The Contractors
To Bricklayers, Masons, Canal Cutters etc – Notice is hereby given, that all Persons disposed to contract for excavating the Entrance Basin near the Thames at Rotherhithe, performing the Masonry, Brick-work &c of the Walls, and constructing the necessary Locks, may deliver sealed Proposals for the same, addressed to the Committee at their Office, Will’s Coffee-House, Cornhill, on Friday the 29th inst … Security will be required for the due execution of the Contract.
Advertisement placed by the Grand Surrey Canal Company, The Times, 8 July 1803
The contractors formed the link between the company and the workers. The navvies themselves had very little to do with either the company or the company’s officers: it was the contractors who hired them, the contractors who paid them, and the contractors who fired them.
The system of letting out construction work to independent contractors was established at the beginning of the canal-building period, although on the first projects the system was incomplete, with the company still being directly in control of men and equipment. The Coventry Canal, for example, was begun in 1768 and the contractors were only expected to provide labourers for the straightforward jobs of cutting and puddling. The company provided all the equipment – planks, shovels, picks and wheelbarrows. This turned out to be an unsatisfactory arrangement. For a start, there was the expense – the wheelbarrows, for example, were specially made for the company by John Roberts of Whitherley who agreed to produce a hundred barrows at 7s each and deliver them at the rate of twenty a month. As they were the company’s property, they had to pay someone to keep an eye on them – ‘One man 2 Day watching Barrows 0-2-0’ – and then had to pay more men to move them from one part of the works to another – ‘John Armstrong 6 days looking over odd men & gathering barrows & tools’.1 It all took time and money, and even then they lost them: ‘Ordered that an advertisement be published in Hand Bills and in the Coventry News Paper offering a Reward of Five Guineas for the Discovery of any Person who has stolen any of the Rails belonging to the company or taken away Wheelbarrows or other Utensils.’2 Eventually, it became obvious that the system was inefficient, and later contracts all specified that the contractors would have to supply their own equipment.
The contracts for digging were, at first, modest. No particular skills were looked for – all the contractor was asked to do was to provide enough able-bodied men who were willing to spend all day digging out a canal. The cash involved came in equally modest amounts; in the first stages there were nine contractors at work, sharing out a monthly total of £180, but a year later there were fourteen contractors and the cash involved had risen to almost £1,500.3 But, at this time, the company was still employing direct labour; skilled workers such as carpenters and masons were brought in by the company to look after the specialised jobs – lock construction and bridge building. The company also tried to keep some sort of control over the labourers at work in the diggings: ‘Ordered that Mr Wheeler do superintend the Labourers … and take check at proper times of their Numbers and he is impowered to discharge any of them who are negligent.’4 This system too was abandoned as it became clear that the company was getting neither the advantages of employing only direct labour nor the advantages of letting out all the work. In the end, they settled for the latter course.
More specialist labour was provided by bricklayers. In this scene from around 1910, the arch is being built over wooden centring. The lady does not appear to be dressed for a hard day’s work. (British Waterways)
The contracting system changed over the years, and the contractors changed with the system. At first most contracting firms were small concerns – either a group of men willing to take on cutting work, or local builders and masons who contracted for locks and bridges. Here are two typical contracts for the period, which were agreed by the Clerk of Works for the Oxford Canal Company in 1770: with John Watts ‘for completing to Mr Brindley’s satisfaction the Canal and Towing Path thro’ the whole extent of Lord Craven’s Estate at the rate of £350 per mile … also for building two Wagon Bridges of good Brick coped with stone at the price of £210 for both’; and with John Robinson ‘for all the level cutting from the Lane on the East Side of Anstey to the Valley betwixt Withybrooke and Combe Fields at three pence three farthings per cubic yard for digging and for finishing the slopes and back slopes and laying the soil again.’5
The demand for labour grew steadily, and the companies were no longer satisfied with employing local, untrained and unskilled labourers – they wanted trained navvies and experienced contractors. The canal companies were prepared to go much further afield and no longer relied on local resources. When, for instance, the Lancaster Company wanted to let out work, they listed the newspapers in which they intended to advertise: ‘Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Whitehaven, Derby, Edinburgh, Gen’ Evening, St James Chronicle.’6 They were no longer dealing with local contractors, but with contractors who were sending their men all over the country. So we find the same contractor in canal workings as far apart as Lancashire and Wiltshire. The scale of the contracts changed as well – there is a world of difference between the £210 contract for bridges of 1770 and the contracts given to Mr Pinkerton of Oldham and Mr John Murray of Colne by the Lancaster Canal Company for ‘cutting, banking and completing’ and ‘work on aqueducts, bridges etc’ which was valued at £52,000.’7
Although by the end of the canal building period the major part of the work was in the hands of the big contractors, employing hundreds of men, the smaller concerns still found a place within the system. Sometimes they were able to get a small piece of the work for themselves; more often they worked as sub-contractors, helping out the big concerns whose resources were overstretched.
