The Roads of Kelham and Averham

As was common with all villages in earlier times, the villages were farmed under the feudal system of strip-fanning whereby each tenant farmer was allotted a number of strips of land which, when considered as a whole, formed three large fields. Roads, or as we would probably classify them, tracks led from the village houses into the fields and it was these roads which would be frequently used by the people of each village.

The Lord of the Manor of Averham and Kelham was a member of the Sutton family later Manners-Sutton by a marital union with the Duke of Rutland's family of Manners. As such this family would be judicially in charge. The maintenance of the tracks out to the fields, and indeed those passing through the villages from one township to another, was carried out by the farmers under the jurisdiction of the Lord of the Manor, The King's Parliament also endeavoured to ensure that repairs were carried out as necessary and would from time to time declare how many 'repair-days' should be worked. The cost was borne by the villagers (Parishioners) who also carried out the work themselves. It was most unpopular. Human nature being what it is, the parishioners were more enthusiastic in repairing the roads to the fields, which they used frequently, as opposed to the 'through roads" which they used only rarely.

In 1723, the Lord of the Manor, Robert Sutton, 2nd Lord Lexington, died, and his daughter, Bridget, 3rd Duchess of Rutland, inherited the Manor. In one of her accounts dated 9th Dec. 1720. audited by her Steward John Clay, there is included 'Repairs, Kelham to Newark road:- The Duchess gives £30 towards the said repairs and expects her tenants to doe double the dayes work the Parliament has stipulated.'

As waggoners, moving goods on a commercial basis, used the roads more and more, their condition deteriorated to such an extent that the burden of the maintenance was too expensive for the 'Parish system' to bear. A solution was found in the Turn-pike system. Under an Act of Parliament, shares in the Turn-pike Trust were sold and the capital raised was then used to repair the roads. Tolls were then charged for the passage of goods and animals. This income provided for further repairs to the roads and for share-dividends to be paid to the investors. Tolls were collected at Toll-gates, Toll-bars and in some cases. Toll-chains.

lt was usual for the Act to require the setting up of guide-posts at road-junctions and road-side stones, set at one mile intervals, on which was indicated the distances from and to the principal towns.

Both the main roads through our villages were taken over by Turn-pike Trustees. The 'Worksop, Ollerton , Kelham Turn-pike" controlled the Ollerton-Kelham road, a Toll bar being sited at the Northern boundary of Kelham at the top of Debdale Hill and a milestone still exists in the road-side hedge indicating that it is 10 miles to Ollerton, 3 miles lo Newark, 19 miles to Worksop and that London is 127 miles distant.

The more important ‘through road’ was that from Lincolnshire to Newark, continuing on to Southwell and Mansfield. Another important road also continued from Southwell to Oxton and on to Nottingham. Under an Act passed 'in the 32nd. year in the reign of our Lord and Sovereign King George the Second’, (1759), these roads formed the Western Division of the 'Leadenham to Mansfield Turn-pike’ The Act covers 'from Leadenham Hill lo the West end of Barnby Gate (i.e.Appletongale / Barnby Gate junction), from Newark River Bridge to a Guide Post at the division of Kelham and Muskham Lanes (i.e.near Kelham Hall Lodge opposite The Fox inn) and from the said Guide Post to Mansfield ‘ (A toll-house, situated at the end of Church Drive in Rainworth, was the

1

termination of the Turn-pike at Mansfield,). The road from Southwell to Oxton was also included in this Act, forming the link to Nottingham. There was a Toll-House and Bar in Kelham situated on the Main Road adjacent to Corner Farm and The Old Post-Office. In the Toll-House lived the Toll-Keeper, who collected the Tolls and. 'Barred the road" . The fees were regulated , not only by the requirements of commerce, but also by the design of vehicles and the number of animals with which they were drawn. Wide-rimmed wheels caused less damage to the road because the wheels would not rut the surface, and, in consequence, the hooves of the drawing animals did less damage. Another advantage of these 'rollers,' as they were commonly called, was that they assisted in rolling the road 'firm and flat". The fees for these vehicles were relatively cheap. Conversely carts with narrow wheels cost more.

