The Growth of Inland Navigation and Industrial Enterprise

1

“Arteries of a Revolution”:

The Growth of Inland Navigation and Industrial Enterprise

Sabrina Shaw

Stanwood High School

Stanwood, WA

2010 NEH Seminar for School Teachers

Interpretations of the Industrial Revolution in Britain

On March 2, 1665 the Speaker of the House of Commons met in the House of Lords to discuss a series of Navigation Acts that had been prepared with the hopes of making numerous small English rivers navigable. The Speaker declared England, “incomparably furnished with pleasant Rivers, like Veins in the Natural Body, which conveys the Blood into all the Parts, whereby the whole is nourished, and made useful… He went on to claim that increased navigation, “…easeth the People of the great Charge of Land Carriages; preserves the Highways, which are daily worn out with Wagons carrying excessive Burdens; it breeds up a Nursery of Watermen, which, upon Occasion, will provide good Seamen; and with much Facility maintain Intercourse and Communion between Cities and Countries.”[1]This speech highlights the era in which river navigation, driven by conflict at home and abroad, became a national concern. However, it also foreshadowed an era of Canal Mania between 1760-1830in which 300 Acts of Parliament would be passed and over 3,875 miles of water would be made navigable. It was the great era of canal buildingthat took advantage of the geographic features of Britain to develop innovative solutions to inland navigation, increasing trade and communication of goods and ideas. This resulted in the new field of civil engineering and the development of regional economies that quickened the spread of the industrial revolution.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the rivers of England were utilized extensively to transport goods as the demands of agriculture and industry increased. As trade between regions grew, and pilgrimages were reduced, the system of Roman roads grew into disrepair. [2]Riversbegan to replace the declining Roman roads as the chief source of communication and travel for those who wanted goods to arrive safely inland. Numerous sources document a flourishing trade between interior streams and rivers and port towns such as York and Doncaster. These towns, worked to control the waterways by securing land grants and water rights, often to the dismay of the developing manufacturing interests who were asserting themselves through the construction of weirs and mills.[3]

Increasingly, throughout the 16th and 17th century, various elements complicated the use of rivers as a method of conveying goods and services. While an increasing number of parliamentary statues called to preserve the navigation of major public rivers, keeping them free of obstructions, additional impediments limited inland navigation. Rain and floods silted the beds of rivers, creating uneven riverbeds and limiting the passage of heavy cargo.[4] Waterman and barge-masters couldn’t navigate the shallow water and threw ballast overboard, where it accumulated, eventually blocking passage further. These issues resulted in goods being conveyed by land with great expense. [5]

In addition, the increasing number of milldams and weirs that were constructed during Elizabethan times created obstacles to navigation. Many of these mills had been privately erected along streams—built near fast moving water that would allow mill owners to reap the rewards of a consistent source of water, even in dry seasons. Millers frequently opened the gates to their milldams, creating a flashing, the raising of water that would allow boats to pass over the shallows. For this they received a moderate sum. When water supplies were limited, millers often limited the passing of ships for days—or extract large sums for the “favor” of passage.[6]

By the 17th century, pamphleteers had taken up the river improvements as a cause of national importance. These early pamphleteers identified various schemes of river improvement that would overcome the various problems of transport and increase the utility of England’s valuable natural resource. Waterman and innkeeper, John Taylor,called for an English system that imitated the ‘industrious Netherlanders’ who removed the various impediments from their rivers.[7]Taken one step further, pamphleteer Francis Mathew suggested river improvements be done by the government. He claimed, “such great and publick Works are not to be attempted by private men, or any particular Corporations; But most fit it were that the State it self should be the sole Undertaker, performing all at its own proper charge.”[8] Mathew was the first Englishman to suggest the “systemic joining of rivers” that would come to be, although his proposals never becoming law.[9] This systematic joining of rivers was continually brought forward to parliament and marks a new period in inland navigation—the attempt to develop navigation where none had previously existed rather then the restoration of previous waterways.

The aforementioned shift was a gradual response to the increase in the costs of land and river carriage prior to the 18th century. However, changes in carriage were not without opposition:

Those interested in road transport naturally disliked a cheaper competitor; landowners along the banks of river objected to the introduction of pound-locks because of the danger that their lands might be flooded as a result of raising the water level, or their water-meadows not be flooded because of better flood-control; farmers feared lest the wider areas of trade opened up by improved transport would cause prices to fall, since in times of scarcity corn could by water be obtained from farther away. But the most sustained opposition to particular schemes came from those towns which were distributing centers for goods, and which saw themselves as being supplanted.[10]

