The Stamford Canal book Chapter 5

The Demise and Sale of the Stamford Canal

By 1832 the canal was not being well maintained and had fallen into such a bad state that its trade had halved and, as a result, the tolls had diminished. Heavy goods were still being carried on the canal as late as 1844, but by 1860 the canal had become almost impossible to navigate. The locks needed repairing and water was escaping into the river because of the poor maintenance of the canal banks.

The demise of the canal was a result of the growth in rail transport. In 1852 the railway came to the area. A line passed close to Tallington which necessitated the construction of a bridge over the canal to enable barges to continue to use the waterway. In 1857 the following was reported locally. "The trade in timber and coal and the general traffic of the place (Stamford) that was, previously to the opening of the Midland Counties Railway, promoted by the Welland navigation. However this was, at times, precarious due to the deficiency of water. The rail, however, which now engrosses the carrying traffic, presents a swift and uninterrupted mode of conveyance for goods and passengers".

Birch's 'Industrial History of Stamford' states that " By 1850 no seaborne coal was on sale in Stamford. The canal being almost derelict. The railways had direct links with the coalfields of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and thus could offer it at 15 shillings and 6 pence (approximately 78p) per ton. The warehouses along Wharf Road were likewise little used." Road and rail travel was now quicker than canal.

The Borough Surveyor's report on 26 September 1863 detailed the many repairs needed. He advised that the two lock gates and the floor of the West Deeping lock be repaired as well as the lock pen and walls. The footbridge in West Deeping also needed repairing. Scouring and cleaning, cutting back undergrowth, back dykes clearing and repointing and repairing walls, all needed to be done before the canal would be navigable. It was decided that the expense would not be worthwhile as the canal had been superseded by rail transport.

In 1864 it was agreed that parts of the canal should be sold, and in 1865 a committee settled a draft of the proposed auction and suggested the council give them full powers to sell. The sale was duly advertised in the 'Rutland and Stamford Mercury' on 31st March 1865 in 24 lots:- 'all that freehold canal and new cut... from the parish of St. George in Stamford to the Tongue End, Market Deeping'.

Although the Rutland and Stamford Mercury of 1865 carried a notice about the intended sale of the canal and navigation, the actual sale did not take place. A bill had been filed in Chancery at the behest of the Earl of Lindsey, praying for an injunction to restrain the proposed sale of the navigation and a notice was given to the Town Clerk (of Stamford), signed by Messrs. Wing and Du Cane (solicitors to Lord Lindsey) stating that an interim order had been made by the Vice Chancellor Kindersley, ordering that the Corporation be restrained from selling the said navigation.

A local newspaper carried the following report on the halting of the sale of the canal:-

Welland navigation, the sale of the site of which has been stopped by an order from the Vice-Chancellor's Court. There were present the Mayor, Aldermen Handson, Simpson, and Clapton, and Councillors Michelson, Bromhead, Paradise, Higgins, Patterson, Browning, Morgan, Browne, Robbs, Langley, and Law. And that on the 8th inst. an order was served on the Town clerk, whereby the corporation was restrained from selling the new cut and towing paths until the 20th inst. or further order, and giving notice of motion for an injunction. The committee therefore directed a notice of postponement of the proposed sale to be issued.

Another report in the local press stated that:-

The Town clerk read the whole of the proceedings of the committee since the last Council meeting. The last of their reports stated that after advertisements had been published announcing the proposed sale by auction of the Welland canal or New Cut, in accordance with a resolution of the Council, a notice, dated the 6th of April, signed by Chas. Alex. Gore, as Commissioner of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue, was served on the Town Clerk, stating that her Majesty was entitled to certain parts of the canal, and denying the right of the corporation to sell the soil or freehold of the said premises; and that the event of the Corporation destroying or obstructing the navigation, or interfering with the Crown, legal proceedings would be taken for the protection of the rights and interests of her Majesty and her tenants. That a notice had also been received by the Town Clerk from Mr. A. Percival, clerk to the Drainage Board of the Maxey district, that they also will oppose by legal process anything that will cause the discontinuance of the present channels for the drainage of the waters of the Welland and (if the navigation is discontinued) the continuance of any of the locks or weirs. (This notice was incomprehensible to the committee). That a bill has been filed in Chancery at the instigation of the Earl of Lindsey, praying for an injunction to restrain the proposed sale of the navigation; and a notice given to the Town Clerk, signed by Messrs. Wing and Du Cane (solicitors to Lord Lindsey), that an interim order had been made by the Vice Chancellor Kindersley, ordering that the Corporation be restrained from selling the said navigation

