|
One early product of the Industrial Revolution was our canal
network, which improved quite dramatically the means of transporting
goods, particularly those in bulk such as coal, grain and manure
(for in that horse-powered age, large quantities were shipped from
the cities to fertilise the land). Many local businessmen and
farmers soon became aware of the potential benefit that this new
form of transport could have on their profits, and factories, mills
and wharfs of different types soon sprang up along the banks of the
new waterways.
The Grand Junction Canal (since 1929, the Grand Union Canal) reached
north-west Hertfordshire at the end of the 18th century.
Fortunately for Tring, which would otherwise have been bypassed, the
need to provide the Canal with a reliable water supply as it crossed
the ridge of the Chilterns led to the a plan to construct a feeder
‘ditch’, which led
westwards along the contour between Bulbourne and Wendover, passing
the northern outskirts of Tring on its journey. However,
pressure from local farmers and land owners led the Grand Junction
Canal Company (GJCC) to apply to Parliament for an Act to
make the ditch navigable.
In due course the following
statutory notice appeared in the newspapers published along the
route of the GJCC, giving notice of the Company’s intention to apply
to Parliament for an Act which, among other things, would authorise
them:
“. . . . to make navigable, the cut or
feeder now making, and intended to be made, by the company of
Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal, from the town of WENDOVER,
in the said county of Buckinghamshire, to the summit-level of the
Grand Junction Canal, at Bulbourne, in the parish of Tring, which is
to pass in, to, or through the several parishes of Wendover, Halton,
Weston-Turville, Aston-Clinton, Buckland, and Drayton-Beauchamp, in
the said county of Buckingham; and the parish of Tring; till it
joins the said summit-level at Bulbourne aforesaid. Dated this 5th
day of September, 1793.”
E. O. Gray, Aston Chaplin, Clerks
to the Company
Exactly when the Wendover Arm was completed is unknown, but it was
probably shortly after 1794, for in his progress report of May of
that year Chief Engineer William Jessop states that “About
seven-eights of the Wendover Canal is cut”, and in a GJCC
circular of November, 1797, reference is made to “The Wendover
collateral line, now finished for the sake of the water.”
Thus, the Arm was widened and made navigable, and wharfs were built
at, among other places, Gamnel (Tring), Buckland and Wendover
[11] to cater for the trade that
commenced when the main line of the canal reached Bulbourne Junction
in 1799.
The earliest reference to milling in the Gamnel locality is in the
same year. The site now occupied by Tring Flour Mill (Heygates
Ltd.) was in the vicinity of a water mill – possibly in New Road,
near the Baptist Chapel – that had been bought by the GJCC and then
dismantled, its water supply having been diverted into the canal
summit. The loss of the mill pond affected the local Baptist
community, whose traditional baptism ceremonies were thus curtailed:
“The Water Mill at New Mill is now sold to
the Canal Company, and the pond cannot therefore be used in future
for baptism. A baptistery is being made in front of the pulpit in
the Chapel [where it remains].
The Mill had previously been in the ownership of friends of the
Chapel, and after a baptismal service the women used to change their
clothes there, and the men walked up to the Chapel to change. The
open-air baptisms were a good thing [to be] done away with,
although they were greatly preferred by the Minister and some
members of the Chapel. The services were always scenes of much
hostility and abuse from certain people in Tring, the participants
in the service oftentimes being pelted with filthy missiles.”
From the Tring
Vestry Minutes for 1799.
The GJCC Minutes for the 14th October 1800 record that a wharf at
Tring – presumably that at Gamnel, now generally known as
“Tring
Wharf”
– was sold by auction for three years from 29th September. It
was taken by James Tate, a coal merchant and barge owner, for £15
per annum. Then, on 5th July 1810, the first reference to “Gamnel”
appears in the GJCC Minutes, which record that the
freehold of what appears to be the same site was sold . . . .
