∞
-}
ENGIN
in.） （*~*~* №ºr~ ： ~~~~ ！ ». . . ）* * ， ！& ！！！！
！！！！！！！！ſaſae
№ºa， sæ*******

;
..?
sº
: ;
d º
§
:
# º
iſ
º º
#º
º
* gº
º
- ; sº
- - º: is: rººs
d ~ d w § º º
° - d - - sº ºś ;
- - - - - º
- - º---- . . . - . - - d d - . ." - - o º º - tºº º
º

. . . . . . . . . . ; ; ; *
“. . ; , ; ; , sº ºf ..?!, A. |
# - *
f , Sl-
OF THE
WORKS LATELY CONSTRUCTED FOR IMPROVING
THE NAVIGATION
OF
THE RIVER SEWERN,
WITH
THEIR EFFECT IN DISCHARGING THE FLOOD WATERS.
By EDWARD LEADER WILLIAMS, M. Inst. C.E.
COMMUNICATED BY WILLIAM CUBITT, V.P. INST. C.E.
WITH AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE PAPER.
EXCERPT MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
I N STITUTION OF CIVIL E N G T N E E R. S.
L O N DO N :
1846,
LONDON :
Printed by W. CLowes and SoNs,
Stamford Street.
&
Wº
*s
tº
.
wº
INSTITUTION OF CIVIL E N G IN E E R S.
May 5, 1846.
SIR JOHN RENNIE, President, in the Chair.
No. 741. “Account of the Works, lately constructed, for improving
the Navigation of the River Severn, with their effect in dis-
charging the flood waters.” By Edward Leader Williams,
M. Inst. C.E. Communicated by William Cubitt, V. P. Inst.
C.E.”
AFTER many previous attempts, rendered abortive by the rivalry of
conflicting interests, an Act was passed in the Session of 1842, em-
powering certain Commissioners, therein named, to improve the
navigation of the river Severn between Stourport and Gloucester,
according to plans prepared under the direction of Mr. Cubitt.
These plans included the removal of various impediments to the
navigation, by two distinct modes of operation—the first, having
reference to the upper portion of the district, between Stourport and
Worcester; and the second, referring to the tide-way between that
city and Gloucester. In the upper district, the channel of the Severn
was intersected by numerous fords, composed of beds of red sand-
stone rock, marl, and gravel, which, during the summer months,
acted as natural dams, dividing the river into a succession of deep
and nearly quiescent pools; the fords being comparatively a series of
rapids, with a minimum depth of 18 inches of water over them. In
this case, the remedy adopted was the removal of these fourteen natural
dams, which, from their extent and consequent friction, seriously
impeded the discharge of the flood waters, and, by the substitution
of four artificial weirs, dividing this part of the river into four suc-
cessive deep reaches, having a minimum depth of 6 feet; thus
facilitating the navigation of the river, and the discharge of the
flood waters. In connexion with these weirs, (which, with the excep-
tion of the first, at Lincomb, are all erected in the old channel of the
river), are a series of locks, placed in artificial cuts, by which the
* The discussion of this paper extended over three evenings, but an abstract
of the whole is given consecutively for the sake of facility of reference.
A 2
4
navigable communication between the four reaches, above mentioned,
is maintained; the lift of the locks being governed by the pen of the
weirs. These works are situated at Lincomb, Holt, Bevere, and Diglis;
Lincomb being 1 mile below Stourport, and 12 miles above Diglis,
which is 1 mile below Worcester; and Holt and Bevere being at inter-
mediate distances of about 4 miles each.
At Lincomb (Plates 20 and 22), both the lock and the weir are
erected in artificial channels, cut for the purpose, an embankment being
thrown across the old channel of the river to divert its course, after the
lock and weir were completed. The lock is 100 feet long by 20 feet
wide, in the clear of the chamber, which is 17 feet 9 inches deep, with
a lift of 8 feet, and a depth of 6 feet 6 inches over the cills at low water.
It is built upon a foundation of red sandstone rock, upon which an in-
verted arch is turned, composed of two rings of brickwork, 9 inches
each, laid in cement, the rock not being sufficiently firm in texture to
admit of the brickwork being dispensed with. The spring water which
issued through the sandstone, under the lock chamber, was got rid of
by a number of diagonal drains, leading into a main longitudinal
drain, which discharged itself below the tail-bay. The platforms of
the bays are of ashlar, large blocks of Shropshire red sandstone being
used for the purpose ; the wing and side walls are of brick, with
stone quoins and copings, formed of the oolite, from the quarries
in the neighbourhood of Chalford, in Gloucestershire. The brick-
work is faced with a very hard blue brick, peculiar to the dis-
trict; the whole, with the exception of the invert, being set in
mortar made of strong hydraulic lime, from Sedgeley, near Dudley,
and from Walsall. The side walls of the lock chamber batter half-
an-inch to the foot, upon the face, with a slight longitudinal curve,
commencing at the springing of the invert, and increasing until it has
a versed sine of 12 inches, at the top of the coping; by this mode of
construction, the sides of the vessels are kept clear of the walls, the
only points of contact being the stone quoins. The shutting-cills are
of elm ; the gates have frames of English oak, planked with Baltic
fir, and are worked in the usual manner by balance beams. .
