Josias Jessop, having not only surveyed and planned the route of the canal but also designed all the bridges, aqueducts and lock- keepers cottages now only paid infrequent visits to view progress preferring to leave the civil engineer and clerk to the works, May Upton, to supervise the construction and oversee the work of the local contractor from Alfold, Mr Zachariah Keppel. This was quite a considerable undertaking as not only did the canal have to be dug to a width of 30 feet and 3’ 6” deep but, in all, a total of 23 locks, 35 bridges, 8 wharves, 5 lock cottages and 2 aqueducts had to be built as well as digging nearly 2,000 yards of new course for the river Arun. Monthly reports were made and by the end of 1813 3 miles of canal had been completed.
In May 1814 work was begun at the southern end and construction of the canal bridge at Newbridge began in July. Things were progressing well and about a third of the canal had been built when problems started to arise. Zachariah Keppel, having underestimated the magnitude of the task, ran into financial difficulties and went bankrupt. Also the winter months proved extremely wet and work was further delayed by the need to bail out the workings frequently, and finally the discovery of the bed of sand in Alfold cutting required a double lining of clay. Despite all these problems May Upton tried to ensure that work progressed as smoothly as possible. Throughout 1815 work progressed slowly and it became apparent that the canal would not open that year as planned, although the section to Bramley was opened on 18th December and the first tolls taken.
The final call to shareholders for their last payment was made in February 1816 and the £90,500 that the Act authorized the raising of was complete. However, as in many building projects, extra money was needed because of the extra costs incurred by the failure of the contractor, larger than expected legal costs and buying the land proving to be more expensive than anticipated. In total they were about £11,370 short. Fortunately the terms of the Act allowed the company to raise a further £9,500 by either calling for a further call of £10 a share from the holders or to mortgage the tolls. So it was decided to make a final call to the shareholders. Not all responded favourably and those who did not respond favourably forfeited a total of fifty shares which were auctioned for £94 each, all of which were bought by Lord Egremont whose holding now stood at 28% of the equity. The canal was officially opened on the 29th September 1816 amid much pomp and ceremony and a grand day was had by all and the event was widely reported in the press.
The Wey and Arun Junction Canal had taken six years to complete from start to finish but only three years were spent actually digging the canal and building the infrastructure; no mean achievement. The benefits became immediately apparent when a barge carrying coal that had been following in the wake of the processions sold coal to the townspeople of Guildford for 50 shillings (£2.50) a Chaldron* instead of the usual three guineas (63 shillings or £3.15).
* A London Chaldron = around 28 cwt, or 3,136 lb (1,422 kg).
Brewhurst Lock: 2009
Drungewick Bridge: 2009
Northlands Lift Bridge: 2009
After the grand opening there was still a lot of clearing up along the banks to do and over the next nine months 3,600 tons of chalk, clay, gravel, earth, bricks and Pulborough stone were carried along the canal, but the expected queue of barges waiting to join the navigation never materialized and, on average, only two or three barges passed through each day and for the first seven years cargo only averaged a little under 10,000 tons each year, a lot less than the 130,000 tons envisaged and less than half that carried on the Arun Navigation who proprietors had seen traffic increase by 25%. Tolls averaged only £1,275 over this period.
There were several reasons why trade failed to develop as expected. The first was that the prospectus turned out to be more of a wish list rather than a document based on sound judgement and it was always unlikely that the canal would live up to the rosy future painted therein. It was soon discovered that merchants who traded between London and Portsmouth still, on the whole, preferred to ship their goods by sea rather than by canal. There was little benefit to them in using the canal as goods would have to be reshipped at either Arundel or Littlehampton and the coasters plying between these ports and London could do the journey in the same time, carry a lot more and did not have to pay tolls to no less than six different authorities. The Arun Navigation also proved a hindrance to fully laden barges, with low bridges around Pulborough, a tunnel (Hardham) that could do with being a lot bigger and with floods in the winter and droughts in the summer meaning barges were often either short of draught or headroom. Some of these issues were addressed in 1821 and the situation did improve. The Wey and Arun also had its own problems with water although it wasn’t until the summers of 1819/20 that this became apparent when dry conditions caused problems with draught and the single reservoir in Sidney Wood (Vachery Pond) proved inadequate to the task of maintaining sufficient draught on the canal. Finally the Napoleonic Wars had finished in 1815 so the threat of attack by privateers in the Channel had ceased to exist, thus making an inland route to the Channel less appealing to merchants.