A special meeting of the Town Council of Stamford was held on Wednesday evening "to consider the course to be adopted in regard to the Welland Navigation, and to receive a report from the Welland Navigation Committee and to make order thereon". There were present the Mayor, Ald. Simpson, Smith, Whincup and Chapman, & Messrs. Patterson, Robbs, Paradise, Law, Broomhead, Michelson, Wright, Dent, Charge, & W Higgins. It appeared from the committee's report that in consequence of a complaint by some of the inhabitants of Tallington of the state of the bed of the canal in that parish, a representation of the grievance was communicated to Mr. Du Cane, the agent of the Earl of Lindsey, with a suggestion that if the injunction issued against the Corporation, restraining the sale of the property, were withdrawn, an amicable arrangement might be come to, by arbitration or otherwise, for the settlement of the point of the dispute.

Mr Du Cane replied to the effect that if the Town Council would appoint a deputation of two or three of the members, with plenary powers to negotiate on equitable conditions, he would meet with them and endeavour to bring the matter to a satisfactory issue. The Committee had entertained the proposal, and recommended that the deputation should consist of the Mayor and Mr. Paradise with the Town Clerk.

This report having been read, the Council resolved itself into committee and thus considered privately the course to be pursued. Mr law was added to the deputation, to whom the necessary powers were given. A letter from Mr Markham, giving notice of his withdrawal from the bond which he signed as security for one of the Corporation lessees, on the ground that it was oppressive and inequitable, was ordered to be recorded on the minutes.

A newspaper article was published in the 1860's concerning the Welland Navigation. It stated that 'Sir John Trollop (who owned land in the area around Uffington) had an interview with the Borough Magistrates at the Town Hall Stamford, on Saturday last respecting the abandoned Welland navigation'.

The Rt. Hon. Baronet said that that while at the House of Commons on Thursday night Lord Robert Montagu, the vice President of the privy council accosted him, and asked him, as a resident of the neighbourhood, for information relative to the state of the canal, saying that some parties had made a representation to the Privy Council that it was injurious in a sanitary point of view to villages through which it passes. He told Lord Robert he was coming to Stamford on other business and that he would take the liberty of naming it to the Corporation or Justices of Stamford, and tell them it was creating attention and that it was worthy of their consideration or they might get into difficulties about it. The question was, how would the corporation deal with it? There could be no doubt that in hot weather, when the water became low, the canal was very disagreeable; people threw filth into it, and, half mud half water, with a strong scum upon it, it could certainly not be pleasant. Of his own knowledge he could not say that it had affected anybody's health; he did not think it had. He should very likely have an opportunity that day of seeing some of Lord Lindsey's people, and if any suggestion could come from the gentlemen he was addressing he might be the means of communicating it.

Mr Paradise observed that the Earl of Lindsey was the very party who obstructed the solution of the question. Sir John Trollop said the dispute involved a nice point: he had looked into the Act of Parliament, and he thought the question would be, if the canal was left in its present state, whether a bill might not be filed in Chancery to compel the Corporation to keep it in order. Mr. Paradise said the Corporation had eminent legal advice that they could not be compelled to do that. Sir John Trollop said it was a question whether the Corporation had a right to the soil and he seemed to think that on the canal being abandoned by the Corporation it would revert to the original owner of the soil, under the operation of the Lands Clauses Act.

