1834: Wilts and Berks Canal Dispute - 1

From the Reading Mercury, 24th November 1834

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sir,

Instigated in a considerable degree by the respect I entertain for the memory of friends now no more, I am desirous briefly to notice a portion of what transpired at the meeting of the Proprietors of the Wilts and Berks Canal Navigation, on the 11th instant.

The business commenced by a motion that William Hallett, esq., be requested to take the chair, when it was opposed not on any personal grounds by Mr. Vincent, a trader on the canal, a proprietor of nine months' standing, and holding five shares.

He considered the appointment would give to Mr. Hallett, bring the chairman of the Committee of Management, too great influence in the business of the day, which he denominated in no very courteous terms, a job of the committee: it was asked who seconded, when Mr. Gaby said he did; but as there appeared to be no supporters, Mr. Hallett took the chair; and after returning thanks, said, he hoped they would proceed in the order pointed out by the advertisement, especially as the requisition was respectably signed by persons holding nearly three thousand shares; upon which Mr. Vincent rose, and, after a struggle with the chairman, was suffered to ask numerous irrelevant questions, speedily followed them by inveighing in bitter terms against the conduct of the present and former committees.

He laid great stress on the wanton expense which had been incurred (about 17 years ago) on the house and premises occupied by their principal agent (Mr. Durnsford).

Now, a canal, extending nearly 70 miles, having cost about three hundred thousand pounds, could not be conducted by any man who was not endued with a liberal, well-educated mind (like the present gentleman), and with abilities adapted for such a situation, and who could not be contented with any but a respectable habitation.

Mr. Vincent did not confine his attacks to the committee, but impugned the conduct of Mr. Durnsford, as he had before done by letters and in person. Mr. Durnsford then replied most successfully, and read a report of some length, which was most favourably received, all which took up so much time, that the chairman would content himself by reminding the meeting of the Act of Parliament, which had fixed the days and places for the annual election of the committee, to give an opportunity to replace those who acted improperly; and it must be observed, that the accounts were settled and closed at the expiration of every year.

The chairman considered that it must be unnecessary for him to notice what had been said by Mr. Vincent, he having been elected, and nothing urged against him, during his forty years, or thereabouts, that he had been chosen on the committee; but he could not help hoping that Mr. Vincent would follow up his threat of applying to the Court of King's Bench for a "mandamus", so that the committee might pursue their wishes to act rightly; or he would suggest the propriety of a request to any three gentlemen present, not being members of the committee, to inspect all the books, or proceedings, which are in the possession of the company.

The resolutions were then put and carried, with only two dissenting voices, Messrs. Vincent and Gaby, the latter of whom having, after the meeting, requested that his name might be expunged, Mr. Vincent was left in the situation of many an able lawyer, “taking nothing by his motion”. After a vote of thanks to the chairman, which passed without opposition, the meeting was dissolved.

I am, your obedient servant,

AN ORIGINAL PROPRIETOR,
Nov. 19, 1834.

[NOTE: An identical letter appeared in the Salisbury & Winchester Journal of the same date.

Ironically, in the next column of the Journal appeared a very long advertisement, giving notice “that Application is intended to be made to Parliament in the next Session, for leave to bring in a Bill to make and maintain a RAILWAY, with proper Works and Conveniences connected therewith, commencing at or near a certain Field, called Temple Mead … and terminating … in a certain Field lying between the Paddington Canal and the Turnpike Road leading from London to Harrow ...”. This was to become the Great Western Railway, the great threat to canals and turnpikes alike.

This advertisement listed the places it would serve, including these points directly on the Wilts and Berks Canal: “Laycock, Chippenham, Melksham, … Foxham, Dauntsey, … Tockenham, Wootton-Bassett, Wroughton, .. Swindon, .. Stratton St. Margaret's, … Shrivenham, Bourton, … Longcot, … Uffington, … Childrey, West Challow, East Challow, … Wantage, Grove, ...Hanney, … Steventon, ...”. About the only place not mentioned was Abingdon, which didn't want the railway running through it.

Was the management of the Wilts and Berks Canal taking proper notice?

Thomas Vincent's reply to this letter showed that he at least was aware of the threat, stating that “it was very probable that in a few years the Rail-roads would supersede canals”.]