Southampton and Salisbury Canal


Construction Begins


At the first general meeting of the new company in May 1795, Thomas Ridding was elected clerk, two joint treasurers were appointed, and Joseph Hill became resident engineer. Thomas Ridding was granted a salary of £75pa and Hill was to receive a salary of £400pa for the exclusive use of his services. Edward Gee of Lockerley was engaged as general contractor.

The first contracts were signed on 15 October 1795 for much of the work and by the end of 1796 contracts for the whole line as far as Alderbury Common (ten miles in all) had been signed.

The whole of the Southampton arm, including the tunnel, was contracted to Thomas Jinkins (or Jenkins), a stonemason from Romsey who came with a recommendation from the Leominster Canal company. The committee must have been unaware that the Herefordshire company was having great difficulties with its own tunnels upon which Jinkins had been employed previously.

Edward Gee was awarded the main contract for the Salisbury arm as far as West Grimstead but the more technical work on this section, such as building locks, aqueducts and drawbridges, was carried out by other contractors. Workmen were recruited from other canal projects, some from Combe Hay on the Somersetshire Coal Canal.

Work began very quickly on both the Southampton and Salisbury sections.

To pay for this, the company had made an initial call of £4 15s per £100 share but some were reluctant to pay up. In October, a second call of £5 was made, but 12 shareholders were still in default from the first call.

Work on the Southampton and Salisbury Canal revived interest in the scheme to join the Itchen Navigation and the Basingstoke Canal near Aldershot. As this was potentially of benefit to their own scheme, the committee allowed Joseph Hill to survey the route for them in March 1796 and Thomas Ridding to become their solicitor. The lack of water at the summit would be a major problem and Hill suggested the use of a pumping engine from Boulton and Watt of Birmingham. The canal would cost £127,000 to build and £2,540 a year to run. George Smith, surveyor of the Basingstoke Canal, estimated the canal would cost £157,566. With the support of the two companies, the London and Southampton Ports Junction Canal was actively promoted.


Problems with the Tunnel


Meanwhile there were already problems with the tunnel. After quarrels with two of his assistants, Thomas Jinkins reported on 3 November 1796 that there were problems with bad ground and water in the tunnel. Whilst three shafts had been sunk, only at the ends of the tunnel was there any excavation and water seepage was causing falls of the roof and sides.

In March 1797, it was decided to dig most of the tunnel by cut and cover and reduce its length to about 580yds. A plan dated 29 June 1797 shows 175 yards had been completed out of a total length of 584 yards. A later document, though, shows the length as 560 yards.

By 26 December 1797, the tunnel and its cost were causing the committee such concern that they decided to ask the prominent engineer, John Rennie to report. He was asked to inspect after about 200yds had been dug. Rennie was working on the Kennet & Avon and a number of other projects. However, he also acted as consultant engineer for the Southampton and Salisbury. In his report of March 1798, he stated:

"In respect of the work already done, it is by no means completed, those parts that are likely to stand are ill framed and seem to have been done with little care or Judgement . . . . In joining the different lengths of Arching together they do not in many places agree, i.e. sometimes one length is sunk more than another. . . . At the West end of the tunnel a part of the sheeting for about 16 or 17 yards in length has entirely risen up and the tunnel has sunk about a foot. The whole of this length must be taken out and done anew . . . . The Bricks I have examined are unsound, there is too much sand in the clay. . . . The sand that has been used for the mortar is perfectly unfit for the purpose, being little better than clay. . . . An agent or superintendent skilled in works of this sort should be procured, with an adequate salary, and his whole attention directed to it, not only to see the works are properly executed, but that no improper materials be used  . . ."

At the end of March, despite Joseph Hill's explanations, the committee commented:

"It appears  . . . by Mr. Rennie's Report in his Survey of the Tunnel that the work has been injudiciously done and the Materials not of that Quality for such Work and that the Contractor has not gone on with the work in the way the Committee had a right to expect."

The committee acted upon Rennie's recommendations. Jinkins would have to correct the defective work at his own cost and he was told that he would be dismissed in the case of any further negligence. All money due to him would be withheld until he had completed the repairs. As a result, Jinkins was unable to pay his men or for materials and soon writs were being served upon him.

The decision to cut and cover was soon afterwards reversed.


Problems with Money


In mid 1798, the last call of £10 was made, making the full £100 per share. Already the capital had been spent and the many defaulters did not help the position.

The contractors were asked to finish off what they could. The bed of the canal was to be puddled with clay to make it watertight. The canal from the western tunnel mouth to Redbridge was nearly ready though there was trouble with the embankment between the canal and the estuary which was to be raised two feet to keep out the tide. Attempts were made to complete the locks between Kimbridge and Alderbury Common and the Andover Canal company was asked to allow their water to fill the bottom pound at Kimbridge. Much work had been done on the sea-lock at God's House Tower and the cut to Northam. But no part of the canal was yet in use.

In June 1798, Rennie inspected the whole canal and he found that improvements had been made. A few relatively minor alterations were required with the locks and drawbridges, but the tunnel was much improved and the works "are generally proceeding in a workmanlike manner". But this was too little too late.

In August, a general meeting was called by a number of shareholders. This meeting heard that "the men have now nearly a month's wages due." But there was no money to pay them.

It was thought that another £10,000 would be enough to finish the tunnel and the committee appealed unsuccessfully to shareholders for an advance of a further 20 per cent. The company slipped into bankruptcy.


Send your comments to the Web Site manager (Peter Oates)

© Southampton Canal Society 2009-17. Except where otherwise indicated, information on these pages may be reproduced provided permission is obtained from the Web Site manager beforehand and due acknowledgement made to the Society.

Page created 21 May 2005 - published 17 February 2009. Layout and content updated 7 April 2017.


This page is valid XHTML 1.0