A busy construction scene on the Rochdale Canal in Manchester in the nineteenth century. (British Waterways)
The bowler-hatted foreman and his men pose for the photographer during the reconstruction of Bingley Five Rise in the early twentieth century. (British Waterways)
Where did the contractors come from? The majority simply grew up with the canals – a demand was created, and it was in the nature of things that someone should come along to fill the need. The first contractors were hardly more than spokesmen and negotiators for a group of labourers. Many contracts, sometimes involving sums reaching into thousands of pounds, were made with men who could only sign their names with a cross, and who were described simply as ‘canal cutters’ or ‘diggers’, and who quite often had no fixed address. As time went on, it became more difficult for a man to get started in this way. It was no longer enough to supply the men, he was expected to supply materials as well. William Montague, for example, was a canal cutter who moved from Berkshire to Gloucester to take a contract on the Gloucester & Berkeley Canal. It specified that ‘the said William Montague shall at his own cost and charge find and provide all Machines, Planks, Wheelbarrows, Trussells, Gang Ladders and all other Tools and Implements.’ In the case of the contracts for tunnelling on the Kennet & Avon Canal, it was even specified that the contractors should provide their own horse gins and steam engines. This all required capital, and it also became usual for the company to insist on a bond being deposited. John Pixton, who also contracted with the Gloucester & Berkeley, was held responsible for any damage that might be caused by his men and had to deposit £200, which would be forfeited if he left before the work was finished. Occasionally, a company would agree to loan equipment, but this was certainly not usual practice. If a navvy wanted to start up as a contractor, then he had to find equipment and money from somewhere. One answer might be a small consortium: a contract for building an embankment on the Brecknock & Abergavenny Canal went to a group consisting of William Watkins, labourer, Thomas Powell, shopkeeper, and William Parry, gentleman – experience, equipment and cash. Sometimes the company’s own employees left to set up as contractors – once a supervisor had enough experience there was a strong temptation to cash in on it. Contractors’ employees, too, sometimes set out on their own. Many big contractors never visited the works – to the extreme annoyance of the engineers – and left the entire operation under the control of a foreman. The foreman might quite reasonably decide that if he was going to do all the work, he might as well see some of the money.
The big contractors usually had a fixed headquarters, conveniently situated for travelling to the different canal works. John Murray, for example, originally came from the Glasgow area, but settled in Lancashire. If, however, they became really big, then they no longer even considered such factors. An indication of just how far the business of contracting for canal work grew can be had by comparing the modest contracts of the wandering cutters with the contract given for completing the work on the Gloucester & Berkeley Canal. It went in 1823 to ‘Hugh Mcintosh of Bloomsbury Square – Contractor for Public Works’, and was worth £111,493 15s 11d.
