of State, showing the great national importance of his scheme; and again, in 1822, he urged its importance upon them by giving a detailed account of its advantages1. In 1823 he renewed his petition to the Ministers of State and asked for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons to investigate his plan. He likewise petitioned the Board of Agriculture and tried to show them that the many important advantages which his proposed system of railways would afford to the public must overcome every prejudice and finally prevail over every other means of conveyance3. In a petition to the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the city of London, he reiterated the advantages that would result from the adoption of this new system of carriage; and asked them, in the interests of the whole country, to favour the establishment of railways. But, whatever the reason may have been, Gray's national railway project was not taken seriously, for nothing was done towards its accomplishment.

The name of William James seems to have been given a place secondary in importance to that of Thomas Gray and the two Stephensons; and yet he was among the earliest, if not the earliest, of the originators and promoters of the system of passenger transit on railways. It appears that, as early as 1799, he was engaged in laying out plans for railways, some details of which he gives in his memorandaR. This work was continued at least down to 1808 when his diary ends; and during that time he surveyed and completed many sections of railroad that were to be used for the conveyance of coal to navigable waterways". In a paper addressed to the Grand Surrey Canal Company,

1 Gray, General Iron Railway, pp. xvii-xviii. 2 Ibid., p. xix.

3 Ibid., pp. xx-xxi.

♦ Ibid., pp. xxi-xxiii. He shows that by the railway the people of London might be regularly supplied with coal on comparatively reasonable terms, instead of "suffering under abominable extortion," under the existing conditions.

5 Anyone who will read Gray's book through will find some things which are visionary and even the more serious part of the book contains much that would antagonize the public and turn them away from the writer of it. In the Railway Record, 11, pp. 401, 563, 595, 628, 658, 692, there are a series of articles dealing with "The Railway System and its Author," giving the chief facts in connexion with the work of Thomas Gray for the introduction of railways into England. He was at that time (1845) in destitute circumstances; and there was an agitation in favour of raising a sum of money that would put him beyond the necessity of hard manual work in those days of his old age. See also Wilson, The Railway System and its Author, Thomas Gray, now of Exeter. A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel, Bart. This was an appeal to Peel, by a friend of Gray's, that the latter might be relieved, and that his name might have the honourable place it deserved among England's great men in connexion with the railways.

6

• P., The Two James's and Two Stephensons, p. 18; Mining Journal, Dec. 5, 1857, in which is found James's diary down to 1808. 7 Ibid.

J. T. II.

4

he spoke of himself as an experienced engineer, "in railroads especially ;' and other expressions of similar import are given in this same document1. But the most remarkable part of his diary refers to his plan for the formation of a general railroad company, with a capital of £1,000,000, "to take lands for ever to form railroads," and to fulfil other designated purposes2. We need not here follow his career and the testimony which was borne to his accomplishments; it will be sufficient to say that his wide experience and his ability were recognized at that time, but we have been unable to ascertain why his work has been overshadowed by that of his compeers3.

At this formative stage in the history of railways it was to be expected that a considerable variety of plans would be suggested for their construction and operation; they were an entirely new feature in the industrial and commercial world, and those who were most interested in them were groping their way in the endeavour to ascertain the conditions of the greatest economy for this new instrument of conveyance. It will, therefore, not be amiss to note some of the proposals that were made, with the intention of securing this object, in the early years of the railway development. Before the success of the locomotive engine had been fully assured, the use of the inclined plane on the coalcarrying railways was, as we have seen, a feature of common occurrence; and even after the tractive power of steam had been demonstrated there were still some roads which were planned by engineers of repute, partly as inclined planes to be worked by stationary engines and partly level to be worked by locomotive engines. Instead of steam power, it was

1 P., The Two James's and Two Stephensons, p. 22. For instance, he says in that paper: "...and that the said railroads and all person or persons, and their servants, carriages, and cattle passing thereon, shall be under the control and management of the said William James and his co-partners....”

