240 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[JULT» 



driven lo tlie plan of ilrupping in the stones for the weir till Ihey rise to the 

 surface, when they will be plated by hand, except ubere ve make a cut, and 

 then all tlie stones will be laid by hand. At the foot of the weirs it 

 is proposed to have nibble stone, sloping at an angle of 3 to 1. We propose 

 to make our weirs water-tight by luiving the sheet-piling joinied ami grooved, 

 and, as it will be driven comparatively dry, the swelling of ihe wood when it 

 comes in contact uitli 'the water will be quite enough to make every joint 

 water-tight. We do not resort lo puddling. I have not made any estimate 

 of the cost of the land w hich will be taken, nor for any compensation in case 

 the drainage is aflected. I have only estimated the cost of facing one side of 

 the river at any place. Iliis esfimate has been in progress two months. I 

 have not made any alleralion in it from the first, saving to correct some httle 

 .nriistake respecting the quantities. 



Re-examined by .Serjeant Mercwether.— The reason why I use stone instead of 

 •Iwarf piling is because it is more durable than timber, and more proper to be 

 used ; but if it became a question, and it was deemed desirable to use timber 

 in any particular part, then 1 should adopt timber. There are localities near 

 the river where we can get stone very easily- Tbe price I have stated is quite 

 sufficient to cover any dilVerencc in the nature of the soil to be dredged. In 

 constructing a weir we lirst put in piling. 1 Ii.ive no reason to apprehend 

 that the stone will be carried a-.vay, because there will be a great mass of it, 

 placed at a considerable slope ; 1 think the weirs w ill be quite strong enough 

 to resist all pressure. I liave not made any of these weirs myself, but I have 

 taken drawings of some which have well answered the purpose for which 

 they were designed. The walls are of the same description as those adopifd 

 by me in the river Dee, which is a rapid river. My cross-examination does 

 not shake my conviction in the least, as lo the strength of the wail. 



Mr. Ciibitt examined by Mr, Serjeant Merewethcr. llie following are the 

 •■principal items of his evidence :— Our nlan will not aflect the drainage below 

 Upton at all, and will be the best with reference to expense. The dredging 

 at Maisemore will be so small that the effect of it upon the Gloucester channel 

 will be inappreciable. AVe shall dredge in the deep water channel. The plan 

 proposed aoove AVorcester has been adopted because in that district our ob- 

 ject can be better and cheaper attained by it and with less injury to the sur- 

 rounding lands. As an explanation of this, six inehe;; of water going over a 

 i»eir 600 feet long would take all the summer water in the Severn ; 23 inches 

 over a v.eir so constructed would make a good navigation and effect a good 

 drainage of the land, and before injury could ensue the weir would become 

 cbsoleie. We seek a channel of 45 feet from Upton lo Diglis, with a rise at 

 three inches per mile. The amount of dredging here would be upwards of 

 300,000 cubic yards, at Is, per yard, which would be £1.'5,000, which is the 

 price of all the works at Upton, 'ITie lift between Worcester and Upton 

 Bridge must be the sum of two lifts. If the two falls be brought to Worces- 

 ter there must be two locks at the double fill, which would be more expense, 

 in addition to the cost of £15,000 for dredging, 1 therefore think this is a 

 sufficient reason wliy the weirs and locks should begin at Worcester. I ap- 

 prehend there will be no difficulty whatever in the works ansHering their 

 purpose when made. In putting the weirs across the river quite stjunre it 

 liecomes a dead stop in proportion to the height and width of the weir to a 

 portion of the section of the river, and backs up the w ater ; but the quantity 

 of water that falls over the weir is never of a longer sheet Uian the breadili 

 of the weir, so tliat were the banks full there must be an obstruction. An 

 oblique weir is the simplest, cheapest, and most efficient to dam up the river 

 without injury. [To e'ucidate this, Mr. Cubilt produced a mcdel of the pro- 

 posed works and explained them in detail to the Committee, and also the 

 scientific principles on which they were adopte<l.] I have considered the 

 point of the sluices in the weir. I think them inexpedient. The flood gates 

 would have no perceptible effect in such a case ; and flood gales, as such, in 

 llie weirs would cost more than the weirs themselves. The ueir is quite as 

 capable of penning off the water without flood gates as wiih them.— If any 

 works are tiut to improve Lord Sandys' drain it would not impede the navi- 

 gaiion. My object has been to raise all the works, towing paths, &c., above 

 the floods. — I do not intend to dredge away the quantity Mr, Provis slated 

 at Maisemore shoal, or to do more to it than will be necessary lo let the 

 Maisemore boat pass. There is more in the Parliamentary sections than is 

 jiec£E--ary to be (lone, and so far there is a greater degree uf safety. — I was 

 fir# employed to mike observations on this river by Mr. Lea. the Chairman 

 of the Association at Worcester. J made my report to Lord Mathertou, the 

 Chairman of the Committee of the Severn Association, I had met Mr. Willi.ams 

 professionally before. I was engaged with Mr. Rhodes in the plan of 1836 ; 