“. . . . by Deed Poll under Common Seal in
Consideration of Four hundred pounds paid to them by the said
William Grover grant and release to the said William Grover his
Heirs and Assigns All that wharf Land and Buildings thereon
containing one acre and three roods more or less situate next Gamnel
[canal] Bridge in the Parish of Tring . . .
. ”
THE GROVER FAMILY
William Grover must have seen a business opportunity in developing
the site. It comprised a triangular piece of land on which he
(or possibly his brother James) later erected a windmill and set up
in business at the wharf sending and receiving consignments of goods
by canal. Exactly when the windmill was built is unknown.
Andrew Bryant’s 1820-21 map of Hertfordshire includes a windmill
symbol at Gamnel Wharf, while Pigot’s Directory for 1823
lists the brothers William and James Grover as ‘millers’ at Gamnel,
but the earliest record of the wharf and premises is in 1829, when
they were held by William Grover, while James Grover held the
windmill and a house on the same site at a rateable value of £13.
5s. 0d.
At some time after 1829, the partnership between the Grover brothers
ceased. Why, is unclear, but following their father’s death in
1820 it is known that there arose a prolonged dispute between the
brothers concerning the terms of his will. In her history of
Aldbury, Jean Davis refers to a vestry dispute of 1828, and states
that . . . .
The fact was that, at some time before he
died in 1820, John Grover had given up his baker’s shop in Aldbury
and moved to Tring Wharf. Having acquired some land in North
Field, he proceeded to build a house there adjacent to the road,
which he left to his son James with the crop and implements and
household goods. According to John Clement, watchmaker and
Baptist preacher of Tring, James’s brother William disputed the
will, which finally went to arbitration. James is reported to
have said that he was wronged of ‘hundreds of pounds’.”
For whatever reason, James set out to build and work nearby
Goldfield windmill (Chapter VIII) in
competition with his brother. The 1839 edition of Pigot’s
Directory lists James at Goldfield, while Gamnel Wharf was run
by William Grover & Son in partnership. Moving on to 1841, the
Census records William Grover, then age 60, at Gamnel with his son
Thomas, and the Hillsdons, father and son, who were later to set up
business as millwrights in Chapel Street, Tring (Chapter
V). All four are described as millers.
The next public reference to the Grover family appears in January
1843, when a brief notice in the London Gazette announced the
dissolution of the partnership between William Grover and Son,
wharfingers, of Tring Wharf and Paddington. No reason is
given, but the inherited rumour is that William Grover became
insolvent, which might explain why, in the following month, he
disposed of the business to his sons-in-law. The following
notice appeared in the
Bucks Advertiser:
“William Grover, in the town of Tring in
the County of Hertfordshire, having on the 28th day of January last
disposed of the business of wharfinger, coal and coke merchant and
mealman, and dealer in hay, straw, ashes, and other things, lately
carried on by him in partnership with Thomas Grover, at Tring Wharf,
and at Paddington in the County of Middlesex, under the firm of
‘WILLIAM GROVER & SON’ to his sons-in-law, William Mead and Richard
Bailey.
Messrs. Mead and Bailey beg to announce that they will continue to
carry on the same business, upon the said premises, in partnership
under the name of ‘MEAD & BAILEY’. All debts due to and owing
from the said William Grover, will be received and paid by Mead &
Bailey.”
It is interesting that the Grovers describe themselves not as
millers, but as “wharfingers”, which suggests that their
principal business activities were the shipment of produce by canal
and the resale of imported bulk commodities, such as coal and coke.
In an age before the development of road transport, and with the
nearest railway [12] goods yard
almost two miles from Tring town centre, the Wendover Arm was not
only an important source of water for the Grand Junction Canal, but
of commercial importance to the town and its surrounding area.
Indeed, it is known that the Arm was used to convey grain not only
to the windmill at Gamnel, but to that at Wendover (Chapter
X), it too being located strategically close to the town’s canal
wharf.