The Toll-Keeper was not directly employed by the Turn-Pike Trustees - The rental of the Toll-House and the business of toll-collecting was auctioned. By this means the Trustees had a regular income and a less diligent collector lost his own income and not that of the Share-Holders. The lease usually ran for a period of two years and monthly rent was paid on the 6th day of each month. The bi-annual auctions took place at the Saracen's Head Inn, Southwell in late March. Strict conditions applied which included '.....bidding shall advance no less than £2 each bidding.,,.two sureties required before a bid is accepted unless Trustees be satisfied,...That a minute-glass shall be turned immediately after every bidding, and, as soon as the sands run out, it shall be turned again, and so for three times unless other bidding intervenes, and, if no other person shall bid until the sand do run through the glass three times, the last bidder shall be considered as renter'.

In 1795 , when canal and river transport encouraged the moving of large amounts of commercial load, business was good. That year the tenancy of Kelham Bar was taken, by a Kelham villager named John Tidy and the rent which he paid for the following two years was £400 per annum. John continued to buy the lease until I801 but at a decreased fee of £340 per annum. Other residents of Kelham became Bar-Keeper in the following years. Amongst them were William Turner, George Crossley and Frances Burton, who, although capable it would seem of running a business, was unable even to write his own name.

People travelled quite a distance to bid for the Bar and in 1814 a man named William Wilkinson bought the tenancy for £316 per annum. His home was at Bobbers Mill, Radford, Nottingham.

In 1824 it reverted to William Tidy—probably John's son. By this period business had greatly increased due to the running of coaches, and this was reflected in the annual rent. William paid £890 per annum, rising to an all-time high of £902 per annum in 1834

ADDITIONAL NOTES ABOUT THE TURN-PIKE SYSTEM.

In addition to ‘private' road- traffic stage-coaches were employed to transport people from place to place...if you could afford the fare! Goods were moved about the country by Waggoners and their heavily -ladened waggons. Because of the fast speed of the former and the heavy nature of the latter, the road surface was greatly damaged. The mail was, until I 784. carried by post-boys riding ponies. After this time the fast mail-coaches began operation, changing horses every 15 to 20 miles or so in order to travel at a maximum speed.

A mass of legislation followed in order to reduce the road maintenance, the cost of which was borne by the Parish through which the road traversed. Many of the rules governed the width of vehicle wheels and the number of animals allowed to "draw" them, according to the type of transport,

2

Bridges were considered differently, some of them being maintained by the County or Parish and some even by individuals....see the article on Kelham Bridge and the history of its building.

STATUTE LABOUR

Under Common Law Parishes were liable for the repair and general upkeep of the roads within their parish boundary. Each year the parish community appointed a Surveyor of Highways from the inhabitants of the parish. The Surveyor was responsible for keeping the roads in good repair by using compulsory labour (Statute Labour) which the Parishioners were liable to perform. This amounted to a total of six days each year, but it was permitted to appoint another to carry out your share of the task. The Surveyor decided on which days the road repairs were to be carried out....usually called Common Days, but also known as Boon Days, and every person working ploughed land or keeping a wain (waggon), was required to send a wain and oxen or horses to draw it, along with two workmen and tools to accomplish the work. Fines were imposed for non-compliance: -

'At Nottingham Court, 15th July 1717...George Hodginson, farmer occupying ploughed land in Annesley, was fined 2/6 for making default in furnishing cart, horses, oxen and other animals and necessary instruments according to the custom of the Country, nor able-men for mending and repairing the roads in the Parish of Annesley'.

Parishes, as well as individuals, were also summoned to Court for not carrying out Statute Labour ;-

At Newark, 19th April 1710...Inhabitants de Newark for non repaire Newark Lane and East Lane leading to Balderton, Fined £5 but to be remitted if repaired by next sessions".

On 12th July 1710, the next minutes contain an Order.... 'that the fine laid conditionally is remitted the Highway being repaired".

There were Parishes who were unfortunate enough to have a major road pass within their boundaries but outside the nucleus of the village. These sections of roads were seldom used by the Parishioners themselves and yet they were liable for the maintenance, inconvenience of upkeep and, perhaps equally important, the cost. Such a Parish is that of East Markham, just south of Retford. Here the Great North Road from London to Edinborough 'clips’ the corner of the Parish and the cost of its repair must have been quite a burden for the people who lived there.

