Indeed, it appears susceptible of proof that they will be more. Mr. Grahame, in his “Letter to the Traders and Carriers on the Navigations, connecting Liverpool and Manchester,” relative to that railway, says, “I pledge myself, however, to prove (in case the fact be denied by the Directors) that the aggregate expenditure of the half year, ending on the 31st December, 1832, bears a higher proportion to the income of that period than the expenses of any preceding half-year bear to the income of the same.”
Mr. Graham also says, “The Railway Corporation keep two separate accounts of expenditure, “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” The “ordinary expenditure” is paid from the annual returns received from working the railway; and the “extraordinary” is paid by borrowing money, or a creation and sale of shares; which is termed “adding to the capital account.” The ordinary expenditure, only, affects the dividend; and it is the interest of every one concerned to make that expenditure appear as low as possible; and, whenever the outlays are commingled, or doubtful, to throw the burden on the obnoxious shoulder. This “extraordinary outlay,” or, as it is termed, “outlay on the railway and works,” or “Capital Account,” has been as great since the railway was opened, as during the period when it was forming. The amount thus laid out in the first fifteen months after the opening of the railway, amounted to nearly 200,000l. The outlay on this account in 1832 is not stated; but the interest on borrowed money paid in that year, is given as 10,522l. 10s. 6d., while the interest paid in 1831 was only 5647l. 7s. 6d.”
Railway advocates may dispute this; but that I shall not heed. Should they, however, disprove it, I shall not be able to deny that I am liable to the censure due to him who investigates in the spirit of a partisan, rather than in that of a candid examinant.
It may be objected, in answer to the advantages which I have stated would result from your substituting this Pneumatic Railway for the common railway you contemplate, that you have never heard of it before, except in the way of ridicule and contempt; while not only have the engineers of the day condemned it, but also do even some of yourselves entertain doubts as to the sanity of the man who can propose such a thing to you.
In allusion to objectors of this latter description, the M. D. who did me the honour to propose the first Resolution at the “Town Meeting” at Brighton, said, in the course of his speech on the occasion, that “Mr. Vallance had had to contend with the greatest difficulties; such as were enough to appal any man: he had been derided and ridiculed: his system had been treated as visionary, theoretical, and fantastic: he had been called a wild projector—nay, some had even gone so far as to say that he was mad. If so, he (Dr. Yates) must say, with Polonius, ‘there was method in his madness.’ And to such insinuations he (Dr. Y.) would reply, in the words of Hamlet, there was that which ‘sense and sanity scarce could be delivered of.’”
With my defence against insinuations of this kind thus provided, I may turn to the more serious objections of the engineers whom you may consult: who, I am well aware, will treat the proposition only as Brindsley’s proposal to carry the canal over the Irwell was treated by the engineers of his day.
Were this any thing new, I might feel it. But when we have it on record that the professed engineers of the period have done the same by every proposition that has been brought forward, until its being established by others, caused them to see that money might be made by imitating, instead of continuing to decry the inventor, their exclamations of “impossible,” “absurd,” and “madness to think of,” may well be disregarded.
Had Telford, or Stevenson, or Rennie, or Brunel, or any other first-rate man, originated the proposition, then, indeed, they might have had some faith in it! But for an unknown nobody to do such a thing, is of itself enough to prove that it cannot be worth attention.
To these gentlemen I reply, by asking them—to whom are we indebted for the steam-engine in its application to steam-vessels, and locomotive purposes, as well as a first mover for machinery? Savary, its first inventor, was a miner. Newcomen and Beighton, its first improvers, were, one of them a country blacksmith, and the other a plumber, while its grand improver, the great Watt, was a mathematical-instrument maker. To whom are we indebted for our canals—for our nationally-important cotton machinery—for the public application of the gas-light principle—for the system of railway transmission—for the hydrostatic press—and the other manifold improvements, which have raised us to the station we fill? Is it to men, who, at the periods when these improvements were first devised, were of high name, and established reputation as civil engineers? Hear what one whose situation enabled him to decide, says on the subject:—
“What has been the means of raising our native country to that eminence in civilization which renders her the admiration of the world? Her improvements in the arts and sciences.
“From whom have those improvements chiefly sprung? From men who have emerged from the humbler walks of life.
“What was Sir Richard Arkwright; a man to whose genius this country is indebted for very much of its commercial prosperity; to whose improvements in the machinery for spinning cotton, we are indebted for being enabled to keep the cotton trade chiefly confined to ourselves. What, I say, was the great Arkwright? A barber. Yet do we owe our proud superiority in this department of our national greatness to the unassisted efforts of Dick the barber.
“Who was Ferguson? A simple peasant; a man, who, wrapped in his plaid, passed the winter nights on the ground in contemplating the heavens; and who, by arranging his string of beads on the cold heath, at length completed a map of the stars, and raised himself to the knowledge of our late sovereign.
“Who was Dr. Herschel, the discoverer of so many important astronomical facts? A boy who played the pipe and tabor in a foreign regimental band. Who was the great Watt? A mathematical instrument maker.
“Who was Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone lighthouse, and the first engineer of his day? An attorney.
“Who was the great Brindsley, whose canals have given such an accession of power to our commerce, by the facilities of internal communication? A country millwright.
“Nicholson was a cabin boy: and Ramadge, the best maker of reflecting telescopes in the world, was a cutler.”