It is acknowledged that a more general use of waterways, throughout the kingdom for the cheaper transport of our heavier and more bulky produce, would be a national boon; and a Royal Commission was engaged in considering the subject of the acquisition of all canals as Government property.[1]
It is now being more and more recognised that, on the establishment of railways, everyone jumped too hastily to the conclusion that the days of canals were over; whereas, in truth, there is still a large field, probably an increasing field, for the cheaper traffic in heavy goods, which canals can provide for. The Belgian town of Bruges, though situated several miles inland, is now to be converted into a port by the government of that country, through the creation of a canal, which is expected to increase the prosperity of that city. Similarly it is suggested that our own town of Nottingham could be made a great inland port, if water carriage were provided; and Sir John Turney, before the Royal Commission, has recently (July, 1907) stated that the trade of that town might thus be greatly increased. These, be it remembered, are not isolated cases.
On the Canal.
As to our own local interests, we may reasonably regret that, after so much money being invested in the Horncastle Canal, and the serious losses incurred by so many investors, no further effort should be made to utilize it. The trade of Horncastle is not so satisfactory but that we might welcome every adjunct, which could in any way contribute to its furtherance; while, even from an æsthetic point of view, it were desirable that, with the present dilapidated locks, and the banks in some places broken, the channel, which is in parts little more than a shallow bed of mud, befouled by garbage and carrion, or choked by a matted growth of weeds, should be superceded by a flow of water, pure and emitting no pestiferous exhalations.
- ↑ See a very interesting volume, Our Waterways, by Urquhart A. Forbes and W. H. R. Ashford. Murray, London, 1906.
