The Canal Era 173 



out the idea. The chief promoters were Earl Gower (ancestor 

 of the Duke of Sutherland), the Duke of Bridgewater, the 

 Earl of Stamford, Josiah Wedgwood, and various other land- 

 owners and manufacturers. Parliamentary powers were 

 obtained in 1766, and the work of construction, as planned 

 by Brindley, was begun at once. The name of " Grand 

 Trunk " was given to the undertaking, the idea being that 

 the waterway would form the main line of a system of canals 

 radiating from it in various directions, and linking up the 

 greater part of the country south of the Trent with the three 

 ports mentioned. 



We have here the first suggestion of any approach to a 

 real system of inland communication, as applying to the 

 country in general, which had been attempted since the 

 Romans made the last of their great roads in Britain. Apart 

 from the natural limitations of navigable rivers, the turn- 

 pike roads so far constructed had been chiefly designed to 

 serve local interests, and successive rulers or Governments 

 had either failed to realise the importance of carrying out a 

 well-planned scheme of inland communication, embracing 

 a great part even if not the whole of the country, or had 

 been lacking in the energy, or the means, to supply what 

 had become one of the greatest of national wants. 



There was thus all the more credit due to the little group 

 of far-sighted, enterprising and patriotic individuals whose 

 names I have mentioned that they should themselves have 

 undertaken work which was to have an important influence 

 on the industrial and social conditions of the country. Yet 

 the nature of the conditions under which the Trent and 

 the Mersey section of the Grand Trunk system was made 

 afforded an early example of the physical difficulties attendant 

 on canal construction in England which were to be a leading 

 cause of the decline of canals as soon as the greater advantages 

 of the railway and the locomotive had been established. 



Canals were superior to rivers in so far as they could be 

 taken where rivers did not go, and could be kept under 

 control in regard to water supply without the drawbacks of 

 floods or droughts, of high tides, or of being silted up by 

 sand or mud. It is, indeed, reported that when, after he 

 had made a strong pronouncement in favour of canals, 

 James Brindley was asked by a Parliamentary Committee, 