It became a battle, waged by the pamphleteers and in parliament to alter the public perception and push forward the development of various bills to make rivers navigable. Prior to 1660, 685 miles of English rivers were navigable. By 1724, over 1,160 miles had been made navigable. Setting aside the mountainous areas, most Englishmen lived within fifteen miles of a navigable river. Goods were moved freely, at less cost, and new patterns of transportation developed.[11]

The idea of a “Dutch system” of canals was not new to England. The Exeter Canal opened in 1566. Served by pound-locks,the locks raised and lowered the water necessary to lift, or lower, a boat from one level of the river to another. This system not only saved water, but more importantly saved time. Soon, canalized rivers were utilized in river improvement schemes and the idea of canals as a system of transportation began to draw interest of financiers.[12] In 1754, William Taylor was chosen by the Liverpool Common Council to survey the Sankey Brook, “a small stream running from near St Helens to the River Mersey” to determine if it could be utilized to ferry coal from the mines.[13] The limited size of the brook made it clear to Taylor that it would be necessary to utilize a canalized system, but a similar project had recently been rejected by Parliament. Thus, Taylor and “the proprietors obtained an Enabling Act in 1755 ‘for making navigable the River or Brook called Sankey brook,’ with the power to make ‘such new cuts….as they shall think proper and requisite.” The Sankey Canal began work by carrying large amounts of coal from the St. Helens coalfield with dividends of 33.33% being paid for the next eight years.[14] It was clear that the construction of the Sankey Canal was a successful business proposition, about to be taken further by the Duke of Bridgewater.

A visit to the French Canal du Midi in 1754 intrigued the young duke. The 150 mile-long French canal had joined the Atlantic and Mediterranean seas since 1681. It is said that this visit inspired the duke to take up ‘Exerimentall Philosophy’ with a focus on science and engineering upon return to his studies.[15]In 1758 Francis Reynolds of Strangeways wrote to Edward Chethamto discuss a recent visit by the Duke of Bridgewater to his Worsley Estate. Reynolds’ indicated that the Bridgewater Canal was already being drawn up in the duke’s mind: “his Grace has found so large a Mine of Coal, for which he has so small a consumption, that he is inclinable to make a water road from Worsley Mill to Salford, at his own expense, by which means he will be able to supply Manchester at a much cheaper rate.[16]

Various flooding issues at Worsley had limited the Duke’s receipts and he was eager to begin work on a solution. In addition, the recent work development of the Sankey Navigation was set to provide competition and possibly shrink the duke’s market.[17] On November 25, 1758 ‘ A Petition of the Most Noble Francis Duke of Bridgewater’was presented to the House of Commons. The Duke’s petition was unique in that it was to be fulfilled at his own expense, he owned one-third of the land along the projected route, and he was key to solving a coal supply problem that plagued the local community. The petition brought forth great question to “which private gain balanced the public interest” and questions of imminent domain. On March 23, 1759 royal assent brought the bill into an Act and the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal was prepared for construction.[18]

The Duke of Bridgewater hired engineer James Brindley to begin work on the Canal, leading to a second Act of Parliament in 1760. During the canal’s construction one visiting writer is said to have exclaimed that when it was finished it would ‘ be the most extraordinary thing in the kingdom, if not in Europe. The boats in some places are to go underground, and in another place over a navigable river without communicating with its waters.’[19]When the Canal was opened on July 17, 1761, a grand celebration was held. It is said that “strangers flocked from a distance to see Brindley’s ‘castle in the air;’ and contemporary writers spoke in glowing terms of the surprise with which they saw several barges of great burthen drawn by a single mule or horse along ‘a river hung in the air,’ or over another river flowing underneath.”[20] By 1773 the canal had achieved such fame that Josiah Wedgewood, upon a visit, identifiedWorsley as having, “the appearance of a considerable Seaport town. His Grace has built some hundreds of houses, and is every year adding considerably to their number.”[21]

Far greater than the accolades that Bridley and Bridgewater’s canal drew were the economic rewards it brought to the local economy.The canal is said to have provided advantages as soon as it was opened through the reduction of prices and increase in the availability of goods. Contemporaries claimed the charge for items carried between Liverpool and Manchester, particularly coal,hadbeen lowered by half. Local produce was brought to Manchester from areas along the navigation, increasing income for local farmers and shortening the time to market. In addition, the cost of farming fell as the cost of essential agricultural products such as lime and manure fell.[22]

With the success of the Duke’s canal 18th century pamphleteers began to take up the creation of additional canals. A 1788 pamphlet, Observations on a Scheme for extending the Navigation of the Rivers Kennett and Avon claimed:

The price of carriage of coals, and all other heavy articles, will be greatly reduced; the estates of gentlemen and farmers, will be improved at much easier expense by the introduction of free-stone, timber, brick, tile, and other building materials; lime, peat-ashes and manure, of all sorts. They will find new markets for the produce of their farms and estates: corn, malt, cheese, and other productions, will meet with a ready and cheap conveyance to the great marts.[23]