The water is admitted to, and discharged from, the lock chamber,
through an arched culvert, 4 feet 6 inches wide by 7 feet high, which
is built at the back of, and parallel to, one of the sidewalls of the
lock. It communicates with the bottom of the chamber, by seven
lateral arched openings, and through them 16,000 cubic feet of water
flow into, or out of, the lock in one minute and a-half, and loaded
vessels are frequently passed in three minutes. The sluice-gates and
frames connected with this culvert, are made of oak timber, with
5
sliding pieces of African teak. They are raised by wheel and pinion
movements, and are lowered by a friction band, or break.
The weir is 300 feet long, which is nearly two-thirds more than
the width of the channel of the Severn, in that district. It is con-
structed of two rows of sheet-piling of half timbers, with walings
bolted to gauge-piles driven 12 feet apart. These two rows of
piling are carried at an oblique angle, across the head of a new chan-
nel formed for the purpose; they are 21 feet apart, the walings of the
upper row being 6 feet above those of the lower, and thus becoming
the upper and lower cills. The space between these two rows of
piling is filled with large rubble stone, thus forming the apron of the
weir; a large quantity of the same material being placed below the
lower piles, to protect them from the scouring action of the water.
The formation of the embankment, across the old channel of the
Severn, was a work of difficulty, owing to a considerable incli-
nation in the bed of the river, which at that particular point was
of rock, with a depth of 10 feet of water over it. This difficulty
was aggravated by the season of the year, it being necessary to per-
form the work in the depth of the winter, the Act requiring “ that
some one of the weirs above Worcester-bridge, with the correspond-
ing lock, shall be in use for the space of three calendar months, at
least, one of which shall be the month of January, before any other
weir shall, under the provisions of this Act, be erected in, or across,
the said river.” A further aggravation of the difficulty was, the
necessity for discharging the waters of the Severn, over the surface of
the embankment, until they were raised above the level of the upper
cill of the weir, in the new channel.
This work was commenced by securing the two ends, or points of
junction, of the proposed embankment, with the opposite shores, by
excavating the banks on each side, and inserting a large mass of
sound clay, well puddled and punned in. The blocks of stone were
then thrown into the channel of the river, in the line of the proposed
work; they remained stationary until the accumulated mass had
raised the head water upwards of 4 feet above its former level, when
it was found, that the current over the dam was so powerful, as to
carry stones of from 4 tons to 5 tons weight to a considerable distance.
To prevent this, a number of old canal-boats were obtained, and,
being loaded with rubble-stone, were sunk alongside each other, in a
line across the channel, at the foot of the dam, with their heads to
the stream. The bows of these boats formed an effective abutment
for the stone, and the work was continued without farther diffi-
culty, the water being gradually raised to a sufficient height to flow
6
over the weir, and be discharged through the new channel, on the
evening of the 30th of December, thus meeting the requirements of
the Act of Parliament. The dam was subsequently raised 10 feet
above the level of the water; and being faced with a coating of sound
puddle, 3 feet in thickness, has been rendered perfectly tight. The
transverse section of this embankment is 146 feet wide at the base,
with slopes of one and a-half horizontal to one perpendicular upon the
upper, and three to one upon the lower faces, and is 28 feet in
height, with a width of 20 feet upon the top, which forms a continua-
tion of the towing-path.
The Holt lock (Plates 20 and 22) is of the same construction and
dimensions as that already described at Lincomb, except that the
quoins and copings are of Shropshire red sandstone. It is built
upon a foundation of red marl, with a lift of 6 feet at low water.
The Holt weir (Plates 20 and 22) is 300 feet in length, and is
carried at an oblique angle across the old channel of the river, the
banks on either side being excavated to the required width and form.
The bed of the river here being firm sandstone rock, a different
mode of construction was adopted, with reference to the sheet-piling.
The water in the centre of the channel being only 4 feet in depth at
the time, caissons, filled with clay, were used to form coffer-dams;
and the water being pumped out, the rock was bared for two-thirds
of the length of the proposed weir. A chase, 2 feet wide by 15
inches deep, was then cut into the rock; in the proposed line of the
upper cill; into this chase a timber cill, or bottom waling, forming a
groove for the reception of the sheet-piles, was fitted and wedged
tight, the whole being well bedded and grouted with cement. The king-
piles were framed into this cill, and the top waling was bolted on, to
a length of 150 feet from the western, and 50 feet from the eastern,
shore; the intervening space, of 100 feet in width, being left open for
the passage of vessels and the discharge of the water. The sheeting-
piles were then fixed in their places upon the east side, and for a
length of 50 feet from the western shore, leaving, on that side, a
length of 100 feet to be dealt with in a different manner. A second
waling was bolted on to the king-piles, 3 feet below the top waling;
short sheet-piles were then fixed, inclosing the whole of the space
between this second waling and the bottom cill. These sheet-piles
being cut 4 inches short of the top of the timbers forming the
second waling, left a groove of that depth between the timbers, to
receive the bottom ends of other sheet-piles, when the work should be
so far advanced as to require the space between the upper and second
walings to be closed up. A skew-back was then cut in the rock, in the
7
line of the foot of the weir, and a course of large blocks of red sand-
stone, scappled square, was inserted, and the apron of the weir, form-
ing a slope of three horizontal to one perpendicular, was proceeded
with in regular courses, the whole abutting upon the skew-back at the
foot. The apron was thus completed up to the upper waling, for 50
feet on each side of the river; but opposite the short sheet-piles, before
mentioned, it was not completed above the level of the second waling.