As well as through traffic failing to live up to expectations it also seems that little effort was made to attract local commerce and industry to its banks which, as a result, developed only slowly. It was also hoped that local traffic would initially develop with the help of the already existing barge-masters on the Wey, Rother and Arun Navigations expanding their businesses onto the Wey & Arun, but it turned out that few had sufficient capital to pay for new barges and that there was little incentive for newcomers to establish themselves until such time that a demand for their services was created by the establishment of local industry along its banks. The prospect of large quantities of coal being carried up the navigation to Guildford and Godalming also evaporated when the merchants on the Wey Navigation, having seen the price of coal drop by 13 shillings a chaldron quickly reduced their charges and although the distance between London and Guildford was much the same as that between Arundel and Guildford it was quicker to bring it from London as there were less locks to pass through. So much of the 10,000 tons of coal that it was anticipated would be carried on the canal failed to materialize.
The final hindrance for shareholders hoping to make a quick return on their investment was the overrun in costs. The construction cost more than expected, compensation claims exceeded estimates and, as any spare capital had run out the outstanding claims could only be settled by payment out of toll receipts and the last of these claims was not settled until 1821. It was also apparent that money was also going to be needed to sort out the canals problems concerning the lack of water. So because of all these additional costs there was a dearth of available capital to encourage and support the development of local commerce and industry along the canal.
Despite all these problems the future for the canal did not look entirely hopeless and the brightest thing on the horizon was the opening of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal that would link it directly to Portsmouth without the need to re-ship goods at Arundel or Littlehampton. It was hoped that the projected opening in 1823 would see an improvement in the Wey & Arun’s fortunes.
There were several reasons why trade failed to develop as expected. The first was that the prospectus turned out to be more of a wish list rather than a document based on sound judgement and it was always unlikely that the canal would live up to the rosy future painted therein. It was soon discovered that merchants who traded between London and Portsmouth still, on the whole, preferred to ship their goods by sea rather than by canal. There was little benefit to them in using the canal as goods would have to be reshipped at either Arundel or Littlehampton and the coasters plying between these ports and London could do the journey in the same time, carry a lot more and did not have to pay tolls to no less than six different authorities. The Arun Navigation also proved a hindrance to fully laden barges, with low bridges around Pulborough, a tunnel (Hardham) that could do with being a lot bigger and with floods in the winter and droughts in the summer meaning barges were often either short of draught or headroom. Some of these issues were addressed in 1821 and the situation did improve. The Wey and Arun also had its own problems with water although it wasn’t until the summers of 1819/20 that this became apparent when dry conditions caused problems with draught and the single reservoir in Sidney Wood (Vachery Pond) proved inadequate to the task of maintaining sufficient draught on the canal. Finally the Napoleonic Wars had finished in 1815 so the threat of attack by privateers in the Channel had ceased to exist, thus making an inland route to the Channel less appealing to merchants.
As well as through traffic failing to live up to expectations it also seems that little effort was made to attract local commerce and industry to its banks which, as a result, developed only slowly. It was also hoped that local traffic would initially develop with the help of the already existing barge-
The final hindrance for shareholders hoping to make a quick return on their investment was the overrun in costs. The construction cost more than expected, compensation claims exceeded estimates and, as any spare capital had run out the outstanding claims could only be settled by payment out of toll receipts and the last of these claims was not settled until 1821. It was also apparent that money was also going to be needed to sort out the canals problems concerning the lack of water. So because of all these additional costs there was a dearth of available capital to encourage and support the development of local commerce and industry along the canal.