From the entries in canal records, the impression given by the contractors is of a group of men who, at their best, were quarrelsome and incompetent and, at their worst, rogues and thieves. But this is a very one-sided view. For one thing, it was only the complaints that found their way into the records and, if there was a dispute, the company was unlikely to put down any side of the argument except their own. Undoubtedly, many contractors simply took a contract, did their work satisfactorily, collected their money and moved on. But, even so, there are so many disputes recorded that they must have represented a considerable problem to the companies. The Lancaster Canal Company certainly had more than its fair share of troubles with contractors, especially with Pinkerton and Murray. The story shows up the disadvantages of the whole system. Basically, the two sides had conflicting interests: the company wanted good workmanship, carefully done; the contractors wanted to cover the greatest possible distance in the shortest time and at the least cost to themselves.
Work on the Lancaster began in January 1793 and at first everything went well: ‘We are going on very briskly with the cutting & labourers crowd in.’8 The cutting continued to go well, but the masonry work, which had been let to Pinkerton, was not in quite such a happy state: ‘The cutters are now spread from Lune to Conder & get on very fast, but we have not yet a single stone carted to any part of the Work. The Mason Work we very much fear will be tedious and hinder the cutting.’9 That was the start of the trouble. By June, relations between the company and Pinkerton and Murray were becoming decidedly strained. The secretary, Samuel Gregson, wrote to Rennie:
‘Mr Murray is wanting to begin upon the New Lot, but the Come have refused to give him liberty at present because he may employ a greater number of Men on the present Lot, & the Land on the New Lot is not agreed for. The Come have great complaints that the work is not finished off as they go along, and a number of more hands might be employed without rambling over the Country & creating Damage unnecessarily.’
Lancaster Canal Letter Book, 5 June 1793
The Lune Aqueduct under construction. (British Museum)
By the end of the first year, disillusionment was total, and the tone of the letters to the two contractors had become almost despairing:
‘Messrs Pinkerton & Murray
… In respect to the Quarry at Cross Hill you ought to have known whether it would answer your works or not before you had gone ‘to the great expence’ as you state, and it will be well for you to fix on the place you propose for the Quarry to answer for your works before you apply for a road and also to give in an estimate of the expense, as the Come do not think it reasonable or right that they should make a road from every place that you choose to pick a few stones out of …
The Come are sorry that they have reason to observe that the General tendency of your Management is to get the works hurried on without regard to the convenience of the public, the loss of the land occupiers or the advantage of the company. You seldom provide the necessary accommodations before you begin to make the Bridges, and in the excavation you place your men in so many various places without either finishing as you proceed or making your fence wall & posts & railing – that the whole Country is laid open to damage. This grievance which has already caused so much trouble and expence is so very obvious & so much owing to your neglect that the company will no longer suffer it … The not fulfilling the promises you make & the want of attention in yourselves, your agents & workmen to the direction of the company Agent, are evils there is great reason to complain of.’
Lancaster Canal Letter Book. 14 December 1793
The letter continues for some time in the same vein, and was followed by many others. The complaints went on and on – unfinished work, disregarding instructions, poor workmanship, puddling so badly made that it was impossible to repair and had to be done all over again, the contractors away at other workings (Pinkerton and Murray were also major contractors on the Leeds & Liverpool). In general, the contractors not only infuriated the Lancaster Company, they managed to infuriate everyone for miles around and caused endless rows with landowners. Astonishingly, the company persevered with Messrs Pinkerton and Murray for two more years, though by the middle of 1795 the letters from the Committee were not so much despairing as almost hysterical:
‘The clamour is raging that you are to have Barrow beck running into the Canal this day – in point blank contradiction to the Act of Parliament – for good Gods sake do not be so very crazy as to turn the said brook without having full liberty from Lord A. Hamilton.’
Lancaster Canal Letter Book, Archibald Millar to Murray, 10 June 1795
Rennie, at a good, safe distance from the troubles, sent his word of consolation to the weary Gregson: ‘I am not surprised at your being out of patience with P & M. I think it would be a hard business for Job himself.’ By September 1795, the company had had enough, and decided to settle up with Pinkerton and Murray: their work was measured by independent arbitrators, the final accounts settled, and the Lots readvertised. The final word came at the company’s General Meeting in 1796. Gregson described it to Rennie:
‘Mr Pinkerton had an idea of creating some confusion & bustle amongst us & made a speech for that purpose – Dr Rigby answered him in the way he deserved & concluded with saying that what Mr Pinkerton had advanced were palpable falsehoods.
