Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century / A Complete Digest of Facts Occuring in the County since the Commencement of the year 1800

by T. C. Turberville

IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVER SEVERN.

Before the age of railways, the advantages to a nation as well as to a district of having its ports brought as far inland as possible, were so many and apparent, that it can be no wonder the improvement of the navigation of the Severn was contemplated at an early date. It was projected in 1784, by Mr. William Jessop, an engineer of some note at that day; and though the science of hydraulics was then very little understood—as, indeed, it is even now [165]—yet the nature of the bed of the Severn and its very gentle fall, marked it out as a river easily admitting of improvement, and not at all beyond the reach of the means then known and practised. The plan proposed by Mr. Jessop was, so far as can be gathered from the reports and documents still in existence, a very fair and feasible one; he proposed to convert it into a ship canal as far as Stourport, by means of weirs. As to the details of the scheme, we have of course no means of judging. It was, however, opposed most strenuously by the landowners on either bank of the river, who feared that the weirs would prove obstructions to the current, and increase the frequency and mischief of the floods which often cover the lands near the banks. The project was, therefore, at that time abandoned, nor was it ever formally broached again till 1835, when Mr. Edward Leader Williams, an ironmonger in Worcester, pressed the matter so strongly upon his fellow citizens, and so clearly demonstrated, by models and plans of his own devising, that it was perfectly possible to make the river, as far as Worcester, navigable for ships drawing twelve feet of water, that they at length awoke to the advantages which would accrue to them by the improvement of this outlet to “the great highway of nations.” The fears and objections of some of the leading landowners having been overcome, a company was started for the purpose of carrying out the scheme.

The first public notice of the matter appeared in the Worcester Journal of November 12, 1835, when a provisional committee was announced, and the inhabitants of Worcester called together to give their opinion upon the plan. This meeting was held on the 30th November, when Mr. Jonathan Worthington was called to the chair, and Mr. Bedford read the committee’s report, which proposed that a pound lock should be erected at Gloucester, below the ship basin lock, from which a channel of 500 yards in length should be cut to pass Gloucester bridge, and a weir erected near Over bridge. The Haw, Mythe, and Upton bridges were to be passed by similar cuts, and the estimated cost of the whole scheme was £180,000; at which sum, it was thought, a depth of twelve feet might be obtained all the way from Gloucester to Worcester, and six feet thence to Stourport. Mr. Leader Williams explained the details of his plan. The Earl of Coventry declared that he should give it his hearty support; and the objections raised by other landowners were satisfactorily answered. The money required was to be raised in £20 shares, and the press and public of Worcester were singularly unanimous and enthusiastic in favour of the project. The formal prospectus of the company presently appeared—Mr. Thomas Rhodes was announced as the chief, and Mr. E. L. Williams the resident engineer.

At a very numerous meeting of the shareholders held in October, 1836, over which Mr. J. W. Lea presided, Mr. Rhodes’s report was read; and it was decided, by a very large majority, that application should be made to Parliament to sanction a scheme for increasing the depth of the river to twelve feet. Some of the landowners proposed that the depth sought should only be six feet six inches, but this suggestion met with no support from the general body of subscribers. As soon as the people of Gloucester found that the project was taken up thus seriously, they entered into a systematic opposition, in which the selfish motives that actuated them were at first sought to be flimsily concealed, but were afterwards unblushingly avowed and unscrupulously worked out. At the first meeting which they convened upon the subject, it was pretended that the health of the city of Gloucester would be endangered by a stagnation of the river at the proposed lock; that the salmon fisheries would be destroyed, and the lands on the banks overflowed: therefore they, the citizens of Gloucester, felt bound to oppose the scheme! Afterwards they distinctly declared that they would fight it tooth and nail, because it would take part of their trade further up the river. Many of the landowners, too, could not be convinced but that any alteration of the river, if it did not increase the floods, would at least impede the drainage, and render their lands permanently cold and damp. The Shropshire traders, and a majority of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, both of whom feared that the tolls raised would interfere with their receipts, were also its opponents; though, as regards the Canal Company, nothing could be more shortsighted.

The bill was introduced into Parliament in the session of 1837, and was opposed on standing orders, but passed these successfully. The most urgent efforts were then made by the Gloucester interest to defeat the measure on the second reading, and with but too much success. Captain Winnington moved the second reading on the 12th of April, and Captain Berkeley moved that it be read on that day six months; the principal argument he made use of was, that it would be imposing a tax on a free river! The bill was supported alike by the Government and by the leader of the opposition, Sir Robert Peel; but the private influence brought to bear by interested parties was not to be outweighed by the arguments of statesmen, or enlarged considerations of national benefit. The bill was thrown out by a majority of 149 to 124. The Gloucester people were characteristically grateful to their two city members for their “unwearied exertions” in opposition to the bill.

