The Manchester Ship Canal is a inland waterway in North West England that links Manchester to the Irish Sea. Beginning in the Mersey estuary at Eastham, near Ellesmere Port in Cheshire, it generally follows the original routes of the rivers Mersey and Irwell through the historic counties of Cheshire and Lancashire before terminating to the east of Salford Quays near Pomona Docks and a junction with the Bridgewater Canal where it meets the Irwell. Several sets of locks lift vessels about to the canal's terminus in Manchester. Landmarks along its route include the Barton Swing Aqueduct – the world's only swing aqueduct – and Trafford Park, the world's first planned industrial estate and one of the largest in Europe.
The rivers Mersey and Irwell were first made navigable in the early 18th century. Goods were also transported on the Runcorn extension of the Bridgewater Canal (from 1776) and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (from 1830), but by the late 19th century the Mersey and Irwell Navigation had fallen into disrepair and was often unusable. Manchester's business community viewed the charges imposed by Liverpool's docks and the railway companies as excessive. A ship canal was proposed to give ocean-going vessels direct access to Manchester. The region was suffering from the Long Depression; the canal's proponents argued that the scheme would boost competition and create jobs. They gained public support for the scheme, which was first presented to Parliament as a bill in 1882. Faced with stiff opposition from Liverpool, the canal's supporters were unable to gain the necessary act of Parliament to allow the scheme to go ahead until 1885.
Construction took six years, beginning in 1887, and cost just over £15 million (). When the ship canal opened in January 1894 (12 years after the first meeting of the Manchester Ship Canal company) it was the largest river navigation canal in the world and enabled the new Port of Manchester to become Britain's third-busiest port despite being about inland. Changes to shipping methods and the growth of containerisation during the 1970s and 1980s meant that many ships were too big to use the canal; and traffic declined, resulting in the closure of the terminal docks at Salford. Although able to accommodate vessels from coastal ships to intercontinental cargo liners, the canal was not large enough for most modern vessels. By 2011, traffic had decreased from its peak in 1958 of of freight each year to about . The canal is now privately owned by Peel Holdings, whose plans include redevelopment, expansion and an increase in shipping from 8,000 containers a year to 100,000 by 2030 as part of its Atlantic Gateway project.
History The canal was completed just as the Long Depression was coming to an end, but in its early years it was not the commercial success its sponsors had hoped for. At first, gross revenue was less than a quarter of expected net revenue; and throughout at least its first nineteen years the canal was unable to make a profit or meet the interest payments to the Corporation of Manchester. Many ship owners were reluctant to dispatch ocean-going vessels along a "locked cul-de-sac" at a maximum speed of . The Ship Canal Company, which developed the canal, found it difficult to attract a diversified export trade; this meant that ships frequently had to return down the canal loaded with ballast rather than freight. However, traffic gradually developed and the Canal became successful, paying dividends from 1921 onwards. As the import trade in oil began to grow during the 20th century, the balance of canal traffic gradually switched towards the west, from Salford to Stanlow. Unlike most other British canals, the Manchester Ship Canal was never nationalised.
Early history The idea that the rivers Mersey and Irwell should be made navigable from the Mersey estuary in the west to Manchester in the east was first proposed in 1660 and revived in 1712 by the English civil engineer Thomas Steers. The necessary legislation was proposed in 1720, and the Act of Parliament for the navigation, the Rivers Mercy and Irwell Navigation Act 1720 (7 Geo. 1. St. 1. c. 15), passed into law in 1721. Construction began in 1724, undertaken by the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company. By 1734 boats "of moderate size" were able to make the journey from quays near Water Street in Manchester to the Irish Sea, but the navigation was only suitable for small ships; during periods of low rainfall or when strong easterly winds held back the tide in the estuary, there was not always sufficient depth of water for a fully laden boat. The completion in 1776 of the Runcorn extension of the Bridgewater Canal, followed in 1830 by the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, intensified competition for the carriage of goods.
In 1825 an application had been made to Parliament for an Act to allow the construction of a ship canal between the mouth of the River Dee and Manchester at a cost of £1 million; however, "the necessary forms not having been observed", it did not become law. In 1844 ownership of the Mersey and Irwell Navigation was transferred to the Bridgewater Trustees, and in 1872 it was sold to the Bridgewater Navigation Company for £1.112 million. The navigation had by then fallen into disrepair, its owners preferring instead to maintain the more profitable canal; in 1882 the navigation was described as being "hopelessly choked with silt and filth", and was closed to all but the smaller boats for 264 out of 311 working days.
