There is, also, that very important consideration, from a transport standpoint, of the "length of haul." Assuming, for the sake of argument (1) that the commercial conditions were the same in Great Britain as they are on the Continent; (2) that our country, also, consisted of a "great lowland plain"; and (3) that we, as well, had great natural waterways, like the Rhine, yielding an abundant water supply;—assuming all this, it would still be impossible, in the circumscribed dimensions of our isles, to get a "length of haul" in any way approaching the barge-journeys that are regularly made between, say, North Sea ports and various centres in Germany.
The geographical differences in general between Great Britain and Continental countries were thus summed up by Mr W. H. Wheeler in the discussion on Mr Saner's paper at the Institution of Civil Engineers:—
"There really did not seem to be any justification for Government interference with the canals. England was in an entirely different situation from Continental countries. She was a sea-girt nation, with no less than eight first-class ports on a coast-line of 1,820 miles. Communication between these by coasting steamers was, therefore, easy, and could be accomplished in much less time and at less cost than by canal. There was no large manufacturing town in England that was more than about 80 miles in a direct line from a first-class seaport; and taking the country south of the Firth of Forth, there were only 42½ square miles to each mile of coast. France, on the other hand, had only two first-class ports, one in the north and the other in the extreme south, over a coast-line of 1,360 miles. Its capital was 100 miles from the nearest seaport, and the towns in the centre of the country were 250 to 300 miles from either Havre or Marseilles. For every mile of coast-line there were 162 square miles of country. Belgium had one large seaport and only 50 miles of coast-line, with 227 square miles of country to every square mile. Germany had only two first-class ports, both situated on its northern coast; Frankfort and Berlin were distant from those ports about 250 miles, and for every mile of coast-line there were 231 square miles of country. The necessity of an extended system of inland waterways for the distribution of produce and materials was, therefore, far more important in those countries than it was in England."
Passing from commercial and geographical to political conditions, we find that in Germany the State owns or controls alike railways and waterways. Prussia bought up most of the former, partly with the idea of safeguarding the protective policy of the country (endangered by the low rates charged on imports by independent railway companies), and partly in order that the Government could secure, in the profits on railway operation, a source of income independent of Parliamentary votes. So well has the latter aim been achieved that a contribution to the Exchequer of from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 a year has been obtained, and, rather than allow this source of income to be checked by heavy expenditure, the Prussian Government have refrained from carrying out such widenings and improvements of their State system of railways as a British or an American railway company would certainly have adopted in like circumstances, and have left the traders to find relief in the waterways instead. The increased traffic the waterways of Germany are actually getting is mainly traffic which has either been diverted from the railways, or would have been handled by the railways in other countries in the natural course of their expansion. Whatever may be the case with the waterways, the railways of Prussia, especially, are comparatively unprogressive, and, instead of developing through traffic at competitive rates, they are reverting more and more to the original position of railways as feeders to the waterways. They get a short haul from place of origin to the waterway, and another short haul, perhaps, from waterway again to final destination; but the greater part of the journey is done by water.
These conditions represent one very material factor in the substantial expansion of water-borne traffic in Germany—and most of that traffic, be it remembered, has been on great rivers rather than on artificial canals. The latter are certainly being increased in number, especially, as I have said, where they connect the rivers; and the Government are the more inclined that the waterways should be developed because then there will be less need for spending money on the railways, and for any interference with the "revenue-producing machine" which those railways represent.
In France the railways owned and operated by the State are only a comparatively small section of the whole; but successive Governments have advanced immense sums for railway construction, and the State guarantees the dividends of the companies; while in France as in Germany railway rates are controlled absolutely by the State. In neither country is there free competition between rail and water transport. If there were, the railways would probably secure a much greater proportion of the traffic than they do. Still another consideration to be borne in mind is that although each country has spent great sums of money—at the cost of the general taxpayer—on the provision of canals or the improvement of waterways, no tolls are, with few exceptions, imposed on the traders. The canal charges include nothing but actual cost of carriage, whereas British railway rates may cover various other services, in addition, and have to be fixed on a scale that will allow of a great variety of charges and obligations being met. Not only, both in Germany and France, may the waterway be constructed and improved by the State, but the State also meets the annual expenditure on dredging, lighting, superintendence and the maintenance of inland harbours. Here we have further reasons for the growth of the water-borne traffic on the Continent.
Where the State, as railway owner or railway subsidiser, spends money also on canals, it competes only, to a certain extent, with itself; but this would be a very different position from State-owned or State-supported canals in this country competing with privately-owned railways.[9]
If then, as I maintain is the case, there is absolutely no basis for fair comparison between Continental and British conditions—whether commercial, geographical, or political—we are left to conclude that the question of reviving British canals must be judged and decided strictly from a British standpoint, and subject to the limitations of British policy, circumstances, and possibilities.