THE MEAD FAMILY
After 1843, the Grovers disappear from the story of Gamnel Wharf,
while Mead and Bailey continued to offer a diverse range of
services, advertising themselves as millers, coal merchants,
wharfingers and water carriers; and a few years later, the partners
added to their interests by dealing in horse manure, which they
shipped out of London. It is likely that Bailey managed the
wharf at this time, for in the 1851 Census he describes himself as “Miller
and Wharfinger”, while Mead appears as “Farmer and Miller”
(the Mead family continue to farm in the area).
At this time the workforce numbered around 30 men and the Census
returns list all the families living near to each other in the
immediate vicinity of the mill. In those days William Mead lived on
site, in a handsome house next to the yard, but only owned half the
area taken up by the mill of today. But it is open to question
whether this was a close-knit and caring community, for a
contemporary account relating to one of the mill’s employees rather
belies this view.
William Massey, who worked as a labourer at the mill, lived with his
family on the wharf where he rented a hovel from the miller for a
shilling a week. In his biography of Gerald Massey, William’s
eldest son, David Shaw wrote:
“For this money they [the Massey
family] were given a damp flint stone hut
with a roof so low that it was impossible for an average adult to
stand upright. Having paid the rent, nine shillings remained
from William’s weekly wage to provide a minimum subsistence.”
Gerald Massey was to become a Chartist agitator, later acquiring
renown in literary circles as a poet and author. Some years
after William’s death, Gerald Massey had this to say about his late
father’s employment at Gamnel Wharf . . . .
“I know a poor old man who, for 40 years, worked for one firm and
its three generations of proprietors. He began at a wage of
16s. per week, and worked his way, as he grew older and older, and
many necessaries of life grew dearer and dearer, down to six
shillings a week, and still he kept working, and would not give up.
At six shillings a week he broke a limb, and left work at last,
being pensioned off by the firm with a four-penny piece! I
know whereof I speak, for that man was my father.”
Regardless of whether the Meads treated their employees in such a
Dickensian manner, their business prospered. It centred on the
windmill, which old photographs show to be a brick-built 6-storey
tower mill with four double-shuttered patent sails, a fantail, with
a gallery on the second floor. The cap was in the ‘Kentish
style’, with an extension at the rear to support the fantail and its
stage. It was considered to be a relatively large mill having
power sufficient to drive at least three pairs of millstones.
While no record exists of the mill’s machinery, it was probably
comparable to that in the later tower mill at Quainton (Chapter
XI) and, judging from photographs of Gamnel Mill, was of similar
external size and appearance.
The partnership between Mead & Bailey ended in 1856 on Bailey’s
death, and for the next 88 years the Mead family became inextricably
linked to milling and to other business activities at Gamnel Wharf.
In the year following Richard Bailey’s death, his widow, Sarah,
bound their son Thomas in apprenticeship for five years as miller to
Edward Mead. On the 15th April 1857, a Tring solicitor drew up
the Indenture in wording typical of the time . . . .
“. . . . the said apprentice his Master
shall faithfully serve, his secrets keep, his lawful commands
everywhere gladly do . . . . he shall not waste the goods of his
Master, nor lend them unlawfully to any. He shall not commit
fornication nor contract matrimony within the said term; shall not
play Cards or Dice Tables or any other unlawful games; . . . . he
shall not haunt Taverns or Playhouses nor absent himself from his
Master’s service day or night unlawfully . . . .”
How a normal red-blooded young man coped with five years of such
conditions is hard to imagine today. Thomas Bailey’s mother
also had to agree to wash and mend her son’s clothes and to supply
any medicines that he might require. Although weighted greatly
in favour of the master, terms on the Indenture were not wholly
one-sided, as for his part the master agreed to . . . .
“. . . . Useth by the best means that he
can to teach and instruct, or cause to be taught; finding unto the
apprentice sufficient Meat, Drink, Lodging and all other necessaries
during the said term . . . .”
