Waterways and Water Transport in Different Countries J. Stephen Jeans 1448 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Waterways and Water
Transport in Different Countries
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Waterways and Water Transport in Different Countries

Author: J. Stephen Jeans

Release date: February 13, 2018 [eBook #56560]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56560

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Paul Marshall and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WATERWAYS
AND WATER TRANSPORT IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ***

E & F N Spon London & New York “INK-PHOTO.” SPRAGUE & CO.
LONDON.

NEWTON CUTTING ON THE BIRMINGHAM CANAL
(TAME VALLEY).

WATERWAYS
AND
WATER TRANSPORT
IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES:

WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE PANAMA, SUEZ,
MANCHESTER, NICARAGUAN, AND
OTHER CANALS.

BY

J. STEPHEN JEANS, M.R.I., F.S.S.,
AUTHOR OF ‘ENGLAND’S SUPREMACY’; ‘RAILWAY PROBLEMS,’ ETC.

E. & F. N. SPON, 125, STRAND, LONDON.
NEW YORK: 12, CORTLANDT STREET.
1890.

INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE.

It would probably be difficult to name any subject that is of more
importance to the material interests of a country than adequate means of
transport. Without such means, nations possessed of the most abundant
natural resources in many other respects would be likely to decay. With
ample facilities of transport, however, the most limited natural resources
may be made to go a long way, and nations that are not possessed of great
natural endowments may even rise to a high place in the economy of human
industry.
Transportation facilities naturally divide themselves into the two
categories of facilities by land and facilities by water. The former category
embraces highways and railroads; the latter includes the navigation of seas,
lakes, rivers, and canals.
It is the purpose of this volume to deal with water transport only, and
more particularly that part of water transport which is carried on by means
of artificial waterways. Railway transport, therefore, will only be
incidentally referred to. Nor do we propose to expatiate to any extent upon
the navigation of seas and lakes, which is a matter quite apart from canal
and river navigation, and is usually carried on under very different
conditions.
Canals are usually ranged under one or other of three great categories,
namely:—
1. For purposes of navigation.
2. For irrigation, and
3. For domestic water supply.
Under the first heading there are many different descriptions of
waterways, the more important being—
a. Canals intended for the purpose of connecting
oceans or seas, such as those of Suez, Panama, the North
Sea, and Nicaragua.

b. Canals for the purpose of bringing the sea to an
inland town, such as those of Manchester and St.
Petersburg.
c. Canals designed to connect and complete
communication between different rivers or lakes, like the
Grand Canal of China, the Erie Canal, and the Welland
Canal.
d. Canals constructed for the purpose of enabling the
obstructions caused by falls or cataracts on natural
waterways to be overcome by artificial means.
As water transport by the most efficient and most economical means
practicable is the raison d’être of the present work, we shall speak for the
most part of navigation canals only.
The chapters that follow will show, that canal navigation has not only an
interesting, but a very ancient history. It is, indeed, so long since canals
were first projected and constructed that it is extremely difficult to trace
their beginnings.
The Bœotian Canal, which is said to have drained the Lake Mœris by
several channels carried in tunnels through high mountainous barriers, is of
such fabulous age as to have led fiction to usurp the place of history, and
even of tradition, when describing the work at a period of time so far back
as prior to the conquest of Greece by Rome.
The celebrated canals of China have been assigned an unknown
antiquity, but trustworthy representations have led authorities to conclude
that they are scarcely older than the works in the Deccan. At all events, they
date from less than 900 years ago, a century subsequent to the first
irrigation of Valentia. In Spain, the Moors constructed canals to connect
inland places with rivers, particularly the Guadalquiver, and connecting
Granada with Cadiz. They also introduced, when they conquered that
country, their own system of irrigation, with the customs and laws relating
thereto, which are followed at the present hour without material change.
Cresy has pointed out that Pliny’s correspondence with the Emperor
Trajan proves the importance attached to the subject of waterways. “The
consul in a letter points out such designs as were worthy the glorious and

immortal name of Trajan, ‘they being no less useful than magnificent.’ He
describes an extensive lake near the city of Nicomedia, upon which the
commodities of the country were easily and cheaply transported to the high
road, and thence were conveyed on carriages to the sea coast at great charge
and labour. To remedy this inconvenience, he recommends that a canal
should be, if possible, cut from the lake to the sea, observing that one had
already been attempted by one of the kings of the country, but whether for
the purpose of draining the adjacent lands, or making a communication
between the lake and the river, was uncertain. These useful works, in
common with all others, fell into decay with the decline of the Roman
empire. During the disastrous period which succeeded, until the time of
Charlemagne, Europe is deficient in any examples of similar undertakings:
this sovereign commenced the projects of uniting the Rhine to the Danube,
and of opening a new communication between the German Ocean and the
Black Sea.”
The Romans were great canal-makers. They were, indeed, as their
extant works in Italy, Spain, and other countries show to this day, very
capable hydraulic engineers. But in Roman times, canals were constructed
for irrigation and water-supply purposes, rather than for purposes of
navigation. It was not until some centuries after the decline of the Roman
power that navigation canals began to attract attention. Previous to the time
when locks, sluices, and other works of engineering art became general,
canals could only be carried through comparatively level territories. Hence
we not unnaturally find that some of the earliest canals for navigable
purposes were constructed in Holland, where the configuration of the
ground is specially adapted to their construction.
Mr. Vignoles, in his address to the Institution of Civil Engineers in
1870, remarked that, when the success of canals in the Low Countries
attracted the attention of Europe, a sort of mania arose in France for inland
navigation. Most of these were rendered abortive, and became abandoned,
“from uncertainty in the supply of water on account of irregular rainfall,
and from the pre-existing monopolies of the millers, who appear at all times
and places to have been, as they still are, the natural enemies and thorns in
the sides of the hydraulic engineer.” Navigation on the upper branches of
rivers rapidly ceased, but concessions for canals in France were then given,
the Canal de Briare being the earliest, and next the Languedoc Canal,

though neither was finished until about forty years after their first imperfect
commencement. So early as the twelfth century, large canals had been cut in
Flanders, though the great canal from Brussels to the Scheldt was not
completed until 1560. This, however, was about a century before Louis
XIV. had finished the earliest canal in France.
Probably the first canal constructed in England was the Exeter Canal, a
comparatively short waterway, completed in 1572. But the regulation and
canalisation of rivers had been attempted long before that time. The
improvement of the navigation of the Thames was undertaken in 1423; of
the Lea, in 1425; of the Ouse (Yorkshire), in 1462; of the Severn in 1503; of
the Stour (Essex), 1504; of the Humber, in 1531; and of the Welland, in
1571.
During the seventeenth century, again, many similar works were
undertaken. The Colne, the Itchin, the Wye, the Avon, the Medway, the
Wey, the Bure, the Foss Dyke, the Witham, the Fal and Vale, the Aire and
Calder, and the Trent were all more or less canalised during the period
between 1623 and 1699.
In the next century, projects for river improvement and canal navigation
proceeded apace. In 1700, the rivers Avon and Frome were regulated. In the
following twenty years improvements were carried out on the Dee, the
Lark, the Derwent, the Frant, the Stour, the Nene, the Kennett, the Wear, the
Weaver, the Mersey and the Irwell. The Leeds and Liverpool Canal was
commenced in 1720, the Stroudwater Canal in 1730, and the Bridgwater
Canal in 1737.
From this date, until 1794, canal navigation was extended rapidly, while
Acts of Parliament were obtained for the improvement of the Ley, the Avon,
the Cart, the Blyth, the Hebble, the Stort, and the Clyde. Between 1763 and
1800 upwards of eighty different canal projects were put forward, and most
of them were completed. The Trent and Mersey, the Staffordshire and
Worcestershire, the Droitwich, the Coventry, the Birmingham, the Forth and
Clyde, the Oxford, the Monkland, the Leeds and Liverpool, the
Chesterfield, the Bradford, the Ellesmere, the Market Weighton, the Bude,
Sir John Ramsden’s, the Gresley, the Dudley, the Stourbridge, the
Basingstoke, the Bedford, the Thames and Severn, the Shropshire Union,
the Andover, and the Cromford Canals were all undertaken between 1767

and 1790. The following ten years, however, may be regarded as the heyday
of canal-making in England. In 1791 the Hereford and Gloucester, the
Leicester, the Manchester, Bolton and Bury, the Leominster, the Melton
Mowbray, the Neath, and the Worcester and Birmingham Canals were
commenced. Eighteen more canals were undertaken in 1793, and twelve
others in 1794.
The same year that witnessed the opening of the Stockton and
Darlington Railway, saw also the construction of the English and Bristol
Channels Canal, otherwise the Liskeard and Looe; but the number of canals
constructed since 1825 has been very limited. Eight different canals were
opened between 1826 and 1830, including the Macclesfield, the
Birmingham and Liverpool, the Avon and Gloucestershire, and the Nene
and Wisbech; but since 1830 the only canals for which Parliamentary
sanction was obtained, until the Act was passed for the Manchester Ship
Canal in 1886, were the Ellesmere and Chester Canal, and the Droitwich
Junction Canal.
Since 1830 the canals of Great Britain have been under a great ban. The
superior speed and the greater punctuality provided by railway transport
have caused them to be neglected, and, with only a few exceptions, more or
less disused. The railway system has been extended so rapidly, and has
secured the carrying trade of the country so completely, that canals have
until lately been regarded as practically obsolete and useless. Many miles of
canal navigation have passed into the hands of the railway companies,
while a considerable mileage has become derelict.
Although the railways have secured possession of some 1700 miles of
canals in Great Britain, they do not appear to have profited much thereby.
The Great Western Railway Company owns no less than seven canals, on
which they have expended a million sterling. In 1887 one of these canals
earned 2700l. profit, while the other six lost 1300l., besides the whole of the
interest upon their capital cost.
The experience of the other railway companies has been more or less
similar to that of the Great Western. The railways have been nursed and
developed; the canals have been neglected and allowed to perish. The
railway companies have been accused of acquiring canal property in order
that they might destroy it, and thereby get rid of a dangerous rival. This is

probably not the case. The railway companies are fully aware of the fact
that water transport under suitable conditions is more economical than
railway transport. It would therefore have suited them, at the same rates, to
carry by water heavy traffic, in the delivery of which time was not of much
importance. But the canals, as they came into their possession, were really
not adapted for such traffic without being more or less remodelled, and this
the railway companies have not attempted.
When we consider the enormous disadvantages under which the
majority of the canals of this country now labour, the great matter for
wonder is, not that they do not secure the lion’s share of the traffic, but that
they get any traffic at all. A railway is usually carried from point to point by
the most direct route possible, and the cases in which there is any
considerable diversion from the most direct route are comparatively rare.
But in laying out the canals the designers and promoters appear to have
endeavoured to take the longest instead of the shortest route available.
Thus, for example, the distance between Liverpool and Wigan is thirty-four
miles by canal while it is only nineteen miles by railway. Again, the railway
route from Liverpool to Leeds is eighty miles, whereas by canal the
distance is not less than 128 miles. If the canal rates were very much lower
than the railway rates, these differences would still be very much against
them. But there is not really much difference between them at present, the
Leeds and Liverpool Canal, which is a fairly representative one, charging a
halfpenny to twopence per ton per mile, according to the nature of the
traffic. Then again, the speed on British canals can seldom be carried above
2½ miles per hour, not to speak of the delay in getting through the locks, of
which there are ninety-three between Leeds and Liverpool.
It would be the idlest of idle dreams to expect that the canal system of
this or any other country, as originally constructed, can be resuscitated, or
even temporarily galvanised into activity, in competition with railways.
Canals as they were built a century ago have no longer any function to fulfil
that is worthy of serious consideration. Their mission is ended; their use is
an anachronism. They do not provide the means of cheaper transport, and
they have no other advantage to offer to the trader that would be a sufficient
equivalent for the tedium of their transport. The canals of the future must be
adapted to the new conditions of commerce. What we now require is that
our great centres of population and industry shall be made seaports—that

Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, and other places, shall not suffer hurt
because they are inland towns. The existing canals may serve as a valuable
nucleus for the new departure. Their importance as a means to this end has
already been practically recognised. The Manchester Ship Canal Company
has acquired the Bridgwater Navigation. For the purposes of the projected
Sheffield and Goole Ship Canal it is proposed to acquire several of the old
navigations, including the Dearne and Dove Canal, the Stainforth and
Keadby Canal, and other waterways. Other improved canals have been
suggested, and Mr. Samuel Lloyd has advocated the construction of a great
national canal which would connect all the principal industrial centres of
the kingdom with each other and with the sea. There appears to be no
insuperable difficulty in the way of realising such a project. Capital alone is
wanted. Whether that essential will be forthcoming is, however, very
doubtful. Much is likely to depend on the extent to which the Manchester
Ship Canal is successful. It would be a mistake to go too quickly. If ship
canal transport is likely to be a means of salvation to British trade and
commerce, we shall not be much the worse if we wait for it a little longer. It
is not well to do anything that would tend to destroy or discount the value
of the vast railway property of this country. The traders have long been
trying to “agree with their adversary,” in so far as they have differences
with the railway companies; and if the latter are duly reasonable, the future
may still be theirs.
It has been objected that a canal could not provide large manufacturers,
mine owners, or others who now enjoy the advantages of sidings, giving
direct connection with the railway system upon which their works or mines
are situated, with the same facilities as they are now possessed of. This,
however, is a mistake. The fact is that a wharf may be provided almost as
easily and as cheaply as a railway siding. On some canals, as for example
on the Birmingham system, the different works along the route of the canal
have been supplied in almost every case with wharves, until they are now
counted by hundreds.
Broadly stated, the problem that now presses for solution amounts to
this—In what way can we best take advantage of the well-ascertained fact
that under ordinary conditions a ton of goods can be transported about 2000
miles by water for the same cost that it can be sent 100 miles on land? It is
no unusual thing to find that a ton of goods can be transported 40 miles by

steamer for one penny, making allowance for every charge.[1] It is not, of
course, pretended that goods can be carried by inland navigation for
anything like this rate. But it has been well established that even on canals,
with all the disadvantages of slow speed, limited depth, small boats,
frequent locks, and other drawbacks, the transport of heavy traffic can be
effected for less than one-sixth of a penny per ton per mile, which is not
one-half of the lowest rates at which the railways of Great Britain carry
mineral traffic at the present time. It is necessary to add that canal
companies do not, in Great Britain at least, carry for anything like the low
rate stated, except perhaps on the Weaver Navigation, which is quite
exceptional.
An important question that naturally occurs to any one who has studied
the history of canal navigation in foreign countries is that of how far it is the
duty of the State to take such waterways under its control. This is really a
political problem, which scarcely belongs to that part of the subject which
we have undertaken to consider. It may, however, be observed that in the
United States, in France, and in one or two other countries, canals have
been acquired by the State, and made as free of tolls as the rivers. This, of
course, affords to canal transport in those countries a striking advantage
over the system in Great Britain. It has been calculated by a high
authority[2] that an expenditure of 12,000l. per mile would be required to
put the inland navigations of England into good order, and to adapt them
generally for larger traffic, with steam-tugs and barges or boats of sufficient
size. This would mean for the 3000 miles of canal already constructed an
expenditure of 24,000,000l. It is calculated that about 20,000,000l. have
already been expended upon our waterways,[3] so that the total outlay, after
the expenditure suggested by Sir John Hawkshaw, would be about
44,000,000l. If the State were to borrow this sum, it could procure it, no
doubt, at 3 per cent., which would mean that the total annual burden
entailed upon the country by the freeing of the canals would be 920,000l.,
or only a 1⁄125 part of our total national expenditure. This is certainly a small
price to pay for so desirable an object. But upon the proposal as just stated
there are two important remarks to be made—the first, that the suggested
expenditure of 12,000l. per mile would only give us canals adapted for the
navigation of large barges or vessels of not more than 150 to 200 tons,
whereas what is chiefly required is internal water communication that

would enable an ordinary merchant steamer to sail right up to Birmingham,
Leeds, Bradford, and other large towns; the second, that no such maritime
ship canal has hitherto been constructed for less than 120,000l. per mile,
including all contingencies.[4] The raising of this sum is a very different
item from the raising of 12,000l. per mile. The most serious objection,
however, would be the outcry on the part of the railway interest that the
Government was entering into competition with private enterprise. This, of
course, would be no new thing. The New York State canals compete with
the railways, which are private property, and so do the canals of France. The
duty of the State stops at providing the waterway. It does not, of course,
undertake transportation. That business is left, like the same business on the
railways, to private enterprise. The canals might, therefore, if acquired by
the State, be regarded as so many additional miles of navigable rivers
possessed by the country, or so many more miles of seaboard provided for
the benefit of towns that have hitherto been shut out from direct maritime
advantages. Canals are, indeed, entitled to be regarded in the same light as a
common turnpike road. The State would hardly be likely to permit private
ownership in turnpikes. The community at large are taxed for their
maintenance, and there has never been any serious contention that it should
be otherwise. The time has come when it behoves us to consider whether
canals should not be similarly controlled and administered, since they are,
without doubt, as necessary for the transport of goods as turnpike roads are
for the passage of vehicles and pedestrians.
As to the reasons that have led the author to undertake the publication of
the present volume, a remark or two may be permitted. In 1875 he
undertook the preparation of a work[5] on the growth of the railway system
up to that time for the Directors of the North-Eastern Railway, on the
occasion of their celebration at Darlington of the Jubilee of the Stockton
and Darlington line—the first passenger railway constructed in this country
on which locomotives were employed. In inquiring into the history of that
railway, he was struck with the importance that was attached half a century
before to the possession of canal navigation, and with the great facilities
that it afforded to the districts through which it was carried. Since then he
has from time to time had occasion to look into the same subject, and
especially so in 1882, when he was required to give evidence before the
Select Committee on Railway Rates and Fares,[6] as to the differences that

exist on English and Continental railways in the charges made for the
transport of heavy traffic. He found also that, notwithstanding the lower
rates of transport on Continental railways, very great importance was
attached to the maintenance, in a high state of efficiency, of the waterways
of all other countries in Europe except our own, and that in most other
countries the State specially charged itself with the duty of seeing that this
was effectually done. It was but a short step from the acquisition of this
knowledge to the natural endeavour to ascertain why English canals were
not deemed equally important to the trade and commerce of the greatest of
commercial nations. The results of that inquiry are set forth in the following
pages; but the author has not been content to examine the economic side of
the case alone. Finding not only that the canals of the world had a most
interesting history, which has never hitherto been set forth in the form of a
continuous narrative, but that one of the most remarkable movements of the
present time was a demand for artificial waterways, in order to reduce both
the time and the distance now required for the intercourse of different
important centres of our planet, and give inland towns a more direct
connection with the sea, he has devoted much research to the investigation
of the origin and growth of these enterprises, and has set down the results in
as interesting and useful a form as he could.
A good deal of attention has been given in this work to the subject of
isthmian canals. It has been suggested that a “ship and barge” railway
would be an improvement upon both railways and canals in the joint
advantages of economy and speed of transport This is an “American
notion,” which has not yet, so far as we are aware, been put in practice,
although it was put forward by the late Captain Eads, in the form of a
project for a ship railway across the isthmus of Techuantepec, as the true
solution of isthmian transit. It has been claimed that such a railway “can be
operated and maintained at less cost than the canal, employ a rate of speed
five times as great as is possible in the canal, can be operated for the whole
twelve months of the year instead of six—or during the lake navigation, like
the ship canal—will require no breaking bulk, and through freight can be
hauled over it at 2½ cents per bushel of wheat,” i.e. for a distance of about
340 miles.[7] On the other hand, however, no one appears to have seriously
prosecuted this enterprise since the decease of its gifted author, while two
ship canals have been promoted across the American isthmus.

In the appendix will be found a large mass of information as to the
extent of the British canal system, and the dates at which the principal canal
and river navigations were executed. Some data as to the extent and
character of the principal river systems have also been introduced in tabular
form. It is not pretended that this latter information is by any means
complete. The merest epitome of the rivers and river systems of all the
countries of the world would itself fill a volume; but it is hoped that the
most essential data have been supplied with sufficient fullness and
accuracy.
In the best interests of British commerce and industry, we cannot do
better than attempt to follow the excellent counsel given by Ald. Bailey, of
Manchester, when he urged[8] that we should “make England to the world
what London is to England: make every part of the verge, fringe, shore,
creek, bay, river, and inlet of our map as equal as possible in relation to
distance from the shores of foreign countries; increase the value of the
silver streak, double the coast line, resuscitate the ancient ports, extend
some more inland, make Britain narrower, shorten the distance from coast
to coast, from sea to sea, and increase the setting of Shakespeare’s

‘Fortress built by nature for herself,
This little world—
This precious stone set in a silver sea.’”

FOOTNOTES
INTRODUCTION:
[1] Mr. Bailey, in his interesting address to the Manchester Association of
Foremen Engineers, in 1886, stated that he had found this to be the cost of
transport with a vessel of 2360 tons, including interest, depreciation, and
insurance.
[2] Sir John Hawkshaw, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Canals,
1883.
[3] The total expenditure has been variously stated. Smiles, in his ‘Lives of the
Engineers,’ puts it at one figure, while it was stated before the Select Committee
on Canals at another.
[4] The actual cost of construction of the Suez Canal was about this amount, but
the additional expenses incurred, and in the majority of cases necessary to such
an enterprise, brought the cost up to 200,000_l._, which was also the average

cost of the Amsterdam Ship Canal. The Manchester Ship Canal is estimated to
cost some 250,000_l._ a mile.
[5] ‘Jubilee Memorial of the Railway System,’ Longmans.
[6] Report of Select Committee.
[7] ‘Transactions of the American Institute of Civil Engineers,’ vol. xiv. p. 48.
[8] Address to the Manchester Association of Engineers.

CONTENTS.

page
Introduction and Outline iii

SECTION I.
THE WATERWAYS OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

CHAPTER I.
The Transportation Problem 1

CHAPTER II.
English Rivers 23

CHAPTER III.
The English Canal System 40

CHAPTER IV.
The Waterways of Scotland 63

CHAPTER V.
The Waterways of Ireland 74

CHAPTER VI.

Projected Canals in the United Kingdom 82

CHAPTER VII.
The Waterways of France 93

CHAPTER VIII.
The Waterways of Germany 116

CHAPTER IX.
The Waterways of Belgium 134

CHAPTER X.
The Waterways of Holland 145

CHAPTER XI.
The Waterways of Italy 153

CHAPTER XII.
The Waterways of Sweden 164

CHAPTER XIII.
The Waterways of Russia 172

CHAPTER XIV.
The Waterways of Austria-Hungary 185

CHAPTER XV.
The Waterways of the United States 191

CHAPTER XVI.
The Waterways of Canada 216

CHAPTER XVII.

The Waterways of South and Central America 229

CHAPTER XVIII.
Chinese Waterways 232

CHAPTER XIX.
The Waterways of British India 237

SECTION II.
SHIP CANALS.

CHAPTER XX.
The Suez Canal 245

CHAPTER XXI.
The Panama Canal 274

CHAPTER XXII.
The Nicaraguan Canal 314

CHAPTER XXIII.
The Manchester Ship Canal 329

CHAPTER XXIV.
The Isthmus of Corinth Canal 346

CHAPTER XXV.
The River Thames 353

SECTION III.
TRANSPORT AND WORKING.

CHAPTER XXVI.
Railways and Canals 364

CHAPTER XXVII.
Comparative Cost of Water and Land Transport 375

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Systems of Transport and Haulage 391

CHAPTER XXIX.
Locks, Planes, Sluice-Gates, and Lifts 408

CHAPTER XXX.
Tunnels, Viaducts, Embankments and Weirs 424

CHAPTER XXXI.
Speed of Transport 435

CHAPTER XXXII.
Canal Traffic: its Character and its Density 441

CHAPTER XXXIII.
The Making of Artificial Waterways 447

CHAPTER XXXIV.
Canal Boats 460

CHAPTER XXXV.
The State Acquisition and Control of Waterways 469

APPENDICES.
I.— Chronology of River Improvement and Canal
Navigation in England up to 1852 475
II.— Canals and Inland River Navigation in England,
Wales, and Scotland, distinguishing Mileage under, and
Mileage not under, the Control of Railway Companies 478
III.— Through Routes of Canal and Inland
Navigation in England and Wales 485
IV.— Statement of the Canals, &c., in the
United Kingdom, Owned or Controlled by Railway Companies
on 31st December, 1882, arranged under the Dates of the
Special Acts Authorising the Arrangements 490
V.— The Principal River Systems of Europe and America 490

INDEX 495

WATERWAYS AND WATER
TRANSPORT.

SECTION I.
THE WATERWAYS OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

CHAPTER I.
THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM.

“Of all inventions, the alphabet and the printing
press alone excepted, those inventions which abridge
distance have done most for civilisation.” —Macaulay.

The history of transportation is largely, and of necessity, the history of
material progress. It is hardly possible to conceive of the prosperity of a
people to whom the most precious possessions that the arts and sciences
have bestowed upon mankind for the purposes of commerce were unknown.
Such a people could, no doubt, exist, and perhaps maintain a considerable
amount of rude health. But, like the aborigines of an unsettled and
uncultivated territory, they would find themselves shut out from
participation in the advantages which civilisation confers upon mankind.
They would be exclusive, uncultivated, ignorant, incapable of great effort,
limited in their capacity for enjoyment, subject to the constant danger of
famine, and without the command of those amenities which have created
such a gulf between the “rude forefathers of the hamlet” and the happy
possessors of all that civilisation can bestow.
Only a very perfunctory acquaintance with the physical configuration of
our planet is required, in order to show that the natural arrangement of land
and water is not the most convenient that could be devised for the purposes
of commerce and travel. The oceans and seas do not afford in all cases the
most direct and desirable routes between one part of the world and another.
Rivers of otherwise gigantic dimensions are now and again found to be
possessed of rocky and shallow beds that are unsuited to navigation except
by the tiniest craft. Promontories are projected into “the waste of waters,”
compelling the navigator to sail for hundreds or thousands of miles further
than “the crow flies” in order to reach his destination. Every here and there
an isthmus is found to divide waters that appear as if they were intended by
Nature to be joined together.
The same remarkable absence of facilities for promoting the
requirements of commerce is apparent on land as on water. The surface of

the earth, and the divisions of land and water, appear to have been left by
Nature in such a condition as to tax the highest powers and capacities of
man. The knowledge of roads, of bridges, of canals, has been laboriously
acquired and slowly applied. The aboriginal inhabitants of a country usually
care for none of these things. Beasts of burden are seldom used in the most
primitive conditions of existence, and, without these, roads are not so much
of a necessity. Man, however, found out, in course of time, that it suited his
interests and his convenience to establish a system of interchange of
commodities. The simple and self-contained habits of the trapper and the
hunter gave place to a more composite order of being. Then it was that the
primeval forest, the jungle, the morass, and the prairie became
rectangulated with roadways over which traffic could be rudely transported
on the backs of mules, horses, or other beasts of burden. As exchange and
barter extended, the pack-horse was found inefficient. He could only
perform a very limited day’s work, whether measured by quantity or by
distance. For transport over great distances he was virtually useless. In the
absence of any other system of transport, districts near the sea, or placed on
navigable rivers with easy access to the ocean, became developed at the
expense of other districts that had equal, and perhaps greater, facilities
otherwise except those of transport. A notable case in point is that of the
coal trade. For many years the export coal trade of this country was limited
to an area within 12 miles of convenient ports, because coal could not be
transported beyond that distance except at a virtually prohibitory cost.
A hundred and thirty years ago, England was in a very different position
to that which she occupies to-day. So, also, was the rest of the world. The
woollen trade was the greatest of our national industries. The cotton
industry was just beginning to take a firm root The quantity of coal
produced in Great Britain was estimated at five or six millions of tons per
annum. The quantity of iron produced was believed to be about 100,000
tons. The only coalfield that had been developed to any extent was that of
Durham and Northumberland. The working of coal far from the seaboard
was impossible on a large scale, because there were no means of
transportation that would allow of anything being carried more than a few
miles, unless it were of the highest value. The cotton, woollen, silk, and
other textiles were made by hand-looms, and for the most part in the private
dwellings of the workers. The modern factory system had not come into
being.

The condition of the roads, even so late as the middle of the eighteenth
century, was in a very large number of cases a matter for just and serious
complaint. Lord Hervey wrote from Kensington in 1736 that the road
between that village (at that time) and London had become so bad that “we
live here in the same solitude as we would do if cast on a rock in the middle
of the ocean, and all the Londoners tell us that there is between them and us
an impassable gulf of mud.” In London itself the pedestrians who made use
of the public thoroughfares had to walk on the ordinary round paving-stones
which are still employed in some towns for the centre of the road,
pavements being unknown. The streets were lit with oil-lamps sufficiently
to make darkness visible, gas not having been introduced. The common
highway was also the common sewer. The ruts in the thoroughfares, even in
the streets of London, made it dangerous to employ vehicles, which, indeed,
except in the form of sedan-chairs, had not yet come to be largely
employed.
But these dangers and troubles, manifest and inconvenient though they
were, by no means exhausted the list. In the absence of a proper system of
police, and with streets enveloped in darkness, there was serious danger
incurred in stirring abroad after nightfall. The public thoroughfares were
infested by bands of footpads and robbers. The main streets of London were
the worst off, and so serious was the danger of going out at night that it was
the rarest thing to find any one stirring after dark. So far was this system
carried that robberies took place in broad daylight. Even such public places
as Piccadilly and Oxford Street were not exempted from the common
danger. Horace Walpole relates that he was robbed in this way, with Lord
Eglinton, Lady Albemarle, and others. Those who had to travel to the
adjacent villages of Paddington and Kensington were afraid to proceed
alone. It was therefore customary to wait until a sufficiently numerous band
had been collected to enable the pedestrians to resist any possible attack of
footpads. The Vauxhall and Ranelagh Gardens, then the chief places of
amusement in the vicinage of the metropolis, had to employ patrols to keep
the way clear to London.
As in the metropolis, so in the provinces. The roads, both in the towns
and outside them, were in many cases as bad as bad could be. Their not
unusual condition was that of “a narrow hollow way, little wider than a
ditch, barely allowing of the passage of a vehicle drawn by horses in a

single line.” This deep, narrow road was flanked by an elevated causeway,
covered with flags or boulder stones, along which the traffic of the locality
was carried on the backs of single horses, so that “it is difficult to imagine
the delay, the toil, and the perils by which the conduct of the traffic was
attended.” Under these circumstances, “there were towns, even in the same
county, more widely separated for all practical purposes than London and
Glasgow in the present day.”[9] Business was done slowly, and involved so
great an expenditure of time and trouble that prices were necessarily high.
News travelled more slowly still, and it was sometimes months before the
people who lived at the extremities of the island knew what had happened
in the metropolis.
The reader who desires to obtain a graphic and eloquent account of the
circumstances of England previous to the canal era could not do better than
consult Macaulay, who, in the famous third chapter of his ‘History,’ has
devoted a considerable amount of space to the consideration of the social
and economic changes that had come over the country since 1685. The
description given of the condition of the people in that year might almost be
literally applied to their condition in the middle of the eighteenth century.
The population had increased, it is true, and commerce had been developed
in the interval. But the facilities for rapid and economical transportation had
not been materially altered for the better. The great mass of the people were
as ignorant, as superstitious, as shiftless as in the seventeenth century. Their
sanitary surroundings were as unwholesome, their industrial pursuits as
improvident, their habits as deplorable, their hardships as irksome, their
discomforts and inconveniences as tiresome. From this remarkable record
of the days of our forefathers we quote the following passages as being
specially germane to the subject under consideration:—
“It was by the highways that both travellers and goods
generally passed from place to place; and those highways appear
to have been far worse than might have been expected from the
degree of wealth and civilisation which the nation had even then
attained. On the best lines of communication the ruts were deep,
the descents precipitous, and the way often such as it was hardly
possible to distinguish, in the dusk, from the unenclosed heath
and fen which lay on both sides. Ralph Thoresby, the antiquary,
was in danger of losing his way on the great North Road

between Barnsley Moor and Tuxford, and actually lost his way
between Doncaster and York. Pepys and his wife, travelling in
their own coach, lost their way between Newbury and Reading.
In the course of the same tour they lost their way near Salisbury,
and were in danger of having to pass the night on the Plain. It
was only in fine weather that the whole breadth of the road was
available for wheeled vehicles. Often the mud lay deep on the
right and the left, and only a narrow track of firm ground rose
above the quagmire. At such times obstructions and quarrels
were frequent, and the path was sometimes blocked up during a
long time by carriers, neither of whom would break the way. It
happened, almost every day, that coaches stuck fast, until a team
of cattle could be procured from some neighbouring farm to tug
them out of the slough. But in bad seasons the traveller had to
encounter inconveniences still more serious. Thoresby, who was
in the habit of travelling between Leeds and the capital, has
recorded in his Diary such a series of perils and disasters as
might suffice for a journey to the Frozen Ocean or to the Desert
of Sahara.[10]
“The markets were often inaccessible during several months.
It is said that the fruits of the earth were allowed to rot in one
place, while in another place, distant only a few miles, the
supply fell far short of the demand. The wheeled carriages were
in this district generally pulled by oxen. When Prince George of
Denmark visited the stately mansion of Petworth, in wet
weather, he was six hours in going nine miles, and it was
necessary that a body of sturdy hinds should be on each side of
his coach in order to prop it. Of the carriages which contained
his retinue several were upset and injured. A letter from one of
the party has been preserved, in which the unfortunate courtier
complains that, during fourteen hours, he never once alighted,
except when his coach was overturned and stuck fast in the
mud.”
A story is told of an old stage-coach driver who, finding that his
occupation had been seriously interfered with by the modern innovation of
railways, thought he would strike a blow for the old system by attacking the

railway in a vulnerable part. “Consider,” he argued, “what happens in case
of a collision. If two stage coaches come into collision, and there is an
upset, why, there you are. But in a railway collision, where are you?” In
those days stage coaches did not enjoy the immunity from disaster that they
do in these, when macadamised roads enable them to roll along almost as if
they were on a billiard table.[11] When the canal system was being fairly
started in England, only one stage coach ran between London and
Edinburgh, starting once a month from each city, and taking ten days for the
journey in summer, and twelve days in winter. It took fourteen days to
travel between London and Glasgow. In 1760 it took three days to travel
from Sheffield to London, and in 1774 Burke travelled from London to
Bath with what was described as “incredible speed” in twenty-four hours.
Much of the discomfort, the high range of prices, the general existence
of poverty, the limited extent of commercial operations, in the early part of
the eighteenth century was no doubt due to the imperfect development of
the modern processes of manufacture and distribution—to the production of
textiles by the old hand-loom, of iron by the old-fashioned type of blast-
furnace, of steel by the costly cementation process, of clothing without the
aid of the sewing-machine, and of agricultural crops without any of the
mechanical aids to husbandry that are now so general and so conducive to
economical working. But the high cost of transport had also much to answer
for. Before the period of Macadam, it cost 2s. 6d. per mile to transport coal
by the old pack-horse on an ordinary road. At this rate, it would have cost
from 10l. to 15l. to transport a ton of coals from the Midland coalfield to
London, a service which is now performed for 6s. to 7s. per ton. With only
the old pack-horse facilities it would have cost an almost incredible sum to
have performed the same service which the railways now render to the
people of the United Kingdom in the transport of minerals and
merchandise.
While the knowledge of the arts, and especially of the arts that relate to
transportation, were in so backward a state, it was inevitable that the prices
of commodities should be high, and their interchange limited. Having to
pay so much for the articles that they did not grow or produce themselves,
the people of England, in the middle of the eighteenth century, were
extremely poor, as a rule, and had very little chance to increase their wealth.
The wages of the working classes were very low. A shilling a day was

deemed to be excellent earnings. In Scotland the wages of a day labourer
were only 5d. per day in summer and 6d. in winter. The price of bread was
ordinarily much higher than it is at the present time.[12] The prices of
clothing and of the usual requisites for domestic comfort and convenience
were very much more than at the present day. The rates of wages were
hardly enough to enable the great mass of the people to keep body and soul
together. Butchers’ meat was all but unknown, even among those who were
tolerably well off.[13] Plain homespun was almost the only description of
clothing that was worn. Shops were hardly known in the smaller towns or
villages, and the country people were mainly supplied with such
requirements as they were able to indulge in, outside of their own
productions, by hawkers, who carried packs everywhere, as they sometimes
do in remote country places in our own day. In localities where coal was not
produced, it was not to be purchased for love or money, unless at seaport
towns, and the fuel ordinarily used was either turf or wood.
From this condition of things England was largely rescued in the latter
part of the eighteenth century by the introduction and development of
internal waterways. This movement gave a remarkable stimulus to
commercial and industrial progress. It enabled raw materials to be
transported at about one-tenth of what they had formerly cost, and
facilitated the interchange of commodities between the different parts of the
kingdom to an extent previously undreamt of.
It is remarkable what a large crop of important discoveries and
inventions were made about the time that canals began to be generally used
as waterways. Robinson’s project for working steam locomotives on
common roads was put forward the year after Brindley commenced the
Bridgwater Canal. In the same year the manufacture of thread and gauze
was commenced at Paisley, and Jedediah Strutt made his first improvement
on the stocking loom. Two years later Arkwright obtained his first patent for
the spinning-frame, and Watt made his first experiments on the power of
steam with Papin’s digester. It was in 1762 that the production of
Wedgwood ware was first begun, and the same year witnessed a notable
development of the linen manufacture of Ireland, while in 1763 Hargreaves
the weaver produced his spinning-jenny in his house adjoining the print
works of the first Sir Robert Peel. These are but a few of the concurrent and

collateral movements of the period. Of the measure in which they were
aided by internal transport we shall have more to say by and by.
An examination of the geography of European countries will disclose
the fact that the United Kingdom is almost unique in regard to its
possession of a magnificent coast-line, studded with harbours and docks,
and approached by a large number of navigable rivers, which afford easy
communication with the sea. If we compare our facilities with those of
Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Italy, or indeed any other European
country, we cannot fail to be struck with their enormous superiority.
Scarcely any part of the United Kingdom is more than a hundred miles
distant from a good harbour. In many European countries there are
important towns that are very much further, while some countries, like
Switzerland, have no seaboard at all, and others, like Austria, besides
having very few ports worthy of the name, are landlocked on more sides
than one.
Again, let us look at the recent history of European politics. Do we not
find that a more extensive seaboard is the ruling passion of such nations as
Germany and Russia, whose outlets are few and inconvenient? The half-
suspected designs of Germany upon Holland, and of Russia upon Turkish
and Chinese territory, have been mainly ascribed to this ambition. To obtain
such an outlet for the Asiatic part of her dominions, Russia is at the present
moment laying down a railway across Siberia, which will give her a closer
connection with China than the Chinese seem to care for, and is likely, in
the opinion of some shrewd politicians, to eventuate in her obtaining
possession of a large slice of the Celestial Empire. The neutralisation of
certain prominent waterways is, moreover, regarded as a matter of so much
importance, that costly and protracted wars have been undertaken with a
view to that end, nor would it be difficult to trace a connection between the
passion for more ports and the costly armaments which have now for many
years threatened the peace and impoverished the resources of Europe.
Nevertheless, with a command of the sea that makes us at once the envy
and the despair of rival nations, and has placed our shipping supremacy on
such a pinnacle of power and prosperity as the world has never before been
acquainted with,[14] we still require to pay more for reaching our ports,
relatively to the distance traversed, than any other nation in Europe, and
very much more than either the United States of North America, or our own

possessions of India and Canada. It is not too much to say that if we
possessed the same transportation rates as some of these countries, our trade
with the rest of the world would be much greater than it is; while if we had
the same distances to traverse as in these countries, at the existing railway
rates of our own, competition in neutral markets with the low-rate countries
of the Continent would be impossible.
In making these statements we impute no blame and make no
reflections. We are only concerned to state the simple truth. It may be that
the railway companies in this country cannot afford to carry goods at
cheaper rates. That is their look-out. They have undoubtedly incurred vast
expense in providing the most ample and the most admirable facilities of
transport, short of the all-important item of its cost. In no other country do
we find such a splendid service. No other country has better roads nor more
capable administration, nor quicker and more reliable dispatch, nor greater
conveniences for traffic of all kinds. Unfortunately, also, in no other country
have the railways been so costly; so that for the same volume of traffic
English railways require to have higher rates, in order that the charges on
capital may be met.[15] But why should trade suffer, and freighters find
themselves in extremis, because British railways have made cheap rates all
but impossible? There is sure to arrive, sooner or later, a point—which in
England is seldom far distant—when railway rates become prohibitive. That
point has almost been reached when traffic can be delivered in England
from the heart of Belgium at 5s. per ton, as compared with 10s. and 12s. per
ton for railway transport between the Midlands and the metropolis. The real
question now is—Can nothing be done to remedy this state of things, not in
a spirit of hostility to the railways, which may have done their best, but with
a view to the preservation and increased development of British trade and
industry? The nation is either hopelessly at the mercy of railway boards, or
it is not. Our trade and manufactures are either compelled to pay every year
an undue proportion of their hard earned receipts to railway shareholders, or
they are not. If they are not—if there is a way of escape from this bondage
—it is well that the nation should know what it is, and how best to take
advantage of it. This is mainly the purpose of some of the chapters which
follow.
Up to the period of the first Canal Acts, English waterways were under
the control of the State, or of authorities appointed by the State for the

conservancy of navigation; and that such an arrangement was, on the whole,
not without its advantages, is proved by the fact already referred to, viz.:
that in the middle of the eighteenth century the advantages with regard to
water carriage enjoyed by England enabled her to outstrip other countries in
the development of her manufactures. With the construction of the first
canal began the era of private enterprise in respect of inland navigation,
which owes its existence, as it is hardly necessary to remark here, to the
genius of Brindley, and to the unflagging determination of the Duke of
Bridgwater—whose efforts in the cause of progress were, like those of
Stephenson, and the pioneers of railway enterprise after them, at first
strenuously opposed by the public, and almost entirely neglected by the
State.
The turning point of public opinion, as regards both canals and railways,
was the discovery that money might be made out of them. Brindley’s grand
project of uniting the four great ports of Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, and
London by a system of main waterways from which subsidiary branches
might be carried to the contiguous towns, had been, to a large extent,
successfully accomplished at the end of the first quarter of the present
century, and when canals began to pay dividends, the nation began to admit
their public utility. In a very few years after Brindley’s death in 1772, an
immense number of navigation Acts received the sanction of Parliament,
canals began to be freely quoted “on ’Change,” and, in 1790, “the canal
mania” began.[16] The Gazette of August, 1792, contained notices of
eighteen new canals, and the premiums of single shares in companies had
reached such figures as 155l. (Leicester), 350l. (Grand Trunk and
Coventry), and 1170l. (Birmingham). Canals began to be used for passenger
traffic; and we read in the Times of 19th December, 1806, of troops being
despatched from London to Liverpool by the Paddington Canal, en route for
Ireland, a mode of transport which the writer pointed out would enable
them to reach Liverpool “in only seven days!” In the four years ending
1794, some 81 canal and navigation Acts were obtained, of which 45 were
passed in the latter two years, authorising an expenditure of over
5,000,000l. No less than 1,200,000l. was spent upon the construction of the
130 miles of waterway connecting Liverpool, by way of Skipton, with the
Aire and Calder at Leeds (a work begun in 1770, but not completed till 41
years afterwards); and when the last canals in England were completed, in
1830, the total amount that had been expended upon our waterways was

about 14,000,000l. Out of some 210 rivers in England and Wales, 44 in
England have hitherto been made navigable.[17] The Thames, the Severn,
and the Mersey are connected by 648 miles of river and canal, the Thames
and Humber by 537 miles, the Severn and Mersey by 832 miles, and the
Mersey and Humber by 680 miles; the Fen waters have an extent of 431
miles, and the remaining canals of England and Wales amount to 1204
miles.[18] This fine system of waterways, with a total length of 4332 miles,
furnishes no less than 21 through routes for traffic between London and the
manufacturing districts, but, as it is scarcely necessary to observe, a very
large portion of it has ceased to be of any practical value, while the utility of
that which is still available to the public is constantly diminishing, through
the neglect due to the impoverished condition of many of the canal
companies and other causes.
In the eyes of engineers, the defects of natural geography were made to
be corrected by their skill, experience, and ingenuity. Peninsulas and
isthmuses, whether large or small, appear to be designed only for the
purpose of being pierced with artificial waterways. Hydraulic engineers are
the high priests of science, whose mission it is to publish the banns of
marriage between seas and oceans, and complete the nuptials in a way that
no man may put asunder. By their sacerdotal functions, the Mediterranean
has been married to the Red Sea, the Caspian to the Black Sea, the North
Sea to the Atlantic, the Adriatic to the Archipelago, and the Atlantic almost
to the Pacific, while we have seen many unions of less distinguished
members of the great maritime family. The importance of these alliances to
the trade, the wealth, the intercourse, the facility of intercommunication,
and the general convenience of the world, not to speak of strategical and
political considerations, affecting individual nations, can hardly be over-
estimated. But much still remains to be done. The high contracting parties
are in some cases coy and bashful, requiring more effective wooing before
they can be won. The prospective matchmakers must not forget that

“It’s not so much the lover who woos
As the gallant’s way of wooing.”