The shareholders met again in September, 1837, and a very able report from the committee was laid before them, in which it was stated that the whole plan had been laid before the most eminent engineers of the day, and some trifling alterations in detail agreed to; but they could not recommend the shareholders to seek any less depth of water than twelve feet: and as steps had been taken to conciliate the landowners, they thought another application might be made to Parliament with every prospect of success. £15,000 had been received on the shares, but on the call which had been made £4,000 were still in arrear. The expenses had amounted to £11,700. The shareholders almost unanimously agreed to form themselves into a new Company for the further promotion of the undertaking, and a provisional committee was named for that purpose. This committee, however, were not able to raise sufficient capital to proceed with the ship project, and they therefore called another meeting of the subscribers to the old Company, where Mr. Cubitt gave an explanation of a plan to increase the depth of the river to six feet six inches up to Worcester, and to six feet from Worcester to Stourport. This, he said, would cost £150,000. After discussion, this plan was adopted; and the necessary number of shares having been taken, preparation was again made for application to Parliament. In order to get rid of every pretext for opposition from the Gloucester interests, all thought of weirs and works near that city was abandoned; and from Saxon’s Lode downwards it was proposed to deepen the river by dredging only. By way of diversion, however, another scheme was started conjointly by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal and Gloucester interests, which was to procure a depth of five feet in the river between Gloucester and Worcester, by means of two extraordinary moveable weirs, to be inserted at Saxon’s Lode and Wain Lode Hill; and this, though seen to be totally impracticable and ridiculous, was advocated in the Gloucester papers by way of rivalry to the Severn Company’s plan, which they continued to describe as fraught with injustice, because it would deliver a free river into the hands of a Joint Stock Company. The funds of the Severn Navigation Company proved insufficient to carry the scheme out in its integrity; therefore the improvement of the river, from Worcester to Stourport, for the present was abandoned. This alienated the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company, and altogether the opposition again got up to the measure was so strong, that after the bill had been introduced into Parliament in the session of 1838, and the standing orders passed, a deputation of the Worcester Company met the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Company proprietors, to see if some further concessions could not be made which might get rid of the principal objections to the scheme. The result of this interview was, that the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Company consented to support a project for the improvement of the river under public commissioners, instead of a Joint Stock Company; and the bill was therefore withdrawn, with the view of introducing another, on the principle thus suggested, in the next session. The shareholders in the Company were called together in September, and received the report of the committee, but there were no assets to divide—the additional expenses (£5,333) had just swallowed up the deposits. The exertions of Mr. J. W. Lea, the chairman of the Company, were acknowledged by a special vote; and many gentlemen present declared their willingness to further any future efforts which might be made, by all the means in their power. The year 1839 was consumed in efforts to induce the Government to take the matter up, as they had recently done the navigation of the Shannon; but these, though zealously backed by Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., then member for Worcester, all proved fruitless.

In August, 1840, the shareholders of the Company were again convened at Worcester, and another attempt resolved on to raise funds to apply to Parliament for powers to obtain a six feet depth of water and place the undertaking under the management of a Commission. A further call of ten shillings per share was accordingly made, but so few of the subscribers responded to it that another meeting was held in the ensuing month, and the Company dissolved itself—thus ending the attempts to improve the Severn by private enterprise and speculation.

The gentlemen, however, who had so long and laboriously exerted themselves to effect this great national improvement, did not lose sight of the subject, and in a short time after the dissolution of the old Company one of the most influential meetings ever assembled in Worcester was convened to prosecute the matter afresh. At this meeting, held on the 11th October, 1840, the Right Hon. Lord Ward, who was called to the chair, made his debût in public life, and advocated the cause of the Severn Navigation Improvement in a speech of remarkable ability. Lord Hatherton, Mr. Blakemore, M.P., the members for the city of Worcester, and others took part in the proceedings, and the result was that a large subscription was entered into, to which Lord Ward contributed £500, Mr. Bailey £300, Messrs. Dent £300, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of another application to Parliament. On this occasion the proposal was to place the undertaking under a Commission, so that no private parties might gain any benefit from it. No works were proposed at or near Gloucester, yet the usual opposition was improvised in that city and by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company. The bill now introduced was allowed to pass the second reading unopposed, but on its going into committee an attempt was made to add the Monmouthshire and Birmingham members to the committee, but this was opposed by Government as a most inconvenient infringement of the standing orders, and was defeated by 117 to 33. The committee consisted, therefore, of what was called “The Worcestershire List,” which included eleven members from adjoining counties, as well as those for this county and its boroughs, and six selected members. E. W. W. Pendarves, Esq., was chosen chairman.

