CANALS. 85 



railways can. The laisser fairc policy dominant in England at the time 

 was against any direct State interference with canals and railways, and thus 

 no less than one-third of the total canal mileage of the United Kingdom 

 was allowed to pass, without protest or conditions, into the hands of the 

 railway companies. This involved an even more serious interference with 

 the competition of the waterways than appears at first sight, for it is clear 

 that the railways had to get control of only a section of a navigation made 

 up of one or more waterways, to interfere with competition along its entire 

 length. Moreover, it was in regard to heavy traffic only that the railways 

 needed to compete in the matter of freight charges with the canals. Pas- 

 senger traffic, perishable traffic, and " smalls " traffic came to them as a 

 matter of course. " That the whole subject of transit in England requires to 

 be considered from its very foundation," wrote Sir Arthur Cotton in a very 

 interesting Report to the Committee on " Canals " in 1883, " has been most 

 fully proved by the late and present Committees already. The defects in 

 the legislation hitherto on this subject are inconceivable. The one fact that 

 all the main lines of water transit should have been paralysed by allowing 

 the railways to buy up a short line in the middle, and so establish a mono- 

 poly, shows this beyond dispute. And this after they had been granted 

 Acts of Parliament which gave them the power of doing anything they 

 pleased with private property that lay in their way. It is remarkable that 

 in France they should be so far in advance of us in this matter that the 

 Government have taken the water lines into their own hands, and are now 

 opening them with one object in view, the general good of the community." 

 The French Government had, in fact, with wise prevision, bought up a 

 good many of the canals on the occasion of the slump in their value at the 

 advent of railways. 



In 1845 the canal companies of the United Kingdom petitioned Parlia- 

 r 1 T tf'tjlaf'nn i^^^i^t for protection against the competition of the 

 • ■♦•>. IT -f i\ railroads, and secured, for the first time, strange as it 

 m tne uniiea may seem, the right of becoming shippers over their 

 ivingaom since 10*0. Q-yy^ canals, obtaining at the same time the power to 

 lower and raise their tariffs. Looking back now, with a knowledge of the 

 actual development of railways, it seems incredible that railroads were 

 originally regarded by their promoters as well as by the public as public 

 highways, or even " land canals," and that the companies themselves de- 

 clared it was against their wish, and would be against their interest, to 

 attempt the carriage of goods and passengers, and that they desired to be 

 toll-takers only. The same curious lack of apprehension of the inherent 

 possibilities of the railway system was shown in the construction of short 

 local lines in imitation of the existing sectional waterways. Thus the 

 present Great Northern Railway of Ireland is, as is well known, the result 

 of the amalgamation of no less than eleven smaller companies. 



It must not be assumed, however, that the old system of waterways in 

 the United Kingdom or elsewhere was ideal in any respect. Being a prac- ' 

 tical monopoly, fares and freight charges were, in many cases, excessive to 

 a degree. Speaking in the House of Commons, May, 1836, Mr. Morrison 

 is reported to have said : — " The history of existing canals, waterways, etc., 

 affords abundant evidence of the evils (i.e. of monopoly) to which I have 

 been adverting. An original share in the Loughborough Canal, for 

 example, which cost ^^142 ijs., is now selling at ;^ 1,2 50, and yields a 