There is a personal history belonging to the development of canal
navigation of a much more engrossing interest than can usually be claimed

for so unromantic a type of institutions. The annals of that history extend
over many centuries. They reach back even to the times of ancient Egypt,
the cradle of the sciences, and were contemporaneous with the building of
the Pyramids. Menes, who lived 2320 years before the Christian era,
constructed water-courses, which were simply canals, for carrying off the
superfluous waters that reduced the greater part of Egypt in his time to the
condition of an extensive marsh.[19] Sesostris, 1659 b.c., undertook the
cutting and embanking of canals on a more extensive scale, carrying them
at right angles with the Nile, as far as from Memphis to the sea, for the
quick conveyance of corn and merchandise.[20] Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus)
completed a canal, which had been commenced and continued by several
previous sovereigns, and which is said[21] to have afforded a connection
with the sea;[22] while even at this early date, gates or sluices were
constructed, which opened to afford a passage through the Egyptian canal to
the sea.[23]
In Roman times, again, Julius Cæsar, Caligula, and Nero were canal-
makers, having each in his day attempted to unite the Ionian Sea with the
Archipelago, through the isthmus of Corinth—an undertaking which is only
in our own day being consummated. The emperor Trajan was also greatly
interested in canals, as his correspondence with Pliny proves, while all the
principal Roman consuls and generals appear to have possessed some
knowledge of hydraulics, and applied that knowledge to useful purpose.
Charlemagne attempted to unite the Rhine with the Danube, and to
establish water communication between the German Ocean and the Black
Sea. Leonardo da Vinci was equally great as a canal-maker and a painter,
having constructed some of the earliest canals in Italy. The Doges of
Venice, “the City in the Sea,” naturally paid much attention to the same
subject, which was, indeed, essential to their convenience, security, and
prosperity.
It is to the credit of many of the sovereigns of France that they have
sought to promote the security and welfare of their country by similar
means. Henry II. employed Adam de Crapone, about 1555, to cut the Canal
of Charolais; and Henry IV. continued the work. Louis XIV. engaged an
Italian to construct one of the greatest of the French canals—that of
Languedoc, which is elsewhere referred to. In more recent times Napoleon

Buonaparte and Napoleon III. have interested themselves actively on behalf
of canal navigation; and it appears to have been by a mere chance that the
latter did not become a canal administrator in Central America, where he
took a keen interest in the proposed ship canal across the isthmus of
Nicaragua.
If we cast our eyes over the rest of the European Continent we shall find
that wherever artificial waterways have been provided, Royal or Imperial
encouragement has assisted in the operation. Peter the Great and Catherine
attached the utmost importance to the development of Russia by this means.
In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa and his successors were equally solicitous, in a
country full of natural waterways, that these should be utilised and
connected by artificial means.
A system that has been instrumental in giving to Europe such towns as
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Venice, which has facilitated the progress of
commerce in a hundred different directions, which was practically the only
means of transport for nearly a century in all the chief countries of the
world, and which still makes provision for the interchange of commodities
at a cheaper rate than any other; which has involved the expenditure of
hundreds of millions, and has found employment for vast numbers of well-
remunerated employés; which abridges distance and time, and brings into
closer contact different districts and countries, seas and oceans; which has
engaged the attention of the greatest potentates and princes of recorded
history, and has in all times been deemed a fit subject for the exercise of
kingcraft; which, in our more prosaic age, brings us cheap food, cheap coal,
and cheap commodities generally—such a system is one that can hardly be
lightly esteemed, even now, notwithstanding that its waning light has been
eclipsed by the brilliance of that other system which has been so marked a
development of our nineteenth century civilisation.
Canal engineering, besides, has a very remarkable record, and has
achieved many notable triumphs. These have hardly received the attention
to which their importance entitles them. It is true that no canal has been
carried, like the Callao, Lima, and Oroya railroad, in Peru, to the height of
nearly sixteen thousand feet above the level of the sea.[24] It has, however,
on the Languedoc and other canals been found easily feasible to carry a
canal to a height of 600 to 1000 ft. above the sea. Canal engineers have not,
perhaps, pierced the Alps with a tunnel ten miles in length, as on the Saint-

Gothard Railway; but they have carried a tide-water canal from the
Mediterranean to the Red Sea, and they have essayed to perform the same
feat through the Cordillera. Hydraulic engineering has, next to railway
engineering, been the most remarkable manifestation of the applied science
of modern times, and in canal construction it has attained some of its most
successful results.
Sufficient credit, moreover, has hardly been given to the canal system
for the important part which it has taken in opening up the resources of
different countries, and thereby bringing about the remarkable development
of commerce and industry which has been so marked a feature of our own
times. The Act for the construction of the Bridgwater Canal was obtained in
1759, previous to which time the internal commerce of the country, as we
have seen, was carried on by pack-horses or waggons, on common
turnpike-roads. Mr. Wood has calculated[25] that the average cost of
conveying heavy goods on macadamised turnpike-roads by this system was
8d. per mile, while light goods cost 1s. per ton per mile. As that calculation
applies to a time when wages, fodder, and other items involved in the
expense of such transport, were lower than now, it is a fair assumption that
it will be at least as much to-day, and for facility of reckoning we may take
the average at the convenient and fairly likely figure of 10d. per ton per
mile over all. Now, the total quantity of merchandise carried on the railways
of the United Kingdom in 1887 was about 269 millions of tons. No
evidence exists as to the total mileage over which this vast tonnage was
carried, or, as it is expressed in railway phraseology, of the ton-mile traffic.
But if we assume that the average charge for traffic carried by railway in
1887 was 1d. per ton per mile, the total movement would be represented by
the enormous figure of 8962 millions of ton-miles. To have carried the same
traffic under the system of transport that preceded the canals would have
been impossible, but it would have cost the country, if it had been
practicable, no less a sum than 373½ millions sterling, which is about one-
third of the estimated amount of our national income from all sources. But
this, after all, is not the most curious part of the calculation. In order to
understand how impossible our present transport system would have been
under the old régime, we must assume that a horse is capable, under
ordinary circumstances, of carrying one ton about ten miles a day. Working
for 300 days a year, therefore, he would be able to carry a total weight of
about 3000 tons one mile in the course of twelve months. To undertake the

same work as that performed by our railways would therefore require close
on three million horses, or, practically, the whole of the horses that exist in
the United Kingdom at the present time, for every purpose, including
agriculture.
It was while we were depending exclusively upon this expensive and
tedious system of conveyance, when the internal development of the
country was rendered all but impossible by the heavy expense of bringing
produce to the sea, and when our export trade was consequently of the most
restricted dimensions, that canals came to the rescue. They worked a
marvellous change in the trade of the country—a change which can,
perhaps, be best illustrated by the ordinarily dry, but in this case almost
thrilling, returns of our exports and imports. Burke, in one of his greatest
speeches,[26] spoke of a total exportation of the value of 14½ millions, and a
total importation of 9½ millions sterling, as an index of extraordinary
prosperity. In another equally great oration[27] he said, speaking of the fact
that we were then exporting rather over six millions a year to our colonies,
that “when we speak of the commerce with our colonies, fiction lags after
truth; invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and barren.” What would
he have said had he lived to see, as we have done, our exports reach the vast
total of 250 millions a year, with nearly 90 millions of exports to our
colonies? Canals certainly did not complete this revolution, but they had a
very important share in giving it a start. Between the time when the canal
system was commenced, about 1760, and the end of the first canal period,
which may be put at 1838, the export trade of the country advanced from 14
millions to about 50 millions per annum. This is poor progress, compared
with what has since been attained, through the development of the
steamship, the railway, the telegraph, and other modern adjuncts of
commerce, but it was deemed as remarkable for that day as we consider our
subsequent progress to be in ours.
It is practically impossible to arrive at a correct estimation of the
tonnage of goods of different kinds that goes to make up the inland and the
external trade of this country. We know that the railways of the United
Kingdom annually carry about 280 millions of tons of minerals and
merchandise (according to the Board of Trade returns), but a considerable
part of this tonnage is duplicated, in consequence of passing over more than
one railway. Of the total tonnage carried by railway, the greater part

probably goes no farther. It is consumed on the spot, like the coal traffic of
London and the minerals supplied to our great ironmaking centres. But a
very much larger quantity is carried from inland centres to seaports, and
thence shipped for places of consumption at home and abroad. The
coastwise carrying trade of the United Kingdom is now represented by 60
million tons a year. The foreign shipping trade amounts to over 70 million
tons a year. Only a comparatively small proportion of these quantities is
consumed at the ports of shipment. The greater part is carried farther by
railway, thus breaking bulk twice—once in moving it from the ship to the
railway wagon, and again in removing it from the railway wagon. Much of
it has to be carried from the ship in barges, and thence transferred to the
railway. All this means loss of time, loss of money, and deterioration of
quality, which adequate water facilities should do much to obviate.
There is no class of property that has undergone a more remarkable
range of vicissitudes than canal ownership. In the early years of the present
century, the value of canal companies’ shares was much higher than that of
any railway property has been since that time. The price of some canal
shares rose to a hundred times their nominal or par value. Enormous
dividends were often paid. In other cases, where the navigation had been
neglected, the properties were very lightly esteemed, and yielded
unsatisfactory results. The Fossdyke Navigation in Lincolnshire was leased
about 1840, by the Corporation of Lincoln, to a Mr. Elison for nine hundred
and ninety-nine years, at 75l. a year! Six years later the executors of the
lessee leased it to the Great Northern Railway Company for 9575l.[28] The
Loughborough Canal shares, which were once worth 4500l., are now
scarcely worth 100l.; and a still more notable decline is that of the Erewash
Canal, whose shares, now quoted at about 50l., were once worth fully
3000l.
There are three great epochs in the modern history of canal navigation,
each marked by characteristics peculiar to itself, and sufficiently unlike
those of either of the others to enable it to be readily differentiated. They
may be thus described:—
1. The era of waterways, designed at once to facilitate the transport of
heavy traffic from inland centres to the seaboard, and to supersede the then
existing systems of locomotion—the wagon and the pack-horse. This era
commenced with the construction of the Bridgwater Canal between 1766

and 1770, and terminated with the installation of the railway system in
1830.
2. The era of interoceanic canals, which was inaugurated by the
completion of the Suez Canal in 1869, and is still in progress.
3. The era of ship-canals intended to afford to cities and towns remote
from the sea, all the advantages of a seaboard, and especially that of
removing and despatching merchandise without the necessity of breaking
bulk.
The second great stage in the development of canal transport is of
comparatively recent origin. It may, in fact, be said to date only from the
time when the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Suez was
proved to be not only practicable as an engineering project, but likewise
highly successful as a commercial enterprise. Not that this was by any
means the first canal of its kind. On the contrary, as we have shown
elsewhere, the ancients had many schemes of a similar kind in view across
the same isthmus. The canal of Languedoc, constructed in the reign of
Louis XIV., was for that day as considerable an undertaking. It was
designed for the purpose of affording a safe and speedy means of
communication between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean; it has a
total length of 148 miles, is in its highest part 600 ft. above the level of the
sea, and has in all 114 locks and sluices. In Russia, canals had been
constructed in the time of Peter the Great, for the purpose of affording a
means of communication between the different inland seas that are
characteristic of that country. The junction of the North and Caspian Seas,
of the Baltic and the Caspian, and the union of the Black and the Caspian
Seas, had all been assisted by the construction of a series of canals which
were perhaps without parallel for their completeness a century ago. In
Prussia a vast system of inland navigation had been completed during the
last century, whereby Hamburg was connected with Dantzic, and the
products of the country could be exported either by the Black Sea or by the
Baltic. In Scotland the Forth and Clyde Canal, and the Caledonian Canal,
were notable examples of artificial navigation designed to connect two seas,
or two firths that had all the characteristics of independent oceans; and the
Erie Canal, in the United States, completed a chain of communication
between inland seas of much the same order.

But, although a great deal had been done in the direction of facilitating
navigation between different waters by getting rid of the “hyphen” by
which they were separated anterior to the date of the Suez Canal, this grand
enterprise undoubtedly marked a notable advance in the progress of the
world from this point of view. The work was at once more original and
more gigantic than any that had preceded it—so much so that in this
country, as we have elsewhere shown, it was generally discredited.
Probably no other canal previously constructed had cost anything like the
same large sum that was set aside for that of Suez. The canal of Languedoc,
constructed in the seventeenth century, is stated to have cost fourteen
millions of livres. The Erie Canal had cost five million seven hundred
thousand dollars (1,140,000l.). The Caledonian Canal cost 1,035,460l. The
Amsterdam Canal cost about the same amount. The Suez Canal, however,
was estimated to cost 8,000,000l. to 10,000,000l., or nearly ten times as
much as the largest canals constructed up to that time. Nowadays this would
not be regarded as a large sum for such a purpose. We have got accustomed
to big figures. A hundred millions sterling is not an uncommon capital for a
railway company. The Manchester Canal, only some thirty miles long, is
estimated to cost about eight millions sterling, and more than sixty millions
have been sunk at Panama. But so little faith was felt in the success of the
Suez Canal, with such a large expenditure, that it was seriously maintained
in the “Edinburgh Review” that, “were it to become the great highway of
nations between the West and the East—even the Gates of the East, as it has
been the fashion to call it—and were all the local advantages predicted for
Egypt to be derived from it, still, on account of the enormous expense of
construction and maintenance, it would not pay.”
While these views were entertained about a waterway that promised to
become the general and almost exclusive means of communication between
the West and the East, between Great Britain and her Australasian and
Indian possessions, it is not much a matter for surprise that other projects of
a similar character remained in abeyance. But the Suez Canal once
completed and successful, other ship canal schemes came “thick as
autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa.” Several of these were eminently practical,
as well as practicable. The Hellenic Parliament determined on cutting
through the tongue of land which is situated between the Gulfs of Athens
and Lepantus, known as the Isthmus of Corinth. This isthmus divides the
Adriatic and the Archipelago, and compels all vessels passing from the one

sea to the other to round Cape Matapan, thus materially lengthening the
voyages of vessels bound from the western parts of Europe to the Levant,
Asia Minor and Smyrna. The canal is now an accomplished fact. Another
proposal was that of cutting a canal from Bordeaux to Marseilles, across the
South of France, a distance of some 120 miles, whereby these two great
ports would be brought 1678 miles nearer to each other, and a further
reduction, estimated at 800 miles, effected in the distance between England
and India. The Panama Canal (projected in 1871, and actually commenced
in 1880) is, however, the greatest enterprise of all, and in many respects the
most gigantic and difficult undertaking of which there is any record. The
proposed national canal from sea to sea, proposed by Mr. Samuel Lloyd and
others for Great Britain, the proposed Sheffield Ship Canal, the proposed
Irish Sea and Birkenhead Ship Canal, and the proposed ship canal to
connect the Forth and the Clyde, are but a few of many notable examples of
the restlessness of our times in this direction. All these canals are intended
to economise time and space, which has become the greatest desideratum of
our age. By fulfilling this mission they facilitate commerce, cheapen the
cost of commodities, bring nations into closer touch, and materially
lengthen the sum of work and knowledge that can be crowded into the
average span of human life.
We are now in the very throes of the revolution that appears to be
destined, before it closes, to secure for most of the great inland centres of
population a large share of the advantages that result from being on the
seaboard. The location of many of our large towns is difficult to understand.
Their prosperity, in spite of their location, is still more unintelligible, on the
first blush. Very few of our great cities are on the seaboard. London is over
60 miles from the Nore. Paris is 227½ miles from the sea at Havre, and
Berlin, Vienna, and Madrid are each over or nearly 200 miles. In England
we have such towns as Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, and Birmingham,
situated at long distances from shipping facilities, and flourishing in spite of
that disadvantage. But the fact has been recognised as a disadvantage, none
the less. Manchester, less unfavourably situated than some of the towns we
have named, has resolved to “burst its birth’s invidious bar” by the
construction of the ship canal that is now being proceeded with. Sheffield
has initiated a project with the same end in view. The people of
Birmingham and the Midlands generally appear to have made up their
minds to have direct communication with the Bristol Channel. In regard to

all of these towns canal facilities of an inferior kind already exist. These,
however, are now held to be quite unequal to the demands of modern
commerce. They do not give to any town the position of a seaport, and that
is the main requirement. The time has gone past when barges of forty or
fifty tons, plying on a canal 60 to 80 feet wide, could be seriously put
forward as contributing essentially to this end. The canal system of a
hundred years ago has been put to the trial, and has been found wanting. We
now carry millions where we then carried hundreds and thousands of tons.
The great commercial characteristics of our time are to have things done
on a large scale, with the utmost practicable facility, and at the lowest
possible cost. The existing canal system is quite out of touch with these
desiderata. It “cumbereth the ground,” and must be got rid of. But the
waterways that still survive may in many cases be made the nucleus of a
new and better system, under which the great inland towns of Lancashire,
Staffordshire, and Yorkshire may find their lines cast in more satisfactory
maritime places.
There are not a few people who regard the canal system almost as they
might regard the Dodo and the Megatherium. It is to them an effete relic of
a time when civilisation was as yet but imperfectly developed. It is placed
on the shelf of their memories and sympathies much as the old hand-loom,
or the earliest forms of metallurgical processes, might be; and if by accident
an old canal happens to cross their path, it is regarded with the same sort of
curiosity as would be bestowed upon the Great Wall of China or the
Pyramids of Egypt.
Canals do, indeed, belong to the past. In this respect they are entitled to
be regarded with interest, and even with veneration. The Cnidians,
according to Herodotus, the Bœtians, according to Strabo, the Babylonians,
according to Ptolemy, and the Romans, according to Pliny, were all skilled
in the art of canal-making, and employed their skill to good purpose. From
those times until these the waterways of art have supplemented those of
nature as handmaidens of trade and commerce, as fertilisers of the soil, and
as military and strategical highways. That canals also belong to the present,
Egypt, the American isthmus, Manchester, Corinth, and other places, fully
prove; and, unless we greatly err, they are no less the heritage of the future.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER I
[9] Smiles’s ‘Lives of the Engineers,’ vol. i. p. 180.
[10] Judging from the diary of Mr. Justice Rokeby, which has been recently
printed by Sir Henry Peek, in the time of William and Mary going circuit was
arduous work, and the arrangements for reaching the scene of his labours
occupied almost as much of a Judge’s attention as the execution of the Royal
commission when he arrived. Mr. Justice Rokeby, according to this record (as
abridged in the Times), usually travelled in a four-horse coach with his chamber
clerk, while his groom or valet attended him on a saddle-horse, which also
carried the Judge’s “portmantle.” Generally both coach and horses were hired for
the occasion, the rate appearing to be about 22s. for each travelling day, and 12s.
for each resting day. Sometimes the learned Judge economised by “putting a pair
of his own horses to the wheel,” and had his own coachman to drive. But more
than once it was necessary to take six horses in the coach, and occasionally a
couple of servants on saddle-horses were in attendance. In the spring of 1692-93,
“after the circuits were all settled and the term ended—viz. February 25—there
fell a very great snow, which occasioned the King to issue out a proclamation,
March 2, 1692-3, to alter all the circuits to later days but only the Norfolk and
Oxford circuits, which continued upon their first appointment.” Mr. Justice
Rokeby, being unlucky enough to be going on the Norfolk circuit, derived no
benefit from the postponement, but “by reason of the badness of the ways was
forced to take six horses,” so that he was “out of purse” on the circuit above 52l.
The previous summer the waters were out, and travelling in the valley of the
Thames was no easy matter. “I began my journey into this circuit (the Oxford)
from London,” says the Judge, “on Monday, June 27, and baited at Maidenhead,
but the waters were so great upon the road that at Colebrook they came just into
the body of the coach, and we were forced to boat twice at Maidenhead, and we
boated the coach, and at the second time we boated ourselves, but the coach
came through the water, and it came very deep into the body of it, and that night
we lay at Henley-upon-Thames, where we were forced to boat the coach again.”
For years afterwards we read that the way from Oxford to Gloucester was so bad
that it took 14 hours to accomplish the distance, though it was not more than 33
miles, while there was a “very bad and shaking way” from Monmouth to
Hereford; and at an earlier stage of the circuit the Judge chronicles his safe
arrival at High Wycombe from London with the pious but significant
ejaculation, “Thanks be to God!” Sometimes the Judges, apparently, hired a
coach between them, but Mr. Justice Rokeby had a little difference with his
brother Judge, Mr. Justice Eyre, on his second circuit, concerning the division of
expenses, and this probably led to his making independent carriage arrangements
subsequently. On this occasion Mr. Justice Rokeby was called back to town at an
early point of the circuit, and Mr. Justice Eyre declined to take on the coach, but
finished the circuit on horseback, and it was his demand to be paid a share of the
expenses of his saddle-horse which led to the difference of opinion.
[11] The difference between macadamised and ordinary roads, in the cost of
conveyance, not to speak of comfort, is extraordinary. Nicholas Wood estimated

that the transport of coal by the old pack horse was reduced from about 2s. 6d. to
8d. per ton on a good road of this description.
[12] According to the tables in Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ (Book i. chap.
xi.) the average price of wheat between 1637 and 1700 was 2l. 11s. 0⅓d. per
quarter; from 1700 till 1764 it was 2l. 0s. 69⁄32d. per quarter.
[13] Even so late as 1794, Hepburn, in his ‘General view of the Agriculture and
Economy of East Lothian,’ stated that, not long before, not a single bullock was
slaughtered in the butcher market at Haddington except at a special time.
[14] The writer has shown, in articles published in the Times on January 5th,
1887, and again on January 2nd, 1888, what are the extent and the distinguishing
features of this supremacy.
[15] The average cost per mile of the railways in England and Wales is about
50,000l., as against 12,700l. in the United States, 21,000l. in Germany, 25,300l.
in Belgium, 27,500l. in France, and 20,000l. in Holland.
[16] See a paper read before the British Association at Birmingham, 1887.
[17] Report of House of Lords Committee on Conservancy Boards, 1877.
[18] Report of Select Committee on Canals, 1883.
[19] Herodotus, lib. ii. c. lxlix.
[20] Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. iv.
[21] Strabo, lib. xvii.
[22] Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. i.
[23] Cresy’s ‘Encyclopædia of Civil Engineering,’ c. iv.
[24] The railway starts from Callao at a height of 448 ft. above sea level, and at
104½ miles distance it passes through the summit tunnel at a height of 15,645 ft.
above that level.
[25] ‘Practical Treatise on Railroads,’ third edition, p. 684.
[26] Observations on a late publication ‘The Present State of the Nation,’ Bohn’s
series, vol. i. p. 198.
[27] Speech on conciliation with America, Ibid., pp. 461-62.
[28] The navigation had, however, been deepened in the interval for drainage
purposes, largely at the expense of the Land Drainage Commissioners, which
caused a considerable increase of traffic.

CHAPTER II.
ENGLISH RIVERS.

“Rivers, arise; whether thou be the son
Of utmost Tweed, or Ouse, or gulphy Don,
Or Trent, who, like some earth-born giant, spreads
His thirty arms along the indented meads;
Or sullen Mole, that runneth underneath;
Or Severn swift, guilty of maiden’s death;
Or rocky Avon, or of sedgy Lee;
Or coaly Tine, or ancient hallowed Dee;
Or Humber loud, that keeps the Cythian’s name;
Or Medway smooth, or royal-towered Thame.”
—Milton.

One of the earliest pioneers of inland navigation was Wm. Sandys, of
Ombersley Court, in Worcestershire, who, in 1636, applied for
Parliamentary powers to make the river Avon navigable for boats and
barges, from the Severn at Tewkesbury to the city of Coventry. Part of the
work which was executed in pursuance of the powers so obtained exists to
the present time. In 1661 Sandys sought for Parliamentary authority to
make the Salwarp navigable from the Severn to his own town of Droitwich,
and to make navigable the rivers Wye and Lug, and the brooks running into
the same in the counties of Hereford, Gloucester, and Monmouth.
Our great rivers, the Thames, Severn, Trent, Ouse, &c., were the
recognised means of transit long before the time of the Romans, who were
so far advanced in inland navigation as to cut canals of forty miles in
length, as instanced in the Caerdyke, between Peterborough and Lincoln
(though now filled up), as also to build docks, as shown in the old dock
walls, &c., still standing at the outfall of the Trym into the Avon below
Bristol.
The Fossdyke navigation from Lincoln to the Trent is also of Roman
origin, and probably an extension of the Caerdyke, on their route to York.
Torksey, at the junction with the Trent, was a Roman town and fort, and

continued possessed of many privileges, down to the Norman period, on
condition that the knights who held it should carry the King’s Ambassadors,
as often as they came that way, down the Trent in their own barges, and
conduct them to York. This is recorded in ‘Domesday Book.’ Itchin Dyke to
Winchester was also cut by the Romans.
It is usual to date the first beginning of canal navigation in England
from the time when Brindley constructed the famous canal between
Worsley and Salford for the Duke of Bridgwater. This, no doubt, was the
first important artificial navigation throughout. But Sandys had practically
undertaken canal construction about a hundred years before. The Act of
Parliament which sanctioned the various enterprises that he had projected,
authorised him to construct new channels, and to set up, in convenient
places, “locks, wears, turnpikes, penns for water, cranes, and wharfs, to lay
timber, coals, and all other materials that shall be brought down;” to have
and use “a certain path, not exceeding four feet in breadth, on either side of
the said rivers and passages,” for the “towing, pulling, or drawing-up of
their barges, boots, leighters, and other vessels passing and repassing them,
or any part of them, by strength of men, horses, lines, ropes, winches,
engines, or other means convenient;” and “to dig, carry, trench, or cut, or
make any trench, river, or new channel, or wharf,” &c., after having
arranged with the “respective Lords, owners, or occupiers of the said
lands.”[29]
Sandys, however, did not succeed in carrying out the intended
navigation between the cities of Hereford and Bristol as he proposed. He
attempted to make the Wye navigable by locks and weirs on the pound-lock
system, which did not suit its rapid current. The enterprise was accordingly
abandoned, after a trial of several years.
In 1688 the project of making the Wye navigable was revived. It was
now proposed to abandon the pound-lock system, to purchase and remove
all the mill-weirs and fishing-weirs between Hay, in Herefordshire, and the
sea, and to deepen the channels of the shallow streams. The weir-owners
rose in opposition to these proposals, and for several years the subject was
the occasion of a bitter controversy. When the Bill was applied for in 1695,
the city of Hereford, and thirty-two parishes in the county, petitioned in its
favour; while the towns of Ross and Monmouth, and thirteen parishes,
petitioned against it. The Bill, however, ultimately became law,[30] and

although, owing to the uncertainty of its depth and current, the Wye was
never adapted for regular navigation, it was so far improved that throughout
the eighteenth century it was of great service to the county of Hereford.[31]
One of the earliest to advocate river improvements in Britain was
Andrew Yarranton, an original genius, who had ideas and plans quite a
hundred years in advance of his times.[32] He occupied himself with many
different projects designed to effect improvements in means of
communication, and in developing the resources of the country generally.
At one time serving as a soldier, at another engaged in the manufacture of
iron; now planning how to provide employment for the poor, and again
studying how to bring about more economical processes of husbandry,
Yarranton made a special hobby of the improvement of navigation,
undertaking surveys of the principal rivers in the West of England at his
own cost, and urging upon the people the importance of opening up the
facilities of communication thereby available to them.
In 1665 Yarranton proposed to the burgesses of Droitwich to deepen the
small river Salwarp, so as to connect that town, now an important centre of
the salt industry, with the river Severn. He was offered terms to carry out
his plans, but the offer does not appear to have been good enough.[33]
In 1666 Yarranton proposed to make the river Stour navigable between
Stourport and Kidderminster, and to connect it with the river Trent by a
navigable canal. He carried out this work so far as to make the river
navigable from Stourbridge to Kidderminster; but his scheme was not
completely adopted for lack of means. He says that he “laid out near
1000l.,” and “carried down many hundred tons of coal,”[34] although, on
account of the novelty of his enterprise, it was greatly ridiculed. At a later
date Yarranton proposed to connect the Thames and the Severn by means of
an artificial cut, “at the very place where, more than a century after his
death, it was actually carried out by modern engineers.”[35]
Although the proprietors in what was called the “Old Quay Company”
had obtained an Act of Parliament in 1733 for improving by weirs and cuts
the rivers Mersey and Irwell, between Runcorn and Manchester, the first
association incorporated for making a regular navigable canal in England
was not till more than twenty years later, six centuries after the first canals
in Italy and Flanders, and a hundred years subsequent to some of the chief

canals of France being in operation. It is but fair to add that England carried
the movement further than most other countries.
It is unnecessary to enter into the history of the development of the
navigable resources of the rivers of the United Kingdom during the last two
centuries, even if it were possible, which, of course, it is not in a work of
this description. The dates when the several principal navigation works
were undertaken will be found set out in Appendix I. But we may,
nevertheless, bestow some consideration upon the principal steps that have
brought about the remarkable facilities that England, Scotland, and, to a less
extent, Ireland, respectively enjoy at the present time in the matter of
internal transport. The Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees, the Wear, and other
prominent English rivers have been transformed from shallow brawling
streams, some of them easily fordable at all states of the tide, into
magnificent waterways, capable of bearing on their bosoms the largest
vessels afloat. This work has necessarily involved great engineering
capacity, a large expenditure, and a judicious administration of their powers
and resources by the public bodies through whom it has been carried to
completion.

The Mersey.

On the Liverpool side of the Mersey there are sixty docks and basins of
the ordinary type, having a total water area of 368 acres and 25 miles of
quay berthing. On the Birkenhead side, there are 164½ acres of docks, with
9½ miles of quayage, three graving docks, having a total length of 2430
feet, and every facility for loading and unloading ships.
The total expenditure incurred on this enormous provision for shipping
has been upwards of twenty millions, and the total annual revenue of the
Mersey dock estate is about a million and a half sterling.
The entire length of the Mersey is 56 miles. For the first 37 miles of this
distance, the river has a tortuous course, ill-adapted for navigation, and
passes through an almost exclusively agricultural country. From Runcorn to
the sea, the form of the river is that of a bottle, of which the wide expanse
between Runcorn and Liverpool forms the body, and the narrow part

opposite Liverpool the neck. Through this neck there annually passes nearly
twenty million tons of shipping, including entrances and clearances.
The unassisted efforts of nature have hitherto maintained the navigable
channels of the Mersey, so that the conditions of navigation remain
practically uniform. The bar, however, is gradually moving in a seaward
direction, while maintaining its general form and characteristics. In
Liverpool Bay there is a great range of tide, which insures a depth of at
least 30 feet over the bar once in every twelve hours, even on the lowest
neaps. Some two or three million cubic yards of upland water every twelve
hours are discharged into the estuary, chiefly by the Mersey and the Weaver,
which, with 710 million cubic yards on a high spring tide, maintains the
normal capacity of the estuary, and counteracts the process of silting. Some
17,300 acres of a deposit of sand in the estuary are above the low-water
mark. Through this the upland water forms and maintains a channel in its
course to the sea, and any serious exclusion of this tidal water would be
likely to so far injure the sea channels as to interfere with the trade and
shipping of the port.
The Mersey is the outlet for several important canal navigations,
including the Weaver Navigation Canal, near Weston Point, the Bridgwater
Canal at Runcorn, the Sankey Canal at Widnes, the Shropshire Union Canal
at Ellesmere, the Leeds and Liverpool Canal at the Docks, and the
Manchester Ship Canal, now under construction, at Eastham. The position
of these several canals in relation to the river may be traced in a map
accompanying a paper read by Mr. Lyster, the engineer, before the
Institution of Naval Architects. These canals are important factors in
assisting the growth of the trade of the Mersey. The Leeds and Liverpool is,
however, the only canal that has a direct connection with the Liverpool
Docks.
By this canal Liverpool has water communication with the important
town of Leeds, and thence, by the Aire and Calder Canal, with Hull and the
other ports on the Humber. By the Shropshire Union Canals the Mersey is
connected with the network of canals in the Midland Counties and with the
River Severn.
In Camden’s time Liverpool must have been a very obscure place. The
author of ‘Britannia’ dismisses it almost in a sentence, observing that “from

Warrington, the River Mersey, spreading abroad, and straightwaies drawing
in himselfe again, with a wide and open outlet, very commodious for
merchandise, entereth into the Irish Sea, where Litherpoole, called in the
elder ages Lipen-poole, common Lirpoole, is seated, so named, as it is
thought, of the water spreading itself in manner of a poole.”
With the exception of the Thames—which it rivals, and with which for a
number of years past it has run a neck-to-neck race—the Mersey is, so far
as its volume of business is concerned, the most important river in the
world. This, however, is an attainment of comparative modern origin. The
first wet dock was constructed at Liverpool, in 1708-9, on the site now
occupied by the Custom House. In the latter part of the same century
several other docks were constructed. The dock estate has now an area of
1078 acres, the whole of which is appropriated to basins, docks, quays, and
premises worked in connection therewith.

The Weaver.

The history of the navigation of the river Weaver, which adjoins the
Mersey in Cheshire, supplies a notable example of what may be made of an
originally insignificant and tortuous stream in order to adapt it for the
requirements of commerce. The river has been canalised between
Northwich and Chester, twenty miles of the navigation being artificial
navigation, and the other thirty miles being river proper.
In 1721 three Cheshire gentlemen obtained the first Act of Parliament
for making the river Weaver navigable. The depth then provided for was
only 4 feet 6 inches, and boats of more than 40 to 50 tons could not enter.
About the year 1760, the navigation was carried down so as to enable
vessels to enter at nearly all tides, and in 1810 the river was further
improved by the Weston Canal, which is four miles long, enabling vessels
of much deeper draught to enter without navigating a dangerous part of the
old river. This canal forms a junction with the Bridgwater Docks at Weston
Point, and a dock was formed in connection with it so as to enable vessels
to wait for the tide.
In 1830 the depth was increased to 7 feet 6 inches, with locks 88 feet
long and 18 feet wide, capable of taking cargoes of 100 to 150 tons. There

were at this time eleven single locks on the river, not including the
entrances to the Mersey. About 1860, a second set of locks, having 10 feet
of water on the sills, and 100 feet long by 22 feet wide, was placed by the
side of the existing locks, and the number was reduced to nine pairs. The
larger size, owing to the vessels being built almost to the shape of the lock,
were capable of passing vessels with nearly 320 tons on board.
This continued until about seventeen years ago, when it was decided to
replace these locks by some of very much larger dimensions, and also to
greatly reduce the number. With this object, locks were built at Dutton and
Saltersford near the site of existing locks, and of sufficient height of walls
to enable the two ponds above to be thrown into one, thus doing away with
the four smaller locks. The same has been done at Hunts, and, more
recently, at Valeroyal, above Northwich. The locks at Dutton and
Saltersford are entirely built of masonry, having limestone sills and rubbling
courses, with the intermediate part sandstone. All the work on the river is of
this description, with the exception of the Hunts and Valeroyal large locks,
which are built of concrete.
When these improvements are completed there will be only four locks
on the twenty miles of navigation, the larger of each pair of locks being 220
feet long, by 42 feet 6 inches wide, and having 15 feet of water on the sills.
Most of the river is now dredged to 12 feet, there only being 10-feet bars at
certain points. The ordinary width is about 95 to 100 feet at water level, and
45 feet at the bottom. More than a million tons of salt annually pass down
the Weaver to the Mersey.

The Tyne.

This noble river, from Newcastle to the sea, is one of the greatest
triumphs of modern engineering. Good old Camden quaintly remarks, that
“where the wall (Roman) and the Tine almost met together Newcastle
sheweth itself gloriously, the very eye of all the townes in these parts,
ennobled by a notable haven, which Tine maketh, being of that depth that it
beareth very tall ships, and also defendeth them, that they can neither easily
be tossed with tempests nor driven upon shallows and shelves.”[36]

No better example of what has been done within recent years in the way
of providing additional facilities for the wants of British shipping, could be
quoted than the case of the Tyne. That river is the natural outlet of the great
northern coalfield. It is also the outlet for a very great trade in chemicals,
engineering, iron and steel, and other industrial products. But in order to
adapt it for the purposes of its large and rapidly-growing commerce, it was
necessary not only to provide several docks—the more important of which,
the Northumberland and the Coble Dene, cost 352,000l. and 528,000l.
respectively—but it was also requisite to expend over 1,300,000l. in
dredging the bed of the river, so as to provide access for the largest size of
vessels, to expend nearly three-quarters of a million on other river works, to
construct North and South Piers at a cost of over 820,000l.; and to incur a
total outlay considerably exceeding 4,000,000l. The effect of these
improvements and structural works has been that the Tyne has been
transformed from “a series of shoals, with a narrow and generally
serpentine channel between and past them, through which vessels of about
15-ft. draught could get up at high-water spring tides, whilst at low-water it
was a not uncommon occurrence for small river steamers, drawing from 3
to 4 ft. of water, to be aground on their passage between Shields and
Newcastle for three or four hours,” to a magnificent navigable highway, that
admits vessels of 3000 tons and upwards at all states of the tide with perfect
safety. At the time that the great work was commenced, and for many years
afterwards, the revenue from shipping dues was quite insufficient to enable
any substantial progress to be made, and the trade grew so rapidly that it
became imperative to either borrow money in order to carry out the
required works, or allow the shipping to seek other ports, where better
facilities were provided. The works to the end of 1882 had, therefore, to be
chiefly carried out by the aid of borrowed money. As a matter of fact, only
426,000l. was expended out of income, while 3,673,000l. was borrowed.
The results, however, appear to have justified the course. The annual
income from dues and tolls has grown, within twenty years, from 91,000l.
to over 251,000l.
The Tyne Improvement Commission, chiefly under the presidency of
Sir Joseph Cowen, have deepened the river to a uniform depth of nearly 30
feet, built training walls, dredged the bar, built new channels, and otherwise
revolutionised the old order of things. The results have been extremely
striking. In 1888 14,668 vessels, having a total tonnage of 6,734,000 tons,

cleared from the Tyne ports; while 6093 ships, having 1,662,000 tons
register, entered the same ports. The people of Tyneside are proud of their
river, as well they may be.

The Ribble.

Preston is a busy town and port in the county of Lancashire, situated on
the river Ribble, about seventeen miles from the sea. The navigation of the
port has hitherto been confined to coasting vessels drawing about 14 feet of
water. The amount of shipping entering the port has been under 30,000 tons
a year. The Ribble rises in the West Riding of Yorkshire, at the east foot of
Whernside, and arrives at Preston after a course of fifty-seven miles. With
its tributaries it drains about 800 square miles of land, a great part of which
is moorland. The annual rainfall over this district averages about 37 inches.
Below Preston, the channel of the river opens out into a broad sandy
estuary, four or five miles in width, the whole of which is covered at high
water of spring tides, and the greater part of which is dry at low water. The
course of the river, after it leaves the trained portion, is along the northern
shore of this estuary to Lytham, whence the main navigable channel, called
“The Gut,” bends in a south-westerly direction between the Salt-house and
the Horse-shoe banks to the Irish Sea. The width of the estuary between the
two forelands on the coast, Stanner Point on the north, and Southport on the
south, is five miles. The sands extend four miles seaward beyond this line,
and are uncovered at low water. The depth at low water spring tides on the
bar, or the portion of the navigable channel with deep water, is four feet.
Beyond this the depth seawards rapidly increases, from 20 feet immediately
beyond, till, at the Nelson buoy—which is two miles beyond the bar, and
the first buoy belonging to the Ribble navigation—the depth is six fathoms.
The depth above the bar along the Gut channel, which is rather tortuous and
narrow, being shown on the Admiralty chart as less than a quarter of a mile
wide, varies from 4 to 24 feet. This channel is buoyed out with eight buoys,
which are shifted as the channel varies. There are three other channels
between Lytham and the sea, called, respectively, the South Channel, the
Penfold, and the North Channel. These are more or less navigable; but the
Gut is the main sea-fairway. From Lytham a shallow channel runs near the
shore for about a mile to “The Dock,” where ships can lie at anchor. Thence
it winds towards the Wage through the sands. This channel is continually

shifting its course, owing to gales and freshets. From this point the river has
been trained by rubble-stone training walls, put in about thirty-four years
ago, which continue for seven miles up to Preston. These walls rise seven
feet above low water, and are 300 feet apart at the top. Spring-tides rise 24
feet at the bar, and neaps 17 feet, and at Preston the rise is 10 feet and 4 feet
6 inches. The project of constructing a dock at Preston has been agitated for
some years, and has been strongly advocated by Mr. Garlick, M.I.C.E., who
was the engineer to the Navigation Commissioners. It was considered that
by providing deep-water accommodation to the town, its trade and
prospects would be greatly increased, having regard to the large
manufactories by which it is surrounded, the immense population in the
immediate neighbourhood, and the nearness of the Wigan coalfield. This
work is now in progress, including the division of the river; the estimated
cost being about 440,000l.

The Severn.

This famous river is navigable up to Welshpool, a distance of 155 miles
by water, from the mouth of the Bath Avon river. The extreme branch of this
river may be traced for about 45 miles above Welshpool, to Plinlimmon
Hill, and numerous other branches extend for great distances into the
country on both sides. The whole of this great length of navigation was, till
lately, unimproved by art, the river having no locks, weirs, or other
erections throughout its whole length, for surmounting the numerous
shallows and irregularities which the current over variable strata had
formed in its bed. The first or lowest 42 miles of this river, extending to the
city of Gloucester, are very wide for a great part of the way, and have a
most rapid tide; but the last 28 miles are so crooked, that ships are said to be
often several days in passing it; on which account, a ship canal, calculated
for vessels of 300 tons burthen, was in the year 1793 projected and begun
between Gloucester and Berkeley, of 18¼ miles in length, for avoiding
these 28 miles of the river. From Gloucester to Worcester the distance is 30
miles by the course of the stream, the rise in this length being 10 feet, or at
the rate of 4 inches a mile; from Worcester to Stourport the distance by
water is 13 miles, and the rise 23 feet, or at the rate of 1 foot 9 inches per
mile; from Stourport to Bridgnorth it is 18 miles, and the rise 41¾ feet, or 2
feet 4 inches per mile on the average; and from Bridgnorth to the new town

at the junction of the Shropshire canal, called Coalport, the distance is about
7 miles, and the rise about 19 feet, being a rate of about 2 feet 8 inches per
mile. William Reynolds, the founder of Coalport, caused an account to be
daily registered of the depth of the stream in the bed of the Severn at that
place, between the 7th of October, 1789, and the 23rd of December, 1800,
of which Mr. Telford has given the particulars, except on twelve occasions
when the river had overflown its bounds and covered the usual marks (on
Sundays during some part of the time), the intervals of frost in which the
river was frozen over, and for three short intervals, when, unfortunately, the
experiment was by some accident suspended. During all the months of
January, in the above period of eleven years, ending the 6th of October,
1800, the river does not appear to have exceeded the depth of 16 feet, that
being the greatest depth at any time recorded; and several times, when no
depths are inserted to the great floods, it is stated in the table that the water
was above all the marks. Besides these, there were thirty-two smaller
floods, or times when the water had risen, and was falling again for some
days after; the highest of these had a depth of 13 feet (5th January, 1790),
the lowest 4 feet, and the mean of the whole of these floods is 7½ feet. In
the months of February there were two of these overflowings, one of which
(11th February, 1795) followed a frost and continued for five successive
days: nineteen floods, the two highest of which were equal (17th and 20th
February, 1799) to 12 feet.

The Witham.

On the Witham, for a distance of thirty miles, between Boston and
Lincoln, the river is practically a canal. The tide is stopped by a sluice at
Boston, and a weir and locks had to be constructed at Bardney and Lincoln.
The inland water is held up to a constant height on the sill of this sluice by
penstocks, for the purposes of the navigation. The navigation having been
taken over by the Great Northern Railway Company, the works are
maintained in efficient condition; but the obligation imposed by the original
Act of holding up the water seriously affects the drainage. The river Slea,
from Sleaford to the Witham, was made into a canal in 1792. The
navigation on this river having almost entirely ceased, the company was
dissolved by an Act of Parliament. The Bane, another affluent of the
Witham, was also canalised, forming a navigation from the Witham to the

town of Horncastle; but the dues obtained are insufficient to maintain the
works in proper order.

The Nene and Ouse.

On the Nene, which is canalised from Peterborough to Northampton,
the navigation is reduced to a few barges. The constant floods on this river
are ascribed in a great measure to the defective condition of the works. The
proprietors of the navigation, on whom was cast the duty of maintaining the
river, no longer have the funds, and there is nobody to take their place. The
same thing has occurred on the Ouse between Earith and Bedford.
On some of the affluents of these rivers, which, under legislative powers
granted last century, had been converted into “navigations,” the proprietors
have obtained Acts of Parliament relieving them of their rights and
liabilities, and there is now no jurisdiction over these rivers, or anybody
responsible for removing shoals or cutting weeds. The beds of these streams
have consequently become shallow, and they are no longer capable of
acting as efficient arterial drains. Thus, on the Ivel, an affluent of the Ouse,
the navigation trust, created in the reign of George II., was abolished in
1876. The river is said to have since diminished one-half in width, and one-
half in depth, and the bottom is being gradually raised to the level of the
land. In like manner, the Lark, another canalised affluent, has almost
entirely silted up since the navigation of the river ceased. The Ouse itself,
above Earith, is obstructed by numerous shoals, and an enormous growth of
weeds. These were originally kept down by the constant passage of the
vessels, and the shoals were removed by the trustees of the navigation.

The Tees.

The improvements that have been carried out for the purpose of opening
up the navigation of the river Tees, although less considerable than those
carried out for some of the larger rivers of Great Britain, are yet entitled to
take rank as among the most notable river engineering achievements of the
century. They are also among the most recent. It was not until 1852 that the
Act was passed creating the Tees Navigation Commission. At that time
there were three or four channels in the estuary, all of them very shallow.

The shifting sandbanks caused great trouble and not a little danger to
navigation, and the depth of water near to Middlesbro’ did not admit of the
passage of vessels of large size. Since then, about twenty miles of low water
training walls have been erected for the purpose of confining the navigable
channel. The volume of water and its scour have thereby been much
increased. The river has been continuously dredged in order to secure a
depth of water that would allow of the passage of vessels of large tonnage
into the Middlesbro’ Docks. About 23 million tons of material have been
dredged from the bed of the river, and the channel has been generally
straightened and widened. Breakwaters have been constructed on both
sides, one of them, called the North Gare, being about two miles and a half
long. A remarkable feature of the work is that these breakwaters have been
constructed of slag, obtained from the blast-furnaces in the neighbourhood.
Some millions of tons of slag have been employed in this way, the
ironmasters having paid to the Conservancy Commissioners a small sum for
removing the slag, the disposal of which had been a great source of
difficulty previous to this application.
As a result of the works that have been carried out for the improvement
of the navigation of the Tees, the shipping trade of the river, and especially
of the port of Middlesbro’, has greatly increased. The main element in this
development has been the growth of the iron industry; but the second
element has undoubtedly been the increased facilities for navigation. The
popular impression about Middlesbro’ is that only a single house stood in
1830, where there is now a busy town of more than 70,000 inhabitants. This
may or may not be a legend, but there is no doubt about the fact that in
1850 there were only from two to three feet of depth on the bar of the Tees,
where it was possible to wade across at low water; whereas now there is
about 20 feet of water, and a harbour of refuge has been provided in which
ships can ride in safety whatever the condition of the usually stormy seas
outside.

The Irwell.

This river has been partly canalised, in order to afford a means of
communication between Warrington, Manchester, and other large towns,
and Liverpool, but it was only adapted for light craft and has consequently

fallen largely into disuse. The Mersey and Irwell Navigation was acquired
by the Bridgwater Company, and has now, with the rest of the Bridgwater
property, passed under the control of the Manchester Ship Canal Company.

The Wear.

This river, which has its rise in the district that unites Durham and
Westmoreland, falls into the North Sea at Sunderland after a course of thirty
miles. The river is under the jurisdiction of the Wear Commissioners from
about nine miles from the bar to the sea. Over this distance very
considerable improvements have been carried out during the last half
century. These improvements have resulted in making the Wear one of the
foremost shipbuilding rivers in the United Kingdom, and have given it the
second place in the coal-shipping trade. The revenue of the Wear Trust,
which only averaged about 14,000l. a year between 1840 and 1850, has
within recent years amounted to about 130,000l. a year. One of the most
extensive works undertaken on the river, besides graving docks, wharves,
&c., and the deepening of the bed, was the construction of a lock at the sea
outlet, designed to obviate the detention of screw-colliers when waiting for
the tide. This lock is 481 feet in length by 90 feet in breadth, and has a
depth of 29½ feet at ordinary spring tides. The present docks can
accommodate 200 ships of large size, drawing up to 24 feet of water. The
area of the docks is over 78 acres, and they are fitted with nineteen coal
spouts, at which 15,000 tons of coal can be shipped daily.
In this chapter we have dealt with a few only of the more notable
examples of river improvement in modern times. The list might be almost
indefinitely extended. There is hardly a brawling mountain torrent between
Land’s End and John o’ Groat’s that has not been reclaimed, deepened,
widened, or otherwise improved upon by the art and the genius of the
engineer. Nor has the work been confined to modern times. The Romans are
known to have constructed embankments for the control of British rivers
during the period of their occupation, although for something like 1000
years afterwards their example was not followed. The engineers and the
local authorities of the nineteenth century have done much to redeem this
reproach. The improvement and conservancy of rivers have now been

reduced to a science, founded mainly upon the following general
principles[37]:—
1. That the freer the admission of the tidal water, the
better is the river adapted for all purposes, whether of
navigation, drainage, or fisheries.
2. That its sectional area and inclination should be
made to suit the required carrying power of the river
throughout its entire length, both for the ordinary flow of
the water and for floods.
3. That the downward flow of the upland water
should be equalised as much as possible throughout the
entire year; and
4. That all abnormal contaminations should be
removed from the streams.
Our tidal rivers are undoubtedly one of the chief sources of our
maritime supremacy. For this reason it is of the utmost importance that they
should be kept in good repair, free from unnecessary obstructions, and well
adapted to the purposes of navigation. As it is, however, this is not always
the case. The chief reason for existing maladministration, where it exists, is
the absence of a uniform system of control. The Thames, for example, has
been hitherto controlled partly by the Thames Conservancy and partly by
the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Great Sluice, at Boston, in
Lincolnshire, was constructed in 1764 by Smeaton, for the purpose of
stopping the flow of the tide in the river Witham, and converting the upper
part of the river into a fresh-water canal as far as Lincoln. As, however, the
control of the river is divided—one body dealing with the tidal part from
the Grand Sluice to the sea, and the other with the canal and drainage of the
land above—each opposes the schemes of the other, and the navigation has
been ruined.[38]
There is one course whereby this condition of things, where it exists,
may be prevented. It has been suggested that a new Government
Department should be created, with entire charge of and control over all
estuaries and navigable channels, and presided over by a member of the
Cabinet. The interests at stake are sufficiently large to justify this.[39] They

are as vital to our commerce and industry as any matter now dealt with by
the State, affecting our material well-being, and they are every year
increasing in extent and importance. As regards the principal rivers—the
Mersey, the Tyne, the Tees, the Clyde, and the Wear especially—they are
now controlled in accordance with the recommendation made by the Duke
of Richmond’s Select Committee, that “each catchment area should be
placed under a single body of conservators, who should be responsible for
maintaining the river, from its source to its outfall, in an efficient state.”
There are other rivers, however, that are administered rather in the interest
of the landed proprietors than in that of navigation, and where these two
come into conflict the State should have powers that would enable the
public interest, which is both national and international, to be effectually
protected.
The following table gives the area and length of some of the chief rivers
of England:—

North-East of England.
Area. Length.
Miles. Miles.
Coquet 240 40
Wansbeck 126 22
Blyth 131 16
Tyne 1,130 34
Wear 456 45
Tees 708 79
Esk 147 21
Humber 10,500 ··
Hull 364 20
Foulness 133 14
Derwent 794 64
Ouse 1,842 40
Aire and Calder 815 78
Don 682 57
Trent 4,052 147

Area. Length.
Miles. Miles.
Ancholme 244 25
Ludd 139 7
Withern Eau 189 13

East Anglian Rivers.
Area. Length.
Miles. Miles.
Bure 348 45
Yare 880 48
Blyth 79 17
Alde 109 24
Deben 153 27
Orwell 171 16
Stour 407 45
Colne 192 24
Crouch 181 15
Roding 317 33

Other Rivers.
Area. Length.
Miles. Miles.
Witham 1,079 40
Welland 760 42
Nene 1,077 100
Great Ouse 2,667 143
Wissey, or Stoke 243 28
Nar, or Setchy 131 25
Many of the above rivers are not navigable for vessels of any size, and
are therefore not of much value to the transportation resources of the
country. In the majority of cases, also, the character of the waterways, as

regards locality, water-supply, &c., would not justify any large expenditure
in adapting them for purposes of transport.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER II
[29] a.d. 1661, Anno. 14 Car. Reg. ii.
[30] 7 and 8 Gul. III.
[31] Papers relating to the History and Navigation of the Rivers Wye and Lug.
By John Lloyd, junr.
[32] Andrew Yarranton was born in the parish of Astley, Worcestershire, in the
year 1616. He wrote a work which is well known to economists, entitled
‘England’s Improvement by Land and Sea, or How to beat the Dutch without
Fighting,’ describing observations that he had made during his travels in
Holland, Saxony, and other countries.
[33] Smiles states that Yarranton was offered 250l. and eight salt vats at Upwich,
valued at 80l. per annum, with three quarters of a vat in Northwich for 21 years,
in payment for the work. It is interesting to compare these terms with those on
which some of our modern streams have been deepened and improved.
[34] Yarranton’s ‘Improvement by Land and Sea.’
[35] ‘Industrial Biography,’ by S. Smiles, p. 65.
[36] ‘Britannia,’ Holland’s Translation, 1637.
[37] Address of the President of Section G, British Association Meeting at
Dublin, 1878.
[38] Paper on “River Control and Management,” by J. C. Hawkshaw, ‘British
Association Report for 1878.’
[39] The following figures give the tonnage of the entrances and clearances in
the foreign trade (including British possessions) of the principal rivers in 1888:
—

River Entrances. Clearances. Total.
tons tons tons
The Thames 7,471,000 5,471,000 12,942,000
” Mersey 5,368,000 4,941,000 10,309,000
” Clyde (Glasgow only) 994,000 1,154,000 2,148,000
” Tyne 2,818,000 4,392,000 7,210,000
” Tees (Middlesbro’ only) 681,000 555,000 1,236,000
” Humber 1,897,000 1,503,000 3,400,000

CHAPTER III.
THE ENGLISH CANAL SYSTEM.

