even 
though  it  remained  as  now  in  the  railway  conference.  Then  it  was  said  the  Ship 
Canal  would  buy  the  Bridgewater  Canal  to  destroy  or  transfer  its  traffic.  Was  it 
likely  they  would  wish  to  do  away  with  i£  to  2  million  tons  of  traffic  (mostly  local) 
that  could  not  be  transferred?  How  could  the  offer  to  deposit  .£5,000,000  before 
starting  the  canal  be  a  sham  ?  Were  his  clients  a  group  of  penniless,  obscure,  semi- 
fraudulent  speculators?  No!  They  were  some  of  the  most  important  and  wealthy 
representatives  of  every  trade  in  Lancashire,  backed  up  by  the  chief  Corporations. 
They  had  spent  ,£150,000  in  the  struggle.  Could  this  be  for  a  toy?  No!  There 
had  been  nothing  like  it  since  the  agitation  for  the  Corn  Laws.  They  meant  to  win 
the  victory. 

The  Chairman. — A  general  may  lose  all  his  men  in  the  victory. 

Mr.  Pem&er.—True,  but  he  does  not  lose  all  his  will  to  succeed,  nor  if  his  victory  be 
costly  does  he  value  it  the  less.  It  is  said  by  our  opponents  Manchester  will  never  be  more 
than  a  little  local  port,  with  a  trade  radius  of  12  miles.  The  statement  is  absurd.  Can  you 
suppose  Sir  William  Forwood,  or  the  Liverpool  cotton  brokers,  can  stop  trade  going  to 
Manchester  when  there  is  a  good  and  cheap  port  there  ?  Bristol,  Glasgow  and  the  Tyne 
ports  have  all  prospered  with  small  populations  round  them  compared  with  Manchester.  Is 
it  not  in  the  nature  of  things  that  Manchester,  seated  as  she  is,  will  concentrate  trade  ?  How 
came  Liverpool  to  be  the  vast  emporium  she  is  ?  She  has  no  manufactures,  with  a  sparse 
population  on  one  side  and  only  the  sea  on  the  other.  Manchester  has  groaned  long  enough 
under  the  burden  of  the  old  man  of  the  sea,  and  she  means  to  get  rid  of  it.  Even  if  she 
wastes  her  ^"8,000,000  it  is  her  own  affair,  and  nobody  else's.  Any  way  she  must  benefit 
the  vast  population  round  her.  Mr.  Marshall  Stevens'  9,000,000  tons  of  traffic  has  been 
attacked  on  all  sides,  but  remember  this  was  to  be  the  result  of  growth  and  gradual  develop- 
ment. The  promoters  have  only  built  for  3,000,000  tons,  and  they  consider  this  should  make 
the  canal  remunerative. 

Now  (said  Mr.  Pember)  I  have  done,  sir.  If  my  purview  of  the  case  will  not  make  you 
pass  the  Bill,  provided  you  are  satisfied  about  the  engineering,  I  am  afraid  nothing  will.  If 
your  nerves  are  to  be  shaken  by  the  gravity  of  Mr.  Bidder,  or  the  impassiveness  of  Mr.  Pope, 
I  am  afraid  I  cannot  hope  to  overcome  their  influence.  Heaven  forgive  me  for  seeming  to 
be  contemptuous  of  other  men's  methods,  but  I  do  despise  all  forms  of  personal  appeal. 
Runcorn,  Widnes,  Warrington,  the  proprietors  of  all  the  different  systems  of  inland  canals, 
the  corporations  of  Salford,  of  Manchester  itself,  the  population  of  Lancashire,  are  all  interested 
in  the  estuary  of  the  Mersey  and  its  bar.  Their  interests  combined  outweigh  in  magnitude 


316         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1885 

many  times  those  of  the  Liverpool  cotton  brokers,  et  hoc  genus  omne.  Why  do  you  not  find 
all  those  vast  interests  I  have  represented  before  you,  as  bound  up  in  the  Mersey,  oppose  this 
scheme  ?  Why  do  most  of  them  actively  support  it  ?  If  the  danger  was  real — if  the  fear 
were  shared  by  all,  or  any  one  of  them,  do  you  suppose  the  protest  against  this  measure,  with 
three  long  years  for  it  to  swim  in,  would  not  have  rung  out  so  loud  that  it  would  have 
drowned  the  voice  of  misguided  enthusiasm  ?  But  were  the  thousand-to-one  chances,  spoken 
of  by  Mr.  Aspinall,  to  come  about,  would  not  all  these  vast  and  wealthy  interests  at  once 
combine  to  rectify  it  ?  Engineers  can  pierce  canals  from  ocean  to  ocean  at  Panama  and 
Suez  ;  and  the  Americans  shoot  into  the  ocean  like  a  bar  of  dirt  the  bar  of  the  Mississippi, 
to  which  the  bar  of  the  Mersey  is  as  a  shovelful  of  dirt.  And  if  this  Bill  becomes  law,  and 
the  canal  is  made,  injury  or  no  injury,  shoaling  or  no  shoaling,  depend  upon  it  the  wealthy 
populations  that  will  then  have  a  hold  upon  the  river  will  not  sit  down  long  and  apathetically 
acquiesce  in  a  condition  of  it,  and  its  bar,  which  at  present  is  a  disgrace,  though  it  is  a  disgrace 
to  Liverpool  alone. 

The  room  was  then  cleared.  When  counsel  were  called  in  again  the  Chairman 
said  :— 

The  conclusion  we  have  come  to,  I  am  very  glad  to  say,  is  unanimous.  We  consider 
the  preamble  proved,  upon  the  following  conditions :  That  the  limits  of  deviation  be  so  made 
use  of  that  the  canal  will  come  upon  dry  land  after  entering  the  lock  at  Eastham  ;  that  what 
Mr.  Pember  has  two  or  three  times  stated  would  be  possible  should  be  carried  out,  namely, 
that  the  dredging  should  only  be  1 2  feet ;  it  was  proposed  to  be  15  feet,  but  we  consider  it 
will  be  enough  if  it  is  12  feet.  With  regard  to  the  capital  clause  (38),  Mr.  Pember  made  a 
suggestion,  which,  I  believe,  was  only  carrying  out  what  had  strongly  occurred  to  each  one 
of  us — that  this  clause  about  the  £5,000,000  of  capital  being  raised  ought  to  be  entirely  in- 
dependent of,  and  in  addition  to  the  purchase  of  the  Bridgewater  Canal.  We  think  that  the 
time  in  which  this  capital  is  to  be  raised  should  be  the  time  fixed  for  the  Bridgewater  Canal, 
instead  of  three  years,  two  years.  We  cannot  consent  to  clause  42,  that  is  to  the  alteration 
of  the  deposit.  There  is  only  one  other  thing  we  wish  to  state,  that  is,  that  we  think  the 
clause  for  the  protection  of  Ellesmere  Port  ought  to  be  very  fairly  considered. 