A backing of rubble-stone was then built upon the upper side of the
piling, and the coffer-dams were removed to the opening which had been
left for the passage of vessels. The closing of this channel raised the
water, until it was discharged through the opening between the top
and the second walings, in the space before described, and which was
left open, to prevent the necessity of at once raising the water to the
level of the upper cill of the weir, until the closing in had been com-
pleted. This was accomplished in a similar manner to the work
already described. The caissons were then removed, and the water
was raised above the level of the upper cill, by closing in the remain-
ing space, between the upper and second walings, with the upper
lengths of the sheet-piles, which were put down and were firmly fixed in
the groove prepared for them; they were then bolted to the walings,
and the apron was completed. This work was accomplished with a
delay to the navigation of only four hours, that being the time occupied
in closing in the old channel with the caissons, which at once penned
a sufficient depth of water through the new cutting and over the lock
cill, to enable vessels to pass.
The Bevere lock and weir (Plates 21 and 22) are both built upon a
bed of light gravel, which required sheet-piling to secure the found-
ations. The lock is of the same size and construction as those
already described. The weir is 350 feet in length, bearing the same
relative proportion to the width of the river, as those at Lincomb and
Holt, viz., two-thirds greater. It is built of rough ashlar red sand-
stone, set in courses, between two rows of sheet-piling, the waling of
which forms the upper and lower cills, the lower cill being protected
by large blocks of rubble-stone, in the same manner as at Lincomb.
At Diglis (Plates 21 and 22), two locks are erected parallel to each
other, an arrangement which was rendered necessary by the increased
traffic, arising from the junction of the Worcester and Birmingham
Canal, with the Severn, immediately above them. . One lock is 100
feet long by 20 feet wide, in the clear of the chamber, like those
already described. The chamber of the other lock is 150 feet long
by 30 feet in width, both being 30 feet deep, with a lift of 8 feet
2 inches. In the arrangement of their details, and the material used
8
in their construction, they are similar to the other locks, with the
exception of the stone used for the quoins and copings, which is
Derbyshire sandstone, from the Duke of Devonshire's quarries near
Chatsworth ; the anchor-stones, and many of the coping-stones,
weighing from 6 tons to 8 tons each.
The overhanging portions of the balance-beams, by which the
gates of the large lock are worked, are entirely of cast iron, and
although each lower gate is 16 tons in weight, it is worked by one
man. Diagonal tie-bars of wrought iron are inserted in the framing,
extending from the top of the heel-posts into the mitre-posts, at an
angle of 45°, to ease the strain caused by the suspension of such a
weight as that of a gate, 33 feet 6 inches in height by 17 feet 6
inches wide, upon the heel-post alone, and by this arrangement, they
are rendered perfectly firm.
The cutting which forms the approach to and from these locks, is
80 feet wide at the surface of the low water, which is 8 feet in depth.
The cuttings in which the upper locks are built, are 60 feet wide at
the low-water line.
The Diglis weir (Plates 21 and 22), which is 400 feet long, is
similar in construction to those previously described, with the ex-
ception of a centre row of king-piles, driven 15 feet apart through
its whole length, and connected with the upper and lower row of
sheet-piling by iron tie-bars. The foundation, in this case, is a bed
of concrete, which extends 10 feet below the lower waling.
This series of locks and weirs was completed by Messrs. Grissell
and Peto, (who are the contractors for the whole of the Severn im-
provements), in the short space of fifteen months from the commence-
ment of the works. The floods of two winters have satisfactorily
tested their stability, and demonstrated the efficiency of the weirs for
the discharge of the flood-waters; a heavy fresh, in passing down the
river, being discharged with a rise of less than 3 feet upon the upper
cills, until the channel of the river, below the lowest weir at Diglis,
becomes unable to carry off the water, as fast as it is discharged
by the weirs above, the consequent result being the backing up of
the tail-water, until the Diglis weir is thrown out of action, the surface
of the water, above and below it, adapting itself to the general inclina-
tion of the river. Should the rise continue, the Bevere weir still
keeps its head-water down to a level of 3 feet upon its upper cill,
until the continued backing up from below throws it also out of
action. A case in point may be mentioned:—In August, 1845, the
Diglis and Bevere weirs were backed upon by the descent of a heavy
fresh, the tail-water backing up to the Holt weir, but not sufficiently
9
to throw it out of action, it therefore continued to discharge the whole
of this fresh, with a maximum rise of but 2 feet 11 inches upon its
upper cill, the total rise of the same fresh, below Diglis, being 16 feet
3 inches. This is no extreme case, and the same proportionate result
has been given by every high fresh, since the weirs have been in
operation.
The facility with which the freshes are discharged by these weirs,
is in a great measure due to their length, their obliquity, and the
uninterrupted action of the under current. That great length is an
important feature is self-evident; and in order that great length
should be efficiently brought into action, it is important, that the line
of the upper cill of the weir should be placed obliquely to the stream,
which insures an equal discharge throughout the whole length of the
weir, and without which a long weir loses its advantage; the channel
of the river, being necessarily increased in width to give great length,
there is a tendency to cause a back-water on each side, which mate-
rially interferes with the equal discharge over the whole surface of
the upper cill; this is obviated, in the case of oblique weirs, by the
water first coming in contact with the extreme point of the upper
end of the weir, over which it flows at right angles to the line of the
cill. The discharge of the lower end of the weir is also kept up, by
the natural set of the current in that direction, caused by the angle
formed by the line of the upper cill with the stream; the centre dis-
charge is certain, from the increased flow of water in the deepest
part of the channel. From these causes, the variation in the thick-
ness of the sheet of water passing over these weirs is insignificant.
