Thu 28 Dec 1899
Printed memorandum on Thames and Severn Canal 28 December 1898 author John E Dorington.
Memorandum
THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL
28th December 1899.
It has been represented to me that the Thames and Severn Canal cannot be opened for navigation by reason of certain defects still existing in the summit level, and extending over about one mile and a quarter of its length, and that whilst about £14,000 has been spent of the repairs to the said Canal, and, with the exception of this portion, it is all in good order, all this expenditure is about to be absolutely thrown away because there are no funds sufficient to deal with this defective part and there is no power to raise further funds, and therefore the Canal must become derelict.
It is also the case the the County of Gloucester is liable for a period of about 27 years to pay the sum of £225 per annum to a sinking fund in respect of the Canal in order to extinguish the debt created for providing the said £14,000 and other expenses connected with the said Canal, and that this £225 is a portion of a total sum of £600 to be contributed by Public Bodies for like purpose. If the Canal was open for traffic no such payment would, it is anticipated, be required, as it is believed that the Canal traffic would more than pay these costs.
It is consequently desirable to see whether such a disastrous abandonment can be prevented. The cost of the necessary work in uncertain.
An expenditure of £3000 might complete the work, but a report on this is being obtained by an independent Canal Engineer of great experience. But it is, however, certain that an expenditure well within the powers of the County of Gloucester, even if it should act entirely by itself, would enable the work to be completed; and such expenditure would scarcely be noticeable in the County Rate, whilst on the other hand the County is involved in an annual dead loss of £225 per annum for about 27 years if something is not done to save the position.
The County could not supply the funds for this work to any Trust or private Company without and Act of Parliament.
There is, however, a mode of procedure under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, by which the Canal by warrant of the Board of Trade might be placed under the control of the County Council, and of any other Local Authority or any combination of such Bodies.
If the County did anything to suggest that the Canal and all its obligations should pass into its hands as a Public Highway, with its exiting powers of levying tolls, all existing guarantees being retained, and that the necessary works should be completed by the County.
When this was done the Council might lease the Canal to the Stroud Water Canal Company, which is largely interested in the Canal, and is one of the guarantors, on terms agreed.
If the Canal were vested in one Authority it would be easire to deal with than under a Joint Body.
If such course were agreed on, the money for the required work could probably be temporarily and privately found at once, and no delay, causing increased damage to the Canal, would occur.
Three or four months would probably accomplish what is necessary.
The course indicated by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, is as follows:-
"Section 45. When a Canal by default of the proprietors has become unfit for navigation a Local Authority (which term includes a County Authority and a Municipality) may apply to the Board of Trade, and the said Board, if it think fit, may issue a warrant transferring the Canal upon any conditions they think fit to the Local Authority, and may frame a scheme for its management, making due provision for liabilities and for any other matter necessary to carrying out the Section, and may submit to Parliament a Provisional Order to effect the same, and the expenses may (Section 54) be charged on the Rates, and with the consent of the Local Government Board a loan may be raised."
Apparently all the necessary legal powers to accomplish the object exist.
Shall they be put in force?
The Canal is a valuable waterway connecting the Thames and the Severn, Gloucester and London, besides affording internal facilities for transport within the County. The constantly increasing traffic on the Railways renders it apparently desirable that other modes of transit, where they exist, should not be abandoned. As a Highway Authority the County has a very material financial interest in the existence of the Canal for the transport of hard road stone from the waterway of the Severn to the hill district of the County.
The Thames Conservancy has recently mad an effectual waterway on the Thames to the mouth of the Canal. It was the loss of this through neglect which was the main cause formerly of the ruin of the Canal.
It is anticipated from the experience of the past and from the opinion of persons connected with local Canal Traffic, that the Canal when once opened could pay its annual cost of maintenance as well as the charge of the existing debt.
This subject will be brought before the County Council at their next meeting.
JOHN E DORINGTON.
