240 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT S JOURNAL. 



[JULT» 



dr]%en to the plan of ilropping in the stones for the weir till they rise to the 

 surface, when ihey will be placed by hand, except u here we make a cut, and 

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

 Js proposed to have rubble stone, sloping at an angle of 3 to 1. We propose 

 to make our weirs water-tight by liaving the sheet-piling joinied and grooved, 

 and, as it will be driven comparatively dry. the su-cUing of the wood wlicn it 

 comes in contact with -the water wil! be quite enougli to make every joint 

 water-tight. We do not resort to puddling. 1 have not made aiiy estimate 

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

 the drainage is affected. I have only estimated ilie cost of lacing one .side uf 

 the river at anyplace. This esfimate has been in |<rogre.ss two months. I 

 have not made any alteration in it from the first, saving to corrcrt some little 

 mistake respecting the quantities. 



Re-cxamined by Serjeant Mere« ether.— The reason why I use stone instead of 

 <lwarf piling is because it is more durable than timber, and more proper to be 

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

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

 the river wliere we can get stone very easily- The price I have stated is quite 

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

 constructing a weir we lirst put in piling. I li.ive no reason to apprehend 

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

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

 to resist all pressure. 1 have not made any of these weirs myselt, but I have 

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

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

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

 not shake my conviction in the least, as to the strength of the w all. 



Mr. Cubilt examined by Mr. .Serjeant Merewethcr. ITie following are the 

 principal items of his evidence :— Our plan will not affect the drainage below 

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

 .it Maisemore will be so small that theelTcct of it upon the Gloucester channel 

 will be inappreciable. We shall dredge in the deepwater channel. The plan 

 proposed above Worcester 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 inch'-s of water going over a 

 weir 600 leet long would take all the summer water in the Severn ; 25 inches 

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

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

 obsolete. We seek a channel of 45 feet from Upton to 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 £15,000, which is the 

 price of all the works at Upton. 'Ihe lift between M'orcester and Upton 

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

 ter tbeie must be two locks at the double f.dl, which would be more expense, 

 ,n .iddition to the cost of £10,000 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 answering their 

 Eurpose when made. In putting the weirs across the river quite square it 

 ecomes a dead slop in proportion to the height and w idth of the weir to a 

 jiortion of the section of the river, and backs up the water ; but the quantity 

 of water that falls over tlie weir is never of a longer sheet llian the breadih 

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

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

 without injury. [To e:ucidate this, Mr. C'ubitt produced a model of the pro- 

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

 scientific principles on which they were adopted.] 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 

 the weirs wnuki cost more than the weirs themselves. The ncir is quite as 

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

 works arc put to improve Lord .Sandys' iliain it would not impede the navi- 

 gaiion. My object lias Ijeen to raise all the works, towing paths. Sec., above 

 the floods. — I do not intend to dredge away the quantity Sir. Provis stated 

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

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

 ■jnece£--ary to be done, and so far there is a greater degree of safety. — I v, as 

 firwemployed to mike observations on this river by Mr. Lea. the Chairman 

 of the Association at Worcester. I made my report to Lord llatherton, the 

 Chairman of the Committee of the Severn Association. I bad met Mr. Williams 

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

 that was a plan invidving the erection of w eirs above ami below Gloucester ; 

 the weir bclou Gloucester would have been in a portion of Ihe river now 

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

 are the same amended ; 1 approve, 1 of them in general, but not in all things. 

 I have ro doubt that we miglil get six feet of water by dredging up to M'or- 

 cester,'but it would be mucli more expensive, It is proposeJ to place a wall 

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

 that w ill ans« er the double purpose of narrow ing the river and securing the 

 btmks. 



Mr. C'ubitt cross-examined by Mr. Wortlcy. — Mr. 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 to do so, wliere I think 

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

 in others it is not so. I can't mention any pari of the river in which 1 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 he stuff 

 enough to do it. The channel of Uie Dcerhurst shi.al is rather straight ; the 

 tlcepest water is towards the left bank going down. It is not absolutely ne- 

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

 the river between Upton and Gloucester upon my s heme, as marked on the 

 sections, is between eight and nine miles. 1 should remark, that it is marked 

 deeper than will be necessary for the n.-a'igation. 1 do not contemplate any 

 worKs below the Glouccsler and Berkeley Canal, nor below the entrance to 

 the Gloucester and Hereford Canal. Tlie continuous length of dredging in 



the sections, from Upton to Diglis is nine miles. We propose to start from 

 Lpton at a depth of 7 ft. G in. ; and we do so because I duut think 6 feet suffi- 

 cient. 15y the C feet spoken of as the depth we .seek. I mean 6 feet above the 

 lock sills. 1 save all the dredging there by penning the banks. Were we to 

 dredge from Gloucester to Worcester to a width of 45 feet at the buttom, to 

 the level of the lock sill of the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal. 5 feetindeplb, 

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

 dreilged would lie 323,133 cubic yards. [Witness then answered a series of 

 que.stions as to the volume of water that would flow in channels of different 

 widllis.] 'We shall scarcely affect tlic fall below Upton. Vi'q propose at Uptoa 

 to form a close jointed waterproof weir, tianti' g. 600 feel long, with 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 which cases the cross sections would be as great or greater than at 

 present. 1 measured that section across the river at r)ght angles to the 

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

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

 the boats w ill go over. The water, in coming lo the weir, docs not diminish 

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

 its fjeing oblique than if it were right angled. 1 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 will tend to form a deixislt; 

 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 thaa 

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

 not intend to make any alteration in the length of the weir ; and if I 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 w idth 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 -V 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 dep'.li of water The reason 

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

 cut very much, take more land, 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 « ould 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 lime had to 

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

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

 Bevere Island I propose to put the weir t.)elow the mouth of the.Salwarp; 

 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 instunt 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 ; 1 understand there are 

 good salmon in the Severn, and 1 should be very sorry lo do anything to 

 destroy them ; I have nothing o do with how far tliese 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 the river ; Ihe 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 diflers below the Avon. 



Uy Mr. Lowndes.— I have not personally Liken the levels of the drains 

 on the river Severn ; 1 received information from Mr. Williams, and a 

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

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

 ments. 1 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 operation of a drain to be to lake the water off the surface of the land; 

 tlie effect of an under-drain is to take 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.— M hen a Iresli 

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

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

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

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

 stance woulil 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 

 conse'jucnees of imperfect drainage would be to effect the atmosphere of the 

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

 sides of the river. When 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 they can take 10 feet more; notwithstanding 

 this, I do not think it is imprudent in us lo undertake their management. 



Mr. Mc'Ncil examined by Mr. Serjeant Merewetber.— I am a civil engineer, 

 and have been engaged in many extensive works for a period of 20 years. 1 

 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. 1 flunk it w^ou,d be best to 

 dredge up to Uiiton. 1 ihink, also, that the weirs will ellect Mr. C ubitt 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. , ,• . ,r 



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. L 

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

 amined it, 1 do not know anj other river of a similar natural character. I 