THE FIRST USE OF STEAM
By the 1840s it appears that a steam engine had been installed at
Gamnel to supplement wind power – which by then was fairly common
practice – for Mead family papers refer to one of the occupants of
the mill cottages as
“Thomas Rowe, a stoker at the
mill”
(the 1861 Census also lists 19-year old Samuel Bull as an
“engine stoker”). Nothing is known about the steam
engine, but evidence suggests it was separate from the windmill . .
. .
“Prior to my return home Gamnel [a.k.a. Tring]
Flour Mill was run by my brothers Edward and Thomas, but the former
took the mill at Hunton Bridge, near Watford, and said I might have
his share of Gamnel for £1500. This I accepted, giving notes
of hand [i.e. promissory notes],
which I paid off when I had earned the money. I worked hard,
sometimes up to 10 o’clock, and if windmill and steam-mill
were both working I would stay until 1.00 o’clock in the
morning. In these cases I slept at my brother William’s
house . . . .”
John Mead,
autobiographical sketch, c.1930s.
. . . . unlike the practice adopted at Quainton windmill, where a
small steam engine was installed on the meal floor, its steam being
piped from an external boiler house and the engine coupled to the
windmill’s spur wheel (and hence millstones, etc) via an iron shaft
and cog. This type of arrangement is shown in
plate 21.
By this time the business at Gamnel Wharf was run by William Mead’s
third son, Edward, who also rented the windmill at Wendover (Chapter
X). Edward Mead had become a busy man, having acquired
milling interests at Watford, Hunton Bridge and at Chelsea, where he
is believed to have installed the UK’s first roller mill.
BUSHELL BROTHERS’ BOATYARD
From about 1850, local man John Bushell was employed by the Meads to
build and repair their fleet of barges. These were used to
bring grain to the mill, mainly from London’s docks, with return
cargoes of flour and other commodities (probably including hay and
straw). At that time canal boats were often built in small
boatyards run by a few men and this applied to the Gamnel Wharf
boatyard, where the craftsmen worked in the open air in the most
extreme weather.
Fig. 7.2:
Bushell Brothers’ boatyard photographed in January, 1914.
A large boat-building shed was later constructed to protect the men
from the elements.
Modernisation at the mill in 1875 resulted in John Bushell’s son
Joseph leasing the boatyard and developing it into a separate
business, while continuing to meet the Meads’ requirements for
building and maintaining their canal craft.
MODERNISATION
Fig. 7.3:
the new steam mill.
A particular milestone was reached in 1875, when Thomas Mead took
the bold step of erecting an imposing brick-built grain mill
adjacent to the windmill, its 5-storeys allowing sufficient headroom
for a large beam engine capable of driving five pairs of millstones.
The installation of this new machinery did not go without incident,
as a local newspaper reports . . . .
“Accident — There was a shifting of the old
boiler out of the old engine house at Mr Thomas Mead’s flour mill
into the new one on Tuesday; and in order to do this, the boiler had
to be raised four feet. A small space had been left at the end
for the jack, and the block underneath slipped when the boiler was
raised about two feet, and caused the boiler to run ahead, striking
against Lot Denchfield, fracturing his right thigh and left fore
arm. Denchfield was at once taken to the County Infirmary at
Aylesbury.”
As the century progressed, advances in technology swept away old
systems, and milling was not exempt. In 1894 a further step
was taken when Thomas Mead installed the recently-developed roller
system (Chapter 3,
Appendix), for a time running
it in conjunction with the windmill. Then in 1905, the old
Bolton & Watt-type beam engine was replaced by a Woodhouse &
Mitchell tandem compound condensing engine, rated at 120 hp, which
drove the mill until it converted to electric power in 1946.
Fig. 7.4:
Gamnel Wharf tower mill about to be pulled down, 4th May 1911.
The early 20th century saw the rapid demise of windmills throughout
the land. After some ninety years of faithful service, on the
4th May 1911 the tower mill at Gamnel Wharf was pulled down. A
local newspaper gave the following account . . . .