The  succeeding  two  days  the  Committee  met  to  discuss  clauses.  Amongst  other 
matters  they  decided  the  deposit  for  the  works  was  to  be  impounded  for  three  years. 


10 

m 

& 


fi 


is 

o 

H 
O 
D 
OS 
H 
<fi 

3 


D 

G 

H 
O 

O 

u 
<y 


o 


0! 
< 

ffi 


r 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
1886. 

ATTEMPTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL— BILL  TO  PAY  INTEREST 
OUT    OF    CAPITAL— ASSISTANCE    OFFERED    BY     NEIGH- 
BOURING  TOWNS  — ROTHSCHILD'S   ATTEMPT    TO    RAISE 
THE      CAPITAL— FAILURE— GREAT      DISAPPOINTMENT- 
CONSULTATIVE  COMMITTEE  APPOINTED. 

There  is  no  cheaper  traffic  in  the  country  than  the  traffic  between  Manchester  and 
Liverpool ;  it  is  a  constant  flow  both  ways. — Sir  WILLIAM  B.  FORWOOD. 

AFTER  the  passing  of  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  in  1885  came  an  interregnum, 
broken  only  by  attempts  to  ascertain  what  amount  of  support  would  be 
accorded  towards  raising  the  necessary  capital.  Whilst  everybody  must 
give  unstinted  praise  to  Mr.  Adamson  for  the  dogged  persistency  and  admirable 
fighting  power  displayed  in  securing  the  Bill,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  when  he 
stepped  into  the  region  of  finance  he  was  apt  to  get  out  of  his  depth.  Over  and 
over  again  he  alarmed  his  best  friends  by  his  prophecies  of  canal  dividends,  and  by 
his  belief  that  the  aid  of  capitalists  was  not  essential,  and  that  the  masses  of  the  people 
would  rush  in  and  provide  what  was  required.  The  beginning  of  the  year  1886 
found  the  Ship  Canal  directors  fully  occupied  with  devising  plans  to  raise  the  capital, 
and  to  assist  them  a  Bill  was  promoted  in  Parliament  to  pay  interest  out  of  capital 
during  the  construction  of  the  works. 

Its  justification  was  that  no  great  public  undertaking  had  ever  been  carried 
out  without — either  directly  or  indirectly— providing  for  payment  of  interest  out  of 
capital  during  the  construction  of  the  works.  The  London  and  North- Western  Rail- 
way, the  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire,  the  Great  Northern  and  nearly  all  the  other  rail- 
ways had  more  or  less  enjoyed  exemption  from  the  onerous  Parliamentary  restriction 
placed  on  the  promoters.  So  had  the  Mersey  Dock  Board  itself  and  the  city  of 
Liverpool  as  regards  its  costly  waterworks.  Also  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works. 

(317) 


3i8         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1886 

The  Government  railways  in  India  had  interest  during  construction  added  to  the 
capital  cost,  and  so  had  many  private  companies. 

Salford  this  session  was  asking  Parliament  for  permission  to  take  up  shares 
in  the  canal  to  the  value  of  ,£250,000.  Twice  the  Council,  by  a  majority  of  about  5 
to  i,  recommended  this  course,  but  when  in  January,  1886,  it  came  before  the  Borough 
Funds  Meeting,  Mr.  James  Heelis  strenuously  opposed  granting  civic  help,  and  was 
told  "he  was  an  agent  of  the  Liverpool  Corporation".  In  the  end  the  Salford  Bill 
was  approved  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  on  which  a  poll  was  demanded.  This 
was  taken  some  weeks  later,  with  the  result  that  16,653  votes  were  given  in  its  favour 
and  2,443  against  it. 

When  the  1 885  Prospectus  failed  to  secure  the  necessary  capital,  it  became  evi- 
dent that  the  assistance  of  London  financiers  must  be  sought,  and  as  Messrs.  Lucas 
&  Aird,  the  intended  contractors  for  the  canal,  had  been  used  to  work  in  conjunction 
with  the  eminent  financiers  Messrs.  Rothschild  &  Sons,  the  directors  of  the  Ship 
Canal  decided  to  approach  that  firm  with  the  view  of  obtaining  advice  and  assistance. 
They  were  most  courteously  received,  but  were  told  that  the  help  of  capitalists  could 
not  be  secured  unless  interest  was  paid  during  construction.  An  immediate  appli- 
cation to  Parliament  was  advised,  and  hopes  were  held  out  that  if  permission  to  pay 
interest  out  of  capital  was  obtained,  Messrs.  Rothschild  would  be  able  to  pilot  the 
proposed  issue  of  ^8,000,000  Ship  Canal  shares.  Hence  the  before-mentioned 
application  to  Parliament. 

Opponents  of  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  were  not  idle.  They  ridiculed  the  canal,  and 
prophesied  all  manner  of  evil  in  order  to  frighten  investors.  The  Liverpool  Daily 
Post  said  they  were  told  millions  of  money  were  waiting  in  the  pockets  of  Lanca- 
shire men  ;  these  millions  would  flow  in,  and  in  a  year  or  two  great  Atlantic  steamers 
would  be  moored  at  Throstle  Nest.  Now  the  Chairman  admitted  that  only  about 
.£750,000  has  been  subscribed.  He  added,  it  is  true,  that  he  had  arranged  with 
Messrs.  Rothschild  to  find  the  remainder  at  4  per  cent,  interest  and  i  per  cent,  com- 
mission, and  that  it  was  also  proposed  to  raise  a  million  from  shilling  contributions  of 
working  men.  But  before  Mr.  Adamson  could  do  this  he  must  have  the  consent  of 
Parliament,  and  that  consent,  we  need  not  say,  was  not  likely  to  be  given.  "We 
believe  Messrs.  Rothschild  will  think  twice  before  fulfilling  their  bargain."  It  was 
not  to  be  supposed  that  they  themselves  wished  to  invest  upwards  of  ^4,000,000  in 
this  gigantic  ditch. 

On  the   ist  of  February,  1886,  the  First  Ordinary  Meeting  of  the  Ship  Canal 


Slk      losKI'll      I.KIC.II,     DlRKCTOR     OK    TIIK     Sllll'     ( ',\NAI.    COMPANY; 

(CHAIRMAN   OK  THK   BRIDGKWATER  COMMITTEK,    1904   .SV  i  >. 
Lafayette,  Ltd.  To  face  page  318. 


