JOHN BAGSHAWE. (1758-1801)

[Stanley]

JOHN BAGSHAWE. (1758-1801)


Taken from ‘A Study in Engineering History: Bagshawe versus the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, 1790/1799’ by R B Schofield. Printed in the Bulletin of John Rylands Library, University of Manchester. Autumn 1976.


John Bagshawe inherited the joint estates of the brothers William and John Bagshawe in November 1791. These were the Oaks, Wormhill Hall of Castleton and Coates Hall Barnoldswick. He had trained as a lawyer and for a time looked after his Uncle John but when he died and John Bagshawe inherited he devoted the rest of his time to managing his estates.

The Coates Hall Estate included tenanted farms at Coates Hall, Greenberfield and Coates Flatt. He owned the Corn Mill and worked Greenberfield Quarry. His uncle William Bagshawe who was in possession of Coates in 1770 when the first plans were being made for the canal, realised that he owned the nearest limestone to Lancashire on the line of the canal. (Greenberfield and Coates lie on the limestone side of the Craven Fault, which divides the grit stone to the south of Barlick from the limestone to the north.)

Around 1770 he constructed a ‘deep drain’ to dewater Greenberfield Rock and during negotiations about the canal passing through his land he negotiated with John Longbottom of Halifax, the Canal Co’s principal Engineer and Surveyor for an ‘arched road’ under the waterway to allow the drain and a road to the quarry to pass. Longbottom agreed to put this before the general committee of the canal and assured him it would be ordered. (9Sept 1770)

In 1790 when canal plans were revived, tenant at Greenberfield was Thomas Thornber and at Coates Flatt, Peter Hartley. Peter Hartley attended a meeting in Colne on 24/11/1790 and reported to JB that it appeared plans had changed and his underpass was not to be built. This plus the rough way the contractors treated the locals as digging commenced seems to be the start of JB’s troubles with the L&L Co.

The canal company proposed to do away with what was the existing Skipton Road at Greenberfield and take the line down the east side of the canal to Gill thus saving two bridges and in the process, destroying JB’s plans for his quarry. He also learned that the underpass for the drain was not to be built.

JB believed that the lime in Greenberfield was better quality than that in Gill Rock Quarry opened by Colonel Farrand shortly before 1790. He suspected that the company wanted to prevent him from exploiting his quarry as they had their eye on opening a quarry of their own. In later years when Canal Co. bought land from Mr Parker at Rainhall for a quarry it seemed he was right. Schofield thinks however that it wasn’t deliberate, just shortage of capital putting pressure on the company to make least accommodation roads and bridges.

Bagshawe went to Joseph Outram [1732-1810] (father of Benjamin Outram (1764-1805)) who was to act for him until JB’s death in 1801. The matter was settled by a payment from the Canal Co to JB, or so it seemed at the time.

The Canal Co seem to have gone ahead with their original plan which was to divert the Skipton Road down the east side of the canal to the existing Greenberfield bridge. They built the bridge and after a period of worsening relations a discussion was held on 11 Nov 1797 with the canal co reps in a pub in Barlick and JB in Coates Hall, communications were by notes! Not surprisingly, it ended in deadlock.

Round about 1798 a new tenant, John Waite moved into Greenberfield and obstructed the new road with hurdles and brushwood. They stopped the road over twenty times but the Canal Co threw it down each time.

Late in 1798 Benjamin Outram came to inspect and reported on ‘Mr Bagshawe’s estate on the Banks of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal.’ By February 1799 Bagshawe had won his case against the Canal Co. The canal co built the accommodation bridges for Eastwood and Banks but seem to have put only a ‘swivel’ bridge in on the line of the old road. No trace of this remains and the present road follows the new line put in by the Canal Co.

After this victory JB died in Staines on 21 August 1801. The Greenberfield Quarry was never exploited, the canal co’s road line to Greenberfield survived. The canal co’s quarry at Rainhall prospered, as did Farrand’s at Gill Rock.


SCG/15/09/00

[Stanley]

Bumped

[Pluto]

In 2006, when the road was closed because part had fallen into the canal, I was asked by British Waterways to look into the history of the road.

The road above Greenberfield Locks: an historical survey
Mike Clarke

Introduction

The construction of canals was the first time that large-scale works over a long route had required management. Planning, including assessing land requirements, was purely outline, with the actual land used being itemised and paid for after the works had been completed. Detail land usage problems had to be addressed on the spot, and this did occasionally cause problems. Canal Acts included clauses which authorised Commissioners to adjudicate on arguments between land owners and the canal company with regard to land valuation and compensation for damage. It says much for the way society operated then that such Commissioners were rarely required. For other problems it was possible for land owners to go to court, but again this was unusual. However one place where this did happen is Greenberfield where the local land owner, John Bagshawe, had to go to law to try to settle his arguments with the Leeds & Liverpool Canal Company. A major part of the argument concerned the construction of accommodation bridges, to serve pieces of land isolated from the estate by the construction of the canal, and the diversion of a public highway.

