534 PARLIAMENTARY COLBERTISM 
A.D. 1889 go goon as the success of this first expedient was ensured, 
the Duke employed Brindley to construct a long branch to 
connect the original canal with the Mersey at Runcorn, and 
nd from thus to open up improved water communication between 
Manchester  . : vin 
to Runcorn Liverpool and Manchester. This was a more ambitious 
or the scheme ; it roused more open hostility’, and the attempt to 
Songer carry it through, entirely exhausted the Duke’s resources and 
his credit in Manchester’, London Bankers, however, took 
1 The nature of the opposition may be understood from the following suggestion 
by Richard Whitworth, who was a great enthusiast for canals, and tried to 
promote an alternative to Brindley’s Grand Canal (The Advantages of Inland 
Navigation, by R. Whitworth, 1766, 29). ‘It has been a common objection against 
navigable canals in this kingdom, that numbers of people are supported by land 
carriage, and that navigable canals will be their ruin; and it has as often been 
said, to remedy that inconvenience, that those people may take to other trades, 
and turn either farmers or navigators; and instead of driving the waggon they 
may learn to steer and navigate a boat, which, in time of war, may turn to the 
advantage of the navy, or merchants service (upon both which most of our learned 
puthors agree that our safety depends); but I, more supple to the inclinations of 
my fellow countrymen, am unwilling to unbend the crooked finger, or streighten 
the almost distorted joint, inured to tally with the stroke of iis accustomed trade, 
and at his old age deprive him of the art of his employment, and leave him in his 
second childhood to begin the world again: and as the land carriage is chiefly 
carried on from trading towns and their neighbourhood, I must advance a very 
uncommon alternative, which would free the carrier from any fear of losing his 
:mployment or selling off his stock of horses, viz.—That no main trunk of 
1 navigable canal ought reasonably to be carried nearer than within four miles of 
any great manufacturing and trading town, considering the present state and 
situation of affairs, and the proprietors of blending the landed with the commercial 
interest; which distance from the canal is sufficient to maintain the same number 
of carriers, and employ almost the same number of horses, as usual, to convey the 
goods down the canal, in order to go to the seaports for exportation. ‘When any 
person considers the advantage of this nation, they must consider that of every 
individual, and see that one is not burdened in order to unburthen another; 
[ therefore have produced this uncommon argument and favour the landed, as 
well as the commercial interest, which I think proves, considering both interests 
together, that it is not for the benefit of every individual in a trading city, to have 
the navigable canal come close to their town, but that the same should be at 
2 proper distance about four miles, so that each trade may still have some employ, 
those that carry the goods and merchandize, as well as those that manufacture 
them: there is no doubt but the person who manufactures the goods might afford 
to export them to foreign markets much cheaper by having the navigable canal 
come close to him, but then we must consider all parties when we talk of trade, 
and not let the carriers starve while the traders and manufacturers ride in their 
coach and six, exulting over their dejected distressed brethren and fellow 
sreatures. If a manufacturer can have a certain conveniency of sending his 
goods by water carriage within four miles of his own home, surely that is 
sufficient, and profit enough; considering that other people must thrive as well as 
himself; and a proportion of profit to each trade should be the biassing and 
leading policy of this nation.” 2 Smiles, op. cit. 1. 396.