“Of famous cities we the founders know,
But rivers, old as seas to which they go,
Are nature’s bounty; ’tis of more renown,
To make a river than to build a town.”
—Waller.

The general circumstances under which artificial navigation came to be
adopted in our own and other countries have already been set forth to a
limited extent. We have now to consider the special circumstances that have
led to the adoption of particular routes and particular means of transport, as
well as to make some attempt to indicate the conditions under which canals
may be used with advantage.
The routes that are provided by canal navigations are usually either
local or national—local, when they only connect two inland centres;
national, when they afford access from manufacturing or agricultural
centres to the sea. In the earlier history of the canal system both of these
ends were kept in view. It was just as important to bring raw materials from
their place of production to the centres of consumption as to connect the
centres of manufacture with the outer world.
About the middle of the last century, the cost of goods by road, between
Manchester and Liverpool, was 40s. per ton; whilst, by the Mersey and
Irwell route, the water rate was 12s. per ton. After the opening of the
Bridgwater Canal the cost was reduced to 6s. per ton, and a better service
was given than either of the previous routes had afforded.
Again, the cost of carriage on coal by pack-horse from Worsley to
Manchester, which had been 6s. to 8s. per ton, was reduced to 2s. 6d. per
ton on the same canal. In fact, the Duke bound himself not to exceed that
freight, although the old Mersey and Irwell Company still held to their toll
of 3s. 4d. for all the coal the Duke sent by their route.

The costs of transports throughout the country were on a similar scale,
except where held in check by the river traders, who, whilst competing, had
still an interest in high freights. From Manchester to Nottingham the charge
was over 6l. per ton; to Leicester, over 8l., and so on. These rates were
reduced to 2l. and 2l. 6s. 8d., respectively, after the opening of the Trent and
Mersey Canal, which also reduced the cost of transport between Manchester
and Hull to less than 2l., per ton, owing to the back-carriage secured from
that port, together with the tide service of 80 miles up the Humber and the
Trent.
The real commercial prosperity of England dates from this period of
canal development and enterprise. Raw materials, manufactures, and
produce, were easily transported at a reasonable cost between Liverpool,
Manchester, Staffordshire, Nottingham, and places on the route to Hull and
Northern Europe. These advantages were extended to the Severn route by
the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Act, which was obtained during
the year 1766, and by the navigation of the Soar to Leicester.[40]
In 1761 it was estimated that the quantity of traffic carried between the
two great cities of Lancashire—Manchester and Liverpool—was about 40
tons per week, or about 2000 tons a year. The cost of transport, as we have
just seen, was upwards of 1s. per mile. It is calculated that the traffic now
carried on between the two towns is not less than ten million tons, and the
cost of transport is stated at from 3s. to 8s. per ton. But the present
conditions of transport are nevertheless regarded as unsatisfactory, and
hence the movement for the construction of the Ship Canal, which is
expected to carry traffic for less than one-half of the amount charged by the
railway companies.
When the public mind became fully alive to the importance of providing
internal means of transport by water, there were not wanting those who
were able to provide the ability and the experience necessary to execute the
plans proposed. The history of the Bridgwater Navigation has been so fully
related by Smiles,[41] that nothing which we could say here would
materially enhance the interest of the story. For all practical purposes, this
was the first great artificial waterway in England. It was, indeed, so
remarkable a work for the time that we shall briefly recapitulate its history.

In 1758 the Duke of Bridgwater got his first Act of Parliament, which
awakened a general ardour for similar improvements among the
landowners, farmers, merchants, and manufacturers of the kingdom, and
although there was not a Louis XIV. nor a Colbert to encourage them,
engineers were found fully equal to Riquet, so that England, though late,
began to make good use of the resources she possessed in her inland
provinces.
The history of the Bridgwater canal may fairly be said to occupy, in
relation to the annals of internal navigation, much the same place that the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway does in relation to the development of
the railway system. It is necessary to review some of the circumstances
connected with this enterprise in order that the actual position of transport
at that time may be understood.
Although an Act of Parliament had been obtained many years
previously for the purpose of making the Mersey and the Irwell navigable
from Liverpool to Manchester, the facilities thereby provided were
defective and unsatisfactory in the extreme. The freight charged for water
transport between the two towns was 12s. per ton, when the navigation was
available, but this was not always at command. Boats could not pass
between the lowest lock and Liverpool without the assistance of a spring
tide. There were many fords or shallows in the Irwell, over which boats
could not pass at all “except in great freshes, or by drawing extraordinary
quantities of water from the locks above.” The consequence was that most
of the traffic between the two towns was carried on by road, at a much
higher cost for rather over thirty miles. The new navigation, although it
promised to reduce this charge to 6s. per ton, to abridge the distance by nine
miles, to provide wharfage that was not already available, and to give
transportation facilities at all times, was strongly denounced and opposed. It
was argued that the canal would cut through and separate the land in the
possession of several gentlemen along the proposed line of route, that a
great number of acres would be covered with water and for ever lost to the
public, that the canal could confer no advantage not already secured by the
Irwell and the Mersey, that the taking from those streams of the water
required for the canal would greatly prejudice, if it did not totally obstruct,
the old navigation in dry seasons, and that the property of the old navigation

should not be prejudiced without full compensation being made to the
proprietors.[42]
A letter written in 1767,[43] at Burslem, states that “gentlemen come to
see our eighth wonder of the world—the subterraneous navigation, which is
cutting by the great Mr. Brindley, who handles rocks as easily as you would
plum-pies, and makes the four elements subservient to his will. He is as
plain a looking man as one of the boors of the Peake, or one of his own
carters, but when he speaks all ears listen, and every mind is filled with
wonder at the things he pronounces to be practicable. He has cut a mile
through bogs, which he binds up, embanking them with stones which he
gets out of other parts of the navigation, besides about a quarter of a mile
into the hill Yelden; on the side of which he has a pump, which is worked
by water, and a stove, the fire of which sucks through a pipe the damps that
would annoy the men who are cutting towards the centre of the hill.”
The Bridgwater Canal has had a very remarkable career. It was sold by
Lord Ellesmere to the Bridgwater Navigation Company for 989,612l.,
including plant valued at 150,000l. In 1886, the Bridgwater Navigation
Company sold the canal to the Manchester Ship Canal Company for
1,710,000l. The Bridgwater Canal was followed, after a few years, by a
number of similar undertakings.
We cannot pretend in this chapter to write the history of the canal
movement; but we may, nevertheless, rapidly pass in review some of the
prominent features of that movement, the better to illustrate the
development of canal navigation, and to show how it came to be such as it
is.
About the year 1769 we find that the counties of Lancashire,
Staffordshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire, and Warwickshire, were greatly
exercised concerning the proposal to cut a canal between the Mersey and
the Humber by way of Harecastle, Stoke, Burton, and Wilden, near which
latter place it was intended to effect a junction with the Trent. Branches
were proposed to Birmingham, Lichfield, Tamworth, and Newcastle-under-
Lyme. The canal, it was expected, would develop the trade in white flint
ware, “which is as strong and sweet as Indian porcelain;” in the noted
quarries of Swithland slate, in Leicestershire, “a beautiful and durable
covering for houses;” in limestone, “on which the village of Breden, in

Leicestershire, is situated;” and “in that sort of iron ore, commonly called
ironstone, proper for making cold-short iron, and which, when mixed with
the red ore from Cumberland, makes the best kind of tough or merchant
iron.”[44] It is somewhat curious, at this time of day, to find that the
facilities which it would offer for the exportation of corn were put forward
as one of the principal arguments in favour of the new navigation.[45]

The Hull and Liverpool Canal.

In the year 1755, the Liverpool Corporation authorised a survey to be
made with a view to the construction of a line of navigation between
Liverpool and Hull. Brindley made a survey of the same route three years
later, and he, in turn, was followed by Smeaton. Brindley’s plans were
ultimately adopted. He proposed to complete the canal “as far north as
Harecastle, purchase the land, erect locks, make towing paths, build
bridges, and defray every expense, except that of obtaining the Act of
Parliament, for 700l. per mile,” but beyond Harecastle it was estimated that
the works would cost 1000l. a mile.[46] Brindley proposed to make the canal
12 feet wide at the bottom, and three feet deep on an average, with a depth
of 30 inches at the fords. The boats designed to be worked on the canal
were 70 feet long, 6 feet wide, drawing 30 inches of water, and carrying 20
tons. Their cost was stated at 30l. each.[47]
It is interesting to record that when the proposal to construct a canal
from Liverpool to Hull was under consideration, about the middle of the
last century, one of the arguments used in its favour was that it would
enable American iron to be brought cheaper to the manufacturing towns
from the ports of Liverpool and Hull, and so contribute to lessen the
consumption of foreign European iron, “to the great profit of this nation in
general, and our own ironworks in particular”; while it was even suggested
that, in order to develop this branch of business between our then American
colonies and the mother country, a bounty should be offered on the import
of American pig-iron, thereby contributing to “clear the lands in America,”
and “to preserve the woods in England.”
The project to construct a new waterway through the manufacturing
districts between Liverpool and Hull was strenuously opposed by a number

of Cheshire gentlemen, who were the owners of the Weaver or Northwich
Navigation, and who proposed to carry that waterway to Macclesfield,
Stockport, and Manchester. In 1765, a plan was submitted for extending the
navigation of the Weaver from Winsford Bridge, in Cheshire, to the river
Trent, in the county of Stafford, there joining the Trent and the Severn by
canals, and thereby “opening an inland communication between the great
ports of Liverpool, Bristol, and Hull.”
In view of the attention that has recently been given to the salt industry,
it may be stated that the transport of that commodity was one of the
principal reasons offered for the construction, in 1769, of a canal between
Liverpool and Hull, viâ Cheshire. At that time manufactured salt was
carried on horseback “to almost all parts of Staffordshire, Derbyshire,
Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire,” and it was
stated that “so great is the home consumption of this article, that from the
saltworks of Northwich alone, a duty of 67,000l. was last year paid into the
Exchequer. At Northwich and Wisford are annually made about 24,000
tons.”[48]

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal.

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal, which was commenced in 1770 and
completed in 1816, is one of the most important lines of navigation in the
United Kingdom, connecting, as it does, the Irish Sea at Liverpool with the
German Ocean at Hull. The works were extended over a period of about
forty-one years, and cost altogether 1,200,000l. The course of the canal
from Leeds is viâ the Abbey of Kirkstall, Calverley, Woodhouse, Apperley
Bridge, Shipley, Bingley, Skipton, Burnley, Blackburn, Wigan, and so on to
Liverpool. It is the longest canal in Great Britain, and in some respects, the
most remarkable. It has many important works of art on its course, the
summit level of which is reached at an elevation of 411 feet above the Aire
at Leeds, 41 miles from that town. At Foulridge there is a tunnel 1640 yards
in length, 18 feet high, and 17 feet wide. Near to this tunnel are two
reservoirs for the supply of the canal. They cover an area of 104 acres, and
store up 12,000 cubic yards of water. The canal is carried on aqueducts
across the Aire, the Colne Water, the Brown, the Calder, the Henbarn, the
Derwent Water, and the Roddlesworth Water. The total length of the

navigation is 127 miles, and the total lockage 844 feet 7½ inches, while the
canal basin at Liverpool is 56 feet above low-water mark on the river
Mersey. The canal has several important feeders or branches.[49]

Kennet and Avon Canal.

The Kennet and Avon Canal starts from the port of Bristol and runs to
Bath, Dundas (for the Somersetshire Coal Canal), Bradford-on-Avon,
Semington (for the Wilts and Berks Canal), Devizes, Honeystreet, Pewsey,
Burbage, Hungerford, Newbury, Reading, where it joins the Thames for
Henley, Marlow, Maidenhead, Windsor, Staines, and London. The distance
from Bristol to Bath is 15 miles, from Bath to Newbury 57 miles, from
Newbury to Reading 18½ miles, and from Reading to London 74 miles.
The river Avon, from Bristol to Bath, will admit of barges being worked
carrying 90 tons when the water is high, but in low water this weight would
be reduced to 50 or 60 tons, in consequence of the want of cleansing and
dredging. This part of the navigation is under an Act of Parliament, 10
Queen Anne, 1711, and is to be free and open for ever upon payment of toll.
The canal from Bath to Newbury (under an Act of Parliament of George
III.) has been constructed for vessels drawing five feet of water, measuring
14 feet wide, and according to the present soundings on the lock-sills,
vessels of that draught ought now to navigate the canal, but they are not
able to do so from the great accumulation of mud, which is seldom less than
one foot in thickness, and generally two feet or more. This not only
prevents the barges from using the canal for carrying full cargoes, but
necessitates the employment of extra towing power. One horse would tow a
barge 2 to 2½ miles an hour, if the canal were kept in proper working order.
At the present time two or more horses are required to do what ought to be
only the work of one. Many of the lay byes throughout the canal were
originally made to enable vessels to turn; nearly all of these are now of no
use, owing to their being full of mud and weeds, consequently barges have
often to go long distances beyond their proper destination in order to turn.
Owing to the accumulation of mud on the sides of the canal, barges can
only pass one another with great difficulty, causing much loss of time. The
gearing of the paddles of most of the locks is very insufficient and out of
repair. On all properly managed navigations, dredgers are kept almost

constantly at work cleansing out the mud, which rapidly accumulates, but
on this canal there are none. The only men employed on the canal are a few
labourers to clean out the weeds with rakes, which are deposited on the
towing-paths, and allowed to remain for months, thus obstructing the use of
the paths. The pounds between the locks at Devizes are nearly all full of
mud and weeds.
The construction of the new port of Sharpness, opened in 1874, is due to
the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Company, which constructed at the
small promontory of that name, about midway between Avonmouth and
Gloucester, a large tidal basin, 350 feet by 300 feet, a lock 320 feet long,
with three pairs of gates of large size, and a discharging dock 2200 feet
long, and occupying an area of 13½ acres. The entrance to the docks from
the Severn is 60 feet wide, and the depth at high water averages 26 feet.
The canal company, by this provision, has been able to retain for
Gloucester a great deal of the shipping which formerly, although chartered
for that city, has, owing to the old canal entrance being too small, been
obliged to discharge at one of the South Wales ports. Almost simultaneously
with this step, the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Company purchased the
Worcester and Birmingham Canal, thereby enabling water communication
to be opened up with the heart of the Midlands.

The Ellesmere Canal.

The Ellesmere Canal, in North Wales, consists of a series of navigations
proceeding from the river Dee in the vale of Llangollen. One branch passes
northward, near the towns of Ellesmere, Whitchurch, Nantwich, and the city
of Chester, to Ellesmere Port on the Mersey; another in a south-easterly
direction, through the middle of Shropshire towards Shrewsbury on the
Severn, and a third in a south-westerly direction, by the town of Oswestry,
to the Montgomeryshire Canal, near Llanymynech; its whole extent,
including the Chester Canal, incorporated with it, being about 112 miles.
The heaviest and most important part of the works occurred in carrying the
canal through the rugged hill country, between the rivers Dee and Ceriog, in
the vale of Llangollen. From Nantwich to Whitchurch the distance is 16
miles, and the rise 132 feet, involving nineteen locks; and thence to
Ellesmere, Chirk, Pont Cysylltan, and the river Dee, 1¾ mile above

Llangollen, the distance is 38¼ miles, and the rise 13 feet, involving only
two locks. The latter part of the undertaking presented the greatest
difficulties, as, in order to avoid the expense of constructing numerous
locks, which would involve serious delay and heavy expense in working the
navigation, it became necessary to contrive means for carrying the canal on
the same level from one side of the respective valleys of the Dee and the
Ceriog to the other, and hence the magnificent aqueducts of Chirk and Pont
Cysylltan, characterised by Phillips as “among the boldest efforts of human
invention in modern times.”
The Chirk Aqueduct carries the canal across the valley of the Ceriog,
between Chirk Castle and the village of that name. At this point the valley is
above 700 feet wide; the banks are steep, with a flat alluvial meadow
between them, through which the river flows. The country is finely wooded.
Chirk Castle stands on an eminence on its western side, with the Welsh
mountains and Glen Ceriog as a background; the whole composing a
landscape of great beauty, in the centre of which Telford’s aqueduct forms a
highly picturesque object.
The aqueduct consists of ten arches of 4 feet span each. The level of the
water in the canal is 65 feet above the meadow, and 70 feet above the level
of the river Ceriog.
The proportions of this work far exceeded anything of the kind that had
up to that time been attempted in England. It was a very costly structure;
but Telford, like Brindley, thought it better to incur a considerable capital
outlay in maintaining the uniform level of the canal than to raise and lower
it up and down the sides of the valley by locks at a heavy expense in works,
and a still greater cost in time and water. The aqueduct is an admirable
specimen of the finest class of masonry, and Telford showed himself a
master of his profession by the manner in which he carried out the whole
details of the undertaking. The piers were carried up solid to a certain
height, above which they were built hollow with cross walls. The spandrels
also, above the springing of the arches, were constructed with longitudinal
walls, and left hollow. The first stone was laid on the 17th of June, 1796,
and the work was completed in the year 1801.

Aire and Calder Canal.

The Aire and Calder Canal, in Yorkshire, which is connected with the
Leeds and Liverpool Canal at Leeds Bridge, and thence communicates with
the Mersey at Liverpool, was originally constructed with locks 60 feet long
by 15 feet wide, and with a depth of 3 feet 6 inches. It has been
subsequently twice reconstructed in all its main features. In 1820, the
diversion between Knottingley and Goole was constructed, with locks 72
feet long, 18 feet wide, and with 7 feet depth of water; but this being found
inefficient, the whole of the works between Goole and Leeds, on the Aire
branch of the navigation, and Wakefield on the Calder, have been again
reconstructed, with locks of 215 feet long, 22 feet wide, and 9 feet on the
sills. In addition to this, the undertakers have purchased and improved the
Barnsley Canal, and also, to some extent, as lessees, they have extended
their improvements to the Calder and Hebble Navigation. From time to
time, the port of Goole, which forms a part of the Aire and Calder
Navigation, has been improved, and its capacity enlarged, new docks and
entrance-locks have been built, and the channel has been generally
improved.
The accompanying diagrams show the lines of canal communication
between the Severn at Bristol and the Thames, and between the ports of
Liverpool, Goole, and Hull. They give the length and profile of each canal,
and require but little explanation.
The Aire and Calder Canal has been in many respects one of the most
remarkable in England. Its original capital was 150,000l., but it is now
stated to amount to 1,697,000l. The difference has mainly resulted from
accumulations of profit. After deducting the cost of maintenance, the sum
available for distribution in 1888 was 85,000l. The gross yearly income is
now as large as the original capital.

Midland Canals.

A glance at the canal map of England and Wales (p. 57) will show that
in the Midlands there are many existing canals, some of which are still
utilised to a large extent. The more important of these are the Worcester and
Birmingham, the Birmingham, and the Dudley Canals. The first of these
was constructed under an Act obtained in 1791, which authorised the
raising of a capital of 180,000l. for the purpose. The length of the canal is

29 miles, and it has 6 feet depth of water and 42 feet of top width. The canal
is exceptional in passing through no less than five tunnels in its course—the
first at West Heath, the second at Tardebigg, the third at Shortwood, the
fourth at Oddingley, and the fifth at Edgbaston. There is also a fall of 428
feet in 15 miles by 71 locks, which are 15 feet wide and 18 feet long, to the
level of the Severn. Priestley wrote of the canal that it was “the channel for
supplying Worcester and the borders of the Severn down to Tewkesbury and
Gloucester with coal, and, in return, conveys the hops and cider of that part
of the country northwards, and more particularly affords a ready means for
the export of the Birmingham manufactures, through the port of Bristol, to
any part of the world.”

SECTION OF THE LINE OF NAVIGATION FROM THE RIVER
SEVERN AT BRISTOL BY WAY OF DEVIZES TO
THE RIVER THAMES AT LONDON BRIDGE.

SECTION OF THE INLAND NAVIGATION BETWEEN
THE PORTS OF LIVERPOOL, GOOLE, AND HULL.

The general direction of the Dudley Canal is nearly north-west by a
crooked course of 30 miles in Worcestershire, a detached part of Shropshire,
and Staffordshire; it is situate very high; its two ends are on the eastern side
of the grand ridge, while its middle, by means of two very long tunnels, is
on the western side of the same. The communication of this canal with the
Stourbridge Canal, by the Black Delph branch, and the terminating canals,
occasions a considerable carrying trade thereon. This canal commences in
the Worcester and Birmingham Canal at Selly Oak, and terminates in the
old Birmingham at Tipton Green. From near Dudley there is a branch of
two miles to the Stourbridge Canal at Black Delph in Kingswinford; there is
another branch of 1¼ mile to near Dudley town, and a branch from this last
of three-quarters of a mile to the Dudley collieries. From the Worcester and
Birmingham Canal to the Black Delph branch 10½ miles are level, thence
to near the entrance of the Dudley Tunnel, about three-quarters of a mile,
there is a rise of 31 feet by five locks, thence through the tunnel it is level,
and thence again in the last one-eighth of a mile a fall of 13 feet is
overcome by two locks to the old Birmingham Canal. The Black Delph
branch has a fall of 85 feet by nine locks to the Stourbridge Canal; the
Dudley branch has a rise of 64 feet in the first three-quarters of a mile, the
remainder being level. The depth of water in this canal is 5 to 6 feet; the
width of the locks on the Black Delph branch is 7 feet. To near Lapal, or
Laplat, the canal passes through a tunnel 3776 yards long; at Gorsty Hill it
passes through another of 623 yards, under a collateral branch of the Grand
Ridge; and at Dudley there is another tunnel of 2926 yards in length, near
the summit-level of the canal. The arch of this last tunnel has a height of
13½ feet. At Cradley Pool a large reservoir exists for supplying the lockage
of the Black Delph branch. It is provided, that level cuts may be made from
this canal towards any coal-mine to the extent of 2000 yards. A stop-lock is
erected at the junction with the Worcester and Birmingham Canal, by which
either company has a power of preventing the other from drawing off their
head of water. The Black Delph branch was first executed, and this was
then united with the Dudley part of the canal, which had been constructed
by Lord Dudley and Ward; these were completed and in use before the
extension or main length to Selly Oak was designed. The company was
authorised to raise a capital of 229,100l., the amount of the shares being
originally 100l. each. Owing to the different Acts under which the parts of

the canal were progressively undertaken, the rates of tonnage differ
considerably.

Canals in Wales.

The principal artificial waterways in Wales are the Swansea Canal,
about 19 miles in length, which was opened in 1798, and which connects
the harbour of Swansea with the various copper and other works between
that point and Pen Tawe; the Neath Canal, which is about 14 miles in
length, and which, commencing near Abernant, and terminating at Neath
river harbour, with a branch to a short canal called the Briton Canal, near
Giant’s Grave, Pill; the Aberdare Canal, which, about 6½ miles in length,
connects the Glamorganshire Canal with Aberdare, and runs through a
district of great mineral and manufacturing resources; and the
Glamorganshire Canal, which in a total length of 25 miles has a rise of
about 611 feet, and which, commencing on the east side of the Taff river,
and near its entrance into Penarth harbour, terminates in the town of
Merthyr Tydfil. The canal was opened between Merthyr and Cardiff in
1794, and at the end of the canal, which terminates in the Taff river, there is
a sea-lock, with a floating dock, capable of admitting vessels of
considerable tonnage.
In May 1885 the Glamorganshire and Aberdare Canals, in South Wales,
were transferred to the Bute Dock Company, who formally commenced
working them in September 1887. The old system of conducting the traffic
on these canals was to charge toll rates, but the Marquis of Bute has
adopted the system of charging through rates from any place on the Bristol
Channel to Cardiff.
There are many continuous lines of water communication between
different commercial points of importance in England, as, for example,
between London and Liverpool, Liverpool and Hull, Birmingham and
London, Leeds and Liverpool, &c.; but it often happens upon such through
routes that there are great differences in the sizes of the locks, which are
shorter or narrower at one point than at another. Thus, for example, between
the Derbyshire district and London, the canal communication is in the
hands of seven different companies, with four different gauges at least, the
effect of which is to limit the carrying capacity of the boats to the very low

maximum of 24 tons. A considerable number of canal boats continue to
navigate these through routes in spite of all these drawbacks, but they have
very little encouragement to do so, inasmuch as the different canal
companies impose different rates of toll, the aggregate of which comes to
almost, if not quite, as much as would be paid to the railway companies for
the service. It is hopeless to expect to see this condition of affairs quite
remedied until all these through routes pass into the hands of the same
companies. It has been computed by capable engineers that an average
expenditure of 10,000l. or 12,000l. would enable the canal system of
England to become efficient, and it is probable that before long this
expenditure will be found worth while.
According to the most recent returns available, the canal mileage owned
by the principal railway companies in England and Wales, and the number
of employés thereon, were as under:—

Miles of No. of Employés
Canal Owned. thereon.
Great Western 258 270
London and North-Western 488 214
Midland 50 ···
Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire 180½ 538
North Staffordshire 121 263
Caledonian 60 340

The total number of employés on the canals of England and Wales in
1884 was 1479 for 1333 miles owned, being an average of little more than
one employé to the mile. On the railways of England and Wales for the
same year the number of employés was 310,568 for 18,000 miles worked,
being an average of 17·2 employés per mile. As, however, there are no
returns of canal traffic available, we cannot say how the two sets of figures
compare in the matter of results.
While several new canal projects are in process of incubation the
existing canal property of the United Kingdom, which has cost not less than

sixty millions sterling, has been allowed to go to rack and ruin by reason of
defects and neglect that are quite inexcusable, and which seriously
prejudice not only the canals themselves, but the trade and commerce of the
country as a whole.
The unsatisfactory condition of the waterways of the United Kingdom is
sufficiently proved by a few returns that were presented to the Select
Committee on canals[50] (1883). At that date there were fifty-seven canals in
England and Wales belonging to independent companies, twenty-seven
canals and navigations under public trusts, forty-five owned or controlled
by railway companies, and fourteen that were either derelict, or had been
converted into railways.
Of the canals under the control of independent companies, a
considerable number were in anything but a flourishing condition, and most
of them, apparently, because they entirely failed to meet the requirements of
commerce.
So far as mere mileage is concerned, the waterways of England,
including canals and canalised rivers, are really of very considerable, if not
sufficient extent, as the following figures show:—
Miles.
Owned by public trusts 927¼
Independent canals 1445¼
Guaranteed and owned by railways 1333
Derelict 118½
Ownership not known 36¾

Besides these, there have been about 120 miles of canals converted into
railways. But these canals are of very limited use, because of the haphazard
and unsystematic way in which they have been laid out. Scarcely any two
canals have a common gauge, and upon the same canal several gauges of
locks may often be found.
The four great industrial rivers of England, and the four most important
maritime outlets, are connected with each other by 650 miles of inland
waterway. The Thames and the Humber, the Severn and the Mersey, and the
Severn, Mersey and the Humber, ought to be placed in communication with

each other by as perfect a system of waterways as it is possible to provide.
But this desirable end has been frustrated by railway action. In the first
group, 175 miles of canal have been acquired by railway companies; in the
second group, 490 miles; and in the third group, 360 miles. It has been
computed that the average cost of the canals in the first group was 5000l.,
and in the second group 9000l. per mile. The railways that connect the same
four maritime points have a total mileage of about 9500 miles, and an
aggregate capital of about 360 millions.
The history of British canals, with all the most interesting information
bearing upon their extent, capacity, and traffic, has been written by Priestley
in a work that is to this day the standard authority on the subject. The same
subject has been dealt with very extensively in Rees’s ‘Cyclopædia,’ under
the heading of “Canals.” With these sources of information open to all the
world, it would be quite supererogatory to go into much detail relative to
these waterways of Great Britain, except in so far as they are of cardinal
importance, or are likely to exercise an influence in the future development
of canal navigations. It will be understood, therefore, that in these notes no
attempt is made to afford minute details of the different canals dealt with;
while many of the canals that have either been abandoned, or have become
the property of railway companies, or have otherwise ceased to be of public
importance, have been entirely disregarded.
It is an axiom in water transport that the larger the vessel employed,
within certain limits, the more inexpensive is the cost of the service
performed. It has been calculated[51] that at the present time, the cost of
transporting fifty tons of material between London and Liverpool, a
distance of 180 miles, is 25l., or 10s. per ton exclusive of tolls. But then the
boats employed are only 25-ton craft, which take eight days on the journey,
with one day to load, and one day to unload, making, with two spare days,
twelve days in all. If, however, large craft were substituted, capable of
carrying 120 tons each, and towed by a steam barge carrying 90 tons—
making a total load of 450 tons—the cost would be reduced to about 2s.
6⅕d. per ton, or about one-fourth of the existing cost, and the time occupied
by the journey would be lessened by two days. In both cases profit is
included, at the rate of 25 per cent.

In order, however, to have this substitution generally effected, a large
number of the existing canals would require to be deepened and widened.
The size of the craft suggested for the more economical trip would be 84
feet by 12 feet by 6 feet 3 inches draft. A smaller vessel would not answer
the purpose. Now, there are comparatively few canals that would at the
present time admit of the passage of such craft, and in some cases
waterways that are nominally adapted for even larger boats, are in such an
imperfect condition of repair that they are not suited for use. The canals of
the independent companies that profess to be adapted for vessels of this
size, and the size of craft which they severally admit, are—

Length of
Canal. Size of Craft.
Navigation.
miles. ft. in. ft. in.
Aire and Calder 80 212 0 by 22 0
Bridgwater 97 84 0 ” 15 0
Bude[52] 35½ 104 0 ” 29 6
Gloucester 16 163 0 ” 29 6
Leicester and Northampton 24 88 0 ” 15 6
Louth 11¾ 87 6 ” 15 6
Medway Navigation 7¾ 86 0 ” 23 0
Regent’s and Hertford Union 10¼ 90 0 ” 15 0
Stort 13½ 100 0 ” 13 6
Thames and Medway 9 94 8 ” 22 8
Trent River 72 90 0 ” 15 0
Total[53] 306¾ —

Here then we have only 306¾ miles of canal suited to the passage of
craft 84 feet by 12 feet, including the river Trent, which, of itself,
contributes 72 miles to the total. In other words, only about twenty per cent.
of the total independent waterways of the country can admit craft that
would enable them to realise the full value of economical transport. Of the
remainder, a great part of the navigations vary from 60 to 75 feet in width,

so that presumably they could be adapted for the larger sizes of craft
without very material expense.

Map showing the Canals and Navigations in England and
Wales.

The canals and navigations managed by public trusts are in a decidedly
better position. Commencing with the noble Severn, which, for a great part
of its canalised course of forty-four miles, admits craft 270 feet by 35 feet,
there are the Thames (from London Bridge), the Lea, the Weaver, and the
Wye, which are suited to craft of considerable dimensions, but these for the
most part can hardly be described as canals proper.

The canals that have passed into the possession of the railway
companies are not, as a rule, so well adapted for navigation as those
controlled by independent companies. On the face of it, indeed, there is a
presumption that the railways could not have acquired the property if it had
been as it should have been. The only railway canals that are capable of
admitting craft exceeding 84 feet in length are the Kennet and Avon, 85
miles long; the Grantham Canal, 33½ miles long; and the Nottingham
Canal, 15 miles in length—about 133 miles in all. Out of a total of 1333
miles of the derelict and converted canals, only the Melton Mowbray, 14¾
miles in length, was adapted for the larger size of vessels.
The preceding map shows the canals in England and Wales that are in
the hands of independent owners or public trusts, and in the possession of
railway companies, respectively.
Under the circumstances stated, it is perfectly evident that the canals of
England and Wales have not had a fair chance. Out of a total of over 4000
miles of canal and river navigations, the proportion that is suited to craft of
200 tons burden is almost fractional. With such a size of vessel, cheap
transport is difficult.
Between London and Birmingham the following canals form a system
of communication:—

Length of
Canal. Size of Locks.
Navigation.
ft. ft. in.
miles.
ft. in.
Grand Junction, between Brentford
and Braunston 92 80 by 14 6 by 4 6
Oxford, between Braunston and
5½ no lock.
Napton
Warwick and Napton,
between those places 13½ 72 by 7 by 4 0
Warwick and Birmingham 21½ 72 by 7 by 4 0
132½
Paddington Arm of the Grand Junction 13½

Length of
Canal. Size of Locks.
Navigation.
146

The diagram on the next page shows the section of the line of canal
navigation between the Mersey and the Thames by way of Birmingham, the
total distance being 260 miles. It will be observed that the system is an
extensive one, embracing no fewer than twelve different waterways, the
more important of which are the Trent and Mersey, and the Grand Junction
canals.
SECTION OF THE LINE OF NAVIGATION FROM THE RIVER
MERSEY
AT LIVERPOOL BY WAY OF BIRMINGHAM TO THE RIVER
THAMES
AT LIMEHOUSE, LONDON.

The principal advantages afforded by canals are thus concisely stated by
General Rundall:—
1. They admit of any class of goods being carried in
the manner and at the speed which proves to be most
economical and suitable for it, without the slightest
interference with any other class.

2. The landing or shipment of cargo is not
necessarily confined to certain fixed stations, as is
obligatory on railways, but boats can stop at any point
on their journey to load and unload, and discharge their
cargoes direct over the ship’s side.
3. The dead weight to be moved in proportion to the
load is much less.
4. The capacity for traffic is practically unlimited,
provided the locks are properly designed.
5. There is no obligation to maintain enormous or
expensive plant or establishments, as all those can, and
would be, provided by separate agencies and distinct
capital. Thus a large outlay in first cost and subsequent
maintenance of rolling stock is avoided.
6. There is an almost total absence of risk, and the
reduction of damage to cargo in transit, and
consequently of insurance, to a minimum.
On the other hand, the defects, besides those of original construction, in
existing British canals, are:—
1. A total absence of unity of management. For
example, on one of the routes from London to Liverpool
there are seven different canals and navigations; on
another also there are nine, and on a third ten different
companies.
2. A want of uniformity of gauge in the locks, as well
as in the canals themselves.
3. With few exceptions they are not capable of being
worked by steam.
4. An unequal system of tolls.
5. The many links in the communications in the
hands of the railways paralyses any unity of action, and
renders any scheme of amalgamation between the
several lines impossible.

If a restoration, or an extension of its ancient water lines, is to be
undertaken in Great Britain, it is essential that it should be devised on the
most improved principles. The chief points requiring attention are the
dimensions to be given to the main lines, with the best relative proportion
of width to depth; uniformity of gauge in the locks or lifts, which should be
so designed as to ensure changes of level being overcome in the quickest
time; the remodelling of the cargo boats; the use of the electric light for
night navigation; a readjustment of the rates of toll; and suitable provision
for loading and discharging cargo.
The works of the canal and river engineer are of the most varied,
difficult, and onerous character. He has to deepen the beds of rivers, so as to
secure uniform depths and absolute immunity from dangers of projecting
rocks, reefs, or sandbanks. He has to divert the beds of torrential streams,
and construct new channels, as has been done with the Thames, the Danube,
the Tees, and many other rivers. He has to overcome the obstacles to
navigation presented by cataracts like Niagara, St. Anthony’s, and other
falls, by laying down a new waterway, where locks or lifts will overcome
the differences of level or gradient represented by the cataracts. He has to
feed artificial waterways in such a fashion that they are never short of
water. He has to carry canals under mountains by tunnels, and through
valleys by aqueducts. He has to raise the level of his waterways for
navigation or for irrigation by barrage works, like those that are now being
carried out on the Nile at Damietta and Rosetta. He has to overcome the
differences of level in inland seas, as has been done by the St. Mary’s Falls
and Welland Canals on the American continent. He has to join together seas
that have been sundered by Nature, as in the case of the Suez, Corinth,
Panama, Nicaragua, and other canals. He has to build training-walls, close
passes, direct and confine currents, throw dams across minor channels,
concentrate low-water flows, rectify shifting sandbars, equalise and
distribute water-power, cleave through mountains (as in the case of the
Culebra Col, on the line of the Panama Canal), raise rivers to the level of
lakes, and lower lakes to sea-level (as in the case of the proposed
Nicaraguan Canal), and to deal with many other phenomena that appear to
the ordinary mind to be so many impossibilities. The engineering history of
some rivers is an epitome of engineering achievements. The case of the
Mississippi river, in the United States, is a notable case in point. That
splendid highway, with its navigation of some 15,000 miles, and its infinite

number of tributaries, each of them a noble river in itself, has been
regulated, canalised, and otherwise improved at a hundred different points
along its course, with results that are notable in the annals of engineering
precedents. Most of our rivers, lakes, and canals have gone through the
same process. It has been the work of the engineer, and that alone, which
has conferred upon them the advantages possessed by our great maritime
highways at the present day. The extent of that work, and the means
whereby it has been accomplished, are the noblest memorial of nineteenth
century science.
One of the most important applications of canal navigation has been in
enabling the navigation of important rivers to be continued, where Nature
had interposed a barrier in the form of impassable cataracts or otherwise.
Examples of this sort are the Welland Canal between Lake Erie and Ontario,
which provides a navigation parallel to the Niagara river, rendered
impassable by the Falls of that name; the Des Moines Canal, which
overcomes the barrier interposed by the Des Moines Rapids, on the
Mississippi; the canal that overcomes, in the same way, the difference of
level in the Mississippi caused by the St. Anthony’s Falls[54] near
Minneapolis; and the Gotha Canal, which overcomes the difficulties of
Trolhätta Falls on the Gotha river in Sweden.
These achievements and responsibilities have not been carried so far in
Great Britain as in some other countries. The existing canal system of that
country is more primitive than that of any other leading European State, and
it is very much more imperfectly developed than those of Canada and the
United States. The Manchester Canal project, described at a later stage of
this work, will do something to wipe away this reproach.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER III
[40] ‘Journal of the Society of Arts,’ 1888.
[41] ‘Lives of the Engineers.’
[42] An excellent summary of these and other matters connected with the early
history of this enterprise is given in a little work published in 1766, entitled “The
History of Inland Navigation.”
[43] ‘History of Inland Navigations.’

[44] This refers to the South Staffordshire mine, which is hardly worked now.
The iron trade of that period was chiefly carried on in Staffordshire, and nothing
except a little charcoal iron was made in the Cumberland district, where the
annual production, including Furness, is now over a million and a half tons per
annum.
[45] It was thought a great thing that over five million quarters of corn were
exported from Great Britain in the five years ending 1750.
[46] ‘The History of Inland Navigations,’ &c., London, 1769.
[47] Ibid., p. 58.
[48] In the same district over a million tons are now annually sent down the river
Weaver.
[49] A detailed description of this Navigation is given in Priestley’s ‘Historical
Account of the Navigable Rivers, Canals, and Railways of Great Britain,’ p. 385.
[50] Appendix to Report, p. 206.
[51] Report of Canal Committee of 1882, Appendix No. 9, p. 230.
[52] This, however, is not a canal of uniform size, and part of it will only admit
vessels 63 ft. by 14 ft. 7 in.
[53] This total does not include the Thames and Severn, the Wey, and the
Wisbech canals, because each of these has two dimensions, the smaller of which
is too limited to admit the passage of large craft, and they are therefore unsuited,
without trans-shipment of traffic, for the purpose in view.
[54] At these falls 790,000 cubic feet of water drops from a height of 75 feet
every minute, giving some 112,000 horse-power, which is utilised in
manufactures of different kinds.

CHAPTER IV.
THE WATERWAYS OF SCOTLAND.

“Former things
Are set aside, like abdicated kings.”
—Ovid.

Scotland has a number of rivers of the first importance, especially the
Clyde, the Tay, the Dee, and the Tweed. It has a large number of smaller
streams, most of them, however, having too tortuous a course, too
impetuous a flow, or too shallow a bed, to be used to any extent for
purposes of navigation. This remark does not, of course, apply to the
numerous lakes or lochs of Scotland, but these are, for the most part, either
situated in inaccessible regions, or in localities where there is not trade
enough to provide any considerable amount of traffic.
The Clyde is pre-eminently distinguished for the extent of its traffic, and
for the improvements that have made it what it is.
Camden does not say much as to the condition of the Clyde in his time,
and he is almost equally reticent about Glasgow. “The river Glotta or
Clwyd,” he says, “runneth from Hamilton, by Bothwell ... and so straight
forward, with a readie stream, through Glasgow, in ancient times past a
Bishop’s seat ... now the most famous town of merchandise in this tract.” In
Camden’s time the other qualifications of Glasgow appear to have been that
it had “a pleasant site, and apple trees, and other like fruit trees, much
commended, having also a very fine bridge supported with eight arches.”
It is upwards of 300 years since the Magistrates and Town Council of
Glasgow made the first attempts to improve the Clyde, then a shallow,
brawling stream, which could easily be crossed on foot even opposite
Glasgow, and was only suitable for the navigation of herring boats, and
similarly small craft. In 1768 an engineer, named Golborne, contracted the
river by the construction of rubble jetties, and the removal of sand and
gravel shoal by dredging, &c.

From 1781 till 1836, the works carried on for the further improvement
of the river under the direction, consecutively, of Golborne, Rennie, and
Telford, consisted chiefly in the shortening of some, and the lengthening of
other of Golborne’s jetties, the construction of additional jetties, the
connecting of the outer ends of these jetties by half-tide training walls on
both sides of the river, so as to confine the water and increase the ebb scour,
and the removal of hard shoals by dredging.
It was not till 1836 that the river from Glasgow to Port Glasgow was
treated as a whole, and a true appreciation shown of its future by the Clyde
Trustees’ then Engineer Logan, in the laying down of river lines, which,
with some slight modifications and expansions, have up till now formed the
limits of the river’s improvements.
Parliamentary plans on these lines approved of by James Walker,
Consulting Engineer to the Trustees, were submitted to and sanctioned by
Parliament in 1840; but so inadequate was the appreciation of the depth
required, that 20 ft. at high water neap tides was recommended by Logan as
the extreme depth of the river and harbour, and a clause in the Act
empowering the deepening to proceed until every part thereof shall have
attained at least a depth of 17 ft. at high water neap tides.
The depth in the harbour of Glasgow at the present time is from 25 ft. to
29 ft, and in the river from 27 ft. to 29 ft. at high water neaps, high water
springs being about 2 ft. higher. The average tidal range of spring tides at
Glasgow is 11 ft. 2 in., and at Port Glasgow 10 ft.; and of neaps at Glasgow
9 ft. 2 in., and at Port Glasgow 8 ft. 3 in.
While jetties and training walls, or parallel dykes, performed a useful
part in the early improvement of the river, it is to persistent dredging that
the enormous increase in the magnitude of the river since 1840 is due.
The early dredging was performed by large rakes, or porcupine ploughs,
as they were called, because they were provided with strong iron teeth,
wrought by hand capstans, which drew the material from the bed of the
river on to the banks.
Hand-wrought, and subsequently horse-wrought, dredges, with small
buckets on a ladder, succeeded the plough, and in 1824 the first steam

dredger was started on the river. It dredged, however, only to 10 ft 6 in.
Now several of the dredges employed can work in 35 ft. depth of water.
Mr. Deas, the engineer to the Clyde Trust, has stated[55] that it is due to
the application of steam power to dredges, and the subsequent adoption of
steam hopper barges for carrying the dredged material to the sea, that the
rapid enlargement not only of the Clyde and the Harbour of Glasgow, but of
the Tyne, the Tees, and several other similar rivers in recent years are due.
But for the introduction of the latter, it would have been physically,
financially, and otherwise impossible to have disposed, within so limited a
time, of the enormous quantities of material which have been dredged from
these various rivers and harbours.
Up till 1862, all the material dredged from the river Clyde and harbour
of Glasgow was loaded on punts holding eight cubic yards, and deposited
on the alveus or foreshores, or the low-lying land adjoining the river. Many
acres were thus reclaimed, to the great gain of the riparian proprietors, to
whom the Trustees required to hand over the ground free of cost. The
adoption of steam hopper barges, holding from 240 to 320 cubic yards each,
removed these obstacles, and enabled the deepening, widening, and
straightening of the river and harbour to be proceeded with more rapidly,
without seriously obstructing the navigation with steam tugs and trains of
punts. The result has been that while in 1861 the total quantity dredged and
deposited on land was 593,176 cubic yards, the total quantity dredged in
1887 was 1,319,344 cubic yards, only 64,000 cubic yards of which was
deposited on land. The total quantity dredged during the forty-two years
ending 1888 amounted to 32,027,834 cubic yards, the quantity in the first
twenty-one years being 9,091,544 cubic yards, and in the last twenty-one
years, 22,936,290 cubic yards.
In 1755, the Clyde at Glasgow was only 15 in. deep at low water, and 3
ft 8 in. at high water, while the depth at Marlinford, three miles below the
harbour, was 18 in., and at Erskine, or Kilpatrick Sands, about eight miles
below, and at Dumbuck Ford, ten miles below, only 2 ft. at low water. In
1781, the depth at Dumbuck Ford was 14 ft. at low water; it is now 20 ft. In
1806, Telford reports that on February 14th of that year the Harmony, of
Liverpool, came up with ordinary spring tide, drawing 8 ft. 6 in. of water;
but up till 1812, the river from the harbour downwards to Bowling was so
shallow, that the Comet required to leave Glasgow and Greenock,

respectively, at or near high water to prevent it grounding in the river. Now,
vessels drawing 23 and 24 ft. of water pass up the river almost daily. The
Clyde Trust, who are charged with the control of the river, had expended
thereon, up to the middle of 1887, upwards of eleven and a half millions
sterling, and had, besides, contracted a debt of over four and a half millions.
The accompanying diagram will show the depths of the channel in Glasgow
harbour at different dates, but the whole of the river has been dredged
constantly from that city down to Port Glasgow, a distance of nearly twenty
miles, and the bed of the river between these points is now virtually level
throughout.

Depth of the Clyde at Different Periods.

The shipping industry has, in consequence, enormously increased. In
1888, 8428 vessels, of 1,891,000 tons, entered, and 8053 vessels, of

1,444,000 tons, cleared from Glasgow in the coasting trade; while the total
number of all vessels that entered in the same year was 8217, with
2,416,000 tons register, the clearances being 8738 vessels, with 2,787,000
tons.

The Forth and Clyde Canal.

This, the most important Canal in Scotland, commences in
Grangemouth harbour, in the small river Carron, about two miles, by the
low-water channel, above its mouth in the estuary of the Forth. The general
direction of the canal is that of west by south. It at first runs a considerable
way on one level along the south side of the Carron, with which it again
communicates by a cut from it at Bainsford, to that river at the Carron Iron
Works.

Section of the Forth and Clyde Canal.

The main line then passes to the north-west of Falkirk, and thence to
Bonny Bridge, proceeding by the south side of Kilsyth, and along the south
bank of the river Kelvin, and over the Logie Water by a stone aqueduct at
Kirkintilloch. It then reaches Hamilton Hill about two miles from the north-
west quarter of the city of Glasgow, to which there is a branch of two miles,
and three quarters, communicating with a branch from the Monkland Canal
at Port-Dundas Basin. The main line now proceeds Westerly, crossing the
Kelvin by an aqueduct, and then runs along the side of the Clyde, till it at
length locks down to that river at Bowling Bay. The main line is 35 miles

long, 56 feet wide at top, 27 feet at bottom, and 10 feet deep. In 10¾ miles
from Grangemouth to the summit, it rises 156 feet by 20 locks. The
summit-level continues about 16 miles, and from it to the Clyde there is a
descent of 156 feet by 19 locks. Each lock is 74 feet long by 20 feet wide.
At lock No. 16 from Grangemouth, this canal connects with the
Edinburgh, and Glasgow Union Canal.
Instead of having the eastern extremity of this canal in the Carron, it
was originally intended to have had it considerably farther east, or lower
down the Forth, in the deeper water at Borrowstounness. This would have
been an improvement, but probably one not so easily executed. The work
was once really begun, and afterwards abandoned, chiefly, it is presumed,
from the difficulty of passing over the river Avon, without raising the canal
a good deal for several miles along the low carse lands. The remains of a
bungled aqueduct bridge for this purpose were lately to be seen on the
banks of that river.
The present canal joining the Forth and the Clyde was begun in 1768,
but it was suspended in 1777, and not resumed until after the close of the
American war. It was completed in 1790. It was built on a larger scale than
any of the English Canals up to that time. Originally the canal was about 8
ft. 6 in. deep, but its banks were afterwards raised, and the depth of water
was increased to 10 feet. In completing this canal many serious difficulties
were encountered. These, however, were successfully overcome; and
though unprofitable for a while, it afterwards, for many years, yielded a
handsome return to its proprietors, the dividend having been at one time
about 28 per cent. on the original stock. Swift boats were established on this
canal in 1832, and the waterway is historically interesting as having been
the scene of some of the earliest experiments in steam propulsion.
Reference has been made elsewhere to the proposals now under
consideration with a view to the construction of another canal from the
Forth to the Clyde. Should these proposals be carried out, the future of the
existing Forth and Clyde Canal could hardly fail to be overcast, but as the
canal is now virtually the property of the Caledonian Railway Company,
that would not probably be greatly felt.

The Union and Monkland Canals.

