170 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[June, 



LIFE OF GEORGE STEPHENSON. 



(Continued ffom page 107.J 

 XIV. LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER FIRST BILL. 



In 1823 and 182+, the minds of tlie traders of Liverpool were 

 kept alive to tlie need of a railway, as well by the writings of Mr. 

 Sandars as by the ffreat want of means for carrying- goods. A 

 declaration was signed by 150 of the leading merchants of Liver- 

 pool, setting forth "that a new line of conveyance has become ab- 

 solutely necessary to conduct the increasing trade of the country 

 witli speed, certainty, and economy."' 



To set at rest the' doubts of those who did not know whether a 

 railway between Liverpool and JIancliester would do well, some 

 gentlemen went to Northumberland, to see the railways there at 

 work. These gentlemen were Mr. Sandars, Mr. Lister Ellis, Mr. 

 John Kennedy, of Manchester, and ;\Ir. Henry Booth. They met 

 George Stephenson at Darlington, and went with him over the 

 Stockton and Darlington Railway, then being made; and after- 

 wards over se\'eral rail or tramways near Sunderland and New- 

 castle, and which were at work either with locomotives or fixed 

 engines.- As the great end of the Northumbrian railways was to 

 haul coal, so that of the Liverpool and Manchester railway was 

 then thought to be to haul cotton and other goods. On tlie 20th 

 May 18;J4-, these gentlemen made their report to a committee 

 sitting at Liverpool, of which I\Ir. John Moss was chairman; and 

 it was settled to make a company for a double railway between 

 Liverpool and Manchester. A list was opened for shares, and was 

 soon filled with names from Liverpool and Manchester. A board 

 was likewise named, of which the then Mayor of Liverpool, Mr. 

 Charles Lawrence, was made chairman, and George Stephenson, of 

 Newcastle, was named engineer.^ 



Steplienson set to work forthwith to lay out the line, and drew 

 up a plan, which was sent into the committee. It was not, how- 

 ever, till the 29th of October that the prospectus was sent forth. 

 The chairman was, as already said, Mr. Charles Lawrence; among 

 the deputy chairmen were Sir. John Moss and Mr. Joseph San- 

 dars; and among the directors Mr. Robert Benson, Mr. Henry 

 Booth, Mr. James Cropper, Messrs. John and Peter Ewart, l\Ir. 

 William Garnett, Messrs. Adam and Isaac Hodgson, Mr. Joseph 

 Hornby, Mr. ^Villiam Potter, Mr. William Rathbone, and Mr. 

 William Rotherham. Of these, many are now directors of the 

 London and North-AVestern Railway, and had a great share in 

 making the Grand Junction, North Union, and other railways. 

 The solicitors were Messrs. Pritt and Clay, a member of which 

 firm is still one of the leaders of the railway interest. 



The estimate was 400,000/., taking in the cost of locomotive 

 engines and everything else; and it must be remembered this was 

 for a rough goods line. The stock was four thousand shares of 

 one hundred pounds each. The goods going between Liverpool 

 and ALinchester were taken at one thousand tons daily. The pro- 

 spectus seems to have been drawn up by Mr. Sandars, its gi'ound- 

 work being the letter of that gentleman on railways. It takes a 

 bold and wide view of the question, and is a document well worthy 

 of the great purpose for which it was intended. 



By this able writing the canal-owners were roused, and In 

 answer to it the Leeds and Liverpool, the Birmingham, the Grand 

 Trunk, and other canal companies, sent forth circulars, calling 

 upon "every canal and navigation company in the kingdom, to 

 oppose in limine and by a united effort the establishment of rail- 

 ways wherever contemplated." The Liverpool and Manchester 

 Railway therefore sent their prospectus, with a letter dated 2.?th 

 November 1894., to leading men, begging them to uphold the rail- 

 way company.^ 



In the next year, the ever-to-be-remenibered 1825, a bill for a 

 Liverpool and Manchester Railway was brought before parliament, 

 and some of the parliamentary committee went to London to 

 watch the bill.'' Of this committee we believe Mr. Booth was 

 one. To beat the railway, the owners of three canals, the Duke 

 of Bridgewater's, the Mersey and Irwell, and the Leeds and Liver- 

 pool, banded together. With these were two land-owners, the 

 Earls of Derby and Sefton, who set up the common tale about the 

 holiness of their domains being broken in upon, and the privacy of 

 tlieir dwellings destroyed by bringing into their neighbourliood a 

 great highway. Now, it seems the company and tlieir engineer 

 had been careful on this head, for their road was not to go within 

 a mile and a half of the dwelling of the Earl of Sefton, and was 

 to cross the Earl of Derby's lands over the barren mosses of Kirby 

 and Knowsley, about two miles from the hall." 



1 Saridars'B Letter, p. 2:).- 

 3 Bouth'8 Account, p. 10. 

 5 Booth's Account, p. U. 



-Bootli's Account, p. H. 2 Bootli^B Account, p. U. 