1 886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  319 

Company  was  held.  The  Chairman,  Mr.  Adamson,  after  giving  financial  statistics, 
said  the  balance-sheet  would  have  been  less  satisfactory  had  not  most  of  the  engineers 
and  other  professional  men  taken  half  their  usual  fees,  and  he  reminded  the  meeting 
of  Mr.  Pember's  words  :  "  It  is  a  question  of  endurance  ;  if  you  stick  to  this  and  fight 
on,  you  will  certainly  get  your  Bill,  you  have  established  your  position ;  you  have 
promoted  the  strongest  commercial  case  that  has  ever  been  presented  to  Parliament, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  of  your  ultimate  success".  Speaking  of  an  interview  the 
directors  had  had  with  Lord  Rothschild,  he  quoted  a  speech  of  that  nobleman  :— 

Don't  you  believe  that  we  are  going  to  do  anything  but  what  is  right  and  economical 
for  you.  We  are  satisfied  that  the  negotiation  of  the  finances  of  this  great  national  enterprise 
will  do  our  house  great  honour,  and  that  we,  with  the  strength  of  our  name  and  associations, 
will  be  able  to  find  you  all  the  money  that  you  require. 

At  this  meeting  Messrs.  Daniel  Adamson,  Henry  Boddington,  Junr.,  Jacob 
Bright,  William  Fletcher,  Richard  Husband,  Charles  P.  Henderson,  Junr.,  Richard 
James,  Joseph  Leigh,  James  Edward  Platt,  Samuel  Ratcliffe  Platt  and  John 
Rylands,  were  continued  in  office  as  directors,  and  Sir  Joseph  C.  Lee,  John  Roger- 
son  (Durham)  and  W.  H.  Bailey  were  appointed  new  directors.  Messrs.  George 
Hicks  and  Bosdin  T.  Leech  were  elected  shareholders'  auditors.  The  remuneration 
of  the  directors  was  fixed  at  .£2,000  per  annum  for  the  whole  Board. 

During  the  Ship  Canal  fight  the  company's  engineer  and  solicitors  courageously 
cast  in  their  lot  with  the  promoters  and  received  no  adequate  remuneration.  When 
the  Bill  was  obtained  their  five  years'  persistent  and  laborious  work  was  recognised, 
and  a  handsome  honorarium  was  presented  to  them  by  the  Board  of  Directors. 

So  anxious  were  trades  unionists  and  working  men  of  the  district  to  support  the 
canal  that  on  their  own  initiative  they  issued  early  in  February  the  prospectus  of  the. 
"Co-operative  Shares  Distribution  Company,"  the  object  being  to  enable  persons 
to  acquire  shares  in  the  Canal  Company  by  weekly  instalments  of  is.  each.  The 
leading  trades  unionists  were  directors  and  the  Wholesale  Co-operative  Society  acted 
as  bankers.  This  was  carrying  out  the  pet  idea  of  Mr.  Adamson,  but  though  a  con- 
siderable sum  was  raised  by  working  men  it  was  soon  evident  that  capitalists  must 
find  the  bulk  of  the  money. 

On  the  23rd  February  an  influential  deputation,  introduced  by  the  Lancashire 
members,  waited  on  Mr.  Mundella  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  to  seek  Governmental 
assistance  for  their  payment  of  interest  during  construction  Bill.  After  many  speeches 
and  explanations,  Mr.  Mundella  gave  the  deputation  to  understand  he  was  much 


32o         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [z886 

impressed,  and  that  their  request  would  have  his  favourable  consideration,  though 
at  the  same  time  he  reminded  the  deputation  that  both  Mr.  Adamson  and  Mr. 
Pember  had  repeatedly  said  the  promoters  could  get  the  capital  without  such  a 
clause. 

As  a  kind  of  counterblast  to  the  Manchester  deputation,  Mr.  Mundella  was 
waited  upon  by  ah  influential  body  of  Liverpool  gentlemen,  chiefly  members  of  the 
Dock  Board,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  etc. ;  they  were  introduced  by  Lord  Claud 
Hamilton,  who  urged  the  canal  would  do  irreparable  damage  to  the  river  Mersey  : 
that  the  promoters  were  not  likely  to  get  their  capital  and  might  leave  an  unfinished 
work ;  that  the  principle  was  a  bad  one,  to  pay  interest  out  of  capital,  and  that  the 
plea  of  charity  in  finding  work  for  the  unemployed  ought  not  to  be  considered  ;  he 
therefore  asked  Mr.  Mundella  to  oppose  the  Bill  on  second  reading.  Sir  William 
Forwood  urged  that  when  Liverpool  wished  to  reduce  railway  rates  Manchester 
held  back,  and  said  they  had  no  grievance.  Mr.  Mundella  replied  Government  would 
not  oppose  Liverpool  having  a  locus  standi  on  the  Committee,  but  that  they  must 
take  an  impartial  attitude  on  the  second  reading  of  the  Bill. 

At  the  beginning  of  March  news  came  that  Sir  Henry  Meysey  Thompson  had 
undertaken  to  move  the  rejection  of  the  "Canal  Interest  out  of  Capital  Bill,"  it  was 
supposed  on  behalf  of  the  railway  companies. 

Mr.  Houldsworth  moved  the  second  reading  of  the  Canal  Bill  on  the  9th  of 
March,  recapitulating  its  history,  giving  the  reason  why  the  payment  of  interest  clause 
had  previously  been  withdrawn,  quoting  precedents,  and  stating  it  was  an  absolute 
necessity  the  clause  should  be  passed  in  order  to  obtain  the  capital. 

Lord  Claud  Hamilton  then  moved  that  the  Bill  be  read  again  that  day  six 
months.  He  maintained  the  Ship  Canal  directors  had  broken  faith  with  the  Com- 
mittee who  passed  the  Bill,  and  sneered  at  the  response  that  had  been  made  to  the 
first  appeal  for  capital,  telling  a  tale  of  the  respectable  Manchester  artisan,  who,  being 
asked  why  he  did  not  take  shares,  replied  with  a  wink,  "  I  shout  for't  canal  but  they 
sees  none  o'  my  brass".  His  honourable  friends,  Mr.  Houldsworth  and  Sir  Robert 
Peel  who  were  anxious  to  speak,  were  like  the  artisan,  ready  to  shout,  but  the  canal 
saw  little  or  nothing  of  their  brass.  As  to  the  plea  of  impoverished  Lancashire  he 
pointed  to  Mr.  Houldsworth  and  Sir  Henry  Roscoe  (both  well-favoured  men),  and 
asked,  "  Did  they  look  as  if  they  had  passed  through  a  time  of  privation  or  starva- 
tion ? "  But  when  Lord  Claud  went  on  to  attack  Sir  T.  Farrar  for  his  Board  of  Trade 
'eport  on  the  Bill,  calling  him  the  "  Bismarck  of  Whitehall,"  Mr.  Mundella  sharply 


1 886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  321 

intervened  and  the  speaker  had  to  withdraw  his  remark.  Jeering  at  the  ,£750,000 
raised,  he  said,  "Poor  impoverished  Manchester!"  He  could  assure  them  that 
they  in  Liverpool  looked  upon  them  with  the  greatest  commiseration.  He  con- 
tended that  the  payment  of  interest  out  of  capital  was  bad  in  principle,  and  he  asked, 
if  the  House  decided  to  pass  the  second  reading,  that  the  opponents  should  be 
granted  a  locus  standi  on  Committee.  Sir  Henry  Meysey  Thompson  seconded  the 
rejection  of  the  Bill. 