RATES

Some Parishes found it impossible to keep their roads in good repair and, in about the year 1760, they were allowed to apply to the Quarter Sessions for, and were often granted, rates on a yearly basis. (6d, in the pound seems to be the average rate). This extra finance was to pay for work in addition to Statute Labour and it was expressly laid down that it was not to excuse the Common Labour.

The Surveyor's job was arduous and unpopular and there were instances when those appointed neglected the duly. Indeed, on some occasions, they refused to carry out the appointed task altogether.

' 1736, Joseph Brown, Surveyor of Highways for East Stoke, was presented for neglect of duty in not-calling six Common Days work whereby Town Street a and King's Highway had been neglected and was much out of order and repair.'

The Surveyors were required to present a 'Bill' (i.e. a report), and at Fiskerton in 1717, it read;-

3

We have taken a view of our highways and found them in reasonably good repair.; There are no Timber, Dung, Straw etc. to obstruct or annoy the same. Our Ditches and Drains are scoured and kept open to carry the water off from damaging the road and all Trees lopt and Hedges adjoining the same are cut low, that the sun and wind may dry the same. We keep our common highways leading to Market Towns 24 feet broad. Our six days work are duly performed and there is no neglect of us in anything in our office.

Robert Long.

But things weren't always done correctly. Mary Fretwell of Gringley on the Hill, on 18lh January 1793, appealed to Court for an increase in the payment of 4d. a load offered her by James Taylor, Surveyor, for gravel taken from her land for repairs to the roads. The price was increased to 10d. for every screened load, and 6d. for every load of unscreened gravel.

LIMITATION OF ANIMALS PULLING VEHICLES ON NON-TURN-PIKE ROADS

In order to protect the surface of the Common roads, in 1773 restrictions were imposed by Statute as to the number of horses or oxen allowed for the drawing of waggons and carts. The breadth of the wheels was taken into account since narrow wheels dug into the road-surface, whilst broad wheels did not. In addition, if the wheels were broad enough, especially if they were on a narrower axle on the front than on the rear, they actually assisted in the maintenance by roiling the road surface flat.

For waggons having 9" wheels 8 horses were allowed, whilst 9" wheeled carts were restricted to 5 horses. Waggons with 6" wheels, but rolling 9" breadth on each side. Conversely, narrow wheels sunk into the surface, as did the hooves of the horses as they pulled against the resistance. Occasionally, rollers having 16" broad wheels on each side and rolling a flat surface were freed from tolls for 6 months beginning Michaelmas, i.e . during the winter months.

Again, limitations on the number of drawing animals (similar to those on the Common Roads ) were imposed. The General Turn-Pike Act of 1773 increased the number of animals allowed but under strict conditions. Up to 10 horses and a pony were permitted to pull 9" broad wheeled waggons up named hills...10 horses for drawing, the pony being permitted for the waggoner to ride whilst controlling the horses with his whip. The extremities of the hill were to be specified and to be marked at each end with white posts (or sometimes stones). The Farnsfield to Rainworth section of 'our" Turn-Pike probably had such posts on the road between its junction with the Ollerton-Nottingham road and the top of the hill just before the road runs downhill again to the Robin Hood Public House, and the White Post Inn almost certainly derived its name from the first marker post. It is unfortunate, then, that the Inn has recently had its name changed to a meaningless 'Trading Post’.

‘Common Days' were still required to be worked even though the road was under the care of the Turn-Pike Trustees (as mentioned earlier). One can imagine the reluctance of some Parishioners to work 'Common Days' on the Turn-Piked roads when Trustees were making a profit in the form of dividends from the Trust. A good many Court cases followed;

'At Newark 3rd. March 1792... Francis Bainbridge of Flintham appeared for failing to perform his Statute Duty according to the direction of William Wingard. Surveyor of the Turn-Piked Road for the Parish ofFiinlham, having been fined 20/- by Joseph Sykes Esq ’. He later had his fine quashed 'for want of substance’.

