60 THE SILTING UP OF THE DEE: ITS CAUSE. 
Mr. Suone said he had looked into Ormerod on that subject, 
and he stated that there was a tradition that it was built in the 
time of Edward the Confessor; but Ormerod only copied that 
from Webb, and he did not know where Webb got the in- 
formation. 
Dr, StorrerrotH said there had evidently been a rocky bed 
before the causeway was put in. 
Mr. Suonr said that was so, or else the causeway might have 
been undermined by the water. 
THe CHArrMAN said he was a little disappointed that more 
interest was not taken in this subject by the citizens. He 
criticised Mr. Suonx’s contention as to the quantity of matter 
swept up by the bore, thinking that the dirt arose from the 
scouring of the mud on the banks of the stream by the rush of 
water, and that most of it would be returned with the receding 
tide. Otherwise, according to Mr. Suone’s argument, he should 
have expected a large deposit of silt just below the causeway. 
He was sorry that his friend had not gone further back in the 
history of the Dee; it was once an inlet of the sea, reaching up 
to Chester, and half as wide again as in historic times. There 
had been, so to speak, two River Dee’s—one historic, the other 
pre-historic. The former, an arm of the sea, had a depth in 
places of over 100 yards, but it did not pass the rocky barrier 
between Handbridge and the Castle; the upper water of the 
Dee at this time finding its way over Boughton Fords, through 
Trafford and the Marshes to the Mersey. They had proof of 
the older river in sundry sinkings which had been made within 
the last 20 years on Sealand, at Mr. Gorsr’s Farm 48 yards of 
clay, sand, and gravel was found; at the Cross Roads 64 yards, 
and at Mr. Porrs’s land, near Shotwick, it was 100 yards 
deep. In Roman times it was only half as wide as formerly. 
The rocky barrier at Chester was then broken through, thus 
allowing the upper waters to pass into the present channel, He 
attributed the filling up of the river in part to the erection of 
the causeway, as materially lessening the natural scour, and 
said that although the date of the erection was uncertain, he 
had reason to think it was not built by the Normans. The old 
bridge was post-Norman work. As to the Romans having built 
the causeway, that was out of the question, as it would have 
destroyed their fords. He further pointed out that the Ancient 
Records of Chester showed that 500 years ago, in the first year 
of Richard Il., probably 150 years after the causeway was 
built, the citizens complained of great depression of trade, con- 
sequent upon the destruction of the port and the gradual silting 
up of the river. A similar complaint was made in 1508, in the 
reign of Henry VI., and the King remitted /50 out of the 
annual levy of £100 paid to His Majesty on consideration that 
he maintained the City Walls. 