Mr.  Mundella  defended  Sir  Thomas  Farrar,  and  wished  to  state  why  the 
Government  thought  the  Bill  ought  to  receive  the  assent  of  the  House.  He  showed 
that  whilst  railways  were  now  precluded  by  Standing  Orders  from  paying  interest  out 
of  capital,  there  was  no  such  prohibition  as  regards  canals,  and  even  the  House  had 
relaxed  in  several  cases  as  regards  railways ;  indeed,  many  believed  the  standing 
order  did  more  harm  than  good.  As  regarded  a  locus  standi,  it  rested  with  a 
Committee ;  the  House  could  not  interfere.  A  canal,  unlike  a  railway,  could  not  be 
opened  in  lengths,  and  people  were  hardly  likely  to  invest  money  that  might  not 
bring  any  return  for  seven  years.  He  could  not  agree  to  the  Bill  being  sent  to  a 
Select  Committee  where  the  case  might  be  reopened,  and  cause  another  large  ex- 
penditure of  money. 

Mr.  Courtney  was  in  favour  of  a  Select  Committee  if  only  the  question  of 
finance  were  dealt  with. 

Mr.  Sexton  intimated  he  should  challenge  the  votes  of  all  railway  directors  who 
took  part  in  the  division. 

Ultimately  the  second  reading  was  passed  without  a  division,  on  which  Lord 
Claud  Hamilton  moved  for  a  Select  Committee.  Many  speakers  urged  that  the 
Bill  should  take  its  ordinary  course,  and  the  proposition  of  the  member  for  Liverpool 
was  defeated. 

For  the  motion  .        .        .        .        .          61 
Against      .  .  375 

Majority  against         .        .        .        .        314 

This  conspicuous  triumph  was  minimised  by  the  Liverpool  Press ;  they  said  Mr. 
Adamson  had  baited  one  of  his  cunning  hooks  with  his  usual  astuteness,  and  caught 
the  Irish  members  by  making  them  believe  the  canal  would  regenerate  the  Irish 
trade.  They  consoled  their  readers :  "  It  is  felt  in  all  probability  the  canal  will  never 

be  completed,  and  if  it  is,  no  great  harm  will  be  done.      Many  people,  on  the  contrary, 
VOL.  i.  21 


322         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1886 

are  disposed  to  think  that,  should  the  big  ditch  be  dug,  increased  trade  will  flow 
into  Liverpool,  and  reduced  rates  will  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  district  whatever 
they  may  do  to  the  canal  shareholders." 

On  the  25th  March  the  Bill  came  before  the  Committee  on  Unopposed  Bills,  and 
being  passed  was  ordered  for  a  third  reading. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Liverpool  Engineering  Society  about  this  time,  Mr.  Alfred 
Holt,  of  Liverpool,  was  very  free  in  his  condemnation  of  the  canal.  He  had 
disbelieved  all  along  in  the  Ship  Canal  project.  He  thought  that  the  South  Sea 
Scheme  of  1711  was  a  sort  of  Bank  of  England  scheme  compared  with  the  Man- 
chester one  for  stability  and  security,  and  in  his  opinion  canals  would  be  eclipsed  by 
improved  railways. 

On  the  Salford  Bill  (enabling  that  Corporation  to  subscribe  .£250,000  in  aid  of 
the  canal)  coming  before  the  Local  Government  Board,  an  unfavourable  report  was 
made.  It  held  the  Committee  of  the  House  ought  to  decide  if  the  docks,  etc.,  would 
be  a  direct  advantage  to  the  borough,  and  then  that  they  ought  to  be  very  fully 
informed  as  to  the  financial  success  of  the  undertaking ;  they  must  not  support  a 
speculative  project.  The  London  and  North- Western  Railway  Company  also 
petitioned  against  the  Bill  on  the  ground  they  would  be  taxed  to  support  an  opposi- 
tion scheme.  The  report  and  opposition  caused  the  rejection  of  the  Bill  when  it  came 
before  a  Select  Committee  of  the  Commons,  presided  over  by  Sir  Edward  Birkbeck. 

The  Interest  Bill  having  passed  the  third  reading  in  the  Commons,  the  next  move 
was  to  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords.  Here  was  a  direct 
Standing  Order  against  the  payment  of  interest  out  of  capital,  passed  at  the  in- 
stance of  Lord  Redesdale,  which  had  already  blocked  one  railway  Bill,  and  the 
only  hope  was  to  get  Parliament  to  vary  the  Standing  Order  and  this,  it  was  well 
known,  Lord  Redesdale  would  oppose. 

Strange  to  say,  just  at  this  juncture  death  carried  away  the  noble  Lord,  who  for 
so  many  years  had  been  a  terror  to  all  those  who  appeared  before  the  Standing 
Orders  Committee  with  any  flaw  in  their  Bill.  The  Duke  of  Buckingham  took  his 
place. 

The  Lords  then  appointed  a  Select  Committee  to  consider  the  wisdom  of  varying 
the  Standing  Orders  of  their  Lordships'  House  as  to  paying  interest  out  of  capital, 
and  this  Committee  took  evidence  on  the  subject.  A  witness,  Lord  Rothschild,  in- 
stanced good  railways  in  India  which  never  could  have  been  made  if  the  privilege 
had  not  been  allowed,  and  quoted  what  he  had  told  the  Ship  Canal  Company. 


Killon. 


MR.  I'I.ATT'S  VAC  in  .\ORSI;MAN. 


To  face  page  322. 


1 886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  323 

"When  they  asked  my  advice,  I  told  them  that  the  only  thing  for  them  to  do  was 
to  go  to  Parliament  and  get  power  to  pay  interest  out  of  capital  during  construction." 
In  his  opinion  the  simple  payment  of  interest  would  not  induce  the  public  to  subscribe 
to  an  undertaking  which  was  criticised  in  the  Press  for  its  unsoundness.  As  a  result 
of  the  inquiry  the  Select  Committee  reported  to  the  Lords  that,  subject  to  certain 
restrictions,  and  under  peculiar  circumstances,  the  payment  of  interest  out  of  capital 
during  construction  might  be  allowed,  one  condition  being  that  two-thirds  at  least  of  the 
share  capital  authorised  by  the  Bill  must  be  issued  and  accepted,  and  a  certificate  to 
that  effect  he  obtained  from  the  Board  of  Trade  before  commencing  the  works. 