The whole of the Proprietors of Lancaster knew Mr P was making false Statements from their knowledge of the work round Lancaster. No one seconded him … this I hope will be our closing scene with those worthy Contractors.’
Lancaster Canal Letter Book, 11 January 1796.
The troubles were not all with Pinkerton and Murray, although they took the major share. Other contractors were almost as bad. Complaints followed the same pattern, which was repeated for many contractors and many canals. The contractors, as they were paid by the length of canal cut, pushed forward as quickly as possible, disregarding the quality of the work, the orders given by the engineer and even whether the land had been acquired. Because they were so heavily committed in many different parts of the country, the big contractors let their own work out to sub-contractors, which gave the engineer another opportunity to try to get the work under his own control:
‘As it appears that Mr Pinkerton means to continue farming his contracted [work] for Masonry (as Mr Shaw says) to Labourers or anyone – would it not be well for the Committee, to take the Second Contract off his hands and farm the works themselves? The Committee may depend on bringing better farmers on the works than Mr Pinkerton can. It is true they will give somewhat more to these Workmen, than what may be expected that he will – However these people will be more under proper Management, and in course better work may be expected.’
Mr Millar’s Reports to the Lancaster Canal Committee, 25 February 1794
The engineer was, as usual, unsuccessful. The canal companies continued to let out the work and continued to argue with the contractors to whom they let it. The contractors were also employers, and had their own problems with their own employees, usually about money, sometimes about not providing work for the men they brought to the site. As the contractors’ main asset was the workforce they controlled, it was essential that they always had enough men on hand to cope with the work. It was better, from the contractors’ point of view, to have men standing around idle waiting for work than not to have enough. The men naturally took a different view. When John Murray kept his workers and subcontractors waiting for work, the men took their complaint to the Lancaster Committee and appealed for support. The Committee declined to interfere. As a general rule, the company avoided getting involved in disputes between contractors and labourers unless they could see any particular advantage in doing so.
The waterways in 1790.
The main area of conflict, between contractor and workers was pay – contractors not paying enough or, in some cases, not paying at all. It was a battle that was seldom won by the workers. The one period when the odds were on their side was harvest time, when they could always find alternative work on the farms. Then the contractor might find himself losing his assets and having to face an irate Committee. John Plant, a contractor on the Warwick & Birmingham Canal, found himself in that position and received a curt note from the Clerk of Works: ‘Notwithstanding I have furnished you with a considerable quantity of materials, the purpose of forwarding the cutting at Hatton – you have not procured nor do I think you endeavour to procure men to work with them … You may therefore expect to be discharged if the runs are not full on Monday next.’10 For a few weeks the navvy held the better hand. Archibald Millar, during the time when he achieved his ambition of having workers employed directly by the company, found himself faced by the same problem, and neither whip nor carrot worked:
‘On Saturday last Mr Cartwright endeavoured all that he could to have all the Carpenters & Labourers at work, flattering them with Encouragement of Beer on the one side and threatening those who did not come should have no more Employment at the Aqueduct. The Scots men, Particularly the Carpenters, paid no respect.’
He commented darkly:
‘I hope and expect a little time will correct these combinations. The Harvest will not last always.’