Some went even further with their objections to the principle of Turn-Piking:-

4

"At Nottingham, 12lh July 1790. John Greaves of Greasley, for pulling down a Turn-Pike chain set up and created at Watnall Chaworth to prevent passengers passing without paying tolls, was committed to 'The House of C Correction, Burgage Green. Southwell for one month."

He was very lucky—under the General Turn-Pike Act of 1773 he could have been imprisoned for up to 3 months, or even transported for 7 years.

Ancient Acts of Parliament have had an effect, on the countryside adjacent, to the roads of the country. As long ago as 1285. Under an Act passed in that year, 'the whole Hundred where the Robbery shall be done...shall be answerable for the Robberies done.’( a hundred was an area of legal jurisdiction,... similar to our present District Council area). Subsequent Statutes continued this liability until 1827. So highway robberies were a burden upon the Parishes in which the robbery took place. Clearing brush-wood etc. from the edges of the highway reduced concealment of the Highwaymen ,and even more so foot-pads (robbers without horses). This left the verges of roads free for animal grazing and therefore long stretches of 'green' road developed. This is the probable reason that stretch of road near Babworth, a few miles west of Retford is known even today as Greenmile . It may also explain why they were restricted to 7 horses, but rolling 6" breadth on each side reduced the allocated horses to 6 if a waggon and to 4 if a cart.

Wheels of less than 6" attracted a further restriction, waggons -5 horses, and carts-3 horses, whilst vehicles moving on wheels or rollers of 16'" breadth on each side, in general, had no restriction at all. N.B, It was usually accepted that 2 oxen could replace one horse for purposes of the calculation/restriction. Having been announced at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions of 1774, the following was published in the Local Newspapers dated 5th November 1774:-

"In order that future offenders might not plead ignorance of the Law, At each Michaelmas following, a licence may be made allowing a temporary increase in the number of horses up any named steep hill.'

(At this time of the year winter was approaching and the condition of the roads deteriorated rapidly into a very muddy condition.) The easing of the restrictions were primarily announced to assist in the working of Common Days, which were often called in late Autumn to 'fit in’ with the farming calendar. This enabled 4 horses instead of the usual 3 to be harnessed to a cart.

Fines were imposed upon workmen who disobeyed the restrictions and the cash raised from such fines was often split 50/50,one half going to the Surveyor for the repair of the road and the other half going to the informer.

THE TURN-P1KE SYSTEM.

The first road to be controlled by a Turnpike was a section of the Great North Road in the Counties of Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire in the year 1663, but, at that time, it was not organised in the way generally regarded as the Turn-Pike System. The first Turn-Pike Trust was set up in 1706/7. Each Trust was formed by its own Act of Parliament, the original Trustees being named in the Act. The length of the road, along with permission for the location of the dates, Bars and sometimes Chains (as was installed across the Great North Road adjacent to the River Bridge in Newark), were given. It was at these locations that the fees were collected. In many Acts a 'property qualification' was necessary to become a Trustee. Later, in 1773, a General Turn-Pike Act not only supplied for any deficiency of such an inclusion in previous Acts, but gave a 'Blanket Requirement' for such a qualification. Also included in this Act was the provision for the continuance of Statute Labour to be employed on Turnpiked roads. Occasionally, under special circumstances (such as East

5

Markham??) an exemption was made. In general the erection of milestones was included in the individual Acts but, again, a 'Blanket Requirement' for them was included in another General Turn-Pike Act of 1766.

The Great North Road from Grantham through Newark to West Drayton, south of Ret ford, was Turn-Piked by an Act passed in 1725-26. During the next 25 years, 27 principal Acts were passed in Nottinghamshire, including that of 1759 for the road from Newark, through Kelham and Averham to Mansfield. The Tolls varied from time to time (see ‘The Roads of Kelham and Averham') and those charged at the Gate at Kelham during the year 1834 were, as usual, displayed at the Toll-House....see copy of notice.

Particularly note the different fees for different vehicles and animals, 'rollers' again being the cheapest, since, as their name implies, they rolled and compressed the road surface flat thus providing, to a small degree, towards the care of the road.

Contracts, between Coach Companies and the ‘Bars' were drawn up by which discounted fees could be obtained. Such a contract was made between the Imperial Coach company and Kelham Bar and a portion of the receipted accounts still exist showing that in 1843 the Coach company paid, by cash each 4 week period... '£3:5:0 being 3/- for each daily passing of imperial except Sunday, less 10% discount."., The coach did not run on Christmas day and 3/- was deducted for the December period.