The free action of the under current is also an important cause of
an efficient discharge in the Holt, Bevere, and Diglis weirs. That
this action is maintained, is proved by the following circumstances:—
At Holt, an old barge, which had been laid up as useless by the con-
tractors, got adrift and sunk in 10 feet water, 20 yards above the
weir. It continued undisturbed during the short-water season; but
the first heavy fresh raised it from the bottom and laid it upon the
upper cill, there not being sufficient water to carry it over. Another
proof of the uninterrupted action of the under current is, that the
bottom of the channel, immediately above the weirs, not only main-
tains its original depth, but has been scoured out, in some instances,
to a depth of 2 feet. *
A striking illustration of the importance of not checking the
action of the under current, is found in comparing the discharge of
the Lincomb and Holt weirs. It will be seen, by the sections of
these weirs (Plate 22), that the bottom of the channel, immediately
I0
above the Lincomb weir, is brought up at an inclimation of six hori-
zontal to one perpendicular, to within 3 feet of the upper cill, the slope
being continued at one to one to the top; whereas, at the head of
Holt weir, the channel is 10 feet deep, immediately above the stone
backing; the result is, that although these two weirs are of the same
length, and the Holt weir, being 4% miles below Lincomb, has not
only to discharge all the water which has passed over the Lincomb
weir, but also all the additional drainage-water of the intermediate
district, yet the Holt weir discharges a heavy fresh, with a less head, by
a depth of 8 inches, than is required at Lincomb. In the case before
alluded to, in August, 1845, the maximum height of the water, upon
the upper cill of Lincomb weir, was 3 feet 7 inches, at the same time
that the Holt weir was discharging more water, with a head of only
2 feet 11 inches.
The action of the under current at Lincomb, has been sufficiently
powerful to scour deep holes in the slope immediately above the weir,
although it is composed of tenacious clay. -
In addition to these facts, it has been proved, by a series of experi-
ments made in connexion with these works, that the under current flows
in lines parallel to the surface of the stream throughout its entire depth,
until it reaches the foot of the weir. To illustrate this fact, floats were
loaded so as to cause them to swim at different distances from the sur-
face, the lowest being sufficiently above the bottom to prevent its touch-
ing. In each case the float approached the weir, in a line parallel to the
surface, until it came nearly close to the upper side of the weir, when
it rose, forming a parabolic curve in its passage over the cill. The
practical results, already described, are, however, the best test of the
efficiency of these weirs, for every purpose for which they were
designed.
The total fall, at low water, in the 12 miles between Stourport and
Worcester, is 21 feet, giving a mean of 21 inches per mile. The
low-water fall between Worcester and Gloucester, a distance of 28
miles, is rather under 10 feet, which gives a mean fall of 4-75 inches
per mile. This difference in fall has suggested a different mode of
improvement for that district; the shoals being removed by dredging,
and a series of embankments being constructed, for the purpose of
equalizing the width, and thus ensuring a more uniform depth. These
works are still in progress, and may probably form subject matter for
another Paper, after they are completed.
The paper is illustrated by four drawings, Nos. 4327 to 4329 and
4332, giving plans of the weirs, locks, side cuts, and embankments,
with sections of the principal works.
1 I
Mr. CUBITT, V. P., said, that after the clear description, given by
Mr. Williams, of the works on the Severn, there remained little for
him to explain; but as he was aware the subject of weirs, placed
obliquely to the course of the stream, required some consideration,
before the principle could be perfectly understood, as had been shown
in the Parliamentary inquiry in 1841, he had brought the models
used at that time for elucidating the proposition, and would endeavour
to make the views then propounded clear to the meeting.
The problem proposed was this: a river, which, from its source,
and the country it passed through, was liable to sudden changes of
character—at one time running deep and rapid like a mountain
stream, and then suddenly subsiding, and becoming so shallow, as to
impede the navigation, was required to be so improved as to retain
the waters, that the minimum depth, in times of drought, should be
sufficient for the traffic, and yet that the passage for the flood-waters
should be so unimpeded, that they should pass off, without unduly
flooding the lands on either side of the stream, or injuring the drain-
age. This was done, by placing certain weirs obliquely across the
main stream, their length being such as to permit of the free passage
of a body of water, equal to the entire transverse sectional area of the
river, above the weir, without penning up the water so as to overflow
the banks; the navigation being carried on uninterruptedly, by means
of locks, situated in lateral artificial cuts beside the weirs. By these
means, however suddenly the water in the river rose, and the banks
were filled, the great length of the weirs enabled the flood to pass
away, without reducing the average depth in the channel, yet allowing
for the free drainage of the land above.
In placing a weir directly square across a river, a considerable por-
tion of its section must be blocked up, and the water would be
penned back, in proportion to the actual height of the weir and the
area of the channel. The water could never flow over that weir in
a sheet wider than the channel, consequently, the depth upon the
weir must be greater, and the tendency must be to block up the
water, and even with a river bank-full, an obstruction must exist.
It would be seen, by the model (Fig. 1), that if the breadth of the
Fig. 1.

12
channel were extended to three times its width, above and below, and
a transverse weir placed, the same quantity of water would pass over,
in a thinner sheet, leaving a comparatively tranquil pool above the
weir, which, if extended to a lake, would present the same appear-
ance as the Lake of Geneva–comparatively still water, with a rapid
river above and below it. It must be evident, that the weir, in this
case, offered no obstruction, as the water was enabled to pass more
freely than along the river, either above or below.
