Proposed canal and mines at Billingsley and Kinlet

In the 1790s William Pulteney, who owned much of the land in Billingsley, let the coal on his estate to a group of mainly north country businessmen lead by George Johnson, one of the leading colliery engineers of the day and Dr Henry Grey Macnab, his brother-in-law. For this enterprise to succeed, it was vital that there was access to the River Severn, to allow the coals to be moved to large towns by water. Unfortunately to do this, Pulteney needed the consent of William Childe of Kinlet, who owned land which any canal or tramroad had to cross to pass from the Severn to Billingsley. The documents on this page fall into two groups. The first are correspondance, largely between Pulteney and Childe over the proposed canal. Childe was unenthusiastic about the proposal, as the letters make clear. Childe eventually agreed to a tramway on condition that Johnson and partners also agreed to take a lease of his mines in Kinlet; the second set of documents appear to be from Childe's agent and are comments on the agreement about proposed leases to cover the tramway or canal and the Kinlet mines.

The letters have been abstracted. Notes added in square brackets are editorial comments.

Correspondance about the proposed canal

B’north 26th Feb. 1793. Messrs Lewis & Marshall to W.G. Roberts Esq. 26 Craven St, Strand, London

“Several people who are owners of estates in Stoddeston & Highley think it will be to their advantage to have a canal from Oreton Limeworks to the Severn in Highley: the distance is about 10 miles & there are inexhaustible mines of coal, ironstone & lime & great quantities of timber along the route. If it meets with Mr Childes approval it will go through the lower part of his estate, where there are considerable mines & timber & will be to his advantage. The gentlemen intend to ask Mr Childe. If you can say a word in favour of the intended canal, we will thank you, as we look upon it as a very considerable point to have his support. You are also to be [a joint solicitor?] with Marshall & myself.”

[This letter is catalogued as “Mr Lewis’s proposal for a canal…” Lewis and Marshall were local solicitors.]


Shrewsbury 16th October 1794. Sir Wm. Pulteney to Wm. Childe

“I was in the hopes of having the pleasure of seeing you here at the hunt meeting… when I intended to mention the proposal for a canal from Billingsley to Highley, put forward by the lessors of my coal works. These will only work the collieries on a large scale or not at all, & I also wish to have it carried on extensively, as at my death the estate goes to others”. Pulteney hopes Childe will be agreeable, as if all land owners agree, an Act of Parliament is not needed: Childes influence with surrounding landowners would be sufficient to persuade them if he was in favour. The canal would be of great advantage to the neighbourhood & preserve the highways, at present much cut up by heavy carriages. Sends John Scott to get Childes reply.


19th Oct. Wm. Childe to Sir Wm. Pulteney

“I was just returned from hunting & going to sit down to dinner yesterday when your agent called upon me at Kinlet…”
He would like to help Pulteney’s scheme to carry on extensive coal works at Billingsley, but considers canal to be full of disadvantages to himself, his tenants & the neighbourhood: none of the neighbourhood would be supplied from the canal & there would be an increase in cost of heavy winter carriage, to the detriment of the “execrable” turnpikes.
There was also had a vein of coal under his own land facing the Severn which he would not be able to work to such advantage, nor send down the canal. He also heard that it was proposed to extend the cut to Oreton. This would lead to a doubling in the price of lime “& even at present Oreton cannot supply half the demand from the rye lands about Kidderminster & as the farmers in that county are much more opulent & under a more improved system of husbandry than on this side of the river, the canal would simply raise the price of the two most valuable articles viz. coal & lime, over a large district of cold, thinly inhabited area, so that the lower class of people would suffer severely in the former most essential comfort & that lime, (the only manure obtained by your tenants as well as all the other farmers) would only be used in very small quantities, causing impoverishment & lowering the real value of landed property in the district”. Childe requests further details as to inducements Pulteney would make to him, i.e. concessionary coal from Billingsley, compensation for canal passing between 3 & 4 miles of Kinlet estate, free use of canal, etc.


