Undated
Report on Stroudwater Navigation Petitions.
The Committee to whom the Petition of the several Persons whose Names are thereunto set being Proprietors of Shares of Money subscribed & 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 and about the Market Town of Stroud in the County of Gloucester were referred have pursuant to the Orders of the House examined and 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 Petitions
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 and 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 has been expended in the Works of the Navigation and in the Purchase of Lands - and 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 has a right to proceed or not. That the Land in dispute was about 100 yards from the River & 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 or £400 had been laid out in Materials & much of he Ground broke by which a considerable Sum would have been lost has not the works been continued. That they were obliged to continue their works otherwise what had been done would have been destroyed by the Water. That is was about Six or eight weeks after the commencement of the Works that he had notice of an intended Opposition. That he Proprietors of the Works were not served with a Copy of a Writ until sometime after they had entered the designated Land & the works has been proceeded upon.
Mr John Jepson being examined said That at the first meeting of the Proprietors at Stroud after the Witness & his Partner (who were the then Agents for the Proprietors) has 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 shod 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 Agreemt 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 upon the Question of Right.
Mr Thomas Yeomans being further examined, said, that the making the Navigation requested 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 70 Tons they wod not be able in short water time to carry one third of that Burthen - this also wod happen to the Boats passing upwards, and so the Imports in all Probability will be much more that the exports it wod be more detrimental to all Boats passing upwards than downward from the Shoals and 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 coming from Bristol & other Places up the River Severn but that it will cost double the Sum the intended Navigation will & be liable to the Impediments abot mentioned. That loaded Trows could not navigate the River but their Cargoes must be unloaded into three or four Lighters to proceed up the same, and that if Power was given to make cuts according to the Plan annexed to the Petition and some amendments were made to the former Act he apprehends a compleat Navigation might be made which wod admit of Trows of 70 Tons Burthen to pass the Navigation, and that he projected the Plan of the Navigation with a View to that Purpose.
Richard Owen Cambridge Esqr being examined said that the making the new Canal Navigation will be of great benefit to the adjacent Roads. That a River Navigation must be prejudicial to the Mills which he apprehends the present intended Navigation will not and that the making the Canal Navign will be of Publick Utility..
John Capel Esqr being examined said that the making the intended Canal Navigation will be of great Publick Utility particularly by the great Consumption of Coals for the use of the Manufacturers and that if this Navigation take place it will be of great Use to the Poor as within his Memory he believes one half of the Woods in that Neighbourhood have been destroyed which has rendered Fuel much dearer.
