to London to watch and aid the progress of the Bill through the House of Commons1. After a contest of about three months, during which the necessity of additional means of conveyance was emphasized and thoroughly acceded to, some errors were discovered in the survey that had been made and this created so unfavourable an impression on the committee that the Bill was withdrawn2. Before the next year an accurate survey had been made; the line of way was changed so as to be less objectionable to the Earls of Sefton and Derby; the Marquis of Stafford, representing the Bridgewater Canal, had been induced to subscribe for 1000 shares of stock in the railway; and a new prospectus was issued, explaining the causes of the former unsuccessful application, how these had been overcome, and the benefits that would accrue from the railway3. Early in 1826 the Bill was introduced a second time, and in that session it passed both Houses. Various estimates are given as to the cost of obtaining the Act, varying from £40,0005 to £70,000, but, of course, either of these estimates may be far from the actual amount. George Stephenson was then appointed resident engineer, and under his direction the work was pushed to completion as rapidly as possible.

Of the difficulties connected with the construction of the line we shall not speak'. The means adopted to overcome the immense bog called Chat Moss, which the railway crossed as if it were dry and firm land, when at any point a piece of metal would sink out of sight by its own weight, forms a chapter in engineering which is of great interest. But while we shall not discuss the physical and mechanical features connected with the formation of the road, there is one aspect of its development which we may profitably refer to, namely, the choice of motive power. The line was nearing completion at the end of the year 1828, but no agreement had been reached as to whether stationary or locomotive engines should be employed. In order to settle this

1 Booth, p. 14; Baines, History of Liverpool, p. 603.

2 Booth, p. 18.

3 Booth, pp. 25-31, gives this prospectus also in full.

The new survey put the line so that it did not touch the Earl of Sefton's estate and crossed only a few detached fields of the Earl of Derby's estate. The opposition of the Bridgewater Navigation, the most powerful of the two direct routes, was disarmed by the Marquis of Stafford taking such a large interest in the railway (see second prospectus as given by Booth).

5 Birmingham Journal, May 27, 1826, p. 3.

Ibid., Feb. 5, 1831, p. 3, letter from "A Subscriber to the London and Birmingham Railway." Compare these estimates with that of Booth in the Appendix of his work.

7 On this aspect of the work, see Smiles, Lives of the Engineers, George Stephenson. Chattaway, Railways, p. 2, tells us that even horse-power was considered.

In

important matter, two celebrated engineers, James Walker and John Urpeth Rastrick, were asked to investigate this question and report their results to the directors of the railway. They visited the important places where steam-engines were used, notably the Stockton and Darlington and other coal roads in the north; and afterward each made out his own report showing his conclusions, in which there was almost entire harmony between the two engineers. In their reports, they were agreed that, having regard for the present and prospective interests of the company, locomotive engines would be found the more satisfactory. These should travel at the rate of ten to fifteen miles per hour1. addition, they would employ two stationary engines upon the Rainhill and Sutton inclined planes to draw up the locomotive engines along with the carriages and goods. Their view, that on the line as a whole locomotive engines should be used, found acceptance with the directors; but the locomotive engines that had been used for some years in connexion with a few of the large collieries for the conveyance of coal were utterly unsuited to the requirements of passenger traffic. Knowing the vital importance of the character of the motive power, the directors offered a premium of £500 for the best locomotive adapted to the purposes of their line, two of the conditions being that it should be capable of drawing at least three times its own weight, at a speed of not less than ten miles per hour, and that it should consume its own smoke2. Several competitors entered this contest, and in October, 1829, the various designers of the engines brought their locomotives for trial on the railway. On the first day, the engine made by Braithwaite and Erickson, of London, exceeded all others in speed; but when the competition had continued for some days, in order to have a good test of all the engines, the prize was finally awarded to George Stephenson's engine, the "Rocket3." After the expiration of almost another year,

1 Walker and Rastrick, Liverpool and Manchester Railway, Report to the Directors on the Comparative Merits of Loco-motive and Fixed Engines, as a Moving Power. Nicholas Wood thought that the locomotive engine ought not to travel more than eight miles an hour; but these two engineers believed it could go at the rate of ten miles per hour with perfect safety, provided it did not exceed eight tons gross weight, exclusive of the tender (ibid., pp. 49, 76).