24th Oct. Shrewsbury Wm. Pulteney to Wm. Childe

Acknowledges letter of 19th: would have replied sooner, but a painful swelling made writing impossible. Would try to answer Childes objections. “The contractors for my coal works are expected here in a few days”. Knows nothing of extension to Oreton.


4th Nov. Bewdley Wm. Pulteney to Wm. Childe

Pulteney argues that the canal will develop the hinterland, leading to an expansion in trade & increase the prosperity of the neighbourhood. He cites examples of turnpike roads in London & district which have not impoverished the surroundings. In the case of coal, he agrees that the canal would give Billingsley coal access to markets where the price is greater than at present paid for in the neighbourhood. However, only the best coal would be sold to this market. The lessees of the coal works would still have to raise inferior coal, which would sell cheaply in the locality. Failing this, there would also be small coal & slack, which would be of best quality, but not saleable on the wider market. As greater quantities of inferior & small coal will be raised at the new works, the price will drop in the neighbourhood of Billingsley. The coal in general use & sold from Billingsley is at the moment the inferior kind & Childe himself sent to Bewdley in order to get a better type of coal. The country around Billingsley will have the advantage of a regular supply of coal & the farmers will benefit from the increased wealth the works will draw into the country. It will be easy to land coal anywhere on the banks of the canal for the advantage of the farmers, rather than them having to collect the coal from the colliery. Can also send grain down the canal. As regards Oreton limeworks, these get their coal from the Clee Hill. As he has heard the lime rock is almost inexhaustible, the reason the works cannot produce enough lime is because they must be short of coal: this could be sent up the canal from Billingsley. This would allow more lime to be burnt, & the price would fall. In any case, the Oreton extension is no part of the plans of the lessees of his coal works, & they will engage not to extend it to Oreton, but they cannot prevent others from doing this. Lessees are prepared to pay Childe 3x the rentable value of any land the canal passed through, which would amount to 3x 15/- per acre & would allow Childe to pay a reduced tonnage rate on any goods he sent down the canal. The coal works at Billingsley would not undercut Childe’s own coal, due to the vast size of the market to be supplied down the Severn. Coal prices in the Severn trade are always increasing.


Kinlet, Nov. 23rd 1794 Wm. Childe to Wm. Pulteney

“I have been so much indisposed with a severe rheumatic complaint.” Childe still thinks the price of coal & lime will increase: “the lessees will not by inclination serve the neighbourhood with coals at a lower price than they can get elsewhere, unless these inhabitants are content to burn such refuse as you say the proprietors of your works will not think worth carrying down their canal”. There are no roads from Kinlet estate to the line of the canal – it is easier to take goods straight to Bewdley. The present offer of compensation viz. 45/- per acre not enough. The stream to be converted to a canal has a valuable logmill on it, & he has frequently had offers (some within the last 6 months) to erect cotton mills, oil-cake mills & iron works along this brook. He requests to know the exact line the canal will take. He insists on having free use of the canal & cites the example of the Marquis of Stafford’s canal in Coalbrookdale.


Scotts Farm Feb. 3rd 1795 Rev. J. Purcell to Wm. Childe

Purcell had just written to Dr. H. G. Macnab, informing him that if he was agreeable to Childe, Macnab would see him at 12.00 am today. He is convinced that the canal would be to Childe’s advantage. Childe’s coals by the brookside are of a sulphurous nature & unless they have a canal to provide a ready & regular supply to the market, they will be unsellable. Childe’s land by the brookside the on west part of his estate is “a barren, unfaithful, desolate & a dreary spot, nothing is likely to clothe it with a rich residue as a canal”. Purcell considers that Childe holds Pulteney in contempt, but Pulteney’s interest is out of the question. The lessees will work the coal extensively. “If they can not have a canal they will make a railway, but this will be more expensive, as they will need more horses & carriages. If you frustrate the scheme in vain, will you look for such men as Mr Johnson & Co. to engage in so hazardous an undertaking.” He implores Childe to allow the canal to be built on condition that Johnson & Co. also get his coals in due time consistent with, “their word, their honour & their solemn engagement”.