The model (Fig. 2) showed that the same end might be attained,
without the expense of cutting away the land, by placing a weir, of
the same length, in an oblique direction across the stream, without
unduly widening the channel. The same quantity of water would
Fig. 2.
} Dºs-Tº
pass in times of flood, and the velocity of the stream would be main-
tained more equably, than by any direct transverse obstruction. The
greater the obliquity, the better would be the effect; but, as a general
rule, three times the direct width of the channel would, he thought,
be an ample proportion, in fact, it would seldom be necessary to give
more than double the direct width. As a simple rule, it might be
stated, that when the rectangle formed by the length of the weir and
its depth, below the flood limit, equalled the rectangle of the river,
up stream of the weir, within the same flood limits, then similar floods
would not rise higher above those limits, than before the weirs were
placed.
By the model (Fig. 3) it would be seen, that an oblique weir
Fig. 3.

13
offered no greater resistance to the passage of the water than a mere
block of the weir cut transversely, or at right angles, to the stream,
the water flowing, in times of floods, at the same time, on both sides,
with unchecked velocity.
It had been attempted to be shown, that the velocity of the under
current would be checked, and that a deposit would take place; in fact,
that the effect would be analogous to filling up the bed of the river to
the height of the weirs, and that the descending column, for a consi-
derable distance up the river, would be materially checked. The
contrary, however, had been the result, as Mr. Williams had shown
in his Paper. The surface of the water had been prevented from
rising during floods; the bed of the river had not been raised, although
dredging had not been resorted to; and the drainage of the upper
country had been fully maintained. The under current received no
check, as, from the obliquity of the weir, the stream was merely
turned aside, and the body of the water rose gradually at its initial
velocity.
Weirs, of the shape of a horse-shoe, and with an acute angle point-
ing up the stream, had also been tried; but there were practical
objections to both these forms, as not leaving a free space within them
for the overfall of the water, which there formed eddies, frequently
scouring out the bed of the channel at the foot of the weir.
Mr. Cubitt had constructed an oblique weir, 560 feet in length,
across the Trent, below the viaduct of the Midland Counties Railway,
near Long Eaton. That weir was built without stopping the river at
all, and was closed without constructing any coffer-dams. A row of
gauge-piles, 20 feet apart, was driven from shore to shore across the
river, in the direction of the weir, with a waling-piece spiked on each
side. Then, for a length of 150 feet from each extremity, double
walings were placed so as to leave a space of 2 feet to 2 feet 6 inches
between them. Piles were them driven in the two end-lengths, and
stones to form the weir were thrown in. The middle space of 260
feet was then close piled; the stream running through between the
walings of the end-lengths. The waling space at one end was then
closed, leaving only 150 feet for the whole of the water to run over.
A small dam then enabled the last portion to be closed; and, by
tending the weir for a few months with stones to supply the sub-
sidence, it stood perfectly. º
Mr. BATEMAN thought an erroneous impression had been con-
veyed, by the statement in the Paper, that “although the Lincomb
and the Holt weirs were of the same length, and the latter being 4%
miles below the former, had not only to discharge all the water which
14
passed over the Lincomb weir, but also all the additional drainage of
the intermediate district, yet the Holt weir discharged a heavier fresh,
with a less head by a depth of 8 inches, than was required at Lin-
comb. In August, 1845, the maximum height of the water above
the upper cill of Lincomb weir, was 3 feet 7 inches, at the same time
that the Holt weir was discharging more water, with a head of only
2 feet 11 inches.”
He begged to know whence such an apparent discrepancy could
proceed. He conceived, that there was a deficiency of information,
inasmuch as it was not stated where the depths were taken, and it
was an extraordinary effect to be produced, even if it arose from the
locality, or from the shallowness in front of Lincomb weir.
Mr. CUBITT explained, that the apparent inconsistency arose from
a local peculiarity of the Lincomb weir. The original course of the
river at that spot was circuitous; a new straight cut had therefore
been made, and the weir was constructed in it. It was considered
hazardous, for the structure of the weir, to dredge, or cut away, the
earth from the foot, it had therefore been left shallower, and the channel
had been widened out above ; the water was therefore rather shoal,
and ran rapidly. These circumstances had doubtless combined to
form the apparent discrepancy, which must, in reality, have arisen
from the places at which the measurements were taken; which were,
according to Mr. Williams's statement, at 30 yards above Lincomb
weir, and 262 yards above Holt weir.
Mr. STEPHERSON thought the question propounded by Mr. Bate-
man deserved careful investigation. Even supposing the greater
depth given to the water in front of the weir, by removing the ground
at that spot, what height would the water be raised in passing over
the weir. The substantial opposition of the weir remained the same;
although, from its oblique position, the obstruction it offered was con-
secutive, and was not all offered at the same time to the passage of
the water. He thought the model (Fig. 3) was calculated to mislead
rather than to elucidate the subject, as it only showed the obstruction
offered upon a line transversely at right angles with the stream, and
it was necessary to suppose a series of these lines, to the extent of a
length equal to the width of the river above the weir.
Mr. BRUNEL agreed with Mr. Stephenson's views. The principle
of the oblique weir was, no doubt, practically correct; but the state-
ment, that the obstruction offered to the passage of the water was
only equal to that of the transverse section of the body of the weir, at
right angles to the stream, was, he conceived, a fallacy. Suppose, for
he sake of argument, that the weir was infinitely thin, then, no mat-
15
ter what its height was, it would offer no obstruction to the passage of
the water. The real value of the oblique weirs, consisted in their
practical capacity for discharging a given quantity of water, without
unduly raising the surface of the stream. This was owing to their
great length, and their obliquity to the stream, enabling them to pass,
in a thin sheet over the weir, a quantity of water equal to the entire
sectional area of the stream.
