The truth of the navigability of the River Welland up to Stamford in the 15th/16th centuries was questioned but loud, influential voices played their part in overcoming opposition to the plans to improve Stamford’s trade with other parts of the country.
This snippet from an early book on the matter shows how and why the truth sometimes got in the way!
After many false starts, in April 1664, the Stamford Corporation leased the navigation to alderman and cloth merchant Daniel Wigmore for 80 years at an annual rent of one shilling (5p). He seems to have been well regarded and was mayor of Stamford three times, in 1667-8, 1677-8 and 1684-85.
He eventually completed the canal project by 1670 at a cost of over £5,000 and was entitled to collect tolls at each lock as recompense.
So the original lease on the canal had been Daniel Wigmore's. This was passed on to his son-in-law, Charles Halford who had married Wigmore's daughter Frances.
The amount of coal brought to Stamford each year was said to be in the order of 3,800 tons.
After Wigmore's death in 1687, his son-in-law Charles Halford applied for a new canal lease of 80 years. Negotiations with Stamford Corporation dragged on, but in 1703 it was agreed that Halford could have a new lease - if he paid a fee of £100, repaired the bridge at Hudd's Mill and reimbursed the corporation for work done on the bank near Stamford Bridge.
His case however was unsuccessful, so he tried again in 1706 protesting the tax had reduced traffic from 3,000 to 500 chaldrons.
During the 1700s the lease passed on to Sir Felix and Dame Anna Feast and then to Edward and Frances Buckley.
The canal must, however, have continued to be profitable as the lease was sub-let in 1814 for £40 per annum.
The lease for the canal was obtained from the mayor of Stamford and the Council. Those persons who had the lease for the stretch from Stamford to Deeping St. James, via the canal and river navigation, were responsible for the condition of the canal. They had to ensure the bed was cleansed and scoured. They had to ensure that the banks, ditches and bridges were kept in good repair together with the drains and locks. If, after three months notice of the need for maintenance, nothing had been done, the Corporation could claim the canal's profits to enable the repairs to be made.
In 1815 the Corporation took such action against Felix Buckley because his section of the canal had fallen into disrepair. The canal had remained in private hands and, from 1815, the various owners' efforts at maintaining its banks were dwindling.
Thomas Smith and his heirs had the lease in 1830. By 1832, trade had halved and the reduced tolls compounded the ongoing maintenance problem. By 1850, the waterway was described as "almost derelict".
By 1860, the locks were leaking and the canal was difficult to navigate by boat. In 1863, all water-borne trade ceased.
< Back Canal finances were held by the Lease Holders
The Stamford Canal << The earliest proper canal in England? <<
