Description:Although many documents amongst Earl Gower’s papers promote the construction of canals, a number of papers present the arguments against the development of navigable waterways. Earl Gower’s papers are therefore valuable sources for reading about the contemporary debate surrounding the construction of canals in the later eighteenth century.
One such document is a copy of the ‘Proceedings of the Commitee of Lords’ from the 14th March 1797 relating to an Act enabling the ‘Company of Proprietors of the Navigation from the Trent to the Mersey’ to ‘make a navigable canal called the ‘Caldon Canal’ near ‘the Town of Leek, in the County of Stafford’. The Act also gave permission for the Company to build a Reservoir which would be used ‘for supplying the several canals of the said company with water’.
Many parties, ranging from merchants, manufacturers and the proprietors of canal companies to those owning land adjoining the proposed canal were present at the committee meeting. It is evident from this document that certain parties were in favour of the proposal, but other parties were against the construction of the ‘Leek Canal’.
Objections to the proposed canal mentioned in the document include those based on the financial costs involved. The committee questioned the Canal’s engineer William Cross about this, enquiring whether the estimated £9, 970 cost would include ‘the expenses of making the reservoir’. William Cross answered that it did not, stating that ‘the Reservoir, independent of the Canal, will be about £2,000'. Following his reply, the document states that it was then ‘objected that the Standing Orders relative to Canal Bills have not been complied with, inasmuch as the Expences of the Reservoir, &c. are not included in the said Sum of £9,970’.
Further objections are based on issues concerning ‘the consent’ of affected ‘Land Owners’ in an adjoining area called Rudyerd Vale. The document proposes that ‘considerable Occupiers of land’ did not consent to the canal. Other objections relate to the drainage of the proposed Reservoir, including concerns about ‘waste water’. It was feared that ‘waste water’ may ‘run’ from the Reservoir causing damage to neighbouring land. A further concern was the potential detrimental impact on local fisheries caused by damage the reservoir may cause to ‘the Freshes’ in the rivers, which were ‘necessary to catch other fish as well as salmon’.