Despite all these problems the future for the canal did not look entirely hopeless and the brightest thing on the horizon was the opening of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal that would link it directly to Portsmouth without the need to re-
Part of the Wey and Arun ‘in water’ due to heavy rain:
Dec 2009
Dec 2009
Site of Southland Lock. Originally of brick all of which were removed after closure for local building: Dec 2009
Volunteers of the Wey and Arun Canal Trust working on Devil’s Hole Lock: Dec 2009*
The opening of the Portsmouth and Arundel did, indeed, have a beneficial for both the Wey and Arun and the Arun Navigation. Tolls rose by 60% to £1,989 in the year 1823-4 and by 47% for the Arun (£1,760). Toll receipts continued to rise to a peak of £2,355 in 1825-6 before dropping off a little and averaging £1,944 for the rest of the decade. However, if the Wey and Arun proprietors were hoping that the opening of this canal was going to be their saviour they were soon to be disillusioned. It became quickly apparent that the Portsmouth and Arundel was a very expensive white elephant and through traffic between the Thames and the Portsmouth and Arundel quickly dropped from a high of 3, 650 tons in 1824 to 271 tons in 1827. There was a brief revival between 1832-6 when extra money was invested but in the end nothing could halt the decline and the Portsmouth and Arundel ceased to be navigable between Ford and Hunston around 1847 having cost more in pounds to build than the total of tonnage it carried throughout its short life. For more on this topic go to The Portsmouth and Arundel Canal..
Fortunately for the Wey and Arun tolls collected on the canal were far higher from traffic heading south and accounted for three times the amount than that collected from northbound traffic. Also trade was beginning to develop along its banks. Wharfs had been established at Bramley, Run Common, Elm bridge, Compass bridge, Tickners Heath and Loxwood for the loading and unloading of goods for the local towns. Also the new superintendent of the canal, James Stanton (appointed in 1819) had by 1822 started to develop his own barge business and carried a variety of goods up and down. Trade was successful and by the time of his retirement as superintendent in 1857 he had six barges working for him. This business passed to his son William. As well as James Stanton there were several other carriers who had expanded their existing business on the Wey and Arun Navigations to the Wey and Arun Junction Canal. Many villages had their own barge master to cater for their needs and local industry finally began to develop along its banks. A tannery near Bramley wharf, brickfields and a timber yard at Tickners Heath, charcoal burning near Run Common which required 2,000 tons of cordwood annually and manufactured naptha, acetic acid and charcoal from it and a vinegar works on Rushett Common all helped to increase traffic and tolls, thus helping the Wey and Arun recover from the loss of business due to the failure of the Portsmouth and Arundel.
The 1830’s were the best years for the canal and canals around the country were prospering. In 1836 tolls were slightly reduced and takings rose, reaching a peak of £2,525 in 1839-40, a figure never to be matched. Despite this the Wey and Arun was still only carrying 23,000 tons annually, still massively less than originally envisaged and even 7,000 tons below the original estimate for just local trade. The situation was precarious as the cost of maintaining the canal and its infrastructure was quite high and the company was still repaying money it had borrowed against toll receipts so any significant loss of trade and tolls could prove disasterous for the company and the canal. But not all was doom and gloom, business was brisk, local people had found employment and the cost of a wide range of goods had fallen thanks to the canal making it less expensive to transport goods.
Fortunately for the Wey and Arun tolls collected on the canal were far higher from traffic heading south and accounted for three times the amount than that collected from northbound traffic. Also trade was beginning to develop along its banks. Wharfs had been established at Bramley, Run Common, Elm bridge, Compass bridge, Tickners Heath and Loxwood for the loading and unloading of goods for the local towns. Also the new superintendent of the canal, James Stanton (appointed in 1819) had by 1822 started to develop his own barge business and carried a variety of goods up and down. Trade was successful and by the time of his retirement as superintendent in 1857 he had six barges working for him. This business passed to his son William. As well as James Stanton there were several other carriers who had expanded their existing business on the Wey and Arun Navigations to the Wey and Arun Junction Canal. Many villages had their own barge master to cater for their needs and local industry finally began to develop along its banks. A tannery near Bramley wharf, brickfields and a timber yard at Tickners Heath, charcoal burning near Run Common which required 2,000 tons of cordwood annually and manufactured naptha, acetic acid and charcoal from it and a vinegar works on Rushett Common all helped to increase traffic and tolls, thus helping the Wey and Arun recover from the loss of business due to the failure of the Portsmouth and Arundel.