There are two canals that are in the same locality as the Forth and
Clyde, already alluded to, but of greatly subordinate importance. The
Monkland serves the important iron and coal mining and manufacturing
districts in the West, of which Airdrie and Coatbridge are the principal
centres, and gives access therefrom to the Clyde. The Union Canal is really
a feeder to, and branch of, the Forth and Clyde Canal, some distance further
east.
The Union Canal joins the Forth and Clyde Canal near Falkirk, and
stretches thence to Edinburgh, being 31½ miles in length. It is 40 feet wide
at the top, 20 at the bottom, and 5 deep, It was completed in 1822, but has
been, in all respects, a most unprofitable undertaking. For many years the
proprietors have not received any dividend, and their prospects, we
understand, are not improving.
A canal intended to form a communication between Glasgow, Paisley,
and Ardrossan was commenced in 1807, but only that portion connecting
Glasgow with Paisley and the village of Johnston has hitherto been
finished. This part is about 12½ miles long, the canal being 30 feet broad at
top, 18 at bottom, and 4½ deep. It was here that the important experiments
were originally made on quick travelling by canals, which demonstrated
that it was practicable to impel a properly constructed boat, carrying
passengers and goods, along a canal at the rate of 9 or 10 miles an hour,
without injury to the banks.

The Caledonian Canal.

A valley remarkable for its uniformity, straightness, and depth, and
extending from sea to sea, between two parallel ranges of steep mountains,
divides the Highlands of Scotland into two nearly equal parts. The general
direction of this chasm is from north-east to south-west, making an angle of
about 35 degrees with the meridian; and, besides being entered at each
extremity by an arm of the sea, viz., by the Moray Firth on the north, and
Loch Linnhe on the south, the rest of its bottom is for the most part
occupied by a series of rivers and lakes. The remarkably elongated form
and contiguity of these lakes had long ago suggested the facility of forming
an inland communication between the Atlantic Ocean and the German Sea.
In order to accomplish this important object, it seemed sufficient to connect

these lakes and the firths by several short canals amounting together to 23
miles, and thereby obtain a navigable line to an extent of more than 100
miles; and this was farther recommended by the summit-level only rising
94½ feet above the sea.
So far back as the year 1773, this line had been surveyed by James Watt,
who reported favourably of it, and proposed that the lakes should be
connected by a canal of a very moderate size. Nothing further, however,
was done till early in the present century, when the subject was taken up by
Government, and new surveys were made by Messrs. Jessop and Telford,
who recommended a canal of such dimensions as should admit frigates of
thirty-two guns, and the greater part of merchant ships, particularly that
class which trade between the Baltic and the ports of Ireland and the west
coast of Britain; thus avoiding, it was hoped, a tedious, and often dangerous
navigation by the Orkneys. The dimensions proposed by Telford, and
mainly adhered to, were a width of 50 feet at bottom, 120 feet at top, and 20
feet deep; the locks from 170 to 180 feet long, and 40 wide, with a depth of
20 feet of water besides the lift, or rise. The canal has, however, only been
excavated to the depth of 15 feet in the summit-level, though the width has
been increased to 122 feet at the top, with such a break in the slope that
there is on each side a horizontal shelf 6 feet broad at the depth of 2 feet
under the surface of the water. The design in this break in the slope of the
sides is to keep large vessels from approaching too close to the edge of the
canal, and destroying the upper part of the banks, either by contact or by the
eddy produced between the vessel and the sides of the canal. On the north,
the Caledonian Canal commences with a sea lock at Clach-na-Carry, in a
sheltered bay of Loch Beauly, which is the more inland part of the Moray
Firth. The sea-lock here is about two miles north-west of Inverness, and
three-quarters of a mile west of the Ferry of Kessock, which is near the
mouth of the river Ness. In order to have sufficient depth of water at
ordinary neap-tides, it was necessary, on account of the flatness of the
shore, to place this lock 400 yards within sea-water mark, an operation
attended with difficulty on account of the softness of the bottom. This lock
is 170 feet long, 40 wide, with a lift of 8½ feet; and proceeding from it, the
canal is formed by embankments till it passes the sea-mark, where another
lock of the same size, with a lift of 6 feet, is built on firm ground. On the
south of this is the Muirton basin, 967 yards long and 162 yards broad, with
a wharf for the trade in that quarter, being about a mile from Inverness. At

the southern extremity of this basin is a swivel or swing bridge for the
public road between Beauly and Inverness; and then four locks, which,
however, from their being connected, have only five double gates in the
whole. These raise the canal 32 feet, which puts it on the ordinary summer
level of Loch Ness. Each lock is 180 feet between the gates, and 40 feet
wide. The canal thence proceeds until it meets, and runs along the north-
west bank of the river Ness to the small lake Doughfour, which is about
2100 yards long, and from 5 to 9 fathoms deep, and is 6½ miles from
Clach-na-Carry. It communicates with Loch Ness by the pass of Bona
Ferry. The intended line of canal being on the west side of the river Ness,
which in three different places approached close to the steep sides of the
hills on the west, it was necessary to alter the course of that river, so as to
obtain room for the canal without cutting into the hills. At the entrance to
Loch Doughfour is a regulating, or guard-lock, without any lift, to prevent
any overflow from the lake. It is 170 feet long, and 40 wide. It was
necessary to deepen this small lock in several places by dredging, and to
raise it 6 feet to the level of Loch Ness by a weir, and embankment. The
next part of this navigation, and by far the most extensive lake in it, is Loch
Ness, a fine sheet of water about 24 miles long, and from 1 to 1½ miles
broad. Its depth is so great that it never freezes, being from 5 to 129
fathoms, and along the middle it averages 100. It affords good anchorage at
each end, and also in a few bays, although the sides of this lake are
generally straight. It was proposed to introduce buoys for more convenient
moorings. There are nowhere in it either rocks or banks detached from the
shore.
Loch Ness receives the river Oich in its western shore not far from its
southern extremity, and a little south of this the canal leaves the lake, whilst
almost quite at the southern end stand the fort and village of Fort Augustus.
From this the canal ascends 40 feet by five locks, and at Callachie, about
2½ miles further on, it rises 8 feet by another lock. Three miles more bring
it to Loch Oich, where a regulating lock raises it 30 inches, so as to be even
with that lake, which is on the summit level.
To obtain a proper line for the canal upon the south-east side of the river
Oich, the channel of that river has been somewhat altered. Loch Oich,
which forms the summit-level of this navigation, is about 3¾ miles long,
and on an average a quarter of a mile broad. In one place in the middle, and

at both ends, it had to be deepened by dredging. The water which falls into
this lake, particularly from the river Garry, affords at all times an ample
supply for the canal. Between Loch Oich and the next lake in the line, Loch
Lochy, there is no natural communication. The interval is about 1¾ miles,
and rises 20 feet above the Loch Oich, which, with the depth of the canal,
required a cutting of 35 feet. Loch Lochy, which was 21 feet 9 inches lower
than Loch Oich, has been raised about 12 feet by an embankment to avoid
rock-cutting, and the canal descends to it 9 feet 9 inches by two locks, one
of which is also a regulating, or guard lock. Loch Lochy is 10 miles long,
and averages one in breadth. In some places it is 76 fathoms in depth. About
half a mile of the course of the river Lochy had to be shifted into a new bed
to make room for the canal, which, now in its last stage, proceeds from the
lake for 8 miles along the north-west bank of that river over a rugged
surface to the shore of Loch Eil, which is the more inland part of the Firth,
called Loch Linnhe. A little south of Loch Lochy there is a regulating lock;
and about a mile from Loch Eil there are eight connected locks, called
Neptune’s Stairs, by which the canal descends 64 feet. At Corpach shore it
falls 15 feet by two locks, and, after expanding into a basin 250 yards long
and 100 broad, it finally descends 7 feet 9 inches by the sea-lock into Loch
Eil near Fort William.
The entire length of this navigation is 60½ miles, and that of the
artificial part, including Loch Doughfour, is 23 miles. There are in all
twenty-eight locks. This canal has, as yet, been a most unprofitable
speculation, not even paying the expense of its maintenance.
Before leaving the waterways of Scotland, it may be interesting to
remark that inland navigation occupied a good deal of attention from James
Watt,[56] although the great mechanician did not accomplish so much in this
direction as his contemporary, Brindley. Watt was employed in 1767 to
make a survey for a canal of junction between the rivers Forth and Clyde,
by what was called the Lomond passage, and attended Parliament on the
part of the subscribers, where the Bill was lost. An offer was then made to
him of undertaking the survey and estimate of an intended canal for the
Monkland Collieries to Glasgow, and these proving satisfactory the
superintendence of the execution was confided to him. This was quickly
followed by his being employed by the Trustees for Fisheries and
Manufactures in Scotland to make a survey for a canal from Perth to Forfar,

through Strathmore; and soon afterwards by the Commissioners of the
Annexed Estates, to furnish a report and estimate of the relative advantages
of opening a communication between the Forth of Clyde and the western
ocean, by means of a navigable canal across the isthmus of Crinan,[57] or
that of Tarbert. Business of this description crowded upon him; and surveys,
plans, and estimates, were successively undertaken by him for the
deepening of the river Clyde, the rendering navigable of the rivers Forth
and Devon, and the water of Leven; the making of a canal from
Machrihanish Bay to Campbeltown, and of another between the Grand
Canal and the Harbour of Borrowstounness. But the last and greatest work
of the kind upon which Watt was employed was the survey and estimate of
the line of the canal between Fort William and Inverness, since executed, as
we have seen, by Telford, upon a larger scale than was at that time
proposed.
Estuaries hardly come within the scope of the present work, otherwise
the Forth Bridge, recently opened by the Prince of Wales, would demand
and deserve an extended notice. That remarkable engineering achievement,
due to the genius of Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker, is likely for a
long time to remain a unique tour de force as a means of communication
between the opposite shores of an arm of the sea, and opens up a vista of
possibilities in regard to transport that were undreamt of until recently.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER IV
[55] Paper read in 1888 before the Institution of Naval Architects.
[56] James Watt was born at Greenock on the 19th January, 1736, and died at
Heathfield on the 25th August, 1819. His great invention was the steam engine;
but he was an almost universal genius, having been almost equally at home in
many branches of antiquity, metaphysics, medicine, and etymology, architecture,
music, and law, the modern languages, and German logic and poetry.
[57] This canal has since been carried out, and now forms an important link in
the chain of communication between the west of Scotland and Inverness, viâ the
“Royal,” or West Coast route.

CHAPTER V.
THE WATERWAYS OF IRELAND.

“Such was the Boyne, a poor inglorious stream,
That in Hibernian vales obscurely strayed,
And, unobserved, in wild meanders played.”
—Addison.

If there is one country more than another that ought to be possessed of
ample and complete water communication, that country is surely Ireland.
Surrounded on all sides by the sea, with a population greatly inured to the
conditions of living upon or by the water, it should have at once the
cheapest and the most comprehensive system of water transport in the
world. This, however, is far from being the case. Neither in point of rivers,
nor in point of canals, does Ireland compare favourably with Scotland, not
to speak of the much more abundant resources of England. The actual
waterways that are of real importance besides the Liffey, are the Earne and
Shannon rivers, and the Grand Canal. About these we shall say as much as
may be necessary to indicate their general characteristics.
It has been said that the unfortunate Earl of Strafford, from having seen
the utility of inland navigation in the Low Countries, first suggested the
improvement of river navigation in Ireland. In 1703 the first Act of
Parliament was passed for rendering the Shannon navigable, and many
improvements were projected. Nothing, however, was effected, although a
useless expenditure of 140,000l. was made on the Shannon and Boyne in
the year 1758. Various other large sums were afterwards granted, and
frittered away in partial improvements of the Shannon, Boyne, Barrow, and
Newry rivers, besides the Grand, Royal, Kildare, Naas, and Lough Earne
navigations.

The Shannon.

The Shannon river forms the most important feature in the inland
navigation of Ireland. For the first 144 miles of this waterway, from the

head of Lough Allen to the sea below Limerick, the Shannon is like a series
of rivers and lakes. Issuing from Lough Allen, it passes Leitrim, Carrick,
Tarmonbury, &c., and then enters, at Lanesborough, a very irregularly-
shaped and extensive sheet of water, called Lough Ree, about 17 miles in
length. Leaving it, the river, now greatly augmented, passes Athlone, and
then winds by Shannon Bridge and Banagher to Portumna, near which it
expands into Lough Derg, another narrow lake, 23 miles long, with deep
bays and inlets. From the southern extremity of this lake it flows on to
Limerick. In this extent of navigation we have first Lough Allen, 10 miles;
thence to Lough Ree, 43; Lough Ree itself, 17; thence to Lough Derg, 36;
Lough Derg, 23; thence to Limerick, 15; making together 144 miles. The
mean height of Lough Allen above the sea at Limerick is about 143½ feet,
being on an average about a foot of declivity per mile. Instead of the natural
fall, however, the water has been reduced by means of locks to a series of
level pools. The estuary or firth of the Shannon extends south-west about 70
miles beyond Limerick to its mouth, which is finally about 8 miles wide
between Loop Head and Kerry Head, at the Atlantic.
The direction of the Shannon from Lough Allen to Limerick, though
generally south by south-west, is very circuitous, and broken by many
streams, islands, and rocks. The soundings are as various, and both banks
are liable to be overflowed by the river to a great extent; and the large
expanse of the lakes would require a different sort of vessel from those
which navigate the river. The works which have been constructed to
overcome the natural difficulties of the navigation are either insufficient or
in a state of decay; and it seems to be generally admitted that very little real
good can be effected until the natural obstructions are removed, the number
of lakes reduced, and the channel deepened and improved in various parts;
though it is still doubted if the navigation would even then be suitable for
anything but steam-vessels. The Shannon connects with the Royal Canal at
Tarmonbury, and with the Grand Canal at Shannon harbour, near Banagher.
At Shannon Bridge it receives on the west its principal tributary, the Suck;
on the east, the Inny, the Upper and Lower Brosna, Mulkerna, Maig,
Fergus, &c.
The Shannon river connects the tide water of the Atlantic in Limerick
with Dublin by two canals, the Grand and the Royal. It passes by the towns
of Limerick, Killaloe, Portumna, Banagher, Shannon Bridge, Athlone,

Lanesboro’, Yarmon, Roosky, Drumsna, Carrick, Leitrim, and
Drumshambo.
The expenditure on the river up to 1878 was 800,738l. The average cost
of maintenance was 3300l., and the total receipts from tolls during the
previous five years was 9510l., being an average yearly receipt of 1902l.
This sum, deducted from the average expenditure of 3300l., left a net yearly
loss of 1398l. At this average rate for the previous thirty years the money
loss by the Shannon navigation amounts to 41,940l.
The depth of water for this navigation, over 7 feet to 10 feet, is
maintained by eight wholly immovable weir-mounds. These weir-mounds
cause inundations, damaging 24,000 acres of land. This damage during the
last thirty years amounts to more than 100,000l. In the section between
Limerick and Athlone, 68 miles, the average receipts of tolls for the five
years ending 1878 was 1274l. Out of that sum an engineer and eighteen
lock-keepers had to be paid 686l., together with repairs, which left from
300l. to 400l. a year profit.
In the section above Athlone, about 80 miles, the average receipt of tolls
in the same five years was 197l., against the annual expenses of repairs and
the salaries of an engineer and ten lock-keepers, amounting to 385l.
The interests of the Shannon drainage do not, in Mr. Lynam’s view,[58]
require to diminish the minimum depth of water under 5½ feet on the lock
sills. These interests require merely that the surface of the river and lakes
shall be kept within a range of 5½ feet to 8½ feet on the sills of all locks
from Athlone to Limerick. The bye-laws made by the Board of Works for
the Shannon limit the draught of boats to 4 feet 10½ inches. The river and
locks are maintained by the weir-mounds at levels that rarely are less than
7½ feet on the lock sills, and rise in floods to 9 feet.
The Earne and Shannon rivers have three features which render them, in
Mr. Lynam’s opinion, peculiarly easy to regulate their floods, and prevent
inundations. They have large superficial areas of lakes. Their channels
between the lakes are wide and deep, so capacious as to carry their floods
with an inclination of less than an inch a mile. Their floods rise slowly, 4
inches to 8 inches in twenty-four hours, very rarely rising 1 foot in twenty-
four hours. On the Shannon, all the mill-weirs and fish-weirs have been
purchased and removed, and all the shoals have been deepened at a cost of

529,716l. The lakes in the Lough Earne basin have an area of about 50,000
acres. The shoals and straits, which obstruct the river and cause the
inundations, have an aggregate length of merely 6 miles. Only one mill-
weir (which is the only fish-weir) exists, and it is at the outlet, where there
is a fall of 12 feet. The Shannon basin has lakes of the superficial area of
87,000 acres. In the length, from the Battle Bridge above Carrick-on-
Shannon to Killaloe Bridge, of 128 miles, the lakes occupy 50½ miles; the
broad, deep channel extends for 73½ miles; the confined portions of the
channel occupy merely 4 miles; the portions of the channel confined so as
to be visible obstructions are but 2 miles long. Neither mill-weir nor fish-
weir stands in the way of the current. The floods scarcely ever rise 1 foot in
twenty-four hours. The great floods are but 4 feet where deepest on the
lands, and generally but 2 feet deep, and merely 18 inches deep over large
areas. Many damaging floods are not more than 6 inches deep on the land.
From Lough Allen to the tide of the Atlantic Ocean at Limerick, a
length of 149 miles by the sinuosities of the river, the Shannon has been
made navigable for steamers with a depth of 6 feet of water. The river lies
naturally in eight separate levels, but the lowest, at Limerick, is very small,
and detached from the others by a length of 5 miles and a fall of 90 feet.
The upper level, at the outlet from Lough Allen, has a fall of 20 feet in 6
miles. The lowest level, between Castleconnell and Killaloe, contains only
641 acres of lowland, rarely flooded in summer or autumn, and rarely
covered by more than 1½ foot of water. To preserve the land from summer
and autumn floods the surface of the floods must be lowered 2 feet nearly.
A permanently solid embankment, used during many years for a navigation
horse tow-path, extends along one side of the river, the only openings being
four culverts for side drainage.
On the other side of the river there exists a natural ridge, which is a little
higher than the highest floods. It is not continuous, but interrupted in five
places. These circumstances are held by Mr. Lynam to “render it very easy
to protect the lowlands from all floods.” Very favourable sites exist for
back-drains to carry off rain-water and springs. The 641 acres of lowlands
may be thus protected from summer and autumn floods at a cost of 6000l.,
being 10l. per acre. This would allow of winter irrigation also, which the
occupiers of the lands particularly require. The system of river
embankments is much objected to as dangerous, and properly so, when it is

proposed to make high embankments. In this case the required
embankments are in existence for seven-eighths of the required length, so
permanently solid as to be absolutely safe, and the small portions to be built
need not be more than 3 feet to 5 feet high. The obstructions are a rock-
shoal near the middle of the length, an old bridge with narrow arches and
thick piers, and a shoal of solid limestone rock at the outlet.

Minor Irish Rivers.

The Barrow River has been rendered navigable from the tideway below
St. Mallins up to where it is joined by the Grand Canal at Athy Bridge, a
distance of 43 miles, falling 172 feet. But from Athy to the mouth of the
Barrow, in the estuary of Waterford Harbour, and through that to St.
George’s Channel, the distance exceeds 60 miles.
The Blackwater River, county Cork, is navigable from its mouth at
Youghall up as far as the tide reaches, or at most to Cappoquin.
There is another, and smaller Blackwater, connected with the Tyrone
Canal, and flowing into Lough Neagh.
The Boyne River is navigable from the Bay of Drogheda for 22 miles,
up to Trim, in the last 7 miles of which it ascends from Navan 189 feet by
means of locks, which are from 80 to 100 feet long and 15 feet wide.
The Corrib River and Lough, or Lake, form a navigable line,
commencing at the mouth of that river, in Galway Bay, and extending from
Galway town in a north-westerly direction for about 24 miles.
The Earne River and Lough, or Lake, are navigable through the lake
from the upper part, where the river enters it, below Belturbet, till it leaves
it again at Enniskillen, where it is obstructed by weirs; but below the isle on
which that town is built the river again expands into the lower part of the
lake, through which it is also navigable. Thus far the entire distance is about
30 miles, and the navigation is terminated by a fall, from which the river
has a rapid course of 9 miles to Donegal Bay.
It has been proposed to construct a canal from Lough Earne, beginning
near Belturbet, and to follow along the valleys of the Finn and Blackwater
to Lough Neagh.

The Fergus River, county Clare, is navigable from its mouth, in the
Shannon, up to Ennis, the county town.
The Foyle River is navigable for 10 miles from its mouth, in the estuary
of Lough Foyle, below Londonderry, up to Strabane.
The Lagan Navigation commences in the tideway at Belfast, and
proceeds mostly by the course of the rivers as far as Lisburn, from which it
is continued by a canal by Hillsborough and Moira to Lough Neagh. The
total length is 28 miles.
The Lee River is navigable in the tideway up to the city of Cork, and for
small craft somewhat farther. Below Cork, however, the navigation is
principally an arm of the sea called Cork Harbour.
The Liffey River is navigable from its mouth in Dublin Bay for about 3
miles up to Carlisle Bridge, at the farther end of the city of Dublin. From
the south side of this navigable part proceeds the Grand Canal, and from the
north side the Royal Canal, of which we shall presently speak.
The Limerick Navigation commences at that city, and proceeds in a
north-easterly direction, partly in the Shannon and partly by canals, for 15
miles, to Killaloe, at the south end of Lough Derg.
The Moig River, county Limerick, is navigable from its mouth in the
Shannon to near Adare.
The Moy River, county Mayo, is navigable for about 5 miles, from
Killala Bay up to Ballina.
The Neagh Lough, or Lake, being about 20 miles long and 10 broad, is
generally of sufficient depth to be navigable to a considerable extent in
every direction. It communicates with Belfast by the Lagan Navigation,
with the Tyrone Collieries by the Blackwater, with Antrim by the Antrim
river, and southward with the sea by the Newry Navigation.
The Newry Navigation commences in the tideway of Lough Fathom, 3
miles below Newry, which it passes, and proceeds 16 miles by a canal to
the Upper Bann River, in which it continues to Lough Neagh. The entire
length is about 30 miles, generally in a northerly direction. This, which has
always been a very imperfect navigation, was the first executed in Ireland.

The Slane, or Slaney River, is navigable from its mouth in Wexford
Haven, for 14 miles, to Enniscorthy.
The Suir, or Sure River, unites with the Barrow in the estuary called
Waterford Harbour, about 5 miles below the town, and is navigable from
that up to Carrick for sloops, and to Clonmel for barges. At the town of
Waterford the largest ships lie afloat in 40 feet water.
The Tyrone Colliery Canal commences at the south-west extremity of
Lough Neagh, proceeding by a short cut across the isthmus of Maghery to
the Blackwater River, and, following it a short way, passes by another cut of
3 miles to the Colliery Basin, from which a railway extends to the mines.

The Grand Canal.

The Grand Canal was begun in 1765 by a body of subscribers; but they
could not have completed the work without very large advances from
Government. The canal commences at Dublin and stretches in a westerly
direction, inclining a little to the south, to the Shannon, with which it unites
near Banagher, a distance of 85 statute miles, and thence on the west side of
the river to Ballinasloe, 4 miles distant. But, exclusive of the main trunk,
there is a branch to Athy, where it joins the Barrow, a distance of about 27
miles, and there are branches to Portarlington, Mount Mellich, and some
other places. There is also a westerly branch, more recently constructed,
from the Shannon to Ballinasloe, about 14 miles in length. The total length
of the canal, with its various branches, is about 164 English miles. Its
summit elevation is 230 feet above the level of the sea at Dublin. It is 40
feet wide at the surface, from 24 to 20 feet at the bottom, has 6 feet depth of
water, and cost, in all, about 2,000,000l. The tonnage on this canal for the
eight years ending with 1837 varied from 215,000 to 237,000 tons, while
the tolls varied from 33,000l. to 38,000l. The highest part of the canal rises
298 feet above sea level.
Two errors are said to have been committed in the formation of the
Grand Canal; it was framed on too large a scale for that time, and it was
carried too far north. Had it been 4 or 4½ feet, instead of 6 feet deep, its
utility would have been but little impaired, while its expense would have
been very materially diminished.

But the greatest error was in the direction of the canal. Instead of
joining the Shannon about 15 miles above Lough Derg, it should have
joined it below Limerick, and conversely would have avoided the difficult
and dangerous navigation of the upper Shannon. The canal would then have
passed through a comparatively fertile country, and it would not have been
necessary to carry it across the bog of Allen, in which, says Mr. Wakefield,
“the company have buried more money than would cut a spacious canal
from Dublin to Limerick.” The main line of the Grand Canal is 89 miles
long, but there are branches to Naas, Mount Mellick, Portarlington, and
other places. On the main line there are six locks, each 70 feet by 14½ feet.

The Royal Canal.

The Royal Canal was undertaken in 1789. It stretches westwards from
Dublin to the Shannon, which it joins near Tormanbury. Its entire length is
about 92 miles, exclusive of a branch of 5 miles, from Kilashee to
Longford; its highest elevation is 307 feet above the level of the sea. At the
bottom it is 24 feet wide, and it has 6 feet depth of water. It had cost,
exclusive of interest on stock, loans, &c., advanced by Government, in
February 1823, 1,421,954l. The tolls produced in 1826 25,148l., the
expenses of the canal for the same year being 11,912l., leaving only
13,236l. net. The canal has paid dividends over a number of years, although
not on a high scale.
This canal seems to have been wrongly planned, for throughout its
whole course it is nearly parallel to, and not very distant from, the Grand
Canal. There are consequently two large canals where there ought not to be
more than one. It is probable that one canal of comparatively small
dimensions would have been quite enough for all the business of the
district, though it were much greater than it is, or is likely to become.
Besides the above there are some other canals, as well as various river
excavations in Ireland, but hardly one of them yields a reasonable return for
the capital expended upon it. They have almost all been liberally assisted by
grants of public money, and their history, and that of the two canals now
adverted to, has been said to strikingly corroborate the caustic remark of
Arthur Young, that “a history of public works in Ireland would be a history
of jobs.”

FOOTNOTE
CHAPTER V
[58] ‘The Engineer,’ Oct. 11, 1878.

CHAPTER VI.
PROJECTED CANALS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

“Where of late the kids had cropt the grass,
The monsters of the deep now take their place.”
—Ovid.

Sketch of the Proposed National Canal.

One of the most notable features of the engineering and commercial
development of to-day is the movement, elsewhere alluded to, for making
ship canals with the view of converting inland towns into seaports. The
Manchester Ship Canal, now well advanced towards completion,
undoubtedly gave the first impulse and has since supplied the impetus to
this movement. Whether the movement will proceed much farther than
plans and prospectuses remains to be seen. But at the present moment the
principal proposals affecting the United Kingdom are—
1. The construction of a National canal, passing right
through from the Bristol Channel to the Humber on the
one side, and from the Thames to the Mersey on the
other.
2. The conversion of the existing waterways into a
ship canal, between Sheffield and Goole.
3. The construction of a ship canal between the Forth
and the Clyde.
4. The construction of a canal from the Irish Sea to
Birkenhead through Wallasey Pool and the Wirral
Peninsula.
5. The construction of a ship canal between the
Mersey and the city of Birmingham, connecting with the
Manchester Ship Canal and the Mersey, by way of the
Weaver Navigation.
6. A canal to connect the city and district of
Birmingham, with the river Trent, and thereby with the
North Sea.
7. An improved waterway between the Midlands and
the Thames.
8. The improvement of the Wiltshire and Berkshire
canal, so as to give better inland water transport between
Bristol and London.

The Forth and Clyde Canal.

The most probable, and at the same time one of the most important of
the foregoing proposals, is that designed to connect the Forth with the
Clyde, thereby enabling vessels of considerable tonnage to pass from the
one sea to the other, without passing round the further extremity of the
island. There is already a canal between the two seas, but this waterway is
too contracted to be of much use for vessels of any size, and it is not,
therefore, proposed to utilise the existing canal in the new scheme.
The greatest height of the present canal is 141 feet. It is crossed by
about 30 drawbridges, and passes over 10 considerable aqueducts, and 30
small ones, the largest being that over the Kelvin, at Maryhill, near
Glasgow. The canal is supplied with water from eight reservoirs, which
cover 721 acres. The original cost of the canal was about 300,000l., and 50
years after its opening the annual revenue amounted to about 100,000l., and
the expenditure to about 40,000l. In 1869, the canal passed into the
possession of the Caledonian Railway Company, when, with the adjoining
Monkland Canal, it was valued at 1,141,000l. The Caledonian Company
undertook to pay an annuity of 91,333l., being a guaranteed dividend of six
and a quarter per cent. It was, however, like many other similar
arrangements made by railway companies in Great Britain, a very bad
bargain for the new proprietors, since the profits from the working of the
canal are now much less than they were.
Messrs. Stevenson, of Edinburgh, who have been consulted as to the
most practicable route for the proposed canal, have recommended that the
canal proper should begin at Alloa on the Forth, where vessels would be
raised by a lock to the level of Loch Lomond, 13 feet above high water,
which would be the summit level of the canal. The canal would proceed
thence along the valley of the Forth to Loch Lomond, through that loch to
Tarbet, and would afterwards be carried along the narrow neck of land to
Loch Long, or, alternatively, across to the opposite shore of Loch Lomond,
near Arden, and thence into the Forth of Clyde, near Helensburgh. The
average depth of cutting is stated at 47 feet, but there would be a heavy
cutting, some three miles long and 203 feet deep on an average, which the
engineers propose to make a tunnel, with 150 feet of headway. The
estimated cost of the work is about 8,000,000l., or much the same as the
cost of the Manchester Ship Canal. The traffic is calculated at 9,516,000
tons, and it is estimated that at 1s. 6d. per ton, this traffic would yield a

gross annual income of 713,748l. which would be sufficient to yield 8 per
cent. after deducting working expenses, &c. It is proposed to make the
canal 30 feet deep, and 72 feet wide at the bottom.
And the route has been recommended for the proposed ship canal,
which is termed the direct route, and which is 27 miles shorter from
Greenock than the proposed Loch Lomond route viâ Tarbet. This route
would start from the Clyde at a point near to Whiteinch, join the line of the
present Forth and Clyde Canal near Maryhill, and thereafter proceed in the
same direction to the junction of the canal with the Firth of Forth. The
shorter route would, however, be the most difficult, inasmuch as there is a
very steep hill immediately after leaving the Clyde, between Whiteinch and
Maryhill. The height to be surmounted here is not less than 150 feet; and for
a ship canal, which ought to be a tide-level waterway, in order to be
satisfactory, this would be a serious drawback.
It is contended that, being the shortest route between America and the
Baltic, the Continent, and the east coast of Scotland and England, the
through traffic would be considerable. This may be true, but the gain in
time would be reduced materially by the fact that vessels in coming off the
Atlantic would be required to sail up the long forth (Clyde), and would
probably require, particularly if deeply laden, to wait on the tide to get to
Bowling, which is some distance up the river, or the channel would need to
be deepened and broadened, thus adding to the cost. For channel steamers
going from Ireland, or the west coast of Scotland, England or Wales to the
east coast or the Continent, the canal would be a decided benefit, for not
only would their voyage be shortened, but the rocky and dangerous coast of
the north of Scotland would be avoided. The canal would pass through the
coal and oil districts of Scotland, a fact which has been adduced in favour
of the scheme.
Another consideration which carries much weight is the facility gained
for the rapid passage of battleships from one shore to another, rendering
defence in time of war more effective.

The Proposed Sheffield and Goole Canal.

The town of Sheffield, with a population of some 300,000, and
extremely important and diversified industries, has hitherto been practically
landlocked. There is, however, a system of canals actually in existence
which gives communication with the sea. This system embraces the
Sheffield and Tinsley Canal, 4 miles long; the Dun Navigation, 28¼ miles;
the Stainforth and Keadby Canal, 12¾ miles; and the Dearne and Dove
Canal, 14 miles, giving a total of 59 miles of navigation.
In this chain of communication the most important link is the Dun River
Navigation, which begins near the village of Tinsley, and proceeds thence
by the Tinsley Cut, which was made to avoid a bend in the river, under
powers of the Act of 12th George I. There are several other cuts in the river
which have been constructed at various times, their total length, from
Mexborough Church to the Dearne river, being not less than 2220 yards.
The river has passed through the hands of Vermueden, who, in the reign of
Charles I., used it to drain the low lands in the vicinity of Hatfield Chase.
The total rise of the Dun Navigation, by sixteen locks, from low-water mark
in the river, is 92¼ feet. Writing in 1831, Priestley stated that “the Dun
Navigation is of the utmost importance for exporting the produce of the
extensive coal and iron works which abound at its western extremity; also,
the vast quantity of manufactured iron goods and cutlery which is annually
produced in the populous town and neighbourhood of Sheffield.” This,
however, was before the present system of railways was completed, and
before the waterways on this route fell into the hands of their great rivals.
Not more than half a million tons now annually pass through the port of
Keadby, which is the connecting point between the Dun Navigation and the
Stainforth and Keadby Canal, the latter being a continuation thereof, and
the river Trent.

It is not proposed to do more than improve the existing navigations to
the extent of enabling them to take barges with a carrying capacity of 700
tons, and sea-going steamers capable of carrying 300 to 400 tons, whereas
at present they cannot carry boats of more than 80 tons. Such vessels could
carry coal cargoes from the South Yorkshire collieries situated upon this
waterway, and London or any other large consuming centre on the British
shores. The existing waterways are, however, in the hands of the
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, which, of
course, will have to be consulted as to their acquisition. The accompanying
diagram shows the route of the proposed improved navigation.

The Proposed Irish Sea and Birkenhead Ship Canal.

A company was established in 1888 for the purpose of cutting a canal,
through the Wallasey Pool, from the Irish Sea to Birkenhead, The object of
this undertaking is to improve the approach to the port of Liverpool, which
is at present greatly prejudiced by the shifty channel, the numerous

sandbanks on either side of the bar, and the risks and delays that are thereby
entailed. The scheme is not a new one entirely. On the contrary, Telford,
Nimmo, and Robert Stephenson, in 1838, reported upon a kindred project,
and estimated its cost at 1,400,000l. The sum named, however, was too
much for the promoters to raise, and a modified plan was submitted,
calculated to cost about half the money. The Corporation of Liverpool,
however, opposed the scheme, and privately bought up the land on either
side of the Wallasey Pool, with a view to frustrate its accomplishment.
Telford’s plans have, however, quite recently been revived, and it is now
proposed to make a cut from an arm of the Wallasey Pool—which, running
for about half a mile inland, has, notwithstanding the enormous extension of
dock accommodation all around, been left in its natural condition—to the
west end of the Leasowe embankment, near Dove Point, whence a tidal
channel would be formed through the foreshore to the Rock Channel, the
ancient entrance to the port of Liverpool. This tidal channel would be
protected by a breakwater running from the Leasowe embankment to a
point in the Rock Channel west of the Dove Spit. An outer breakwater
would also run in an easterly and south-easterly direction for a distance of
5000 feet, sheltering the greater part of the Rock Channel, which is to be
dredged for upwards of a mile to a depth of 30 feet below low-water mark.
The scheme does not appear to be either difficult or costly, but as it is
objected to by the Corporation of Liverpool and by the Mersey Harbour
Board, it may not come to maturity. That it would, if carried out, be a great
convenience to the many thousands who annually arrive at or depart from
Liverpool for the United States and other countries, is sufficiently manifest.

The Canal Connection between London and Bristol.

The Wiltshire and Berkshire Canal was acquired by some capitalists
towards the close of 1889, with a view to working it in competition with the
Great Western Railway between London and Bristol. The canal in question
leaves the Kennett and Avon Canal at Semington, a few miles on the Bristol
side of Devizes, and proceeds thence through Melksham, Wootton Bassett,
Swindon, and Challow to the Thames at Abingdon. Although the Kennett
and Avon Canal, which joins the Thames at Reading, is 23 miles shorter
between London and Avonmouth, it labours under the disadvantage of
rising to a much greater height, and therefore requiring twenty-eight

additional locks. It is also proposed to develop the Thames and Severn
Canal, which is connected by a short branch from Swindon, through
Cricklade, with the Wiltshire and Berkshire.
During the year 1888 attention was called to a project for the union of
the Bristol and English Channels by a ship canal, running from Stolford,
near Bridgwater, which has the advantage of being opposite Cardiff, viâ
Bridgwater, Taunton, and Exeter, to Langstone Point, on the west side of
Exmouth Bight, where the southern harbour would be formed.
This route is described as offering every facility for the work, the chief
elevation, White Ball Hill, which is 536 feet high, being turned by
following the course of the old Great Western Canal. A part of the existing
canals, or their remains, and the floating basin at Exeter, with its 5½ miles
of canal to the Exe, are intended to be acquired, and the deepest cutting on
the whole system will not exceed 200 feet. The canal would be on the level
of the sea, taking its supply chiefly from that source, with sea-locks only at
each end. The dimensions proposed are: length, 62 miles; width at surface,
125 feet, at bottom, 36 feet; and depth 21 feet, the figures being much the
same as those of the ship canal from Amsterdam to the Helder, which
admits loaded vessels of 1000 to 1500 tons, drawing 18 feet. Coal from
South Wales and adjoining fields would be likely to provide a large revenue
for a short cut to the English Channel, and thence to London, say 355 miles,
in order to better compete with the North of England. The cost of the
scheme has been set down at 3,080,000l.

Proposed Waterways from Birmingham to the Sea.

Of all the towns in the United Kingdom that labour under the
disadvantage of being remote from the sea, none are so entirely excluded
from sea competition as the capital of the Midlands. Birmingham is unlike
most of the other cities and towns of the country in this respect, that it is
neither built upon a navigable river, nor upon any other waterway that
would be likely to secure for traders some relief from their almost abject
dependence upon railway transport. And yet the town and district of
Birmingham are not altogether without the means of water transport. The
locality is, in point of fact, the centre of a network of canals, which, if they
were properly adapted to its requirements, would place it in direct

communication by water with all the principal ports and markets in the
kingdom. By the Birmingham, Warwick and Birmingham, Warwick and
Napton, Oxford, Grand Junction, and Regent’s Canals it is placed in
communication with the metropolis, although the distance is 163½ miles, as
against only 100 miles by the shortest railway route. It has two similar
routes to the great port of Liverpool—the first by the Birmingham,
Staffordshire and Worcestershire, North Staffordshire, and Bridgwater
Canals, and the river Mersey; the second route by the same route as regards
the Birmingham Canal, and thence viâ the Staffordshire and Worcestershire
Canal for a mile and a quarter, until the Shropshire Canal is broached, when
the route is continued over this waterway for a distance of 68 miles, until
the Mersey is reached. The distance by the first of these routes is 106½, and
by the second only 89¼ miles, against 90 miles by railway. Hull is in water
communication with Birmingham by way of the Birmingham, the Coventry,
and the North Staffordshire Canals, and thence by the open navigation of
the Trent and the Humber for a distance of 120½ miles. Finally,
Birmingham has three separate water routes to the Severn ports, all of them
terminating in the Gloucester and Berkeley section, after traversing the
Severn for 30 to 44 miles—the entire distance being 86 miles in two cases,
and 95 miles in another. The nearest means of getting at the sea available at
present to the people of Birmingham is, therefore, 86 miles. But neither this
nor any of the other routes indicated are of any real value to the Midlands,
owing to the limited size of the canals, and the difficulty of working them
as an unbroken chain of communication. Thus, taking the water route to
London, the three first canals—the Birmingham, the Warwick and
Birmingham, and the Warwick and Napton—have locks only 72 feet long
by 7 feet broad and 4 feet draft. On the section of the Oxford Canal to be
passed over, only 5 miles in length, there is no lock, but on the Grand
Junction Canal, which has to be traversed for a distance of 101 miles, the
locks are 14 feet by 6 feet by 4 feet 6 inches, and on the Regent’s Canal,
where the transport terminates, the locks are 90 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet.
The same condition of things applies to the physical characteristics of the
waterways between Birmingham and Liverpool. Hull might be more readily
reached if only the Trent were a little deeper, but as the average draft of the
locks on that waterway does not exceed 3 feet 6 inches, it is clear that no
vessel of large size could navigate it, and to dredge it to a reasonable depth
for the whole distance of 102 miles would be a most serious undertaking.

The most promising means of reaching the sea are therefore those provided
by the Severn route. The river itself is available for the greater part of the
distance on this route in one case, after traversing 26 miles of canal on the
Birmingham, Stourbridge, and Staffordshire and Worcestershire systems.
The average depths of the locks on the Severn over the 44 miles that it has
to be navigated by this route is about 6 feet, while they are 99 feet long and
20 feet wide. These dimensions would allow of the passage of really good-
sized boats, but as it is, with the broken gauge of the other canals, no boat
can pass through to the Severn loaded beyond 33 tons. Another matter that
seriously militates against the water facilities of Birmingham is that the
different canals are, of course, under different administrations, and each
authority levies tolls capriciously and disproportionately to the distance
traversed and facilities afforded. Thus, it was given in evidence before the
Canal Committee of 1883[59] that the Birmingham Canal Company charged
in respect of bricks 11¼d. per ton for 6¾ or 7 miles, whereas the adjoining
Warwick Canal Company charged 6½d. for 37¼ miles, and the Grand
Junction Canal Company only charged 1s. 4½d. for 101 miles.
At different times during the last two or three years proposals have been
put forward, having for their object to place Birmingham in direct
connection with the sea, either—
1. By a ship canal, that would enable vessels of 200
tons at least to proceed to the Bristol Channel.
2. By a canal that would enable canal boats to
navigate the lower Trent to the North Sea; and
3. By the construction of an improved canal, between
the Midlands and London.
Each of these routes has been canvassed and considered over the last
few years; and it is probable that some really effectual steps will be taken
before long, in order to realise the long cherished and most desirable end of
giving Birmingham a satisfactory outlet to the sea. The people of the
Midlands have really been more active in this direction than those of any
other locality. But they have apparently sought too much from the State and
trusted too little to themselves. The Birmingham Town Council, in 1888,
appointed a committee, with instructions either to get clauses introduced
into the Railway Rates Bill, then under consideration, or to introduce a

separate measure with a view to the formation of Canal Trusts, &c. In May
of 1889, again, the Midlands sent a deputation to the Board of Trade, in
order to urge upon that department, the desirability of improving the canal
communication, between the Midlands and the sea. Besides this, the traders
and manufacturers of Birmingham, have met and passed resolutions, calling
upon the Government to inquire into the canal system without delay, with a
view to its acquisition by the State. More real good would be done if the
money were subscribed, to open up a first class waterway to the sea, as has
been done, with so much spirit, by the people of Lancashire. Whether this
waterway should connect with London, with Bristol, or with the Mersey, or
whether it would be worth while to incur the expenditure required to
connect all three, is a matter that would have to be very carefully
considered.
As regards the proposal to provide an improved canal, between London
and Birmingham, it is suggested that it should have a minimum top width of
45 feet, and a depth of 8 feet. The number of locks proposed is 90 instead of
154, but by adopting a partially new route, so as to avoid the depression in
crossing the valley of the Avon, at Warwick, the number may be reduced to
75. The time of transit between Birmingham and London would thereby be
shortened by 12 hours, and it is estimated that the additional facilities
afforded for the passage of steam-tugged trains of boats, would enable the
cost of haulage to be reduced nearly one-half. The carrying capacity of the
improved canal has been put at two millions of tons annually, and the cost
of the improvements at a million and a quarter. A committee of traders in
the Midlands has recently had this project under consideration.

FOOTNOTE
CHAPTER VI
[59] Report, Q. 251.

CHAPTER VII.
THE WATERWAYS OF FRANCE.

Within recent years, the advocates of water transport in Great Britain
and other countries, have been accustomed to point to France as a notable
example of the advantages of improving and extending the internal
navigations of a country. It is true that no nation has done more with this
end in view. From first to last, France has expended a larger sum on canal
navigation than any other nation. Her system of water transport is also in
some respects more complete than that of any other country, having been
designed and carried out upon a systematic plan, which permits of the ways
of water communication being connected with each other, and with the
chief centres of population and industry. The waterways of France, are,
moreover, mainly owned by, or under the control of the State, which has
instituted elaborate inquiries from time to time into the subject of their
development and utilisation. It cannot, nevertheless, be claimed for the
canals of France, as a rule, that they present any unusual economic or
engineering features, although they provide for a low cost of transport, of
which we shall have more to say when we come to deal especially with that
branch of our subject.
A glance at a canal and river map of France, is sufficient to show that in
the more important parts of the country, there is a very excellent system of
communication by water. Between Dunkerque, Gravelines, and Paris, there
is a large traffic carried to the latter city, through an elaborate system of
main and lateral canals. The river Seine connects Paris with the ports of
Havre and Rouen. From the Belgian frontier, quite a network of canals
connect with Paris; and on the German frontier, near Nancy, the Canal de la
Marne au de Rhin gives access to the capital, both by the Marne river to the
Seine, and by the Oise, through the Aisne canal.
On the Mediterranean seaboard, the Canal du Midi connects with the
Canal des Etangs and the Canal de Beaucaire, and thence by the Rhone and
Saône, the Canal du Centre, the Canal de Briare, the Canal de Loing, and
the Seine to Paris, taking Lyons, Chalons, Dijon, Nivers, and other
important towns en route. In the south of France, the only important canal is
that of the Midi, which connects Bordeaux with Cette; and on the west, the

ports of Brest and St. Nazaire are connected with the main line of
communication already described—the former by the Canal de Nantes à
Brest, and the latter by the Loire river, the Canal Noyers du Berry, and the
Canal d’Orleans. It is, however, on the north that the canal system has its
greatest development, and especially on the Belgian frontier. The system
has been contrived to meet the requirements of all the populous places on
the line of route, so that it is very far from having been arranged to save
time and distance. This, however, is no disadvantage in cases where density
of traffic was the point to be kept in view. Some of the canals have at one
end no outlet or through communication. The Canal du Berry, for example,
terminates abruptly at Montluçon, the Canal de Roanne à Dijon at Roanne,
and the Canal de l’Ourcq at Port-aux-Perches, but this is very exceptional.
The system is generally designed to enable one waterway to give immediate
access to another, so that through routes are the most characteristic and
valuable feature which it presents.
The very elaborate statistics which the French people make it their
business to collect relative to all their mundane affairs enable us to obtain
information as to the character of the traffic on French waterways, and the
conditions of its movement, that are not accessible for most other countries.
In order that some light may be thrown upon the problem of “how they
manage these things in France,” we have been at some pains to get together
the most important data bearing on the subject.
Imprimis, then, it appears that the total tonnage carried on the canals of
France in 1887—there are no returns yet issued for a later year—was
21,050,180 tons. As this traffic was carried for a total distance of 1762
millions of miles, it follows that the average distance over which each ton
was carried was 84 miles.
It is interesting to compare these returns with the corresponding returns
for the French railways, which carried 80,360,000 tons for a total distance
of 6801 millions of miles, giving an average transport or lead of 84½ miles
per ton.
There are no detailed returns at command of the amount of expenditure
at which the traffic on the waterways of France has been carried on. In the
nature of the case, indeed, there could hardly be such information, seeing
that the rivers, and to a large extent the canals as well, are free of tolls, and

the expenses of haulage will vary in every case, according to the means
employed, and other determining circumstances. On the French railway
system, however, the average rate charged for the transport of goods per ton
per mile amounted in 1887 to less than 0·9d., taking the eight great
companies as a whole.[60]
Roughly, therefore, the average distance over which each ton was
transported on the waterways and railways of France was almost exactly the
same, but the railways carried almost four times as much traffic as the
waterways. This difference applied almost as much to heavy as to light
traffic. The total quantity of coal and coke carried on the waterways was
5,964,000 tons, while on the railways it amounted to 22,395,000 tons, being
again nearly four times as much.
The total length of the canals of France in 1887 was 4759 kilometres, or
2998 miles. The average number of tons carried for each mile of canal
constructed was, therefore, 4005. The railways of France had, at the same
time, a length of 28,922 kilometres, or 18,095 miles, and the average
number of tons carried per mile was about 4400. The French waterways,
therefore, had a somewhat less density of traffic than the railways.
Many of the canals of France, however, have almost ceased to be used,
and their traffic has become so small that it is hardly worth reckoning.
In the case of Paris, the second largest city in Europe, the total quantity
of traffic brought within the municipal bounds for the use of the inhabitants
amounted, in 1886, to 9,412,589 tons, of which 60 per cent. was received
by railway and 40 per cent. by waterways. Of the traffic sent out from Paris,
amounting to 2,989,000 tons, 80 per cent. was despatched by rail, and 20
per cent. by water.[61] In reference to the traffic entering Paris, it would
seem as if the waterways competed with some measure of success with the
railways, but as regards the traffic sent out from Paris, the railway is by no
means so successful.
The waterways that give access to Paris are mainly the High Seine, the
Low Seine, and the Canal de l’Ourcq. The Seine carried 1,979,000 tons to
Paris in 1886, as compared with 1,791,000 tons carried on the canals as a
whole.