Along with deteriorating economic conditions in the 1870s and the start of a period known as the Long Depression, the dues charged by the Port of Liverpool and the railway charges from there to Manchester were perceived to be excessive by Manchester's business community; it was often cheaper to import goods from Hull, on the opposite side of the country, than it was from Liverpool. A ship canal was proposed as a way to reduce carriage charges, avoid payment of dock and town dues at Liverpool, and bypass the Liverpool to Manchester railways by giving Manchester direct access to the sea for its imports and its exports of manufactured goods. Historian Ian Harford suggested that the canal may also have been conceived as an "imaginative response to [the] problems of depression and unemployment" that Manchester was experiencing during the early 1880s. Its proponents argued that reduced transport costs would make local industry more competitive and that the scheme would help create new jobs.
The idea was championed by Manchester manufacturer Daniel Adamson, who arranged a meeting at his home, The Towers in Didsbury, on 27 June 1882. He invited the representatives of several Lancashire towns, local businessmen and politicians, and two civil engineers: Hamilton Fulton and Edward Leader Williams. Fulton's design was for a tidal canal, with no locks and a deepened channel into Manchester. With the city about above sea level, the docks and quays would have been well below the surrounding surface. Williams' plan was to dredge a channel between a set of retaining walls, and build a series of locks and sluices to lift incoming vessels up to Manchester. Both engineers were invited to submit their proposals, and Williams' plans were selected to form the basis of a Bill to be submitted to Parliament later that year.
Public campaign To generate support for the scheme, the provisional committee initiated a public campaign led by Joseph Lawrence, who had worked for the Hull and Barnsley Railway. His task was to set up committees in every ward in Manchester and throughout Lancashire, to raise subscriptions and sell the idea to the local public. The first meeting was held on 4 October in Manchester's Oxford Ward, followed by another on 17 October in the St. James Ward. Within a few weeks meetings had been held throughout Manchester and Salford, culminating in a conference on 3 November attended by the provisional committee and members of the various Ward Committees. A large meeting of the working classes, attended by several local notables including the general secretaries of several trade unions, was held on 13 November at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester.
Regular night-time meetings were held across the region, headed by speakers from a range of professions. Harford suggests that the organisers' choice of orators represents their "canny ability" to choose speakers who might move their audiences to support their cause. By adopting techniques used by the Anti-Corn Law League, their strategy was ultimately successful: local offices were acquired, secretaries hired and further meetings organised. The weekly Ship Canal Gazette, priced at one penny, was by the end of the year being sold at newsagents in towns across Lancashire. The Gazette was part of a prolonged print campaign organised by the committee, to circulate leaflets and pamphlets, and write supportive letters to the local press, often signed with pseudonyms. One of the few surviving leaflets, "The Manchester Ship Canal. Reasons why it Should be Made", argued against dock and railway rates, which were apparently levied "with the object of protecting the interests of Railway kings, [so that] trade is handicapped, and wages kept low". By the end of 1882 the provisional committee comprised members from several of Manchester's large industries, but notably few of the city's wealthier inhabitants. The sympathetic Manchester City News reported that "the rich men of South and East Lancashire, with a few notable exceptions, have not rivalled the enthusiasm of the general public".
Bills
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board opposed the committee's first Bill, presented late in 1882, and it was rejected by Parliament in January 1883 for breaching Standing Orders. Within six weeks the committee organised hundreds of petitions from a range of bodies across the country: one representing Manchester was signed by almost 200,000 people. The requirement for Standing Orders was dispensed with, and the represented Bill allowed to proceed. Some witnesses against the scheme expressed apprehension that a canal would cause the entrance to the Mersey estuary to silt up and block traffic; they cited the case of Chester harbour, which had silted up due to a man-made cut through the Dee estuary. Faced with conflicting evidence, Parliament rejected the Bill. Later mass meetings were held, including a large demonstration at Pomona Gardens on 24 June 1884. Strong opposition from Liverpool led the House of Commons Committee to reject the committee's second Bill on 1 August 1884.
An unresolved question, which had remained a sticking point, was that of what would happen to the Mersey estuary were the canal to be built. During questioning, an engineer for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was asked how he would avoid such a problem. His reply, "I should enter at Eastham and carry the canal along the shore until I reached Runcorn, and then I would strike inland", prompted Williams to change his design to include this suggestion. Despite continued opposition, the committee's third Bill, presented in November 1884, was passed by Parliament on 2 May 1885, and received royal assent on 6 August, becoming the (48 & 49 Vict. c. clxxxviii). Certain conditions were attached; £5 million had to be raised, and the ship canal company was legally obliged to buy both the Bridgewater Canal and the Mersey & Irwell Navigation within two years. The estimated cost of construction was £5.16 million, and the work was expected to take four years to complete.
Financing