Although the canal at Greenberfield was built between 1791 and 1794, the legal arguments over the bridges and road were not completed until 1800, the final payments for the land not being made until 1825. A legal judgement was made in 1799 against the diversion of the highway, but this was not complied with, possibly because the death of John Bagshawe in 1801. He lived on one of his other estates in Derbyshire and was not in a position to oversee matters at Greenberfield as his health failed. His heirs had little interest in the estate and did not press for the damages caused by the canal's construction to be restored.

Many roads were crossed by canals, and the problem of bridges was recognised by standard clauses being inserted into canal Acts. The first Act for the Leeds & Liverpool Canal gave the right to build bridges over the canal and to alter their approaches. Such clauses must have been found to be insufficient to cover all aspects of roads crossing the canal as the second Act contained the following clause:

1783 Act, 23 Geo III, cap 47
XXII And whereas some of the bridges erected and made by the said Company of Proprietors over the said cuts or canals, and the approaches to such bridges, in several of the public highways and roads leading thereto, have been found to be very inconvenient and dangerous to persons passing and repassing over the same; and it is expedient that a summary method of remedying such inconvenience should be provided; for which purpose, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the Company of Proprietors shall from time to time, and at all times hereafter, well and sufficiently amend and keep in good repair all and every the bridges already erected and made, or which shall hereafter be erected or made in any public highway or road, by virtue of or under either of the said recited Acts, or of this Act, or any of them, and also shall amend and keep in good repair all and every the wing walls belonging to such bridges, with the road over, and so much of this road or approach leading to or from such bridges, as shall either lie or be within such wing walls, or the land adjoining thereto, which hath been or hereafter shall be taken by or on behalf of the said Company of Proprietors, for the use of the said cuts or canals; but if such bridges, wing walls, or such part of the roads or approaches thereto as aforesaid, have not been or shall not be effectually made, or shall not at all times hereafter be kept in good repair and condition, it shall or may be lawful to and for any two or more of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the County, Riding or District, in which such bridge, highway or road shall lie, upon complaint thereof being made to them, to cause the treasurer or clerk of the said Company of Proprietors residing next to such bridge, highway or road, to be summoned to appear before such Justices at such time and place as they think fit (of which twenty days notice shall be previously given to such treasurer or clerk) to shew cause why such bridge, wing walls, highway or road shall not be effectually made or repaired…

The third Act continued the defining of the rights and responsibilities of the canal company. Until this time, many of the bridges across the canal had been built as swing bridges, with all their associated problems in operation. This Act restricted swing bridges to locations where local people approved their use. Many which had already been built, particularly in the Liverpool area, were converted to over bridges, and few new swing bridges were built on the canal following this Act. The gradient of the approaches to over bridges were also defined to ensure that horse-drawn vehicles could pass such bridges without too much effort. The relevant clauses were as follows:

1790 Act, 30 Geo III cap 65
XIII And whereas doubts have been raised whether the Company of Proprietors of the Canal Navigation from Leeds to Liverpool are liable to be indicted for not making or keeping in repair bridges, wing walls and ramparts in highways over and across the navigable cut or canal from Leeds to Liverpool now erected in or belonging to the said Company, by virtue of or under any Act of Parliament now in being, and whereas the wooden and swivel bridges at present erected in many highways over the said cut or canal are dangerous and accidents happen, and great obstructions to the passage, by the frequent want of repairs of the said bridges, and by neglect in turning and fastening the same, and the very great difficulty of detecting and punishing by laws now in being the persons neglecting to turn and fasten the said swivel bridges, be it therefore enacted that the said Company of Proprietors shall make stone or brick bridges in all highways not otherwise provided for by this Act over and across the said cut or canal already made by virtue of any former Act, together with the wing walls, ramparts and side banks belonging or approaching to, over, and from such bridges, such approaches not to be steeper than two inches and a half in a yard length, and so in proportion of ascent in all places not otherwise provided for by this Act…
XIV And be it also declared, that the said Company of Proprietors shall be liable to be indicted at Common Law for not making stone or brick bridges in all highways over and across the said cut or canal already made and opened where they can be made by approaches not steeper or of greater ascent than two inches and a half in every yard in length, and so in proportion, within two years next after the passing of this Act.
XV Bridges to be kept in repair
XVI Justices to decide if swivel bridges can be used.