 that was a plan involving the erection of weirs above and below Gloucester ; 

 the weir below Gloucester would have been in a portion ol' the river now 

 avoided by Ihe Gloucester and Berkeley Canal. The plaus of the present day 

 are the same amended ; I approved of them in general, hut not in all things. 

 I have no doubt that we might get six feet of water by dredging up lo Wor- 

 cester, but it w ould be mucji more expensive. It is proposed to place a wall 

 where we dredge. I have estimated for eight miles of walling and dredging ; 

 that will answer the douhle purpose of narrowing the river and securing the 

 banks. 



Mr. Cubitt cross-examined by Mr. Wortlcy.— Mi-. Williams correctly de- 

 scribed the mode of laying down the rubble stone. At one time I proposed 

 to use dwarf piling in some places; and I still intend lo do so, where I think 

 it will be as clieap and efficient. In some respects it is preferable to stone, 

 in others it is not so. 1 can't mention any part of the river in which I think 

 it will be preferable. I do not propose to make the slopes of the banks per- 

 fect in all p'aces, as Mr. Provis did, because I think there will not be stuff 

 enough to do it, 'Ihc channel of tlie Dcerhurst shoal is rather straight ; the 

 deepest water is towards the left b.ink going down. It is not absolutely ne- 

 cessary to stone up to the high-wuter mark. The length of ihe dredging on 

 the river between Upton and Ciloucesler upon my s heme, as markedon the 

 sections, is between eight and nine miles. I should remark, that it is marked 

 deeper than will be necessary for the navigation. I do not eonteraplale any 

 works below tlie Gloucester and Berkeley Canal, nor below the entrance to 

 the (iloucester and Hereford Canal. Tiie continuous length of diedging in 



the sections, from Upton lo Diglis is ninemiies. We propose lo start from 

 Upton at a depth of 7 ft. 6 in. ; and we do so because I d.iu"l think 6 feet suffi- 

 cient. Hy the C feet spoken of as the depth we seek. I mean 6 feet above the 

 lock sills. J save all the dredging there by {lenning the banks. Were we to 

 dredge from Gloucester to Worcester to a width of 45 feet at (he bnttom, to 

 the level of the lock sill of the (Gloucester and Berkeley Canal. 5 feet indepth, 

 with a slope of two to one. and rising 3 inches per niile, the quantity to be 

 dredged would Ije 323,133 cubic yards. [Witness then answered a series of 

 questions as to the volume of water that would flow in channels of diflcrent 

 widths.] We shall scarcely affect tlie fall below Upton. We propose at Upton 

 to form a close jointed walerproof weir, tlan'i- g, 600 feel long, wilh timber 

 pilings drawn into the river, 10 feet apart ; behind this we propose to drop 

 stones into the river, without masonry. The expense of having the lock at 

 Diglis. instead of Upton, would be very much increased on account of the 

 additional fall. In some places where we construct our weirs we widen the 

 river, in w hich cases the cress sections would be as great or greater than at 

 present. 1 measured that section across ihe river at right angles to the 

 stream. The height of tlie water above the weir is 6 inches. 1 know by 

 principle, and partly by practice, that w hen the water is 2 feet above the weir 

 ihe boats w ill go over, Tlie water, in coming to the weir, does not diminish 

 its velocity, and no more water would pass over the weir in consequence of 

 its being oblique than if it were right angled. I do not make a pond, and 

 therefore I do not cause a deposit. If you do any thing to diminish the ve- 

 locity of the water coming through the weir it w'ill tend to form a deix)8it; 

