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.

The first step was taken under the act on the 7th of June, 1842, when the commissioners met, and T. C. Hornyold, Esq., was elected chairman. Mr. Thomas Waters was appointed clerk. Mr. William Cubitt was appointed engineer-in-chief, Mr. E. L. Williams retaining his office as resident engineer; and advertisements were ordered to be inserted in the newspapers for loans. The first stone of Lincombe weir was laid on the 5th of August, 1843.

At several subsequent meetings of the Commission, the Gloucester commissioners amused themselves by offering every possible opposition to the speedy progress and completion of the work; though they were, of course, appointed for the express purpose of carrying it out. However, they were always out-voted by those commissioners who felt their interest and honour alike concerned in the duties assigned to them by Parliament, and the trial weir at Lincombe was opened on December 23, 1843. Spite of the ratiocinations of adverse engineers, and those ignoramuses who fancy they know everybody’s business better than their own, the weir was found to stand the current, floods, and frosts of the winter admirably, and the barge was passed through the locks in three minutes.

The work now proceeded rapidly—the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company having advanced the necessary funds, and the contracts having been taken by Messrs. Grissell and Peto; with the exception of one sad accident on the 5th of August, 1844, by which twelve of the workmen engaged at Diglis lost their lives by the upsetting of the boat in which they were returning from their work, they were completed without a single drawback or mishap. The lock at Diglis was opened on the 9th October, 1844; and this part of the work was thus completed in fifteen months, in the most able and satisfactory manner, within the original estimate of its cost, £140,000—a fact almost unexampled in the construction of great national undertakings of this kind. The dredging, however, between Diglis and Gloucester, occupied a longer time than had been expected, and proved a very costly business; but this, it must always be borne in mind, formed no part of the promoters’ scheme, but was forced upon them by the landowners, who objected to the erection of any weirs below Diglis.

The completion of the locks and weirs was celebrated on the 25th of January, 1844, by a public dinner at the Guildhall, Worcester, when a testimonial was presented to J. W. Lea, Esq., for the zeal he had always manifested in the improvement of the river. J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., occupied the chair, and Alderman Edward Evans was vice-president. Amongst the party were Lord Hatherton, the Mayor of Worcester, T. C. Hornyold, Esq., Captain Winnington, John Dent, Esq., William Cubitt, Esq., &c. The testimonial, which consisted of a quantity of silver plate, with Mr. Lea’s crest engraved on each article, was of course presented by the chairman.

At the close of 1846, Mr. Cubitt certified that a depth of six feet of water had been obtained from Lincombe to Gloucester, and the Commission consequently met on the 1st of January, 1847, and ordered tolls to be levied at all the locks in the terms of the Act of Parliament. Some opposition was offered, both by Gloucester Commissioners and by traders on the river; but on Mr. Cubitt’s certificate the step of raising tolls was obligatory on the Commission. There can be no doubt that at the time of Mr. Cubitt making the certificate there was six feet of water in the river, though every one saw that under the system of dredging it would be impossible to maintain that depth in all seasons of the year.At the annual meeting of the Commission in September, 1847, the traders complained that the depth of water in the river between Worcester and Gloucester was not six feet, and expressed their belief that it could not be secured without additional locks and weirs. The committee of works reported to the same effect, and declared the dredging a failure. A committee was, therefore, appointed to consider the best means of completing the improvement between Diglis and Gloucester.

This committee reported to a meeting of the Commission, held on the 13th December, 1847, recommending that application should be made to Parliament for powers to put a weir in at Tewkesbury, and to raise a dam at Over bridge, near Gloucester, to divert the water into the other channel and to scour out the silt accumulating there. The meeting assumed a very unpleasant character—such personal and improper remarks being made that Sir John Pakington, at one time, left the chair, but was induced to return. The opposing commissioners negatived that part of the proposal which related to the dam at the Over bridge by a majority of seven to four. Preparation was therefore made to apply to Parliament for the Tewkesbury weir alone; but Parliament had, at this time, taken it into their heads that a “preliminary inquiry” ought to be made on the spot into measures of this sort; and, accordingly, in February, 1848, sent Mr. Cockburn Curtis, a young engineer, to take evidence, and make a report to the Admiralty. At Gloucester he took a show of hands as to whether the Commissioners had kept faith with the public in imposing toll or not! Mr. Curtis’s report was in accordance with the unfriendly influence then prevailing at the Admiralty, and he recommended a scheme of his own instead of the Tewkesbury weir—a scheme which few people, besides Mr. Curtis himself, have ever been able to comprehend.

With this report in their hands, the interested opponents of all improvement on the river waited on those members of Parliament whom they could in any way influence, stole a march on the promoters, and threw out the bill most unexpectedly on the second reading by a majority of 104 to 91. This was on the 6th March, 1848.

At a meeting of the commissioners, held in October of the same year, both parties mustered their forces, and divided, in the first place, upon the question of who should be chairman, and 13 votes were given for Sir John Pakington and 11 for Mr. Hyett. It was then proposed by Mr. Lea that an application should be again made to Parliament, similar to the one of the preceding session. It was represented that the Commission was in debt to the contractors, principally because of the great expense incurred in useless dredging, and that more money must be raised. After a very stormy debate the renewed application was agreed to by the chairman’s casting vote only, and so also were other necessary resolutions. In minor matters the opposition had a majority.

In February, 1849, the “preliminary inquiry” took place into the merits of this measure. The surveyors appointed by the Admiralty on this occasion being Captain Bethune and Mr. Veitch, C.E. These gentlemen again reported unfavourably of the scheme as proposed by the Commission, professing themselves desirous of seeing the river so altered below Gloucester as to bring the tide up to Worcester! It was understood that the great fight would again take place on the second reading, which came on on the 23rd April, 1849. The Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Government generally, Sir Robert Peel, &c., supported the second reading; but the private interests in opposition prevailed, and the bill was once more thrown out; this time by a majority of 34—191 voting against it, and 134 in its favour.

In the session of 1850 a select committee was appointed into the working of these “preliminary inquiries,” and in consequence of the evidence given by Mr. Edward Leader Williams and others, proving that they only added to the expenses of passing a bill, without performing one act of utility which might not be better done by the inquiry before the committee of the House, they were abolished, and Parliament returned to its old practice in these matters.

Since that time the Commissioners have been resting on their oars, feeling it useless to go to Parliament again if they had the same opposition to encounter, and trusting that the Admiralty might be induced to take up the improvement of the river, both above and below Gloucester, as a project of great national importance. They have, indeed, directed a survey of the whole river to be made, and Mr. Walker has made a “hasty” report thereon, in which he says as little as possible as to the river above Gloucester, and makes impracticable suggestions as to its improvement below.

The present condition of the river is an evil example of what may be done when men fancy their own selfish pecuniary interests will be promoted by impeding that which would be so manifest an advantage to the country at large, as the improvement of one of its principal rivers, so as to make it navigable for sea-going vessels to the furthest possible point inland. Some of them, however, are gradually awaking to the truth that no public interest can thus be sacrificed with impunity, and to discover their own shortsightedness in the matter. The time is not far distant when some of those who have hitherto been the bitterest opponents of the improvement of the river Severn will be found amongst its warmest supporters.