1834: Wilts and Berks Canal Dispute - 2

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

From the Reading Mercury, 15th December 1834

[NOTE: Mr. Vincent of Abingdon had exchanged an extraordinary amount of correspondence with the Wilts & Berks Canal Company over several years, as documented in Jack Dalby's history of the canal. This letter wasn't mentioned by Jack, because the war of words had spread outside the confines of Company correspondence to the Letters sections of two influential newspapers. One sentence contains no fewer than 400 words, while the next exceeds 250 words. Although this letter was written from Semington, Thomas Vincent was actually based at Abingdon.]

Mr. Editor,

My attention having been directed by a friend to a letter that appeared in your Paper of the 24th of last month, I trust that you will have the candour to insert my reply; and I hope that if your correspondent who signs himself an “Original Proprietor”, thinks fit to answer it, that he will have the manliness to put his name and address.

Your correspondent appears to be instigated by a very laudable feeling of respect for the dead, while, on the contrary, I am influenced, by I trust, an equally praiseworthy regard for the living; and if I am only a proprietor of nine months' standing, I am placed by that circumstance in a preferable situation to “Original Proprietors”, having the good luck to hold for £5 10s what may very likely have cost the “Original Proprietor” ten times that amount, for while shares in most other aquatic concerns have been advancing, this unfortunate one has, crab-like, gone back in value, and that I expect must be be occasioned by its wretched mismanagement; and therefore no wonder that  the committee at the meeting at the Barrington Arms Inn, Shrivenham, on the 11th of November last, were so very anxious to avoid an enquiry into their conduct, and that of the clerk and agent, all being as I very candidly told them, mixed up in what I considered the delinquency; for the clause of the Acts of Parliament, by the proprietors at large, have been for years past elected by the clerk and agent, much after the plan of “Old Sarum”, and other rotten nomination boroughs, previous to the “Reform Bill”; and it must be very obvious that when servants elect their own masters, that they will first select and then elect only such of their own relatives, and private friends, as will best suit their purpose by being subservient to their views, and, consequently, this narrow single-lock canal (the Wilts and Berks), and which, together with its arms and the North Wilts branch is only 66½ miles in length, and kept in a very rough state of repair, is charged to the proprietors last year, for new works, repairs, salaries, and committee expences [sic], the enormous sum of £5,169-11s-10d , and which is very nearly 30 per cent., on its very trifling return for the same period of £11,891-4s-10d; and during the very same year the Kennet and Avon Canal, and the River Kennet, and both of which are more than double the width of the Wilts and Berks Canal, and yet with double locks, are kept in the most beautiful state of repair for 76½ miles, at the charge of only £10,615-19s on the four items adverted to above, or about 18½ per cent. on a return of £57,435-15s-8d for the like period!

Your readers cannot, therefore, much wonder at my objecting to the Chairman of the Committee being placed in the chair, at the meeting at Shrivenham, when his conduct and that of his colleagues, and the servants by whom they were elected, was to be the subject of investigation; and of course it was equally natural that they should use all their influence to smother such an inquiry, but more particularly so, after having sanctioned an outlay of from one to two thousand pounds to enlarge the house on the wharf at Swindon, for the residence of the present agent, and which has consequently been rendered so very conspicuous by its grandeur, that a celebrated political writer, in one of his rural rides, took it to be the residence of a “Secretary of State”; and very naturally concluded that the Wilts and Berks Canal must be a most profitable aquatic concern, to be enabled to provide so superb a mansion for its agent; but judge, Oh! Ye most fortunate “Original Shareholders” in this unfortunate and unprofitable aquatic concern, what would have been the awful astonishment of the celebrated political writer in question, if some unkind friend of the agent had informed him of the paltry revenue of this canal, and added that the committee were at the present time allowing this agent upwards of five hundred pounds a-year, in addition to the honour of residing in this splendid mansion, and that for the management of a concern that last year only produced the very paltry sum of £11,891-4s-10d.

It is quite correct that I have applied to the Court of King's Bench for a “mandamus”, and that I have obtained a Rule Nisi, calling on the committee to show cause why they presume to sanction the servants of the proprietors in refusing to show the books, papers, and writings, belonging to the company of proprietors, and which I applied to see agreeable 101st clause of the Act of Parliament, which directs, “That all books, papers, and writings, belonging to the said company of proprietors, shall at all seasonable hours be open to the inspection of all the said proprietors, who mat take copies thereof, or extracts therefrom, without fee or reward.”

Now, if the conduct of the committee and the servants has been so correct as they would wish it to appear; why are they ashamed to show their books? And which would have removed directly all suspicion, instead of applying to Parliament under the specious plea of consolidating their shares, but in reality to obtain such powers as will enable them to trade contrary to their present Act, and to close their books, and, in fact, to render themselves a close corporation!

I have Mr. Gaby's authority for stating that he did not direct his vote to be expunged, as stated by the “Original Proprietor”; the fact is this, neither Mr. Gaby or myself objected to the consolidating of the shares, if it could be proved that it would be to the advantage of the proprietors, but we both decidedly objected to going to an expence to obtain an Act of Parliament to do so, when it was very probable that in a few years the Rail-roads would supersede canals, and render the consolidated shares of less value than a single share at present.

I remain, your obedient humble servant,
THOMAS VINCENT,
Semington Wharf, Melksham, Dec. 9, 1834.

[NOTE: This letter was also published in the Salisbury & Winchester Journal of 15th December, but with the addition of this footnote:

"Any future communications on this subject must be paid for as advertisements"! ]