On the 30th April, 1841, the committee sat for the first time, and then began a struggle which, in the Parliamentary annals of private bills, had up to that time been quite unprecedented. Twenty petitions were presented against the bill, but for several of them nobody appeared in support, and the opposition almost resolved itself into the Gloucestershire, Shropshire, and Birmingham Canal interests, and the landowners. Mr. Sergeant Merewether, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Craig were engaged as counsel for the bill, and Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Austin were the principal opposing counsel. The first day was taken up by Mr. Sergeant Merewether’s opening speech. For eight days following the promoters called evidence in support of the preamble—their engineers especially being subjected to the most searching cross-examinations by the opposition. On the tenth day Mr. Talbot summed up the evidence for the promoters, and Mr. Austin commenced his address for the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, and the examination of his witnesses occupied two days longer. On the thirteenth day Mr. Sergeant Wrangham spoke for the Gloucester interest. Six days more were taken up by other opponents and their witnesses; and on the twentieth Mr. Sergeant Merewether replied, and the committee, after a short consultation, unanimously resolved—“That the preamble of the bill is proved.” This great victory was not achieved, however, without most material damage to the scheme; for in order to meet the opposition of the landowners, which evidently had great weight with the committee, the promoters had to abandon the weir below Upton, and consent to dredge the river up to Diglis. Weirs in large rivers of this kind had not been much known, and it was thought that they might increase the floods. Mr. Walker, the engineer, too, was very positive that the required depth might be obtained by dredging, and the committee, therefore, determined that that should have a trial—and a most unfortunate determination it has proved. Some other important alterations took place in the discussion of the clauses, the principal of which was the exemption of the Shropshire trade from toll; though it could not be denied that they would derive a benefit, like all other traders, from the Improvement. A long discussion took place upon the position of the lock at Diglis, which the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company wanted put above the mouth of their canal; but to this the committee would not consent. The Commission, after much debate, was constituted as follows: three justices of the peace for the county of Worcester, three for the county of Gloucester, four for the Worcester and four for the Gloucester town councils, one for the council of the city of Bristol, one for Droitwich, one for Tewkesbury, one for Wenlock, one for Newport, one for the Upper and Lower Avon Navigation and the council of Evesham, two for Stourport, two for the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company, two for the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, two for the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal, one for the Herefordshire and Gloucester Canal, and one for the Coombe Hill Navigation—thirty in all. [171] The toll was fixed at sixpence per ton from Gloucester to Worcester, and fourpence per ton from Worcester to Stourport: this being what the promoters proposed. Having by this time got near the end of the session, the opponents of the measure sought to render all the efforts of the committee nugatory by speaking against time; but this was seen through and defeated by the members of the committee meeting in the evening as well as in the morning, and at last the bill was reported to the House. Mr. Waters, the solicitor to the bill, was publicly thanked in the committee room for the singular exertions by which he had carried the measure through, in the teeth of such a determined opposition. The Parliament being prorogued immediately after the bill was reported, it was obliged to stand over till the next session.

In the interval there was some grumbling on the part of the Gloucester corporation and the landowners at the large sums they had to pay for the Parliamentary opposition, but the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company prepared to renew the fight. It came before the committee again in March, 1842. Some opposition was here offered on behalf of the Tewkesbury people, but the committee would not suffer the question to be reopened; and the only alterations made were those suggested and proposed by the promoters themselves. On the bringing up of the report, Mr. Muntz moved the recommittal of the bill on behalf of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, who complained of the lock at Diglis being placed below the mouth of their canal, and of the unjust exemption of the Shropshire trade from toll. Mr. Mark Phillips and Mr. R. Scott spoke on the same side; while Mr. Pakington, the Honourable R. H. Clive, Mr. Labouchere, Sir C. Douglas, Lord G. Somerset, Sir Thomas Wilde, Sir William Rae, and Mr. Ormsby Gore spoke in favour of the bill passing at once: and Mr. Muntz, seeing the strong feeling of the House, withdrew his motion. There was some further opposition made in committee in the Lords, and four days were consumed there; but the bill passed without any material alteration; and the royal assent being given to it on the 13th of May, 1842, it at length became the law of the land.