2 Ibid., p. 23; also his diary referred to above.

For the rest of his work, and his connexion with George Stephenson, see ibid., pp. 23–105. He advocated the possibility of attaining on railways a speed of twenty or thirty miles per hour-contrary to the opinions of George Stephenson and Nicholas Wood, who thought that railway travelling could never exceed eight or ten miles an hour (pp. 40 ff.). Even Robert Stephenson acknowledged that it was not his father, but William James, who was the "Father of Railways" (ibid., p. 105). See also Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, pp. 234–6.

4 The Cromford and High Peak Railway, from the Cromford Canal to the Peak Forest Canal in Derbyshire, was made to rise by inclined planes to the summit level of one thousand feet above the former canal and then descend seven hundred and sixty feet to the latter canal. The rough country there made it necessary to propose the construction of both level parts and inclined planes, on the former of which locomotive engines were to be used and on the latter stationary engines (Manchester Gazette, Nov. 13, 1824, p. 3). On the Stockton and Darlington Railway they had both levels and inclined planes and both kinds of engine. They also used horse-power

not infrequently planned to use horse power, either on the incline or on the level1. As late as 1829, when the Leeds and Selby Railway was in prospect, it was decided to make the operation of the line possible by either horse power or locomotive engines, or to permit the company to use locomotive carriages if this were thought desirable2. George Stephenson, who had surveyed that line in 1825, had recommended for part of the line three inclined planes which could be worked by horse power or stationary engines, and for the remainder of it level reaches upon which locomotive engines could be employed. But in 1829, after Stephenson's suggestions had been rejected by the committee that had the work in charge, James Walker, who had also come into great prominence as a railway engineer, was asked to re-survey the line; and his opinion was decidedly in favour of the uniform system without inclined planes. Under these circumstances each shipper could utilize the line most favourably; and he calculated the strength of the rails, so that although at first horses would, in all probability, be the principal power used, yet locomotive engines might be used then or at a later time3. With accumulated experience of the results secured on railways, it became evident that for all ordinary purposes, where there would probably be traffic in both directions, the more nearly the line approximated to a perfect level the more economically could it be operated and the more efficient would be its service.

Another suggestion that seemed to find some favour was that railways might very acceptably be laid down at the sides of the ordinary highways and might be worked by either steam or horse-power. By this plan, the cost of the roadway would be greatly reduced, for the utilization of the land at the sides of the public roads for such a public purpose would not call for the enormous expenditures that were made by existing railways for the right of eminent domain. The carrying of

(Jeans, Jubilee Memorial of the Railway System, pp. 33-35, 43, 53-54). See also Walker and Rastrick, Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Report to the Directors on the Comparative Merits of Locomotive and Fixed Engines, pp. 3, 4, showing that there were inclined planes and stationary engines on other colliery roads, such as those of the Hetton Colliery and the Brunton and Shields. See also Wood, Practical Treatise on Railroads (1825), pp. 93–123, and A Few General Observations on the Principal Railways, pp. ix, 19-20, showing that in 1838, on the Stockton and Darlington and on the Leicester and Swannington, there were both self-acting and stationary-engine inclined planes, and these abrupt inclines were great drawbacks on all railways.

1 Walker and Rastrick, op. cit., p. 49. Rastrick here shows the great advantage of the locomotive over horse-power.

2 Leeds Intelligencer, Nov. 5, 1829, p. 3, on the Leeds and Selby Railway. 3 Macturk, History of the Hull Railways, pp. 18-32, gives Walker's report to the committee of the proposed Leeds and Selby Railway Company.