These are the broad general facts of the situation in which Paris is
placed as regards her supplies of food, fuel, and other requirements. The
details of the movement of this traffic are equally interesting, but we have
no space to devote to them here. We may, however, remark that from every
part of the empire, from Belgium and the Ardennes, from the north and the
east, from Marseilles on the one hand and from Rouen and Havre on the
other, the traffic on which Paris is dependent from day to day is carried as
well by waterways as by railways. From the coal basins of the Nord and of
the Pas-de-Calais the waterways carry almost as much fuel to Paris as the
railways; from the basins of the Loire and of the Centre they carry much
more. Belgium, again, sends a large proportion of the total quantity of coal
that she supplies to Paris by water, but German and English coal is received
mainly by rail.[62]
It would be interesting to compare the quantities of merchandise and
food supplies of all kinds received by water and by rail in different large
centres of population, but the materials do not exist for a very exact
comparison over a wide area. In no English city can such materials be
obtained, inasmuch as no record is available of the different quantities that
constitute the transit trade; but in several German cities there are more
accurate materials at command, and the following figures show how the
import traffic of Paris compares with that of some German towns for the
year 1887:—

Tonnage brought into By Rail. By Water.
tons. tons.
Paris 5,647,000 3,765,000
Berlin 3,504,000 3,348,002
Hamburg 1,191,000 3,221,000
Cologne 1,132,000 314,000
Magdeburg 1,650,000 1,118,000
Total 13,124,000 11,766,000

During the year 1886 the traffic of the port of Paris amounted to a total
of 5,455,000 tons, which was transported in 35,291 boats. The boats thus

carried an average of about 155 tons.[63] This, however, was composed of a
considerable range of variations, the boats from the Sambre, on the canal of
that name, carrying an average of 216 tons, while those on the canals of the
Aisne and the Ardennes only carried about 55 tons. On the Seine, from Oise
to Paris, the average size of the boats was 166 tons.
More than a fourth of the water-traffic entering Paris belongs to the
Ourcq Canal, which is connected with the Marne and with the Seine, both
above and below Paris, by means of the St. Martin and the St. Denis Canals.
These and the Ourcq Canals belong to the Municipality of Paris, which has
recently increased the width of the swing bridge across the canal from 25½
to 50 feet, and has provided an uniform depth of 10½ feet
According to an interesting statement issued by the French Minister of
Public Works in 1880,[64] the length of the canals then constructed in France
was 2882 miles, of which 2248 miles were described as principal lines, and
cost about 10,300l. per mile, while 634 miles were secondary lines, and cost
7200l. per mile. The total amount expended on canals of both categories
was about thirty-three millions sterling.
There were besides, 4598 miles of rivers which had been adapted, by
canalisation or otherwise, for purposes of navigation, at a total cost of about
11½ millions sterling. About 1398 miles of river routes were classed as
principal lines, and upon these an expenditure of 7,918,000l. had been
undertaken, or about 5700l. per mile. About 3200 miles more were classed
as secondary lines, and had been improved for navigation at a total cost of
3,561,000l., or 1113l. per mile. On both canals and rivers the total amount
expended had been over 44 millions sterling. Besides this, however, 190
miles of additional waterways had, up to 1880, been constructed and
improved, at an additional cost of 3,400,000l., and were described as new
waterways; and it may be added that, up to the same date, about 19¾
millions sterling had been expended on the ports of France, especially those
of Havre (3,300,000l.), Marseilles (2,800,000l.), St. Nazaire (1,100,000l.),
and Bordeaux (960,000l.).
These figures appear large, but while it may very well be that the
amount expended upon canals pur et simple has been greater in France than
in our own and other countries, the expenditure upon the rivers of France
and upon the improvement of ports and harbours is very greatly below that

incurred in our own country. At Liverpool alone the sums expended in this
direction from first to last will probably exceed the total amount expended
upon the harbours of France up to the present time. France is, however, so
fully aware of the importance of providing good shipping facilities, that she
has quite recently undertaken a large expenditure in improving the harbours
of Havre and Calais, canalising the Seine, and other similar works.
At the end of 1886, there were thirty-one chief canals in operation in
France having a total length of 3267 kilometres, and 1446 kilometres of
smaller canals, making a total of 4713 kilometres. The canals varied in their
volume of annual traffic from over 3½ millions of tons each on the Deûle
(Haute) canal, 63 kilometres in length, and on the St. Quentin canal, 93
kilometres in length, to 243,700 tons on the Latéral à la Garonne, 204
kilometres in length. The total traffic carried on the canals from year to year
has been remarkably constant.[65] The canals have, moreover, carried a
considerably larger quantity of traffic than the rivers of France,
notwithstanding that the latter have a total length of 7825 kilometres, or 66
per cent. more, and that one or two of them, especially the Aisne and the
Oise have been specially canalised.[66]
The waterways of France are classified by basins, and according to the
statistics published for 1886, the number of waterways in each basin with
the number of vessels of all kinds making use of them, and the number of
tons transported were as under:—

French Rivers and Streams only
(Canals not included).

Total Number of
Number Tons of
Length Vessels
Basin of the of Traffic
in employed
Lines. carried.
Kilometres. in 1886.
Aa 1 29 12,778 1,308,564
Adour 9 257 19,903 423,666
Charcute 8 301 20,169 239,069
Escaut 8 219 42,242 8,184,233

Total Number of
Number Tons of
Length Vessels
Basin of the of Traffic
in employed
Lines. carried.
Kilometres. in 1886.
Garonne 25 1752 30,952 1,096,482
Loire 22 1660 17,669 1,084,542
Moselle 6 231 1,601 200,980
Rance 1 16 1,832 66,498
Rhone 22 1731 25,799 2,358,675
Sambre 1 54 2,589 580,761
Seine 18 1191 102,117 18,843,313
Vilaine 4 151 4,450 216,601
Vire and Taute
3 113 6,494 111,207

We may now appropriately follow up the more general information
already afforded by some details as to the history and topography of the
chief canals and river works in France.

Some French Canals.

Briare, &c.—The canal of Briare was begun in the time of Henry IV.
and the Duke of Sully, and was completed under Louis XIII. and Cardinal
Richelieu. Its length is eleven French leagues, and it forms a
communication between the Loire and the Loing, which is one of the
tributaries of the Seine. Under Louis XIV. another canal was drawn from
the Loire, near Orleans, which flowed to meet the first canal of Briare, near
Montargis; and as in summer there was an insufficiency of water in the
Loing to supply a considerable navigation, under the minority of Louis XV.
they determined to run another canal along the banks of the river to the
vicinity of the Seine, which is, properly speaking, the continuation of the
old canal of Briare. In this canal there are, in all, forty-two sluices; and in
that of Orleans, twenty. In the reign of Louis XV., and under the inspection
of the celebrated Belidor, the canal of Picardie was carried out, forming a

junction between the Somme and the Oise, which afterwards enters the
Seine about five leagues from Paris.
Languedoc.—The famous canal of Languedoc, better known as the
Canal du Midi, which forms a communication from the Mediterranean Sea
to the Garonne and the Ocean is one of the best known in France. By this
canal, for many years, boats have passed in a few days from the one sea to
the other, traversing valleys and hills, and ascending to the height of 600
feet above the level of the two seas. The harbours of Bordeaux and
Marseilles formerly avoided, by this means, a circuitous route of
communication of several hundred miles. This great undertaking, projected
under three other kings, was at last perfected in the reign of Louis XIV.,
after a labour of fourteen years, at an expense of eleven millions of livres,
without reckoning the additional expense of two millions more, incurred in
re-establishing the harbour of Cette. Andressi first suggested the plan, and
Riquet directed almost the whole of its execution. He began the work in
1666. The canal begins at a lake nearly four miles in circumference, which,
collecting the waters of Mont Noir, conveys them at Naurose into a
reservoir, of very considerable extent, whence the waters are distributed to
the right until they meet the Garonne near Toulouse, and to the left as far as
the Lake of Tau, which is near the port of Cette. The breadth of the canal is
30 feet, its length is rather over 125 miles, which equals 50½ French
leagues. Nearly a sixth part of the canal is carried over mountains deeply
excavated; and, at a spot called the Mal Pas, it crosses a rock cut into the
form of an arch, eighty toises in length, four toises in width, and four and a
half in height. It has one hundred sluices, and a great number of aqueducts
and bridges.

Admiral Lord Clarence Paget undertook, in 1881, a canal voyage
through this Canal, of which he has supplied some interesting particulars.
The yacht, the Miranda, was 85 feet over all, 11 feet beam, and 4 feet 8
inches draught of water. She carried 6½ tons of coal, equal to about eight
days’ consumption, at full speed.
“Originally,” writes Lord Clarence, “the canal, which immortalised its
constructor, P. P. Riquet, was only intended to connect the head waters of
the Garonne at Toulouse with the Mediterranean, and it was opened with
great pomp and ceremony by Louis XIV. in 1681, but it was soon found
inadequate to the purposes required, as the Garonne was subject to all sorts
of vicissitudes of drought and floods.
“It was not, however, till our own times that the ‘Canal Latéral,’
between Toulouse and near Bordeaux, has been completed, and, curiously
enough, just at the moment when the railway between Bordeaux and Cette
has almost entirely absorbed the traffic. So here is this magnificent canal,
with its 99 locks and its viaducts and bridges comparatively unused, save by
an occasional barge loaded with wine. Nevertheless, it is kept in admirable

order, and the passage can be made, with certain precautions, without any
difficulty.
“A pleasant, though not very picturesque voyage of thirty miles of river,
brought us to the entrance of the canal. It was necessary to put on our canal
screw before entering, so we laid the vessel on the ground, and entered on
the following tide, through the lock, which is double, or rather twin, so that
two vessels can pass at the same time. The dimensions of this, and indeed
all the locks, are as follows:—Length, 28 metres; breadth, 5·80 metres;
depth, 1·60 metres. The height of the bridges varies, but no vessel is
allowed to pass which is higher above the level of the canal than 2·72
metres.
“Thus, it will be seen that we had about six feet of length, and five feet
of width, to spare, one foot of height, and one foot under our bottom; nor is
this by any means too large a margin, since, however well a vessel may be
steered, and however quickly stopped, it is impossible at all times,
particularly if there be a strong breeze, to ensure her entry into the locks
with exactly sufficient speed. Moreover it is quite necessary that a boat
should be afloat, to make a rope fast to the shore, where the canal has very
sharp curves, as is the case in the old part of it, between Toulouse and Cette;
and inasmuch as the boat cannot be hoisted up to davits or inboards, it will
be manifest that room must be left for her in the lock. We had just room
under the stern for one 13 feet boat athwart. The safe passage through the
first lock and under the first bridge caused us pleasant anticipations.
“We were satisfied to have accomplished our first lock, and made fast
opposite the house of the ‘Chef du Section,’ of which there are seven on the
canal. He and his lady paid us a visit, as did the curé and principal
inhabitants of La Reole. Next morning, the 28th, we fairly tackled the
business, and accomplished that day eleven locks, stopping at Buzet. It
would be tedious to describe our daily routine, and I need only remark that
we took advantage of all the daylight—at this season only about 8½ hours
—and accomplished some 35 to 40 miles per day, always ascending, till we
arrived at Toulouse on the sixth day. This ‘Canal Latéral’ follows much the
course of the Garonne. It is a splendid work, and is kept in beautiful order.
The grand features are the bridges which carry the canal across the Garonne
and other rivers. There are three, but by far the grandest and most
interesting is that at Agen, where we found ourselves in mid-air, with the

river, the railway, the high road, and part of the town far beneath us. The
centre arch is a hundred feet high. After leaving Agen, the scenery became
picturesque, and sometimes grand; but to really enjoy this trip it should be
taken before the fall of the leaf. The whole length of the canal is lined on
either side by poplar, plane, and other trees, many of them of great height,
so as almost to shade the vessels passing. The locks are admirably managed,
and it is surprising how little delay they cause—always supposing that there
is no vessel to take precedence; but whether by chance, or that orders had
been sent on to keep the road clear, we were rarely detained, and the
average time in passing through was about five minutes. As we approached
Toulouse, the air became keen and the nights frosty. Our ‘Chef du Section,’
who always accompanied us, informed me that some years since the canal
was frozen up in the middle of December, and we consequently delayed as
little as possible, and only spent a couple of days at Toulouse, which I
regretted, as, besides being a pretty town, it is especially interesting as
being the grand central depot of the canal, and the junction with the old
‘Canal du Midi,’ a name which has outlived the original title of Louis XIV.,
who christened it ‘Canal de Languedoc.’ Here, or rather a few miles to the
eastward, are the numerous reservoirs and alimentary canals which bring
the waters from the ‘Montagnes Noires.’ We could not stop to see them in
detail, but could trace their outline far away in the distance.
“When the celebrated engineer, Vauban, came to inspect these works, he
was astonished, and exclaimed that one thing was wanting only, namely, a
monument and statue to the founder. This has since been rectified, and a
grand obelisk is visible at the source of the canal. The story of Pierre Paul
Riquet is that of many, nay, of most, great patriots. He met with scant
assistance from the Government, and strenuous opposition from his
countrymen; he was treated as a madman, and died of a broken heart before
the great work was finished. His career seems to have been very similar to
that of an illustrious man of our own day—Lesseps—save and except that
the latter, happily, has been spared to see the final achievement of his
splendid work.[67] He had, however, one attribute which is not common
among inventors—he knew how to strike a bargain; and his contract still
enriches several families, his descendants, especially the Caramans.
“On December 5th, we arrived at the summit of the canal, and it was
interesting to observe the alimentation going both ways. Here the whole

character and structure of the works change; instead of many miles of
straight reaches of uniform width of about 100 feet, the canal becomes
tortuous to a degree which is almost absurd, but which is accounted for by
the fact that, in Riquet’s day there was no law ‘d’expropriation,’ and he had
to make a bargain with every little landowner for permission to pass
through his grounds, and being in many cases refused, he had to cut away in
another, and often opposite direction. The locks here are also peculiar, being
oval-shaped, to admit of two abreast; the effect of this is, that although on
the map, Toulouse is at least two-thirds of the distance from Bordeaux to
Cette, it is, by the canal, not quite half-way.
“These sharp curves are inconvenient, as it is necessary to turn the
comers very slowly, for fear of running into vessels coming in the opposite
direction, and often they are so very acute as to necessitate stopping the
engines and using poles, and sometimes ropes, to get round the comers.
“Another peculiar feature of this part of the canal is the constant
recurrence of multiple locks. On the first approach to double, treble,
quadruple, and even quintuple locks, one feels somewhat like going over a
precipice, but this soon wears off, and in reality, the ground is got over
quicker than with single locks.
“The famous octuple lock at Béziers only required half-an-hour to
accomplish, and it is one of the most wonderful features of this canal, it is
like going down a steep ladder from the top of a cliff to the valley below.
Our passage must have been a source of amusement to the natives, judging
by the crowds which met us at each stopping place. I never could quite
understand the exact cause of this. I asked M. Moffre, to whom I have
already alluded as the obliging and amiable chief, but he did not satisfy me
by saying, ‘It is the first steam yacht we have had, except one which
belongs to the Emperor of Austria, and which passed through five years
ago.’ ...
“From Carcassone we descended rapidly by multiple locks to the plain
of Agde, having always as a grand background to the south the range of the
Pyrenees, but this plain is anything but picturesque, being rocky and barren.
Here we pass what the ignorant and misguided people of Riquet’s days
thought would be a barrier to his great work. A sharp spur of the
‘Montagnes Noires’ here juts out into the plain, which looks like ‘thus far,

no farther,’ but he was equal to the task, and set to work to tunnel an
imitation of the only tunnel existing in those days, the grotto of Pausillipo at
Naples, which he visited on purpose, and it is exactly similar and about the
same length. Who does not remember the odd mysterious passage, high
enough to pass a line-of-battle ship through? A part, unfortunately, has
given way, and necessitated arching the roof, which has somewhat marred
the effect, but it is still interesting and imposing. From here, a sharp descent
through several multiple locks, brings us to the level of the Mediterranean,
whose blue waters are seen in the distance; and on Saturday, the 10th of
December, being our fourteenth day since leaving Bordeaux, we emerged
from the canal into the Etang du Thau, at the mouth of which is Cette,
giving access to the Mediterranean.”
The Crapponne Canal.—The authority to construct this canal was
conceded to Adam de Crapponne, an eminent engineer in the year 1554. It
takes its water through sluices, from the river Durance, near St. Estève-
Ianson, at an altitude of 492 feet above sea level. There the river varies from
600 to 6500 feet in width, and the bed consists of a succession of sand and
gravel banks, and alluvial deposits, intersected by numerous branches,
which shift at every flood. Such a state of things cannot be considered as
constituting the bed of the river, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, and
to have constructed a permanent and fixed barrage across the river, to lead
the water through the sluices, would not only have been a costly work at
that time, but also one of considerable difficulty. Crapponne constructed,
therefore, what are termed “barrages volants” across the river. These are
formed where the depth of the water is about two feet, by stakes with
fascines, and filled in with stones. In the deeper parts of the river, which
may be sometimes 12 to 15 feet, “chevalets” are driven in place of stakes.
These consist generally of trunks of trees cut near the point of the
bifurcation of the principal branches, and which are placed closer together
in proportion to the depth. The “chevalets” are bound by cross-pieces and
supported by fascines. These “barrages volants” are always placed
obliquely to the current of the river, for the purpose of causing the fascines
to press against the stones or the “chevalets.” Such “barrages volants” need
continual repair, but their cost is comparatively trifling. It is mostly a
question of labour, as the material employed is cheap.

The average cost of maintenance of the barrage for the Crapponne canal
is about 500l. per annum. This system, adopted by Crapponne more than
300 years ago, has never been changed, and has been found by experience
to answer its purpose of diverting the Durance waters through the sluices
into the canal in all seasons, and the same system is adopted for some other
irrigation canals. The Crapponne Canal, is the main canal from the river
Durance to Lamanon, and is 14¼ miles in length. At Lamanon the canal has
two main branches, one flowing south towards Salon and St Chanas, and
the other to the west towards Arles. The total length of the canal is about 77
miles, not comprising the whole development of the branch to Arles, which
is a special property, independent of the original canal.
The quantity of water supplied by the canal, is as follows:-The main
canal is 26 feet wide, and 6·5 feet deep; the mean velocity is 5 feet per
second. The branch to Salon is 10 feet wide, and 6·5 feet deep; the mean
velocity is 6·5 feet per second. The branch to Arles is 16·5 feet wide, and
3·28 feet deep; the mean velocity is 5·3 feet per second. The branch to
Istres is 6·6 feet wide, and 3·3 feet deep; the mean velocity is 6·6 feet per
second.
The Alpines Canal.—This canal, which was commenced in 1773, takes
its water, for the main channel, from the Durance at Mallemort, and for the
west branches, near Chateaurenard. The main canal is considered one of the
best in Europe as regards its utility. The system consists of more than 194
miles of canal, disposing of 770 cubic feet of water per second, which, with
the west branches of the canal, irrigates more than 20,000 acres. The
branches to Carascon and Barbentane, have generally an inclination of 1 in
2000. In some portions of the former branch, the inclination is 1 in 4500; in
other portions 1 in 1250, while over some of the aqueducts it is as much as
1 in 154. The widths at the bottom of the west branch canal vary from 7·8
to 9·2 feet, and for a branch to Barbentane, between 5·2 and 6·2 feet. The
inclinations of the slopes varies from 1 to 1, to 1½ to 1, in ordinary cuttings
and embankments. The west branches of the canal have passed through
considerable financial difficulties, and are now managed by an independent
company.
In order to develop irrigation, numerous syndicates have been formed,
as some of the land was held in small parcels by proprietors and farmers
who had neither the funds nor the power, in opposition to intervening

landowners, to obtain branches to conduct the water from the main
irrigating canal to their properties. The price charged for the water is
regulated by the price charged for corn on the basis of 1·66 bushel per acre
irrigated. The quantity of water given at the above rate, is fixed about 0·57
gallon per acre per second, supposed to flow continuously during the
irrigation season, commencing on the 1st of April and terminating on the 1st
October of each year, which is equal to covering the ground for the total
number of irrigations to a depth of 66½ inches, and with 22,130 cubic yards
of water. In 1874, the cost of irrigation was equivalent to about 11s. 6d. per
acre, being the price of 1·66 bushel of corn. The price has recently been
reduced to about 8s. per acre, for three irrigations required during the
season for such crops as corn and olive orchards. The same reduced price
per acre is also charged for inundating vineyards during the autumn, as a
preventive to the phylloxera.
Lens la Deûle Canal.—Lens, a town of 11,800 inhabitants, and the
capital of the coalfields of the Pas-de-Calais, has recently been connected
with the existing system of navigable waterways by a canal, which passes
near a great number of pits belonging to the companies of Lens and of
Courriéres, the most important of the district, and serves the Liévin mines,
which previously possessed no water communication. The probable traffic
on this canal has been estimated at 290,000 tons, with a prospect of future
increase. The canal starts a little beyond Lens, and passes close to the town;
and after a course of 4 miles 7 furlongs it joins the Souchez Canal at
Harnes. This canal, about 2 miles 1 furlong in length, was constructed about
1862, and connects the Lens Canal with the Deûle Canal a little beyond
Courriéres. The total fall of the Lens Canal is 31 feet 10 inches, which is
effected by three locks, the first by a fall of 8¼ feet and the other two of 11
feet 9½ inches. It has a bottom width of 17¾ feet in the straight portions,
and in the curved portions the width at the bottom is regulated according to
the formula (17¾ × 1246⁄R) feet; and its depth is 7¼ feet for an available
draught of 6½ feet. Crossing places, 31 feet wide at the bottom and 360 feet
long, have been formed about every 5 furlongs; and places for barges to
wait in have been constructed of the same width, at the commencement and
end of the canal, 2300 and 1800 feet long respectively. Above the third lock
the canal traverses fissured chalk for a distance of 1640 feet, and has
accordingly been lined with concrete up to 1 foot above the water level at a

cost of 2l. per yard; and where the canal passes over a marsh, filled up with
stones from the pits, for about 330 feet, it has been cut off from the marsh
by a puddle-trench carried down into a substratum of clay 13¾ feet below
the water-level. The locks are of the ordinary type, 17 feet wide, 126⅓ feet
available length, and 8¼ feet in depth, with sluices in the gates; and the
gates have iron ribs and a wooden skin, and cost on the average 4l. per
square yard. The canal is fed by the river Souchez only 620 feet from its
commencement. The discharge of the river during the long drought of the
summer of 1886 did not fall below 4·6 cubic feet per second, whilst the
traffic on the canal only required 2½ cubic feet per second, allowing for
losses from evaporation and leakage. There is, therefore, an ample supply
for other purposes, and for increased demands for traffic. The canal was
begun on the 1st of February, 1885, and was opened for traffic on the 30th
of October, 1886. The works, including land, cost 74,000l., or 15,206l. per
mile.
The Marne Canal.—The original canal was constructed between the
years 1838 and 1853. It commences by a junction with the Upper Marne
Canal at Vitry le Français, and terminates by a junction with the river Ill and
the Rhine Canal, near Strasburg, thus connecting the valleys of the Seine
and the Rhine, and also the intervening rivers, which include the Maas,
Moselle, Soar, &c. Its length between Vitry and Strasburg is 193½ miles,
and it crosses the four watersheds dividing the catchment basins of the
Marne, Maas, Moselle, Soar, and Rhine; there are, however, only two
summit reaches, as the divides between the Maas and Moselle, and the Soar
and the Rhine, are tunnelled through at Fory and Arzweiler, respectively.
There are altogether five tunnels, with a total length of 5½ miles.
The level of the water above the sea is, at Vitry, 332·62 feet; at the
Mauvages summit tunnel, through the Marne-Maas divide, 922·75 feet; at
Nancy, 648·10 feet; at the Vosges summit level, 873·93 feet; and at
Strasburg, 444·18 feet. There are 177 locks on the canal, and the mean rise
of each is 8·60 feet.
Some years since it was contemplated to increase the water supply, but
the improvements were delayed by the Franco-German war, which resulted
in a transfer to Germany of the Alsatian portion of the canal, and also of one
of the most important sources of supply, viz. the river Soar. To render the
system independent of this latter portion, in 1874 the construction of the

East Canal was authorised. This commences at Givet, on the Belgian
frontier, joins the Rhine-Marne Canal at Troussey, and again leaving the
latter canal at Toul, follows the course of the Upper Moselle to Epinal,
where it branches off in a south-westerly direction to its termination at Port-
sur-Saône. The depth of water in this canal was fixed at 6 feet 6 inches.
The Rhine-Marne Canal had originally a depth of 5 feet 3 inches, a
bottom breadth of 32 feet 10 inches, and sides sloped at 1½ to 1. This depth
has been increased to 6 feet 6 inches, the canal bed has been cleaned and
lined with concrete 6½ inches to 8½ inches thick, where necessary, and the
headways of the bridges and tunnels has been raised to 12 feet 2 inches
above the new water-level. Through the Mauvages tunnel a chain has been
laid, and all the traffic is worked by two chain steam-tugs with fireless
boilers (Francq’s patent).
The most important of the new works are those for the additional supply
of water. They comprise pumping-stations at Pierre-la-Treiche and Valcourt,
near Toul, at both of which the pumps are actuated by turbines, and a steam-
pumping station at Vacon, as well as ducts for conveying the water from the
pumping-stations to the canal, and an impounding reservoir at Paroy.
Gallons.
The total amount of water required annually for
the Rhine-Marne canal is 1,364,620,000
The total amount of water required annually for
the East canal is 748,340,000
Total 2,112,960,000
In addition to which there is the Meurthe
branch, requiring 462,210,000
Making a grand total of 2,575,170,000

Besides the above artificial sources, the canals are fed by springs at
Vacon, and by the Moselle, &c.
The arrangements at Pierre-la-Treiche and at Valcourt are nearly similar.
There are two turbines, actuating force pumps, capable of raising from 143
to 198 gallons per second to a height of 131 feet 3 inches, through a line of
cast-iron pipes of 2 feet 7½ inches diameter, delivering into an open duct
connecting with the east end of the Pagny Reach of the canal. This duct

commences at Pierre-la-Treiche, and is 8¼ miles long, and feeds both
canals.
£
The cost of these works was 51,920
Of which the pumping station at Pierre-la-Treiche cost 15,616
And the pumping station at Valcourt 26,908

The steam pumping-station at Vacon is near the west end of the Pagny
Reach. The pumps are 250 H.P., and capable of lifting 8,804,000 gallons per
twenty-four hours to a height of 121 feet 4 inches, or 110 gallons per
second. The water is conveyed into a duct, which also carries the water
from the Vacon springs, and empties into the Pagny Reach. The reservoir at
Paroy has an area of 180 acres, and contains 376,371,000 gallons. The dam
is 1378 feet long, and 18 feet 3 inches high; the cost of construction was
20,800l. The canal traffic in 1884 amounted to 634,936 tons.[68]
The Canalisation of the Moselle.—The French Government, in the
period from 1836 to 1860, undertook the regulation of this river from
Frouard to the Prussian frontier by means of works parallel to the existing
river-bed, and by embankments; but sandbanks and shoals were
nevertheless deposited which impeded the navigation, and led to the
proposal, in 1860, to erect a series of sluices and movable weirs extending
from Frouard to Thionville, which would, if constructed, entail an estimated
outlay of 11½ millions of francs, the total distance being 92 kilometres, and
the minimum depth of water to be maintained being set down as 1·6 metre.
Owing to the opposition of some of the Communes, who dreaded the injury
to their land by the alterations in the water-level, the plans were modified,
and only certain reaches of the river, where the riparian conditions were
favourable, were kept up by weirs and locks, side-channels fed from the
main stream being constructed to connect these deepened sections.
The Proposed Mediterranean and Biscay Canal.—The project for
connecting the Mediterranean and the Bay of Biscay by a ship canal has
often been under discussion, and would, no doubt, if carried out, prove of
considerable utility. Not only would such a canal shorten by several days
the distance between the principal ports on the North Sea and the eastern
basin of the Mediterranean—thereby bringing England into closer contact

with the far Orient—but there would be a greater security to shipping, as a
result of avoiding the stormy coasts of Spain and Portugal during the winter
months. The proposed canal has been variously named the “Canal de deux
Mers,” the “Canal du Midi,” &c., but it would practically be identical with
the Languedoc Canal already described, and by means of which boats of
small size are even now passed between the two seas.[69]
The route proposed for the Mediterranean and Bay of Biscay Ship Canal
is from Bordeaux to Cette by Agen, Montauban, Toulouse, Carcassonne,
and Béziers. The canal, after following largely the course of the Garonne,
from Bordeaux, would tap the Dorpt, the Lot, the Aveyron, and the Tarn,
whence it would draw its water supply. From Toulouse, the canal would
follow the course of the South Canal, and would thence proceed by Béziers,
to the Lake of Thau, which would be transformed into an inland port. The
financial and other difficulties in the way of the project have, however,
proved insurmountable up to the present time. Both the City of Bordeaux,
which is the port chiefly interested, and the Government of France have
declined to aid in the realisation of the project; and the State has even
refused to grant the necessary concession for its construction, on the ground
that its cost would be quite out of proportion to its utility, that it would
isolate a large portion of French territory, and that costly works would have,
in any case, to be provided by the Government at both ends of the canal.
It is pointed out,[70] on the other hand, and with some force, that in the
case of a maritime war between France and England, the proposed Atlantic
and Mediterranean Canal would allow of vessels reaching the former sea
without passing Gibraltar. Brest and Toulon could also be brought into more
rapid activity, and the concentration of troops could be more readily
effected. A plan and profile of the proposed route appears at p. 101.
The Rhone Canals.—At the mouth of the Rhone artificial waterways of
considerable importance have been provided for navigation purposes, the
chief of which, the St. Louis Canal, has a draught of water of 19⅔ feet at
low sea-level; its width is 100 feet at the bottom, and 207 feet at the surface
of the water.
The channel into the sea is 200 feet wide, at the bottom, from the shore
out to the 4-metre (13 feet) line, and 656 feet wide from the 4-metre (13
feet) line to the 6-metre (20 feet) line. The canal is separated from the

Rhone by a lock having a depth of water of 24½ feet, a depth of 72 feet, and
an available length of 525 feet. Below the lock, at the commencement of the
canal, a basin has been excavated, 30 acres in area, and with 20 feet depth
of water. The works were begun in 1863, and finished in 1873.
The St. Louis Canal is a work of far greater importance, as regards
navigation, than the results anticipated from the improvement of the mouth
of the Rhone, to vessels finding a sufficient depth to get up to Arles. This
depth was restricted to 6½ feet at low-water level. The St. Louis Canal
Works afford access to the Rhone for vessels up to 20 feet draught, and
provide these vessels with a harbour, opening into a sheltered bay, in which
they are able with ease to load and discharge their cargoes.
The project of the St Louis Canal was from the first assailed by the
partisans of the embankment works, as well as by those who considered that
the proper expedient was to enlarge the canal from Arles to Bouc. It was
urged that the canal would soon be silted up by deposits from the Rhone,
both at the sea end and also at the lock. The canal from Arles to Bouc was
constructed in 1802, but as it has only a depth of 6½ feet and a width of
26¼ feet on the locks, it has not been available for the craft usually
navigating the Rhone since steam navigation was established.
General Features of French Canals.—The general characteristics of the
principal canals of France will be understood from the following table,
which gives the number of locks, the length of the locks, and their average
width and depth on fifteen of the principal canals in the country, as recorded
in the Government Reports on the French Waterways:—

Statement showing the number of Locks, with their length, width.
and average depth, on the chief Canals in France.

Number Average
Length Width
Canals. of Depth
of Locks. of Locks.
Locks. of Locks.
metres. metres. metres.
De la Deûle 1 38·70 ... ...
Meuse 26 45 5·70 2·42
De la Sambre 38 37·60 5·20 2·34

Number Average
Length Width
Canals. of Depth
of Locks. of Locks.
Locks. of Locks.
5·20 to
De l’Est 33 38 to 45 2·60
5·70
De l’Aisne de la
24 35 5·20 2·68
Marne
5·20 to
St. Quentin 35 34 2·29
6·40
5·20 to
De l’Ourcq 10 38·80 to 63 ...
6·20
De Briare 43 33 5·20 2·87
Du Muernais 116 33 5·10 2·07
5·13 to
Du Rhone au Rhin 73 30 2·23
5·30
34·80 to
De Neufosse 6 5·20 2·67
36·53
De l’Aire 1 37·95 5·20 2·00
De la Somne 23 45 6·30 2·49
5·20 to
De l’Oise et à l’Aisne 35 34 2·29
8·40
De la Haute Marne 34 25 to 38·50 5·20 3·10

The French Assembly adopted, in August 1879, a law which decreed
that the principal lines of canal communication ought to have a depth of 2
metres, and locks not less than 38 metres 50 long, by 5 metres 20 wide. In
the South of France the only canals that conform to these requirements are
those of the Midi and the Aulize; in Central France, the Canal du Centre,
the Canal Roanne à Dijon, the Canal du Berry, and the Canal du Rhone au
Rhin. The Canal de Bourgogne, the Canal de Briare, and the Canal
d’Orleans, are also up to these requirements. In the north of France, and on
the Belgian frontier, it may be said that all the waterways are of the required
minimum dimensions.

Paris is the natural centre of the French canals. Barges find their way
there from the ports of Dunkirk, Gravelines, Calais, and Havre, large
quantities of coal, iron, and wheat being carried, and in the fall of the year
the cargoes of numerous timber vessels are made into rafts and floated to
their destination. Of late years, however, the increasing quantities of planks
and deals sawn in the north, are loaded into the barges. The important coal
and iron districts of Belgium, at Mons and Charleroi, provide a good deal of
freight for Paris, which goes viâ Condé from the former, and viâ Landrecies
from the latter, the two routes uniting at La Fere, whence the Seine, at
Conflans, is reached by descending the river l’Oise. The river Rhine is
communicated with at Saarbruck and Strasburg; Switzerland at Bâle, and
the important ports of Marseilles and Cette by the Yonne, the Burgundy
Canal, and the rivers Saône and Rhone. The western ports of Nantes, Brest,
and Bordeaux have also canal communication with Paris.
The large péniches of 270 tons, which are about 116 feet long, 16 feet
beam, bluff at bow and stem, and almost flat bottomed, draw 1·80 metres
when loaded. They are usually worked by two men and the wife of the
captain. The value of these craft, with their equipments, is from 10,000 to
15,000 francs, and they are always insured against damage or loss. In all
rivers and places with the slightest risk, the use of pilots is compulsory.
During the latter part of 1888, the French Chambers had under
consideration a proposal to reimpose the tolls that were formerly levied on
canals and navigable rivers, but which, within recent years, have been
removed. It was contended that the waterways, exempt from tolls, were
likely to be dangerous rivals to the railways. The railway interest clamoured
accordingly for what they called fair play. The Budget Commission,
however, refused to entertain the idea of resuming the canal tolls, holding,
as expressed by their spokesman, that “by developing the waterways, and
thereby serving industry in the cheap transport of raw materials which were
incapable of bearing a high charge for carriage, production would be
increased, and the traffic of the railways in manufactured goods would be
proportionately augmented.”
A considerable amount of light has been thrown upon the circumstances
of the internal navigation of France by a census that was recently taken of
the boats employed upon the navigable rivers and canals. This census
showed that, at the end of 1887, there were employed on the national

waterways no fewer than 15,730 vessels, having a total tonnage capacity of
2,724,000 metrical tons, or an average of 173 metrical tons per vessel. Of
these boats, 933, with a total tonnage of 342,933, or an average of 370 tons
per vessel, had a length of 38 metres 50 and over; 4863 boats, having a total
tonnage of 1,415,904 metrical tons, or an average of rather under 300 tons
each, had a length of 33 metres to 38 metres 50; while 9934, with a total
tonnage of 965,000 tons, or an average of 96 tons, were less than 33 metres
in length. Of the 15,730 vessels employed in the inland navigation of
France, 14,252 were found to have been constructed in the country, 1017 in
Belgium, 339 in Germany, and 122 in other countries. It would thus appear
that France retains in her own hands the shipbuilding involved in the
navigation of her own waterways. Finally, it appears that 8537 boats, with a
total tonnage of 1,632,000 tons, were employed on the canals, and 7203
boats, with a tonnage of 1,092,000 tons, on the rivers.
It would take up far too much of our time and space if we were to
attempt to speak of the resources of the principal rivers of France, and of
the means that have been taken by the State to maintain and improve them.
Much has been done in this direction within recent years, and more is
proposed in the near future. Until quite recently, if not actually up to the
present time, the cost of transporting a ton of coal from Cardiff or
Newcastle to Paris has been about 16 francs, being 9 francs to Rouen, and 6
francs from Rouen to Paris, with 1 or 1½ francs for unloading into river
boats at Rouen. The consumption of coal in Paris is from 2½ to 3 million
tons a year, and it has been argued that the cost of this coal could be
reduced to the consumers by some 6 francs if Paris were converted into a
seaport by improving the Seine. One objection offered to this proposal is
that it would interfere with the French collieries in the Nord and the Pas-de-
Calais, if so obvious an advantage were given to English coal; and to meet
this difficulty it has been proposed to have another special canal from those
districts, which would start from St. Denis or Creil, and would
communicate by two branches with Antin and Lens. It is argued that the
cost of conveying coal from the north to Paris by this means would not
exceed 2 to 2½ francs, or 4 francs less than at the present time.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER VII
[60] This does not include the six small companies, whose united lines only
make up 217 kilometres, nor the _reseau de l’Etat_, which has 2164 kilometres
more. Over the latter system the number of tons carried one mile was 133
millions, and the receipts therefrom amounted to about 12 millions of francs,
which corresponds to an average of 0·91d. per ton per mile, showing that the
independent companies carry traffic cheaper than the State lines.
[61] ‘Bulletin du Ministère des Travaux Publics,’ Tome xviii. p. 329.
[62] The proportions of the total coal supply of 3,065,800 tons received by Paris
in 1886 were contributed thus:—

By Water. By Rail.
tons. tons.
French coal 839,200 889,700
Belgian ” 402,300 557,200
English ” 26,700 191,100
German ” 26,400 133,200
Totals 1,294,600 1,771,200

[63] It is interesting to compare, or rather contrast, this with the traffic of the
port of London, where, in 1888, the entrances of shipping amounted to close on
12½ millions of tons, carried in 49,213 vessels, the average tonnage being over
700 tons.
[64] ‘Album de Statistique Graphique.’
[65] Traffic on French canals:—1883, 11,975,000 tons; 1884, 11,936,000 tons;
1885, 11,102,000 tons; 1886, 12,027,000 tons.
[66] Traffic on French rivers:—1883, 8,873,000 tons; 1884, 8,936,000 tons;
1885, 8,353,000 tons; 1886, 8,950,000.
[67] Lord Clarence Paget here refers, of course, to the Suez Canal, since the
Panama Canal, which is dealt with elsewhere in this volume, is in quite a
different category.
[68] These details are abstracted from the ‘Minutes of Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers,’ vol. 86, p. 419, et seq.
[69] Lord Alfred Paget’s paper, originally published in the ‘Journal of the
Society of Arts,’ giving an account of a yacht voyage which he made over this
canal, has already been referred to.
[70] M. E. Couillard in ‘Annales Industrielles,’ June, 1887.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE WATERWAYS OF GERMANY.

“How many spacious countries does the Rhine,
In winding banks and mazes serpentine,
Traverse, before he splits on Belgia’s plain,
And, lost in sand, creeps to the German main.”
Sir R. Blackmore.

There is perhaps no country that enjoys greater facilities of transport than
Germany, relatively to its area, its population, and its commerce. This happy
condition of things is due, partly to the fostering care of a paternal government,
which has taken transportation under its special care, and controls by far the
larger part of the ways of communication both by land and water; partly to the
competition, at low rates of freight, between railways, rivers, and canals; and
partly to the close attention which has been given by traders, economists, and
engineers to the problems that determine the ultimate economy of transport
under different conditions. With a railway system that has now been completed
to the extent of 25,000 miles, with 17,000 miles of rivers, and with 1250 miles
of canal navigation that is soon likely to be considerably increased, the German
Empire offers facilities for the study of the transportation problem that entitle it
to the serious attention of all who are interested in the matter. This is all the
more obvious that Germany, although possessed of very moderate natural
resources otherwise, has attained a front rank among commercial nations.
River Systems.—The chief river systems of Germany are those of the
Rhine, draining an area of 76,000 square miles, and having a course of 850
miles; the Elbe, which drains an area of 55,000 square miles, and is, next to the
Rhine, the most important of the German rivers; the Oder, which has a drainage
basin of 50,000 square miles, and a course of 550 miles; the Vistula, which
rises in the Carpathian mountains, 2000 feet above sea level, has a drainage
area of 74,000 square miles, and a length of 600 miles; the Niemen, which has
a drainage area conterminous with that of the Düna, and of about the same
extent, i. e., 35,000 square miles; the Weser, which has a drainage area of
18,000 square miles, and a course of 355 miles; with the Ems and one or two
smaller streams. The flow of the chief streams is as follows:—

River. Sea.
The Danube The Black Sea.
Rhine, Elbe, and Weser The North Sea.
Vistula, Oder, Memel, and Pregel The Baltic.
Of the Danube we shall speak at some length when we come to deal with
the waterways of Austria, to which that river mainly belongs. But most of the
other rivers of Germany have been more or less canalised, and we shall
therefore refer to some of the changes thereby effected in river transport.
The Rhine.—The lowest velocity of the Rhine is 2·62 feet per second; the
highest 11·15 feet per second, and, at Düsseldorf, 5·24 to 6·56 feet, with 9·84
feet mean-water on the Cologne gauge. The width of the river at St. Goar is
180 yards, and the depth 98 feet; at Düsseldorf it is 275 yards wide, and 72 feet
deep. These are the two greatest depths of the river. In the Rheingau and the
Lower Rhine, the width increases to about 770 yards. At Wesel the proportion
of volume of low and high water is 1·14.
The steamers now employed to navigate the Rhine are constructed for
cargoes of about 800 tons. The first improvement-works were carried out from
1847 to 1850; in 1868, with low water equal to 4·92 on the Cologne gauge, the
channel from Bingen to Coblenz was clear to an equal minimum depth of 6·56
feet; from Coblenz to Cologne 8·2 feet; and from Cologne to Rotterdam, 9·84
feet.
In 1874, the 8·2 feet channel was extended from Cologne to St. Goar. With
the improvement works, the width of the river channel is now from 100 to 160
yards; below Cologne it expands to 330 yards. The cost of the works has been
as under:—
£
Previous to 1851 650,000
1881-1861 225,000
1861-1879 475,000
The remaining works are to be completed
within eighteen years at an estimated
cost of 1,100,000
Making the total expenditure £2,450,000
Down to Cologne the banks rise above water level. Further seawards the
ground is low-lying, and dykes have to be employed. These commence near

Düsseldorf.
The traffic carried on the Rhine is very considerable, especially between the
Dutch ports and the Westphalian manufacturing districts. It embraces large
quantities of coal, iron ore, iron and steel manufactures, &c., and the cost of its
transport compares favourably with railway rates.
The navigable length of the Rhine is 435 miles, and on this length it has a
yearly traffic of about 5500 vessels, averaging some 200 tons each. The Rhine
has a greater density of traffic than the Danube, on which only some 800
vessels are employed, also averaging some 200 tons; but the Danube, which is
navigable to Regensburg, 281 miles from Vienna, has a much longer
navigation. It is believed that chain traction could be carried as far as Ulm,
which is 131 miles farther.
The Ems.—This river has a limited interior communication, the tide
flowing for not more than 15 to 20 miles. The Ems takes its rise only in the
territory of Münster, receiving the river Hase, a little above Meppen, and the
Söste at Leer, and it is navigable at no great distance in its current. It then runs
by the Dollart, a sort of bay betwixt Emden and the Dutch coast, into the North
Sea, in two branches; one called the eastern, the other the western Ems,
forming betwixt them the island of Borcum. Formerly the river passed close by
Embden, from a cut being made to force the current of the river that way, but,
being neglected, it has taken its course by the coast of Gröningen. A narrow
channel from Embden is, however, kept clear, in consequence of four sluices in
the town, which are opened whilst the ebb tide continues.
The Ems has enjoyed a considerable degree of celebrity, not so much from
its extent as from its local advantages, and from the political situation of
Holland. It enjoys a free navigation by its neutrality, it is under the protection
of Prussia, and it is contiguous to Delfzyl, an excellent entrance into Holland,
by a canal which runs through the northern provinces, by the city of Gröningen,
into the Zuyder Zee. It thus communicates with all Holland and Flanders, the
trade of which countries, and some parts of Germany and France, were
formerly largely carried on by it.
The Mosel.—The canalisation of the Mosel from Frouard to Diedenhofen,
nearly 57 miles, is a portion of an intended navigable communication from
Louisenthal, on the Rhine-Marne canal system, to Saar-Kohbenbecken, on the
Saar. From Frouard to Arnaville, about 25 miles, it was carried out by the
French Government between 1867 and 1870; and from Arnaville to Metz by
the Prussian Government, under Herr J. Schlichting, between 1872 and the

present time. The canalisation from Metz to Diedenhofen, and the proposed
connection between the Nied canals of the Mosel, the Saar, and the Maas,
remain to be completed. As the main object of this canalisation was to provide
a navigable passage for craft having a draught of 5·9 feet, the minimum depth
of water was fixed at 6·56 feet. The bottom width of the canal is 39·4 feet.
Of the 25·15 miles of river dealt with by the French, only 3·14 miles were
rendered navigable. The remainder of the main course adapted for navigation
consisted of four portions of canal, in all 17 miles in length. In addition there
were 1·25 mile of short canals, connecting the main course with the Mosel.
Corresponding to the canals there are four movable weirs in the Mosel at
Custines, Marbache, Dieulouard, and Pont-à-Mousson, which maintain the
necessary water-level in dry seasons. The fall from the Rhine-Marne Canal at
Frouard to the Mosel system is 26·25 feet, and the fall from Frouard to
Amaville is 48·6 feet, overcome by six locks. The cost of these 20 miles of
navigable channel is stated by the French engineers to have been 208,000l. The
German works recently executed include a continuation of the main canal from
Arnaville to Novéant, where it debouches into the Mosel for a length of 1·05
mile; the canalisation of the Mosel itself thence to Jouy-aux-Arches, 3·38 miles
long, where a movable weir maintains the water-level in this reach; and a main
canal thence to Metz on the right bank of the river, 5·55 miles long. The branch
canals are comparatively independent of the above. One of them is situated on
the left bank at Ars, and consists of a rectification of a side channel of the river,
2·54 miles long, intended solely for the use of the iron foundries of that town; a
feeder of this, being on low-lying ground, requires special protective
embankments. The other, 1258 yards long, connects the main canal with a
basin at the railway terminus at Metz. The portion of the Mosel from the
embouchure of the Ars branch canal down to the island of Vaux is made into a
navigable basin for the use of the foundries, a movable weir at the latter place
giving the necessary increased depth of water.
The Rhine and Danube Canal.—In 1834 an elaborate report was made by
C. T. Kleinschrod, of Munich, relative to the feasibility of constructing a canal
to connect the Rhine and the Danube.[71] The proposal was to proceed from the
Rhine by way of the Main as far as Bamberg, and there commence a canal
which should proceed by Nüremberg to Keeheim, where it would effect a
junction with the Danube. The total length of the artificial waterway between
these two points, Bamberg and Keeheim, was stated at 23⅓ German miles. The
writer of the pamphlet made an elaborate estimate of the probable cost of the
undertaking, which had the support of the King of Bavaria, and it was

demonstrated that at that time, when there were hardly any railways in
Germany, it would be attended with a great economy of transport. Owing,
however, to the competition of railways, and the extent to which they soon
afterwards met the requirements of the country, the project was not entirely
successful. The canal was completed in 1844. It is 110 miles long and 7 feet
deep.
The Danube, which is practically navigable from the town of Regensburg,
281 miles westward of Vienna, and the Black Sea, is the chief important
waterway of Austria. Communication is obtained with Prussia by the Danube-
Oder canal, and it is now proposed to establish a communication between this
canal and the Elbe, in which case, traffic could be carried from Vienna to
Hamburg by water all the way. It has been suggested to have communication
made between the Danube and the Rhine either by Dilligen, 31 miles below
Ulm, viâ Königsbronn, 1640 feet above sea-level, to the Neckar, and from
Cannstadt to Mannheim, and alternatively by Kehlheim, Nuremburg, and
Bamberg, an ascent of 1375 feet to the Main, whence Mayence would be
reached viâ Frankfort.
The Oder and the Elbe Canal.—At an early period in the history of
European trade, the desirability of having the Oder and the Elbe connected by
an artificial waterway was discussed. This was even more of a desideratum
about a century and a half ago than it is to-day. At that time, Stettin, which is
built on the west side of the Oder, about 46 miles from its mouth, was perhaps
the leading commercial city in Germany, having a large trade with England,
France, and other countries on the west, with Scandinavia, and with the Baltic
countries. The importance of joining such a port with Berlin, Hamburg,
Dresden, and with other cities either upon or near to the Elbe, was manifest.
The first canal built for this purpose was that of Plaven, completed in 1745.
This canal joined the Havel with the Elbe at Parcy. It is about twenty English
miles in length, 40 to 50 feet in width, and has three sluices. It reduces by more
than one half the length of the navigation between the Oder and the Elbe.
About the same time the canal of Finow was constructed to connect the same
rivers by the Finow and the Havel. There are thirteen sluices on this canal.
Another canal, called the Frederick William, joins the Oder and the Spree
above Frankfort, and, uniting with the Havel near Brandenburg, connects the
latter with the Elbe. It is fifteen English miles long, and has ten sluices.
The Holstein Canal was begun in 1777, and was completed on the 4th of
May, 1785, but was opened in 1784. The cost of the undertaking was 2,512,432

rix dollars. There are six sluices, which cost 70,000 rix dollars each. This canal,
on the side of the Baltic, commences about three English miles north of Kiel, at
a place called Holtenau, where there is a sluice, another at Knoop, and a third at
Rathmansdorf, till it comes to the Flemhude Lake, which is the highest point;
and from this lake, on the side of Rendsburg, there are three other sluices—one
at Königsford, another at Kluvensiek, and the last at Rendsburg. These are on
what is called the Upper Eyder, and the Lower Eyder is from Rendsburg to its
mouth, running by Tonningen, below which place it falls into the sea between
Eyderstadt and Dithmarschen. The distance is about 100 English miles, and
vessels must either sail or tide it, or both; whilst from Rendsburg to Holtenau,
nearly at the mouth of Kiel Bay, upon the Baltic, it is only about 25 English
miles, which can be navigated in all weathers, except during a strong frost, as
horses can be had, if required, at fixed rates. The vessels are let through a sluice
in little more than eight or ten minutes each. For each sluice they pay only 4
schillings Danish, or about so many pence English. The surface breadth of this
canal is 100 feet, and at the bottom 54 feet Danish measure, and the depth is at
least 10 feet throughout. Vessels can pass through the sluices 100 feet in length,
26 feet in breadth, and 9 feet 4 inches draught of water, Danish measure, and
which, for the regulation of the British merchant and shipowner, as well as the
master, it may be observed, corresponds in English measure to vessels of 95
feet 4 inches length; 24 feet 9 inches breadth; and 9 feet depth.
An increase and improvement of the waterways of Germany is looked upon
as a pressing present necessity by many, and provision has been made for the
commencement of three great canals—the connection of the Baltic with the
North Sea, of the Spree with the Oder, and of the Ems with the Rhine. The first
mentioned is to be built chiefly from military considerations, so that the
German ironclads can get from Kiel to the Atlantic. The two others are to be
constructed for commercial purposes. In connection with these there will also
be canals built from the Rhine to the Elbe, and from the Oder to the Silesian
Mountains. The agricultural interest very strongly opposed the Spree-Oder and
Ems-Rhine Canal, because they feared the foreign grain would be more
plentifully brought into the empire thereby, but their opposition was not
successful.
Besides these works the river Weser is being deepened, and a new channel
has been constructed between Bremen and the sea—a distance of about 50
miles.

