The great
thing about a "what if" question is that you can make your own rules.
With so many engaged in rewriting the past to fit their various bills beyond
honest speculation anything goes. The last item was about an author, so what of
others of that general era?
There has been
a documentary on Beatrix Potter recently and this is an easy one to second
guess. The author of those very special children's books was a woman with many
talents. As well as writing she was engaged in property dealing with the objective
of saving The Lakes as they were for posterity instead of being covered in
bungalows. She is admired for this as well.
But she was a
great scientist who never was. On writing a paper which deserved the attention
of the Linnean Society she was neither permitted to join it nor to read it at
their meetings. Had women been accepted she might well have become an academic
and researcher of high standing. Also, she was a fine artist, again on the
outside as a woman.
In earlier
years there had been the author "George Eliot", above, otherwise Mary
Anne Evans, again who also might have become a leading academic or commentator.
There were the Bronte sisters of Yorkshire, who were so active in the field of
letters. As daughters of a parson, what might (May?) they have become if they
had gone into politics and social reform?
Which brings
me back to that other parson's daughter, Jane Austen, who died too young. I
like to imagine her living longer and having carved out a career in the Civil
Service as a formidable administrator and organiser.
Imagine Jane
at the Board of Trade, holding a discussion in the late 1820's in private
meetings with say the Duke of Wellington
and other leading politicians and landowners on the subject of the proposed railway
between Liverpool and Manchester.
She might have
pointed out to the Duke that another prime county for railways would have
been his Hampshire and given her knowledge of the local area she would have been able to tell
him what other major families might have had to say and their objections.
Notably, that
the real investment problem was the King's Highways, in a bad state apart from
a few toll roads and all the parish roads. These heavy capital cost railways
might be very useful for short distances, industrial plant and mines but on a larger scale were financial risky with running and maintenance costs
little considered.
Also, the
benefits were restricted largely only to those places and interests served by railways and their
immediate areas. Indeed a few people might make a great profit but very
many would suffer a loss. If the money went to railways where would be the funding
for all the road works so badly needed?
Indeed steam
had a future, but surely the investment and better returns would come from the
maritime uses and in particular the vital role of the Royal Navy. In any case
the power units could be of various sizes so smaller vehicles so powered could
use the highways. Also, as there were other fuels than coal far wider scope
would be available for transport.
Which brings
me back to Beatrix Potter. Her father Rupert Potter is very underestimated man.
As a leader in the Unitarian faith at the time he was at the forefront of a
great deal in the arts, science and industry. Moreover, in 1871 when Beatrix
was quite small he was the next door neighbour of Sir Louis Mallet.
Mallet was a
KCB and Secretary to the Board of Trade, a key post. He went on to be on the
Council for India and traveled there where he would have met Auckland Colvin,
Treasurer for India, whose maternal grandfather, a clergyman, was known to Jane Austen.
"the real investment problem was the King's Highways"
ReplyDeleteStill is round here. Hit a huge pothole this morning and thought my wheel had come off.