Jump to content

Canal construction


Julian Souter

Featured Posts

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

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 by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

  • 6 months later...

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 by Ronaldo47
Typos, clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by Ronaldo47
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.