In April 1844 trade increased, and another coach- the Lady Nelson- made daily journeys, an additional discounted rale of £3:5:0 per 6 day week being charged. It would seem the coachman rested each night at Kelham (in the 'Toll-House??) for the account also shows 'accommodation £2:8:0 per week'.

It was in the I840"s that the Railway Companies began transporting people and goods in our area and their increase in speed and convenience caused a great decline in road transport. This is reflected in the value of the lease of the Bar. In 1850 the annual rent had dropped to £200 and never again exceeded £272. During this difficult period, Nathaniel Broxham of New Sneinton, Nottingham became the Bar-man.

In an effort to maintain their business, the Trustees produced an order on 16th May 1846 stating that 'we whose names are hereunto subscribed, being three or more of the Trustees acting under the said Act being now assembled for reducing the Tolls pursuant to public notice in writing given...in the Nottingham Journal, being a newspaper circulated in the parts traversed by the said road, and also affixed upon the Turn-pike gates...upwards of one calender month now last past. Do hereby order that the Tolls now payable at the Rainworth Gate, Kelham Gate and Oxton Gate.,..shall, from the date hereof, be lessened and reduced in the following manner (that is to say)

COACH, LANDAU, CHAISE, HEARSE, GIG, TAXED CART s. d.

For every horse or other beast drawing any waggon or cart

on springs, or other carriage of the like kind, with wheels

of less breadth than 41/2'" 0. 3.

Signed William Hodgson Barratt

Robert Wanstead

6

M. S. ?

J. L. Lane

J D Becher

Pencilled in the margin is "Dog X KC 1845", To avoid paying tolls, some people had harnessed dogs to small carts and thereby succeeded in passing free of charge. Might the pencilling suggest that a query about dog-drawn carts had been made, and might it suggest that the Trustees no longer allowed free passage? We shall probably never know.

But the demise of the Turn-pike system was inevitable and on the 24th March 1866 Mr. Townend, Clerk to the Trustees, sent letters to every Vestry (Parish Authority) situated along the route of the Turn-pike road. The letters were addressed to 'The Overseer of the Poor' and stated that he was directed to write asking that Vestry Meeting of your Parish...(be called).... to ascertain whether your Parish is in favour of the abolition of the Trust'. He also reminded Vestry Meetings that.."if the Trust is not continued the repairs of the Road will devolve upon each Parish as the Tolls would cease"", The Overseer For the Parishes of both Kelham and Averham was a man named Edwin Surguy who replied as follows:-

KELHAM April 3rd. 1866.

Sir,

Having laid your note of the 24th inst. before a Vestry Meeting, I beg to inform you the Parishioners of Kelham wish to abolish the Toll-gales altogether,

I remain, Sir,

Yours obediently,

Edwin Surguy,

Overseer.

He wrote a similar letter for Averham substituting ‘Averham’ for ‘Kelham’ but ending..’to abolish the Toll-gates altogether the same as Kelham’.

The results of the enquiry were overwhelming. Kelham, Averham, Southwell, Halam, Edingley, Farnsfield, Blidworth, Mansfield and Oxton were all in favour. Only the village of Upton voted to maintain the Turn-Pike and the Trustees were duly wound up.

As a consequence, the repairs of the 2 miles, 1 furlong and 132 yards of Kelham roadway, and 1 mile, 5 furlongs and 111 yards of Averham road devolved upon the Parishes as Mr. Townend warned.

Under an amendment to the original Act made 'during the fourth year of our Lord and Sovereign, Geo IV, (i.e. 1824). Trustees of Turn-Pikes were prohibited from selling 'useless Toll-houses' and were bound to pull them down and sell the materials. This was later amended, and, unless the land on which the house stood could be used to improve the line of the road, it was permitted to sell the house and its land as a standing property,

At an auction held on Thursday December 26th 1867 at the house of Mr. Hill, The Fox Inn, Kelham, the.., 'cottage or dwelling house recently used as the Toll-gate House, together with the outbuildings belonging thereto, the whole to be removed at the expense of the purchaser on or before the 31st December 1867".. ( that is within 5 days of purchase).