The North Sea and Baltic Ship Canal.—This new ship canal is to be
international as well as national in its character. It will reduce the sea passage,
as compared to the Sound route, by 237 sea miles, shorten the journey of
sailing vessels by at least three days, and that of steamers by about twenty-two
hours in normal weather, and these advantages are to cost the shipowners 9d.
per registered ton when the canal is navigable. About 35,000 vessels pass
through the Sound annually. It is, moreover, intended to strengthen the
offensive and defensive power of Germany. It may, however, be remarked that
Count Moltke never from the first gave the plan his cordial support from a
strategical point of view, maintaining then, as now, that the money which the
canal is to cost would have been more judiciously spent if employed to
strengthen the national navy.
The Baltic Ship Canal begins at Holtenau, a small village just north of the
royal dockyard of Kiel, on the Baltic, and enters the Elbe 15 miles above the
North Sea, near Brunsbütte. It will have a total length of 75 to 80 kilometres, as
seen on the sketch-map at page 125. Its width is to be, on the water surface, 60
metres; on the bottom, 26 metres; its depth is to be 8½ metres, and its total cost
156 million marks, as estimated. The canal may be looked upon as a mere
cutting, in which the water-level is to be that of the Baltic Sea, and there will
only be flood-gates or sluices where it enters the river Eider and at its
termination in the Elbe; these will be, as a matter of fact, open all the year
round. For the convenience of the Royal Marine, rather extensive works will be
carried out at the Elbe embouchure, consisting of large and small locks, and
eventually a floating basin for at least four large armour-clads, besides coaling
stations at either end of the canal. The four railways crossing the canal, as well
as the two main post roads, will be carried over it by means of iron swing-
bridges; and steam and manual pontoons will serve for the other various
crossing-points of the canal. There are no engineering difficulties to contend
with, excepting perhaps a boggy portion not very remote from the Elbe. The
highest point of cutting is about 24 kilometres distant from the Elbe, and here it
will be 30 metres distant from the bottom level of the canal, otherwise the
ground to be removed is mostly sand or sandy loam.
This canal will unite the Gulf of Kiel with the mouth of the Elbe, and will
run by way of Rendsburg to a point midway between Brunsbüttel and St.
Margarethen, a few miles below Hamburg. It will, when completed, be 61
miles long, 196 feet broad at the water level, 85 feet broad at the bottom, and
28 feet deep, and it will have but two locks—one at each end. The canal will
take in the largest warship that has been or will be constructed in Germany, and

will, moreover, take her at all states of the tide and in less than eight hours it
will be possible for her to proceed by it from Kiel to the Elbe, or vice versâ.
The canal, therefore, will enable Germany to regard with some degree of
indifference the possession of the mouths of the Baltic. She will always have
her own entrance into that sea, and will be in a position at very short notice
either to reinforce her squadrons there with ships from the North Sea, or to
draw ships thence to reinforce Kiel and the Elbe. It is proposed to supplement
this strategical waterway by means of a further canal, which shall traverse
Hanover from Neuhaus, on the Elbe, opposite Brunsbüttel, to Bremerhaven, at
the mouth of the Weser. It will then be possible for the whole voyage between
Kiel and Wilhelmshaven to be performed in what are practically inland waters.
This last section of canal is, indeed, necessary for the thorough completion of
the scheme of coast defence; for the position of Great Britain at Heligoland
renders a blockade by her of the mouths of the Elbe and Weser comparatively
easy, unless provision be made for the safe concentration at will, either at
Brunsbüttel or at Wilhelmshaven, of a fairly formidable fleet.
The Eyder, which divides Schleswig from Holstein, flows through territory
to be regarded as permanently German into the North Sea at Tönning. From
Rendsburg, to which place the Eyder is navigable, the Eyder or Schleswig-
Holstein canal was dug towards the close of the last century to Kiel Bay, on the
Baltic. It is from 10 to 11 feet deep, and has locks. Vessels, though of no great
burden, can thus at present pass from the one sea to the other. As soon as
Prussia occupied the Danish Duchies, proposals were entertained by it for an
increase of the depth and width of this canal. Its maintenance, as it is
necessitates a large expenditure on dykes, and the contemplated improvements,
of which the charge would fall wholly or mainly on Prussia, must inevitably be
exceedingly costly. When they were fully carried out, they might not answer
the commercial needs of the chief centres of German trade, and might even
divert custom from them. Hamburg wants a canal nearer to its end of the
peninsula. It will be likely to attain its wish by the measure which has now
been sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament. By this scheme the two German
seas will be united at points most convenient for the accommodation of the
entire Empire.
In addition to the Eyder Canal, a second but more indirect water
communication between the Baltic and North Seas has existed for five hundred
years in the Steckenitz Canal, by which the Hanse city of Lübeck connected the
Steckenitz and Delvenau with the Elbe. But this is not the route which wins
engineering or political favour. The line most strongly supported is from Kiel,

south-westwards to Brunsbüttel, at the mouth of the Elbe, opposite Cuxhaven.
It would satisfy the demands of Hamburg, which, though it seems to be jealous
of Altona, practically embraces within the limits of its port the whole Elbe
estuary. Kiel has a rising commerce which is likely to be greatly expanded by
the undertaking. In the eyes of German statesmen, the plan has commended
itself as giving the principal war harbour of the Empire an independent outlet to
the North Sea. The Northern Powers might, as things now are, if hostile, seal
up the German Navy in the Baltic. They hold the keys, and could convert the
sea into a lake. Whatever the German naval strength at Bremerhaven, on the
Elbe, and at Kiel, it could be cut in half, and prevented from co-operating at the
discretion of Scandinavia.
This is, as we have seen, a reason of the highest State for undertaking the
new waterway. German ships, unprovided with a waterway between the
German Ocean and the Baltic, have been exposed to extraordinary risks. This
fact alone is, in the eyes of Germany, a sufficient reason for such an enterprise.
But there are also the equally cogent reasons of trade, and the preservation of
shipping and human life.

Map showing the Route of the North Sea and Baltic Canal.
The Kattegat and Skager Rack are computed to cost Germany a yearly loss
of five hundred lives by wreck, and half a million sterling. The pecuniary

damage through the trade which is turned back, and does not dare to defy the
peril, must be much more considerable. Germany at large has finally to defray
the major part of these charges, positive and negative. The saving of them is
likely to yield very ample interest on the seven or eight millions to be spent.
Venerable Lübeck would alone have cause to murmur at a work which
threatens it with more grievous competition than even now it has to meet from
the competition of Kiel for the Baltic trade. A writer in the Times has, however,
pointed out that Lübeck, though it has fallen behind in the race with Hamburg,
has its own intrinsic sources of prosperity, and is not likely to let them slip. The
one real drawback to the attractions of the project is the unaccommodating
character of a North German winter. Ice, which seriously obstructs the
navigation of the tidal rivers, would be harsher still to the sluggish surface of a
fresh-water canal in Holstein.
The North Sea and Baltic Canal will be of the following dimensions:—
Breadth at surface 200 feet; at bottom 85 feet. Depth 27 feet 10 inches.
This size will allow the heaviest ships in the German navy to make use of
the waterway, and it is estimated that 18,000 ships out of the 35,000 that
annually pass the Sound, will use the canal, which will shorten the distance
between the Baltic and London by 22 hours; Hull by 15 hours; Hartlepool by 8
hours; Newcastle-on-Tyne by 6 hours; and Leith by 4 hours. It is expected to
affect the English coal trade with Baltic ports, by giving readier access to
German coal ports, and in addition to saving time in transit, it will relieve
vessels from the danger of doubling the Skaw. The work is likely to be
completed in 1893 or 1894.
The cost of the canal is estimated at between seven and eight millions
sterling, of which 2½ millions are to be provided by Prussia.
It is the inevitable result of every new addition to the transportation
facilities of a country to benefit more or less some places at the expense of
others. The North Sea Canal is likely to prove disadvantageous, as we have
seen, to the ancient city of Lübeck, in consequence of a diversion of its traffic.
To meet this drawback, it has been proposed to construct a new canal through
Holstein, connecting the Trave with the Elbe. Negotiations have been carried
on between Lübeck and Prussia, with this end in view. The canal would be 72
kilometres in length, and is estimated to cost 18 millions of marks (900,000l.).
With this canal, Lübeck is expected to retain its considerable trade with North-
eastern Europe.

The Rhine-Ems Canal.—The proposed Rhine-Ems Canal is expected, by
bringing the Rhine and the Ems into more direct connection with the
Westphalian coalfield, to bring German into very close competition with
English coal at the North Sea and Baltic ports. The plan is a very old one, and
was resuscitated some thirty years ago, but nothing came of the project till
three sessions ago, when the Chambers voted a large sum to carry it out under
Government, provided the interested country districts through which the canal
was to pass, beginning at Dortmund, would acquire the requisite land through
which the canal was to be cut, and hand it over for the common good. The
money has been coming in since by driblets, slowly and reluctantly, from one
township and the other, but at last it seems probable that it will ultimately be
subscribed, and for this eventuality English coalowners must be prepared. A
glance at a map will show that from Dortmund to Emden, and thence through
the North Sea and Baltic Canal, a direct route to the East seaports will be
opened up; and as the Westphalian coal can then be placed at Emden at the
same price as the English at one of the east coast shipping ports, and the
distance from Emden to the Baltic by the new ship canal is twenty-three hours
less than from Hull, twenty-seven from Hartlepool, thirty from Newcastle, and
thirty-six from Leith, it is evident that a sharper rivalry may be established. If
the ship canal be not used, the difference in time between Emden and the Baltic
will be less by thirty-eight hours from Hull, thirty-six from Newcastle, thirty-
five from Hartlepool, and forty from Leith. No steps have yet been taken with
regard to the continuation of the canal from Dortmund to the Rhine, which
would then open up a new and shorter waterway from South Germany and
Switzerland to the Baltic.
The Dortmund and Emden Canal is designed to develop the
communication between the Westphalian coalfield and the harbour at the
mouth of the Ems, and comprises (1) the completion of the canal direct from
the collieries, and joining the Ems at Papenburg, and (2) the improvement of
the navigation at Emden harbour. The canal follows, at the outset, the Emscher
valley to Henrichenburg, whence it is intended to construct a branch of about 5
miles to the Rhine; the length of this section being about 9¼ miles, with a fall
of about 45·3 feet. The section of 38 miles past Münster, is unbroken by locks,
but falls of 50 feet to Bevergern, whence the previously existing Haulken Canal
is followed as far as Meppen. The fall from Bevergern to Papenburg is 130·9
feet: and the distance 68 miles; the total fall from Dortmund to Emden being
226·2 feet, with twenty-six locks.

From Papenburg the Ems is navigable for the largest barges; but at
Oldersum, about 6 miles from the mouth of the river, the channel becomes
exposed to northerly storms, and from this point, therefore, a new cut, closed
from the river by a lock, joins the new harbour, which, however, is yet
unfinished, and is capable of considerable extension. The dimensions of the
work are:—
Canal. Locks.
ft. in. ft. in.
Width of bed 52 0 Length 220 0
” at water level 78 0 Clear width of gates 28 3
Depth 66 Depth on sill 83

Sections and Details of Cost of the
Dortmund and Emden Canal.

Total Cost
Length Cost of Works.
(including land.)
Section. in
Miles. Per Per
Total. Total.
Mile. Mile.
£ £ £ £
Dortmund to
9¼ 26,082 243,000 34,373 320,500
Henrichenburg
Branch to Herne (5 miles) ... 17,468 84,500 21,574 104,500
Henrichenburg to
18,354 1,092,500 20,608 1,228,500
Bevergern 59½
... 37,500 ... 37,500
Bevergern to Papenburg 68 14,973 1,019,500 15,939 1,093,000
River (Ems) from
Papenburg 19½
to Oldersum
Eldersum to Emden 5¾ 25,760 147,000 28,738 164,000
Emden Harbour ¾ ... 295,000 ... 295,000

Total Cost
Length Cost of Works.
(including land.)
Section. in
Miles. Per Per
Total. Total.
Mile. Mile.
Total distance, Dortmund
162¾ ... 2,919,000 ... 3,233,000
to Emden Harbour

The aqueducts, by which the canal is carried over the Lippe and Stever
valleys, having also a depth of 8 feet 3 inches, the canal can at any time be
dredged to this depth throughout. The navigation can be worked by steam-
power, and when the harbour is completed, so that the coal can be brought
direct from the collieries, the freight charges will probably be reduced to 2s. 3d.
or 2s. 6d. per ton, as against 3s. 6d., the lowest now charged. The preceding
table is a statement of the details of this undertaking.
Scheldt and Rhine Canal.—For a considerable time past, a canal has been
in course of construction between the Scheldt and the Rhine. The undertaking
has been jointly promoted by Holland, Belgium, and Germany. The two former
countries are said to have completed their part of the new waterway, but the
German section of the work has been allowed to stagnate for lack of support,
and in 1887 the Frankfort Chamber of Commerce applied to the German
Government for assistance, with a view to its completion. At the present time,
the Rhine is one of the most important waterways in Europe in reference to the
extent of its traffic. The port of Rotterdam is, however, the only one open by
this route, while the new canal would give access to the magnificent port of
Antwerp, whence cheaper freights are obtained to North America than from
any other European port.
Oder and Upper Spree Navigation.—The old Friedrich-Wilhelm Canal,
constructed over two hundred years since, was till recently the only means of
water communication through this district; but the dimensions of the channel,
as well as the locks, were too small for present requirements, and in preference
to reconstructing the whole work, it was decided to cut another channel, joining
the Oder a few miles further from Frankfurt. The country traversed is easier
than in the case of the Ems, and as the Oder does not take such large vessels as
the Ems, the dimensions of the canal are smaller; the limit being for 400 ton
barges:—

Locks.
Canal.
ft. in. ft. in.
Width of bed 46 0 Length 180 0
” at water level 76 0 Clear width of gates 28 3
Depth 6 6 Depth of sill 8 3
The total length of this navigation is stated at 54½ miles, and the cost is
estimated at 11,592l. per mile.
It is now proposed to connect the North Sea at Hamburg with Vienna, and
thence, by the Danube, with the Black Sea and the Orient generally, by a canal
from Kosel to the Danube. The Prussian canal system now allows of water
transport all the way from Hamburg to Breig, whence the canalisation of the
Oder to Kosel, now being carried out, will be completed in 1894. Prussia
would continue the canal thence to the Austrian frontier if it was completed to
the Danube, 273 kilometres further, by others, and efforts have recently been
made to bring this about.
This navigation improvement will bring the coalfields of Eastern Silesia
into direct communication with Berlin.
In 1885, a project was brought forward in Prussia for the construction of a
canal that would join the Rhine, the Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. The length
of this waterway was estimated at 181¼ miles, the depth at 6 feet, 8 inches, and
the width at 53 feet, 4 inches at the bottom, and 80 feet on the water-line. The
canal is intended to accommodate vessels not exceeding 500 tons burden. The
outlay proposed for this and collateral canals was estimated at 4,050,000l.

Traffic on German Waterways.

The quantity of traffic carried on the waterways of Germany has been
calculated at 11,797,000 tons, of which North Germany furnished 11,249,000
tons, and Southern Germany 548,000 tons.[72]
This, however, does not include the Rhine and the Main, which would raise
the figures for North Germany to about 16½ millions of tons, while other
waterways in Southern Germany bring up the traffic in that division of the
empire to about three millions of tons, being a total for both divisions of about
twenty millions of tons in round figures, or approximately the same traffic as
the waterways of France in the same year.

Dealing only with those waterways of Germany, in which the transportation
of traffic is regularly carried on, and disregarding the streams or canals that are
practically unused for this purpose, it appears that the total length of internal
navigation in Germany is about 3384 miles,[73] but it is important to remark
that about 18 millions of the 20 millions of tons of traffic carried annually on
these waterways make use of only 2360 miles, or 69 per cent. of the whole,
leaving a million and a half to two millions of tons for the remaining 31 per
cent.
The latest returns at command appear to show that the waterways of
Germany were used by 17,885 sailing ships, of a total tonnage of 1,625,000
tons, or an average of 90 tons each; and by 830 steam ships, of a total tonnage
of about 33,000, being an average of 53 tons per vessel.
The total number of vessels employed in carrying merchandise, on the
waterways of Germany, in the form of tugs, kedges, and steamers, in addition
to the above, is given as 483, having an indicated horse-power per boat varying
from an average of 280 on the Rhine to one of only 53 on the Oder.
It is clear from these returns that the waterways of Germany employ a large
number of very small craft. It is equally clear that under these circumstances,
the cost of transport cannot be so cheap as it otherwise would be. If the average
tonnage of all the vessels employed under steam is only 53 tons, there must be
a number of very small craft indeed employed on the other waterways, in order
to make up for the considerably larger average of the vessels employed on the
Rhine.
In Germany, as in France and Belgium, it is chiefly traffic of the heavy kind
that makes use of the waterways. About 28 per cent. of the total traffic carried
on the canals and rivers of the Empire takes the form of coal and coke. On the
Rhine, almost one-half of the total traffic carried is mineral, but on the Elbe,
mineral traffic only constitutes 18 per cent. of the whole. But on this, and the
other waterways as well, timber, stone, clay, and lime, are carried in
considerable quantities, as well as vegetables and leguminous plants.[74] It is
estimated that eight millions of tons of traffic in Germany use both waterways
and railways, and on the Rhine alone over five millions of tons are carried in
this way.
The average traffic carried per mile on the Rhine is not less than 7400 tons.
On the 2484 miles of waterways that are regularly navigated in Germany, the
density of traffic is about 7200 tons per mile. On the railways of Germany,

however, the density of goods traffic only amounts to about 4864 tons per mile.
The French waterways have a density of 7246 tons per mile, as against a
density of 4500 tons on their railways. It is impossible to speak of the density
of the traffic on English waterways, inasmuch as no regular returns are
collected of the canal business of Great Britain; but as the canals have for the
most part been allowed to get very much out of repair, it is safe to assume that
the existing water transport will not compare favourably with the traffic carried
by railway.
An interesting statement has recently been compiled, showing the
quantities of traffic carried on the railways and waterways of Germany, to and
from the principal centres of population. It appears from this return that the
total quantity of traffic carried by water to and from Berlin, Hamburg,
Magdeburg, Mannheim, and one or two other cities of importance, compares
not unfavourably with rail transport. The particulars are given in the table on
the following page.
It is the practice in Germany for the Government to maintain the inland
navigations, charging only 6s. for lockage. This allows of very cheap transport
—so much so, indeed, that it is stated that between Hamburg and Berlin,
notwithstanding that the railway rates are extremely low, all heavy traffic is
carried by barges or steamers.
On the fourteen principal waterways in Germany, including the Oder, the
Spree, the Elbe, the Rhine, and the chief canals, the 17½ million tons of traffic
carried in 1887 was transported in 132,863 boats that were full and 35,989
boats that were not full. The average tonnage carried on the same waterways
between 1881 and 1885 was 14,318,000 tons. As compared with the vessels
employed, and the tonnage carried, in preceding years, there was an advance of
15·4 per cent. in the number of the boats, and of 22·7 per cent. in the amount of
traffic carried.
Traffic on the Railways and Waterways of Germany.

Number
Tons of Goods Carried. of Tons
Number of
Cities. per
Inhabitants.
By Rail. By Water. Total. Head of
Population
Berlin 1,200,000 3,504,000 3,348,000 6,852,000 5·71

Number
Tons of Goods Carried. of Tons
Number of
Cities. per
Inhabitants.
By Rail. By Water. Total. Head of
Population
Breslau 270,000 1,237,000 350,000 1,587,000 5·88
Hamburg 410,000 1,191,000 [75]3,221,000 4,442,000 10·7
Magdeburg
(including
Buckau 165,000 1,650,000 1,118,000 2,768,000 16·7
and
Neustadt)
Dresden 220,000 [76]1,411,000 534,000 1,945,000 8·8
Bremen 112,000 776,000 [77]
184,000 960,000 8·5
Ports of
Rhine—
(Rhurort,
70,000 5,427,000 4,107,000 9,554,000 136·0
Duisburg,
and
Hochfeld)
Cologne,
(including 160,000 1,132,000 314,000 1,634,000 10·0
Deutz)
Mannheim
and
75,000 1,776,000 2,041,000 3,817,000 50·0
Ludwigshafen

In the year 1878 it was announced that over 1045 miles of new canal
navigation had been ordered throughout Germany, in addition to the 1289 miles
then open, and the 4925 miles of navigable rivers available.[78] This fact
sufficiently indicates the great importance that is attached in Germany to
adequate water communication, and it is all the more notable that very few
countries are possessed of equally cheap railway transport.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER VIII
[71] Those who are interested in perusing this Report will find it contained in a
volume of pamphlets in the Library of the Royal Statistical Society.
[72] The different river basins contributed the following proportions:—
Basins. Tons.
The Elbe 7,767,000
The Vistula, Niemen, &c. 2,227,000
The Oder 861,000
The Weser and Ems 394,000
Lake of Constance 338,000
The Danube 210,000
Total 11,797,000
[73] The distribution of this navigation is as follows, according to basins:—
Miles of
Basin.
Navigation.
The Rhine 931
The Elbe 870
The Oder 497
The Weser 280
The Danube 248
The Ems 196
Other waterways 372
Total 3384
[74] On the railways of Germany in 1886 coal traffic was 48·5 per cent. of the
whole; timber, 5·8 per cent.; stone, 7·5 per cent.; and grain 6·2 per cent. About 84·7
per cent. of the whole was heavy traffic. The total railway traffic was about 5½
times that of the total water traffic of the empire.
[75] Not including sea tonnage.
[76] Exclusive of arrivals and departures by rail from Dresden and Breslau.
[77] Exclusive of arrivals and departures by rail from Dresden and Breslau.
[78] Report of Messrs. Meyer and Werneigh.

CHAPTER IX.
THE WATERWAYS OF BELGIUM.

The little kingdom of Belgium enjoys the advantage of having both a
complete railway system and an excellent system of canal transport. There
is, indeed, no country in Europe where the conditions of economical
transportation have been more closely and more effectually studied. To this
fact is largely to be attributed the unique position which Belgium holds
among the industrial nations of the world. With limited coal resources,
which are much behind those of some other European countries, alike as
regards their quality and the economical conditions under which they can be
mined; with iron ore supplies that are almost exhausted, and which only
meet her own consumption to a very limited extent; with hardly any other
mineral resources worth speaking of, excepting only certain deposits of zinc
ores, Belgium has relatively a larger industrial population than any other
country in Europe, and enjoys a degree of prosperity that is rare even in
countries more liberally endowed with Nature’s gifts.
Belgium possesses twenty-nine different canals or canalised waterways,
of which three—the Escaut, the Lys, and the Meuse—are each over 100
kilometres in length. The total length of the waterways of Belgium in 1885
was 1634 kilometres, or 1013 miles. The total number of tons of traffic
carried on the Belgian waterways was 31,362,000, and the total number of
tons transported one kilometre was 726,359,000, so that the average length
of transport per ton was 23·2 kilometres.[79] There are, however, cases in
which the average length of lead is much under this figure, as for example
that of the “Raccordement à Gand,” where it is only 1·8 kilometre. For a
number of years past the canal traffic has been tolerably steady, but between
1879 and 1884 there was a decrease of absolute quantity, although not of
the kilometric tonnage.
The Belgian Ship Canals.—Belgium has two excellent ship canals—one
from Terneuzen to Ghent, and the other from Ostend to Bruges. The
improvement of the ship canal from Ghent to Terneuzen was begun in 1874,
and concluded in 1879. Originally the canal had many bends, which
rendered navigation difficult, and it was also of too limited dimensions to
admit the large size of craft that was desired. The depth of the canal up to

1873 was 14 feet 4 inches, and its width was 98 feet 6 inches at the water-
level. The improvement works then undertaken were designed to increase
the depth to 21 feet 3 inches, and the width to 103 feet 9 inches on the
water-level.
There is much traffic in the Upper Scheldt from Antwerp to Ghent, the
water being tidal to the latter town, with a depth of 6 to 8 feet, working the
river with the tide. The Terneuzen Canal is 35 kilometres in length, and is
used by some twenty steamers from England weekly, taking coals, pig iron,
and other articles, and loading manufactured iron and other goods from all
parts of Belgium. The inland harbour at Ghent has been much enlarged of
late, and the lock has been removed, thus rendering access more easy. It is
now a waterway of ample depth and great width, with locks at Terneuzen on
the Scheldt, and at Sas van Gent, near the Belgian frontier. There is a pilot
station at Terneuzen, the men taking their turns to and from Ghent. English
coal may be bought for 15 to 18 francs a ton at Ghent, being carried at a
very low freight for want of cargo on the outward voyage. Vessels of the
following dimensions can use this canal:—Length, 110 metres; breadth,
11·50 metres; and draught, 5·85 metres. Their speed en route when
exceeding 2·75 metres draught, is 145 metres a minute; when under 1·50
metres draught, 250 metres a minute.
The enormous difference that results to the prosperity of a city from the
possession of facilities for the navigation of vessels is well illustrated in the
case of the old town of Bruges in Belgium, as compared with that of her
rival Antwerp. Nay, the point is forcibly brought home by the history of
Bruges herself.
This “Venice of the North” lay formerly near the sea, on a gulf of large
extent and considerable depth; she was easily accessible, not only to the
ordinary run of vessels, but even to the largest of ships. That her port of
Damme was large is evident from the fact that in 1213 Philip Augustus, at
the head of 1700 sail, closed in it with the allied English and Flemish fleets.
This fact alone will give an idea of the importance of Bruges harbour, then
one of the largest in Europe. As long as these means of communication with
the sea remained open, Bruges maintained her commercial power. The
successive accumulations of clay in the Zwyn and in the havens of Damme
and Sluys, the outer ports of Bruges, were the causes of the lamentable state
of things which followed.

About the beginning of the 13th century, vessels sailed into Damme, the
port of Bruges, from all quarters of the world, and poured into her markets
the trade and wealth of the South and East. Less than a century later the
inhabitants of Bruges were compelled to lengthen their maritime channel to
Sluys, a small town situated on the Zwyn, about eight miles beyond
Damme. The new canal was so constructed as to give access to vessels of
from 400 to 500 tons, the largest then built; it passed by Dudzeele and
Westcapelle. Hardly had it been opened when the commercial movement of
Bruges took a fresh start; from 1420 to 1470 Bruges was the mart of the
world, and her fortune had reached its climax. By the Sluys Harbour, into
which entered in 1468 with one tide as many as 250 vessels, Bruges was in
communication with the North and South of Europe; she was also the only
market city for the Netherlands and the Hanseatic League. But from 1470
onwards, i. e. twenty-two years before the discovery of America, the
accumulation of clay in the Zwyn again made its disastrous effects felt.
Caracks, galleys, and other large vessels could no longer enter the channel.
Charles the Bold, in order to deepen it, had the polder[80] of the Zwartegat
opened, but without avail. Twelve years later, in 1482, matters stood in a
much worse condition, and vessels of large draught had completely ceased
to appear. No work such as cleansing was carried out, no artificial sluices
for such a purpose constructed; and the Sluys Canal, that bold work which
during one whole century had maintained the marvellous prosperity of
Bruges, now wellnigh useless, became entirely choked up, and like the
harbour of Sluys itself, disappeared in the depths of the vast gulf, under the
clayey mud and deposits of its alluvia-bearing waves. Bruges was
thenceforth condemned to a long decline.
In 1622, during the reign of Albert and Isabella, the opening of a canal
from Bruges to Ostend, viâ Plasschendacle was for the first time determined
upon. Twenty years later was dug the canal from Bruges to Nieuport and
from Nieuport to Dunkerque. In 1646 Dunkerque was given up to France,
and consequently the Flemings were obliged, in 1664, to direct their
attention towards Ostend. The dimensions of this canal were now largely
increased, and the sluices of Plasschendacle replaced by those of Slykens,
much nearer the sea. In 1717, a powerful society, known as the Compagnie
des Indes, was organised at Ostend. The undertaking met with wonderful
success at its very beginning, and would probably have given back to
Bruges some of its former movement and life, had not the Treaty of Paris of

1727, inspired by the jealousy of Holland and England, suspended for seven
years the grant of the company, and later on forbidden all commercial
intercourse between the Austrian Netherlands and the Indies. Four years
later the Treaty of Vienna of 1731, stipulated expressly—Sec. 4 of the Act,
dated from the Hague, 20th February, 1732—“That all commerce and
navigation from the Austrian Netherlands to the East Indies, as also that all
commerce and navigation from the East Indies to the Austrian Netherlands,
shall cease for ever.”
In 1783, Joseph II., wishing to end the state of subjection that his
provinces were labouring under, conceived the idea of linking the waters of
Flanders with those of the sea, by means of canals to be dug exclusively in
Flemish ground. He failed in the attempt, and it was only after the
Netherlands had been joined to the French Empire that the work which the
inhabitants of Bruges had been in vain seeking for centuries was again
attempted. At their urgent request, Napoleon ordered a canal to be dug from
Bruges to Sluys viâ Damme; this it was intended to lengthen later on, as far
as the Scheldt, somewhere near Breskens. The works unfortunately were
carried on with extreme slowness, and the fall of the empire prevented their
completion. In 1818 the canal was opened.
In 1829, King William found out the inefficiency of the issues of the
Zwyn; he resumed the scheme of Napoleon I., and decided to push the new
canal on to Breskens. The works were on the point of being ordered, when,
in 1830, the Revolution broke out, and Bruges saw the realisation of her
hopes again deferred.
Since 1470, then, three principal efforts have been made to bring Bruges
into communication with the sea; first, in 1622, viâ Ostend; second, in
1640, viâ Dunkerque; third, in 1810, viâ Breskens. The two last failed
through political events, which took away from Belgium the two principal
points: Dunkerque scarcely five years after the canal was completed;
Breskens before the works were even begun. One disadvantage to be
noticed with regard to these two towns is the considerable distances at
which they lie from Bruges—Dunkerque at over forty, Breskens at more
than twenty miles. Moreover the works, comparatively speaking, were on a
very small scale. As for the Ostend scheme, the canal necessarily
encountered the same fate as the harbour itself—one continual struggle
against alluvia. The case seemed hopeless, and Bruges in despair had

resigned herself to her melancholy fate, when in 1877 M. A. de Maere
Limnander started and publicly advocated a scheme which was intended to
open for Bruges, once more a seaport town, a fresh era of prosperity. The
work which he published on the subject, the result of long inquiry, has met
with general approbation.
In the construction of the ship canal from Ostend to Bruges, the spot
chosen for the outer port lay in the neighbourhood of Heijst, to the south-
west of the mouth of the Sebzate and Schipdonek canals, at about 1250
metres (4114 feet) from the Heijst sluices. The motives for selecting this
place are twofold—Firstly, the minimum of clearing to be executed in
opening the downs, the depth of which is here of not more than from 50 to
60 metres (164 feet to 197 feet); secondly, the minimum of length to be
given to the piers, the depth of seven metres (23 feet) at ebb tide being here
very near the shore. This part of the coast, moreover, is also one which has
stood in constant danger of irruption on the part of the sea, and has only
recently needed strengthening. To maintain the depth at the entrance to the
harbour the westerly pier is made the longer of the two, and slightly bent in
towards the end; its length is fixed at 1100 metres (3620 feet), viz., 840
metres (2769 feet) from the base to the bend, and 260 metres (855 feet)
from the bend to the end; that of the easterly one at 800 metres (2633 feet);
the width at the entrance to the port at 300 metres (987 feet), and that at the
base of the same at 1000 metres (3291 feet); the surface of the harbour thus
amounts to 60 hectares (6000 acres, or 29,040,000 square yards). The
masonry consists of artificial blocks of the largest possible dimensions,
never weighing less than from 40,000 to 90,000 kilogs.—from about 85,000
lb. to about 180,000 lb. M. de Maere also advocates the construction along
the outer side of the westerly pier of a breakwater, made of a single row of
stakes. One or two lighthouses are to light the entrance to the harbour. The
cost of this section of the works was estimated at 9,000,000f. = 360,000l.
The canal runs in a straight line from the sea to the docks at Bruges. Its
length is 12 kilometers.—about 7½ miles; its floor width is 20 metres—65
feet; its width, measuring at the water-line, of 62 metres—204 feet; its
depth from the water-line of 7 metres—23 feet. The slopes have a slant of 1
metre—3 feet 3½ inches—for every 3 metres—9 feet, 10½ inches. This
lessens the expense of keeping in repair, and, where the necessity is felt,
makes the widening of the bottom possible. The canal is exclusively fed

with sea-water, and is so constructed as to allow of the Ghent-Heijst Canal
being easily joined to it later on below the future sluice. The amount of
earth dug out of the canal was about 8,887,000 cubic feet, and the cost of
clearing it some 2,500,000f.—100,000l. 2,700,000 cubic metres of earth
were employed in the construction of banks or dykes along the canal. This
necessitated the expropriation of 170 hectares—17,000 acres, or 82,280,000
square yards—of land, at the rate of 10,000f.—400l.—per hectare, or
1,700,000f.—68,000l.—for the 170 hectares.
Other features of the canal include a sea-sluice, constructed below the
downs, with a double bridge, one-half of which will be devoted to the
Blankenberghe-Heijst Railway; the other half to general use. The bridge is 8
metres—about 26 feet—wide, and the opening at the sluice, as also at the
bridge, is 20 metres (about 65 feet), thus enabling several ships to enter at a
time. Another sluice-gate is fixed some 200 metres (about 7900 feet) lower,
and the part of the canal between will be made quite secure by means of a
flood-gate. The cost of these works amounted to about 2,000,000f.
(80,000l.). The plans also provided for two bridges, one on the Lisseweghe-
Dudgeele, the other on the Lisseweghe-Heijst high roads, and four syphons
for the draining of the low waters of the country, to run under the canal at a
depth of eight metres (about 26 feet) below the water-line.[81]
The river Rupel, which is about 12 miles above Antwerp, leads from the
Scheldt to Willebrock, opposite the town of Boom. From here a canal with
five large locks leads to Brussels. This canal, which had its origin in the
year 1415, but which was only completed in 1561, is of considerable
importance. The traffic on it is heavy, and it is worked by the Corporation
of Brussels, the result usually leaving a profit. The tolls on this canal are—
First class, ·06 franc; second class, ·04½ francs; third class, ·02 franc per
ton. In all cases a cubic metre is reckoned as 1000 kilogrammes, or one
metrical ton. In the first class is reckoned merchandise, &c.; in the second
class, bricks, firewood, stone (wrought or unwrought), salt, &c.; and the
third class, unladen vessels.
There is a depth of from somewhat over 10 feet of water, but this is
limited to an effective depth of 3·10 metres where it passes over a small
stream by a brick aqueduct. A line of steamers belonging to Messrs. Thomas
& Co., of London, runs to Brussels regularly, and several Dutch lines of
steam barges use this route. Sailing vessels and lighters are worked on the

canal by means of the chain system, with remorqueurs, twenty to thirty
being thus easily towed. The locks are large, and as many vessels pass at the
same time, the trains are made up accordingly. When two meet, the
ascending tug drops the chain, the train keeps on its right side, and the chain
is again picked up by a grapple when the descending train has passed. With
this system the vessels are easily steered by the men at the helm. When
approaching a lock, the chain is thrown off in proper time, and the vessels’
way being checked, they gradually settle side by side in the lock. Great skill
and care is used by the men, damage by collision rarely occurring. One
great advantage attending this system of towage is that the tugs make no
wash, which so much destroys the banks of canals. The tolls are light, and
the rates for towage very low. Empty vessels only pay 20 c. for a laissez
passer vide; this ticket, as in France, can be taken from any bureau de
navigation to any other place in the kingdom or in the Republic.
Belgium has made a substantial contribution to the more important
engineering features of canals by the construction of the La Louviére Canal
lift on the Terneuzen Canal, which is illustrated on the opposite page.

La Louviére Canal Lift.
This canal lift was constructed for the Belgian Government by the
Société Cockerill, of Seraing, from the designs and under the
superintendence of Messrs. Clark, Stanfield, and Clark, of Westminster,
consulting engineers to the Government, and the patentees of the system.
The difference between the levels of the upper and lower canals—that is,
the height the boats are raised—is 50 feet 6¼ inches. The lift consists of
two pontoons, or troughs, each 141 feet long by 19 feet broad, with 8 feet
draught of water, and are capable of holding the largest size of barge that
navigates on the Belgian broad-gauge canal system. Such barges are
capable of taking 400 tons of coal or other cargo, so that the total weight of
the trough, water, and barge is not much under 1000 tons. This immense
weight is supported on the top of a single colossal hydraulic ram of 6 feet
6¾ inches diameter and 63 feet 9½ inches long, working in a press of cast
iron, hooped continuously, for greater security, with weldless steel coils.
The working pressure in this press is about 470 lbs. to the square inch. The

time actually occupied in lifting or lowering is only two and a half minutes.
The La Louviére lift is said to be the largest in the world.
The Scheldt Navigation.—In the recent history of the shipping industry,
the city of Antwerp has played a prominent part, thanks partly to the
facilities afforded by the river Scheldt, partly to the easy means of access to
other parts of Belgium and Holland by sea and canal, and partly to the very
low rates charged for transport by both systems of navigation.
Up to the year 1863, the Dutch Government levied a tax upon all
vessels using the Scheldt. This tax was found to be so onerous, that treaties
were entered into in that year by which, in consideration of certain specific
payments made by the various countries concerned in the navigation of the
river, the King of Holland renounced his right to levy such duties.[82] Since
then the trade of Antwerp has advanced by “leaps and bounds.” Between
1862, the year previous to the abolition of the taxes on shipping, and 1887,
the importations into Antwerp had increased by 335 per cent., and the
exportations from Antwerp had increased by more than 500 per cent. In the
general transit trade the increase was equally striking, amounting to about
400 per cent. The tonnage of vessels entering the port of Antwerp within the
same period advanced by about 600 per cent.[83]
Economical Conditions of Water Transport in Belgium.—The abolition
of the taxes levied previous to 1863 has had the effect, coupled with a
judicious development of the shipping facilities of the port, of placing
Antwerp at the head of the maritime ports of Continental Europe, as regards
both the volume of its trade and the low rate of freights that may be
obtained thence for nearly all the other ports of the world.
There is no country that enjoys the advantages of such cheap railroad
transportation, excepting some instances in the United States, as Belgium,
and yet, as we have seen, there is no country that makes a more extensive
use of its canal communications. The cost of transport on the canals from
the Belgian coalfields to Paris amounted to 0·29d. in the spring, and 0·34d.
in the autumn of 1883, not including interest.[84] The lowest rate of
transport on English railways for the same description of traffic is ·49d. per
ton per mile. The canal transport of Belgium, therefore, averaging the
summer and winter rates, is ·18d., or 58 per cent. cheaper[85] than that of the
London coal traffic, which is pointed to in this country as a remarkable

example of economical transport, and which certain authorities declare to
be carried at a loss to the companies.[86]
Extent and Income of Belgian Canals.—We have seen that the total
length of the canals of Belgium is over 1634 kilometres, of which the
principal were the Communal Canal from Brussels to Rufel (28 kilometres),
the canal from Brussels to Charleroi (24 kilometres), the Haut-Escaut Canal
(115 kilometres), the Bas Escaut Canal, from Gand to the Dutch frontier
(118 kilometres), the Ghent and Ostend Canal (70 kilometres), the Ghent
and Terneuzen Canal (17 kilometres), the Meuse and Escaut Canal (86½
kilometres), the Lys Canal (113 kilometres), the canalised Meuse from
Givet to Liége (113½ kilometres), the Mons and Condé Canal (20
kilometres). Altogether there are forty-five canals in Belgium, which in
1886 carried 763,108,000 kilometric tons—equal to about 480 million ton
miles. The total tonnage carried on the canals, as a whole, is returned at
about 33½ millions, including the Meuse, and the average distance over
which each ton was carried was 22·8 kilometres. The principal elements of
the canal traffic are shown in the appended statement of tons carried one
kilometre:—
Kilometric
Tons.
Coal and coke 167,221,000
Iron, iron ore, building materials, &c. 210,600,000
Agricultural produce 117,217,000
Industrial products, &c. 268,400,000
The annual income of the Belgian canals, notwithstanding that the
facilities for canal navigation have been considerably extended and
improved, has not increased during recent years. On the contrary, while the
annual income between 1841 and 1850 was 2,885,000 francs, and from
1851 to 1860, 2,974,000 francs, the average of 1871 to 1880 had fallen to
1,676,000 francs, and in 1887 it was only 1,266,000 francs. The latter fall,
however, must be due to a decrease in rates, as the amount of traffic carried
between 1881 and 1886 increased from 30,562,000 tons to 33,419,000 tons.
The ordinary expenses of maintaining the canals of Belgium have been
reduced from 2,600,000 francs in 1881 to 2,100,000 francs in 1886. For a
number of years past there has been a considerable extraordinary

expenditure on the canals, the special credits for this purpose having been
as much as 12½ million francs in 1883.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER IX
[79] The chief elements of this traffic were:—
Tons transported
one kilometre.
Coal and coke 147,402,000
Other minerals and metals 200,606,000
Agricultural products, wood, &c. 130,571,000
Industrial products, and others 247,780,000
[80] This was an extensive plain in the Netherlands, protected by dykes, which
was formerly covered by the sea.
[81] These particulars are mainly abstracted from the Engineer, January 3rd,
1879.
[82] The sum total of these amounts was 17,141,640 francs, or 685,666l., of
which more than one-half was paid by Great Britain, and fully one-sixth by the
United States.
[83] The figures are so remarkable that it will probably be interesting to put
them on record in a tabulated form:—

Importations Exportations Tonnage of Ships
Year.
by Sea. by Sea. entering Antwerp.
tons tons tons
1862 568,871 177,702 599,899
1886 2,438,178 821,753 3,658,900

[84] Minutes of Proc. Inst. C. E., vol. 68, p. 484.
[85] Subject, of course, to the charge for interest, which, however, will be very
trifling.
[86] Mr. F. R. Conder maintains that the London coal traffic is carried at a loss to
the railways of 822,000l. per annum, or 40 per cent. on the traffic.

CHAPTER X.
THE WATERWAYS OF HOLLAND.

“Jupiter, surveying earth from high
Beheld it in a lake of water lie.”
—Ovid.