The 1830’s were the best years for the canal and canals around the country were prospering. In 1836 tolls were slightly reduced and takings rose, reaching a peak of £2,525 in 1839-
As previously stated the Wey & Arun never lived up to the expectations of its investors and eventually came to be regarded by London merchants as just a local line in a national network and something of a white elephant that was plagued with problems of the flooding of the River Arun at its southern end in winter and subject to drought and the resulting lack of draft in the summer. Also the number of locks (23) slowed progress and caused a lot of water to be lost in the system which the pounds were unable to adequately replace. Attempts to rectify this met with only very limited success. Also it was built at a time when labour costs and material were considerably higher than when the Arun Canal was built, resulting in the need to borrow money against future tolls. Also the cost of maintaining the waterway was high due to the large number of locks and other infrastructure that needed to be maintained.
However, as can be seen above, that despite these disadvantages the canal did achieve moderate success. But this was always a precarious situation and not much would have to happen for this situation to change. The catalyst for this was, of course, the coming of the railways which I have related in more detail in the Coming of the Railways in the Arun Navigation section of this site. The Wey and Arun was affected sooner than the Arun Navigation because the railway came sooner in Surrey than in Sussex and had reached Guildford in 1844 and Godalming in 1849. This had a big impact on the River Wey Navigation whose tolls were halved in a decade from their peak in 1838 and tonnage carried also fell from 86,000 to approximately 50,000 tons over the same period. This, obviously, had an adverse effect on through traffic on the Wey and Arun. However local traffic on the canal remained largely unaffected as the railway had yet to extend its tentacles further southward.
A great effort was made to retain business, tolls were reduced, railway bills coming before Parliament were opposed, but slowly and inexorably the railways were threatening to encroach deep into the canals territory. The final blow came in August of 1860 when Parliament sanctioned the building of a branch line from Horsham to Guildford. Naturally the canal company had opposed this bill along with some of the local landowners, but to no avail. The canal was now going to face direct competition from the railway, a battle it would inevitably lose. The route would see the railway line run almost parallel to the canal from Shalford to near Cranleigh from where it departed from the line of the canal and entered Sussex. The line took five
Notice of Closure: 1871
years to build and one advantage for the Wey and Arun was that its construction would see a temporary increase in its revenue as most of the ballast and building materials for the northern end of the line were bought by water and unloaded at temporary wharfs alongside the line. In 1863 the extra amount of materials exceeded 3,000 tons but tolls had previously been so much reduced that the Wey and Arun only made about £150 extra revenue from this traffic. The line was finally opened in 1865. Also in 1863 the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway had opened its extension from Hardham near Pulborough down the Arun valley to Ford, adversely affecting trade on the Arun Navigation and, by default, causing further reductions in through traffic from places such as Amberley, Arundel and Littlehampton. The future looked bleak for the Wey and Arun Junction Canal and although consigned to a very minor role in the system of communications in Surrey and Sussex it did not immediately become moribund.
By 1866 it was felt amongst many in the Company, now having lost the Cranleigh coal trade and the export of Run Common charcoal and coupled with the drop in tonnage and revenue, that the position was untenable and proposed steps be taken to dispose of the canal and property. Not all people agreed, especially William Stanton whose coal and timber business set up by his father James provided a comfortable living and he offered to buy anyone's shares at 56s 6d (£2.57 approx) each. However the majority of shareholders felt they could recoup a little more on their investment if it was sold and did not take up Stanton’s offer. After the AGM of 1866 the Management Committee took counsel and decided in August of that year to recommend to shareholders that the company be wound up. But James Stanton had not been idle and along with an alliance of barge- masters from Arundel and Littlehampton had managed to purchase enough shares to block the resolution.