Mr Millar’s Reports, 2 September 1794
The workers were well advised to get what they could when they could, for they could expect very little comfort at any other time. The one occasion when contractors and the company could be guaranteed to find common cause was when they faced the workmen: ‘Some of Cockran’s men were here yesterday and troublesome for money. They wanted me to promise that I would see them paid, but this I refused to his cutters, but I promised the men who were digging the bed of the Calder, that I would take care they should have their Money, provided they would return to the job and get it finished.’11
The assurances given to the men on the Calder works was not due to any sudden flush of good will – the company was prepared to make concessions where really urgent work was concerned. When there was no pressing urgency, then company and contractor joined forces:
‘Mr Stevens has some apprehension that a considerable part of his men intend turning out on Saturday (being his pay day) for an advance of wages. Should they do so, he is determined not to advance their pay, and he hopes the Contractors on your part of the Line will not employ any one who deserts from him. You will please to mention this to the Contractors on your part. If they give encouragement to Stevens’ men it may be a real loss to the Concern by delaying the work here.’
Lancaster Canal Letter Book, 28 April 1796
The Company was prepared to back the contractors against the navvies, and the contractors were prepared to return the compliment. The result for the navvies was inevitable: ‘Yesterday Morning the Companies Labourers hearing that Mr Stevens’ Men was paid 2/6 p day in consequence of which they all immediately left of their work and demanded 14/- p week and to work only 10 hours to the day: If they worked any more time to be paid 3d hour. I hereby recommend to the Gentn of the Come to pay and discharge the whole of them tonight, and also Mr Stevens’ Masons as Mr Millar and Myself have engaged with Mr Murray to send us 100 Men on Wednesday morning.’12
In canal work everyone seemed to be preoccupied with money: the company struggled to raise funds and then struggled to make a profit, the contractor did his best to squeeze the maximum profit from his contract, and the navvy tried to get the semblance of a decent wage for his work. Canal companies and contractors often succeeded, the navvy seldom. As long as there was a surplus of workmen, the most likely reward for the navvy trying for higher pay was the sack. The law of supply and demand was ruthlessly applied.
In theory, the contractor was responsible not only for the navvies’ pay but for their behaviour as well. He was supposed to exercise some sort of control over their activities. Samuel Gregson wrote to the contractors Vickers and Lewis to complain about their workmen:
‘I am very sorry to be informed that some of your men have been behaving in riotous and very illegal manner at Chorley. Such conduct will bring disgrace upon the works, as well as upon yourselves, and every appearance ought to meet with an immediate and serious check. You will probably be called upon by the Justices in the neighbourhood to deliver up the persons who have been guilty, and I would advise you to show the utmost willingness in detecting and bringing them to Justice and be ready to do everything in your power which may be required to satisfy the public for the Injury done in thus disturbing the Peace and assaulting the Public Officers. This conduct in you will please the Committee and it is certainly in your Own Interest to keep your men in proper Subjection. I should advise you to discharge the whole who have been concerned if they will not make proper submission. Perhaps it would be right in you to take up some of the ring leaders yourselves and deliver them to the Justices.’
Lancaster Canal Letter Book, 4 July 1795
There is no evidence that the contractors took such responsibilities seriously. They were happy enough if the men worked when they were supposed to, and showed very little inclination to concern themselves with what the men did afterwards. Even Gregson’s letter is not as stern as it appears at first glance. The recommendations for firm action are hedged about with conditions. It shows none of the direct ‘dismiss the lot’ approach that was shown when there was a threatened strike for more pay.
A few contractors found they made very little profit out of their canal work. Some were incompetent, others found difficulties in the works which they had not allowed for. Sometimes provision was made in the contract for exceptionally difficult conditions, and extra payment was authorised if ‘any Rock or Quicksand, Bog Stone or Gravel which the Committee or their Engineer shall direct to be removed or hereafter mentioned be met with’.13 When no allowance was made, or the allowance was not large enough, the contractor could always try appealing to the Committee or the engineer:
‘In my report of the 2 June 1805 I stated that Thomas Wilkins had represented to the Sub Committee his loss of £800 on a Contract of Deep Cutting at Burbage. I am doubtful that for want of Capital he cannot carry it on with that Spirit he ought to do. If the Committee should think it right to advance him about the same sum to purchase Horses, Carts, & other Materials for carrying on this work, it will be of great Service to him.
