Building the Kennet and Avon Canal through Sydney Gardens
The story of a controversial canal by Neil Hardwick
In 1791, the 29-year-old John Rennie first became involved in what was initially known as the Western Canal, its course through the Avon Valley to Bath had largely been set earlier by the engineers Barns, Simcock and Weston. Utilising the valley’s topography, they found it was possible to make the seven-mile section from Bradford upon Avon to Bathampton completely lock free. Deviating from the line of the completed canal near to Bathampton swing bridge, they intended for the canal to descend 50ft to the River Avon via a sweeping curve and a series of seven locks before entering the river just downstream of Bathampton weir.
After financial backing for the canal was secured in 1793, Rennie was instructed to make a third survey of the proposed route which essentially confirmed the previous findings. The towpath into central Bath was to commence on the Batheaston side of the river. Approaching Bath, it was to re-cross the river at ‘Alderbed Mead on a new, proper Carriage Bridge’ before continuing on the Bathwick side towards Pulteney Bridge. The weir was to be bypassed by a lock near Bathwick Mill, which ‘was to be so constructed as not to injure or obstruct the free landing of Timber, Goods, Wares and Merchandise at the Wharf belonging to the Baroness of Bath’. From Pulteney Bridge to the navigable section at the Old Bridge, the site of the modern Churchill Bridge, the towpath was to be constructed on a platform in front of the river side properties. Bath Corporation, whose jurisdiction was limited to the right-hand bank of the River Avon, voted to not oppose the towpath, provided that the act incorporated a clause giving them the right to build a wharf on the city side of the river.
The act of Parliament authorising the construction of the Kennet & Avon Canal was passed on the 17th of April 1794. Discussions then took place with the various landowners who were going to be affected; the Parliamentary act gave the Canal Company the right to approach these individuals but gave no power of compulsory purchase. If a landowner declined to cooperate, then the case went to an independent arbitrator, usually a solicitor. The Canal Company negotiated options to develop the relevant pieces of land, paying a deposit at the time with the balance only being paid if those options were exercised.
Rennie spent the remainder of 1794 concentrating on the section from Bradford to Bathampton. John Thomas, a grocer from Bristol who eventually became the canal’s superintendent, recommended splitting the route into 7 lots. Initially, the contracts would only involve cutting and embanking the canal; the seven locks, stone bridges and constructing Dundas and Avoncliff Aqueducts themselves would be offered separately. The three relevant to this article were:
Lot No 1, 1,246 yards, from Bathampton Weir to 300 yards south of Bathampton Farm.
Lot No 2, 2,053 yards from Bathampton Farm to Bathampton Wood.
Lot No 3, 2,695 yards from Bathampton Wood to Benchmark 10, 300 yards north of Dundas Aqueduct.
The contracts were advertised in the Reading Mercury on the 22nd of September 1794:
“CANAL CUTTING and MASONRY — Notice is hereby given, that the Kennet and Avon Canal Company will be ready to receive Proposals for cutting and embarking that part of their intended canal lying between Bath-Hampton, near the city of Bath, and Bradford in the county of Wilts, a distance of about eight miles, and also for building of two Aqueduct Bridges, seven locks and several Road and Occupation Bridges; all to be built with stone.
A plan and section of the Canal, and plans and sections of the bridges, locks etc, with proper specifications, may be seen in the hands of Mr. Bartley, at the Swan Inn, at Bradford, Wilts, after the 24th of this instant September.”
On the 9th of October, the Western Sub-Committee met to consider the response. The Canal Company found that the contractors were unwilling to tender for both the groundworks and the masonry, primarily due to the risks associated with Avoncliff and Monkton Combe aqueducts foundations. The company re-offered the masonry work on the 19th of January 1795:
“MASONRY TO LET — Notice is hereby given, that the Kennet and Avon Canal Committee will be ready to Let on the 23rd day of February next, at the Bear Inn at Bradford, TWO AQUEDUCT BRIDGES over the River Avon, SEVEN LOCKS, and several lots of ROAD and OCCUPATION BRIDGES lying in that part of their Canal extending from the city of Bath to the town of Bradford.”