The  Bill  was  read  a  second  time  without  opposition  and  remitted  to  a  Committee 
consisting  of  the  Earl  of  Milltown  (Chairman),  the  Earls  of  Ducie.Strathmore  and  Howth 
with  Viscount  Hood.  The  London  and  North- Western  Railway  Company,  the  Dock 
Board  and  the  Liverpool  Corporation  were  the  only  petitioners  against  the  Bill. 
Mr.  Pember,  for  the  Ship  Canal,  objected  to  the  locus  standi  of  the  petitioners,  but 
it  was  allowed  by  the  Committee.  He  then  proceeded  with  the  Bill  on  its  merits, 
and  stated  that  though  the  promoters'  estimate  of  cost  was  ,£6,300,000,  the  greatest 
contractors  in  England,  Messrs.  Lucas  &  Aird,  had  offered  to  complete  the  works 
for  .£5,750,000.  This  was  confirmed  by  Mr.  John  Aird.  Sir  Joseph  Lee,  Deputy 
Chairman  of  the  Canal  Company,  went  exhaustively  into  the  canal  figures,  and  was 
severely  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bidder,  who  pointed  out  that  of  the  ,£2,000,000 
expected  from  Manchester  only  ,£750,000  so  far  had  been  promised,  and  that 
heretofore  all  railway  companies  who  wished  to  pay  interest  out  of  capital  had  only 
been  allowed  to  pay  3  per  cent.  He  also  criticised  the  .£60,000  commission  to  be 
paid  to  Messrs.  Rothschild.  The  witness  explained  that  the  interest  to  be  paid 
was  limited  to  ,£752,000,  and  that  no  more  interest  could  be  paid  even  if  the  canal 
took  seven  years  in  construction.  The  Committee,  after  two  days'  hearing,  passed 
the  preamble  and  decided  4  per  cent,  might  be  paid. 

Though  feeling  ran  very  strongly  in  favour  of  the  Ship  Canal,  there  were  a  few 
bitter  opponents  and  passive  resisters.  A  Mr.  W.  H.  Adams  went  so  far  as  to  refuse 
to  pay  the  rate  of  2d.  in  the  £i  that  had  been  raised  in  support  of  the  Ship  Canal. 
He  paid  all  his  other  rates,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  summoned  for  2s.  4d.  by  the 
overseers  of  Cheetham.  Though  the  defendant  protested  the  rate  was  illegal,  Mr. 
Headlam,  the  stipendiary,  decided  against  him,  on  the  ground  that  he  should  have 
appealed  at  the  proper  time,  and  made  an  order  for  payment. 

About  this  time  Mr.  C.  P.  Scott,  of  the  Manchester  Guardian,  was  contesting 


324         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1886 

North- East  Manchester,  and  was  severely  tackled  for  the  hostility  displayed  by 
that  paper  towards  the  Ship  Canal.  He  pleaded  that  criticism  had  done  good,  and 
secured  a  sounder  scheme,  and  he  claimed  credit  as  an  originator.  He  said  that  at  an 
early  stage  in  canal  history  one  of  the  persons  most  interested  in  the  scheme  came  to 
him  and  asked,  "Who  shall  I  get  to  work  this  Ship  Canal?"  He  thought  for  a 
moment,  and  then  he  had  a  flash  of  genius — such  things  come  to  the  biggest  fools 
sometimes — and  he  said,  "Go  to  Daniel  Adamson".  Now  Mr.  Daniel  Adamson 
was  the  father  of  the  Ship  Canal,  and  he  claimed  in  this  matter  to  be  the  father  of 
Mr.  Daniel  Adamson. 

The  Interest  Bill  having  become  law,  the  next  step  was  to  secure  the  capital. 
All  the  arrangements  were  left  in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Rothschild.  It  was  thought 
their  great  name  would  secure  the  sum  required  without  much  exertion  in  Man- 
chester and  the  neighbourhood.  The  idea  was,  "  Leave  it  to  them,  they  best  know- 
how  to  go  about  getting  the  money".  This  was  a  fatal  mistake,  the  more  so  as 
they  were  not  given  a  free  hand,  and  the  policy  of  the  directors  was  cheeseparing  in 
its  character. 

Instead  of  paying  Rothschilds  for  underwriting  the  whole  issue,  the  directors 
thought  they  themselves  could  raise  .£2,000,000,  and  arranged  to  pay  i  per  cent,  to 
Rothschilds  as  commission  for  raising  the  remaining  £6,000,000.  Could  this  have 
been  carried  out  it  would  have  been  a  cheap  issue  of  stock.  But  the  i  per  cent,  to 
Rothschilds  did  not  give  them  scope  to  enlist  the  Stock  Exchange  brokers  on  their 
side,  they  could  not  afford  to  pay  them  a  good  commission  and  make  each  broker 
an  agent  for  securing  capital.  When  the  Ship  Canal  stock  came  on  the  market,  the 
whole  of  the  London  and  Provincial  share  markets  were  hostile  to  it,  and  besides, 
there  came  the  rumour  that  the  £2,000,000  expected  in  Manchester  had  only  been 
subscribed  for  to  a  very  limited  extent.  It  would  seem  that  while  Messrs.  Roth- 
schild have  a  world-wide  fame  for  raising  British  and  foreign  loans,  they  were  scarcely 
used  to  finding  capital  for  Lancashire  companies,  and  it  was  felt  that  closing  the 
list  in  four  days  gave  too  little  time  for  investors  to  make  up  their  minds. 

Anyway,  it  was  evident  from  the  first  moment  the  Ship  Canal  stock  was  put  on 
the  market  that  there  was  a  dead  set  made  against  it  by  powerful  hostile  interests. 
The  shares,  which  were  at  first  quoted  at  a  premium,  quickly  went  down  to  par,  and 
the  news  circled  round  the  London  Stock  Exchange,  "the  thing's  a  dead  failure". 

Jobbers  and  brokers  interested  in  railways  did  their  best  to  block  the  canal  issue, 
and  others  rather  prevented  their  clients  subscribing  to  the  capital.  On  the  third 


1 886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  325 

day,  seeing  they  could  not  stem  the  opposition,    Messrs.  Rothschild  &  Sons  with- 
drew the  stock  and  made  the  following  official  statement  :— 

The  directors  of  the  Manchester  Ship  Canal  Company,  having  been  advised  by  Messrs. 
N.  M.  Rothschild  &  Sons  of  the  number  of  shares  applied  for,  have  decided  to  withdraw 
the  issue  for  the  present,  the  amount  being  less  than  is  required  by  the  Acts  of  Parliament  to 
enable  the  company  to  proceed  with  the  construction  of  the  canal.  The  sums  deposited  on 
application  will  therefore  be  returned  without  delay. 

