Julian Souter Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Whilst researching original documents relating to the Staffs and Worcs Canal in Stafford Record Office, I came across an "Abstract of Cutting of Canal above Dunsley Rocks Page 27". I don't think I'm allowed to post the image but it is divided into four sections: First Depth, Second Depth, Third Depth and Fourth Depth. The left hand column appears to be headed "Stations" (difficult to decipher) under which the numbers 1-23 appear giving 23 lines across the document. Each 'Depth' has a number of columns: First Depth has 'Soil', 'Gravel', 'Rock at 1d' and 'Rock at 3d'; Second Depth has 'Soil', 'Gravel', 'Sand (?) Rock', 'Rock at 1d', 'Rock at 2d', 'Rock at 3d', 'Gravel Rock at 3d' and 'Rock at 4d'; Third Depth has 'Soil', 'Marl', 'Sand' Rock', 'Soft Rock at 1d', 'Gravel Rock' at 3d, 'Gravel Rock at 4d' and 'Rock at 6d'; Fourth Depth has 'Soil', 'Marl', 'Sand Rock', 'Soft Rock at 2' (no 'd') and 'Soft Rocks at 2d'. Various figures are entered into the boxes although most of them are blank. The First Depth has figures in all 23 lines under 'Soil'; the same is true for the Second Depth apart from line 18. Other figures are dotted around the boxes. Along the bottom each column is totalled eg First Depth Soil is 7479.8. Can anyone help me to decipher what this is all about? What are the Depths? What are the Stations? What units are assumed for the various materials? Why do the Depths have different headings/materials? Why are there so many blank boxes? (For example, there is only one entry under Gravel in the First Depth (Line 22: 109.7)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) Looks like a log of the material encountered during the excavation of the cutting. 'Stations' reprents a number of regularly spaced points along the line of the canal where cross sections have been taken. The information for each station will be the the depth at which the different materials (top soil, gravel, marl, rock etc.) were encountered at various points across the cross section. Since not all materials will be encountered at every location there will be some blanks in the data. Difficult to be more specific without seeing the document - I can't see why you shouldn't post it here. Most likely this was recorded so that the volumes of different materials excavated could be calculated and the appropriate payment made to the contractor. Edited January 14, 2020 by David Mack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 I would agree with David, suggesting further that the 2d, 6d etc figures could represent the cost of removing a specific volume of whatever material is there. If done prior to excavation, it could be used for estimating costs; if done during the work, it could be a check on what was being spent. The stations could be simpler, in that they are just the markers which were used to show the route. The specification would give the dimensions for the cross section and any requirement for puddle, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Souter Posted January 14, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Many thanks David and Pluto - what you suggest makes sense! It is an isolated document - I thought I read something when signing up to the forum that said you shouldn't post copyright material - the copyright being held by the Stafford Record Office. If I've got this wrong I'll post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartland Posted January 19, 2020 Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 John Green's notebooks, also Stafford have a detailed survey of the construction of that canal- I used that source for Silent Highways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Souter Posted January 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 Thanks Heartland. Have seen the above in Stafford as well as many other documents. I think I am due to see the construction documents this week. Do you have any reference numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Brooks Posted January 19, 2020 Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 On 14/01/2020 at 17:06, Julian Souter said: Many thanks David and Pluto - what you suggest makes sense! It is an isolated document - I thought I read something when signing up to the forum that said you shouldn't post copyright material - the copyright being held by the Stafford Record Office. If I've got this wrong I'll post it. Does not copyright only last a limited time? I can't see S&W records not being time expired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Souter Posted January 