Mr. Phillips said that Act would not apply in the present instance and Mr. Paradise observed that the Corporation had the opinions of barristers that they had the fee of the bed and banks of the river. Sir John Trollop did not attach very much importance to 'opinions'. What he was going to say was and he had no personal interest in the matter, that the best course to pursue would be for the Earl of Lindsey to withdraw the injunction, and then let the whole matter be left to arbitration. Mr. Paradise said he had no douht that the Town Council would, if the injunction were withdrawn, listen favourably to any reasonable proposal. Some further remarks were made Sir John Trollop intimated that he should state to the Vice-President oi the Privy Council that the canal was a nuisance to some villages adjoining it.

Mr. O. N. Simpson, on behalf of the Corporation, thanked Sir John for his attention and advice matter.

A subsequent report, by the Welland Navigation Committee, to the Stamford Town Council, stated that a certain part of the bed and banks of the Welland Navigation were to be disposed to Lord Lindsey. The sum stated was £￿81.00.

There were many newspaper reports, both of the meetings of the Navigation Committee, appointed by Stamford Town Council, and of the full Town Council itself, about the problems of selling of the Stamford Canal and river navigation. only a few of these reports have been included to give a taste of the problems incurred in officially closing and disposing of the canal.

By 1867, things had not improved, for on the 7th May Mr. J.M. Molecey composed a letter wishing to draw to the attention of the Corporation of Stamford the unhealthy and filthy state of the canal, which ran in front of his house and premises (a large mill on the main road just to the west of Market Deeping). "The bottom and surface are covered with green slime and over the last few warm days it has got so bad that even a duck could not paddle through it." He declared that the stench at night was abominable and unless immediate steps were taken to remedy the evil he was afraid of a serious result. Mr. Molecey asked one of his judicial men to inspect the river if he should be passing. It was agreed that something should be done immediately; otherwise serious illness would occur, not only to Mr. Molecey but also to the occupants in the nearby dwellings. Under the 1855 Disease Prevention Act, the river and new cut were considered to have an accumulation of weeds and filth causing them to be highly offensive and injurious to the health of humans.

It was not until 24 December 1868 that a notice was finally affixed to the Stamford Town Hall announcing the intended sale of the Navigable River or New Cut and the locks, sluices, floodgates and buildings connected. (A list of the various lots for sale is given in the appendix at the back of this book).

Below is a list of the landowners who owned land abutting the canal together with details of the yardage they possessed:-

Land on the right belonging to:- Lord Lindsay - 946 yards; Seth Smith - 137 yards; Mr. Addy - 186 yards; Seth Smith - 8 yards; Henry Hetly - 152 yards; River Welland - 1210 yards; Mr. Molecey - 223 yards; River Welland - 34 yards; Feoffees of West Deeping - 158 yards.

Others who owned land through which the canal passed included:- The Rector of West Deeping - 90 yards; Crown Lands - 310 yards; W Jones - 14O yards; Seth Smith - 309 yards; Crown Lands – 783 yards; Mr. Molecey - 54 yards; Turnpike Commissioners - 1681 yards.

Elizabeth Wright Hetly (nee Figg) a widow of Long Orton, Huntingdon, claimed a right and interest in the canal bed and soil. In 1872 she paid £￿8-5 shillings for 1,075 yards in length together with the locks, sluices, floodgates and buildings connected to the canal in the parish of West Deeping.

There was some discussion regarding Lot 18. Comment in minutes recorded that so much of this lot as did not abut upon the Crown Land Mr. Molecey offered to purchase, and if the Crown would waive any right to the remainder he would also purchase that part. A large number of the lots of the canal and navigation were never actually sold and, it is said that, because of the failure to sell all the lots, the Stamford Canal has never been officially closed.