Mr. BATEMAN perfectly comprehended the view in which the
question had been put ; but the fact, as given in the Paper, was at
variance with the usual method of calculating the amount of water
passing, at a given depth and velocity, over a weir of a certain
length, proportioned to the area of the stream. It was not stated,
whether the increased depth in front of Holt weir augmented, or
decreased, the velocity, or whether any difference of velocity, in pass-
ing the weir, had been perceived. If the diminished depth at Lincomb
caused a rapid, the acquired velocity of the water should have been
represented in the statement, in order that a correct result might be
arrived at.
Mr. FAIRBAIRN believed, that the oblique weir was not new, as
some old ones were in existence which were four times the width of
the channel of the river. These had been constructed in flat coun-
tries, where a certain depth was required to be maintained under
ordinary circumstances, but where, on account of the drainage, it was
essential to discharge the flood-waters in a very thin sheet over the
weir. He was of opinion, that their practical advantages were very
great, not only for the easy passage of the water, but also for pre-
venting the scouring, which too frequently occurred at the foot of
weirs, and endangered their stability. This had been attempted to be
counteracted by the American weirs, which, on the lower side, had a
series of long steps, down which the water fell by easy gradations.
These steps were, however, in this case rendered unnecessary, as by
their obliquity the weirs turned the stream over so easily.
Mr. CUBITT said, that it was disadvantageous, on account of the
expense, to construct the weirs of an immoderate length. The
criterion for the proper length was, when the lower country was
flooded before the upper country, and a weir was too short when a
flood topped the banks too quickly and impeded the drainage. The
bed of the Severn was very steep in the upper part, so that the flood-
waters descended with great velocity, and, if they were permitted to
flow freely down, without any weirs, they would flood the lower
country much more rapidly, than when the course was properly con-
16
trolled by the weirs; retaining, at the same time, a sufficient quantity
of water for the navigation. -
He would reiterate, that the object of the works was to place in the
channel such obstructions to the course of the river, as should retain a
certain depth for navigation; but so to proportion and place them,
that the obstruction should cease to act, before the river rose to the
top of the banks; in fact, that in spite of the new weirs, the floods
should not be more sensibly felt than before, and yet that the navi-
gation should be regularly maintained; he feared, however, from the
tenor of the remarks made, that his explanation of the principle and
of the action of the weirs, had not been sufficiently clear; he would,
therefore, endeavour to elucidate the subject by a supposititious case,
and illustrate it by another model (Fig. 4), which, he hoped, would
Fig. 4.
Tº -
GN |
| ? 3. 4. 5
}
To \ & \ f -
2 S $ & >–s- 500 l
wº zºº; º
J 2 ~ 4- • 700/

render the matter distinct. Suppose the model to represent a river
100 feet wide, with vertical banks, and an uniform fall, and the water
flowing, at times of short water, only 1 foot in depth, but in times of
flood running 20 feet deep, and filling the channel bank-full: the
object would be to render such a stream navigable, by means of weirs
penning up the water to a given height, and yet that the water should
not be raised, in flood times, to a greater height than the original 20
feet, or to the height of the bank top, as before the weirs were placed
in the channel, with similar floods.
If a weir of 1 foot in height was placed square across the channel,
of 100 feet in width, it must inevitably raise the water 18 inches or
20 inches, in order to pass a sheet of 1 foot in depth over the top
cill of the weir, and in times of flood, the river would overflow the
banks, before it attained a depth of 20 feet on the weir. If, how-
ever, the banks were cut away on either side (Fig. 1), to such an
extent, that the rectangle between the top of the weir and a supposed
line, drawn from bank to bank of the channel, was equal in area to
the entire transverse sectional area of the river, at some distance above
17
the weir, the amount of water would pass freely; but such a form of
channel would be practically objectionable; it became, therefore,
necessary to attain the same end by other means. Suppose, then,
certain weirs to be placed in the channel at different degrees of ob
liquity, and of different heights,
Table of Five Weirs in a river 100 feet wide, showing the obstruc-
tions caused by them, &c.

Width of Additional
Width of Area of #. to length of
No. Angle. Length. Height. Obstruc- Obstruc- .ompen- Weir to
tion. tion. Sate compen-
g Sate.
Feet. Feet. Feet. Feet.
1 Square. 100 l 100 • 100 • 5 : 00 5 • 30
2 250 I 11 2 2 - 3 4, 6 • 23 • 25
3 360 125 4 1 - 6 6 • 4 • 32 • 40
4 539 S 166 8 1 - 2 9 • 6 • 48 • 80
5 78o 30ſ 500 16 I • 0 | 6 - 0 • 80 4 - 0
The tabular statement showed, that a weir of 500 feet in length,
16 feet in height, and 1 foot thick, placed at an angle of obliquity
of 78° 30', would offer a resistance of only 16 square feet; whereas,
the weir of only 1 foot in height and thickness, placed directly square
across the stream, would offer a resistance of 100 feet, besides arrest-
ing, to a certain extent, the under current, which was only slightly
checked, if at all acted upon, by the oblique weir. These weirs were
supposed to be placed at such angles, and to be of such lengths, in
comparison to their depths, that the rectangle above each of them was
equal to the entire rectangular transverse section of the stream, some
distance above the first or square weir. In practice, a small quantity
of land must in every case be cut from the sides, or the weir must
be lengthened, to compensate for the area of obstruction of the trans-
verse section of the weir, and then, putting aside the question of the
friction upon the weir, it might be said, that no actual obstruction
was offered to the stream, when the river was running bank-full.