Reports to the Kennet & Avon Management Committee.
Report by John Thomas, 24 June 1806
Some contractors who ran out of funds were scrupulous in trying to make a fair settlement with the company and with their own men. Others were less so. In the same month of July 1791 two contractors on the Leeds & Liverpool Canal went bankrupt. One offered to have his work measured and to take that money and whatever he could get from the sale of tools and equipment to pay his men; the second absconded, not only leaving large debts behind, but taking the company’s money with him – the company offered a reward and put advertisements in the local and London papers.14 Many contractors when funds ran low simply got up and went, leaving whatever equipment they possessed and whatever debts they had acquired.
Although there was an element of financial risk in being a canal contractor, there were more successes than failures – with the possibility of making a very great deal of money indeed. Even a medium-sized contractor, if he was careful, could make a handsome profit. The first impression given by a typical medium-size contractor’s account book is invariably of a very small-scale operation. Thomas Sheasby, for example, was a contractor on the Coventry Canal between 1788 and 1789. The entries nearly all concern insignificant items of expenditure:
December 13, 1788: paid for 3 barrows and 1 tressell |
£1 8s |
gave men to drink at sundry times |
£3 6s |
August 8, 1789: Ale for men whilst puddling |
£11 6s |
From the entries, he appears to have employed, on average, no more than twenty to thirty labourers – but his contracts were worth a total of £17,040.
Thomas Sheasby could expect a decent profit from his business. The big contractor would expect an enormous one. Some companies offered bonuses to the big contractors. Jonathan Woodhouse had a tunnelling contract with the Huddersfield Canal Company which gave him a £400 bonus for every month saved – but carried a £200 forfeit for every month lost. The competition for such lucrative profits was intense. The contractors relied to some extent on getting advance information and a personal recommendation from the engineer. Pinkerton received advance notice of the Lancaster lettings from Rennie – an act which the engineer must have soon started regretting. The contractors were not above trying to help the process on its way:
‘Whereas … Mr Greenway was ordered to prepare the Draft of a Contract between the Engineer of the said Company and Robert Pinkerton for taking the Earth out of the Hills at Rowington and Shrewley on the line of the said Canal and embanking the Valley between the said Hills … and whereas it has been made to appear to this Committee that the said Robert Pinkerton endeavoured by undue means to injure this Company by making improper offers to their Engineer. It is therefore Resolved that the said Robert Pinkerton shall not be employed.’
Warwick & Birmingham Canal Minute Book, 31 July 1794
From a rather broad hint in a letter from Archibald Millar to Pinkerton and Murray, this was not an isolated instance: ‘All the good you can do me as an individual [Millar’s italics] will never widen my conscience nor cause me to swerve from what I think is right.’15
Apart from bribery, the contractors were certainly not above helping themselves to any useful materials they might happen to ‘find’. Stevens, the contractor on the Lune aqueduct, took a load of sand from Pinkerton’s lot, and, when the latter found out, began to take sand from the nearby roadworks instead. Contractors were just as happy to cheat each other as they were to cheat the company. Millar, in trying to settle another dispute between the same two contractors, commented, with some justification: ‘Gentlemen, I very plainly forsee Greed in both sides.’
The contract system had its obvious disadvantages. As prices were fixed before work began, there was a temptation to skimp work in order to ensure the maximum profit, and the canal engineer needed to keep a keen eye open. The system also provided opportunities for the more dishonest contractors to steal, cheat, and bribe their way to a profit. The contractors were hard employers, but it was an age of hard employers, and it is doubtful whether the navvy would have been any better off under a different system. On the credit side, it was probably the most efficient system that could be devised for building a network of canals, each section of which was built by a different company. Under the contract system, men could easily be moved about the country to where they were most needed and, most importantly, as gangs of experienced workers were moved so their experience could spread. No canal works had to worry about suffering from a complete absence of experience – even if there was no local experience to draw on, they could go farther afield and bring in experience from outside the district.