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 Tony - I've checked with the Record Office and as they have the document it's their copyright. If in the public domain it would be time limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartland Posted January 19, 2020 Report Share Posted January 19, 2020 There is a notebook which was purchased- will have to look up reference. There are also microfilm copies, which Stafford possess, which are more detailed and relate to construction and contractors including Mf 79/7, 79/8 etc The following extract was taken: Receipt Book A1— Receipts of John Baker for cutting the canal- general John Beswick, contractor (for cutting) Making wheel barrows Bricklaying, brick purchase and making Stone getting, quarrying etc Timber, carpentry etc Signatures and Marks (*) 12/9/1766 AN 7 16-0-0 Thos Tranntar 13/9/1766 AN 9 5-5-0 James Hogg 13/9/1766 AN 10 1-1-0 Saml Davis 15/9/1766 AN 11 15-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 19/9/1766 AN 2 20-0-0 Thos Tranntar 20/9/1766 AN13 3-10-0 John Rogers & co 20/9/1766 AN14 2-2-0 William Bowker and Davis 20/9/1766 AN12 12-12-0 James Hogg 21/9/1766 AN15 12-12-0 On acc John Beswick Signd John Clegg 26/9/1766 AN3 25-4-0 Thos Trantar 26/9/1766 AN16 3-3-0 William Bowker 26/9/1766 AN17 7-7-0 John Embries & Co 26/9/1766 AN18 15-15-0 On acc John Beswick Signd John Clegg 26/9/1766 AN19 14-0-0 James Hogg 1/10/1766 AN 20 40-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 4/10/1766 AN 21 17-17-0 * Ralph Shepherd Witness Thos Baker 4/10/1766 AN 4 25-4-0 Thos Tranntar 4/10/1766 AN 22 9-9-0 John Embries 4/10/1766 AN 23 4-10-0 William Bowker 9/10/1766 AN 132 10-10-0 On account of wheel barrows Thomas Burton 10/10/1766 AN 24 6-0-0 William Bowker 10/10/1766 AN 25 12-0-0 John Embries 10/10/1766 AN 26 22-0-0 James Hogg 10/10/1766 AN 5 20-0-0 Thos Tranntar 11/10/1766 AN 27 10-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 15/10/1766 AN 28 40-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 15/10/1766 AN133 5-5-0 Ironwork for wheel barrows Martin Lane 17/10/1766 AN 29 12-12-0 Richard Tilley 17/10/1766 AN 30 23-0-0 James Hogg 17/10/1766 AN 31 5-10-0 William Bowker 17/10/1766 AN 32 13-13-0 John Embries 17/10/1766 AN 6 22-0-0 Thos Tranntar 18/10/1766 AN 141 1-10-0 On acc bricklaying Thos Pratt 24/10/1766 AN 33 25-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 24/10/1766 AN 34 6-10-0 William Bowker 24/10/1766 AN 35 13-13-0 John Embries 24/10/1766 AN 7 24-0-0 Thos Tranntar 24/10/1766 AN36 12-12-0 Wm Reynolds 25/10/1766 AN 37 23-0-0 James Hogg 25/10/1766 AN 142 2-0-0 On acc bricklaying Thos Pratt 28/10/1766 AN 160 10-10-0 On acc bricks Jno Bullock 28/10/1766 AN 143 2-2-0 On acc bricklaying Thos Pratt 29/10/1766 AN 38 10-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 31/10/1766 AN39 9-9-0 Wm Reynolds 31/10/1766 AN 40 10-0-0 William Bowker 31/10/1766 AN 41 20-0-0 James Hogg 31/10/1766 AN 42 12-12-0 John Embries 31/10/1766 AN 143 2-2-0 On acc bricklaying Thos Pratt 2/111766 AN 43 2-12-6 On account John Embries 3/11/1766 AN 134 4-4-0 On account of wheel barrows Samuel Davies 7/11/1766 AN 44 46-0-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 7/11/1766 AN 45 4-0-0 Wm Reynolds 8/11/1766 AN 46 24-0-0 James Hogg 8/11/1766 AN 47 18-0-0 John Embries 8/11/1766 AN 48 11-0-0 William Bowker 8/11/1766 AN 144 3-3-0 On account Thos Pratt 8/11/1766 AN 49 2-0-0 William Bowker 13/11/1766 AN 51 52-10-0 For use of John Beswick Signd John Clegg 15/11/1766 AN 52 14-0-0 Wm Reynolds 15/11/1766 AN 53 24-3-0 James Hogg 16/11/1766 AN 54 13-13-0 William Bowker 16/11/1766 AN 55 18-18-0 John Embries 16/11/1766 AN 161 10-10-0 On acc bricks Jno Bullock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo47 Posted August 11, 2020 Report Share Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) Copyright law is complex and is constantly evolving, in part due to European jurisprudence and directives. I have not kept up to date since retiring from the legal profession some years ago, but my understanding is still that ownership of a document does not necessarily mean you own the copyright in it. I own copies of many books, but don't own the copyright in any of them, and the same principle applies to documents held by organisations. Unlike patent rights, there is no specific legal offence for unjustified assertion of ownership of copyright. I have books containing illustrations for which the National Railway Museum has claimed crown copyright, for which copyright is not only clearly not crown, but has also clearly expired , such as 200-year-old posters, century-old newspaper cuttings, and