BILSTON CANAL ACT.

Envy, like a dark shadow, follows closely the footsteps of prosperity; success in any undertaking, out of the circle of genius, produces a rival.—­This I have instanced in our hackney coaches.

Profits, like a round-bellied bottle, may seem bulky, which, like that, will not bear dividing:  Thus Orator Jones, in 1774, opened a debating society at the Red Lion; he quickly filled a large room with customers, and his pockets with money, but he had not prudence to keep either.  His success opened a rival society at the King’s-head, which, in a few weeks, annihilated both.

The growing profits of our canal company, already mentioned, had increased the shares from 140_l_. in 1768, to 400 guineas, in 1782.  These emoluments being thought enormous, a rival company sprung up, which, in 1783, petitioned Parliament to partake of those emoluments, by opening a parallel cut from some of the neighbouring coal-pits; to proceed along the lower level, and terminate in Digbeth.

A stranger might ask, “How the water in our upland country, which had never supplied one canal, could supply two?  Whether the second canal was not likely to rob the first?  Whether one able canal is not preferable to two lame ones?  If a man sells me an article cheaper than I can purchase it elsewhere, whether it is of consequence to me what are his profits?  And whether two companies in rivalship would destroy that harmony which has long subsisted in Birmingham.”

The new company urged, “The necessity of another canal, lest the old should not perform the business of the town; that twenty per cent. are unreasonable returns; that they could afford coals under the present price; that the south country teams would procure a readier supply from Digbeth, than from the present wharf, and not passing through the streets, would be prevented from injuring the pavement; and that the goods from the Trent would come to their wharf by a run of eighteen miles nearer than to the other.”

The old company alledged, “That they ventured their property in an uncertain pursuit, which, had it not succeeded, would have ruined many individuals; therefore the present gains were only a recompense for former hazard:  that this property was expended upon the faith of Parliament, who were obliged in honour to protect it, otherwise no man would risk his fortune upon a public undertaking; for should they allow a second canal, why not a third; which would become a wanton destruction of right, without benefit; that although the profit of the original subscribers might seem large, those subscribers are but few; many have bought at a subsequent price, which barely pays common interest, and this is all their support; therefore a reduction would be barbarous on one side, and sensibly felt on the other:  and, as the present canal amply supplies the town and country, it would be ridiculous to cut away good land to make another, which would ruin both.”