Early Navigations and the builders responsible

[Heartland]

The creation of the UK navigations may have had a genesis in existing rivers where tidal and non tidal sections had  sufficient depth to float some form of craft goes back long into historical past, but the concept of changing a river coarse and building a lock was a subsequent development. The names of those people responsible for the early changes are are often forgotten, but in the eighteenth century, pre canal age, there was a period where navigations were improved for the Aire, Calder, Irwell, Mersey as well as parts of the Thames, Warwickshire Avon and Wye. 

 

The Lancashire and Yorkshire Waterways became important navigations, but again many of the people involved in building the locks and making the navigation to Leeds, Wakefield and Manchester created a reservoir of building skills that were passed onto to sons and grandsons which became so important in building the canal and railways of the UK.

    

[mark99]

The River Wey was an early nav. Late 17th Century.

 

It's archeology and history was investigated by the late Christopher K Currie on behalf of National Trust including field investigations and structure surveys. A very large piece of work to which below is a tiny extract. I have a link somewhere if anyone wants it. Chris left behind a huge volume or works - he specialised in fish ponds and waterways.

 

3.6 The making of the Navigation: the people and politics

It is not intended that this report should cover the political wrangling concerned with creation of the Navigation, as this has been covered in detail by Corke (1995). It should be sufficient to provide a summary here, and to move on to the effect that the construction had on the landscape of the Wey valley.

 

Sir Richard Weston seems to have originated the idea for the creation of the Navigation as it presently exists. As early as the 1630s he seems to have been considering schemes to create a navigation from London to Arundel via the Wey. According to William Bray the idea had been formulated soon after the successful completion of the 'flowing river'. It was not until 1635 that anything positive was done to push the scheme forward. In this year Weston was one of 24 people employed by Charles I to make enquiry into the possibilities of making a navigation from London to Arundel. Before Weston left England in 1644, it was said that he had reached agreement with all the landowners needed to bring a navigation from Weybridge to Guildford. Unfortunately, the Civil War put a temporary hold on the scheme.

 

By the time Weston returned to England, the political situation had changed, and Parliament was the ruling authority. To advance his scheme further, Weston seems to have decided to use the influence of a Parliamentarian army officer, James Pitson. In December of 1650 a successful presentation was made to Parliament on behalf of the Guildford Borough to make the Wey navigable. On 26th June 1651 the enabling Act was passed, entitled 'An act for Making Navigable the River of Wye [sic]'. Originally 24 shares of £250 each were raised to pay for the project, but these were found to be insufficient, and further funds had to be raised. Within the first nine months it is said that about three quarters of artificial cut necessary was completed. This had used up all the money raised from the shares, plus an estimated £2000 worth of timber taken from the Weston estates. This was still not enough, and a further four shares worth an additional £1000 were sold to raise more money (Manning & Bray 1804-14, iii, lv). The Borough of Guildford was quick to bow out of the proceedings, passing their interest to four appointed men, John Howe, John Waltham, Richard Scotcher and James Pitson. Howe and Waltham also passed on their responsibilities, leaving the work of construction in the hands of Pitson and Scotcher. The land through which the new cuttings had to be made was bought by the equivalent of a compulsory purchase. Work was said to have started in August or September 1651. Sir Richard Weston agreed to undertake the construction, but died in May 1653 before the work was completed. There then followed a complex sequence of events whereby the rest of the work was finished by Pitson, and the Navigation opened to traffic in November 1653. To finance the work Pitson and Scotcher were forced to sell a third of their interest to Richard Darnelly of London (Corke 1995, 15-20).

 

It would appear that Pitson had left many people unpaid, both for work done and for land taken. This led to a series of disputes, which caused the Navigation to be neglected. By 1657 Richard Scotcher had been sufficiently alienated from his former partner to issue a pamphlet denouncing the Pitson's actions. This document is entitled 'A Short Narrative of the proceedings concerning the making the river Wey Navigable, and the severall transactions sinc it was begun unto this time, beeing November, 1657' (SAS Library PF/GFD/266).

This document is not short at all, being some 15 pages long. It is clearly a one sided opinion, seemingly from a man who had become much embittered by events. The basis of Scotcher's arguments was that Pitson had made promises to various people that had not been kept, and that money owed to others connected with the project had been retained by Pitson. The exact details need not concern us. The reader will find a copy of Scotcher's statement attached to this report as Appendix 2.

 

On the Restoration of Charles II, William Dickinson of Middle Temple was appointed trustee to try to sort out the many problems that had arisen. Dickinson had originally been appointed to look after the interests that the Weston family still held in the scheme. There then ensued a long fight between the various vested interests with one John Radcliffe.