John Holmes was allocated Lot 3 groundwork for £2,126 and, on the 10th April 1795, Thomas Green was given Lot 2 for £1,301. Lot 1 was left in abeyance because Rennie was now in a quandary. He theorised that, by routing the canal high up on the left bank of the River Avon, it was possible to achieve a flood free passage to the navigable section of the river in the centre of Bath. He asked James Mills to survey the route, who on 4th June 1795 reported back favourably:
‘Having under the direction of J Rennie surveyed the line of the canal round the City of Bath I find it upon the whole a favourable one. There appeared a necessity, in order to avoid entering Sydney Gardens, for a tunnel of 440 yards.’
The proposal to proceed with a new Parliamentary bill to alter the line into Bath and extend it to Bristol was made by the Western Sub-Committee on the 7th July 1795:
‘On a question being put whether an application to Parliament should be made for extending the line of the canal from Bathampton to Bristol, it was unanimously resolved in the affirmative’.
The subsequent proprietors meeting supported the extension and resolved unanimously ‘that an extension of the canal from Bath Hampton to Bristol will be advantageous to the public and to the proprietors, and that an application be made to Parliament for powers to enable this company to make and execute such an extension’.
On the 20th of August, the Canal Company announced that it was going to convene a meeting at the White Hart Inn, Widcombe, to outline its intentions. Opposition was swift: on the 5th of October, a public meeting was held in Keynsham to counter the scheme. It was resolved ‘that it appeareth that the level of the intended Canal runs in the most destructive direction for the Landholders, through the most populous part of the County, intersecting Gentlemen’s Houses, Pleasure Grounds and Plantations, cutting off Farms and Homesteads from their domains, and in every respect ruinous of private property. That the Landowners oppose, to the utmost of their power, a Scheme, which appears fraught with inconvenience and oppression to the Landed Interests through which such Canal is proposed to pass’.
The Canal’s extension would also present a threat to the River Avon Navigation, the private company responsible for the river’s trade. On the 21st of October 1795 they held their own meeting which agreed to support the landowners and resolved that they would form their own sub-committee to oppose the Canal Company. They were joined on the 16th of December 1795 by Bath Corporation who voted to ‘oppose the present intended line of the Canal between Newbury and Bristol.’
Not everyone resented the scheme however, ‘Agricola’ writing in the Bath Herald on the 2nd of November 1795 thought:
‘The Banks of this Canal on the acclivity of the neighbouring hills, at an elevation of 60 or 70 feet above the level of the River, will command a variety of prospects, of some of the most enchanting landscapes ever designed by nature. A promenade will be formed, perfectly level, extending from Bath to Bradford on the one hand, and from Bath to Bristol on the other, winding its serpentine course through charming valleys, interspersed with beautiful Groves, crystal Springs and rural Cottages; the silver stream of the soft flowing Avon gliding along below’.
The canal’s detractors began using the argument that its construction would interfere with the hydrology of Bath’s hot springs. To counter this charge, Charles Dundas, the Canal Company’s chairman, commissioned the local physician Dr. John Ewart to investigate the subject. His report, ‘Observations on the Kennet and Avon Scheme- the Hot Springs of Bath’ was published on the 20th of January 1796. Dundas influenced the report’s tone by stating in the preamble that ‘he was obliged for the account, which he thinks must set the minds of Gentlemen completely at ease on this subject’. After comparing the canal’s physical dimensions to the River Avon, and the topography of both, Ewart concluded that ‘the proximity of the Canal to the River, therefore, is the best security that the Hot Springs will not be injured by the Canal’. Dr. Ewart was rewarded with ‘a piece of plate to the value of twenty Guineas’ for his obedience.
The petition was made to Parliament on the 26th of November and referred to a committee. On the 11th of February 1796 it was reported that a number of K&A shareholders had petitioned against the bill, because it contained a clause which compelled them to subscribe to all future cash calls, otherwise they would forfeit their previous investments. On the 7th of March, Dundas moved a motion to redraft the bill, but it was defeated by 38 votes to 16.
There the matter lay for 18 months; the Canal Company had burned through money at an alarming rate, and all uncommitted expenditure was halted. The 1794 act allowed for the raising of £420,000, by means of 3500 shares of £120 each, to be subscribed at intervals. Unfortunately, continental wars were damaging the country’s confidence, and by July 1796, 822 of the accounts were in arrears. The financial situation was made worse when it was discovered that the company treasurer, Frederick Page, had been falsifying the accounts. Notification that the bill was to be reintroduced was given on the 9th of September 1797, this time empowering the canal to enter the River Avon at ‘a certain ground or garden called Dole-Mead’. Resistance had by now evaporated, the inhabitants of the Dolemeads were in no position to object whilst the Avon Navigation Company could only benefit from the revised scheme.