It  was  an  intense  disappointment  to  Lancashire  ;  only  a  few  days  before,  Parlia- 
ment had  refused  to  let  Salford  contribute  ,£250,000  and  so  had  prevented  other 
towns  assisting.  Now  the  canal  was  blocked  for  want  of  support.  Too  late  the 
directors  saw  their  mistake  in  not  having  the  stock  underwritten  and  in  not  having 
been  more  liberal  with  commissions  and  thus  enlisting  the  help  of  the  stock  market 
They  determined  to  take  breathiijg  time  before  making  a  second  appeal  for  capital. 
Of  course  all  kinds  of  reasons  were  given  for  the  fiasco.  It  was  said  there  was  much 
local  irritation,  and  the  Ship  Canal  officials  had  offended  many  subscribers  by  break- 
ing faith,  and  compelling  them  to  apply  for  shares  in  the  ordinary  way  instead  of 
granting  shares  up  to  twenty  times  the  amount  of  the  subscription.  The  financial 
papers  gave  three  reasons  for  the  failure :  The  directorate  was  not  strong  enough ; 
the  terms  offered  were  not  good  enough  ;  the  wheels  of  the  Stock  Exchange  had  not 
been  sufficiently  oiled — no  large  commissions  had  been  offered,  and  there  were  not 
sufficient  pickings  to  be  made. 

At  the  July  meeting  of  the  Manchester,  Sheffield  and  Lincolnshire  Railway  the 
Chairman,  Sir  Edward  Watkin,  who  had  hitherto  been  very  magnanimous  in  his 
view  of  the  canal,  made  a  strong  attack  on  the  Ship  Canal  Board.  He  had  not 
helped  to  oppose  the  undertaking,  and  he  was  in  favour  of  improved  water  com- 
munication, but  he  believed  the  design  was  bad.  The  Ship  Canal  ought  to  have 
no  locks,  and  the  bar  should  be  removed  prior  to  an  improved  water  communica- 
tion. He  was  in  favour  of  cutting  through  the  Birkenhead  peninsula  and  making 
a  new  way  to  deep  water.  The  Ship  Canal  was  a  great  delusion,  and  was  about 
the  worst  engineered  business  he  ever  remembered.  The  scheme  had  been  a 
failure,  and  would  be  a  failure,  and  he  ventured  to  predict  the  promoters  never  would 
get  the  capital.  If  they  did,  their  works  would  close  up  the  port  of  Liverpool.  The 
whole  scheme  had  been  a  gigantic  mistake,  and  the  public  had  been  deceived.  Not 
very  encouraging  words,  and  they  show  how  dangerous  it  is  even  for  a  great  railway 
magnate  to  indulge  in  prophecy. 


326         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1886 

The  one  cheering  aspect  for  the  directors  was  that  however  outsiders  might 
deride  and  condemn  them,  the  masses  of  the  people  remained  faithful  to  the  canal. 
Any  quantity  of  offers  were  received  in  the  way  of  small  sums,  accompanied  by 
most  encouraging  letters,  many  working  men  promising  to  make  weekly  payments 
in  aid  of  the  canal,  and  others  to  give  up  luxuries  and  save  the  money  in  order  to 
possess  an  interest  in  it. 

On  3  ist  August  the  Second  General  Meeting  of  the  Shareholders  was  held 
in  St.  James's  Hall,  and  this  was  looked  forward  to  with  much  interest,  as  then 
would  have  to  be  decided  the  question  "What  next?"  The  report  of  the  directors, 
after  recounting  the  circumstances  connected  with  Messrs.  Rothschilds'  attempt  to 
issue  stock,  stated  they  had  conferred  with  the  Mayor  of  Manchester,  Alderman 
Goldschmidt,  and  other  prominent  citizens,  and  that  under  their  advice  they  had 
appointed  a  Consultative  Committee  with  the  Mayor  as  Chairman  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  whole  scheme  of  the  Ship  Canal,  including  the  obtaining  of  the  capital, 
the  strengthening  of  the  position  of  the  company  in  public  estimation,  and  any  other 
matters  affecting  its  future,  and  to  report  to  the  Board.  This  Committee  was  to  be 
entirely  independent  of  the  Board,  and  to  consist  of  leading  business  men  of  influence 
and  position,  also  of  landed  proprietors  whose  opinion  would  commaad  respect  in  the 
district.  It  mattered  not  if  they  had  previously  been  opposed  to  the  canal.  A  report 
from  such  a  Committee  (if  favourable)  would  doubtless  have  great  weight  with  the 
public,  and  render  valuable  assistance  to  the  directors  in  securing  the  necessary  funds. 

The  Chairman,  Mr.  Adamson,  regretted  that  after  making  satisfactory  arrange- 
ments with  Messrs.  Lucas  &  Aird  they  had  failed  to  get  the  capital.  They  must 
now  try  and  get  the  help  of  the  great  commercial  men  of  Lancashire,  and  the  large 
property  owners.  Also  they  must  show  traders  that  the  canal  was  indispensable  to 
Manchester  and  Lancashire.  The  Consultative  Committee  would  sift  the  Ship  Canal 
scheme  to  the  bottom,  and  if,  as  he  hoped,  the  report  was  favourable  it  ought  to 
give  confidence.  There  was  plenty  of  money  in  Lancashire,  and  if  the  county  did 
its  duty,  and  raised  two  and  a  half  to  three  millions,  he  had  no  fear  about  London 
providing  the  remainder. 

Sir  Joseph  Lee  had  been  told  by  Messrs.  Rothschild  that  it  was  essential 
Manchester  should  show  her  confidence  in  the  canal  if  money  was  to  be  got  in 
London.  So  far  she  had  not  done  so.  They  had  had  a  great  many  warm  friends, 
but  still  in  some  quarters  the  scheme  had  been  damned  with  faint  praise.  They  had 
placed  gentlemen  on  the  Consultative  Committee  who  had  been  antagonistic  to  the 


•8 

01 

ft 


a 
< 


z: 

g 


Z- 

o 


«s 


: 


1 886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  327 

canal,  and  therefore  the  report,  when  it  came  out,  ought  to  carry  force.  The 
ground  must  be  made  very  sure  before  they  built  a  new  structure.  They  had  been 
dazzled  by  the  great  name  of  Rothschild ;  now  they  must  put  their  own  shoulders  to 
the  wheel.  Adversity  had  taught  them  a  good  lesson,  and  when  the  next  prospectus 
was  brought  forth,  he  hoped  to  have  the  support  of  the  merchants,  landowners  and 
the  working  people  of  Manchester. 

Mr.  Houldsworth  urged  the  directors  to  keep  pegging  away,  and  the  promoters 
to  stick  to  their  guns.  They  must  not  leave  a  single  stone  unturned  in  order  to  carry 
the  canal. 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright  was  absent,  but  wrote:  "You  know  how  strong  is  my  con- 
viction of  the  necessity  of  this  enterprise.  It  has  triumphed  over  many  and  great 
difficulties,  and  will,  I  believe,  triumph  over  this  last  difficulty." 

Amongst  the  earliest  to  show  their  renewed  confidence  in  the  canal  were  Mr. 
Adamson's  own  workmen.  After  an  address  by  Mr.  Digby  Seymour,  Q.C.,  they 
decided  to  work  two  hours  per  week  extra,  and  that  the  money  received  should  be 
invested  in  the  canal  to  form  a  kind  of  trust  fund  to  be  managed  by  a  Committee. 

