Keeping Up Appearances

The canal-builders usually went in for practical, unpretentious construction, but just occasionally there was a call for something different…

- Martin Ludgate

The waterway widens out and makes a sharp right turn, passing under an attractive broad arched footbridge before making a sweeping bend to the left. Ahead, a stately three-arch white painted bridge spans the water, which meanders to the left in the distance…

A description of a river in the Home Counties, perhaps? Or an ornamental lake in a country estate? No, this is actually a length of that former freight carrying artery and backbone of southern England’s waterways, the Grand Union Canal. So why is it doing a passable imitation of a river? It’s all down to that bane of the canal builders’ lives – the landowners.

Crossing hills and valleys may have brought engineering challenges, but dealing with those whose land the new canal crossed could be equally tricky – especially if they were rich and influential. Sure, many of the landed gentry (including the most famous in canal circles, the Duke of Bridgewater) were also investors in canal-building and owners of local industries who stood to benefit from the trade and profits the canal would bring. But there were plenty more for whom it was an unwelcome intrusion, spoiling their view and threatening to destroy their peace with the arrival of the working boatmen and – worse still – the navvies who built it.

Almost all canals were built using an Act of Parliament – which gave the company powers of compulsory purchase to acquire land for the route. But to get the Act, the canal’s promoters had to gain parliamentary approval. In theory this meant successfully arguing the case on the basis of the great benefits that the new waterway would bring to the country that it served; in practice it could be more about buying off opposition from supporters of rival canals and others who might be affected – including wealthy landowners.