The bill’s passage through Parliament was swift, being given its third reading on the 2nd of April 1798 and receiving its Royal Assent on the 7th May.
There was still one influential landowner who needed to be won over: Sir William Pulteney, the owner of Sydney Gardens. At the management meeting of the 27th of March 1798, it was reported that John Baverstock, Robert Moody, and John Thomas of the Canal Company had met Pulteney’s representatives and agreed to pay ‘Two Thousand Guineas for the Liberty to carry the line of the Canal through theses Gardens and for building a Wall, erecting Bridges and making other Fences’. The money was to be paid in four instalments of £525 each. At the same meeting, it was agreed to accept John Rennie’s estimate of £38,400–27s for completing the Canal from Bathampton through to the Dolemeads. The Widcombe Flight would cost £10,191–6s-6d, although Rennie ‘did not recommend them to be executed at present’.
In order to generate some income, on the 16th of July 1798, the Directors came under pressure to complete the section from Bathampton to Bath. As a result, in August the Bath Chronicle reported that the Canal Company had requested ‘proposals for cutting, embanking and finishing that part of the Canal between Claverton and Bath, and for building several road bridges in the parish of Bathampton’.
On the 12th of September 1798, the Western Sub-Committee met at the Castle and Ball Inn, Bath, to review the tenders and award the contracts.:
Lot 1B, from Thomas Green’s Lot 2 to Mr. Chambury’s garden — Thomas Walker and John Smithy.
Lot 1C, from Mr. Chambury’s garden to Allen’s Wood — Gregor McGregor.
Lot 1E, (unspecified) — James Sharp.
These contracts were for groundworks only, the bridges were specified separately:
‘It was agreed to let Jacob Harrison any number of Arch or Swivel Bridges the Company may have to build between Claverton and Bath, according to the specifications and plan signed by him at 9s-6d per cubic yard, provided stone of good quality is found to the Company’s satisfaction on Sir William Pulteney’s land, if the stone should not be found there it was agreed he should be allowed 11s per yard and find the stone himself. It was agreed that Edward Bushell should do the carpenter’s work of the Swivel Bridges at 10 Guineas each’.
On the October 5th of 1798, John Thomas chaired a meeting to discuss the forthcoming excavations in Sydney Gardens. It was agreed:
‘In order to accommodate the Proprietors of Sydney Gardens, that so much Earth as may be necessary to level the Ground from their Hotel to Sydney Place, shall be excavated out of the west side and adjoining Street and carried to the spot before the end of December next. The Company to be at liberty to use the whole earth which may be excavated in the Garden and east side for any purpose they may think proper’.
On the 12th of December 1798, masonry work for the two “bridges” under Sydney Place and Ride was awarded to James McIlquham, the Scottish mason who had previously built Avoncliff and Dundas Aqueducts. The Canal Company subsequently cancelled this contract, and on the 17th of January 1799, the groundwork and masonry for both tunnels was let to Edward Bushell. Henceforth, the accounts refer to No1 Tunnel as ‘Bushell’s Tunnel’. Quite why the Canal Company should have such confidence in Edward Bushell is not known; a ‘carpenter and joiner’ by trade, in May 1794 he had gone bankrupt and had to put his Walcot house and workshop up for sale.
Masonry contracts were priced on the number of cubic yards of dressed stone used to complete the structure. The masons were expected to source the stone themselves and often opened their own quarry adjacent to the edifice being built. Bearing in mind the insistence that stone for the swing bridges had to be obtained from William Pulteney’s land, it would be reasonable to assume that stone destined for Sydney Gardens would come from the same source, however inspection of the ledger shows this not to be the case. It is known that Pulteney owned a quarry just off North Road before its junction with Bathwick Hill, and Jacob Harrison was the only customer for Pulteney’s stone. The accounts point in a different direction. In 1799 Edward Bushell was given an allowance of twenty guineas to open a quarry on Claverton Down. Shortly afterwards, he spent £48–13s-6d on making an access road and a further £1–2s-6d for a gate and hangings. On the 11th of April 1800, he claimed expenses of £38–1s-8d from the Canal Company for its rent. In 1802, he used 35 cubic yards of stone to build a wall ‘round the quarry at Claverton’.
