An Old Coachman's Chatter, with Some Practical Remarks on Driving

by Edward Corbett

It was to the system of turnpike trusts, now unfortunately no more, that this country is indebted for the general excellence of its roads, and against which I never heard more than two objections raised. One, that it was very unpleasant and annoying to be obliged to stop at the toll bars and pull out the money when the fingers were cold, and the other, that it was a very expensive method of collecting money. The first of these objections, I think, may be passed over in silence. It, no doubt, is unpleasant to do anything which requires the use of the fingers when they are cold, but surely that should not be held to be sufficient reason for putting an end to a system which in the main worked well. To the second a plea of guilty must be returned; but with mitigating circumstances. Indeed, there was no necessity for it at all, if the trustees had carried out their work well.

The "pikers," as they were called, did, no doubt, make a good living out of the business, but so do most middlemen, and they need not have been permitted to make an exorbitant profit. But before going further, perhaps, I had better explain what a "piker" is, as they, like the dodo, no longer exist. Well, then, they were a class of men who leased the turnpike tolls, each of them generally taking all the gates in a larger or smaller district. Sam Weller said they were "Misanthropes who levied tolls on mankind;" but, as a general rule, these men did not collect themselves, but employed others to do it, who resided in the houses. Of course, these "pikers," like other people, thought their first duty was to themselves, and they usually put their heads together previous to the lettings of the gates, and agreed to divide the spoils amicably, instead of bidding against one another. There was nothing, however, to prevent the trustees putting in collectors, the same as the pikers did, and by that means find out the real value of the tolls, and at the same time keep Mr. Piker up to the scratch. This, indeed, was often done, but when it was omitted, great losses were incurred, as I have found to my own advantage.

The tolls were not levied under the General Turnpike Act of Parliament, but under local Acts, and it was usual to insert in these local Acts a clause compelling coaches to pay toll both going and returning, even if drawn by the same horses. This, I think, was a decided hardship, but it was generally mitigated by the pikers allowing them to pay for only three horses instead of four, making six a day instead of eight, and this led to a contest which I once had with a piker.

At the first gate, a short distance out of Machynlleth, the lessee of it refused this concession to the "Harkaway" coach; therefore, when the day arrived for the annual letting, my partner and myself outbid him and took the gate, putting in a collector, and at the end of the year, after paying for the collecting, we had fifty pounds to divide between us. Now, I think I have shown that if proper care was taken by the trustees, no necessity existed, on this score, for abandoning the turnpike system, for in this one example they gratuitously threw away at least sixty pounds a year, which ought to have been available for repairing the roads.

In another trust on the same road, the trustees tried to be a little too sharp. As I have already said, the tolls were levied under local Acts, and in this case, the special clause relating to coaches had been, either intentionally or inadvertently, omitted, and we consequently claimed that the coach should, like all other conveyances, be exempted from paying if returning with the same horses. The trustees, however, contended that a public conveyance was liable to pay both ways, independently of a special clause to that effect. The question was referred to counsel's opinion, which was given in favour of the coach, and this so exasperated the trustees that they proceeded in hot haste to erect a new toll-gate to catch it after the change of horses.

In their hurry, however, they forgot that there were yet three months before the annual letting of the gates, and they found themselves face to face with the difficulty that no one could be persuaded to become a lessee for that short period.

In this dilemma, we coach proprietors stepped in, and, faute de mieux, were accepted as lessees, the result being that, instead of paying the toll at the end of the three months, we retired from the business with a profit of thirty shillings, after paying the expenses of collecting.

On the day following, the stables were changed to the other side of the gate, and the coach ran through free with a ticket from the previous one.

These seem small things to write about, but they afforded some interest and amusement at the time, and may be worth mentioning as being a sample of the life.

The turnpike system, no doubt, like all other human inventions, had its defects, but to it we are indebted for the excellence of our internal communications; and I cannot help thinking that it was unjust both to the bondholders and the ratepayers to allow it to die out. Though the former were fairly liable to the diminished value of their property caused by the rivalry of the railways, they, or those before them, had honestly lent their money upon the understanding that the Acts of Parliament would be renewed from time to time, and it was little short of robbery to allow them to expire. Hardships, no doubt, did exist in some districts from the excessive number of the toll gates, especially in Wales, where it was no uncommon thing to be called upon to pay at three gates in a distance of ten or twelve miles.