railways along the course of the highways would not cause the dislocation of the usual currents of trade; the inns along the roads would not suffer, the various establishments that had grown up as links in the customary trade circulation would not be endangered, the diverse interests that had grown up around the system of road carriage would not be threatened with annihilation, and consequently the change from the old régime to the new would be accomplished with as little adverse effect as possible. So hopeful were some in regard to the application of this method that a writer in 1829 observed that "it is therefore nothing problematical to expect in the course of the next ten years to see railways by the roadsides extending from London, Liverpool, Hull, Edinburgh," etc.1 He asserted that by having railroads laid down on the high road from London to Liverpool, the mails drawn by a light locomotive engine might go this distance, 204 miles, easily in twelve hours, carrying twice their usual number of passengers and at much lower cost. Another, in 1833, considered horse-power more economical than steam, and he would have this applied on tram or railways, constructed as nearly as possible along the sides of the turnpike roads3. This suggestion was not the product of visionary minds, for even such a competent engineer as Fairbairn advocated the plan1. In addition to securing the advantages already mentioned, of reducing the cost of construction and perpetuating the existing trade routes with all their appointments for commercial purposes, railways located in this way would cause no invasion of estates, against which there was much complaint at that time. The decreased cost of construction would result in lower freight rates; and the increased traffic along the roads would ensure the receipt of tolls sufficient to repay the debts upon the various turnpike trusts. If the railways were built and owned by the state, as was suggested by Fairbairn, all revenues therefrom would accrue to the state. We see, therefore, that there were several reasons why this would appeal to the public; but when we remember that the locomotive engine works most economically on long lines of straight road we can see one physical reason why this method was not adopted". The fact, too, that some

1 The Times, Oct. 19, 1829, p. 3, on "Locomotive Carriages." 2 The Times, Oct. 19, 1829, p. 3.

Bristol Mercury, Oct. 5, 1833, p. 4, letter from "A Well Wisher," on the comparative advantages of horse and steam-power on railways.

Henry Fairbairn's Treatise on the Political Economy of Railroads (1836). Ibid. He gives a full description of this plan and the benefits that would result from it. In his chap. iv, he shows that steam-power is too expensive for use in conveying merchandise; horse-power is best for that purpose. This sounds grotesque in view of the present circumstances. Many other of his statements are ludicrous; for instance, he says that all the great navigable rivers, like the Shannon,

apparently impractical conceptions were associated with this scheme, must have militated against its serious consideration.

Another plan for the improvement of railways has the name of Henry R. Palmer associated with it1. He proposed that where substances were likely to get on the rails, as was customary when they were so close to the surface of the ground, the rails should be elevated; but to elevate two lines of rail would cost too much, and, therefore, he would endeavour to arrange the form of a carriage so that it would travel upon a single line of rail without overturning. His method was to have the carriage so constructed that the two parts of it would balance upon the rail, irrespective of whether the number of passengers or the amount of freight were the same in each compartment2. A line of railway on this suspension principle was constructed for practical purposes of demonstration at Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire; apparently, it did its work successfully and answered the design in every respect3, but it was intended more to exemplify the principle upon which it worked than to actually engage in the general carriage of all kinds of traffic. Why it was not employed as a regular means of conveyance, we have not the means of determining, although it was probably because of mechanical defects; and from that time onward all efforts at securing a workable monorail system were unsuccessful, until within the last few years when the gyroscope seems to have exhibited its practicability for the carriage of passengers at a high rate of speed.

We must now return from this digression as to the attitude of the public at this early time toward the railways, and the consideration of some of the proposals for securing their greatest effectiveness, to resume the historical development of the network of lines which was soon spread over the country. Through the discussion which was going on among engineers and the public generally, it was becoming evident that, not only from a mechanical standpoint, but also economically, the railway Mississippi, St Lawrence, Thames, etc., will now be deserted for land conveyance, when his system is put into effect. See his chapters vi and viii for such ethereal projects.

1 Palmer, Description of a Railway on a New Principle.

The details of the plan may be found in the work last referred to.

3 A full description of this railway and its method of operation is very clearly given in The Times, June 27, 1825, p. 3.

4 On the relative mechanical advantages of railways, canals and turnpike roads, especially the two former, see Sylvester's Report on Railroads; Maclaren, Raitways as compared with Canals and Common Roads, p. 58 et seq.; Tredgold on Railroads ; Nicholas Wood, Practical Treatise on Railroads; and contrast these with Gordon, Observations on Railways and Turnpike Roads, pp. 4-11, who thought that the mechanical advantage of an edge railway was small when compared with a good turnpike road. Of these mechanical features we shall not treat here.