1841.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



273 



of the .IrodRinp; alo^K uu- ,j,,„, o . , v. ,„„,,, j, j,, ,i,e £10,000 



for contmyoncies, an 1 in theib.OOO lor the urioge. I sliouiQ iuuik a.^ .,„,.ya 

 would require under-pinning in consequence of the dredging. Ijut I think the 

 parties connected ivilh them will find it tlieir interest to do it themselves, as 

 the quays are very dilferent to interfering with the bridge, which uf course it 

 would lie my dufy to jirotect from injury. The surface of the water :,t the 

 quays will be lowered .5 feet. There will be 19 or 20 feet from the surface of 

 flie water, after the bottom has been dredged, to the top of the quays. Be- 

 low the bridge, there is the wall of tlie Bishop's Palace, and the Cathedral is 

 not far from the edge of the river; dredging would have the effect of under- 

 mining these sfructures if it were carried close up to them- 



Re-e.\amined by Mr. Spooner. — The model I have exhd)ited does not apply 

 to any part of my plan below Worcester. The groins will be about 50 feet 

 long, by 10 feet wide at the head, and 25 feet at the base or abutment, and 

 packed inside the faggots with liard clay. The channel will not be dredged 

 np to the wall of the Bisho|>'s Palace, but merely in the middle of the river. 

 I am still of opinion, notwithstanding the five hours' cross-examination, that 

 I could successfully dredge up to the Dog and Duck. 



By Mr. Banieby. — I do not think the weirs on the Thames are at all .appli- 

 cable to those proposed to be put on the Severn. 



Mr. Giles examined by Mr. Lowndes. — There is a lower drain on Lord 

 Sandys' property which is not stated in the section. I have had it opened at 

 various points, and it applies to the under springs. I should say that the 

 outfall of this under drain will be 18 inches below the crown of the pen of 

 water formed by Mr. Cubitt's weir at Bevere Island. The fall of this drain 

 in the first 200 yards is 4 feet If the present outfall were raised, it would 

 lose the full force which at present exists there. I think the dam at Bevere 

 Island will affect the drainage ; about 100 acres of good land are drained by 

 this under drain. The dam at Holt Fleet will aflect the drainage of the sur- 

 rounding land there, which is also very good land. My plan w'ould only 

 raise the level at Salwarp and at Holt one foot, instead of up'.* ards of 4 feet, 

 which it would be raise<l by Mr. C'ul)i(t's scheme. I see no difficulty in the 

 way of dredging quite up to Holt, and thus have no weir below that point. I 

 think th-? weirs below \\ orcester will not only have ihe effect of atl'ectingthe 

 drainage, but also prevent the foul air escaping from the sewers, wfiich would 

 be a great nuisance to the city. Tlie towing paths in the neighbourhood of 

 Lord Sandys' properly are very bad. I know of none in such bad condition. 

 I think any plan which would place the rivir under the control of one body 

 and the tow ing paths under another must be bad. This inconvenience could 

 be avoided. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Merewether. — I kne.v the under drain be- 

 fore, but I did not open it till Saturday. Jn stating that this drain will be 

 18 inches under Mr. Cubitt's level, I stated on the supposition that there 

 wonld be 6 inches water on the crown of his weir above the drain. I think 

 that a crust would form in the mouth of the drain, because the floods bring 

 down clay and slime which soon harden. 



Mr. W. C. Milne then gave evidence in favour of dredging, which closed 

 the case of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company. 



Evidtnce on behalf of the Gloucester Canal Company, and the Corporation of 

 Gloucester. 



Mr. Walker examined by Mr. Sergeant Wraugham. — I am a civil engineer 

 of long standing. I was employed to build the Haw Bridge on the Severn 12 

 or 14 years ago. I also surveyed the river in 1836, and reported upon Mr. 