 but if it be so constructed that the water coming through can keep moving on 

 with the same velocity, it will have no more tendency to form a deposit than 

 before the weir was put in. If I were to carry out the works at once I <Jo 

 not intend to make any alteration in the length of the weir ; and if 1 did so 

 at all, it would be to meet the views of others rather than my own convic- 

 tions. If the river be increased beyond its natural width it will be more liable 

 to deposits. The expenses of general maintenance of the works can never 

 cease while the works exist. The expense of the navigation of the Ayr and 

 Caldwell is very considerable. We do not alter the natural surface of the 

 water at Diglis locks to any extent ; if the weir were placed above the en- 

 trance to the canal, vessels would have the same depth of water- The reason 

 I have for not placing it higher up the stream is that it would lengthen ihe 

 cut very much, take more laud, and much reduce the water to what I may 

 call the harbour of Worcester. The length to the harbour is 1000 yards ; it 

 would increase the length of the cut about nine chains. There would be great 

 passing of vessels from all places at the point, and therefore I think there 

 should be a good harbour. If the vessels coming at the same time had to 

 wait for the lockage, it would be the best place to wait in, but there would be 

 little or no waiting, as they would pass the lock in three or four minutes. At 

 Revere Island I propose to put the weir Ijelow the mouth of the Salwar]); 

 Mr. Rhodes in his last plan has placed it in the same place. By putting a 

 weir in a shallow stream we raise the water ; but the instant it gets so much 

 above the weir as to lose a fall, from that instant the weir is no obstruction. 

 I have had but little experience in salmon rivers; I undei'stand there are 

 good salmon in the Severn, and I should be very sorry to do anything to 

 destroy them ; I have nothing o do with how far these works will affect the 

 rights of piscary ; I have considered how to form the weirs so as not to ob- 

 struct the salmon in passing up tlie river ; the weirs will not afford any faci- 

 lity for taking the fish. The average yield of the river at low summer water 

 is from 40 to 60.000 cubic feet per minute above the Avon ; the quantity of 

 course difiers below the Avon, 



By Mr. Lowndes.— I have not personally taken the levels of the drains 

 on the river Severn ; I received information from Mr, M'illiams, and a 

 great deal from Mr. Rhodes ; I don't know that Mr. Rhodes personally took 

 the levels. I received the greatest information on this point from the docu- 

 ments. I examined the drain on Lord Sandys' property myself ; if you proved 

 there was an under-drain there it would not matter on atom. I consider the 

 sole oi^eration of a drain to be to lake the water off' the surface of the land; 

 the effect of an under-drain is to lake off' that which gets below the surface 

 of the land. If there is an under-ground drain it does not follow that the 

 level must be the same as that of the open drain, I do not know whether 

 there is an under-ground drain at this place, but I believe all the drains on 

 Lord .Sandys' property come into the Severn below the weir. — When a fresh 

 comes down the river the surface of the river will remain nearly the same as 

 before tlie weir was put in. The works will raise the water on tlie river at 

 .Salwarp perhaps four feet. The value of ibe land to be taken will be proved 

 hereafter by other witnesses. If it shouhl be proved that 2000 acres for in- 

 stance would be injured in their drainage by the bill, there has been no esti- 

 mate made of the amount of compensation for that. I can't give any opinion 

 as to the permanency of any damage that might ensue. I admit that the 

 consequences of imperfect drainage would be to effect the atmosphere of the 

 district. The state of the towing paths is not good; they give way on both 

 sides of the river. AVhen they have given way. it is generally the case that 

 the land is encroached upon for a fresh one, which they are entitled to do. 

 If they are entitled by their Act to take 10 feet on the side of the river, and 

 that falls in, I am of opinion tliey can take 10 feet more; notwithstanding 

 this, 1 do not think it is imprudent in us to undertake their management, 



Mr. Mc'Xeil examined by Mr. .Serjeant Merewethcr, — I am a civil engineer, 

 and liave been engaged in many extensive w orks for a period ol 20 years, I 

 have been present during the last few days of this enquiry. I have been en- 

 gaged in works of a similar description to the present. Having heard the 

 plan, I think it would effect the desired object. I think it would be best to 

 dredge up to Ujiton. I think, also, that the weirs will effect Mr. Cubitt's ob- 

 ject. With reference to expense, I think it is the best mode that could be 

 adopted, I think the explanation given by Mr, Cubitt has been so clear, that 

 nothing remains to be added to it. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Austin. — I was called in on this business on Mon- 

 day week, 1 had not made a previous examination of the river Severn, I 

 never did so. I have been across it at Chepstow, but never practically ex- 

 amined it. I do not know anj other river of a similar natural character. I 