The filthy and unhygienic state of the canal, as it passed through West Deeping, became a major cause of concern to the residents. Mr. John Hyde, a local farmer, constructed a bridge over the canal as it crossed the main street in the village. Stamford council objected to the bridge as an obstruction and sent a letter demanding its removal. In his reply Mr. Hyde was adamant that his cattle should not have to wade through smelly water, each morning and evening, as they went from his yard to the meadow and back. It also made the most disagreeable smell in front of his house that at times was most obnoxious. He added that all of his family had been ill and that recently he had buried one of his children. The two respectable medical men who had attended them were of the opinion that the bad state of the canal had been the chief cause of the illnesses that they had incurred. Mr. Hyde said that he would be wining to remove the bridge if a remedy could be found to the poor state of the water in the canal. Howeverq he said, that until the canal was cleansed he wanted the bridge to remain. He pointed out that the height of the bridge did allow the water to flow freely beneath it. According to the West Deeping vestry Minutes, the members of that committee decided that the wooden bridge over the canal should be taken down and the road levelled. A small tunnel was to be made under the road to carry off the surplus drainage of the village.

During 1872 disease was rife in West Deeping, not helped by the condition of the canal. Several people died of typhoid, including Samuel Skerritt, aged two years; Sarah Ann Henson, aged eleven and Mary Ann Merreshaw, aged fifty-one. If a search was to be carried out of the council records, for the villages along the route of the canal, many such tales might be found of the stench of the canal and illness resulting from its poor state.

Many years later the Boat River (the canal) was reported as a regular disease breeder. An approach was made to ask the Uffington Rural district council to have the area filled in for, although complaints had been made to the Sanitary Authorities the previous fifteen years, nothing had been done.

The first meeting of the West Deeping Parish Council took place in the Old School Room in the year 1894. They were very concerned over the bad state of the Boat River and the stench that arose from it. During 1903, a letter was sent to the Uffington Rural District Council, asking them to lay pipes from the rectory garden, in West Deeping, to a culvert. In 1916, they were suggesting that pipes should be laid and covered over, and a roadway provided to the fields in the Back Lane. Complaints had been received that the stench from the Boat River was particularly bad during the summer months.

The whole venture of piping and filling in the Boat River was a long drawn-out process that lasted many years. Continual requests were made to the Rural District Council (R.D.C.) for help towards the cost of thc piping. Estimates were needed for twelve inch pipes. At the R.D.C. meeting in 1921, Mr. Porter of West Deeping Manor stressed that in the village a good deal of illness had occurred which could be attributed to the unhealthy and insanitary conditions of the Boat River. He went on to say that the estimated cost of the work to be done would be around £￿0. It was agreed that Mr. Porter and the Clerk to the R.D.C. would see what could be done. At the meeting in February 1922, it was suggested that the Boat River should be partially piped and filled in, but at the parish's own expense. The District Council promised to provide labour to fill the carts lent by farmers, with soil from Stowe Road. The purchase cost was approved for the 30 yards of pipe and shortly afterwards the pipes arrived, but in October 1923, it was considered that the water was too high for any work to be undertaken. Later some filling in may have begun because William Bennington received payment in June 1924, for some work done to the Boat River. Two years later it was resolved that a further 22 yards should be filled in.

In 1928 a dam was constructed in the rectory garden. Pipes were laid and the mud cleaned out of the lower drain. In 1930 the council decided that if there were any unemployed men in the village, the clerk to the council should be empowered to set them to work. They were expected to fill in the bottom end of the old Boat River near the rectory garden, and would be paid out of the council funds. Complaints were continually made about the depositing of rubbish, old tins and glass bottles in the Back Lane. By 1932 the Boat River still proved to be a danger to the stock passing through on their way to the fields. The council paid several men 5 shillings (25p) to clear the whole area bordering the Boat River. The late Mr. Jeremiah Neal, who lived in a cottage under the Archway in West Deeping, told the 'Stamford Mercury' that once the Boat River was filled in, it seemed to make the village more susceptible to flooding.

 

 The Stamford Canal << The earliest proper canal in England? <<

LighterLogo2