The  idea  of  shilling  coupons  being  issued  to  working  men,  who  could  convert  them 
into  ,£1  shares,  found  much  favour  with  Mr.  Adamson,  Alderman  Bailey  and  others, 
whilst  it  met  with  strong  opposition  from  other  earnest  supporters  of  the  scheme. 
Mr.  Ellis  Lever  asserted  "he  had  no  faith  in  the  proposal  to  raise  ,£5,000,000  by 
the  weekly  shillings  of  working  men  ". 

From  a  Parliamentary  return  of  expenses  incurred  for  Private  Bills,  it  would 
appear  that  the  promoters  of  the  Ship  Canal  Bill  expended  in  1883-84  and  1885 
,£146,500;  to  this  must  be  added  local  expenses,  ,£26,000,  making  a  total  cost  of 
;£  1 7  2, 500.  This  did  not  include  the  1886  Bill.  It  is  very  probable  the  numerous 
opponents  spent  in  the  three  years  as  much  as  the  Ship  Canal  Company.  If  so,  the 
fight  must  have  cost  both  sides  ,£345,000. 

In  the  early  part  of  November  the  heart  of  Liverpool  was  stirred  by  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Ismay,  the  Chairman  of  the  White  Star  Line.  He  was  not  satisfied 
(like  Mr.  Hornby,  Chairman  of  the  Dock  Board)  with  getting  over  the  bar  for  a 
limited  time  twice  in  twenty-four  hours,  but  maintained  it  would  be  quite  possible 
to  follow  the  example  of  New  York,  and  so  improve  the  bar  that  at  the  lowest 
tide  there  should  never  be  less  than  30  feet  of  water  on  it.  He  advocated  also 
an  overhead  dock  railway,  and  (greatest  change  of  all)  that  dock  and  town  dues 
should  be  swept  away  and  Liverpool  made  a  free  port.  But  of  course  these  changes 


328         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL     [1886 

were  too  drastic  for  the  Dock  Board  to  entertain.  "  Some  years  back,"  wrote  Mr. 
Russel  Aitken,  "  I  spoke  to  Captain  Graham  Hills,  marine  superintendent,  about  the 
scandal  of  '  the  bar '  which  impedes  trade,  destroys  shipping,  and  adds  another  horror 
to  a  sea  voyage,  when  he  replied  to  me  that  it  was  an  utter  impossibility  to  remove 
the  bar,  and  that  I  was  a  madman  for  proposing  such  a  work." 

The  Consultative  Committee,  mentioned  by  the  Chairman  as  about  to  be  formed 
at  the  instance  of  the  directors,  consisted  of  the  following  gentlemen  : — 

P.  Goldschmidt,  Mayor  of  Manchester  (Chairman). 

Charles  Moseley,  Merchant  (Deputy  Chairman). 

Earl  Egerton  of  Tatton. 

John  Alexander  Beith,  Shipping  Merchant. 

John  K.  Bythell,  Shipping  Merchant. 

C.  P.  Scott,  Editor,  Manchester  Guardian. 

James  F.  Hutton,  Merchant. 

W.  E.  Melland,  Manufacturer. 

Samuel  Ogden,  Cloth  Agent. 

Robert  Bridgford,  Estate  Agent. 

Alfred  Butterworth,  Cotton  Spinner. 

Hilton  Greaves,  Cotton  Spinner. 

George  Robinson,  Shipping  Merchant. 

Alfred  Crewdson,  Merchant. 

Henry  Theodore  Gaddum,  Silk  Merchant. 

William  H.  Holland,  Cotton  Spinner. 

Charles  J.  Galloway,  Machinist. 

Alexander  Ireland,  Newspaper  Proprietor. 

G.  F.  Fisher,  African  Merchant. 

Thomas  Sowler,  Editor,  Manchester  Courier. 

C.  S.  Carlisle,  Merchant. 

James  Leigh,  Cotton  Spinner. 

James  Maudsley,  Labour  Representative. 

A  more  influential  and  representative  body  could  scarcely  have  been  selected. 
Several  of  the  members  were  known  to  entertain  an  unfavourable  opinion  of  the 
canal,  and  inasmuch  as  they  were  to  make  an  exhaustive  inquiry  and  had  power  to 
call  any  witnesses  they  liked,  it  was  felt  their  report  would  either  mar  or  make 
the  undertaking.  If  they  pronounced  the  scheme  sound,  it  would  materially  help 
to  restore  public  confidence,  which  was  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  obtain  the 
capital. 

Singular  to  say  the  Consultative  Committee  was  almost  forced  on  Mr.  Adamson 


ClIAKI.KS   Mo.SKl.KY,    DlkKCTOR    OF   TIIK    M. \NCHKSTKk   Sill]'  C.\N.\I< 

COMPANY. 

Van-der-Weyde,  London.  To  face  page  32$. 


1 886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  329 

—who  never  liked  it — by  some  of  the  farseeing  directors  who  felt  sure  that  in  order 
to  gain  the  support  of  capitalists  it  would  be  necessary  that  the  canal  scheme  in  all  its 
bearings  should  be  thoroughly  sifted  by  reliable  and  impartial  men,  in  whom  the 
public  had  perfect  confidence. 

The  Consultative  Committee  sat  at  intervals  for  several  weeks,  and  made  a 
most  painstaking  inquiry  into  the  facts  and  figures  on  which  the  directors  had  built 
up  their  statement  that  the  canal  could  be  made  and  would  pay.  They  called 
for  evidence  on  different  points,  narrowly  examined  many  witnesses,  and  presented 
their  report  on  the  26th  November.  On  the  gth  December  a  meeting  of  the  pro- 
moters was  held  in  the  Mayor's  Parlour  to  hear  the  unanimous  report  of  the 
Consultative  Committee,  which  was  signed  by  Alderman  Goldschmidt  and  the  rest 
of  his  colleagues. 

REPORT  OF  THE  CONSULTATIVE  COMMITTEE. 

1.  That   the  Ship   Canal   and  works  are    practicable   from   an   engineering   point  of 
view,  and  would  permit  vessels  of  the  largest  class   to   be  safely  navigated    to  and   from 
Manchester. 

2.  That  the  canal  and  works  can  be  completed  ready  for  traffic  at  a  cost  within  the 
estimate  of  £5,750,000,  and  that  the  sum  of  ,£802,936  set  down  for  the  purchase  of  the 
necessaiy  land  is  a  safe  estimate. 

3.  That  the  canal  and  works  should  be  constructed  under  a  contract  fixing  a  maximum 
sum,  in  order  to  prevent  any  possibility  of  the  estimate  being  exceeded. 

4.  That  graving  dock  accommodation  should  be  provided,  and  be  ready  for  use  on  the 
opening  of  the  canal. 