4 V'olume of Prospectuses belonging to H. Booth, Esq. 

 6 Prospectus. Booth's Account, p. I J. 



On the 8th February 1825, the petition for tlie bill was laid 

 before the House of Commons, and on the 9th, the Committee on 

 Standing Orders resolved the orders liad been complied with.' At 

 that time they had not found out the way of wasting the money 

 of shareholders, by having standing orders such as no engineer 

 could foUow, nor which could not be got through if any one op- 

 posed. 



On the 18th February, the bill was read a first time; and on the 

 2nd March, a second time, after a debate of about an hour and a 

 half. Sir John Newport, ^Ir. Huskisson, ISIr. Williar.^ Vates Peel, 

 Mr. Doherty, Mr. Calcraft, and Mr. Henry Broughniii, spoke for 

 the bill; Mr. Greene, and Mr. George Phillips against it. There 

 was no division.' Since then, we have found Lord Brougham the 

 greatest foe of railways, and wishing to go back to turnpike roads 

 and stage-coaches at ten miles an hour. 



Nemo unquam fuit lam impar sibi. 

 Committees wei-e then named otherwise than now; and General 

 Gascoyne, member for Liverpool, was asked to be the chairman, 

 which it is said he kindly undertook. The movers of the bill 

 then named committee men of their own, and got as many friends as 

 they could to come forward. On the 21st March, Mr. Adam made 

 his opening speech for the bill, being followed on the same side by 

 Mr. Serjeant Spankie, Mr. Joy, and IMr. AV'illiam Brougham. The 

 witnesses spoke strongly on behalf of the railway. On the 2nd of 

 May, Mr. Spankie summed up for the railway. 



The canal-owners began their case on the 3rd May, having Mr. 

 Harrison, Mr. Alderson, Mr. Parke, Mr. M'Donalil, Mr. Earle, 

 and Mr. Cullen. ISIr. Harrison acknowledged that there was 

 great loss of time in carrying goods by water, and that the railway 

 was shorter, being 30 miles instead of 50; but he held that the 

 canals and liver could carry all the trade of the harbour; that the 

 levels and sections were wrong; that the locomotive was an un- 

 sightly-looking thing; and that the cost of the railway would be 

 three or four times as mucli as the estimate. In behalf of this, Mr. 

 Booth says" Mr. Francis Giles was brought forward to give his 

 opinion that it would cost upwards of 200,000/. to carry the railway 

 across Chat Moss alone. From the ofBcial copy, JNIr. Booth takes the 

 following evidence of Giles: — Q. Be so good as to tell us whether 

 in your judgment a railroad of this description can be safely made 

 over Chat Moss, without going to the bottom of the Moss.? A. I 

 say certainly not; (and again) undoubtedly not. — Q. 'Will that make 

 it necessary to cut down the 33 or 3+ feet of which you have been 

 speaking; (and again) and afterwards to fill it up with other soil.'' 

 This Giles likewise answered in the aflSrmative, and said it was 

 quite impossible to get a railway through the Moss at any cost. 



jMr. Stephenson seems to have remembered this man's conduct; 

 for Mr. Herapath tells uSj^" "at the time the Southampton Rail- 

 way was in committee, this Giles, who had just descended from the 

 witness-bo.x, after giving some extraordinary evidence of the cost 

 of construction, which turned out to be much too low, was ac- 

 costed by Mr. Stephenson in the committee-room, thus: 'Giles, 

 you are the best fellow to tell a lie and stick to it afterwards I 

 ever heard in my life.' At another time, having made some sharp 

 observation on Giles, the latter replied: 'If you had not said that, 

 Mr, Stephenson, so good humouredly, I'd have knocked you down.' 

 'You knock me down,' rejoined Mr. Stephenson, taking this Giles 

 by the shoulders, 'wliy, I'd put such a fellow as you in my pocket.' " 

 The opposition were able to prove errors in the surveys and sec- 

 tions, which were acknowledged in committee, and set right; but 

 an unfavourable turn was given to the committee. On the 30th 

 of May, Mr. Harrison ended his case; and on the 31st, Mr. Adam 

 answered him. The committee then divided on the preamble, 

 which was carried by one, there being 37 members for the bill, and 

 36 against it.^' These numbers will show how large the commit- 

 tees then were. They consisted of the parties named by the 

 friends of the bill, and a list of local members, which would in 

 this case be the Lancashire list. Only a few members attended 

 daily, but on every division numbers would be brought up, most of 

 whom had not heard even one word of the evidence. The com- 

 mittee of five gets rid of this evil, but without lessening the cost 

 to the shareliolders, or the fees of the lawyers. Indeed, it will be 

 found, whatever is done, that the oppression of the lawyers never 

 becomes less, but too commonly their means of extortion are 

 strengthened. 



So far had the railway company got after a three months' war in 

 parliament, and thirty-seven working days spent before the com- 

 mittee. All that had been done was to prove the preamble, and 

 the clauses of the bill had to be gone through, when the outlying^ 

 members might be brought up to vote. Accordingly, on the 1st of 



V Booth's Account, p. 15. 8 Booth's Account, p. 16. 9 Booth's Account, p. 17. 

 1 Rjihvay Jourujl, 4;o seaes, Vol. X., p. S6r. 1 1 Booth's Account, p. 18. 



