Description:James Loch (1780-1855) served as Chief Agent on the Leveson-Gower family’s estates from 1812 until his death in 1855. In addition to his responsibilities managing the family’s estates, Loch was an advisor to Lord Francis Egerton, the second son of George Granville Leveson-Gower, the first Duke of Sutherland (1758-1833). On the death of his elder brother George Granville (who would become the second Duke of Sutherland following the death of his father in 1833), Lord Francis would inherit the income of the Bridgewater Canal. As his advisor, James Loch instructed Lord Francis in the effective management of his canal interests.
In the letter above, written to Lord Francis by Loch on 24th December 1818, Loch recommends a plan to unite the Leeds and Liverpool Canal with the Bridgewater Canal at Leigh in order to ‘produce a water communication between Manchester & Liverpool without the intervention of the tide way of the Mersey’. Loch writes ‘Your Lordship will easily perceive how much the navigation of the Bridgewater Canal will be benefited by this arrangement’.
However, Loch warns that the plan would be opposed by the proprietors of the Old River Company, a rival concern who were currently involved in the transport of trade between Liverpool and Manchester. Loch warns Lord Francis that the Old River Company who were ‘powerful and wealthy’ would ‘oppose’ the plan ‘tooth and nail’.
Loch advises Lord Francis on the best way to promote the plan. He writes ‘it is apparent that on the present occasion the individual interest of the Canal and the public – go hand in hand’. He recommends that Lord Francis promote the plan to the public on the grounds of ‘the superior advantage of a continued uninterrupted canal navigation between London Manchester and Liverpool’.
Towards the conclusion of the letter Loch emphasises to Lord Francis the importance of his responsibilities, writing that ‘the grand object’ of his life ‘must be to prevent the Trade of London getting to Liverpool or Manchester through any other channel than by the Grand Trunk & Bridgewater Canal’.
Written in 1818, before serious consideration had been given to the viability of the railways, Loch’s letter reveals emerging dissatisfaction with canals as a method of transport for trade and industry. He writes ‘the most likely thing to force the public’ to consider other modes of transport ‘is the inadequacy of the Grand Trunk to meet the demand of the trade’. Loch warns that this was ‘very likely to be the case.’ The conclusion of Loch’s letter reveals that the current increase in trade was already causing problems for the canals. Alluding to report by Robert Haldane Bradshaw, the superintendent of the Bridgewater Canal, Loch informs Lord Francis that Bradshaw believed ‘the trade lately on the canal’ to be ‘greater than ever known’.
This fascinating letter, written just before the rise of the railway promoters in the early 1820s, reveals the competitive policy adopted by James Loch in the management of the Bridgewater Canal. The letter also foreshadows the increasing dissatisfaction with canals as a method of transport for trade and industry, an issue which would become crucial in the struggle between canals and railways in the next decade.
For in-depth contextual analysis of correspondence relating to the development of inland transport during this period, see Professor Eric Richards The Leviathan of Wealth: The Sutherland Fortune in the Industrial Revolution (Routledge, 1973) which has formed the basis for interpretation of the letters featured here.