VOLUME XXVII No. 7 MARCH 1983 THE RAILWAY & CANAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY Founded 1954 Incorporated 1967 PRESIDENT: H. W. Paar VICE-PRESIDENTS: Prof. T. C. Barker, Charles Hadfield, Geoffrey Holt, Charles E. Lee, P. G. Rattenbury, Jeoffry Spence CHAIRMAN (Managing Committee): Grahame Boyes HON. SECRETARY HON. TREASURER HON. EDITOR Mark P. Bertinat Peter R. Davis J. V. Gough 20 Neston Drive, 103 North Street, 12 Victoria Gardens Chester Hornchurch, 195 London Road CH2 2HR Essex Leicester RMII 1ST LE2 IZH MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY: R. J. Taylor, 64 Grove Avenue, Hanwell, London W7 3ES LOCAL GROUP SECRETARIES London R. H. G. Thomas, 174 Markfield, Courtwood Lane, Addington CR0 9HQ North Western — I. P. Moss (Ag.) 5 Oakdene Gdns., Marple, Stockport SK6 6PN North Eastern — S. Tyson, Westwood, 27 Carr Lane, Acomb, York YO2 5HT West Midlands — Miss M. Cooling, 9 Berberry Close, Birmingham B30 1TB East Midlands — F. W. Eele, 75 Brendon Road, Wollaton, Nottingham NG8 1HZ AREA CORRESPONDENT South Western — D. E. Bick, Pound House, Market Square, Newent, Glos. GL18 1PS JOURNAL OF THE RAILWAY & CANAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XXVII No. 7 MARCH 1983 CONTENTS TURNPIKES AND THEIR TRAFFIC: AN AGENDA FOR RESEARCH Eric Pawson . • • • • 178 HOLBECK STATION From Jeoffry Spence . 188 PENLLWYN TRAIVIROAD Gordon Rattenbury . 189 CANAL INCLINED PLANES: A CONTEMPORARY VIEW Richard Dean . 197 THE LOWER PART OF THE NOTTINGHAM CANAL & THE BEESTON CUT IN 1982 G. Y. Hemingway . 200 BOOK REVIEWS 202 CORRESPONDENCE .. 212 177 Turnpikes and Their Traffic: an Agenda for Research BY ERIC PAWSON 1. INTRODUCTION `I wish with all my heart that half the turnpike roads of the Kingdom were plough'd up ...' exclaimed John Byng in 1775, at about the same time as Arthur Young was making an uncomfortable journey through Lancashire, com- plaining amongst other things, of 'ruts, which I actually measured, four feet deep, and floating with mud' on the turnpike to Wigan. On such colourful material has the historical folklore of turnpikes grown. Long ago they assumed the mantle of minor villains of history, helped in this by the writings of Sidney and Beatrice Webb.1 They saw a pattern of heavily indebted trusts, so localized as not even to form a coherent network, and hence of little overall consequence. This wholly inaccurate picture tended to persist because the turnpike road system has not until recently received the systematic attention devoted either to the canals or to railways. Quite why this should be is debatable. Perhaps turnpikes have commanded less enthusiasm since they lack the technical sophis- tication and conspicuous industrial archaeology of their competitors. But it may also be because the turnpike network was largely established in the early stages of industrialization, before the generally recognised watershed of the Industrial Revolution in the 1780s. We now understand, however, the importance of the eighteenth century as the seedbed of the momentous economic and social change that occurred thereafter? And we know far more about the contribution of the turnpike road system in the early stages of industrialization. Indeed, this was what Byng was complaining about — not the poor state of the roads, or high levels of toll, but their effec- tiveness in having 'imported London manners and depopulated the country'. It is clear too that Young, although not misquoted, has been misrepresented all too often (he commended far more turnpike roads than he ever abused), where- as the Webbs' view is now discredited. Rather, it is apparent that the importance and impact of the turnpike system in its own context was considerable. Its context is primarily that of the pre-railway era, between the 1690s and the 1820s. It was then that the turnpike roads carried their greatest proportion of Britain's — or certainly England's — land-based internal trade. But they also continued to be significant carriers of traffic, complementing and feeding the railways, until all sections of highway were formally disturnpiked in various stages in the latter part of the nineteenth century. In the last ten years, two books focused at the national scale have examined the pre-railway turnpike system,3 along with a number of articles concerned with different regions. Post- railway turnpike fortunes have yet to receive a similar degree of scrutiny. This does not mean, however, that there are not still unresolved issues and grey areas to be explored in the earlier stages and heyday of turnpiking. This is particularly so at regional and local levels. The interplay between growing levels of internal trade and the road transport system, the varying effectiveness of turnpike trusts in dealing with the increasing demands placed upon them, their impact on the evolving economy and changing geography of Britain, the pattern of costs and benefits, are all historical problems about which we could usefully know more. In the later years, the effects of competition between road, canal, 178 Berwick - upon - Tweed iC Turnpike Rood Network, 1750 Newcastle V Wtntehoven Miles 0 50 York Leeds Hull Halifax #1. Monchester 4b, Doncaster L iverpool Rotherham Lincoln„ ., Chester .40 P# OIO DAYS — 1750 Stirewsburyar TWO • Lichfield Norwich Leicester _AO B rminghom Worcester „..."