[The Rev John Purcell owned Scott’s Farm in Chorley. He was a neighbour both of Childe and Pulteney and stood to gain from the new coal works, as Johnson and partners wished to mine the coal under his estate].

Memo concerning canal or tramway over Childe’s land

Undated
“If a canal be made instead of a railway, W.C. will take care to stipulate for lime to be delivered at a certain price to his tenants: And for compensation for ye loss of water, not only what it may now, or has been worth, but likewise for what it may probably be worth hereafter for ye purposes of iron mills etc.

These stipulations are to be previous to any agreement for a railway from B[illingsle]y pits & independent of it.

Perhaps the value of such railway may be computed in this manner: Sir Wm. P’s lessees talk of paying him for royalty from 5 to 10 thousand pounds a year. Suppose 3000 guineas for ye coals carried to ye river. This is to be a sixth of their value at the pits mouth. Then ye value of ye whole is 18000 guineas wch at 7s per ton will make ye quantity 54,000 tons It can hardly be doubted but that ye carriage by W.C’s way will be 2d/ton cheaper than by any other. But let ye lessees pay W.C. only half of ye sum of this computation & it will amount to £225 pr Ann, which they themselves will be gainers of an equal sum, besides saving the rent they must otherwise pay to the several landowners.

In case of agreement the clause for working W.C’s collieries is to be particularly insisted on, that they may not be taken for the purpose of using his estate for a railway or canal. The railway may be laid, but no coal carried on it till ye pits are working & coal raised on W.C’s estate.”

Solicitor’s notes on draft lease between Johnson & Co. & Wm. Childe

Undated:

Sheet 1 Lands to be reserved open to the river & proper for another company, provided the present shod not go on with spirit.

2 The mine not to be got nearer the out boundary than ten yards to avoid water from those adjoining when got.

3 There does not appear to be any consideration to W Childe for the indulgence of another gentleman’s mines being conveyed over his estate to the principal market! Eight pence cannot be one sixth part of what the coals will be sold for – Does Sir William’s agreement express 8d? – Messrs Johnson & Co having engaged the best situation in W Childes estate & having it in their power to quit at the end of any year. The rent should have been 400£ per year or the stipulated royalty, whichever may be the highest – for 200£ per year would be a poor income from such extensive mines as Mr Childes, & it may be [in] the interest of the company to occasion those mines to sleep – The stipulated royalty shod be confined to the River sale, deducting the carriage to the River, that being supposed to be not only the largest consumption, but much the highest price, but that shod be enquired into.

Sheet 9 The rent to be paid quarterly

11 The dozen of iron stone which weighs about 42 cwt in the Shropshire mines, pays a royalty of 3/- per dozen, as to Sir Williams agreement governing this!

12 The royalty of the limestone shod be fixed to prevent disputes, by enquiring how much is paid in other places. The royalty for clay is generally 1/- per thousand for both bricks & tiles.

16 Query if there shod not be a covenant for the company to pay all taxes & poor rates & to indemnify W Child

17 W Childes inspector to go down & up the pits by the same means of the companies servants go down & up

20 W Childes to pay about 2/- per ton for his coals

21 to 23 All buildings & erections which are not movable without destruction shod be left at the end of the term in good repair, except Fire engines which shod be paid for, if W Child choses to accept of them

24 Is W Childe compelled to tenure during Life? No [in different hand]

26 The coals used in smelting iron for their own use ought not to be reserved, as it may occasion disputes but a reservation of coal for their smithy is usual

27 An umpire to be provided for in the references. Is Sir William Pulteney’s agreement so drawn as to give them leave to quit at the end of any year?

29 W Childe is to have a higher royalty than Sir William Pulteney on account of his preferable situation to the River Severn – those words impower W Childe to take the River price in preference to the land-sale price if he finds it in his interest so to do – there need no arbitration about this; deduct the expense of carrying them to the river from the sum sold for, will produce the net sum from which W Childe is to have a sixth part, & that will be known by a production of their books

31 See Sir William Pulteney’s agreement & lease, it was not a first confessed that Sir William to have 200£ per year.