Description:On 1st January 1825 James Loch wrote to the Marquis of Stafford concerning the debate between canals and railways. Loch had undertaken an investigation into the viability of the railways and writes to the Marquis in favour of ‘the facilities and advantages’ of the railways, and their ‘great economy in the transport of goods’. He asks ‘what argument can be urged to defeat ultimately this mode of conveyance?’
The letter reveals Loch’s reluctance to see the Marquis invest in the Birmingham to Ellesmere canal. He expresses a concern that the canal would be ‘executed by the existing monopolists’ who would continue to overcharge canal users and lose out to the railways who could transport goods ‘as cheap as possible’.
As Professor Eric Richards writes, Loch believed that the railways may not be as detrimental to the canals as had been previously thought. Richards suggests that Loch saw the benefits of increased traffic which the railways would bring, benefiting both canals and railways. He writes ‘As every encreased facility must add to the rapidly growing trade between Manchester with Liverpool and Ireland, that property must continue to flourish.’
Loch informs the Marquis about the ‘improvements’ he believed ought to be adopted by the canal proprietors ‘which the state of the times and the impatience of the publick requires’. He comments on the policy of Robert Bradshaw, Superintendent of the Bridgewater Canal writing 'it certainly might be a subject for Bradshaw’s consideration whither by withdrawing opposition to this measure’ he would ‘get powers sufficient to enable him to grapple with the new wants of the district.’
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.