7

The Turn-pike through our villages was no more and road maintenance was again financed by local taxation.— It still is today, the Authority being the Nottinghamshire County Council.

W. Lummus

Revised 21st. March 2002.

8

9

10

A HISTORY OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE TRENT AT KELHAM,

KELHAM BRIDGE and its need for repair prompted thought to be given to the bridge itself. How old is the bridge? Who built it? How much did it cost'?

But of course our present bridge wasn't the first one. There was a bridge, probably built of wood, over the river at Kelham by the year 1225 for in that year the Burgesses of Nottingham assigned to the Burgesses of Retford " their toll from the bridge at Kelum".

In 1334 complaints were made that the bridge was "ruinous and broken" and the "Township of Kelum" claimed that "the Bishop of Lincoln ought and was accustomed to repair it". Of course he disclaimed responsibility and the argument went on long and far until, at Norwich, a jury found that “the Bishop and his Predecessors have never repaired the said bridge". It was also said that the bridge hadn't been repaired for sixty years and then "by Alms (contributions) of the Men of the County passing there— (including the Bishop of Lincoln) — who "charitably contributed—and in no other manner". So the attempts to make the Bishop pay up failed and on the 12th. of August 1346 the Men of Kelum received a "Grant of Pontage" for the bridge. They received a second on the 18th. of February 1385. In the grants was the let-out clause "No-one is bound to the repairs of this bridge except of his own free will—as we have heard" ( that is in the Norwich Court).

In the British Library there is a map of our locality dated about 1500 to 1540. It was probably drawn for use in a law suit against the Sutton family-the Lords of our Manor at the time. It clearly shows a bridge near Kelham,

The Civil War of 1642 to 1646 made if’s mark and our bridge was destroyed. The Suttons refused to rebuild it — grant or no grant— because it had been deliberately demolished. They were eventually compelled to rebuild and maintain it. From that time onwards they met their obligations though somewhat unwillingly .

These early bridges crossed the river upstream of the present one-somewhere near Teale's Wharf on the way to Newark. When a bridge was first built on its present location is uncertain but was probably in 1762 when, after more legal wrangling starting at the Nottingham Sessions on the 23rd. of April 1655, Lord Robert Manners Sutton paid for a new wooden bridge. It was perhaps not a good bridge for £2426 was spent on its repair during the period from 1777 to 1815.

Even so in 1842 more wear and tear was evident "in consequence of the bend in the river above the bridge". It was considered necessary to preserve the bridge by "removing soil from the opposite side of the river and thus equalise the flow of the current by drawing a great body of water along the new course made for it". The landowner had agreed to sacrifice his land but the cost would be several hundreds of pounds. Since the work was not for actually, repairing the bridge the expenses were not strictly within the express words of Statutes relating to bridges. As a consequence the Magistrates felt justified in ordering improvements to be made from out of County Stock.

Whilst all this talking was going on the bridge continued to deteriorate and the "Nottingham and Newark Mercury wrote in its pages of the 20th. of August 1843 "As some youths were going over Kelham bridge one of them was walking near the railing when the groundwork gave way and, had his companions not assisted him, he must inevitably have fallen into the river and perished". It still took another six years for a report to be received from a William White esq., Civil Engineer, it was a damning report. All six piers were rotted and, although the planking seemed sound," the passage of heavy (!!) loads causes the arches to deflect"- he wrote. Repairs were considered a waste of money and was not recommended. The County Bridge Committee ordered a new bridge to be built. It was

11

designed by Mr. W H Barlow in February 1849. This new bridge was to be supported by abuttments of brick and stone and was to have five spans each fifty-three feet long. The main supports and structure were of wood, the main beams being 14 inches by 9 inches timber supporting planks 5 inches thick. A second layer 2 inches thick were to laid across the first layer.

The contractors, Messrs. Birch of London, started construction on 19th. of October 1849, The site was described as being "quite close to the old bridge which is in a very delapidated state". The cost of building this bridge was £1875.

The winter of 1854-5 was very severe. The Trent froze over in many places. At Fiskerton people skated on the ice and also had a sheep-roasting on the frozen water. Even a game of cricket between the villagers of Fiskerton and East Stoke was played on the river.

