It had long been suggested that the old glacial overflow channel running north-south between Lough Neagh and Carlingford Lough would be the perfect route for a canal to link the two, via the Upper Bann river, but nothing significant happened until the end of the C17. Early in the 1700s, coal was discovered in east Tyrone, on the western shoes of Lough Neagh, and that brought the hope of supplying the Dublin area directly, rather than relying on coal transported across the Irish Sea from Lancashire and Cumbria.
In August 1699, Arthur Brownlow of Lurgan wrote to Samuel Waring of Dublin and speculated about the practicalities of cutting a canal through “ye Glin bogg” to Newry, including estimates of how much the land drops, and the necessity of having a proper survey made. He also stated, “On planning of drains from Poyntzpass to Newry during the 1641 war, General Monck had a trough made between Poyntzpass and the Little Lough which would assist them”.
Nevil’s Survey
At some point in the next few years, Capt. Francis Nevil, Collector of Her Majesty’s Revenue in Ireland, carried out the detailed survey that Brownlow had suggested and published it in 1703. The legend at the bottom left of the map reads:
A Mapp of the Glan Bogg
Lying between the Counties of Down and Armagh, as also the Course of the upper Band (sic) and Newry River, so as to shew the whole extent between Logh Neagh and Newry, wherein are also marked down at several distances the fall of the Ground from Points Pass, being the highest part of the Bogg either way – the same being taken and a design of drawing a Canal or making passage for Boats from the said Logh to the sea.
Survey’d and Level’d by Francis Nevil Esqr Collectr of her Majests Revenue
Undertaken at the request of several Members of the House of Commons ….
He estimated that a waterway “navigable by lighters of twenty tons burthen” could be constructed for £20,000. Later in 1703, with Waring and Brownlow’s support, a Parliamentary committee was formed to consider legislation to authorise the building of such a canal, but it came to nothing.
On 26th November that year, the House of Commons retrospectively voted to award £200 to Nevil in recognition of his survey, for “…his extraordinary pains and service in viewing the ground and place for making a canal from Lough Neagh to Newry”.
Things then went quiet for about another 25 years.
What Nevil’s Map Tells Us
The map produced as a result of Nevil’s survey gives us important topographical information not previously recorded. It was created almost 140 years before the first OS maps of the area, and because hydrology was its focus, it gives us a huge amount of information about the drainage of the area. All previous maps had focussed on roads and land ownership.
Nevil’s map labels the whole of the ancient river between the southern end of Lough Shark and Newry as the Newry River. It was no mere stream. And it was this river – not just some boggy ground – that was passable at what became Poyntzpass about 60-100 years later.
The bridge built by Sir Toby Poyntz ca. 1660 actually crossed a river.So I suggest that it is more correct to think of the building much of the Newry Canal less as creating a completely virgin canal, but more like canalising, incorporating, straightening or bypassing an existing river. In some places, the canal runs straight as a die for a mile or more; in others it has perhaps more bends than you might expect.
This raises some interesting questions about the methods used in its construction, which we shall (eventually) examine later.
The Time Was Right
In her 2021 dissertation, Geraldine Foley argues that we should see the construction of the canal – an expensive, state-funded project – in the context of the general ‘improvement’ movement in Ireland at the time. The Royal Dublin Society – formally known as ‘The Dublin Society for Improving Husbandry, Manufactures and other Useful Arts and Sciences’ – was founded in 1731.
The Tillage Act of 1729 was a key piece of legislation; its preamble states that it is:
“For the encouragement of tillage, and better employment of the poor, and also for the more effectual putting in execution an act to encourage the draining and improving of bogs and unprofitable low grounds, and for easing and dispatching the inland carriage and conveyance of goods from one part to another within this kingdom, and for laying several duties upon coaches, berlins, chariots, calashes, chaises, and chairs, and upon cards and dice, and upon wrought and manufactured gold and silver plate, imported into or made in Ireland, for the purposes therein mentioned, and also for repealing the duties payable upon exportation of wool, bay yarn, and woollen yarn, out of this kingdom for Ireland.”
The Act created a new public body called The Commissioners of Inland Navigation, and the taxes listed provided its funds. In earlier times, the main beneficiaries of major public works projects were the ruling classes, but funding had come primarily from the taxes paid by their tenants. This tax was different; it was levied on goods which would have been almost the exclusive preserve of the gentry. For once, the rich would pay directly, rather than heaping yet more burdens on their impoverished tenants.
Work Begins
In 1731, work started on the building of the canal, under Sir Edward Lovett Pearce. On his death in 1733, responsibility passed to his deputy, Richard Castle. He was a German Huguenot – his name was an anglicised version of Cassels – and although he was an architect rather than an engineer, he had extensively studied canals in continental Europe.
However, Castle was dismissed in December 1736, probably because he had been devoting more and more of his time and attention to his architectural commissions and less time to the languishing canal.
He was replaced by English engineer Thomas Steers, who had already carried out a survey of the area in the spring of that year. Steers was contracted to spend the following three summers, 1737 to 1739, finishing the project, but he ended up having to spend much more time on the project (and in Ireland) than he had planned to, and it was not completed until 1741. Legal disputes further delayed its opening until the spring of 1742.