By June 1799, John Rennie was able to report:
‘The foundations of one of the Tunnels (Bushell’s Tunnel) in Sydney Gardens is got out and a considerable number of stones are prepared for the building. Lots 3 and 2 are filled with water to nearly a depth of four feet and the towing path may be said to be finished. The work between Lot 2 near Bathampton Church is begun and that between there and Sydney Gardens is in a very forward state.’
It appears that the Tunnels design was then changed, because on the 18th of July 1799, it was minuted that:
‘J Mills is desired to write to the Principal Engineer describing the variation in the plan of building the Bridge at Sydney Gardens for his opinion. He is to obtain a plan of the groundwork of the Houses in Sydney Place from Sir William Pulteney’s Architects’.
Nos 1–12 Sydney Place had been designed by Thomas Baldwin, and it was William Pulteney’s intention to encircle Sydney Gardens with similarly imposing terraces, but only Nos 93–103 were subsequently built. Mills was also instructed to agree the canal’s route through the gardens; William Pulteney was keen to avoid demolishing a folly that existed just to the east of the canal, adjacent to the Gravel Walk. The labyrinth, which was to the south west, survived only to be destroyed by the Great Western Railway in 1840.
On the 7th of November 1799, the Canal Company expressed their concern that the proposed three iron bridges were too close together. They suggested building the larger, northern one (No 6) 22ft wide rather than the intended 15ft, and to build only one to the south. To this end, ‘James Mills is desired to write to John Rennie for the plans of the Iron Bridges, sent by the Coalbrookdale Company for the inspection of the Sydney Gardens Committee. He is also desired to meet Mr. Abraham and stake out the line of the Canal through the Gardens in order that such shrubs as are in the way may be removed’.
The following week, they had their reply:
‘We the Committee of Sydney Gardens appointed to treat with the Gentlemen of the Kennet and Avon Canal, having given consideration to their proposals we have and do agree to give up one of the Bridges, viz on the north side of the Gardens, provided you build the 22 ft bridge to range in a straight line with our Gravel Walk, but not otherwise. We never had a thought of you building it in any other direction as we could not have consented to it as it would have entirely have spoilt the uniformity of our Garden. The Committee also expect that, according to the agreement, they make an upright hedge so as to prevent their men going into any part of the Garden.’
The Canal Company responded:
‘Since we cannot make the roadway of the Bridge in a straight line with the Gravel Walk, we have agreed to make the roadway of the Bridge as near straight as possible and we have also agreed to make a fence to the Gardens as they proposed’.
They were successful in constructing the bridge at an oblique angle, although it was necessary to widen the canal just to the south, in order to assist boats negotiating the bend.
On the 12th of December 1799, with the project running behind schedule, the Canal Company’s Management Committee, together with John Rennie and Edward Bushell, attended a measuring of Tunnel No2. It was agreed that Bushell ‘should relinquish his contract for the Tunnel at the west side of Sydney Gardens, he not having performed his work agreeably to the Contract’. He offered to sign another ‘to continue to the top of the Arch at 14s-6d per cubic yard including the End Walls, Towing Path and Walls etc.’ This was accepted, and James Mills was ‘directed to prepare an agreement’.
Unfortunately, the new contract appeared to be as problematic as the old, because on the 17th of January 1800, Bushell was warned ‘if he does not proceed with the Masonry of the Tunnel adjoining Sydney Gardens within 20 days, in a proper workmanlike manner, the Company will bring an action against him’. The contract for excavating and building the open, central section of the canal was now given to William Pritchard, who proposed to:
‘excavate the Canal through Sydney Gardens at 10d per cubic yard, either by carting or boating, the carting not to exceed 250 yards upon an average, the boating 2 miles. The lining at 6d per cubic yard. He also proposed to find stone and build the walls on each side of the canal through the Gardens except where the bridges interfere at 7s-6d per yard.’
On the 6th February 1800 it was reported he had ‘begun excavating the line through Sydney Gardens. The Bridge on the Ride on the south side of the Garden is begun’.