When the ice thawed on the 27th of February a number of men were employed to break great quantities of ice from around the bridge supports. They had scarcely begun when a large sheet of ice floated downstream and, in spite of their efforts to divert it, crashed into the bridge snapping two of the piers. Half of the bridge fell with a terrific crash. According to the local newspaper a young man standing on the bridge, hearing the smash, was undecided as to which direction to run. He chose to run towards Newark and made his escape.

On April the 11th, the wreckage of the bridge was auctioned for £231.

We were again without a safe river-crossing in our village,

An Engineer named Henry Carr designed three different versions of our present bridge and submitted them for consideration in June 1855. The work was tendered for by Thomas Waring who said he could build version two or, £6500 or version three for ,£6900, number one design having been discounted before the asking of tenders. Whichever plan was adopted he committed himself to put up all the piers and abuttments before November the 30th.and to complete the arches, carriageway etc. by July 1856. (That is to complete the bridge from start to finish in one year). It was important that the piers in the river and the abuttments on the banks were constructed before the winter floods arrived. It was then intended to allow these important structures to settle during the winter period arid recommence work in the Spring. Building ALL the arches at the same time reduces "side forces" on the piers which are designed to support "balanced vertical loads". It is therefore most important to build the arches simultaneously and this was planned.

Waring was awarded the contract and in the July of 1855 work began. On the 2nd of July, Thomas and his cousin Joseph Waring concluded an agreement with John Henry Manners- Sutton to occupy and use for making the bricks with which to build the bridge "a part of pasture called Brick Kiln Close". The rent was £16 payable in two equal instalments at Michaelmas 1855 and 1856. He was authorised to get clay and also lo erect sheds, kilns, steam engines and other buildings. A sum of £100 was payable as royalty on up to 800,000 bricks with a further 2/6d. per 1000 if that number be exceeded. The road—now known as Broadgate Lane— was also to be maintained in good order between the Brickyard and the Turnpike—now the Main Rd. The whole site was to be restored lo pasture on completion of the works. (The present disused brickworks at the foot of Kelham Hills, bearing a stone plaque dated 1904, was a later construction).

In the summer of 1855 work began on the coffer-dams for the piers and abutments. (A coffer-dam is a waterproof "wall" sunk into the river-bed and built to surround the foundation area of, say, a pier. The water is then pumped out leaving a "hole" in the river in which the construction is to be carried out. The spaces between the planks from which the "wall" is built (known as piles) are plugged with

12

clay (known as puddle). The piles were knocked into the river-bed by steam-driven pile-engines or "drivers". Waring used two and later three engines lo construct the coffer-dams.....Carr.had recommended six for the task. Due to inferior puddle, an error on the depth of one coffer-dam which necessitated its alteration and also, no doubt, due to the reduced number of pile-drivers, the piers and abutments were not constructed by november 30th. as promised….. indeed the fourth pier was not started until April 1st. 1856 and not completed until 7th. of August. The contract was way behind schedule already.

Waring. most unwisely, tried to catch up on time by building the arches on the piers already erected. This was contrary to good engineering practice as described earlier and the designer, Carr, was most displeased.

As work progressed Carr had to authorise payments for work done to date and thus help Waring with his cash-flow. So, on July 12th. 1856, when the first arch was almost complete, the second and third arch just beginning and the fourth pier still under construction. Carr wrote to Waring ...."I have received your account and application for a (pay) certificate. With regard to the certificate I see no reason to alter my view expressed in my letter of June 11 th. On the contrary I consider that you are carrying out the work in a manner incurring such an amount of unecessary risks that any further payment is out of the question." He continued to write that if a flood should occur the centre piers (now under stresses for which they were not designed) would be thrown over and "the amount of contract sum left in the hands of the Committee is insufficient to cover the work and risk of completion."He was most concerned. He wrote again on the 18th of" July pointing out errors of construction and the possible disastrous consequences if the river level should rise. He wrote..."it is very bad and very dangerous to commence the arches in this way but I am unwilling to delay the work if you are prepared to take the risks." He continued.... "the bricks seem to come clean and good from the machines but are too roughly handled.... Your quarrymen (I cannot call them masons) spoil the work after it is done. Pray come over yourself and push things on." (By this time Thomas Waring, leaving his cousin Joseph and brother John in charge of the bridge, had moved lo Derbyshire working on the construction of mines). Carr wrote several more letters in such a tone until in mid -Septeinber Carr, at the request of the Warings, actually supervised some of the work himself,