• \orthompton Leon mire ?Cambridge / Evesham Hereford Ipswich edbury OS s N DAY• — /6 • Gloucester.. Ho r w ich Chelmsford 77-17o7 \ / Oxford ▪O• N DO Gristo Both Devizes Reading • Chot horn Worminste?% Conterbury gwoter • • Dover • Tunbridge Wells ••• Portsmouth Chichester • •• right on Exe*er. 179 and railway, and the process of disturnpiking itself have received little attention. The purpose of this article is to identify some such themes, and the ways in which they might be explored further. 2. THE TURNPIKE ROAD NETWORK A knowledge of the turnpike road network in a particular area is the most useful base from which to' begin. It is appropriate to refer to a 'network' because it is now apparent that from scattered beginnings at the turn of the eighteenth century the turnpike trusts of Britain were sufficiently numerous by 1770 to form coherent networks in most regions. In fact, by 1750, there was a national network of turnpike routes in England, radiating from London and connecting with the major port and industrializing areas (v. diagram). Between these two dates the major turnpiking boom occurred, such that the length of turnpiked roads rose from 3,386 to 14,965 miles, intensifying the network considerably in central, southern, and northern England, spreading into the peripheral parts of that country, and across Wales and the more populated areas of Scotland. Between 1770 and 1836, when the last new trust was set up, the total mileage rose to 21,991. The route length of individual trusts varied considerably, around a rough mean of 25 to 30 miles.4 The unit of study for turnpike research is worth some consideration. The county is often not the best framework, as major routes and economic regions tended to have scant regard for county boundaries. Exceptions to this can be in Wales and Scotland, where in many instances one trust had responsibility for most of the routes turnpiked in a county. Elsewhere, a functional unit such as an indus- trializing region (e.g. the Potteries, the West Midlands, a coalfield) is usually more suitable. Sometimes, an area focused on a town makes most sense, as many turnpike routes radiated outwards from important urban centres. Trusts in the west of England in particular were often given sole individual responsibility for a series of routes radiating from a town. In other cases it can be rewarding to examine the evolution of turnpiking along a particular highway. Sometimes complementary trusts emerged of different routes between the same two points, either to overcome the costs of traffic switching from a turnpike to a free road, or to provide a less hazardous path in by-passing the hilly routes that most early turnpike trusts inherited. The sequence of turnpiking to Brighton on the Sussex coast is a good example. Once the unit of study has been chosen, its place in relation to the national turnpike network can be assessed by reference to the published maps.5 These are now available for England and Wales for selected dates up to 1770. There are no equivalent maps of Scotland, a task which awaits a future researcher! The reason why accurate network maps can be produced is because, unlike any other eighteenth century economic phenomenon (with the notable exception of canals), there is a complete and fairly specific central record of the turnpike system. This takes the form of printed public Acts of Parliament. Parliamentary consent was required to make a grant of toll levying powers on sections of the King's Highway, as such a grant altered the ancient common right of free passage. This central record is thus invaluable in a regional, county, or local study of turnpiking, as it can be used to ascertain the initial dates and routes of the relevant turnpike trusts. There are two published lists of turnpike Acts which can be used to facilitate the task by providing an initial list of the relevant legislation and its date.6 Reference can then be made to the pertinent Acts. Each new turnpike Act specifies the route of the highways for which that trust was to be responsible, together with a host of additional information, such as 180 lists of trustees, the maximum tolls to be charged and exemptions to be applied. However, the usual problems of historical research arise. The only complete set of Acts is that in the House of Lords Record Office (HLRO) at Westminster. County Record Offices (CROs) invariably do not have a full set of turnpike Acts pertinent to their areas. The routes derived from the Acts can be traced against modern Ordnance Survey maps, although many of the critical place-names are no longer in standard use.