As a result of this a Committee of Investigation under the chairmanship of one Richard Holmes was appointed to look at whether the canal could be kept open and costs reduced. It was only four weeks before he reported back stating that, having consulted with various merchants as to their future intentions, the committee could not make a favourable report and the matter was referred back to the Management Committee. However Holmes was not ready to give up completely as he was also both on the Arun Committee and was also clerk to the Commissioners of the Port of Arundel (who were also shareholders) and both these bodies had a vested interest in seeing the Wey and Arun kept open. Over the coming months he put together a package of cost cutting along with an agreed subsidy of £120 p.a. from the Arun Navigation who stood to lose 4,000 tons of traffic if the canal closed. Holmes knew that not all the shareholders, for various reasons, wished to see the canal closed. When the adjourned meeting of the Wey and Arun was re- convened on 11 January 1867 Holmes was confident that his proposal would be
accepted, but it was not. It seems that some shareholders had changed their minds and a proposal to instruct the clerk to take the necessary steps to wind up the Company was passed instead.
A petition was put to the High Court of Chancery and in March 1867 it was ordered that the company be wound up. But closing a canal is never as easy as that and doubts arose as to whether the powers conferred in the Companies Act were sufficient to order the closure and sale of the canal. Until a decision could be made the canal had to be kept open for traffic under the direction of the liquidator. Further cost cutting took place to reduce the company’s annual trading deficit and were quite successful. Employees were made redundant and property disposed of. The canal continued to be open for traffic and a few people were kept on to do the minimum of work to keep the canal open. In February 1868 The Wey & Arun Junction Canal (Abandonment) Act was introduced in the House of Lords and was given its first and second readings before being referred to a Select Committee where arguments for and against this proposal were heard. Not everyone wanted the canal closed for various reasons and the hearing continued for three days. Eventually it was felt that enough evidence had been heard, but not before the opponents of the Bill had secured several amendments that amounted to a stay of execution if certain conditions were met. Eventually a compromise was reached and one of them was that the canal should not be closed or sold in lots before 30 September 1869 if within six months of the granting of the Act sufficient money was guaranteed for running expenses. The amended Bill returned to the Parliamentary process and was finally given the Royal Assent on 31 July 1868.
Sufficient money was found to keep the canal in working order until the end of September 1869 and if a purchaser could be found the canal had a chance of survival. The canal continued to carry a small but regular amount of traffic but no buyer or any sign of a significant revival in the canals fortunes meant that the canal and its remaining property were put up for auction on 30 August 1870. There were four lots, three of which were property or yards associated with the canal, the fourth was the canal itself . The first three lots sold but there were no bids for the canal. With tolls falling even further and with the bridges and locks falling into an ever increasing state of disrepair the official liquidator had no option but to apply again to the Court of Chancery for the closure of the Wey & Arun. After one final stay of execution the order to close the canal was made on 5 July and took effect from 22 July 1871. Despite its closure the barges of William Stanton continued to bring coal from London to Bramley Wharf and would probably have continued to use the northern end of the canal until the locks became unworkable, but sadly he died unexpectedly in January 1872 and although his executers continued to run his barges for a few months, on 27 June 1872 the ‘Active’ carried her last load of coal to his yards. The canal quickly became impassable even for a small boat and by 1878 parts of it had been completely filled in. London had lost her canal link to the Channel.
In hindsight and with the rose tinted spectacles removed the Wey & Arun Junction Canal was never going to be the roaring success that the prospectus forecast. It was built at a time when labour and material costs were high, saddling the company with many years of repayment of loans, some of the infrastructure such as the bridges weren’t built to a very high standard and required more maintenance than they should have, and when it opened the Napeolonic Wars were over and merchants no longer needed to worry about their ships being attacked by Privateers in the Channel. Also the majority of the canal runs through sparsely populated countryside with very few major settlements nearby which meant that it was difficult to develop a thriving local traffic or canal side industries to counteract the far lower than expected through trade.
All these and others contributed to the problems but the canal would have survived and would have continued to make a modest profit if it had not been for the coming of the railways. No matter how successful a canal was none could effectively compete with the railways once they were fully established and slowly succumbed to the new mode of transport. What we are left with is a wealth of archaeological information and a disused canal running through some of the most beautiful countryside in Surrey and Sussex, large parts of which remain untouched.