Colliery owners and pottery manufacturers quickly acknowledged the tangiblebenefits canals could have on the development of their industries. The expense of importing clay and materials and exporting fragile earthenware and china increased the cost of manufacturing inland and prevented the expansion of the industry. “Large crates of pot-ware were slung across horses’ backs and thus conveyed to their respective ports, not only at great risk of breakage and pilferage, but also at a heavy cost. The expense of carriage was not less than a shilling a tone per mile, and the lowest charge was eight shillings a ton for ten miles.”[24]

The opening of the Duke’s canal, combined with cheap capital, led to a Canal Mania between 1790 and 1794. Much of the capital that was invested in the building of canals came from wealthy business owners. Canal building was expensive and required “compulsory powers to buy land, divert streams, cross highways, and do other such things could only be given by Parliament, it was for this reason also necessary to obtain an Act.”[25] The number of canal corporations therefore grew rapidly and led to a Canal bubble that inflated shares of stock and led to rapid investment from those outside of the manufacturing sector. [26]

Promoters, wanting to keep a good thing to themselves would “hold subscription meetings quietly, and because they did so, wherever a meeting was held, hopeful speculators rushed to the place seeking to put down deposits on shares they could immediately sell at profit”[27] A pamphlet published in 1795 tells the story of the mania, claiming it was “a passion of speculation” which “spread like an epidemical disease throughout the city. Every man believing he would gain thousands by his adventures. The shares which were at 50 premium today were expected to rise to 60 tomorrow and to 100 in a week.”[28]

The rapid growth of capital and investment led to an increase in the number of canals that were constructed throughout England. Subscribers, driven by profits of 30 to 40 per cent, pushed forward 30 new Acts of incorporation between 1793 and 1794.[29] Through these Acts “canal companies were given powers to acquire by compulsory purchase the land they required.[30] Many of these canals would not succeed due to the lack of planning and engineering knowledge of the time.

It is important to remember that prior to the canal era very few civil engineering feats had been accomplished outside of bridge building. There had been little political purpose given to the development of engineering tasks. Instead in England it was commerce that drove geographic improvements. These men, or civil engineers, were “civilians, employed not by the State, but by the individuals, or companies of men, eager to develop the trade of the areas from which they derived their personal incomes.”[31]

Accordingly, “it was the building of canals that largely created the profession of civil engineer by producing a demand big enough to encourage specialists.”[32] As money was invested quickly, a number of previously unskilled civil engineers were given large projects to supervise. One of the largest was the Ellesmere Canal in which a young stonemason, Thomas Telford was named ‘general agent, engineer, and architect’ in charge of connecting the rivers Mersey and Dee to the Severn.[33]

The Ellesmere Canal presented numerous challenges for Telford, particularly how to carry the Llangollen canal across the deep Welsh valley over the river Dee. Telford, in his first major work created Pontcysyllte, a 127 feet high cast-iron trough lifted upon a stone pierthat spans the 1,000 foot valley.[34] Telford’s Pontycysyllte Aqueduct was considered “one of the great engineering achievements of all time” and opened Telford to additional areas of engineering for which he would be called, “The Colossus of Roads” by the Poet Southey.[35] However, the most important result of the building movements initiated by early civil engineers was the training of a, “new race of engineers, equipped to meet the calls which the age of the railways was to make on their skill, endurance, and capacity for disciplined effort.”[36] The skills and mechanisms developed for altering and shaping the landscape would help to rapidly implement the changes brought forth by the railways and lead to their successful implementation throughout England.

Although the canal era was a short one, historian T.S Ashton identified it as key to the “momentous changes” that occurred in economic life. The coming of the Railway limited the growth of canals as investors placed their money in the technology of the future. However the canal era demonstrated that mass transport could reduce the cost of items, freeing capital to reinvest in industry:

The cost of bulky or heavy commodities such as coal, iron, timber stone, salt and clay was greatly reduced; agricultural regions which had been remote from the market were brought within the widening circle of exchange; the fear of local famine, of both food and fuel, was removed; and the closer contact with others which the new means of communication afforded had a civilizing influence on the populations of the Potteries and other inland areas. There was a redistribution of activities; old river ports such as Bewdley and Bawtry declined, and new communities grew up at nodal points like Stourport. The competitive position of the more distant centers of production was improved, and rents in those nearer to the markets fell, or failed to rise as they must have otherwise done. The incomes paid out to those who dug the new canals, when spent, resulted in a raising of the level of employment generally. The other transferable shares, with prospects of high profit, accustomed men to invest their resources outside the restricted field of the Funds and the chartered trading companies, and so played a part in the rise of an impersonal market for capital.” [37]