The requirement for over bridges caused problems for the canal's engineer. Canals are usually built on contour lines, so where the slope was great, the bridge approaches on the lower side of the canal needed much embanking. Such approaches often lie parallel to the canal, the road turning sharply through ninety degrees to cross the canal. From the engineer‘s point of view, and from the canal company's in view of the extra cost, over bridges at sloping sites were best avoided. This was the case with the old highway at Greenberfield which it was decided to divert so that an easier location for a bridge could be used.

Construction of the canal had stopped after the sections from Gargrave to Leeds, and Wigan to Liverpool had opened by 1781. Money was in short supply, probably because of the American War of Independence. The economy had improved by 1790 when work began again on building the canal from Gargrave up to the summit level. Robert Whitworth was taken on as the engineer, and he brought many Scots navvies down from Glasgow where he had just finished the Forth & Clyde Canal.

He made several alterations to the route. The original route had been through Padiham and Whalley to Leyland and Parbold. The 1790 Act authorised a line from Barrowford to Whalley to the south of the River Calder and thus avoiding the large aqueduct at Whalley. At this time he also lowered the proposed summit level by about thirty feet, avoiding locks at Foulridge and extra locks at Barrowford, but requiring Foulridge Tunnel. The lower summit level improved the possible water supply to the canal. The following 1793 and 1793 Acts authorised a complete change in the route to the present line through Burnley and Blackburn to Wigan.

The canal immediately above Greenberfield locks was to pass through the lands of Benjamin Ferrand and John Bagshawe. The existing highway crossed the line of the canal twice, and Whitworth first suggested just building one bridge, below the two-rise summit lock, at this time. A new road alongside the canal would be built to the bridge. Part of the new road was through Benjamin Farrand's land, and he complained vigorously about this. As a result, the length of road through his land was halved and a second bridge over the canal above the locks was to be included. The bridge, located on relatively level ground, was at a much better site than where the old highway was crossed by the canal. There the land sloped down sharply and this would have required extensive approaches on the lower side. Bagshawe was not consulted about the new road. Work on setting out the line of the canal through Bagshawe's Greenberfield estate began in September 1790, with Whitworth trying to deal just with the tenants, Thomas Thornber at Greenberfield and Peter Hartley at Cotes Flatt, possibly because Bagshawe did not visit Barnoldswick very often.

The Bagshawe family had owned Coates Hall Estate, Barnoldswick, for several generations. The owner when the canal was being built was John Bagshawe junr (1758-1801). He was the son of Col. Samuel Bagshawe (?-1762). His guardian after his father's death, William Bagshawe (1713-1785), owner of Coates Hall, died in 1785 and William's estates passed to his brother, John Bagshawe, (1715-1791). John junr inherited the estate, which included Cotes Flatt farm, Greenberfield farm and Hall farm, and the nearby mill, in 1791 from John Bagshawe senr. The various wills associated with John Bagshawe's Coates inheritance were not well written and this was to cause problems with the sale of land used for the canal to the canal company.

On Feb 2nd, 1791, notice was issued by the canal company that they wanted to purchase lands now set out for the canal. Work was begun, but by the end of May Bagshawe, through his agent Mr Starkie, delivered a Discharge requiring the workers to vacate his land. Agreement had not been reached over the price of the land, partly because the canal company were not happy with its legal ownership after looking at an abstracts of the William Bagshawe will. Work on the canal was to continue, with the company saying it would defend in court any attempt by Bagshawe to remove the workers. Bagshawe responded by sending a further abstract of William Bagshawe's will, though this was not to solve the problem. However, on 17th October, 1791, the canal company paid £350 on account for Bagshawe's land to Micah Hall, the surviving Trustee named in William Bagshawe's will.

Also in February, 1791, construction of the eight Barrowford locks and the open part of Foulridge Tunnel was to be let, as well as work at Gargrave. By June. work in the Greenberfield and Holme Bridge areas was let, and in September, Whitworth reported that James Hudson, the contractor for bridges on the summit level, had only built the Salterforth aqueduct, the County Brook aqueduct, and two road bridges. Preparations were in hand for the other bridges, with 20 masons, 20 quarriers and labourers, and eight carts at work. He was expected to finish the contract by the end of the year.

In, December, 1791, a revised line of canal, through Burnley and Blackburn, was authorised to be surveyed, and on the route already confirmed work westward from tunnel started in June 1792. (The two routes diverged towards the bottom of Barrowford Locks) By this time work at Greenberfield was well underway and in October John Bagshawe junr first complained to the canal committee about the construction of the road across his lands and other matters. As Robert Whitworth had suggested in 1790, during construction of the canal a deviation of the old highway had been built to avoid the erection of a bridge. Unfortunately this road was between land where Bagshawe was developing a limestone quarry and the canal, and would have caused him problems with moving and loading the limestone.