Now it must be evident, that by these weirs, the water was penned
up until it reached the height of the upper cill, retaining a sufficient
depth for the navigation; but as soon as there was any increase, the
space between the top of the cill and the top of the bank being, as
had been shown, amply sufficient to carry away the contents of a full
channel, the weir ceased to be an obstruction, particularly if the river
B
18
was running bank-full. Mr. Cubitt alluded to this point the more
forcibly, because he thought all the misconception had arisen from its
not being borne in mind, that the assertion of there being “no ob-
struction,” applied only to times of flood, when the river was running
bank-full: when the weirs ceased to pen up the water at all, and the
supply was as great as the channel below could convey away.
In applying the model (Fig 3) to such a case, the row of wires
represented a transverse slice of the river running bank-full, and the
elevated portion of the wires showed, that the obstruction to that por-
tion of water was only equal to the section of the weir; another slice,
following down, would meet with the same amount of obstruction, and
so on; but the river being bank-full, or the water being of the same
height above and below the weir, an uniform plane of surface was
preserved, and the utmost effect that could be produced, was the turn-
ing aside a portion of the mass of water, impinging obliquely upon the
weir, and raising it gradually up, with a slightly diminished velocity,
to the top, to regain that velocity in its passage down the stream.
He must, therefore, contend, that the oblique weir offered, in times
of flood, no practical obstruction to the stream.
Mr. R. STEPHENson still felt that the model did not represent the
case correctly; and he must still contend, in spite of the plausibility
of the reasoning, that no body, whatever might be its dimensions,
could be placed in a river, without causing a certain obstruction to the
stream, equal to the bulk of that body; although there was no doubt,
that the greater the degree of its obliquity, the less would be the prac-
tical obstruction. All that was done, was to raise the body of water over
the dam more readily, and to diminish the fall. He would admit, that
in practice, an under current did exist; but, for the sake of argu-
ment, let it be supposed that there was no under current, or that the
interval between the weir was filled up with sand, it must be evident,
that the surface only of the stream, down as deep as the top cill of
the weirs, was in motion, and if that depth had the area described,
it sufficed to carry off the water, yet, still there must be an obstruc-
tion greater than the area of the transverse section of the weir, so
long as the weir stretched, even at any amount of obliquity, from bank
to bank. --
Mr. CUBITT, V. P., thought Mr. Stephenson had taken up a view
of the case without duly considering the fluidity of water.
He then supposed an illustration, by placing the strip of wood, ..
representing the longest oblique weir, across the model in such a
manner that its top was level with the upper edge of the sides. He
them contended, that inasmuch as the area of the space between the
19
bottom of the strip and the bottom of the model, was equal to the
space which had formerly been shown above it, and which, it had
been demonstrated, was equal to the direct transverse sectional area
of the channel, the whole mass of water would flow equally beneath
the weir, as it would have done over it, and that the length of the
weir could not be an obstruction in either case.
Again, supposing the mass of water to be flowing down the channel
—always bearing in mind that it was bank-full, or 20 feet deep—it
would have equal velocity on each side of the weir, and there not
being any fall in the area over the weir, any more than in the main
channel of the river, it must, he concluded, be evident, that from the
moment the stream ran bank-full, there was no obstruction.
Mr. J. THoMson inquired, what would be the effect of the ob-
lique weir, 500 feet long, in the case of a flood, which caused the
river to overflow its banks in the main channel, before reaching the
weir P Would not the obstruction of the area, of even the transverse
section of the weir, be felt in such a case, unless the banks of the
stream were cut away in proportion?
Mr. CUBITT, V. P., replied, that certainly such would be the case,
unless the banks were cut away, or the weir was lengthened propor-
tionably. It must be borne in mind, that the mass of water was
running, on both sides, equal to the whole superficial area of the weir.
Mr. BIDDER must confess, that although he agreed in the practical
advantages of the oblique weirs, he still thought the reasoning upon
them, if carried to the full extent of which it was capable, was some-
what fallacious. Take the case of the last model exhibited (Fig. 4).
The transverse sectional area of the river, when bank-full, was 2000
feet; now, suppose it to be requisite to retain a depth of 16 feet for
the purposes of navigation, an oblique weir, 16 feet deep and 500
feet long, was placed in the channel, (the weir being supposed, for
the sake of argument, to be infinitely thin,) leaving a rectangle of
500 feet x 4 feet = 2000 feet, thus permitting a bank-full flood to
flow away without impediment. Then, still supposing the river to
run bank-full, if the height of the weir was decreased to 15 feet, the
area of the rectangle being then 500 feet x 5 feet = 2500 feet, it
was evident, according to the figures, the weir, instead of being an
obstruction, positively facilitated the flow, and the depth of the water,
when flowing over the weir, ought to be actually reduced; but, inas-
much as the weir was placed in a channel, of which the actual trans-
verse sectional area was only 2000 feet, the fallacy must be evident.