On October 1st. the river flooded and, probably much to the relief of the Warings, the works withstood the additional forces. However the County Authorities were "much dissatisfied not to have a good road over...now that the weather is holding again. Pray do push on with the work for difficulty has arisen from the work being so late.'' (Remember the bridge had been promised by the end of the July just past).

However more problems were to follow....On October 30th, 1856, a few weeks following the floods which the bridgeworks had appeared to withstand, Carr visited Kelham to inspect the work himself. He found that considerable settlement had taken place in the last two arches that had been constructed. They had been placed, you will recall ,on the piers immediately after their construction ...before a settling period had been allowed. The flood of October 1st / 2ml had brought the river level some six feet above normal and mortar had become soft. After the water level had fallen again water was dripping through the arches. Carr also found that the concrete filling to the spandrels...that triangular volume where the arches meet the supporting piers...had been placed without permission and the concrete was still soft and saturated with water. He wrote to Waring saying "The concrete, if properly made and put in in good weather, would have set properly and provided a solid mass:...(which)--- would not have the tendency to follow the thrust on the

13

arch." He continued that "the bridge is in the greatest possible danger. The whole is at any moment likely to fall into the river. There is not a moment to lose."He ordered the soggy concrete to be removed from the spandrels with all haste and for it to be quickly replaced. Since filling with better concrete and waiting for it to solidify correctly would delay the work...now very much behind schedule...yet further, a more sophisticated and quicker technology was substituted. The concrete would be replaced by four walls within the piers running "across stream" so to speak. Five arches would then be built to span between them resulting in bridges within the bridge components. Waring promised to have these completed by the middle of November. This he did and both Carr and Waring were anxious to build the parapet walls... Waring because his bricklayers would have to be laid of... and Carr because the road had been rescheduled to be completed by mid-December.

The public seem to have lost patience for they appear to have been crossing the unfinished bridge soon afterwards and on the 19th of November an angry Mr. Carr wrote to Waring saying "You are taking a very heavy responsibility upon yourself in opening the bridge without authority. I consider the course you have taken dangerous to the counter-arches.( i.e .the internal bridge within the bridge.) The whole responsibility rests upon yourself." and he again refers to "the reckless manner in which you laid concrete- during heavy rain on the nearby arch," Waring protested that the public passed over the bridge without his consent and claimed that Carr knew this. He also claimed that " the concrete was laid with the greatest of care and according to your instructions."

If Carr was having problems with the working practices Waring, was having equal problems with getting paid. On October 31st 1856 he wrote "I called upon Mr. Barnaby yesterday about the money for your last certificate and I was told....you had told the Magistrates when you were in Newark on October 22nd. not to pay the certificate. I hope this is not true (for) if it is true you are asking a great deal of me. My agreement was to be paid every two months. I have only had three payments and the fourth you have given a certificate for and now I am told you have cancelled it....For what reason I don't know. This work has always been done to your order and anything that you wished to be done it has been done and you have always expressed your satisfaction with the quality of the work and better work I am sure cannot be put together. If I had scimped the work or not obeyed your orders you would have done this I cannot concieve but to please the Magistrate at my expense. Your explanation will much oblige as it unhinges my mind,"

He appears to have received his payment because on the 6th, of November he wrote to Carr thanking him for instructing Mr. Barnaby to pay the certificate and also informing Carr that he would be claiming interest on the money,

The bridge was finally completed by the end of 1856. Since that time it has been dug up for the installation of gas pipes, telephone cables, water pipes and electricity cables but no major work had been done until its strengthening in 1988. Considering it was designed and built primarily for the horse and cart... and perhaps the occassional steam traction engine...it has stood up well to the pounding of our heavier and faster vehicles....a credit to both Carr and Waring.

W.Lummus (in association with Mr. Richard Pawson) .

14

15