2 Chattaway, Railways, p. 2. For the conditions of this competition, see Jeaffreson, Life of Robert Stephenson, 1, pp. 124-5. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway Act, 7 Geo. IV, c. 49, required the engine to "effectually consume its own smoke."

3 Full details of the trial of the engines are given in The Times, Oct. 8, 1829, p. 3; Oct. 9, 1829, p. 3; Oct. 12, 1829, p. 3; Oct. 16, 1829, p. 3; Oct. 24, 1829, p. 4; Oct. 31, 1829, p. 2. See also Smiles, Life of George Stephenson. These experiments, and others later, showed that the locomotive engine could easily attain a speed of 24 to 30 miles an hour. An account of this trial of the engines is given also in

J. T. II.

5

during which the construction of the roadway and its accessories proceeded toward completion, the line was formally opened with great éclat and enthusiasm, on September 15, 18301.

With the Liverpool and Manchester line, the railway era really began. It was the first railway that was constructed for the express purpose of carrying passengers as well as freight; and no other power was ever used on it but that of locomotive engines. Up to this time, all others, except the Surrey Iron Railway, had contemplated the carriage of one commodity (usually coal, iron, or stone) and were operated as adjuncts to a colliery, quarry, or the like; while the Surrey Iron Railway employed only horse-power in the work of conveyance. The Liverpool and Manchester, on the contrary, was constructed for the public welfare, rather than for private profit, as we can readily judge by the fact that no person could subscribe for more than ten shares, and the profit on these would not aggregate very much for any individual2. Indeed, under the Act of Parliament by which it was authorized3, the profits or dividends were limited to ten per cent.*; and the undertakers were so anxious to encourage industry and commerce that they declared they would be satisfied with even five per cent. It is very evident, then, that there was a wide difference between the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and any of those which had preceded it. The immediate success of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the occasion of universal admiration and satisfaction. The rate

Liverpool Times, Oct. 13, 1829, p. 328, and Oct. 20, 1829, p. 333. The facts connected with this contest are also given in Jeaffreson, Life of Robert Stephenson, 1, chap. ix.

1 A full account of the opening is given in Liverpool Times, Sept. 21, 1830, p. 298; Manchester Guardian, Sept. 18, 1830, p. 3; and Smiles' Life of George Stephenson. See also the history of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway written by Walker, pp. 42-48, for a description of the "Grand Opening of the Railway." The rejoicing of the day was saddened by the death of Mr Huskisson, M.P., which occurred because of an accident on the line. Booth, who was treasurer of the company, gives us an account of the construction of the line and the expenditures connected therewith in his second chapter. His third chapter is an account of the railway itself. His fourth chapter shows the mechanical principles applicable to railways, and how the directors finally decided to adopt the locomotive engine. In the Appendix he gives the details of the cost of the railway, which, including stations, warehouses, etc., amounted to £820,000.

2 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, N.S., XII (1825), p. 848; The Times, Mar. 3, 1825, p. 2, statement of Mr Huskisson in the debate in the House of Commons on this Bill.

3 Act 7 Geo. IV, c. 49.

4 See also The Times, Mar. 3, 1825, p. 2, and April 7, 1826, p. 2, statements of Mr Huskisson.

5 The Times, Mar. 3, 1825, p. 2.

of speed on passenger trains was twice that of the fastest stage coaches and the cost of travelling was reduced about one-half1, while the amount of travelling increased fourfold2. Under these circumstances many of the old stage coaches ran almost empty for a short time and several were immediately withdrawn. Soon all the stage coaches disappeared from regular service along this route and the railway absorbed all the passenger traffic3. The freight rates also were reduced by the railway by about one-third; and in order to enable the carriers on the navigations to meet this reduction the tolls on the Bridgewater Canal and on the Mersey and Irwell were reduced by about thirty per cent. The effect of the railway, therefore, was beneficial to the public by reducing overgrown monopolies within reasonable bounds, and it also stimulated these opulent canal companies to think of something else than their own pecuniary interests". The value of land along the line of railway invariably increased, which was advantageous both to landowners and tenants, for the tenants had wider and better markets opened up to receive their produce and because of this enhancement of the value of the land the landowners could receive higher rents. This was observable also in cases where the railway company wanted to buy land in addition to that which they already held; their second purchase was invariably