5.  That  the  estimate  of  £104,200  per  annum  for  the  expenses  of  the  working  and 
maintenance  is  ample.     There  would  probably  be  a  material  saving  on  this  item  during  the 
first  few  years  after  completion. 

6.  That  the  acquisition  of  the  Bridgewater  undertakings  for  the  sum  of  £1,710,000,  fixed 
by  the  Act  of  Parliament,  would  be  an  advantageous  purchase  for  the  Ship  Canal  Company, 
and  that  the  present  average  net  income  of  £60,000  would,  after  the  completion  of  the  works, 
continue  to  be  derived  from  the  Bridgewater  Canal  and  those  other  portions  of  the  Bridge- 
water  properties  not  required  for  the  construction  of  the  Ship  Canal. 

7.  That  the  capital  powers  of  the  company,  under  their  Acts  of  Parliament,  amounting 
to  £9,812,000,  are  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  contemplated  by  their  Acts. 

8.  That  the  project  is  a  thoroughly  sound  commercial  undertaking,  and  would  speedily 
become  remunerative  on  the  completion  of  the  works.     That  a  large  amount  of  traffic  would 
be  at  once  secured,  and  that  thereafter  the  increase  in  traffic  and  revenue  must  be  steady  and 
continuous. 


330         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1886 

Having  regard  to  the  responsible  character  of  this  report,  we  feel  it  our  duty  to  state 
that  in  our  judgment  it  is  necessary,  before  the  issue  of  any  further  prospectus,  to  reconstitute 
and  greatly  strengthen  the  Board  of  Directors. 

Dated  this  26th  day  of  November,  1886. 

P.  GOLDSCHMIDT,  Chairman. 

CHARLES  MOSELEY,  Deputy  Chairman. 
Etc.,  etc. 

Alderman  Curtis,  Mayor  of  Manchester,  was  in  the  chair. 

Mr.  Charles  Moseley,  before  reading  the  report,  said  the  Consultative  Committee 
had  felt  an  enormous  responsibility  rested  upon  them,  but  he  was  pleased  to  say  they 
had  come  to  a  unanimous  opinion. 

Mr.  Oliver  Hey  wood  and  Alderman  Harwood  thanked  the  Consultative  Com- 
mittee for  their  unremitting  labours.  Knowing  the  critical  and  searching  inquiry  that 
had  been  made  by  gentlemen  of  the  highest  standing  in  the  city,  Alderman 
Harwood  said  he  had  more  confidence  in  the  report  than  he  would  have  had  if  it  had 
come  from  any  assembly  of  gentlemen  in  London,  however  highly  endowed  they 
might  have  been.  Mr.  Charles  Moseley  paid  a  high  compliment  to  the  work  of  the 
old  directors,  but  suggested  the  necessity  of  strengthening  the  Board  with  men  who 
stood  high  in  the  financial  world.  In  the  past  there  had  been  too  much  saying,  "It 
is  a  very  good  scheme,  but  I  am  going  to  leave  some  one  else  to  carry  it  out ".  Now 
if  it  was  to  be  done,  that  was  not  the  way  to  do  it.  They  must  all  lend  a  helping 
hand. 

Mr.  Jacob  Bright  would  not  believe  the  enterprising  spirit  of  Manchester  was 
decaying.  After  the  favourable  and  unanimous  report  of  a  remarkable  Committee, 
he  did  not  think  the  financial  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  scheme  would  henceforth 
be  too  great  If  Manchester— equal  in  its  spirit  of  enterprise  to  any  part  of  the 
country — did  not  accomplish  that  work,  he  should  be  very  much  surprised. 

The  large  meeting  enthusiastically  received  the  report,  and  the  subscribers  left 
with  lighter  hearts  and  with  a  determination  to  raise  the  capital. 

To  show  the  earnestness  of  their  convictions  the  Consultative  Committee  agreed 
to  put  their  names  down  for  ,£68,200,  Mr.  Hilton  Greaves,  of  Oldham,  heading  the 
list  with  £20,000.  The  directors  had  subscribed  to  the  extent  of  £"136,250,  of  which 
Mr.  John  Rylands  was  responsible  for  .£50,000. 

No  one  took  a  more  intelligent  interest  in  the  Ship  Canal  than  did  our  local 


I 
I 


-J 

2 
U 

a; 
w 

< 


B: 

- 


a: 
O 


u 

a 


o 

O 

o 
o" 


r 
O 


1  886]  EFFORTS  TO  RAISE  THE  CAPITAL  331 

poet,  Edwin  Waugh.  He  was  anxious  to  give  it  a  help,  and  through  the  kind- 
ness of  Sir  Leader  Williams  I  am  able  to  give  a  facsimile  of  a  letter  which  the 
poet  wrote  when  he  submitted  his  verses  to  Sir  Leader  for  his  approval  and  revision. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  a  few  minor  alterations  were  made.  The  song  was  afterwards 
published  in  the  second  series  of  Waugh's  poems,  and  can  be  sung  to  the  air  of 
"Auld  Lang  Syne". 


332         HISTORY  OF  THE  MANCHESTER  SHIP  CANAL      [1886 


1 886]  CURIOUS  EPITAPH  333 


NAVIGATION  TO  MANCHESTER. 
CURIOUS  EPITAPH. 

Near  the  west  door  of  St.   Elphin's  Church,  Warrington,  is  a  gravestone  in- 
scribed as  under  :— 

This  grave  is  not  to  be  disturbed  after  the  interment  of  John  Leigh. 
The  old  Quay  Flats  was  my  delight ; 
I  sail'd  in  them  both  day  and  night. 
God  bless  the  Masters,  and  the  Clerks, 
The  Packet  people,  and  Flatmen  too, 
Horse  drivers,  and  all  their  crew. 
Our  sails  are  set  to  Liverpool ; 
We  must  get  under  way — 
Discharge  our  cargo,  safe  and  sound, 
In  Manchester  Bay. 
Now  all  hands,  when  you  go  home, 
Neither  fret  any,  nor  mourn  ; 
Serve  the  Lord  where'er  you  go, 
Let  the  wind  blow  high  or  low. 

Mary  Leigh,  his  sister,  died  Oct.  6th,  1801,  aged  29  years. 

Betty,  Mother  of  John  and  Mary  Leigh,  died  6th  May,  1826,  aged  88  years. 

To  our  God  let  us  pray — 

Keep  us  from  drunkenness  and  wickedness  both  night  and  day. 

This  stone  and  grave  is  free  gift  of  John  Yates,  Mariner,  Captain  of  the  Old  Quay 
Packet. 

God  bless  all  British  sailors,  Admiral  Nelson,  and  all  the  English  Fleet ; 
When  we  must  go,  we  do  not  know,  sweet  Jesus  Christ  to  meet. 


THE   ABERDEEN    UNIVERSITY    PRESS    LIMITED 


•* 


University  of  Toronto 
Library 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "Rel.  Index  FUr" 
Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU