The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-04 00:00:00

Zie CANAL and RAIL ROAD QUESTION

( From the Bradford Courier of July 28.)

- -
In our last, we considered this question in one
of its bearings. 'We then attempted to show that a Rail-road
between Liverpool and 'Manchester was not called for, inas-
much as the means of communication between these towns, at
present existing, are amply sufficient for the demands upon
them, and that by the adoption of some new regulation, their
capabilities of doing business might be greatly increased. if
we .were successful in proving these points, further considera-
tion of the question must be to many unnecessary, to all in-
deed who have been convinced by the evidence which we ad-
duced ; but as evidence is not viewed by every one in the same
light, and with the view of presenting at all events a more
perfect justification of that vilified majority which threw out
the bill, we propose, this week, to consider the question under
different aspect, and to expose still further the ignorant and
interested declamation which has been so profusely sounded
upon this subject:
Before doing this, we would beg our readers to observe, that
although our strictures upon the former occasion were chiefly
with reference to the Manchester and Liverpool Rail-road, yet,
in every similar proposition, it might be prudent to enquire,
in the first place, whether existing circumstances really call for
the undertaking. A project of Rail-road differs essentially
from a project, for a New Assurance Company, or Mining Com-
pany, or any other Joint Stock Company whatever ; because,
in order to carry it into effect, the rights of private property
must, to a certain degree, be encroached upon, and consequent-
ly nothing less than that necessity which the public good en-
genders can justify the sacrifice ; but upon this subject we shall
speak more at length hereafter. We proceed then to the ques-
tion before us, and the point to which we have to speak at pre-
sent is this :—Supposing our former reasoning inconclusive,—
supposing, that the existing means of conveying goods between
Manchester and Liverpool are insufficient, and that no other
or better regulations could make them adequate, and conse-
quently that some plan must needs be devised for accommo-
dating the public—was the plan proposed such an one as ought
to have met the concurrence of the Committee ? We say, that
it was not; and, in the first place, we say, that if it was not
altogether impracticable to execute it, it would at least have
been attended with so many difficulties, and so enormous an
expence, that the Committee was justified in throwing out the
Bill. It is important to bear in mind, that the question we are
at present considering is extremely narrow—it is not, whether
some plan ought -to be devised for increasing the faci-
lities for the transmission of goods between Liverpool and Man-
chester—it is not, even, whether it might not be advisable that

. .
a Rail-road should be constructed between these towns—but it
is, whether that individual Rail-road projected was deserving
of the support of the Committee. We contend, indeed, and
think we have proved, that no Rail-road whatever is called
for; and we shall be able in our future Numbers to shew, that
no Rail-road whatever would justify public expectation, sup-
posing one to be called for—but at present we only desire to
show, that the project of the Rail-road submitted to the Com-
mittee was not such a project as that Committee could have
supported. Is it to be questioned, in case of any project being
submitted to a body of men for their approval or rejection,
that before sanctioning it, they must be convinced that it is
possible to carry the project into effect ? If there be the least
, doubt with regard to this, ought men in their senses to au-
thorize the expenditure of some hundred thousand pounds, an
expenditure which would, in the event of a failure, be inju-
rious to all concerned, and perhaps ruinous to some, and upon a
project, too, which necessarily interferes with the rights of pri-
vate property ? In what sort of light would men be viewed who
should authorise a thing to be done, which it was not in the na-
ture of things to do? Men, we say, placed in the situation of that
Committee, were placed in a situation of great public responsi-
bility ; the capital of this country is not to be wasted in impos-
sible projects, and profitless adventures, nor are the subjects to
be encouraged in idle schemes, which must disappoint and im-
poverish them, and lead many to ruin and beggary. But we
shall now proceed to substantiate our opinions by evidence.
Mr. George Stephenson, Civil Engineer he who had laid down
the Rail-road, is of course examined by the Committee, and
one would naturally suppose, that his evidence would be ex-
tremely satisfactory,—that he had fully examined the line he
had laid down,—that he knew all the difficulties,—and could
give plausible, if not satisfactory reasons, in answer to any
objections. This line is laid through a Moss, called Chat
Moss, and it is very natural to suppose, that this Moss, its
nature, and depth, should have been anxiously examined
before preparing estimates. Now hear what Mr. Stephen-
son says :
Question. What is the depth of Chat Moss ?—Answer. I
found it 14 feet deep good bottom ; I have bottomed it, and
found it clay in one place and sand in another.
Q. Will it sink ?—A. Yes, for a time.
Q. Do you not know it will be very considerable ?—A. It
will not sink so much at 10 feet in depth, as at the surface.
Q. Then if it were drained at the top, it would bear the
nail-road e—A, ies ; I think it would ; I have seen that
sort of Moss, when properly drained, that would carry a
Rail-road.

Now observe what this gentleman says a little further on :
Q. Have you bored in any part of the line of the road ?—A.
I did, at Chat Moss.
Q. Whereabout Not immediately upon the line.
Q. I ask you, why you did not bore immediately upon the
line ?—A. I did not think it necessary.
Q. I will put you on your guard, and I ask you, whether
you are not wrong with respect to stating the Moss to be the
depth of 20 feet ! do you not know that it is 37 feet ?—A. I
stated it was 15.

Q. The question is, whether the depth of the Moss, where
the Rail-road is, is 37 feet ?—A. I cannot speak to that.
It was therefore in evidence before the Committee, that the
Engineer himself, he who laid down the line and furnished the
estimates, did not know the depth of the Bloss through which
the Rail-road was to pass, and, consequently, could neither
vouch for its practicability nor its expence. But this is not all ;
Mr. Francis Giles, Engineer, is subsequently examined by the
Committee, and if, after hearing the evidence of this gentleman,
the Committee had passed the Bill before them, it would have
been an act of insanity. Speaking of this same Moss, he says,
The surface of the Moss is a sort of long, coarse, sedgy grass,
tough enough to enable you to walk upon it, about half leg
deep ; underneath that, on Putting an iron into the soil (a
boring-rod), it will, with its own weight, sink in.
In the centre of the Moss, where this Rail-road is to cross, it
is all pulp, to the depth of thirty-four feet: at thirty-four eet
there is a vein of four or six inches of clay ; below that there is
two or three feet of quicksand, and the clay at the bottom of
that is hard clay, which keeps all the water in. The boring_
rod will get down to the first vein of clay by its own weight ;
a slight pressure of the hand will carry it to the next vein of
clay • a very little pressur indeed will get it to the additional
depth of two or three feet, beyond which, you must use more
pressure to "get it down to the foundation.
In my judgment, a Rail-road of this description certainly can.
not be safely made over Chat Moss, without going to the bottom
of the Moss.

And therefore, if Mr. Stephenson be right in placing the
level of the Rail-road fifteen feet below the Moss they would
not only have to cut out thirty-four, but to buildup the other
fifteen feet ; and unless that were done, I do not think that a
Rail-road would stand.

I have already described that the Moss is in one place thirty.
seven feet deep, and in many others nearly the same.
From my experience of twenty years with Mr. Rennie, I
have not any doubt it would cost 200,0001. to go through Chat
Moss.

No Engineer in his senses would go through Chat Moss,
if he wanted to make a Rail-road from Liverpool to Manchester.
Mr. Francis Comrie says,
The greatest depth is that at the summit, which is 37 feet.
This Moss is more pulpy in the middle than at the extreme.
which is in direct opposition to Mr. Stephenson's evidence.
Mr. George Leather, Engineer, says,
I went over to Liverpool in February last, and also to Man-
chester, with an intention of going over the whole of the line of
Rail-way. I went over part of it.
I had Mr. Stephenson's plan and section with me at the time.
After having gone over three or four miles at the Liverpool end,
I found the section so extremely incorrect, that 1 could not
make any thing of it.
If any person was to take the Moss in its present state, and
was required to cut 15 feet below it, and calculated it as solid
stuff, that would make a great error.
I think I will venture to say, that five or six times Mr. Ste-
phenson's estimate would not come near it.
Now, after hearing this evidence in what situation were the
Committee placed ?—The Engineer did not know the nature of
the Moss over which he proposed carrying the Rail-way ; there
was decided evidence that he was altogether mistaken in its
depth—his estimate was entiroly erroneous, and therefore, if
the Committee had passed the• Bill, it would be sanctioning a
project which an Engineer of high character had sworn " .No
man in his senses would attempt," and which another had de-
clared could not be executed for less than 5 or 6 times the sum
calculated by Mr. Stephenson. We say that supposing all we ad-
vanced in a former Nu. inclusive—supposing the existing mode
of conveyance had been proved to be altogether inefficient, the
Committee would not have been justified in sanctioning aproject
regarding the practicability and expence of which, evidence of
the most inconclusive and contradictory description was before
it. It cannot be repeated too often, that this was a matter, in
which the Committee had a right to call for -certain data, not
probable conjecture • and if the evidence was of that contra-
dictory nature, w;iiaci left all Ivholleard it in absolute ignorance
both as to the feasibility of the plan proposed, and the expence
of carrying it into tiTect, the Committeecould not do otherwise
than refuse to give it their approbation.