The final payment of £525 was handed to the Sydney Gardens agent on 11th April 1800. On the 10th May 1800 Mr. Thomas and Mr. Moody were instructed to attend the ‘letting of the Tunnel’. The section from Dundas Basin to the north side of Sydney Gardens was in water by June 1800 because on the 12th the Chronicle reported:
‘We have pleasure to inform the public, that at a general Meeting of the company of Proprietors of the Kennet and Avon Canal, held at the Hotel, Sydney Gardens, on Tuesday last, the Committee of Management, attended by several of the proprietors, proceeded up the Canal to the aqueduct at Monkton Comb, where the Coal Canal is intended to join this undertaking, to which place, a distance of five miles, is now navigable, and the bridges and other parts of the work are finished in a durable and substantial manner, and every exertion is now being made to complete the canal to Foxhangers, near Devizes.’
The Coalbrookdale Company’s invoice for the two iron bridges has survived and reveal that they were ordered separately:
5th June 1800. To an Iron Bridge for the little walk in Sydney Gardens as per agreement — £105–0s
20th June 1800. To one other Iron Bridge for the Great Walk in Sydney Gardens — £290–0s
By the 14th of July 1800 the masonry of the two iron bridges (Nos 5 & 6) was complete so ‘Mr. Thomas is requested to write to the Coalbrookdale Company to inform them that the Committee wish them to send down a man as they proposed to fit the Ironwork of the Bridges to the Masonry’. This didn’t happen until October, because some of the castings had been broken by accident:
October 1800. Thomas Thomas’s time in attending the erection of the Bridges at Bath, also at Bristol, giving directions for other castings to be made in lieu of those broken by accident these 7 Weeks and 3 days — £15–15s
His expenses up and down, two journeys each way — £14–14s
Adam Bates’s time attending the erections of said bridges, 7 weeks @ 16s per week — £5–12s
His expenses, Coach hire etc — £5–1s-6d
December 1800. Thomas Thomas’s time attending when the stone and Iron Work were repaired after the large Bridge was damaged by the floods — £9–9s
His expenses — £10–10s
Total — £456–1s-6d
The accounts show once again just what a parlous state the Canal Company’s finances were in at the time because it was not until the 18th of September 1801 that the Coalbrookdale Company was paid in two instalments of £228–0s-9d. Incidentally, George Stothert, Coalbrookdale’s local agent, is not mentioned in the minutes, and there are no entries in the ledger during the building phase.
On the 23rd of July 1800, Edward Bushell was given the chance to redeem himself when he was given the contract for the sidewalls from Bridge No 6 to Tunnel No 2 at price of 12s-6d per cubic yard ‘in order that the works may proceed with more expedition. Mr. Bushell was informed by the Committee that if any deviation in this Work were made from the Plan delivered by James Mills, the party making such deviation would be discharged’.
Evidence for the canal’s imminent completion is to be found in the 1800 edition of the Bath Directory, published in the summer. A description of Sydney Gardens contains the observation ‘in three or four months the beautiful situation of the garden will be considerably heightened by the Kennet and Avon Canal passing through, over which two or three elegant cast iron bridges are to be thrown after the manner of the Chinese’. Actual proof that the canal was in water by the end of November 1800 comes from a minute which reports that the ‘Sydney Gardens Company have put a pipe into the Canal to draw off water’, a situation that was referred to the management committee.
On the 19th of March 1801 John Gale placed a notice in the Chronicle announcing that he had recently taken the tenancy of Sydney House, Gardens and Ride. In addition to an ‘elegant ball room and commodious coffee room,’ it featured ‘The novelty of the Kennet and Avon Canal, which is carried through the Garden and Ride, and completed in the most handsome manner, with Ornamental Iron Bridges etc with various improvements in the Plantations, add considerably to the picturesque Beauties for which the spot has been universally admired’.
The canal was opened to Sydney Wharf without ceremony on or about the 18th of May 1801. Only the London Star confirmed that the section to Bath was now finished: “On Friday the Western District of the Kennet and Avon Canal, extending from Bath to Foxhanger Farm, near Devizes, was navigable for Barges and it is expected in a few weeks the Somerset Coal Canal will be completed along the Timsbury Line, when immediate trade will take place”.
The Ledger reveals that the final payment of £200 was made to William Pritchard in September 1801. The Sydney Gardens section had cost the Canal Company £9562–16s-9d, equivalent to £850,000 today. Approximately 70,000 tons of earth had been excavated by hand, to be replaced by nearly 8,000 tons of dressed masonry.