“Removal of a Landmark — On May 4th a
familiar landmark was demolished. For many years the old
windmill where Mr. Mead and his ancestors have long carried on their
business, has stood at Gamnel. The leisurely business methods
of bygone days have had to give place to more up-to-date
arrangements and so the ground on which the old mill stood was
wanted for an extension of the steam-powered mills. Under the
personal direction of Mr W. N. Mead the structure was first
undermined, wooden struts taking the place of the brickwork and when
it was ready a steel cable and winch hauled it over.”
Fig. 7.5:
the deed is done.
As the years passed, other changes came to Mead’s flour mill.
In 1916, horse transport was supplemented with a Foden steam lorry,
this being joined by a Napier lorry in 1918, the bodywork of which —
and of all further lorries up to WWII — was constructed by Bushell
Brothers. The coal business, which advertisements suggest had
been important since the earliest days of Gamnel Wharf, ceased at
the outbreak of World War II. Much imported wheat was now
being used, which was shipped by barge from Brentford to Bulbourne
near Tring, where it was transferred to a horse-drawn narrowboat for
its passage up the Wendover Arm. Barge traffic continued on
the Arm until after the WWII, when road haulage took over.
THE CLOSURE OF BUSHELL’S BOATYARD
Fig. 7.6:
Bushell Brothers were versatile, supplementing their boat-building
with carpentry
(they carried out repairs on
Pitstone Mill), decorating and
building vehicle bodywork.
Joseph Bushell’s two sons, Joseph junior and Charles, had taken over
the boatyard in 1912, renaming the business Bushell Brothers.
But as canal traffic and the market for new barges and repairs
declined, more varied work had to be sought. Besides their
work on narrowboats, the firm is known to have built and repaired
pleasure boats, maintenance flats, wide boats, tugs and even a fire
float, while their letterhead advertised boats for hire, carpentry
and decorating services.
Fig. 7.7:
and example of Bushells Brothers’ bodywork building skills.
Shortly before its closure in 1952, Bushells were constructing and
painting coachwork for commercial vehicles. But in local minds
the boatyard will always be remembered for its fine wooden
narrowboats, a few of which have been preserved by enthusiasts.
Fig. 7.8:
calendar cover for 1941.
HEYGATES FLOUR MILL
|
 |
|
Fig. 7.9: William Mead judging wheat. |
Thomas Mead’s son, William, died in April,
1941. There being no sons to take over the business, it passed
into the control of his executors and trustees. The Mead name
finally disappeared from the Gamnel scene in 1944, when the business
was taken over by Heygates of Bugbrooke Mills, Northampton, who for
some time had assisted with the running of Gamnel Mill.
Following the end of WWII, the mill’s storage silos and warehouses
were enlarged and, with the removal of the old south boundary wall
(latterly part of the carpenter’s shop) to create space for
expansion, the last tangible memory of Gamnel Wharf windmill
disappeared.
Today, flour milling continues at Gamnel Wharf but in a manner
greatly transformed from its wind and steam milling days. The
mechanical shafts, cogs, belts and sets of grindstones have long
been replaced by banks of cabinets that house sophisticated filters
and grinding rollers serviced by a network of pneumatic feeder
pipes. The finished product is no longer packed in the
two-and-a-half hundredweight (280 lbs.) sacks that carters like
William Massey had to deliver into baker’s lofts, sometimes carrying
each sack up slippery external wooden steps or ladders. Today,
Gamnel’s modern automated packing plant fills 32 kilos (70 lbs.)
sacks, which are then neatly palleted, swathed in polythene sheet,
and loaded onto lorries by forklift truck. Some flour also
leaves the mill in bulk transporters.
As in the days of the windmill, only two men are needed to operate
the plant. But whereas in former times the two millers could
process half a ton of grain per hour, today’s electrically-driven
equipment operating under computer control, can mill 12 tons per
hour; or put another way, 100,000 tons of wheat is milled in a year
resulting in 76,000 tons of flour, the bulk of the waste going into
animal feed. The mill employs a workforce of 80, and 16 trucks
deliver its products to outlets throughout the south of England.
Fig. 7.10:
a Sentinel steamer. |