The present and future of this canal lie firmly in the hands of the Wey and Arun Canal Trust and, where the canal runs through private land, the co- operation of the landowners. As previously mentioned this organisation is dedicated to restore the Wey and Arun Junction Canal and the 4.5 mile Arun Canal back to a navigable state, thus restoring London’s link to the sea. To read more about them and their various activities visit their website and if you find this story as fascinating as I do please help them out, either through a donation, volunteering help, if you live near enough or both. As can be seen from some of the photographs I have taken they have restored some section already and have re- built locks and bridges, but there is a long way to go! They also run regular boat trips from Loxwood where they have restored a section of the canal.
Just North of Loxwood Bridge Looking South: 2009
Just North of Loxwood Bridge Looking North Toward Devil’s Hole Lock:
2009
2009
W.A.C.T. Excursion Boat the’ Wiggenholt’.
Moored Just South of Loxwood Bridge: 2009
Moored Just South of Loxwood Bridge: 2009
Devil’s Hole Lock Undergoing Restoration. Due to Open in April 2010:
2009
2009
Acknowledgements
II make no claims to ownership of this information. A lot of the historical information is taken from P.A.L.Vine’s London’s Lost Route to the Sea as are the maps of the route of the canal and the descent from the summit level, the seal of the canal company, the notice of abandonment and the list of tolls etc. If you found this interesting I cannot recommend Mr Vine’s book highly enough. It is a truly fascinating account of the canals in Surrey and Sussex and not in the least bit ‘dry’. Unfortunately it is out of print but I got my copy from Amazon the online retailers. Other books that are still in print by him are “The Wey & Arun Junction Canal" and “The Arun Navigation”. Both of these are historical picture books but also show some of the restoration work done by the W.A.C.T. and are available from the “Canal Goods by Post” section of their website amongst other places. They also have plenty of other books and items for sale. All of the photographs are taken by me on my walks.
Should you wish to contact me I can be emailed at: christopher246@btinternet.com. All the best and happy exploring. Chris Richardson. TOP
Canals only became an effective means of long- distance communication when the abilities of contemporary engineering were such that they could pass from one valley to the next. These most closely involved two or three technologies. The waterway would have to rise to the top or summit level over a watershed from each side. The huge amounts of water needed to supply the extensive lockage on each side of the summit would need to be supplied via a system of water- feeder channels and reservoirs.
Obviously, when planning the route for a canal the engineer is looking for not just the shortest route but also the one that involves the least gradient to ascend and descend as the building of locks and reservoirs is a costly exercise. Ideally, to avoid extensive lockage, digging a cutting for the canal to run through is the best option but this is not practicable if the height involved is of any significance and this was the case here as the highest point on the route was 163 feet (53.3 metres) above sea level. Also digging deeper a cutting results in a longer summit level and less locks at either end of it.
One advantage for the Wey & Arun was that it ran almost exclusively through countryside that had little by the way of natural obstacles. Leaving the navigable section of the river Wey at Stonebridge Wharf, Shalford it rose to its summit level near Cranleigh by way of seven locks. The length of the summit level was 5 miles and it crossed the Surrey/Sussex watershed before running through a cutting near Alfold and crossing a valley into Sidney Wood. After Sidney Wood the canal descended nearly 90 feet (27.2 metres) in a two mile stretch through a series of locks.
As mentioned above, in order to avoid problems with a lack of draught for barges on the summit level a system of keeping the canal ‘topped up’ with water was needed as every time lock gates were opened to allow barges through an amount of water was lost to the summit level. The solution here was to build a reservoir from which to top up the canal with. Originally two reservoirs were planned and the first (Vachery Pond) was built. But in 1818 when negotiations to purchase the land for the second reservoir were begun they were met with strong opposition from the local landowners and combined with financial considerations the proposal to build this second reservoir was dropped. This turned out not to have been a good idea because by then it had been discovered by engineers involved in the cutting at Alfold that the soil, instead of being principally clay throughout the entire route actually had given way to porous sand and although they had made sure that the the bed and banks of the canal had been line with an extra thick layer of puddled clay the likelihood of leakage and evaporation was appreciably increased although the canal was filled without difficulty during the summer of 1816. At the moment any problems with this lay in the future.
