British Canals: Is their resuscitation practicable?

by Edwin A. Pratt

The larger proportion of the arguments advanced in the Press or in public in favour of a restoration of our own canal system is derived from the statements which are unceasingly being made as to what our neighbours on the Continent of Europe are doing.

Almost every writer or speaker on the subject brings forward the same stock of facts and figures as to the large sums of money that are being expended on waterways in Continental countries; the contention advanced being, in effect, that because such and such things are done on the Continent of Europe, therefore they ought to be done here. In the "Engineering Supplement" of The Times, for instance—to give only one example out of many—there appeared early in 1906 two articles on "Belgian Canals and Waterways" by an engineering contributor who wrote, among other things, that, in view of "the well-directed efforts now being made with the object of effecting the regeneration of the British canal system, the study of Belgian canals and other navigable waterways possesses distinct interest"; and declared, in concluding his account thereof, that "if the necessary powers, money, and concentrated effort were available, there is little doubt that equally satisfactory results could be obtained in Great Britain." Is this really the case? Could we possibly hope to do all that can be done either in Belgium or in Continental countries generally, even if we had the said powers and money, and showed the same concentrated effort? For my part I do not think we could, and these are my reasons for thinking so:—

Taking geographical considerations first, a glance at the map of Europe will show that, apart from their national requirements, enterprises, and facilities, Germany, Belgium, and Holland are the gateways to vast expanses producing, or receiving, very large quantities of merchandise and raw materials, much of which is eminently suitable for water transport on long journeys that have absolutely no parallel in this country. In the case of Belgium, a good idea of the general position may be gained from some remarks made by the British Consul-General at Antwerp, Sir E. Cecil Hertslet, in a report ("Miscellaneous Series," 604) on "Canals and other Navigable Waterways of Belgium," issued by the Foreign Office in 1904. Referring to the position of Antwerp he wrote:—

"In order to form a clear idea of the great utility of the canal system of Belgium, it is from its heart, from the great port of Antwerp, as a centre, that the survey must be taken.... Antwerp holds a leading position among the great ports of the world, and this is due, not only to her splendid geographical situation at the centre of the ocean highways of commerce, but, also, and perhaps more particularly, to her practically unique position as a distributing centre for a large portion of North-Eastern Europe."

Thus the canals and waterways of Belgium do not serve merely local, domestic, or national purposes, but represent the first or final links in a network of water communications by means of which merchandise can be taken to, or brought from, in bulk, "a large portion of North-Eastern Europe." Much of this traffic, again, can just as well pass through one Continental country, on its way to or from the coast, as through another. In fact, some of the most productive of German industrial centres are much nearer to Antwerp or Rotterdam than they are to Hamburg or Bremen. Hence the extremely keen rivalry between Continental countries having ports on the North Sea for the capture of these great volumes of trans-Continental traffic, and hence, also, their low transport rates, and, to a certain extent, their large expenditure on waterways.

Comparing these with British conditions, we must bear in mind the fact that we dwell in a group of islands, and not in a country which forms part of a Continent. We have, therefore, no such transit traffic available for "through" barges as that which is handled on the Continent. Traffic originating in Liverpool, and destined say, for Austria, would not be put in a canal boat which would first go to Goole, or Hull, then cross the North Sea in the same boat to Holland or Belgium, and so on to its destination. Nor would traffic in bulk from the United States for the Continent—or even for any of our East Coast ports—be taken by boat across England. It would go round by sea. Traffic, again, originating in Birmingham, might be taken to a port by boat. But it would there require transhipment into an ocean-going vessel, just as the commodities received from abroad would have to be transferred to a canal boat—unless Birmingham could be converted into a sea-port.

If Belgium and Holland, especially, had had no chance of getting more than local, as distinct from through or transit traffic—if, in other words, they had been islands like our own, with the same geographical limitations as ourselves, and with no trans-Continental traffic to handle, is there the slightest probability that they would have spent anything like the same amount of money on the development of their waterways as they have actually done? In the particular circumstances of their position they have acted wisely; but it does not necessarily follow that we, in wholly different circumstances, have acted foolishly in not following their example.

It might further be noted, in this connection, that while in the case of Belgium all the waterways in, or leading into, the country converge to the one great port of Antwerp, in England we have great ports, competing more or less the one with the other, all round our coasts, and the conferring of special advantages on one by the State would probably be followed by like demands on the part of all the others. As for communication between our different ports, this is maintained so effectively by coasting vessels (the competition of which already powerfully influences railway rates) that heavy expenditure on canal improvement could hardly be justified on this account. However effectively the Thames might be joined to the Mersey, or the Humber to the Severn, by canal, the vast bulk of port-to-port traffic would probably still go by sea.

Then there are great differences between the physical conditions of Great Britain and those parts of the Continent of Europe where the improvement of waterways has undergone the greatest expansion. Portions of Holland—as everybody knows—are below the level of the sea, and the remainder are not much above it. A large part of Belgium is flat; so is most of Northern Germany. In fact there is practically a level plain right away from the shores of the North Sea to the steppes of Russia. Canal construction in these conditions is a comparatively simple and a comparatively inexpensive matter; though where such conditions do not exist to the same extent—as in the south of Germany, for example—the building of canals becomes a very different problem. This fact is well recognised by Herr Franz Ulrich in his book on "Staffeltarife und Wasserstrassen," where he argues that the building of canals is practicable only in districts favoured by Nature, and that hilly and backward country is thus unavoidably handicapped.