Adrian Pearce,
SCMC Journal No.3
Introduction
In July 1995, David Adams was approached by a David Gwilliam who lives
at
Description
The brick arched entrance to a tunnel was exposed in a bank of earth which
Mr Gwilliam had been removing close to his house. There were circular brick
foundations outside this arch which looked like the base of a chimney but this
has not been proved. The tunnel system is brick lined throughout and the first
section was 0.9m high and wide with heavy carbon deposits, indicating that it
could possibly have been a flue. This led into a circular brick-lined chamber
which had a brick beehive cover. The latter had accidentally been broken into
from surface by Mr Gwilliam. The floor of the chamber was obscured by rubble. A
further section of tunnel led to a similar but smaller chamber which was open
to surface as a result of a demolished beehive. A short length of passage led
from this to an arched entrance, with a smaller diameter side passage leading
to a further entrance, albeit collapsed. Another curving passage led off from
the collapsed chamber in the opposite direction, ascending slightly, and
eventually ended at a collapse. In the floor of this section were a number of
spaced channels with no apparent egress to the sides.
The first impression was that the tunnels formed a flue system, hence
the carbon deposits and a possible chimney. However, the shape of the tunnels
and the presence of the chambers makes this far too complicated for such a
simple explanation. So what do we know from physical examination :-
- There have obviously been some fumes passing through the system to
leave the carbon deposits.
- There appears to be the base of a chimney at the end of one of the
tunnel sections.
- The chambers have the appearance of condensing chambers.
- There appears to be a manway access into the system.
- The channels in the floor appear to have been to collect something.
Information from Records
a) In 1781, Archibald Cochrane built experimental tar distilleries at
Calcutt and Benthall. Following liaison with William Reynolds, the latter built
his own one at Ketley in 1789 but the location is unknown.
b) The 1840 tithe map shows "
c) The adjacent Ketley Hall was parcel 760 and is shown as occupied by
Henry Williams, landlord again being the Duke of Sutherland. Williams also occupied
parcels 719 and 761, both shown as pits. Henry Williams was appointed Agent and
General Superintendant of the
d) The 1894 sale catalogue of Ketley Estate (see Fig.18) shows parcel
712 as Cottage & Gardens (30 perches) occupied by Jeffrey Jones. The latter
is described in an 1886 trade directory as a farmer.
e) Ketley Hall was occupied by managers of the Ketley Iron Works until
later in the 19th century. The owner of the iron works was William Reynolds.
f) The inclined plane of
g)
h) At Ketley, in dry periods, a small steam engine pumped the water lost
from the top of the lock back up from the bottom of the plane.
Conclusion
There are two possible conclusions that spring to mind but the
definitive answer still avoids us. Any suggestions will be gratefully accepted.
a) That this was the experimental tar distillery built by William
Reynolds. The latter had a connection with Ketley Hall but the site may equally
have been at his Ketley Works to the west. It might explain features such as
the carbon deposit, condensing chambers and collecting channels. If it was, it
must have been abandoned by the beginning of the 19th century since the site
became a farmhouse.
b) That it was associated with the nearby inclined plane. Again there is
a connection with Ketley Hall, and thus William Reynolds and his canal agent.
Could the house have been the site of the pumping engine? If so, the flue does
not fit the standard design associated with the engine's boilers and chimney.
Could it have been a conduit for the pumped water? If so, why the chambers?
I am afraid that the conclusion is that there is no conclusion at this
stage.