Holland, the land of dykes and ditches, is completely cut up into small
islands by its extensive system of canals, which cross and interlace each
other like the threads of some large fishing net. Owing to the level condition
of the country, the construction of a canal involves but comparatively little
labour and expense, and many of them are used as substitutes for public
highways, while in the winter, their frozen surfaces offer convenient roads
for skaters. The North Holland canal was, until recently, the finest work of
its kind in Europe, and was built during the years 1819-23, at a cost of
950,000l. Since not only the surface, but the beds of many of these canals
are above the level of the land, drainage is a matter of great importance, and
is effected by means of windmills working pumps.
Phillips[87] speaks of Holland as being intersected by innumerable
canals. “They may,” he says, “be compared in number and in size to our
public roads and highways, and as the latter with us are continually full of
coaches, chaises, waggons, carts, and horsemen, going to and from the
different cities, towns, and villages, so on the former, the Hollanders, in
their boats and pleasure barges, their breckshuyts and vessels of burden, are
continually journeying and conveying commodities for consumption or
exportation, from the interior of the country to the great cities and rivers. An
inhabitant of Rotterdam may, by means of these canals, breakfast at Delft or
the Hague, dine at Leyden, and sup at Amsterdam, or return home again
before night. By them, also, a most prodigious trade is carried on between
Holland and every part of France, Flanders, and Germany.” The same
author declares that the 400 miles of inland navigation open in Holland in
his time, yielded an average income of about 625l. per mile, which he
declares to be, “almost beyond belief.” What would he have thought had he

lived in our time, and seen canals producing an income of 30,000l. to
40,000l. per mile?[88]
The Haarlem Canal was constructed about fifty years ago, for the
purpose of draining the Meer or lake of that name. This lake had been
formed by an inundation in the end of the sixteenth century, and in the
beginning of the eighteenth century it had covered an area of 45,000 acres.
Seeing that the lake was gaining upon the land, it was resolved to take
effectual means for draining it. This course was precipitated by two furious
hurricanes, one in November 1836, which drove the waters of the lake upon
the city of Amsterdam, and another in December of the same year, which
submerged the lower parts of the city of Leyden. The first step incidental to
draining the lake—a work which was undertaken by the Government in
1839—was to dig a canal round about it for the reception of the water, and
to accommodate the great traffic which had hitherto been carried on by its
means. This canal was made 38 miles in length, 130 feet wide on the west
side, and 115 feet on the east side of the lake, and 9 feet deep. All the inlets
into the lake, were then closed by large earthen dams; and various works
were executed to facilitate the flow of water into the sea. These preliminary
works occupied till 1845. To give some idea of the magnitude of the
undertaking, it may be mentioned that the area of water enclosed by the
canal was rather more than 70 square miles, and the average depth of the
lake was 13 feet 1·44 inches. The water had no natural outfall, being below
the lowest possible point of sluiceage, and, including rain water, springs,
&c., during the time of drainage, it was calculated that probably 1000
million tons would have to be raised by mechanical means. After drainage,
too, the site could only be kept dry by mechanical power, so that the annual
drainage might amount to 54,000,000 tons, to be raised on an average 16
feet, and it might happen that as much as 35,000,000 tons of that amount
would have to be raised in one month.
The North Sea Canal was constructed for the purpose of facilitating the
navigation of the Zuyder Zee, which, by reason of its numerous shallows,
was very intricate and difficult, and in order that vessels might avoid the
Pampus—a bank that rises where the Y joins the Zuyder Zee, and formerly
compelled large vessels to load and unload a part of their cargoes in the
roads. These obstacles frequently detained vessels for as much as three
weeks.[89]

M’Cullough spoke of this canal as “the greatest work of its kind in
Holland, and probably in the world.”[90] It was begun in 1819, and
completed in 1825. The length of the canal is about 50½ miles; the breadth
at the surface, 124½ English feet, and at the bottom 30 feet, while the depth
is 20 feet 9 inches. It is a tide-level canal, and is provided with two tide-
locks at each end. Intermediately, there are two sluices, with flood-gates.
The locks and sluices are double. The canal is crossed by about eighteen
drawbridges. The cost of the undertaking was about million sterling.
At the further end of the canal, at Niewdiep, a harbour was constructed,
which has been very much frequented by the shipping of Amsterdam. About
eighteen hours were formerly occupied in towing ships from Niewdiep to
Amsterdam.
The Amsterdam Ship Canal.—The Amsterdam Ship Canal, designed by
Mr. Hawkshaw, and Heer J. Dirks, of Holland, is a gigantic example of
engineering compressed within a limited extent. The burgesses of
Amsterdam had spent millions in improving the access to that great
commercial port—first, on long previous operations in the Zuyder Zee, and,
subsequently, on the North Holland Ship Canal, which stretches nearly due
north from their city to the Helder, between which point and the Texel
Island opposite is the entrance from the North Sea, which was then the only
available channel for large vessels.
The exigiencies of their trade calling imperatively for further
improvements, the engineers furnished them with the design for a new ship
canal, which reduces the navigable distance to 15½ miles, on a course about
west from Amsterdam to the North Sea, available for larger vessels than
formerly entered the port—and has provided a new harbour on the coast,
with an area of 250 acres, bounded by breakwaters formed of concrete
blocks set in regular courses, with 853 feet of entrance between the pier
heads, and 26¼ feet minimum depth of water. The width of the sea canal is
197 feet at the surface, and 88 feet at the bottom; minimum depth, 23 feet;
the locks are 59 feet wide, and of proportionate length.
There are three locks or entrances at the north end of the canal from the
new harbour. Eastward, and below the city and wharves of Amsterdam,
there is an enormous dyke to shut out the Zuyder Zee, pierced with three
locks, besides sluices. These are built upon such a lake of mud as to require

nearly 10,000 piles in their foundation. Thus the canal is approached by
locks at each end, not for the purpose of locking up, but for locking down,
as the surface water of the canal has to be kept twenty inches under low-
water mark. To accomplish this, in addition to the locks and sluices, that can
only avail at low tides, pumping power was required at the dyke, which bars
out the Zuyder Zee. The three large centrifugal pumps by Messrs. Eastons,
Amos, and Anderson, were constructed to lift together 440,000 gallons of
water per minute. The works on this canal took nearly ten years to
complete. They included the construction of branch canals to the several
towns and ports on the borders of the lakes, which, although of smaller
sectional area, exceeded the sea canal in their total extent. Mr. Vignoles, in
his Presidential Address to the Institution of Civil Engineers,[91] from which
most of the above particulars are taken, has stated that the Amsterdam Ship
Canal resembled the Suez Canal, in passing through large muddy lakes,
similar to Lake Menzaleh. (See Suez Canal).
The ship canals communicating with Rotterdam are described by a
recent writer[92] on the subject as follows:—
1. The Voorne Canal running from Helvoetsluis through the
island of Voorne to the river Maas. The resolution of March 9th,
1880, resettled the police regulations for this route; the
maximum dimensions of vessels using it being—length, 110;
beam, 13·70; draught, 6 metres.
2. The Niewe-waterweg, or direct entrance from the North
Sea to the Maas, which is without sluices, and is cut through the
Hoek van Holland, thus forming a new outlet to the Maas.
Besides these approaches, there is another route to Rotterdam, to which
great attention has been paid of late years, but the railway bridge across the
river at Rotterdam causes a certain inconvenience to vessels using it.
Vessels coming from the sea by the Hollandschdiep, enter the narrow
passage of the Kil near the great Moerdyke railway bridge, and passing
Dordrecht, the Maas is reached above the Rotterdam railway bridge. The
Nieuwe-Haven, just above this bridge, is a most convenient port for small
steam-yachts visiting Rotterdam.
There are two other important ship canals, giving access from the river
Schelde to the inland waters of Holland:—

1. The Walcheren Canal, about seven miles long, from the
new port of Flushing to Veere, which place, formerly known as
Campvere, was a free port of the Scotch, who had a factory or
trade station there for 300 years, from the year 1506. The
maximum dimensions for vessels using this canal are:—Length,
120; breadth, 19·75; and draught, 7·10 metres.
2. The South Beveland Canal, from the West Schelde at
Hansweert to the East Schelde at Wemeldinge, is five miles in
length. The regulations of this canal, fixed by the resolution of
May 28th, 1880, allow vessels of the following dimensions to
use it, viz. length, 100; breadth, 15·75; draught, 7·10 metres.
The former of these two canals is not much used, but there is a great
traffic of the large Rhine arks, and the inland steam barges and sailing
vessels of Holland, going to and from Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, and other
towns of Belgium. The locks, like the others in the more important canals,
take in thirty to forty of these vessels at once, all masters having to show
their papers before passing. These ship canals are all State property, and are
under the management of the Minister of the Waterstaat, Trade, and
Industry. Many of the smaller inland navigations are under State control,
but others belong to the communes through which they pass. The water-
level, which is so all-important in the Netherlands, is regulated by the
Amsterdam mark, called the A.P. (Amsterdamsche Peil).
The following navigations, with some others, are also regulated by
police rules, fixed by resolutions of the State:—
1. The Afwaterings Kanaal, from the Noordervaart and the
Neeritter, near Venlo, for vessels—length, 24; breadth, 3·70;
draught, 1 metre. The use of steam is forbidden.
2. The canalised river Ijssel, from the river Lek, opposite to
Ijsselmonde, to Gouda, whence there is canal communication
with the river Amstel, to Amsterdam, and also by the old Rhine,
viâ Leiden and Haarlem, to Spaandam, to the North Sea Canal.
There is a great traffic in the former of these two routes, there
being always a great collection of craft at the sluices at Gouda,
waiting their turns to pass. Large and improved locks are said to

be urgently required at this place. The depth of water on this
route is at least six feet.
3. The Keulsche Vaart, from Vreeswijk, on the river Lek, viâ
Utrecht, the Vecht, and Weesp, to the river Amstel and
Amsterdam. Vessels of a breadth of 7·50 metres, and draught of
2·10 metres, can use the route. The sluices take in the very long
Rhine craft. The pace allowed for steamers is 130 metres a
minute for those of 1·50 draught, to 180 a minute for those of 1
metre draught.
4. The Meppelerdiep, Zwaartsluis to Meppel, for vessels of
length, 60; breadth, 7·80; draught, 1·80 metres.
5. The Drentsche, Hoofdvaart, and Kolonievaart, from
Meppel to Assen, for vessels drawing 1·60 metres, between
Paradijssluis and Veenebrug; in other parts vessels of only 1·25
metres are allowed.
6. The Willemsvaart, from the town canal at Zwolle to the
river Ijssel, by the Katerveer, for vessels of the following
dimensions—length 100, breadth 11·80, and draught 3 metres.
7. The Apeldoorn Canal, from the Ijssel at the sluis near
Dieren to the same river at Hattem, for vessels of the following
dimensions—length 30, breadth 5·90, and draught 1·56 metres.
8. The Noordervaart, between the Zuid Willemsvaart at sluis
No. 15 and the provincial canal at Beringen, in the commune
Helden, for vessels having a length of 51, a breadth of 6, and a
draught of 1·50 to 1·65 metres.
9. The Dokkum Canal, from Dokkum (in Friesland) to
Stroobos, and the Casper Roblesdiep or Kolonelsdiep, being the
inland route from Friesland to Gröningen.
A deep-water canal communicates between Gröningen and Delfzijl, in
the estuary of the river Ems, whereby the inland navigation of Germany
may be entered, and, finally, the Baltic.
The Elbing Highland Canals.—This system of canals, constructed
between the years 1844 and 1860, connects the group of lakes around

Mohrungen and Preussische Holland, at a height of about 328 feet above
the Baltic, with the Drausen Lake, whence flows the river Elbing, emptying
itself into the Frische Haff, on the Gulf of Dantzic. The whole length of the
canal navigation and branches is 123½ miles, of which 28 miles is artificial,
and the remainder lake and stream.
The Puniau lakes are situated at a distance of 10 miles from, and its
waters were originally at a level of 343 feet 9 inches (104·8 metres) above,
the Drausen lakes. When the canal was first constructed, the water-level of
the Puniau lake was lowered to the extent of 17 feet 5 inches, thereby
reducing the difference in level between the two lakes to 326 feet 4 inches.
Commencing from the Drausen Lake, the canal continues level for a length
of 1¼ miles, and in the next 2·17 miles, rises a height of 45 feet 3 inches.
This difference of level was surmounted in the first instance, by five locks,
which have recently been abolished and replaced by an inclined plane. In
the following 4·66 miles the remaining height of 281 feet is attained by four
inclined planes.
The cost of original construction was 212,325l. (4,246,500 marks), and,
assuming it to have been spent entirely upon the artificial portion of the
canal navigation, which is 28 miles in length, would amount to 7,583l. per
mile (94,376 marks per kilometre). Of this outlay 70,000l. was expended on
the four inclined planes, exclusive of the earthwork, which latter cost
27,000l., or an average of 24,250l. for each incline. The total height
surmounted by these five locks and the four inclined planes being 326⅓
feet, the cost of each foot of rise for the whole length of the canal amounts
to

212,325l.
───── = 650l. 12s.
326·33l.

The cost of maintenance of the whole system (including the lake
portion) of the canal and works between the years 1861 and 1875 averaged
annually 27l. 2s. per mile for the lake portion, and 120l. 4s. per mile for the
artificial canal portion.
The Dutch canals, like those of Belgium and Germany, provide
exceptionally low transport. The butter of Friesland is conveyed by canals

in small boats to the home markets, whence it is carried twice a week to
Harlingen and shipped to London and other large places of consumption.
One of the most remarkable features in the landscape of Holland is the
large number of windmills that are everywhere to be seen. In one province
not more than 60 miles long, there are said to be more than 200 of these
primitive appliances. The windmills are largely employed in spring time to
drain the water from the low lying lands and raise it into the canals, but they
are “contrived the double debt to pay” of drainage and agricultural work.
The Dutch canals, which are for the most part elevated above the
surrounding country, in order that they may the better carry off the water
that inundates the land, are provided with strong dams or banks, which it is
the care of the inhabitants to keep in good order. A system of militia was
long maintained for the purpose of keeping the banks in repair. The ringing
of a bell, or some other signal, brought the members of this force together,
and, when the waters threatened danger, every man was found at his post,
ready to repair any possible damage to the dykes. It is still the custom to
assign to every family a certain length of embankment, which they are
required to maintain.
It is, of course, essential that a system of water communication so
complete and so important to the well-being of the country as that of
Holland should be subject to very strict regulation. There are two principal
sets of regulations—the first adopted on the 5th February, 1879, for the
Government canals generally; and the second adopted on the 6th August,
1880, applying specially to the North Holland Canal. There is also a series
of special regulations for the Walcheren Canal, which communicates
between Flushing and Veere. These regulations have been translated into
English, and may be easily acquired by any one who desires to possess
them.[93]

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER X
[87] ‘History of Inland Navigation.’
[88] The Suez Canal gives this return.
[89] M’Cullough’s ‘Commercial Dictionary,’ Art., Amsterdam.
[90] M’Cullough’s ‘Commercial Dictionary,’ Art., Canals.

[91] ‘Proceedings,’ vol. xxix., p. 289.
[92] Report of the Conference on Inland Navigation at the Society of Arts, 1888.
[93] They are appended to a work which has recently been published, entitled
‘On Dutch Waterways,’ by G. C. Davies.

CHAPTER XI.
THE WATERWAYS OF ITALY.

“Though Tiber’s streams immortal Rome behold,
Though foaming Hermus swells with tides of gold,
From Heaven itself, though sevenfold Nilus flows,
And harvests on a hundred realms bestows,
These now no more shall be the Muse’s themes,
Lost in my fame as in the sea their streams.”
—Pope.

There is no characteristic of the ancient Roman Empire that is more
striking at the present day, after the lapse of nearly twenty centuries, than
the proficiency that the people had attained in the arts and sciences, and
more especially in the arts of architecture and engineering. The aqueducts
which they built for the supply of water for domestic purposes were vast
structures that have hardly been equalled in any subsequent period, and the
canals which they constructed for the drainage of morasses, or the transport
of armies, were hardly less remarkable.
Early Canals.—Among the earlier navigation works, perhaps the most
remarkable was the canal which the Romans constructed for the drainage of
Lake Fucino, illustrated on p. 154.
This canal, which was commenced by order of the Emperor Claudius, is
said by Pliny to have occupied 30,000 men for ten years. The lake is
surrounded by a high ridge of mountains called Celano, which are stated to
be nearly fifty miles in circuit. The passage of the waters from the lake into
the canal was witnessed by a vast number of persons, when the undertaking
was completed, but the canal was not sufficiently deep to allow the water
from the lower part of the lake to drain off, and although it was sought to
correct this defect in Nero’s reign, the project was never really finished. As
far as it went, the work is described by Tacitus,[94] while Virgil speaks of
the lake—now no longer covered with water—as well known.[95]

Hydraulic engineering formed so important a part of the business of the
ancient Romans that the pro-consuls were charged to lay before the
emperors the best methods of changing the course of rivers, for the purpose
of facilitating the approaches from the sea to the centres of the various
provinces. Thus, we find that Lucius Verus, General of the Roman army in
Gaul, undertook to unite the Saône and the Moselle by a canal. He is also
said to have undertaken to connect the Mediterranean Sea and the German
Ocean by means ofthe Rhone, the Saône and the Moselle, but the project
was never completed. Emilius Scaevius, more successful, united the waters
of the Po, near Placentia, for the purpose of draining the marshes round
about. Other rivers in Italy were straightened, deepened, widened, or
otherwise improved, while Rome was still “the mistress of the world.”

Canal on Lake Fucino.

SECTION THROUGH SIDE.
Some twelve centuries later the Italians were the canal makers of
Europe. Alberto Pittentino, in 1188, converted the Mincio, from Mantua to
the Po, into a canal, thus restoring it to the course from which the Romans
had diverted it in the time of Quintus Curtius Hostilius.
The use of locks on canals may be said to date from this time. It is
related that in the canalisation of the Mincio, Pittentino so regulated the rise
and fall of the river that boats could ascend to Mantua and descend to Po,
the depth being so equally maintained that the river was navigable for about
twelve miles. This must have involved the employment of locks, however
rude.[96]
The Lake Maggiore is the source of the Tesino, which in its course is
divided into several streams, which, however, are reunited before it enters
the Po, near Pavia. For the whole distance it is navigable, although at Pan
Perduto, where the fall is considerable, it is sometimes hazardous.
Immediately below this spot commences the canal to Milan, which at
Abbiate divides into two channels. The entire length of the excavation is
about 32 Italian miles, and its breadth 70 Milanese cubits.
The Canal della Martesana, by some supposed to have been executed by
Leonardi da Vinci, was made in the year 1460, under the Duke Francis
Sforza. Leonardi da Vinci joined the two canals some time during the reign
of Francis I. The Canal della Martesana, which is drawn from the Adda, is
24 miles in length, and in width about 18 cubits; but when constructed at
first, the water it contained was barely sufficient for navigation for more
than two days in the week, and this only when all the openings for the
purposes of irrigation were closed.
One of the branches of this canal was carried for several miles by a
stone dyke, and afterwards passed through a deep cutting. The other branch
had its course through the rock, after which it was supported on one side by

a lofty embankment, where it crossed the Molgara river by an aqueduct of
three stone arches.
Early in the thirteenth century, Bassanallo had a canal 11 miles long,
which was navigated by the vessels that brought building stones to Venice.
One of the several canals in the lagunes, on which the latter city is built, is
36 miles long. Between Padua and Venice, again, there is a canal some
twenty miles in length, which has a fall of 50 feet, to overcome which four
locks are provided.
Milan, like Venice, is the centre of a network of canals. Here unite the
great canal of Tesino and the branch from Pavia; the Muzza Canal, which
commences at Cassano and ends at Castiglione, after traversing a distance
of 40 miles; the canal of Abiato, made in the thirteenth century, which has a
top breadth of 130 feet, and a bottom breadth of 46 feet; and the canal
which connects Buffolaro, Biagrasso, and Arsago with Milan.
Nor is Piedmont less rich in monuments and resources of the same
description, having more than half a dozen canals which communicate with
the Po at different points. Most of these canals are, however, of limited
extent, the longest, called the Naviglio d’Inea, being 38 miles in length.
The canals, large and small, in the Papal States, are so numerous that it
would be wearisome to enumerate them. None are of great length, and most
of them have been constructed rather with a view to drainage or irrigation
than to navigation.
Pagnani has left us an account of the levels and other operations of art,
undertaken by former engineers, to ascertain whether some navigable
canals might not be projected in Lombardy; and, above all, to determine the
practicability of joining the Lake of Como with the neighbouring lakes. In
the first place they found that the surface of the lake of Como was 48 braces
lower than the surface of the lake of Cevate, 62 braces lower than that of
the lake of Pusiano, and about 100 braces below that of the lake of Lugano;
further, that the lakes of Como and Lugano are, at the point of their nearest
approximation, in the valley of Porlezza, about six miles distant from each
other; and that they are separated by a very high ridge, which would render
any attempt at a navigable canal very arduous, even independently of the
very great difference in the levels. The general map of Lombardy will, on a
slight inspection, show these several places.

The same engineers found that the scheme of running a canal from the
lake of Lugano by the valley of the Olona to Milan was impracticable. It
might, however, be possible to render the Olona navigable below Tredate,
provided the waters were retained in the last trunk by means of some well-
situated locks, and the upper mills were so placed as not to interrupt the bed
of the river. In the project to render navigable the Tresa, which is the outlet
by which the lake of Lugano discharges itself into the Lago Maggiore, these
engineers found difficulties from the deficiency in the body of the water,
and from the too great slope of the Tresa; to which it may be added that
several torrents which enter it carry into it stones and gravel. It has been
considered strange that these engineers never thought of another project, of
which the execution would be easy, as well as convenient and useful—
namely, to make navigable the Boza, which is the outlet of the little lake of
Varese into the Lago Maggiore.
The scheme of conducting a navigable canal from Milan to Pavia is of a
much older date, having been designed for the purpose of joining the two
canals of Milan with the Tesino, the Po, and the sea. Galeazzo Visconte, the
father of Azzon, began its excavation. In 1564, the completion of the work
was made the subject of considerable discussion. It was imagined that the
expense could not be very great; and that by giving the sluices the common
height, a great number would not be required. The enterprise was
abandoned afterwards, because the canal of Bereguardo, although it did not
reach the Tesino, was found sufficient to keep up the commerce between the
two cities of Milan and Pavia. Pagnani, in the Treatise already referred to,
mentions some other projects of a similar nature.
The Tiber.—In Italy another great undertaking has been agitated,
namely, to render the Tiber navigable from Ponte Nuovo, below Perugia, to
the entrance of the Nera, from which the navigation begins to be free and
without interruption, to the sea. MM. Boltari and Manfredi reported on an
inspection which they made of the Tiber in 1732. In this report they laid it
down as a first principle, derived from experience, that to navigate any river
with facility, particularly against the stream, it is requisite that the slope
should not exceed 3 Roman palms per mile (a Roman palm is about 8½
English inches).
Now, as the fall of the Tiber is 8 or 9 palms, they calculated that it
would be very difficult to steer the boats down the river, and still more

difficult to conduct them up against so rapid a stream, especially in some
places where the fall was even greater, and where, consequently, the stream
must, they held, remain impassable. They, moreover, pointed out the
difficulties and the dangers which must be encountered in adopting the
different expedients that had been proposed for reducing the excessive slope
by weirs, for removing the detached stones by manual labour, for blowing
up the obstructing rocks by mines, and for removing the bed, in certain
places, by changing its course, or by contracting or enlarging its
dimensions.
The schemes proposed for rendering the bed of the Tiber navigable
having been thus discredited, the same engineers inquired whether a canal
for boats of a moderate size and suitable burden might not be formed
parallel with the river; observing the nature of the soil through which the
canal must pass, the different crossings that would be required from one
side to the other, the number of dykes and sluices that would be wanted, and
the other works that would be necessary to secure the navigation against all
accidents, and particularly those from floods. This undertaking they
regarded as very difficult of execution, and they advised that it should not
be attempted. They next examined the plan of making the Tiber navigable
to Rome, proposed by the engineer Chiesa, in a report printed in 1745, but
nothing came of these proposals.
Within the last two years, a new project has been brought forward with
the view of rendering the Tiber navigable to the sea, and it is possible that
this work will before long be attempted.
The Villoresi Canal.—The water for this canal is derived from the
Ticino, at a place called “Rapida del Pamperduto,” by means of a weir
thrown across the river. This weir is 290 metres (951·2 feet) long, and 24
metres (78·72 feet) broad, and of sufficient height to raise the water in the
Ticino 3·75 metres (12·30 feet) above the ordinary low-water level. Below
the right abutment the river-bank is protected by a wall for a distance of 50
metres (164 feet), whilst up stream, on the same side, an embankment,
partly in masonry and partly in earthwork faced with stone pitching, has
been constructed for a distance of 600 metres (1968 feet), in order to
confine the river to its present bed. At right angles to the weir is a lock, with
a drop of 6 metres (19·68 feet), the largest in Italy, which serves for the
passage of boats from a channel below, 10 metres (32·8 feet) wide, and

about one kilometre (0·62 mile) long, from the canal to the Ticino. The
channel is supplied with water from the basin below the measuring weir by
means of four sluices 0·80 metre by 1·20 metre (2·62 feet by 3·93 feet)
placed in the wall which separates the basin from the canal. On the side of
the basin, opposite the weir, are two buildings, the first containing the
sluices, which admit 8 cubic metres (282·52 cubic feet) per second of water
into a canal belonging to the Visconti family; and the second, which forms
the entrance to the Villoresi Canal, serves to regulate and maintain the level
of the water in the basin constantly at 0·90 metre (2·95 feet) above the crest
of the weir. It consists of a three-storied building, in the lower part of which
are six sluices, 2·30 metres (7·45 feet) wide, and 3 metres (9·84 feet) deep,
with iron gates, worked by suitable mechanism from the floor above. The
headworks, which are on the left bank, consist of a building 67 metres
(219·76 feet) long, 6 metres (19·68 feet) wide, and 12·80 metres high,
provided with thirty sluices, each of 1·50 metre (4·92 feet) clear width, and
3·25 metres (10·66 feet) high, the cills of which are placed at 2·75 metres
(9·02 feet) below the level of the crest of the weir. These sluices are capable
of admitting 190 cubic metres (6710·13 cubic feet) per second into the
canal from the river, of which 70 cubic metres (2472·15 cubic feet) per
second is the amount granted by the concession to the Villoresi Canal. The
remaining 120 cubic metres (4237·98 cubic feet) per second have to be
returned to the Ticino by a specially constructed measuring weir established
at 600 metres below the headworks, in order to respect the existing rights of
others further down the stream. The passage of boats from the Ticino to the
canal is provided for by means of a channel with a lock 8 metres (26·24
feet) wide.
The Canals of Venice.—In speaking of the canals of Italy, it would be
unpardonable to omit due reference to those which give to Venice, the
“mistress of the Adriatic,” her peculiar and pre-eminent position. Founded
in the year 452, soon after Attila invaded Italy, Venice is built upon a
number of small islands, and is divided into two nearly equal parts by the
“Grand Canal,” 1200 yards in length, and 100 feet in breadth. Many smaller
canals branch off from the Grand Canal. These are crossed by some five
hundred bridges, many of them of considerable architectural pretensions.
The construction of the canals of Venice was a work that would be
naturally unlike that of laying out a canal in the ordinary course. The whole

city, built on a number of small islands, is more or less constructed on piles;
there is an almost dead level throughout; and the waterways would, no
doubt, in the majority of cases, be naturally formed, at least to a partial
extent. There is, however, very little information extant as to the
circumstances under which the work of adapting the canals to the
requirements of the population was carried out.
Irrigation Canals.—It would hardly be proper to pass from the canal
system of Italy without making some remarks on the excellent system of
irrigation canals that has been provided in Lombardy and Piedmont.
Navigation canals take priority over irrigation canals in Lombardy in point
of origin, but not to a great extent. The Vettabbia Canal, which is supposed
to have been used for navigation previous to the eleventh century, is
claimed as the oldest existing canal in Lombardy. In the latter part of the
twelfth century, the Cistercian monks of Chiaravalle obtained possession of
this canal, and applied its waters to irrigation purposes. Not very long
afterwards the same order of monks constructed the Ticinello, a canal
derived from the Ticino at Tornavento, and it was used exclusively for
irrigation until 1177, when it was enlarged and partly opened for navigation.
In 1257, the same canal was so far enlarged as to connect Milan with Lake
Maggiore, and the waterway is now known as the Naviglio Grande.
One of the most important irrigation canals in Italy, which may be
briefly described as illustrative of the system generally, is that of the Cavour
Company, in Piedmont, which is derived from the left bank of the Po, near
the town of Chivasso, and was constructed for the purpose of irrigating the
provinces of the Vercellese, Novarese, and Lomellina. It was Francesco
Rossi, a land surveyor of Vercelli, who, in 1844, first proposed to employ
the waters of the Po for irrigation purposes. It was a good many years later,
however, before the project was undertaken. The head works of the Canal
Cavour are situated about 400 metres below the bridge over the river, on the
road which connects Chivasso with the military road from Turin to Casale.
The full discharge of this canal is 110 cubic metres per second, and its
supply is obtained by means of a temporary dam of timber carried across
the river. The sluice-house for regulating the supply of water to the canal is
built across the canal, which is 40 metres in width, and consists of twenty-
one openings separated by granite piers. Each opening is provided with
three sluice-gates, which work in grooves cut in the granite piers, and can

be easily raised or lowered by the sluice-keeper by means of a lever. The
remainder of the building is constructed principally of dressed stone and
bricks, and the contrast between the granite used for the quoins and the red
brickwork has an excellent effect. Another sluice-house, placed at right
angles to that of the main canal, communicates with that of the
“Scaricatore,” or discharge channel, by means of which the surplus waters
in times of floods may be discharged into the Po, and any deposit of gravel
and sand on the floors in front of the entrance to the main canal can be
effectually swept away by the velocity of the water discharged into the
“Scaricatore,” which has a rapid fall, and enters the Po again, about 2
kilometres below the headworks.
The quantity of material used in the construction of this important work
was:—
Excavation 695,000 cubic metres.
Bricks 2,000,000.
Dressed stone 3000 cubic metres.
Stone for revetment 3000 square metres.
Lime 3500 tons.
Oak piles 2200.
Oak sheet piles 8100 square metres.
Ironwork 39,780 kilos.
The width of the canal, which is 40 metres wide at the commencement,
is gradually lessened until it reaches the aqueduct over the Dora Baltea near
the 10th kilometre of its course, when its width becomes 20 metres. The
sides, when not protected by retaining walls, have an inclination of 45°.
Crossing the valley of the Dora, which is about 2 kilometres in width, on a
high embankment, and the actual bed of the same river, by means of an
aqueduct consisting of nine arches of 16 metres span each, the canal takes a
north-easterly direction nearly parallel to the railway from Turin to Milan,
which it crosses near the station of San Germano. At the 40th kilometre the
canal passes in syphon under the torrent Elvo. This syphon is built in
brickwork, and consists of five elliptical openings, 5 metres in width and
2·30 metres in height.
The next work of importance is the embankment and aqueduct over the
torrent Cervo, and differs but little from that over the Dora. The most

important work on the whole canal, with the exception of the headworks, is
the syphon for passing underneath the torrent Sesia. It is similar in section
to that previously described for the Elvo, but considerably longer, and is
probably one of the largest works of this class in Italy.
The next works in importance are the aqueducts for crossing the torrents
Roasenda and Marchiazza, and syphons under the torrents Agogna and
Terdoppio, near Novara. The width of the canal up to the 62nd kilometre is
20 metres, and as, at this point, a considerable quantity of water is
introduced from it into the Roggia, Busca and Rizzo-Biraga, the canal is
reduced to 12·50 metres in width to the 74th kilometre, when its section is
again reduced, and after passing under the Terdoppio—at which point the
new branch canal “Quintino Sella” is derived—its width is only 7·50
metres. The fall of the canal between the headworks at Chivasso and the
Dora Baltea varies from 0·50 to 0·25 in 1000, and over the remainder—
with the exception of aqueducts and syphons, when in some cases it is
greater—the gradient is 0·25 per 1000. The total fall is 21·73. Besides the
works just described, 480 of less importance, consisting of bridges for
roads, aqueducts, syphons for the passage of existing water-courses and
canals of irrigation, watchhouses, &c., were constructed.
The River Po.—The Po, which takes its rise at Mont Viso, crosses the
whole plain of Upper Piedmont, a plain formed of a deep alluvial soil, very
fertile, and well cultivated. Passing through territory of Turin, it receives the
drainage of the rich meadows, as also the sewage of that town, and before
reaching Chivasso it receives the rivers Dora Riparia, Stura, Orco, and
Malone. The waters of the Po in floods are dense with rich alluvial matter,
of the fertilising properties of which evident proofs may be observed
throughout the course of this river. After great floods, as if by magic, bare
shoals of gravel become covered with a deep strata of alluvial soil, on
which the seeds of trees and shrubs carried down by the waters soon take
root, and in a very short time they are covered with a luxuriant vegetation.
The waters of the Po on this account are highly valued for irrigation, as also
from the fact of its temperature being higher than that of its tributaries. The
fertilising properties of this water are now fully appreciated in Lomellina,
where large tracts of land which were formerly bare and arid wastes, are
now converted into rich meadows and rice fields, through the agency of the

waters which have been brought to bear upon them by the Canal Cavour,
already alluded to.
Even in the Vercellese, where the want of water is not so much felt, the
waters of the Po, introduced into the existing canals, and mingling with
those of the Dora, tend to modify the extreme coldness of the latter river,
due to its origin in the glaciers of the Val d’Aosta and the siliceous-
magnesian sands that its waters contain in suspension. It is, therefore, with
just pride that Italians have named the Po the “Nile of Italy.”
Although the Po is the only extensive river basin in Italy, there are many
other rivers in that country that are more or less navigable, some of them
inclined to the Tyrrhenian Sea, and some to the Ionian Sea, but most of
them, including the Po, to the Adriatic.
Projected Canals.—Among the proposals recently put forward for
extending, by artificial means, the commerce and navigation of Italy, one of
the most important is designed to provide for the construction of a ship
canal to connect the Tyrrhenian Sea, and the Adriatic, near Fano and Castro.
The distance to be traversed by this canal would be 175 miles, and the cost
has been estimated at about 20 millions sterling. It is claimed that the
proposed canal would be of great advantage to the navigation between the
east and the west coasts of the Peninsula.
In 1889 a company was formed in London for the purpose of
establishing a system of canal, lake, and river navigation in the north of
Italy. This company expects to carry a very large share of the traffic at
lower rates than those quoted by the railways.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER XII
[94] Ann., lib. xii. cap. 56.
[95] Æn., t.v. 563.
[96] “Before the introduction of locks, contrivances called conches were in use
to moderate the too great declivity of the rivers, and which were opened to allow
vessels to pass through. These openings were 16 or 18 feet in width; a balance
lever, loaded at the end, was made to turn on a pivot, and with it three hanging
posts, united by an iron bar, which crossed them immediately above the sill;
besides these three perpendicular hanging posts were two others, let some inches
into the side walls. These five posts were all on the same face, and the spaces

between them were all equal. When the balance beam turned upon its pivot, the
three middle posts alone opened, and allowed the boats to pass, after which the
balance beam was turned back to its former position. At a little distance was
placed another balance beam, having attached to it a wide plank, to allow the
lock keeper to pass over, as well as to place in the grooves of the hanging posts
the small planks which served to exclude the water, by closing up the intervals;
these were on the side opposed to the current, and in number sufficient to keep
the water at the required level. Such gates, or contrivances for damming up the
waters of a river, were in use at a very early time in Italy, and two such were
constructed at Governolo, in the twelfth century, to pen up the waters of the
Mincio on the side of Mantua.”—Cresy’s ‘Cyclopædia of Engineering.’

CHAPTER XII.
THE WATERWAYS OF SWEDEN.

“From his side two rivers flowed,
The one winding, the other straight, and left between
Fair champaign, with less rivers intervened.”
—Milton.

Although Sweden is possessed of an admirable system of lakes, which
facilitates transport over a wide area, and although the commerce of the
country is limited, and the population sparse, the canal navigations are by
no means unimportant. On the contrary, they have been carried out over a
wide area, with great enterprise and skill, and at a very considerable
expenditure. The two principal canal systems are those of Gotha and
Dalsland—the former constructed for the purpose of connecting the two
most important towns in the kingdom, Stockholm and Gothenburg; the
latter intended to afford a means of communication between the province of
Dalsland, with its productive forests and admirable command of water-
power, and the rest of Sweden.
The Gotha Canal is one that has a very interesting history, and its
ultimate completion may be said to make an epoch in the history of canal
engineering, the obstacles to be surmounted being of a character that
engineers had had but little experience of up to the commencement of the
present century.
In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa fulfilled the same destiny in regard to
artificial waterways, as Peter the Great did in Russia. The ambitious but
generally utilitarian plans of the sovereign included that of connecting
Gothenburg with Stockholm, by means of the Wenner, Hielmar, and Mælar.
Eric XIV., the son of Gustavus Vasa, after his father’s decease, caused a
survey of the waters connecting with those lakes to be made, in order that
they might be joined for purposes of navigation. Nothing further was done
during his reign, but the design was revived by Gustavus Adolphus, who,
however, could not find persons capable of carrying it out, and Charles XI.
was advised by some Dutch engineers that the project was impracticable.

It was reserved for Charles XII. to commence the serious undertaking of
rendering navigable the Gotha and the falls of Trolhätten, but the work was
not completed in his lifetime. The projected work, as proposed by the
engineer Polhem, was to connect the Mælar and the Hielmar, the Hielmar
and the Wenner, and the Wenner with the German Ocean.
Difficulties occurred in the way of completing the connection between
Lake Wenner, or Wenmon, and the Baltic; and in 1806 Thomas Telford was
consulted, at the instance of the King of Sweden, as to the best means of
carrying out the communication. Telford[97] made a complete survey, and
prepared plans which were adopted. In 1810, he again visited Sweden for
the purpose of inspecting the excavations then begun, and took with him a
number of English navvies and lockmakers, in order that the Swedes might
be instructed in the work. As designed by Telford, the Gotha canal was 120
miles in length, including the lakes, of which 55 miles were artificial
navigation. The locks are 120 feet long, and 24 feet broad. The width of the
canal at the bottom is 42 feet, and the depth of the water is 10 feet.
The completion of the Gotha canal was justly regarded at the time as
one of the most important and able engineering works of the day. Previous
to Telford’s time, an artificial waterway, called the Carlsgraf Canal had been
constructed in the time of Charles IX., and under his direction, to connect
the Wenner with that part of the river Gotha where it is first navigable.
From the end of this canal to the village of Trolhätta, a distance of five
miles, the navigation of the river was uninterrupted, but when the cataracts
of Trolhätten—locally spoken of as the “Gulf of Hell”—were approached,
all farther navigation became impracticable through a space of about two
miles. The river is here divided into four principal cataracts, separated by
whirlpools and eddies, and descending through a perpendicular height of
100 feet. Several attempts having been made to construct a canal here, some
of which ended in complete failure, while others, including that made in the
time of Gustavus III., threatened to involve so much expense, that that
monarch, after visiting the works, ordered them to be suspended, a wooden
road was constructed alongside the river, from the beginning to the end of
the cataracts, in order to facilitate the conveyance of merchandise to
Gothenburg.
The following data relative to the Gotha Canal are extracted from the
large atlas of plates published along with the life of that engineer for the

purpose of illustrating the principal works of Telford.

Details of the Gotha Canal.

Distance. Lockage.
Canal. Lake. Fall. Rise.
miles yards miles yards ft. in.
Canal from Lake Wenern
to the Wiken 22 1039 .. .. .. 158 0
west end
Lake Wiken .. .. 12 318 .. of
summit
Canal at Edet .. 534
Lake .. .. .. 535
Canal .. 581 .. ..
East end
Lake .. .. .. 117 of
summit.
Canal near Forsvik .. 496 ft. in.
Lake Boltensjön .. .. 4 803 9 9
Canal at Rödesund .. 486
Lake Wettern .. .. 19 1136
Canal between Wettern
2 841 .. .. 49 9
and Lake Boren
Lake Boren .. .. 6 1140
Canal from thence to
14 63 .. .. 130 9
Roxen
Lake Roxen .. .. 15 1423
Canal from thence to
4 446 .. .. 19 6
Asplangen
Lake Asplangen. .. .. 3 208
Canal from thence to the 10 494 .. .. 86 6
Baltic near

Distance. Lockage.
Canal. Lake. Fall. Rise.
Soderkoping
Total length of canal 54 1460 .. .. 296 3
Total length of lake
.. .. 62 400 296 3
navigation
454 3
Total length of canal and miles yards
lakes in English miles 117 100

About a mile below the cataracts, the course of the Gotha was again
interrupted by a fall called Akerstræum; and at the end of last century a
canal 182 feet long, and 36 feet broad, was constructed here, through a bed
of rock, until, at the other end of the cataract, the river is clear to
Gothenburg. Before the construction of the Gotha Canal, the traffic for
Gothenburg was unloaded at the cataracts, carried over the wooden road to
the end of the falls by horses, and again put on board vessels which carried
it through the Akerstræum Canal to its ultimate destination.[98]
At Trolhätta, about 1¼ mile below the point where the river Göta-Elf
leaves the Wenner Lake, there occurs a series of falls and rapids, the river
descending 108 feet in a length of about 4590 feet. The works which were
commenced at this place early in the last century, were well advanced in
1755, when an unusually heavy flood caused much destruction and loss of
life, and the abandonment of the works, never since resumed. The intention
was to surmount the difference of level, viz., 108 feet, at the falls above
mentioned, by three locks only, with a rise of 36 feet each. In the canal, as
constructed in 1800, there is a chain of eight locks (still in service), but
these being insufficient for the traffic, a second set of eleven were
constructed alongside the former in 1844. These are cut in the solid granite.
There are sixteen locks in all, with a fall of 142 feet on this canal
(Trolhätta), which is 22 miles long. The breadth of the canal-bottom is 39
feet in soil and 23 feet 5 inches in rock, with a depth at mean water-level of
12 feet 8 inches. The number of vessels passing annually is about 7000.

The West Göta Canal, connecting the Wenner and Wetter lakes, rises
from the former by a series of nineteen locks, or a height of 154 feet 6
inches, to the summit level, which is 300 feet above the sea, and the descent
from here to the Baltic, viâ the East Göta canal, is by thirty-nine locks. The
breadth of the bottom of these canals is 46 feet 9 inches with a mean depth
of 9 feet 9 inches. These two canals were completed in 1832 at a cost of
887,500l. The length of navigation is 116⅔ miles, of which 54⅓ miles are
artificial canal, and 62⅓ miles lake channel. The traffic is from 4000 to
5000 vessels per annum.
The Dalsland Canal.—The eastern spurs of the high range dividing
Norway from Sweden run in the south through the small province of
Dalsland towards Lake Wenern, and from numerous valleys, which descend
more or less abruptly to the shore, and serve as channels for many torrents
from the mountain ridges. There are often considerable falls, which supply
a vast motive power to works of various kinds, chiefly bar-iron forges and
saw-mills. There was one serious drawback to this industry. Lake Wenem
afforded the only means of communication between Dalsland and the outer
world; and to reach that lake from the various works, a long and costly land
transport was the sole resource. This became more and more an obstacle as
increased facilities were developed in other parts of the world. Hence, some
forty years ago, the question of utilising the Dalsland water-courses as a
means of transport was broached, and this was accomplished in the year
1868. Along the Norwegian frontier, northward, in the province of
Wermland, there is a lake, the Stora Lee, 20 miles long, with an extreme
width of 3 miles, which joins Lake Wenem by a water-course, having
eleven continually descending basins, together constituting a fall of 200
feet. At the northern extremity of the Stora Lee are the Toksfor works. At a
distance of 12 miles southward, where there is a fall of 28 feet, are the iron
works of Lennartsfors. At this point the Stora Lee is joined by Lake
Leelângen; and lower down, at the junction with Las Lake, motive power is
supplied by a fall to the Billingsfors works. Farther on, towards Lake
Wenem, there are the Gustafsfors Ironworks and the Skapfors Sawmills,
where several falls occur, the highest being a fall of about 30 feet at
Upperud Ironworks.
The Dalsland Canal Company having been formed, with the governor of
the province, Count Sparre, as president, the directors in 1864 succeeded in

engaging the assistance of the late Baron Nils Ericson, Colonel of
Engineers. His plan to some extent varied from former projects, and
comprised the following main conditions:—The construction of a canal at
Hofverud, near Upperud, instead of a railway, so as to avoid unloading and
reloading; a route from Las Lake, past the Billingsfors works to Leelângen;
the adoption of the same dimensions for the whole length of the canal from
Upperud to Stora Lee, viz., a depth of 5½ feet, a width of 13 feet at the
bottom, and a length of 100 feet between the lock gates; and an increase in
the number of locks between Lake Wenem and Stora Lee to twenty-five
instead of fifteen, as proposed. The contract for constructing the canal
according to this plan, including excavations round the fall at Hofverud and
an aqueduct over the stream at that place, was taken at about 76,000l.
sterling, raised chiefly by shares and, to some extent, by state subventions.
It was stipulated that the dimensions of the canal should be such that vessels
of 75 feet in length, 13 feet beam, and drawing 5 feet of water should be
able to navigate it. Consequently the locks were mainly of the following
dimensions:—
Ft. In.
Minimum length between the gates 100 0
” width in the flood gate 14 0
” depth of water on the sill 5 2
” height of the gate wall over the sill 6 7
” width of the sill 6 0
” length of the gate wall 7 0
Radius of the sill and of the left wall 16 0
Length of gate recess 17 0
Radius 50 0
Slope of the lock chamber sides 5 to 1.
Versed sine of the exterior of the inner wall 2 0
” ” outer ” 3 0
The gate-walls and recesses were all constructed with Wargo cement.
The sides of the lock-chambers are of masonry in cement, supported by an
earthen embankment. The gates are single, and have wooden bolts; the sills
are formed of wooden beams 10 inches by 12 inches. Timber drawbridges

are employed throughout, placed in front of a lock immediately before the
recess or entrance.
The canal is of the following dimensions:—
Ft. In.
Minimum width at bottom 13 0
” depth 5 6
Height of the bank above water level 2 0
Width of the bank at top 8 0
” towing path 5 0
At the Waterfalls of Hofverud, the most interesting point of this canal,
the rock on one side is almost perpendicular for 150 feet, while the other
side of the stream is occupied by the ironworks of Hofverud. For this reason
Ericson constructed an iron aqueduct over the fall of 110 feet span. This
aqueduct has the form of an open box. The two sides for carrying the
weight are wrought-iron bow girders, 10 feet deep at the middle and 6½ feet
at the ends, of English iron plate ¼ inch. The bottom and top flanges are ½
inch and ⅛ inch thick respectively, formed of three layers of plates bolted
together. The top flange serves as a pathway as well.
The Dalsland canal rises 192 feet 6 inches by twenty-five locks, the
summit level being 338 feet above the sea. The length of the navigation is
155 miles; but the actual length of the works that were needed to complete
the system is only 4·8 miles.
The locks on this canal are each about 98 feet 6 inches long, with a
breadth of 13 feet 8 inches, and a depth over the sill of 5 feet 4 inches. The
breadth of the bottom is 14 feet 6 inches and 15 feet 7 inches, in soil and
rock, respectively. The canal is navigated by vessels of 70 tons, and
steamers of 45 tons and 25 h.p. The traffic amounts to about 4000 vessels
per annum. It was completed in 1868 at a cost of 81,500l.
The Kinda Canal rises 171 feet by fifteen locks to a level of 277 feet
above the sea. The length of the navigation is 49½ miles, of which 22¾ is
either artificial canal or trained river. The length of the locks is 90 feet 6
inches, breadth 18 feet 4 inches, and depth over sill 4 feet 10½ inches. The
traffic is from 3000 to 4000 vessels per annum. It was completed in 1871 at
a cost of 72,500l.

The Orebro Canal.—One of the most recent canal undertakings in
Sweden is the Orebro Canal, which is designed to bring down to the town
of that name the traffic from the Mälar and Hjelmar Lakes, instead of being
compelled to cart it from the old harbour of Skebäck, two or three miles
distant. There is no special engineering feature about the canal, which was
commenced in June 1886, and opened in 1888. For some distance it follows
the bed of the Svarta, and is subsequently divided into two branches, one of
which, the main branch, to the south, has a length of 4600 feet, and the
other, to the north, is 2600 feet long. The former is designed for passenger
and lighter traffic, and the other is specially arranged for the transport of
grain, coal, timber, &c. The main canal has a width of 80 to 90 feet at the
water line, and has 8½ feet depth. The lock at the commencement of the
canal is 125 feet long and 25 feet broad, and at the northern end of the
canal, where there is a high granite quay, 1200 feet long, the canal is 150
feet wide. The water on the canal is enclosed by a dam of 200 feet long, and
the total cost of the undertaking is about 40,000l. The enterprise is mainly
interesting as an example of the local application of water power with a
view to economy of local transport.
Projected Canals.—At the present time a canal is projected whereby it
is intended to connect the Kattegat with the Lake of Wenern, thus bringing
into direct water communication the towns of Uddevalla and Genersborg.
The length of this canal will be about twelve miles, some four miles of that
distance being through lakes. The level of the canal will be raised above
that of Lake Wenern by three sluices. The depth of water in the Uddevalla
harbour and in the Venersborgvik would limit the depth of the canal to
about 21 feet, but this would be sufficient to admit vessels of about 3000
tons. The sluices proposed would be 350 feet long and about 45 feet in
width. The canal would be a natural outlet for a large traffic in timber, iron,
and wood pulp, now so largely employed in the manufacture of paper.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER XII
[97] Thomas Telford, born in Dumfries-shire, Scotland, in humble
circumstances, was, next after Brindley, the greatest English canal engineer. He
constructed the Caledonian, Ellesmere, Gloucester and Berkeley, Grand Trunk,
Birmingham, Macclesfield, Birmingham and Liverpool Junction, and other

canals. He also constructed a number of harbours, docks, roads, and bridges,
including the Menai Bridge and St. Katherine’s Docks. He died in 1834, and was
buried in Westminster Abbey.
[98] Cox’s ‘Travels,’ vol. iv.

CHAPTER XIII.
THE WATERWAYS OF RUSSIA.

“The servitude of rivers is the noblest and most
important victory which man has obtained over the
licentiousness of Nature.”—Gibbon.
The Russian Empire is, in many respects, the most remarkable in the
world. With an area of more than eight and a half million of square miles,
and a population of 110 millions, it is larger than the whole of the British
Empire, including India, Canada, and Australia, and is about seventy times
the size of the British Islands alone. It is natural that the internal transport of
such a vast territory should present problems of deep interest, and should
tax the resources of the engineers that have been from time to time occupied
with their determination. This has been more than ordinarily difficult
because of the vast distances to be traversed, and the inclement character of
the climate, which practically seals up navigation entirely over a great part
of the Empire for about six months of the year. Happily, the Empire is
provided with a very ample river system, having, indeed, longer and deeper
rivers than any other country in Europe, which means, of course, that water
transport is available over long distances, without making any special or
costly provision for that purpose.
The enormous distances over which merchandise has been carried in
pre-railway times, throughout the Russian Empire is justly regarded as one
of the most remarkable chapters in the history of transportation. For many
years previous to the commencement of the present century, large quantities
of iron, salt, gold and silver, furs and skins, tallow, leather, marble and
precious stones, in addition to the special products of China, were carried
from the latter country to St. Petersburg, a distance of fully 2000 miles. The
route adopted appears to have been by the Selenga to the Baikal Lake, and
thence by the Angara to the Yenisey, where the merchandise was unloaded
and carried overland as far as the river Ket. By this stream it was carried to
the Obb, and thence up the Irtish and the Tobol, where it was again
unloaded, and carried overland to the Tchussovaia, where it was put on
vessels, and whence it was carried to the Kama and finally into the Volga.
Such a system of transport is probably unequalled for extent and variety in

any other part of the world, but the frequent removals and trans-shipments
on this and on other principal routes rendered it a matter of urgent
importance to connect the different waterways by canal navigation,
whereby the leading maritime routes could be joined together.
When we consider the condition of the Russian Empire at the time of
Peter the Great, the semi-barbarism of its inhabitants, and the comparatively
limited resources at his disposal, the work planned and achieved by Peter
the Great[99] in the construction of canals is little short of marvellous. It was
he who planned the grand scheme for uniting the Caspian and the Baltic
with the Black Sea, by the junction of the Volga and the Don. It was he,
also, who began the Ladoga Canal in 1718, although it was not completed
until the reign of the Empress Anne. This canal, as constructed, connected
the Volkhof with the Neva in a navigation of 67½ miles, with a uniform
breadth of 70 feet, and a mean depth of 10 feet in spring and 7 feet in
summer. Peter the Great connected Astracan and Petersburg by the canal of
Vishni-Volotchok, although the canal was afterwards considerably
improved by the Empress Catherine.[100] Peter the Great, who was the
founder of Cronstadt, also constructed a canal giving access to the harbour
of that place. It was not, however, completed in his lifetime. This canal,
called after its founder, is lined with brick, as is also another canal,
completed soon after the death of Catherine II., in order that vessels might
be able to load and unload stores at the gates of the magazines built on both
sides.[101]
In the time of Peter, and under his direction or sanction, many other
waterways were projected or improved in Russia. It was the aim of that
monarch to render transport universal and economical throughout his wide
dominions, and if his resources had been equal to his plans, Russia would
have taken the foremost place in everything relating to water
communication. In 1718, finding that the mouth of the Vistula was so
choked up with sand that even a small vessel had often difficulty in passing
over it, he caused a canal to be constructed, about three-quarters of a mile in
length, directly into the bay, having a breadth of 120 to 180 feet in some
places, and a depth of 13 to 15 feet. From the end of this canal, next the sea,
there were piers running out about 500 yards into the bay, whence ships
could enter the canal with almost any wind, and be perfectly secure—as,
indeed, the bay of Dantzic may usually be reckoned, having an excellent

anchorage ground, and being safe against all storms, those from the north-
east and east only creating any danger.
At the top of the canal just described, there were constructed flood
gates, or a sluice, to prevent the waters of the Vistula running in, or choking
it with sand. In the month of October, 1804, this sluice was finished. It will
admit vessels of 36 feet beam, and drawing not more than 10 to 11 feet
water. The ships thereby pass into the Vistula, and thence they may proceed
up to the mouth of the Mottlau; or to the town, about four English miles; or
they may lay in the Vistula close to the shore, in a good depth of water.
A canal for heavy goods was constructed from Lübeck to the Elbe,
where it falls in at Lauenburg, passing through Möellon, being a distance of
from 35 to 40 English miles. Oddy reported in 1820 that “there are about
100 boats constantly employed on this canal, and as many more may be
procured, nearly of an equal size and the same construction, long and
narrow, carrying about 90 shlb. of 280 lbs. each. These vessels are generally
from ten to twelve days going from Lübeck to Hamburg, having only three
men to navigate them, without the assistance of horses. The freight is
generally reckoned for the whole of one of these vessels, 100 marks current,
from Lübeck to Lauenburg on the Elbe, and generally from thence to
Hamburg, one third more; for which the boatman are responsible against
damage or robbery. This canal has the advantage of never suffering delay
for want of water in summer, with which it is supplied from the fine lake of
Katzburg.”[102]
An extraordinary access of enterprise appears to have occurred in
Russia in or about the year 1796 in the construction of waterways designed
to connect the different rivers and seas within or bordering upon the
European dominions of that State. The Beresinski Canal was commenced in
1797; the Swir Canal in 1795; the Maria Canal in 1796; the Kamushuiski
Canal was examined and ordered to be completed in the same year; while in
1797 the State undertook the construction of a canal from the Düna, below
Riga, for the purpose of joining the Bay of Riga with the Bay of Finland. To
the same period belong the project of a canal between Petersburg and
Archangel; the Verroi Canal, designed to unite the Lake Waggola and the
Black Rivulet; the Welikoluki Canal, designed to unite the rivers Neva and
Dnieper with the Düna—a canal 81 miles in length; and the canals of Orel,
designed to unite the rivers Bolwa and Shisdra; the Sna and Zon, and the

Nerussa with the Kromü. This programme, comprehensive and liberal in its
design, was only partially carried out, owing to the want of sufficient
resources.
The Baltic and the Caspian Seas were united more than half a century
ago by three different systems of canals—the first uniting the Neva with the
Volga by Lake Ilmen and the canal of Vishni Volotchok; the second uniting
the Neva with the Volga, by the Ladoga Canal, and by the canals of Tichwin
and Sjâs; and the third joining the same rivers by Lake Onega and the Maria
Canal, which unites the rivers Wytegra and Kowspaga.
The first of these three systems connects the Caspian and the Black Seas
in a navigation of some 1434 miles. Ships or barges laden at Astracan
ascend the river Volga to Twer, and thence proceed up the Twerza. After
passing through the canal here, they descend the Msta to Novgorod, and
proceed thence down the Volkhof to the Ladoga Canal, which connects with
the Neva at Schlusselburg. Once on the Neva vessels can proceed direct to
St. Petersburg without unloading cargoes.
In the second canal system referred to there are three different artificial
waterways—those of the Tichwin, Sjâs, and Swir. The first of these was
constructed for the purpose of connecting the Sominka with the Lid, which
falls in the Tschagadosh, and thence into the Mologa, which is connected
with the Volga. The Swir Canal is a continuation of that of the Ladoga,
which unites the Volkhof with the Sjâs river. The Swir Canal was completed
in 1801, and in that year, according to Oddy,[103] 650 vessels of all sizes
passed through it. The chief member of the third system is the Marian
Canal, which was completed in 1801. The Onega Canal, designed to join
the rivers Wytegra and Swir was built in 1808 to 1810. The Swir Canal,
connecting the rivers Swir and Sjâs was completed in the year 1806.
The Baltic and the Black Sea, like the Baltic and the Caspian, were
connected in the early part of the century by three different systems of canal
communication, which are equally remarkable. The first of these, the
Beresinski Canal, unites the Düna with the Dneiper, and thereby joins the
Bay of Riga with the Black Sea. The second unites the Njemen with the
Dneiper by the Ognisky Canal, and the Courland Canal. The third system
unites the western Bug with the Dneiper by the King’s Canal.