 Khodcs' plan to the then Severn Navigation Company, by whose chairman, 

 J. W. Lea. Esq., I was employed. 1 was rcquestei in March last by the 

 Berkeley and Gloucester Canal Company to give my opinion upon Mr. Cubitt's 

 plan. 1 differ very little with respect to that plan from Mr. Cubitt. up to 

 Upton Ham. except in the details. As we difier so much as to the mode of 

 improving the river above Upton, I should state that Mr. Cubitt proceeds 

 upon the same principle between Gloucester and Upton. 1 think the river 

 might be made navigable up to Diglis without weirs ; and I think it would be 

 a pity to introduce them into so fine a river. My great objection to a lock 

 below Diglis, is, that it would be unnecessary and expensive. I see no reason 

 why the fall from Diglis to Upton could not be practically maintained, as 

 well as the fall below. I do not know any objection to dredging above Upton 

 on account of the hardness of the shoals. It is on account of their hardness 

 they are there, and were they removed the scour of the river would keep the 

 channel clear. If locks and weirs are placed in the .Severn, and prove inefh- 

 cient. I think the matter deposited woulil be so great in quantity (as in fact 

 the bott(<m of the river would be then at the top of the weir) that it would be 

 a work of more labour to remove it than to remove the weirs themselves. The 

 shoals formed by the weirs would be greater than the present shoals, but I 

 do not say they would proportionally obstruct the navigation, because the 

 trade will pass through lateral cuts. I am supposing that the bed of the river 

 is formed of gravel and similar substances, which would be washed down in a 

 flood. This in the course of time would have to be removed from the mouth 

 of the cuts by the dredging machine, or else the cuts must be carried further 

 above the weirs. The river below is capable of taking more water ihan could 

 pass over the oblique weirs, which would consequently be an obstruction. I 

 heard tlie evidence given in reference to these weirs with great surprise. The 

 only advantage of oblique weirs over others is when little water is coming 

 down, when there would be a thinner sheet of water over the oblique weir 

 than there would be over a cross one, but in a sharp fresh the water would 

 flow over, parallel with the banks, and the oblique weir would not be more 

 advantagecjus than another. In some instances the oblique weir has an ad- 

 vantage over the direct one, but it is not of more advantage in preventing 

 floods, and I think they would not be so convement for shouting boats over 

 them in flood time. 1 think boats would have a greater tendency to capsize 

 over an oblique weir than over a direct one. The expense of my plan up to 

 Diglis would be, including contingencies, £66,000. The cost of maintenance 

 would not be so much as in the plan of Mr. Cubitt ; except the lock and weir 

 at Upton, there is not much dilierence in the expense of our respective plans, 

 sofar as Diglis. I see no engineering difficulty m placing the Jock at Diglis 



above the entrance to the Birmingham canal. There is no reason why there 

 should not be steamers up to AVorcester all the way from Bristol, so that 

 u oroosier may become a little Glasgow. On the Clyde steamers are em- 

 ployeil not only to convey passengers, but also to tow up fleets of vessels 

 carrying merchandize. I see no great difliculty in dredging through Wor- 

 cester Bridge, the only ijuestion is the amount of work necessiry to secure 

 the foundations, but I think it would be advisable to place the w'eir a little 

 below the bridge, that there might be an extensive pool opposite the city. 

 On the wliole I agree with Mr. Cubitt's plan so far as relates to th it part of 

 the river between Worcester and Gloucester, with the exception of the solid 

 w-eii<. In jjoint of fact, if we had an opportunity of consulting together, I 

 think that as repects the whole line there would be little difterence between 

 us. 



Mr. Walker cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Merewether.— Were I the 

