The Henley coach approaching Oxford along

the turnpike road from London, 1830s

 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, individual turnpike trusts in England were created through local initiatives. Adjoining trusts coordinated their activities and in some cases shared trustees, so that the roads formed a network and new routes were developed simultaneously. However, these arrangements were generally on a county scale and there was no direction by central government. In many cases, county boundaries defined the limit of responsibility for an individual trust and County Justices exercised their duties alongside the local trustees. Hence, it is reasonable to consider English turnpikes on a county basis, though recognising that they grew into a national highway network on which the mercantile, economic and political strength of London exercised a strong influence.

 

The influence of London-bound traffic is evident in the dates at which turnpikes were created. Counties such as Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire had several turnpikes covering the radial roads from London by the 1730s, whereas no roads in the remote counties in the Southwest and parts of Northern of England were turnpiked until after the 1750s. The majority of turnpike trusts took responsibility for linear sections of the existing main highway passing through a string of parishes between key market towns. This was especially the pattern in the counties around London where travel was principally along a few well established corridors such as the old Post Roads. However, in counties more than 100 miles distant from the capital, an alternative structure became common. In the west of England, turnpike trusts took responsibility for all the commonly used roads running into large cities such as Exeter, Bath and Bristol. This mirrors earlier attempts to finance maintenance of roads that converged on a large market, such as the Oxford Mileways Act in 1567, through which remote parishes were obliged to aid repairs to the last mile of highway entering the city. The urban centred turnpike trusts controlled and maintained much greater distances out along the web of surrounding roads leading from smaller communities. Some radial roads were only a few miles long, terminating in small villages and only connected to the network through the urban hub. Even relatively small market towns in the west, such as Chard, Taunton, Sherborne and Shaftesbury favoured urban-centred trusts, even though major, long-distance highways passed through the centre. It must be remembered that only a small fraction of the mileage of road through a parish was normally turnpiked; the bulk of the local roads remained the responsibility of the parish, repaired by Statute Labour or local taxation. Only the main highways, carrying travellers through the parish, were normally turnpiked.

 

The different pattern of turnpike development may reflect the way tolls fell on the various communities. Around London most travellers were paying tolls on roads that were well outside their local sphere of influence. The tolls were levied on outsiders who where wearing down the main roads though a parish, which got no benefit from this traffic. In remote areas, a smaller proportion of traffic would be on long distance journey and more of those paying tolls would be from local parishes. Complaints made to the Exeter Trust may be typical in claiming that “we in remote Parish A are paying a toll to go into the city, but get no help with maintenance of our parish road, whereas roads in Parish B, midway into the City get help – it’s not fair, please include our small bit of road in the maintenance programme”. Such appeals would come from within the county community and be made between gentlemen who would know each other. Hence, the trusts were under more pressure to maintain minor radial roads – often at a disproportionate administrative cost compared to the benefit of easier carriage of goods to market.

 

Differences in the topology, access to competing water-borne transport, sources of wealth in the area and proximity to the homes and resorts of the rich made for significant differences in the pattern of turnpike development in particular counties. The rapid rise in manufacture in the towns of Northern England led to the creation of many totally new routes in the 19th century, whereas in southern counties highways to markets were well established and improvements to existing routes were more likely. One large exception to this pattern was the Holyhead Road, a bold political statement related to the governing of Ireland and almost unique as a government backed initiative. Coach traffic in particular was likely to bring new business to intermediate towns and some trusts tried to make improvements that would attract traffic through there town. Success in persuading the Mail to use the road would be expected to increase overall traffic, bringing more wealth to the inns and those supplying these hostelries with food, provender and services.

 

The steep decline in long-distance road travel due to the arrival of railways followed a similar pattern to the original diffusion of road turnpiking, but at a much faster pace. The pressures that finally led to the closure of turnpike trusts were national, expressed through Acts of Parliament that brought large clutches of trusts to an end with no regard to county. Hence, in most counties the years in which turnpike closure occurred was similar, a prelude to the eventual creation of County Councils and a true county based organisation of roads.

 

Summaries of the turnpike system in individual counties can be found by clicking on the links below.

 

 

Turnpike mileage and milestone numbers by English County

COUNTY

Estimated Turnpike Mileage

Area (1000 acres)

turnpike miles per 100 acre

Guess at Total surviving milestones#

% of originals surviving

Total Milestones Listed by EH

BEDFORDSHIRE

220

305

0.6

18

8%

1

BERKSHIRE *

210

 

 

102

49%

86

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

210

477

3.1

147

70%

16

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

200

 

 

138

69%

104

CHESHIRE

520

649

4.5

295

57%

70

CORNWALL

380

881

5.7

500

132%

340

CUMBRIA

590

 

 

260

44%

188

DERBYSHIRE

600

635

3.0

188

31%

116

DEVON

830

1657

2.4

400

48%

131

DORSET

480

623

3.7

228

48%

53

DURHAM

520

649

2.4

155

30%

75

EAST YORKSHIRE

 

 

 

112

 

17

ESSEX

280

907

1.3

119

43%

52

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

1060

804

2.7

220

21%

148

HAMPSHIRE

670

962

3.5

335

50%

106

HEREFORDSHIRE

510

539

4.6

250

49%

107

HERTFORDSHIRE

260

403

2.2

90

35%

62

KENT

647

921

1.8

165

26%

25

LANCASHIRE

740

 

 

110

15%

77

LEICESTERSHIRE

 

534

1.3

72

 

50

LINCOLNSHIRE

465

1704

0.8

140

30%

81

MIDDLESEX

170

 

 

65

 

0

NORFOLK

350

1314

2.7

350

100%

18

NORTH YORKSHIRE

 

 

 

400

 

247

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

450

585

0.5

30

7%

11

NORTHUMBERLAND

400

1291

1.6

210

53%

162

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

340

539

0.6

35

10%

10

OXFORDSHIRE *

330

 

 

190

58%

71

RUTLAND

70

97

1.0

10

14%

6

SHROPSHIRE

750

862

3.5

300

40%

159

SOMERSET

930

1032

2.8

285

31%

214

SOUTH YORKSHIRE

 

 

 

144

 

111

STAFFORDSHIRE

760

740

5.2

387

51%

188

SUFFOLK

280

948

1.6

150

54%

15

SURREY

290

415

4.0

165

57%

20

SUSSEX

700

932

0.7

65

9%

0

WARWICKSHIRE

460

624

0.7

45

10%

14

WEST YORKSHIRE

 

3897

2.6

340

 

233

WILTSHIRE

630

860

4.4

380

60%

302

WORCESTERSHIRE

660

449

5.1

230

35%

29

 

 

 

 

7825

 

3821

* Old Counties of Oxon and Berks differ significantly from current

 

All Yorks

 

# based on MSS surveys

 

 

 

 
 


This page created by Alan Rosevear 16th Oct 2008.

Last Edited 5th Feb 2009