1 Proceedings of the Great Western Railway Company, p. 6; Annual Register, 1832, p. 445; 'Great Western Railway. Evidence on the London and Birmingham Railway Bill,' testimony of Henry Booth, p. 8. According to Mr Booth's statement, the fare between Liverpool and Manchester, by stage coach, had varied a good deal, but was about 10s. inside and 6s. outside. On the railway, first class fare was 5s. and second class 3s. 6d. The statement of a writer in the Manchester Guardian, Sept. 25, 1830, p. 2, makes the railway fares a little higher than those given by Booth, placing first class at 7s. and second class at 4s. On the reduction of rates see also 'Collection of Prospectuses, etc.,' p. 65, which is in close accord with Booth's assertion.

2 Before the railway, there were about twenty coaches per day between Liverpool and Manchester. Supposing these to be full every trip, carrying eighteen passengers each and pursuing their daily rounds for three hundred days in the year, there would be 108,000 people carried between these places in the course of the year. But in the twelve months after the opening of the railway about 460,000 persons were carried between these two termini (The Times, Oct. 19, 1831, p. 4).

3 Manchester Guardian, Sept. 25, 1830, p. 2, on "Railway Coaches."

▲ P., Letter to a Friend, containing Observations on the Comparative Merits of Canals and Railways, p. 12. The freight rate between Liverpool and Manchester was reduced from 15s. to 10s. The tolls on the Bridgewater Canal were reduced from 38. 8d. to 2s. 8d., and on the Mersey and Irwell from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. See also 'Collection of Prospectuses, Maps, etc., of Railways and Canals,' pp. 13, 65.

5 P., op. cit., pp. 29-30; The Times, April 7, 1826, p. 2. For canals which were paying one hundred per cent. every year or every two years there was need of some new factor to reduce their charges.

made at a higher price than that paid for the first1. Not only did the public benefit from the railway, but the company itself also realized that the enterprise was a corporate success. In the first half of the year 1831 the net receipts were such that, after large expenditures for warehouses, carriages, etc., the company was able to declare a halfyearly dividend of £4. 10s. per share2; and the annual rate of dividend continued to range between eight and ten per cent. during the years following3. The value of the shares in the market may also be

1 See evidence before the committee on the London and Birmingham Railway Bill, as summarised in Birmingham Journal, May 19, 1832, p. 3, e.g., evidence of Messrs Earle, Lee, Unsworth, Pease. See also Proceedings of the Great Western Railway Company, p. 6. The prospectus of the Liverpool and Birmingham Railway Company and the Birmingham and Liverpool Railway Company, whose interests were practically identical, showed that land which, from its vicinity to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway had been expected to deteriorate in value, and the owners of which had consequently claimed compensation, had, on the contrary, become more valuable than before. See especially the testimony of Mr Lee before the committee on the London and Birmingham Railway Bill, to the effect that some property along the line of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway had been sold for building purposes at three to five times the sum it would have brought before the establishment of the railway. The almost universal testimony of those who gave evidence before the committee on the London and Birmingham Railway Bill in 1832 was that lands along the route of the L. & M. Ry had increased in value. Even land formerly waste had been brought into cultivation and yielded a good rent. See also Annual Register, 1832, p. 445; 'Collection of Prospectuses, Maps, etc. of Railways and Canals,' p. 65; 'Great Western Railway. Evidence on the London and Birmingham Railway Bill,' pp. 34-37; and the notable case of increased land values given in Railway Times, Iv, p. 215.

2 The receipts from Jan. 1 to June 30, 1831, as given by the Annual Register, 1831, p. 169, were:

The net receipts divided among 7012 shares allowed a dividend of £4. 10s. per share for the half year. (It will be noted that there is a slight error here in summing up the gross receipts.) See also Brit. Mus, 8235. ee. 12 (1), p. 2.

3 In Collection of Prospectuses, Maps, etc., of Railways and Canals,' p. 173, there is given an ‘Extract of the Report of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,' for the half year ending Dec. 31, 1833, with a comparison of the results for this six months with the results for previous half years since the railway began operation. The half-yearly dividend thus far had ranged from four to four and one-half per cent. This financial statement was also attached to the prospectus of the Great Western Railway, 1834 (ibid. p. 176). In Brit. Mus. 8235. ee. 12 (1), 'Reasons in favour of a Direct Line of Railroad from London to Manchester,' p. 2, we have a comparison