Difficulties with Bagshawe continued, the canal committee discussing his memorandum regarding his demands for extra accommodation bridges, culverts and payment for damages in October 1792.. Most of the culverts were in hand, but the bridges were still thought unnecessary as the bridges being built were considered to be sufficient.

In, June, 1794, Bagshawe put his proposals as to how the various problems caused to his property by the canal's construction could be alleviated to the canal committee. Work on the canal in the Greenberfield area was now almost complete as it opened to Foulridge in August, 1794. In that month the committee suggested that they pay £120 to Bagshawe per occupation bridge instead of constructing them (This was more than the cost of building the bridges) and also rent the fields which had been isolated. Regarding the road, they suggested either building a bridge where the old highway crossed the canal or building an arm into Bagshawe's quarry with a bridge for the road to overcome the problem of access to the canal across the road. Bagshawe would have none of this, and he asked his solicitor to give notice for a Commission to look into his problems with the canal's construction as allowed by the canal's Acts.

Two years later Foulridge Tunnel opened in May, 1796, though the canal company's dealings with Bagshawe were still not finalised. In June they had raised their offer to £160 per bridge as compensation for not building them. The committee accepted his proposals in July, 1796, and some of the problems were addressed. The company agreed to make a bridge over the arm into the quarry if Bagshawe should make this. But Bagshawe was still not happy. In June, 1797, he said the road would be stopped up and destroyed unless agreement was reached. By this time the bridge above the locks would have been built and the road opened to the public despite Bagshawe issuing notices about trespass on his land.

There were new tenants at Greenberfield farm, John Waite and his sons, and they set about closing the road with gates and brushwood which were removed by canal workers. Damages were sought by Bagshawe at York Assizes in April, 1798, but the court found against him suggesting that the road was a public highway. The Waites continued to erect gates, and just a regularly canal workers removed them, once with John Waite junr still clinging to a gate.

As set out in the Act, he eventually called for Commissioners to be brought together to make a decision on the various uncompleted works on his lands. They reported, giving the following legal orders to the canal company, on the Nov 9th, 1798.

1. Culvert from Bowker Ing, no order necessary.
2. Back drain on lower side of canal, no order necessary.
3. Arch tunnel or passage in the Butts occupied by Thos and James Thornber, no order necessary.
4. Arch tunnel or passage in Benj Ferrand's estate occupied by Thos Cockroft, no order necessary.
5. Two watering places for cattle to be made in fields called the Banks and the Croft.
6. Dividing and separating the towpath adjoining the canal other than as now done, no order necessary.
7. Two bridges to be made, one in the Croft at the west side of Coates Hall, and one in the Banks within 200 yards of the old road at a place decided by Thos Cockroft of Bracewell to serve lands tenanted by John Waite and Henry Parkinson.

It seems that between July, 1796 and the summer of 1798 the canal company had completed most of the necessary works, with just several watering places and the two accommodation bridges linking fields in Bagshawe's estate requiring construction. Both these bridges, called Banks Bridge and Hawcroft's or Eastwood Bridge, were removed in the twentieth century.

The diversion of the old highway continued to cause problems. On 8th March, 1799, Joseph Priestley, the canal's manager, wrote to Bagshawe asking for terms regarding the continued use of the diverted road until such time as a bridge could be built on the line of the old highway. Ten days later he wrote again on the same subject. Bagshawe may have been waiting for the result of another meeting of Commissioners at Barnoldswick who were looking into compensation for damages caused during canal construction requested by his tenants.

Bagshawe would not be appeased, and he took the canal company to the York Assizes where, in April, 1799, he was vindicated in his attitude to the road. An Order was made at the Quarter Sessions for a wooden or swivel bridge with an ascent of four and a half inches in the yard and no more to be built on the line of the old highway. However, all his opposition to the canal company had taken its toll on Bagshawe, and he died in 1801. It seems unlikely that a bridge on the line of the old highway was built as no such bridge appears on the 1826 survey of the canal, though the bridge narrows are indicated. Perhaps just the foundations had been installed. A list of canal bridges compiled in 1843 also does not show a bridge for the old highway. Perhaps, with Bagshawe's death, his heirs were not too concerned with the development of the Coates estate. Financial matters over the purchase of the land and the damages were not settled until 1825, some thirty-five years after work on the canal at Greenberfield had begun.

The road seems to have continued as a public highway, despite legal judgements against this. The two canal bridges caused problems for traffic, particularly with the increase in motor vehicles, and a diversion opened, through Farrand's former limestone quarry, in October, 1934. Who was responsible for the maintenance of the road and its canal walls? This must have been a continuing problem until 1940 when an agreement was reached with West Yorks CC over repair of the road and burr wall.

[Stanley]

Thanks for that Mike. Even more detail! Nice.

[Stanley]

Bumped