Undated
Committee Evidence
The Committee to whom the Petition of the several Persons whose Names are thereunto set being Proprietors of Shares of Money subscribed and Undertakers for making navigable the River Stroudwater in the County of Gloucester from the River Severn at or near Framiload to Wallbridge near the Town of Stroud and also to whom the Petition of the Principal Inhabitants in & about the Market Town of Stroud in the County of Gloucester, were referred have pursuant to the Orders of the House examined & found that the Standing Orders of the House of the 25th Day of April 1774 relating to Navigation Bills have been complied with.
And to prove the Allegations of the said Petitioners the Act of the third year of the Reign of his Majesty King George the Second, for making the said River Navigable from Framiload to Stroud was read and Mr Thomas Yeomans being examined, said, That some part of the works directed by the said Act have been begun, particularly Framiload Lock or Sluice is near finished, ant that about a Mile of the Canal has been cut which is all that has been done towards the Navigation. That the Sluice is upon the Canal.
Mr Joseph Grazebrook being examined said, That the Sum of £4000 & upwards had been expended in the Works of the Navigation & in the Purchase of Lands, & that when the Navigation was begun he did not conceive any Opposition would be made to it, but that after the Undertakers had cut through a piece of Land, which has since been disputed & were got into Land of their own, it was signified to them that there were some doubts whether they had a Right to proceed or not; That the Land in dispute was about 100 yards from the River and about 150 yards in Length; That above a Month had passed & near half a Mile had been cut before he heard of any Objection. That between three & four hundred pounds had been laid out in Materials, and much of the Ground broke by which a considerable Sum would have been lost, had not the Works been continued. That they were obliged to continue their works otherwise what had been done would have been destroyed by the waters. That it was about Six or Eight weeks after the Commencement of the works that he had notice of an intended Opposition. That the Proprietors of the works were not served with a Copy of a writ until sometime after they had entered the disputed Land and the works had been proceeded upon.
Mr John Jepson being examined, said, That the first meeting of the Proprietors at Stroud, after the Witness & his Partner (who ere the then Agents for the Proprietors) had heard of the intended opposition it was proposed that an Offer should be made to the Opposers to try at the then next Gloucester Assizes any Question they should make concerning the Powers of the Act, upon a feigned Issue. That the proposal was made to the Person concerned for the Opposition, who called a Meeting of the Opposers to propose to them to come into that Agreement which they refused. That he cannot tell whether the proposal was made before or after an Action was commenced, and that he does not recollect that any Proposal was then made to suspend the works till the Cause was tried or to wave the action then depending and to try it upon the Question of Right.
Mr Thomas Yeomans being further examined, said, That the making the navigation as presented by the Act, will be liable to many difficulties & Obstructions, particularly by the Millers & Millmen drawing down their Heads of Water and from the innumerable Shoals that are thrown up in Winter Floods. That instead of bringing Boats loaded with Seventy Tons they would not be able in short water time to carry one third of that Burthen; this also would happen to Boats passing upwards, and as the Imports in all probability will be much more than the Exports, it would be more detrimental to all Boats passing upwards that downwards from the Shoals & Obstructions before mentioned. That in times of Flood a River Navigation is much obstructed. That he apprehends he could make the river capable of receiving Trows.