The first meeting of the Wey and Arun Junction Canal Company took place on 9th May 1813 amongst much enthusiasm and optimism. They proceeded to elect a Management Committee, appoint two local bankers as treasurers and to appoint a Mr John Smallpiece as clerk to the company. They then had to make arrangements to raise the capital to start the work and it was proposed that a call to the subscribers was made for the first 10% of monies and that subsequent calls were to be made at regular intervals until the tenth and final payment would be made on 24th June 1815 by which time it was expected that the canal would be finished. Two weeks later when the Management Committee first met it was proposed that Lord Egremont be invited to be Chairman of the Company.
The next step was to begin purchasing the land required to build the canal from its owners. The company had the right to compulsory purchase the land but had to negotiate satisfactory compensation terms for anyone who felt their land or property had been damaged or depreciated in value. The estimate of the cost for purchasing the land and settling any disputes was £9,500 but this proved to be totally inadequate. The landowners were loathe to accept the companies offers of compensation preferring to going to arbitration with appointed Commissioners in the hope of getting better terms, a not altogether vain hope as the majority of the members of the Commissioners were landowners themselves! Either party could appeal to a jury but this cost time and money and was rarely resorted to. The Commissioners first met on 12th June 1813 and quite frequently thereafter as there were plenty of disputes to settle. Finally with all the disputes settled and all the necessary land purchased the clearing of undergrowth, the felling of trees and the removal of topsoil could begin. Once this task was completed the excavation could start. Being the prudent people they were all the timber was carefully stacked and sold at two auctions one in 1814 and the other a year later, raising a total of £1,021.
The final route of the canal was 18 miles long and the first sod was cut at Shalford in July with work on the summit level starting in the Autumn. A large body of labourers, equipped with spades, shovels and picks were soon driving a channel through the countryside.
Section of restored Wey and Arun Junction Canal: 2009
Baldwin’s Knob Lock No.4: 2009
Rowner Lock and Bridge: 2010
instrumental in advising the projectors on how to deal with two large landowners who objected to the proposed line of the canal as it ran through their estates, one being the previously mentioned Lord Grantley, who seems to have withdrawn his initial support for the project upon learning of its proposed route, and Sir Harry Goring.
The prospectus for the proposed canal was published in the Times on 17th October 1811. It was short in length (about one page) and painted a very optimistic picture (to read the prospectus, click here). By the time of its publication the money promised had risen to £56,000 with Lord Egremont heading the list with £20,000. Within one month of the prospectus being published the subscription list was full.
Over the next few months Josias Jessop and his engineers undertook the task of surveying the proposed route of the canal. This was not as easy as one would think as Jessop needed to walk or ride over the entire length of the route to gain an idea of the terrain before the alignment of the canal could be made. Until the Act of Parliament was obtained he had no right to trespass on private property and permission to do so had to be sought and was not always readily given. Jessop also had the task of collecting the names of those people who were in favour, against or neutral to the proposed canal route and trying to win over the objectors. The objections fell roughly into four areas, depreciation of property and loss of privacy, damage to the meadows that parts of the canal ran through, either by drought or flooding from burst embankments, distrust of the bargees who had little respect for the Game Laws and would quite happily poach for their pot and also the inconvenience and mess caused by the gangs of navvies who would build the canal.
There was little point in presenting a petition to parliament if there were hordes of objectors as it would surely fail so Jessop and the committee set about mollifying these people. Compensation was offered to obtain permission for the canal to run through peoples land and there was also a re- drawing of part of the route to appease Sir Harry Goring which added an extra one and a half miles to the route and an additional £15,000 to the estimated cost which by May 1812 had risen to £86,132. When the petition was presented to the House of Commons on 8th December 1812 most of the dissenters to the scheme had been appeased and the Wey & Arun Bill was granted its first reading in early February 1813. There was some objections to the second reading of the bill but these were overcome with very few amendments and the third reading took place in March with the bill then being formally read again in the House of Lords and, on 1st April 1813 ‘An Act for Making and Maintaining a Navigable Canal to Unite the Rivers Wey and Arun in the Counties of Surrey and Sussex’ received the Royal Assent. Building could now begin.
The first thing to do was insert advertisements in the local press calling a public meeting so that the views of the local populace could be obtained. Also if the plan met with a favourable reception money would be sought to meet the cost of obtaining the Act and those who contributed would be given first option of purchasing shares in the company should the Act succeed.