Radcliffe had obtained a royal commission to look after the Crown's interest in the Navigation in 1662, after he had claimed that it passed through Royal Forest. He tried to obtain an Act of Parliament to gain control of the Navigation, but was strongly resisted by the other interests and failed in his objective. In 1664 he tried to gain control again by applying for a Royal Patent. Under this the profits were suspended until the issue was settled by the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, but again no decision was forthcoming. By now the affair had become even further complicated by the increasing number of claimants involved.

 

In 1670 William Sandys took over Radcliffe's claim, and passed it on to Thomas Tindall and Thomas Cressy. These two also obtained Pitson's claim. Quite how any of these people became involved is not entirely clear, although both Corke (1995, 29-30), Manning and Bray (1804-14, iii, lvi-lvii) and Vine (1986, 10-15) offer partial explanations, but none of these fully resolve the question. Eventually it was decided that a new Act of Parliament was needed to resolve everything. The old Act of 1651 was relegated to the status of a 'pretended act', and new powers were awarded vesting the interests of the claimants with trustees. As part of these arrangements it was agreed that the Corporation of Guildford should henceforth receive 1d for every ton carried. Mr Dalmahoy, the owner of lands to the north of the town, should be granted 4d for every ton carried through his lands, and rent of £20 per annum on the wharf at Dapdune. In return the Navigation was given passage through his lands, and a 1000 year lease on Dapdune. Lord Montague, Lord of the manor of Send and Ripley was granted 2 1/2d on every ton that passed through the river.

 

According to Manning and Bray (1804-14, iii, lvii) there were still 87 claims to be settled after 1671. Finally in 1674 Dickinson, Tindall and Cressy decided to unite their interests, and divide them into two equal moieties. The Trustees agreed to this, and appointed these parties as the managers and receivers of the river. There was some minor resistance ti this arrangement by a man called Lander, but this does not appear to have been successful.

Dickinson died in 1675, and his rights were divided between Mrs Anne Smithsby and others. Mrs Smithsby eventually managed to reunite these shares in her own hand. It was not until 1677 that Mrs Smithsby, Tindall and Cressy got possession. They found the river in a ruinous condition. Sir Nicholas Stoughton is supposed to have taken the law into his own hands when his claim to money owed was not met. Manning and Bray (1804-14, iii, lvii-lviii) claim that he cut down five of the locks, and threw down the banks in a number of places. This was largely a dispute over the sharing of water between the Navigation and Stoke Mills. According to his claim, he lost money every time a barge passed Stoke as it was necessary to close off water to the mill to allow sufficient depth of water in the Navigation for passage. This was eventually settled by agreeing to pay him, as owner of Stoke Mill, so much for every barge that passed that mill. The Proprietors of the Navigation were also obliged to come to similar agreements with Woking and Newark Mills. The problem of sharing water with these mills continued to plague the Navigation throughout its history (cf. GMR 129/86/1-5).

 

In 1676 Thomas Cressy died, and his share was purchased by the Tindall interest. The Smithsby moiety passed briefly to Anthony Gawdy in 1679, who died soon after. This share eventually passed to the family of the earls of Portmore. Thomas Tindall followed his former partner in 1681, leaving his claim to his daughter, Mary. She had married George Langton of Lincoln, and their family subsequently became joint owners with the Portmores. Both families were fortunately long-lived, continuing to hold their rights in the Navigation throughout the 18th and well into the 19th century. This, at last, gave the Navigation the stable ownership it needed, and its history became gradually more settled after c. 1681. Nevertheless, there can be no question that the thirty years between 1651 and 1681 were difficult times for the new undertaking.

 

One must assume that somehow those involved in its everyday operation had continued to function reasonably well in spite of the often acrimonious bickering that seems to have continued behind the scenes. The picture of decay and neglect that so many of the histories give may be one-sided, as it is difficult to imagine if things were really so bad as the protagonists would have it, that the Navigation survived at all. For example, in the years when the dispute was at its keenest, 1654-1662, considerable sums were still being collected as riverage. During this time £7330-5-6d was taken in tolls. Admittedly, the share of this money is greater in the years at the beginning of this period, but it seems that even during the worst periods traffic still managed to produce a modest revenue (GMR 129/61/2)"

Edited April 10, 2021 by mark99

[Heartland]

That was a very useful comment which relates to the Wey Navigation

 

It would be of interest what notes there are on John Hadley and Samuel Shelton and their associated with the Aire & Calder Navigation