 friend of Worcester, I should endeavour to prevent six feet being the masi- 

 mum depth of the improvement of the river. I have t.aken a great many- 

 soundings, but no borings. I think Worcester bridge cannot be built upon a 

 shoal ; there is deep water under the arches, and the shoal is below the 

 bridge I did not say wherever there is dredging there should be walling, 

 but wherever the material is soft it should be walled ; but this is not the 

 case above L'pton. If the slope of the rubble stone facing is U to 1, it re- 

 quires packing; but a slope of 3 to I would not require packing. I do not 

 know that the Deerhurst shoal has increased: I do not know whether the 

 gravel which is marked in the first section is natural to the place, or has been 

 brought there. The support of each side of the gateway of ray weirs would 

 be br,->ce piling. The rest ot the river would be occupie'd by standards about 

 16 feet apart, and level at least with the top of the proposed weirs, which 

 weirs again would be level w ith tlie top of^ the penned water. There is 

 no reason why the gates should not be raised by machinery, but they are not 

 so in the Thames. If the parties waited till a flood came they could not be 

 moved, and in such case there would be no advanta.ae over the solid weirs. I 

 h.ave seen the Teddington gates partly opened. 1 think the weeds floating 

 down the stream might have a tendency to fill up the gates. I have made 

 no estimate of the expense of this sort of weir, nor of the expense of attend- 

 ing to or repairing it. I think all the frame-work might be taken out at the 

 beginning of the winter, and put in again about April. M'hile I entertaia 

 the opinions that I do at present respecting the improvement of the Severn, 

 1 shall always prefer open weirs. No human art can altogether prevent the 

 necessity of dredging in the river. I think a basin at Worcester would be a 

 very desirable thing. 



Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wrangham. — Since I was examined on 

 Thursday I have carefully re-perused Mr. Cubitt's evidence ; and tlie opinions 

 I then expressed respecting it are strengthened by my having done so. It 

 would be very easy to pick out the weeds from the gates and timbers, much 

 more so than to dredge the deposit at a solid weir. According to my doctrine, 

 if none of the shutters of my weirs could be removed before the flood came, 

 the obstructions would not be greater than by the solid weirs. My weir 

 would cost more per se than Mr. Cubitt's ; but if you include the dredging 

 that would be required at Mr. Cubitt's weir, mine would be much the cheapest. 

 I think a lock below Worcester would be a great disadvantage to the future 

 navigation to that city ; but if it were constructed on my principle I think 

 that inconvenience would be proportionally diminished. 



By Sir W. Rae. — The additional expense of dredging by my plan from Up- 

 ton to Diglis would be £10.640; the expense of walling 4i miles would be 

 £10,000. I take the whole expense at £25.000 up to Diglis ; and there would 

 be £4.600 additional for dredging up to Worcester; £1,600 for walling, and 

 £2.000 for dredging opposite the quays. 



By Mr. Barneby. — There would be as much dredging above Worcester 

 bridge if my plan was put in execution. 



By Viscount Ingestrie. — The gates of the weir would be ordinarily raised 

 by hand by a person in a boat ; I dare say it would take three hours from 

 beginning to end to raise them. 



By Mr. Bailey. — The obstruction by a solid weir is 7 times 16, or 112 ; the 

 obstruction by the open w eir would be about one-third of this. There would 

 be no danger in short water of not being able to keep sufficient water for the 

 navigation in consequence of the leakings. I give my plan simply as a general 

 idea ; I did not expect to be examined so closely respecting it. 



By the Hon. R. Clive. — My honest opinion is that dredging should be first 

 tried for the improvement of the river ; if that should fail, a weir of some 

 kind should be tried ; but I think they would be the worst friends of the na- 

 vigation of the river who would recommend the construction of the w eirs in 

 the first instance. I think, as I said in my report, it w'ould be very important 

 to try of w hat the ri er is capable without locks and weirs. 



By an Hon. Member.— There is more tide in the Clyde than in the Severn. 

 Tlie shoals in the .Severn would be more difficult to remove than the soft stufl" 

 now in the Clyde ; but there were originally hard shoals in that river. 



By Mr. Godson. — The sum about to be expended upon the Clyde is about 

 hall a million. I can't tell what has been expended. Whether the improve- 

 ment I propose would be worth a shilling a ton to the trade is out of my de- 

 partment to answer ; but I think all the trade would be benefitted by it. The 

 Severn will never become so large a navigable river as the Clyde, because the 

 tide does not so much assist it ; but I have no doubt it will become a fine 

 river one day. The resistance on any given amount of an oblique w eir would 

 be less than on a direct one, but on the whole sum it would be the same. I 

 have seen Mr. Giles's model of a weir. 1 think there is a complexity about 

 it that should be avoided ; it would also be expensive. I don't tliink walls 

 would be required on both sides the river; two might be injurious. At the 

 lime Mr. Smeaton made his survey of the Clyde the shoals were much worse 

 than they are in the Severn. 



By Mr. Pryme.— I do not know what the piers at Worcester Bridge are, 

 but I should think the dredging under it could not affect the safety of the 

 bridge. 



By Mr. Barneby. — It mav be necessary to remove the shoal in the Avon in 

 conseL(uence of the dredging below Upton. Kvery weir makes as it were a 



2 P 