After some delay a notice was placed in the Morning Post on 17 May 1811 calling a meeting on the 1st of June in Guildford. In the meantime Lord Egremont had been canvassing the support of the principal landowners and the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Onslow and the Lords Grantley, Midleton and King of Ockham were all willing to lend their support for a petition for a bill to be presented to Parliament. Other ‘prominent gentlemen’ were also approached and almost all supported the idea.
At the meeting Lord Egremont laid out the objectives of the project and also announced that the Arun Navigation Company, in order to encourage and support this project had agreed to a concession on tolls charged for cargo entering the Wey from the sea. The Arun proprietors knew that this canal would be good for their business. A further meeting was held six days later to further allow people to express their views and the Mayor of Guildford passed a resolution that the canal would be beneficial to the town and surrounding area. A similar expression of approval was given by Godalming five days later.
Having formed a Committee the next step was to employ an engineer to select the best route. Invitations were sent out to three of the most prominent engineers of the time, Josias Jessop, Benjamin Bevan and John Rennie, but only Jessop accepted. Having travelled to Guildford he spent the next four weeks making his report and by the end of August, having studied his report, the committee decided to go ahead and make application for a bill and an announcement to that effect was placed in several newspapers along with an announcement of the opening of a subscription list to the public. People were invited to buy shares and make a 2% deposit on the amount requested to help finance the expense of applying for a bill and by the end of August £39,000 of the required £90,000 had been raised.
This was a busy time, with clerks travelling to the local County Sessions to fix Notices regarding the Parliamentary application and Lord Egremont was
Petworth Lake and House: J.M.W. Turner. Seat of the 3rd Earl of Egremont
George O'Brien Wyndham, 3rd Earl of Egremont (1751–1837)
Seal of the Wey and Arun Junction Canal Company
introduced by petition to the House of Commons and were governed by the usual procedure for private bills. Up until 1793 this was a relatively easy procedure but in that year it was realized that an individuals right to oppose these bills was being undermined mainly through ignorance of the exact nature of these schemes. So in that year new Standing Orders were introduced to better protect an individuals rights. These required additional documentation if land needed to be compulsory acquired. Now an exact plan of the land to be acquired along with a reference book listing each owner and occupier of a particular piece of land, a description of property to be demolished, and a list showing whether the owners or occupiers were in favour, opposed or neutral on the project. Finally a note on the sums individually subscribed and an estimate of the costs were also required. Compliance with this and other Standing Orders were examined by the Committee studying the bill. So it was considerably more complicated than the Act of Parliament extending the navigation of the river Arun, but one advantage was that there is a lot more information on the building of this
The River Wey, just like the River Arun, had been used for trade since the mists of time. As the Wey flows into the Thames just below Shepperton Lock there was increasing demand for a cheaper form of transport between Guildford and London and in 1651 an Act of Parliament was passed authorizing the improvements and in 1653 the Wey Navigation was opened to Guildford becoming one of the first rivers in England to become canalized. In 1763 the navigation was extended to Godalming.
With the opening of the extension of the Arun Navigation to Newbridge Wharf in 1787 only about 15 miles separated the navigable sections of these two rivers. However it was almost 30 years before this link was finally achieved. Other proposals for, possibly more profitable, links between the Thames and the English Channel were made but none of them came to fruition and by 1810 all the proposals had been discarded and 15 miles still stubbornly separated the navigable sections of the rivers Wey and Arun. Lord Egremont tiring of all this delay, decided to press ahead with the simplest of schemes to link the two rivers, that being by the shortest practicable route.
In order to build a canal an Act of Parliament had to be sought as the necessary authority had to be obtained so that land could be acquired, highways crossed, streams diverted, and capital raised. Also, as canal bills contained clauses for levying tolls, they could only be
Index
The Wey and Arun Junction Canal
canal than that of the Arun Navigation. Also, unlike the Arun, the money needed to finance this project was too much for just the local landowners and merchants to undertake, so it needed to appeal to a wider audience of potential investors. So the promoters of this scheme had a lot of work to do before a petition could be presented to Parliament otherwise it would surely fall at the first reading.