1895: W J Ainsworth on transferring Thames & Severn Canal to public ownership

From The Citizen, 23rd March 1895

THE THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL.

DEPUTATION TO THE BOARD OF TRADE.

AN ENCOURAGING INTERVIEW.

A deputation from the County Councils of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and from public bodies at Gloucester, Stroud, Cirencester, and other places, yesterday waited upon Sir Courtenay Boyle, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, for the purpose of obtaining the support of the Board of Trade to the Bill now before Parliament for transferring the Thames and Severn Canal from its present proprietors to a public trust to be incorporated.

Sir John Dorington, M.P., Chairman of the Gloucestershire County Council, introduced the deputation, among other present being Lord Wantage (chairman of the Berkshire County Council), Sir Charles Dilke, M.P., Sir Thomas Robinson, M.P., Sir W. H. Marling (Chairman of the Sharpness Docks Company, and President of the Stroud Chamber of Commerce), Mr. Adams (President Gloucester Chamber of Commerce), Alderman Mousell, and Councillor Buchanan, of the Gloucester Corporation, Mr. Buckley, of the Wiltshire County Council, Mr. Southall and Mr. Mills (joint solicitors to the Bill) and Mr. Hubert Waddy (hon. secretary to the Avon Navigations).

Sir John Dorington alluded to an offer made some time ago by Sir Courtenay Boyle to lend any assistance in his power with the object of re-opening the Thames and Severn Canal, and said that the Gloucester County Council considered it would be distinctly advantageous to the county if such a step were taken. A committee was appointed and authorised to incur, on behalf of the county, a liability not exceeding £200 a year, provided satisfactory arrangements could be made. They commenced with public bodies, and he was happy to say that Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and Berkshire, and the towns of Gloucester, Stroud, and Cirencester had agreed, on certain conditions, to guarantee funds towards carrying out the undertaking. The necessary guarantee was not quite provided yet, as the county of Oxford, by some mistake, was left out, and, taking advantage of that omission, the county and city of Oxford said that as they were not asked they did not see why they should contribute.

If Oxford came in the funds would be sufficient, but there were other difficulties. The Local Government Board had called attention to the Bill as being one wholly without precedent, and stating that it would be a precedent which ought not to be established. It was not true that its promoters, who were public bodies, intended to accept unlimited liabilities for an indefinite time; nor did they intend to be a trading body. They would solely be a public trust; and the only advantage they would derive would be the advantage to the public of the increased traffic which might pass over their canal. As regards the county he represented, the interests of the inhabitants would be materially advanced by the opening of the canal.

Sir Courtenay Boyle: The whole way?

Sir John Dorington: Yes. Unless it is opened the whole way it is not worth while spending a single penny on the undertaking. Sir John added that the Thames Drainage Commissioners and the Thames Conservancy had come to an agreement. The latter were under an obligation to spend £2,000 a year on the river for the next ten years, and to spend £500 a year on the maintenance of the works, and it was now proposed to change that obligation into one enabling them to spend £20,000 within the next two years, subject to certain modifications in the agreement about the £500 a year. It was absolutely necessary that the Thames Conservancy should give the guarantee before any money was raised. There was one other slight difficulty, and that was the Staffordshire County Council, and he expressed the view that the Board of Trade would use its influence to bring that body into line with the others.

Lord Wantage spoke on behalf of Berkshire, and urged the absolute necessity for through communication.

Sir W. H. Marling said he represented the Gloucester and Berkeley and Worcester and Birmingham Canals, and told Sir Courtenay that the restoration of the Canal would be of the greatest possible advantage to the whole of these districts, as grain could be taken from London to the West by the waterway at half the present railway rates.

Mr. Adams, President of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, said that body so felt the importance of the Bill that they had petitioned Parliament in its favour. The facilities that would be afforded were such that they would greatly deplore any hindrance being put in the way of the successful carrying out of the undertaking. So far as Gloucester was concerned the canal would be exactly the means of transit they required for their timber and corn, and the competition that would be set up with the railway companies would prove of great value to the public.

Mr. Ainsworth, Manager of the Berks and Wilts Canal [sic], said the estimate for putting the Canal in proper repair was £10,309. That would reduce the annual cost of maintenance to less than the normal figure.

Sir Courtenay Boyle, in reply, said: “I think I am within the sanction of the President of the Board of Trade in saying that the Board of Trade have always encouraged efforts made by persons interested in the localities to resuscitate the Thames and Severn Canal, to establish a waterway between the Thames and Severn. I may also say that the Board of Trade welcome this very decided step in the direction of such resuscitation, and I am quite certain that I shall have instructions from the President of the Board of Trade to place at your disposal all the good offices of the Board of Trade with regard to the matter.” (cheers).

“Of course it is not possible for me to speak about the Local Government Board. They may have views which will make it their duty to insist on the adherence to their report, but all I can say is this, that I have had the advantage of serving with the Local Government Board, and I am quite certain that it always as far as possible paid deference to the wishes of large public bodies such as are now the County Councils. Therefore I should hope that the Board of Trade might be in a position at any rate to represent to the Local Government Board the extreme desirability of resuscitating the Thames and Severn Canal, and, if possible, of working in the direction of getting over any technical difficulties which may be in the way.

“As to the Staffordshire canal, if any powers of persuasion of the Board of Trade can be exercised with advantage, these efforts will be placed at your disposal.” (hear, hear).

“If there is any other matter in which we can help you, we shall be heartily ready to do everything we can. There is a principle in the bill on which Parliament will have to pronounce, and it would not be desirable to fetter the hands of Parliament, but if we could give any information to any committee to which the bill may be referred which would assist the promoters, I am sure the Board of Trade would do it.” (cheers).
 
On the motion of Sir Charles Dilke, M.P., a vote of thanks was accorded to Sir Courtenay Boyle for his encouraging remarks.

[Also printed in the Western Daily Press, 23rd March 1895, the Gloucester Journal on the same date,  and the Cheltenham Chronicle, 30th March 1895.]