photographs taken by pre-group private railway companies: crown copyright can only exist in works created by those in the employment of the crown. While the crown can acquire copyright from others, that acquisition does not convert it to crown copyright. You do not create new copyright by making an exact copy of an existing work, new copyright has to be "original": copyright will only exist in the copy if copyright still exists in the original, and will expire when copyright in the original expires.Transfer of copyright must be effected in writing. To take legal action the purported owner would need to provide a paper trail of assignments from the creator or owner of the copyright in the original document in order to establish entitlement to the copyright in the document, as opposed to ownership of the document per se. Many of the documents held in archives are what are known as "orphan works". These are works for which the ownership of the copyright (if any) cannot be established, generally being works that have been acquired with no accompanying documentary evidence as to who owns the copyright in them. Any decent firm of patent attorneys should be up-to-date with the latest case law, and should give you a 30 min consultation for free (my firm always did) . The Patent Office and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys used to arrange free clinics in London and around the country (I regularly used to take part myself), but, given the Covid situation, I don't know what the present arrangements are. Edited August 11, 2020 by Ronaldo47 Typos, clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted August 12, 2020 Report Share Posted August 12, 2020 Words which have specific legal meanings have often become less rigorous in their definition. An apprenticeship used to be a legal transaction, but now is just a term for training, often much inferior to the original apprenticeships. Copyright is similar, as what is now suggested as copyright is actually a utility fee. Someone who holds historic old documents can charge a fee for using such documents, though the money does not cover intellectual rights, but is rather a fee to cover conservation and access to images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo47 Posted August 12, 2020 Report Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) Agreed that the meanings of words used by the public can change over time, but my understanding is that what is considered in law is the meaning which existed when legislation was passed. Copyright is legally defined in the current copyrght act and previous acts which can continue to have effect for works created before the current act came into force, and it is their wording that the courts will rely on. The courts have traditionally followed the precise wording of the relevant legislation, even where this leads to a results which defy common sense. There was a patent case a few years ago where a procedural action caused a published document to become legally unpublished, a result that the judge himself said was "bizzare". Last year there was a consultation on the possibility of the government establishing a sort of voluntary licence fee for reproducing orphan works, the money being held in trust by the government for the benefit if the actual owner of the copyright if/when their identity became known. Personally I am sceptical about this: I can envisage that, in practice, few rights owners would be found, and this raises the question of what would happen to the accummulated pot of money. From the time I spent as a civil servant, I got the impression that the Treasury would find a way of getting its hands on unclaimed pots of money, so such a scheme would in practice amount to taxation by the back door. I seem to recall that the copyright act has provisions dealing with supplying copies of documents held by archives and libraries, but it's too hot and sticky to go wading through its labrynthine depths today! Charging a reasonable fee (a copying fee) for providing a copy of a document should not really be described as a copyright fee unless the supplier does owns the copyright in it. 'Nuff said, I suppose not really on topic for this part of the forum. Edited August 12, 2020 by Ronaldo47 Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesthenuke Posted August 12, 2020 Report Share Posted August 12, 2020 Julian,can you give me some idea of what records they have of the canal, in particular are there any details of the lock houses, as we own one and would like to see any records of it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now