The Beresinski Canal was commenced in the year 1797. The principal
part of the navigation was completed in 1801, but the canal was not entirely
finished until 1809. It forms a junction with the Dneiper, first by the river
Ulla, which falls into the Düna, then by the Sergatcha, which falls into the
Beresina, and finally into the Dneiper. The lakes Beloje and Beresina, lying
on the route, are utilised to facilitate the connection.
The Ognisky Canal, which was finally completed in 1803, was built
largely at the expense of the Count of that name during the latter years of
the Polish republic. It is thirty-four miles in length, and has ten sluices. For
many years it afforded a passage for small craft between Königsberg and
the Black Sea. The canal joins the rivers Szzara and Jasiolda, the first of
which falls into the Njemen, and the latter into the Pripecz, thereby opening
a communication viâ the Dnieper with the Baltic and the Black Seas. The
Governments of Lithuania, Volhinia, Little Russia, and Polish Ukraine,
have long sent their produce by the Njemen to Königsberg and Memel, near
which latter place it falls into the Baltic. Nearly a hundred years ago it was
proposed to unite the Njemen with the Bay of Riga by a canal of ten versts
in length, which would unite the Nevesha with the Lavenna at the mouth of
the great Ada.
The last King of Poland began the canal which unites the western Bug
with the Dneiper, and which for that reason was called the King’s Canal. It
unites the Prima and the Muckawetz, but it has not been very successful. As
originally constructed, the canal had no sluices, and being short of water in
the summer, and frozen in winter, it was only navigable in the spring
months.
Another important maritime connection, to which great importance was
attached in the early part of the century, was that of the Bay of Riga with
the Bay of Finland. This connection was arranged for—first, by joining the
rivers Pemau and Narova by means of the Lake Peipus and the canal of
Fellin; second, by uniting the rivers Düna and Neva, by Lake Ilmen and the
Welikoluki Canal; and third, by joining the Düna and Narova with the
Peipus Lake, and the Verroi and Riga Canals.
Peter the Great attached much importance to effecting a junction of the
Black and the Caspian Seas. The distance between these two maritime
highways is about 400 miles, and the enormous trade that has recently been

developed in petroleum at Baku, on the Caspian Sea, would have created a
traffic for such a waterway that was never dreamt of in the time of that
Czar. The Iwanoff Canal was begun by Peter in 1700 for the purpose of
uniting the Don by means of Lake Iwan, with the river Shat, which passes
through the Upa into the Oka. The canal had been carried from the Don into
the valley of the Bobrucki, towards Cape Iwan, and twenty-four sluices had
been completed, when the work was suddenly stopped, most probably
because the means were insufficient for its completion; but early in the
present century the completion of the canal was ordered by the
Government. In 1716, Peter commenced the Kamüshinski Canal, designed
to unite the Don and the Volga, and thereby to connect the Black and the
Caspian Seas. Like the Iwanoff Canal, this undertaking had been partially
finished when it had to be discontinued, apparently for engineering as well
as for financial reasons, nor was it until 1796 that its construction was again
resumed.
The Poutiloff Canal.—One of the most important canals in the Russian
Empire, as well as one of the most recently constructed is that known as the
Poutiloff Canal—a waterway built for the purpose of converting the city of
St. Petersburg into a port. This has hitherto been rendered impossible by the
defects of the bar of the river Neva. Hence all traffic arriving at St.
Petersburg from the interior, or at Cronstadt from abroad, has had to be
transhipped at great cost, and with so much delay that Newcastle coal has
often taken as long in transit from Cronstadt to the capital, a distance of
18½ miles, as from the North of England to Cronstadt. In 1872 a
Commission reported upon this canal, and the plan finally adopted was
sanctioned and contracted for in 1874; but, owing to losses of plant
conveyed from England, the works were not commenced till 1877. The
canal starts from the Neva at St. Petersburg, and, diverging from the
estuary-channel, it proceeds in a south-westerly direction for about 2 miles,
and then curving gradually round towards the north-west, it runs in a
straight line to Cronstadt. The canal is 207 feet wide at the bottom for the
first part of its course, and has a continuous embankment on the side of the
Gulf of Finland, and at places on the land side; at the termination of the
curve it unites with a branch canal, which will eventually rejoin the Neva
above St. Petersburg, and thence its navigable width is increased to 275
feet, its depth being 22 feet throughout. The first part of the straight portion
is embanked on both sides, but for the last 10 miles a navigable channel,

275 feet wide, has been dredged through the Gulf, which has a depth there
of only from 12 to 15 feet, while no banks have been made.

The Poutiloff Canal.
Three basins, formed by widening the canal at certain places, have been
provided for the export and import trade, having a total area of 430 acres;
but it is considered that these will not afford sufficient accommodation.
Between 1877 and 1882, 5,304,000 cubic yards were excavated, out of a
total of about 8,700,000 cubic yards. The working season, however, at St.
Petersburg is short, and only one hundred and twenty-five days can be
reckoned upon in the year, making an average of 8480 cubic yards per day.
Water was admitted into the canal in the presence of the Emperor Alexander
III. in November 1883; but the canal was not made available for the passage
of vessels until 1884. The canal is reported to have greatly promoted the
commercial prospects of the capital. This was much required, as, previous
to the construction of the Poutiloff Canal, only vessels of very small size
and light draught could ascend the Neva for the purpose of loading and
unloading at St. Petersburg, while those of more than very limited draught
were compelled to stop at Cronstadt, and discharge or load there. The cost
of sending goods from Cronstadt to the capital was calculated at more than
the freight from England,[104] without taking into account the loss of time,
which often amounted to ten or fourteen days, and sometimes more.

The Poutiloff Canal was constructed by the Russian Government, at a
cost of about a million and a quarter sterling, and has been thrown open free
of tolls. The points A and B on the plan, where warehouse accommodation
has been provided, are in communication by rail with all the railways going
out of St. Petersburg, and can also be approached by lighters with cargo for
transport. It is expected that the canal will cause merchant-ships ultimately
to abandon Cronstadt entirely.
At the St. Petersburg end of the canal, a Government Commission
recommended some years ago, that two basins would be required, each 22
feet deep, and capable of holding 90 steamers and 70 sailing vessels, with a
third basin, having a depth of 10½ feet, in order to accommodate the barges
arriving from the interior. The cost of these works has been estimated at
over a million sterling. There has been a good deal of controversy as to the
proper location for the port of St. Petersburg at the end of the canal. The
original proposal was to erect the docks and basins at the head of the canal,
close to the Poutiloff Ironworks, but the Ministry of Finance is reported to
have favoured a project for constructing a port on the opposite side of the
river—that is on the right bank—on the ground that it would be much less
expensive. But the utility of the canal has already been so greatly proved,
that the docks originally projected will be likely to be insufficient before
long. About 2500 ships are stated to be annually employed in the foreign,
and 700 in the local transport trade of the capital.[105]
The Perekop Canal is another recent undertaking of the Russian
Government. According to ‘Reports of the Consuls of the U.S.A.,’ dated
July 1888, Russia had then begun with the excavation of the Strait of
Perekop, which connects the Crimea with the Russian continent. The canal
is to go from Perekop to Goutschar, Sivash, and Genitschesk, and is to be
111 versts long. It will be 65 feet broad and 12 feet deep. At each end of the
canal a port will be built. It is stated that the 85,000,000 roubles necessary
for the undertaking have been found. The shortest road from Genitschesk to
the northern ports of the Black Sea will be through the canal. The voyage
from Odessa to Maripol is at present 434 sea miles long; through the canal
it will be only 295 miles. The work will take five years to complete. When
the canal is finished, it will be easy for Russia to send her ships through the
Sea of Azov to Otschakow, to the mouth of the Dnieper, and to Odessa,
because they will no longer have to sail round the Crimea, and they will

thereby avoid the risk of being captured by foreign ships in case of war. The
chief reason for building the Perekop Canal is stated to be the necessity for
getting coal from the Don districts for the Russian fleet.[106]
The Baltic and White Sea Canal.—The latest project put forward with a
view to extending and completing the canal system of Russia is that of an
artificial connection between the Baltic and the White Seas. The principal
port on the White Sea is Archangel, which is situated on the Dwina, about
30 English miles from its mouth. The building of St. Petersburg took away
from Archangel a considerable part of its trade with European countries.
The harbour of Archangel is, moreover, none of the best, and the bar at the
entrance of the Dwina is said to have only about 14½ feet of water, so that
ships which draw more water must be loaded out in the roads by lighters.
Nevertheless, the shipping trade of Archangel is still considerable, and it is
believed that it would be greatly promoted by a direct connection with the
Baltic. The projected canal is estimated to cost 10 millions of roubles
(1,000,000l.), and the length of the canal will be 210 versts. General
Ignatieff is said to have declared in favour of the undertaking, and the
Russian engineers who have reported upon it state that it is easily feasible.
Lake Onega Canal.—Another project that has for some time past found
a great deal of favour in Russia is that of a waterway from the White Sea to
the Baltic by way of Lake Onega. Communication already exists between
the two seas, but it is by a roundabout water route, starting from Archangel,
and running up the Dwina to a point near Vologda. A canal would reduce
this distance of nearly 1500 miles to about one-third of that figure. The
estimated cost of the canal is about 750,000l. The project is one that
received the consideration of Peter the Great, who, as we have already seen,
was the greatest canal-maker that Russia has produced.
The Volga and Don Canal.—The new canal between the Volga and the
Don will be 53 versts in length, and is estimated to cost 2,780,000l. The
canal will commence at the Volga, 7 feet below the level of the Black Sea,
and will terminate at a point of the river Don which is 119 feet higher than
that water. At its tenth verst from the river Don the canal will traverse the
river Karpooka, and at the twenty-fourth verst it will pass the
Krivomoozquiski Station of the Volga-Don Railway. Here a basin for
shipping will be provided. The canal subsequently runs parallel with the
railway until it reaches the river Tchervlenoi, a branch of the Karpooka.

From this point the watershed of the Volga and the Don will be cut through,
the deepest cutting being 140 feet. The soil, however, is sandy, and is easily
dealt with. A rapid descent is made at the end of the canal, where there will
be a fall of 270 feet in 6 miles, and where thirteen locks, each 6½ metres
deep, will be constructed. The total amount of earth to be excavated is
estimated at 2,780,000 Russian cubic fathoms. It is proposed to construct
each lock large enough to contain at one time two vessels, severally 210
feet long, 42 feet broad, and 7 feet deep.
The Hyegra and Kovja Canal.—In July 1886, a new canal, which forms
an important link in the chain of canals that connect the Caspian and the
Baltic was opened. This canal is 15 miles in length, 70 feet wide, and 7 feet
deep. It joins the rivers Hyegra and Kovja. Upwards of 20,000 labourers
were employed in the undertaking, together with three dredging machines,
but the greater part of the work was done by hand. The quantity of
excavation required was upwards of 270,000 Russian cubic fathoms of
earth. Some of the cuttings were 30 feet in depth. The undertaking did not,
however, present any engineering difficulties of importance.
The traffic of the Caspian Sea is now very considerable, having been
enormously increased within recent years by the development of the
petroleum trade of Baku, and of the wealth of the minerals and other natural
productions that are common to that region. The Baltic is a natural and the
most convenient outlet for a great part of this trade, although pipes have
been laid from the Caspian to the Black Sea, in order to discharge the
petroleum into ships navigating that waterway.
The Proposed Black Sea and Azov Canal.—During the summer of 1888
the Russian Government complied with a demand for a concession, made
by the Black Sea and Azov Canal Company, for the right to construct a
canal intended to connect the Don basin and the Sea of Azov with the
Dneiper basin and the Black Sea. The length of the proposed canal is stated
to be a little over 26 English miles, and the cost is estimated at 3½ millions
sterling. The mean depth proposed is about 14 feet. The work of
construction is expected to occupy about four years.
It has been remarked as a singular phenomenon that whereas the canal
traffic of England has relatively diminished, that of other countries has been
maintained. This has been explained by the fact that in other countries the

distances are generally greater, and the canals are more like rivers than the
narrow waters usual in our own country. On Russian canals, for example,
barges range in length from 100 to 300 feet, and, instead of being mere
lighters, they are to all intents and purposes the counterparts of ocean-going
steamships. Large-sized steamers can proceed from the Neva through the
canal system to the Volga, and descend thence to the Caspian Sea. Again, it
is no unusual thing for barges of 500 or 1000 tons burden to start from some
stream in the Ural Mountains with the floods of spring, and reach the river
Neva in the autumn—a journey of nearly 1000 miles.
The canals of Russia were for a long time, and are still to a considerable
extent, largely navigated by flat-bottomed barques, of considerable length,
but seldom more than 4 feet in depth, and drawing from 20 to 30 inches of
water. “Their rudder,” it is said, “is a long tree like an oar. In case of
leakage, instead of a pump they put up a rough cross-bar, from which is
slung, by means of a rope, a wooden scoop, with which they throw out the
water. These vessels are rudely constructed, purposely for conveying only
one cargo. They cost from 100 to 300 roubles each (20l. to 60l.), and when
they arrive at Archangel, Petersburg, or Riga, and their cargoes are
discharged, they are sold or broken up for firewood or other purposes,
seldom fetching more than from 20 to 50 roubles.”[107]
The Canals of Finland.—Finland has a considerable wealth of lake
navigation, which has been connected by canals to the great gain of local
commerce. One of these is the canal of the Samia, which connects a chain
of lakes with the Gulf of Finland by a waterway 37 miles long, with a fall of
260 feet. The fifteen locks are all of substantial masonry, and are fitted with
wooden gates, the use of iron in connection with the stonework being
dispensed with as much as possible, on account of its considerable changes
of volume, due to the great range of temperature to which it is exposed. The
masonry, though built in hydraulic cement, suffered considerably from the
severe cold of winter; but in the year 1870 the plan was adopted of covering
the lock chambers by means of 2-inch planks, and allowing the water to
flow perpetually through the two gate sluices. Snow is allowed to
accumulate over the temporary covers, and as the water running through
has a mean temperature of 39° Fahrenheit, the lock chambers are readily
kept at a temperature a little above the freezing-point. The levels between

the locks are kept full all winter. The practice of running out the water is
stated by a recent writer to be destructive to the banks.
The canal of the Pielis connects two lakes; it is 40 miles long, and has a
fall of 62 feet, surmounted by ten wooden locks. The crib-work of the walls
is loaded with stone, and not clay or earth, as is commonly the case, in
consequence of which the woodwork is not forced out of place by the
expansion of the frozen filling, and does not rot so quickly.
From all that has already been put forward, it must be evident that
Russia has long been fully alive to the importance of developing her
maritime resources, and especially her system of inland water transport. The
total canal mileage of Russia has been estimated by Sir Charles Hartley at
about 200 miles(?), and he remarks that, “in most instances, they have been
formed with but little difficulty across the gentle undulations of the great
watershed, thus uniting the head waters of rivers which have their outlets at
opposite extremities of the Continent.”[108]
The River Systems of Russia.—No reference to the water transport of
Russia would be complete unless it included the river-system of that
interesting country, which is stated to be navigable to the extent of 19,000
miles. Rafts, however, can use such waterways to the extent of 38,000
miles. The chief rivers of Russia are the Volga, with a drainage area of
563,000 miles, and a course of over 2000 miles, making it the longest river
in Europe; the Ural, with a drainage area of 95,000 square miles, and a
course of 1446 miles; the Dwina, with a drainage area of nearly 100,000
miles, and a course of 650 miles; the Petchora, with a drainage area of
127,000 miles and a length of 915 miles; the Don, with a drainage area of
170,000 square miles, and a length of 980 miles; and the Dneiper, with a
drainage area of 204,000 square miles, and a length of 1060 miles. In the
summer these rivers, with their collateral canals, transport immense
quantities of raw material to the south and west, and carry back
manufactures of different kinds in exchange. In the winter, however, their
navigation is generally closed, and traffic is carried either by railway or by
road. There are, of course, many smaller streams, such as the Düna, 470
miles long; the Neva, 34 miles long; the Dneister, 640 miles in length; and
the Bug, with a course of 430 miles.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER XIII
[99] Peter the Great, as is well known, was a keen observer of everything that
tended to open up the internal commerce of a country, and especially of all that
tended to advance maritime progress, in which he took a deep interest. When
Peter was residing in England canal navigation was hardly yet begun, but many
rivers had been canalised, including the Aire and Calder, the Trent, the Witham,
and the Medway.
[100] For additional information on this subject consult Tooke’s ‘View of the
Russian Empire,’ vol. i., and Cox’s ‘Travels in Poland and Russia,’ vol. iii.
[101] Article “Canals,” in ‘Rees’s Encyclopædia.’
[102] Oddy’s ‘European Commerce,’ p. 292.
[103] Oddy’s ‘European Commerce.’
[104] Report by Her Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Petersburg, Commercial
series, No. 2 1884.
[105] Paper read in 1886 before the Society for Promoting Russian Trade.
[106] London Economist, July 14, 1888.
[107] Oddy’s ‘European Commerce,’ p. 69.
[108] ‘Inland Navigation in Europe,’ March 1888.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE WATERWAYS OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

“Th’ expanded waters gather on the plain,
They float the fields, and overtop the grain.”
—Ovid.

The great waterway of Austria is the Danube, which rises in the Black
Forest, at an elevation of about 3600 feet above the sea, and drains an area
of 316,000 square miles, its total length being 1750 miles. Three hundred
tributaries, or more, feed this noble river, the seven more important streams
having a length of 2900 miles, and draining about one-half of the whole
extent of the Danube Basin. At Ulm, 130 miles from its source, the Danube
becomes navigable for flat-bottomed boats. In its lower reaches it is
traversed by an almost innumerable fleet of steamers and barges, which are
the main means of communication between this part of Europe and the
Black Sea.
Danube Regulation Works.—The improvement of the channel of the
Danube, near Vienna, is one of the most important river engineering works
of modern times. A new channel, 10 miles in length, has brought the river
1½ mile nearer to the city, and at a ground depth of 10 to 12 feet below
ordinary low-water level, at a cost of 3,250,000l. The principal object of the
scheme was to protect Vienna from floods, but it has also considerably
assisted navigation.
Around Vienna the ground is generally flat, and the Danube, with
various branches, was, in times of flood, accustomed to inundate the
country for many miles round about, doing a great deal of damage both to
the city and its suburbs. In order to remedy this condition of things, a
commission was appointed which proposed to collect all the branches of the
Danube into one channel.
The plan attached hereto shows the character of the undertaking. The
new channel is nearly 9½ miles in length. It starts from Nussdorf at the foot
of the well-known hill called the Kahlenberg, and passes through the flat

lands of the Prater, or great public park of Vienna, with a slight curve
towards the city, in order that the navigable channel, holding generally to
the outside of the curve, should be nearest Vienna, and as close to it as
possible, thereby facilitating the shipping on the quays.

Plan of Danube Improvement Works.

Danube Improvement Works.

The Locks of Nussdorf.—To prevent winter accumulations of ice from
entering the new canal, and to divert floods, locks were constructed at
Nussdorf, which are indicated in the drawings herewith. The side walls are
founded on cylinders sunk down to the gravel to a depth of 31 feet below
zero, and the tops of the abutment of the lock are 15 feet 6 inches above the
same level. The distance between the side walls is 155 feet 10 inches. The
entrance to the lock is closed by a caisson, the lock being closed only in
winter. The invert of the lock is of béton, set in Portland cement, 4 feet 1½
inch thick, the foundation being of piles, as shown on the plan. The level of
this invert is 12 feet 9 inches below zero; below that part of the invert, at the
entrance to the lock, the floor is made of heavy stonework laid at the same
level. The foundations of the barrage at Nussdorf consist of iron caissons,
that on the right bank being rectangular in form, and 81 feet long by 18 feet
7 inches wide, while the wall on the left bank is 99 feet long, by the same
width as the other, with an enlargement on the side towards the canal for the
lock gates.
Joining the old bed of the Danube at the Bridge of Stadlau, and
following its course as far as the island of Wiedenhaufen, through which it
passes, the channel line enters the river again opposite the village of Albern.
On the left side of the river a protecting dyke was erected in order to guard
against flooding the great plains of Marchfeld.
The new channel is 933 feet wide, 8·3 to 11·4 feet in depth, and has a
mean slope of 1 in 2272, the speed of the current varying according to the
state of the river. The side slope has an inclination of 2 to 1, and is riveted
throughout in stone 9¾ inch thick, with a banquette on the top 39 inches
wide. The ground on the right bank has been raised so as to reach the same
height as the dyke on the left, thus protecting the country round about from
inundation.
The above works cost over two millions sterling. The quay walls, locks,
and other operations were described in a monograph published in 1878 by
M. Hersent, one of the contractors, and reprinted in Engineering, from
which the foregoing particulars have been mainly reproduced. The total
amount of earthwork was 23,575,928 cubic yards, divided as follows:—

Excavators 4,775,334
Dredgers 9,491,254

Barrows 9,309,340

Résumé of Works Executed for the Danube Regulations.

Nature of the Work. First Section. Second Section.
1,886,300 cub. 6,204,900 cub.
Earthwork
yds. yds.
Ordinary dredging 895,300 ” 10,722,400 ”
Destruction of old works,
masonry, 247,600 ” 30,900 ”
fascines, piling, &c.
Drawing piles 8267 1350
Removing scaffolding 63,495 ft. ..
Revetments 166,100 cub. yds. 244,200 cub. yds.
Protection for slopes 44,100 sq. yds. 147,100 sq. yds.
Masonry of quays, &c. 284,000 cub. yds. 64,200 cub. yds.
Foundations by
3600 ” ..
compressed air
Piles driven 31 ft. long 3519 16,481
Sheet piling 21 ft 9 in. 1838 13,577
Fascine work .. 68,300 cub. yds.
Blasting cartridges 650 ft. 42,607 ft.
Third Section. Total.
Earthwork 1,218,000 cub. yds. 9,309,200 cub. yds.
Ordinary dredging 2,295,800 ” 13,913,500 ”
Destruction of old works,
masonry, 74,600 ” 353,100 ”
fascines, piling, &c.
Drawing piles .. 9617
Removing scaffolding .. 63,495 ft.
Revetments 130,500 cub. yds. 540,800 cub. yds.
Protection for slopes 131,000 sq. yds. 322,800 sq. yds.
Masonry of quays, &c. .. 92,600 cub. ”

Nature of the Work. First Section. Second Section.
Foundations by
.. 3600 ”
compressed air
Piles driven 31 ft. long .. 20,000
Sheet piling 21 ft 9 in. .. 15,415
Fascine work 26,600 cub. yds. 94,900 cub. yds.
Blasting cartridges 10,068 ft. 53,325 ft

The average work done by each excavator was 1538 cubic yards per day
over the five years ending 1874, the maximum being 1951 and the
minimum 613 cubic yards. The excavators were of the same type as those
employed on the Belgian Ship Canal works, illustrated elsewhere in this
work, and are known by M. Condreux’s name.
It is proposed to connect the Danube with the North Sea by a new canal,
273 kilometres in length, which is referred to at p. 130. This canal, if
constructed, will, like the Prussian canal system generally, be 21 metres in
width, 2 metres deep, and have locks 8·60 metres wide and 55 metres long.
These will admit barges carrying 600 tons.
The other principal rivers of Austria-Hungary include the Pregel, the
Elbing, the Vistula, and the Oder, inclined to the Baltic; the Elbe, the Saale,
the Moldau, the Weser, the Ems, the Main, the Neckar, inclined to the North
Sea; and the Pruth, the Theiss, the Temes, the Inn, and the Iser, inclined,
like the Danube, to the Black Sea. About a dozen waterways, mostly small,
are also inclined to the Adriatic.
In Hungary, there are two canals of importance—the first being the
Bega, which joins Temesvar with the Theiss at Tetal, a little above its
junction with the Danube, and has a total length of 75 miles; while the other
is the Franz Josef Canal, extending for a distance of 69 miles, from the
Danube at Battina by Zombor, to the Theiss near Foldvar. The great
waterway of Hungary is, however, the Lower Danube, which is navigated
by the Imperial and Royal Danube Steam Navigation Company. About 800
barges are employed for this purpose, the greater number having a carrying
power of 250 tons. The improvements that have been made on this stream,

under the Commission appointed for that purpose, between 1860 and 1883
have tended to increase the trade from 680,000 gross tons in 1859 to
1,530,000 tons in 1883, and to lower the charges on shipping from an
average of 20s. per ton for lighterage before the deepening of the Sulina
mouth to less than 2s. per ton register at the present time. Sir Charles
Hartley claims that the Danube improvement works had, up to 1884,
effected a saving of over 20 millions sterling.[109]

FOOTNOTE
CHAPTER XIV
[109] ‘Inland Navigations in Europe,’ p. 155.

CHAPTER XV.
THE WATERWAYS OF THE UNITED STATES.

“The Erie Canal, conceived by the genius, and
achieved by the energy of De Witt Clinton, was, during
the second quarter of this century, the most potent
influence of American progress and civilisation. It
developed the north-west, by giving an outlet to the
commerce of the great lakes, and it made New York the
Empire State, and New York City the imperial mart of
the New World.”
—E. Sweet, in the Transactions of the American Society
of Civil Engineers for 1884.
A glance at a map of the United States will suffice to show that it has
unique natural facilities for water transport. Its great lakes, which are inland
seas of no inconsiderable dimensions, now connected together by the Erie
and St. Mary’s Falls Canals, its magnificent rivers, such as the Mississippi
and the Missouri, and the natural configuration of the country, create an
ensemble for cheap transportation such as no other country can surpass.
Besides these resources, however, the United States have now a railway
system of over 160,000 miles.
The same favoured country has a large number of noble rivers, as well
as a magnificent system of lakes. Of these, the most important is the
Mississippi, which has a drainage area, estimated at 1,261,000 miles, and
which, including its tributaries, has about 15,000 miles of navigable waters.
A large portion is, however, closed at low water. From the source of its
great tributary, the Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico, its outlet, the
Mississippi has a length of 4194 miles. It may, however, be maintained that
the Mississippi is less a single river than the outlet of a number of rivers,
each of considerable importance. The Missouri river has a drainage area of
518,000 square miles, and 3500 miles of navigable waters, while the Ohio
river, which has the next most important basin, drains an area of 214,000
square miles, and has 5000 miles of navigation. The smaller tributaries
include the Arkansas river, the Med river, the Yazoo, and the St. Francis.
The navigation of the Mississippi river has for a number of years past been

under the control of a special Government Commission, by whom the
mouth of the river has been dredged, training walls have been built, shifting
sandbars have been regulated, and dams thrown across to concentrate the
low-water flow in the main channel. On the Upper Mississippi, St.
Anthony’s Falls oppose a barrier which has been overcome by a canal and
locks.
In no country has there been a longer or more severe struggle between
canals and railroads than in the United States of North America. In no
country have both systems of transportation had a more eventful,
instructive, and interesting history. In no country have railroads and canals
been afforded equally free scope for development, and in no country have
transportation rates been cut so fine and reduced so low. We may, therefore,
by a consideration of the conditions of transport in the United States, and
especially by seeking to ascertain how far the two great systems of internal
communication have competed with each other, learn something that will
throw a good deal of light on this problem.
Washington, himself, was one of the first to appreciate the importance
of canals. In his early life the father of his country was a land surveyor, in
which capacity he became very familiar with the requirements of the region
of the Potomac. Both in this employment, and subsequently, when in 1754
he commanded a military expedition to the Monongahela river, Washington
was constantly seeking to improve transportation facilities. He was
especially eager to have a waterway opened between the Chesapeake and
the Ohio. The War of Independence for a time diverted his ideas from this
purpose, but when the war was over he obtained a charter for a waterway
between the great lakes and the Hudson, and became the first President of
the company formed for its construction. Washington, therefore, stands, in
relation to the waterways of the United States, in the same position as the
Duke of Bridgwater does in regard to the canal system of our own country,
Peter the Great in reference to the canal system of Russia, and Louis XIV. in
relation to the canal system of France. It must be admitted that in every case
the system has had a worthy sponsor.
In 1792, an Act was passed by the Legislature of the State of New York,
incorporating two companies—one, the “Western Inland Lock Navigation
Company,” charged with the duty of constructing a canal, with locks,
between the upper waters of the Mohawk and those flowing into Lake

Ontario; the other, the “Northern Inland Lock Navigation Company,”
charged with the construction of a similar work from the Hudson to Lake
Champlain—between which there is a remarkable depression in the general
surface of the country. This Act, drawn up and mainly carried through the
exertions of General Schuyler, was the first and most important step taken
towards the construction of a general system of public works for the
country. The objective point aimed at by the Western Company was Lake
Ontario, at Oswego, by way of Wood’s Creek, Oneida Lake, and the
Oswego River. At that time, however, the great enterprise which was to
follow—a canal from the Hudson to Lake Erie was not dreamt of. The
purposes of the promoters were as distant from the ultimate result as those
of Edward Pease and George Stephenson were when they planned the
Stockton and Darlington Railway.
In 1796, the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company was formed in
the United States for the purpose of opening up some of their projected
inland waterways. This company constructed several small canals, but its
operations were unsuccessful, and in 1808 it surrendered all its rights and
property to the State for the sum of 140,000 dollars (28,000l.), which was
only one quarter of their original cost.
During the existence of the company, freight designed for Lake Erie and
the West took the route of Lake Ontario to the mouth of Niagara river. From
that point to the head of the Falls was a portage of 28 miles. The charge for
transporting a bushel of salt for this distance, according to the report made
by Mr. Geddes in 1809, was 75 cents; and for a ton of general merchandise
10 dollars. All that can be said of the works of the Western Inland
Navigation Company is, that they led the way to the construction of the Erie
Canal. They never held the route of any considerable commerce. For a long
time after their construction, the farmers of Central and Western New York,
for want of other means, sent their produce to market down the Delaware
and Susquehanna rivers in arks, which were broken up when the destined
market was reached. In the meantime, the subject of a canal better adapted
to the wants of commerce than that of the Western Inland Lock Navigation
Company was by no means lost sight of. In 1807, in a series of articles
published at Canandaigua in the Ontario Messenger, Jesse Hawley, their
author, urged the construction of a canal from Lake Erie, 100 feet wide and
10 feet deep, “to be laid on an inclined plane,” from Buffalo to Utica;

thence down the channel of the Mohawk; thence across the portage to
Albany—to be constructed at the expense of the National Government. This
plan of an inclined plane, strange as it may seem, was, notwithstanding its
gross absurdity, favourably received, and proved for a long time, from the
great difficulties it involved, a serious obstacle to the early beginning of any
work of the kind.
In February, 1808, Mr. Joshua Forman, a member of the Legislature
from Onondaga, and subsequently one of the efficient promoters of the
canal, proposed the appointment of a joint committee “to take into
consideration the propriety of exploring and causing an accurate survey to
be made of the most eligible and direct route for a canal to open a
communication between the tide-waters of the Hudson river and Lake
Erie.” On the 21st of March, 1808, Mr. Gold, of the committee, made a
report, enlarging upon the importance of the proposed work, “in drawing
together and preserving in political concord the distant parts of a widely
extended empire,” and closed with a resolution that the Surveyor-General
cause an accurate survey to be made of the rivers, streams, and waters in the
usual route of communication between the Hudson river and the western
waters, and such other contemplated routes as he may deem proper. For
such survey the sum of 600 dollars was appropriated. The action under the
resolution of Mr. Forman was the first step taken by the Legislature with a
view to the construction of the Erie Canal. In 1810 commissioners were
appointed to examine the route of the proposed canal. In 1811 the
commission reported in favour of a canal, which, in order to produce the
inclination of six inches to the mile to Schenectady was to cross the
Genesee river by a viaduct 83 feet above the water, and the outlet of Cuyaga
Lake at an elevation of 130 feet. In 1812 the commission made an estimate
of the probable tonnage that would come upon the canal, and of the tolls
that would accrue therefrom. They expressed their opinion that not
improbably the canal, in twenty years from that time, would bring down
200,000 tons of traffic![110]
In 1817, the Act for the construction of the Erie Canal was finally
passed. The money was to be raised on the credit of the State. In 1825 the
canal with its adjuncts was completed. The latter event was signalised by a
holiday, and unusual rejoicings. It was regarded as a great thing that the
news of the opening of the canal was conveyed to New York from Buffalo,

by a discharge of cannon, whose reverberations were repeated along a line
of 513 miles in one hour and twenty minutes. The communication which
the Erie Canal afforded between the vast inland seas of the United States
and the Atlantic Ocean was, indeed, the greatest event in the history of
transportation in that country up to the end of the first quarter of our
century.
The opening of the Erie Canal was followed by the initiation of many
other schemes of a similar kind. The real date of the era of canal building in
the United States was 1825-30. Pennsylvania, following directly upon the
heels of the Erie, constructed a work which was partly railway, and partly
canal, and upon which the State expended no less a sum than 50 millions of
dollars (10,000,000l.).[111] This line, however, was not successful. “The
works, although of great local use and value, never became factors of any
importance in the general commerce of the country.”[112]
The State which, next to New York, achieved the greatest success in the
construction of canals was Ohio. In 1832 two lines were opened through
that State—one from Cleveland to Portsmouth, on the Ohio, the other from
Toledo to Cincinnati. Their capacity did not allow the passage of boats
carrying cargoes exceeding thirty tons. At its highest point, in 1857, their
traffic reached 1,635,744 tons. The line which separated the tonnage going
north to the lakes, and that going south to the river, passed east and west
very near the centre of the State—the tendency of breadstuffs, on the whole,
being toward the lakes, to seek their outlet through the Erie Canal; and of
provisions of all kinds to the river, to seek their outlet through New
Orleans. Of the exports of beef from Cincinnati in 1851, the year of the
opening of the Erie railroad, and twenty-seven years after the opening of the
Erie Canal, 97 per cent., went down the river to New Orleans, and only 2
per cent. northward to the lake. Of Indian corn, 96 per cent. went down the
river, and only 3 per cent. to the lake. Of flour, 97 per cent. went down the
river, only 1 per cent. to the lake. Of lard, 83 per cent. went down the river,
and 9 per cent. to the lake. Of pork and bacon, 79 per cent. went down the
river, and 5 per cent. to the lake. A very small amount of these articles went
up the river to Pittsburgh, the first great manufacturing city that grew up off
the line of the seaboard. Taking the whole State, two-thirds of its wheat
went north, seeking an outlet by the way of the Erie Canal. Of corn and
provisions, nineteen-twentieths went down the river to New Orleans. One

reason, probably, for the excess of the southward movement of provisions
was, that the animals were slaughtered in the autumn, too late to have their
products forwarded by canal. Corn was grown chiefly in the southern part
of the State. Live animals were never moved, either on the Ohio or on the
New York canals. The provision trade, which now forms so enormous a
traffic on the railroads running to tide-water, is wholly the creation of these
works. The canals of Ohio maintained a considerable traffic until the
construction of competing lines of railroads, when it declined so rapidly
that, in 1856, the expense of their maintenance became greater than their
revenues. They have long since been practically abandoned as routes of
transportation.
The State of Indiana, following the lead of Ohio, constructed, with the
aid of its creditors, a canal from the junction of the Miami Canal to the city
of Evansville, completing it in 1855. Only the upper portion of this work
came into considerable use. The whole system was abandoned upon the
construction of railroads along its line.
The State of Illinois constructed a canal from Lake Michigan to Lasalle,
at the head of navigation on the Illinois river, a distance of 100 miles from
Chicago. It was originally intended to make the cut deep enough to feed the
line from the lake. This project was abandoned from the cost of its
execution, to be subsequently carried out by the city of Chicago for sanitary
purposes. The canal had at the outset a considerable traffic, which, however,
was lost upon the introduction of competing lines of railroads.
The preceding works include all the great water-lines constructed by the
States for the purpose of giving direction to the general commerce of the
country. Several considerable private works were executed, the most
important of which was the Delaware and Raritan Canal, to connect the
Delaware River with the harbour of New York, a work of large capacity,
which still retains an extensive traffic. Several works of the kind were
constructed, chiefly in Pennsylvania, for the transportation of coal-works
which, upon the construction of railroads, lost all the importance they once
enjoyed. The Chesapeake and Ohio, and the James River and Kanawha
Canals, upon which large sums were expended, and for which great
expectations were raised, were never completed, and do not require
particular remark. The canal system of the country has now become so
completely subordinate, that few are aware of its magnitude previous to the

construction of railroads which caused a great part of it to be abandoned. At
one time there were 5000 miles of canal lines in operation, built at a cost of
150,000,000 dollars, or 30,000,000l.
The growth of the traffic on the waterways of the United States was
steady for a number of years. In 1837 it was nearly 1¼ million tons; in 1847
it was nearly three millions; and in 1857 it was 3,344,000 tons. In the latter
year the traffic of the canals as a whole was 772,000 tons less than in the
previous year. This decline, which occurred almost for the first time in the
history of the system, created considerable alarm—all the more so that it
fell coincidently with a large increase in the railway traffic. Up to 1851 the
railways had not had a free hand. Laws were enacted imposing canal tolls
upon railroad tonnage, and prohibiting any roads from carrying freight. The
State authorities looked upon the canals as a trust confided to their keeping,
and protected them against the railroads. But in 1851 these laws were
repealed, and from that date the railroads entered upon a career of
development such as they had not previously known.
From the first the struggle was vastly unequal. The railroads not only
offered a much higher rate of speed, but very low rates as well. They
entered into arrangements “with lines of propellers (steamers) on the lakes,
and steam and tow boats on the Hudson, forming connected lines from the
seaboard to Detroit, Cleveland, Sandusky, Toledo, and other western ports,
to divert all the freight possible from the canals over their roads,” and
practically “contracted to carry freight on the propeller for nothing, for the
sake of getting and securing the freight of it upon their roads.”[113]
This is only a repetition of an experience that has been perfectly
familiar in the transportation annals of England and other countries. But in
no other country did the State take up an attitude of hostility to one interest
in order that the other might be advanced. The proposal gravely made in the
United States on behalf of the State was that railroad tonnage should be
specially taxed, in order that it might be handicapped as against the canals.
The Committee of Ways and Means did not seem to entertain any doubt that
this species of tyranny was within their power. “The Legislature,” they said,
“has the power to move them (the railroads) in such form, and subject them
to such charges and restrictions, as it may deem it the interest of the State to
require.” And then followed the astounding non sequitur that “the State has
the power to prohibit them altogether from the carriage of freight!” The

keen competition which had been going on between the canals and the
railroads had no doubt seriously affected the trade and revenue of the
canals, “and through them,” added the State engineer, “the interest of every
taxpayer in the State.” This was greatly deplored, as the consequence of
unnecessary rivalry. “The passenger travel belongs exclusively to the
railroads, while the transport of cheap and heavy articles of freight belongs
to the canals!”
It is not too much to say that if the report and recommendations of this
Committee had been acted upon in the spirit in which they were made, there
would have been a revolution in the United States compared with which the
Boston tea riots were a mere fleabite. As it was, no such drastic remedies
were adopted. The friends of the canals were shortly found “clothed and in
their right mind.” Instead of making ad misericordiam appeals for State
intervention, they were soon afterwards setting their house in order.
Attention was given to the increased use of steam as a propelling power,
and the rates of toll were gradually reduced, until the canals were carrying
much more cheaply than the railways, and in 1880 the canals were
enfranchised and tolls were altogether abolished, since which time they
have been able to compete with the railroads on still easier terms.
Judging by the ultimate quantities of traffic carried, there is only one
opinion possible concerning the issue of this memorable struggle. The
railroads have won all along the line. The total tonnage carried on the
railroads of the United States in 1880 was 290,897,000 tons; the canals in
the same year carried only 21,044,000 tons. The income of the railroads in
1880 was 580½ million dollars; that of the canals was only 4½ million
dollars. The canals had only one-fourteenth part of the traffic of the
railroads, and scarcely more than 1⁄130 of the gross income.
These results are very remarkable when the records of the charges made
under each of the two systems are examined. When the controversy
between them was raging most fiercely, the railroads were charging about
three cents per ton per mile, while the canals only charged ·799 of a cent.
[114]
It was not, therefore, on the ground of greater cheapness that the
railroads claimed or received the traffic. It was the same with through as
with local traffic. During the six years ending 1884, the receipts of grain
and flour at New York by lake, canal, and Hudson River fell from 64 to 45
million bushels. In the same interval the quantity carried by rail only

declined from 85¼ to 83 million bushels.[115] Between 1868 and 1884 the
total traffic carried on the New York State canals fell from about 6½ million
to little more than 5½ million tons. On the competing railroads—the New
York Central, the New York, Lake Erie, and Western, and the Pennsylvania
Railroad division—it increased from 10,476,000 tons to 36,700,000 tons.
On the canals the traffic had decreased by over 15 per cent.; on the railways
it had increased by over 350 per cent. The comparison is, of course, not
strictly relevant and parallel, inasmuch as in the case of the railways traffic
was gathered and carried over a very much wider area, and it was really
only over a comparatively limited section of their several routes that
competition existed. But the figures all the same serve to show “how the cat
was jumping.”
The decline of canal traffic is almost the despair of economists in view
of the remarkably low range of rates charged on the canals over this period.
No better example of this movement could be given than that of the rates
charged for the transportation of wheat from Chicago to New York. This is
a through traffic, carried over 1000 miles, without breaking bulk by either
system, and therefore under conditions exceedingly favourable to
economical transport. In 1857, when the State of New York, by the mouths
of its chief executive officers, was proposing to prohibit the railways from
carrying heavy freight, and suggesting the imposition of tolls on railway
traffic by way of assisting to keep the canals alive, the average rate charged
for transporting a bushel of wheat over this long route was a fraction over
26 cents. In 1868 the canal system was charging 24½ cents, as against 42½
charged by the railway for the same service. Ten years later still, the lake
and canal rate had fallen to 9·15 cents, and the railroad rate to 17·9 cents. In
1884 the former amounted to 6·60 and the latter to 13 cents.[116]
Throughout the whole period the railway-borne wheat has paid almost
twice as much as the water-borne. And yet the trade of the canals declines,
while that of the railroads increases. This is an enigma for which we must
now endeavour to find a solution.
The United States differ from Great Britain, and from most other
countries, in their economic circumstances. They have developed their trade
with a rapidity that is perhaps unexampled in the annals of commerce. They
have found such a demand for their produce, alike at home and abroad, that
they have not had time to take heed of cheeseparing economies. The

question with the agriculturists and the manufacturers alike has been to
secure the largest possible deliveries in the shortest possible space of time.
They found a practically unlimited market for their agricultural produce in
Europe, at prices which, while they were working on a virgin soil, paid
them sufficiently well. Of that price, transport was no doubt an important
element. When the railways were receiving 30 to 40 cents per bushel for
transporting wheat from Chicago to New York, the sellers were receiving
40s. to 50s. per quarter in London. The railway transport was therefore only
one-fourth to one-fifth of the entire ultimate cost of the product. If the
ocean transport cost 15s. more, the total cost of transport only absorbed
about one-half of the price paid by the consumer, so that 25s. was left to the
grower, minus other charges, and at much less than this price wheat could
be profitably grown in the West. The difference between 24½ cents by canal
and lake and 42½ by railway was not then of paramount importance. On the
other hand the exporter had the supreme advantage of quicker deliveries,
the absence of equal risk of having the material spoiled by damp, the
certainty of being able to meet his engagements “on the nail,” and entire
independence of the weather, which freezes up the canal and river
navigation during one-half of the year. For the same reasons that the grower
and exporter of wheat was willing to pay 9d. more per bushel to the railway
in 1868, he has been willing to pay gradually diminishing differences since,
until he has now to pay the railway no more than 3½d. per bushel in excess
of the canal rate for more than a thousand miles of transportation.
All this, however, can hardly be said to prove anything against canals,
although it undoubtedly proves that in the special circumstances of the
wheat trade, and of the Erie Canal, the American freighter of cereals gives a
preference to railroad transportation. In the case of heavier traffic, the
position would probably be reversed, and especially if the navigation were
open all the year round, as would be likely in a temperate climate like that
of England, instead of being liable, as in the case of the Erie Canal, to be
frozen up for one-half of the year.
Of the fifty canals that are now constructed in the United States, thirteen
were completed, or at any rate begun, between 1825 and 1830. Some of the
earlier canals were very expensive. The Erie Canal cost 90,000 dollars per
mile, with a capacity for boats of over 250 tons. The more recently
constructed Illinois and Michigan Canal which admits of the passage of

boats of 2500 tons, from Chicago to the Mississippi river, was only 55,355
dollars per mile. The locks on this canal are now 350 feet long, and 75 feet
wide, admitting twelve canal boats at a time.
From the Report of the Tenth Census of the United States, we have
compiled the following details of the principal existing canals in that
country:—

Statement showing the extent, character, and cost
of the principal canals in the United States.

Length Rise Average
No. of Cost of
Canal. Miles. of and Cost
Locks. Construction.
Locks. Fall. per Mile.
feet feet dols. dols.
Erie 365 72 110 656 51,609,000 141,394
Champlain 81 33 110 179 2,378,000 29,358
Delaware and
83 107 100 1,028 6,339,000 76,373
Hudson
Raritan (ship) 44 140 220 150 4,735,000 107,613
[117]
46
Morris 103 88 1,674 6,000,000 58,252
Schuylkill 58 71 110 619 12,580,000 216,893
Union 84½ 93 90 501 5,907,000 148,946
Susquehanna 30 43 170 230 4,930,000 164,333
Chesapeake
and Delaware 14 3 220 32 3,730,000 266,430
(ship)
Chesapeake
179½ 75 100 609 11,290,000 62,869
and Ohio
Illinois and
Michigan 102 15 110 141 6,557,000 64,284
(ship)
Ohio Canal
323 150 90 1,207 4,695,000 14,536
and feeders

Length Rise Average
No. of Cost of
Canal. Miles. of and Cost
Locks. Construction.
Locks. Fall. per Mile.
Miami and
284 93 87—89 907 7,144,000 25,155
Erie

The canal system of the United States now in actual operation extends
over 2926 miles, of which 411 miles are slack water. The cost of
constructing the whole system is officially stated at 170,028,636 dollars
(34,005,727l.). Disregarding the slack water, this corresponds to an average
of rather more than 13,500l. per mile, or approximately 2000l. per mile
more than the average cost of the railways of the same country. The total
gross income in 1880, the latest year for which there are complete returns,
was 4,538,620 dollars, and the total expenditure was 2,954,156 dollars, or
65 per cent. of the gross income. This figure compares very unfavourably
with that shown for the American railroad system in the same year, the
working expenses having been only 39·2 per cent. of the gross earnings.
The net income of the United States canals in 1880 was 1,584,000 dollars,
which is less than 1 per cent. on the total expenditure. The commercial
aspect of the canal system of the United States is not, therefore, an
encouraging one. Hadley, indeed, declares that after 1870 “it became a
question whether the canal could pay expenses of maintenance—a question
which was finally decided in the negative.”[118]
Besides the canals actually being worked in the United States, there are
1953 miles of canals that have been abandoned. The construction of these
canals cost 8,802,630l. The longest of the abandoned canals is the Wabash
and Erie, 379 miles in length, which was built between 1832 and 1851 for
the purpose of connecting Evansville, Ind., with the Ohio State lines, at a
cost of about 6½ million dollars. The James River and Kanawho is another
important canal, 196½ miles long, which was constructed at different dates
between 1785 and 1851, at a cost of close on 6¼ million dollars, and was
abandoned in 1880, on account of its inability to “pay its way.” The canal
now belongs to the Richmond and Allegheny Railway Company. The Erie
canal and branches between Bridgwater and Erie was built between 1833