Now he thought, that the theory of these oblique weirs had not
been fully stated, and without much more careful attention, he did
20
not feel that a clear proposition could be demonstrated. It was
necessary to consider, that the current of the water was diverted in
its course, and that the force thus lost, must be compensated for, by
an increase of velocity in the fall, until the river became bank-full,
and then still, by an increased velocity in the main stream at that
particular point. A dam or weir, placed obliquely in a stream, must
De viewed as a vessel moving through a fluid at that angle, and at the
yelocity of the current; add to this, the friction of the fluid in pass-
1ng over the cill, and the absolute resistance became, in his opinion,
easily appreciable. -
Mr. CUBITT, V. P., contended, that Mr. Bidder’s views of the
case were fallacious. It must be evident, that the position assumed
in his argument was not tenable. Mr. Cubitt's argument applied
only to the practical question, of a river running bank-full under
ordinary circumstances: putting such barriers as should retain a
certain depth of water at all times, and permit the free and un-
restricted passage of a surplus quantity, within given limits. This
the principle of the oblique weirs did provide for, and from the time
when, by the rising of the water to the full height of the bank, the
weir ceased to be an impediment, inasmuch as the rectangle above it
equalled the section of the channel, the actual obstruction of the sec-
tional area of the body of the weir was represented by a post of those
dimensions placed in the stream, and whatever might be the length
of the weir, the obstruction was limited to the area of that post,
entirely irrespective of the length of the weir. It was very certain
that the post would not ease the flow of the water.
Mr. BIDDER explained, that in his argument he had supposed a ver-
tical film, 500 feet long by 16 feet deep, without substance, over
which, it was stated, that the mass of water would flow, without feel-
ing any obstruction, when the river was bank-full; he had merely
extended the argument, and endeavoured to show that, at a depth of
21 feet, the same reasoning did not apply. He had not considered,
at the same time, the practical question of the actual resistance of
the sectional area of the weir, viewing it as a post placed in the
river.
Mr. E. LEADER WILLIAMs said, there were several points, he now
found, he should have touched upon in his Paper, in order to have
made it more complete. He had not done so, fearing to render it
prolix, but he would supply them hereafter in another paper. He
would now only mention, that the dimensions of all the weirs were
calculated, so as to discharge a mass of water, equal to the entire sec-
tional area of the channel at the same level, at a depth of 3 feet upon
21
their upper cills. The Diglis weir rather exceeded these dimensions,
thus giving an example of the case supposed by Mr. Bidder. The
consequence was, that when an extra flood took place, the Diglis weir
discharged it perfectly. The only visible effect was, that when the
water was running over the weir at a depth of 3 feet 6 inches, or 4
feet, there was a slackening of the current at that particular spot,
and the barges sailed more readily over it. As the banks also had
been cut away fully as much as was necessary, slack water was
formed, and a certain amount of deposit took place; but which was
entirely scoured away by the increased rapidity of the current, as the
flood, or fresh, subsided.
Mr. J. Thomson said, in the case of a weir placed directly square
across the channel, inasmuch as a positive obstruction was placed in
the stream, there might be some treason for looking upon all the
depth between the level of the upper cill and the bottom of the river,
as filled up with a solid mass; but in the case of the oblique weirs,
the obstruction was only, as it were, negative, and the mass of water
was only diverted from its direct course, without having its velocity
materially checked.
Mr. BATEMAN followed up the views of the last speaker. The
whole mass of water being in motion, by the time it had arrived at a
certain distance along the weir, had divided itself: given portions
flowing along each side, resuming its uniform velocity at a certain
distance below the extremity. Now, if the theory were extended, it
must be evident, that the channel being of the same dimensions
above and below, and the stream running bank-full, if the flood
increased 1 foot in depth, the weir being lengthened, could not enable
a larger quantity of water to pass, than the channel would contain,
and if the water overflowed the banks above the weir, it would do so
everywhere. But there could not be any doubt, that so long as the
river did not overflow its banks, the oblique weirs, from their length,
gave a freer outlet for the water, than the square weirs, without ob-
structing the under current.
Mr. FAREY thought the reasoning was upon imperfect premises;
the main point was, whether the stream ran rather faster at an
increased depth, and, if so, how much faster, than it did when
spreading over and flowing along the sides and bottom at a less
depth. w
It was evident, that by raising the water to an uniform depth, thus
diminishing the friction, and from the oblique position of the weirs
affording ample space for the free passage of the water, above that
22
regular depth, when the freshes or floods occurred, the velocity being
augmented, a larger quantity of water flowed away more easily.
Mr. Scott RUSSELL said, from his experiments, some of which
were analogous to the question, he inferred, that the water in a river
ran, at the top and the bottom, with nearly an uniform velocity.
That, when approaching a weir, the velocity of the water appeared to
be slightly checked, and a certain elevation in a given curve was the
result; as soon as the obstacle was surmounted, an equal amount of
depression took place, accompanied by an acceleration of velocity,
until the sum of the velocities became as before. This retardation
and acceleration would certainly be greatest in the case of transverse
weirs, and in proportion to the degree of obliquity of the longer
weirs, these effects would be diminished, and the uniform velocity of
the stream would be retained.
Mr. CUBITT, V. P., said, he could have wished his views had been
more clearly developed to the meeting; but he felt convinced, that
the more the subject was considered, the more evident the correctness
of the position would appear. His object had been to place in
the river such weirs as should, in times of short water, retain a
certain depth for the navigation, and yet should be such slight impe-
diments to the stream, that the level of the water should not be raised,
more than it was in times of similar floods, before the weirs were
placed. The result had been, that the practice completely confirmed
the theory, as had been demonstrated in the Paper submitted by
Mr. Williams to the Institution.
Mr. GRAVATT was sorry he could not agree with Mr. Cubitt with
regard to the weirs in the river Severn. Supposing the surface of the
water to remain the same (as presumed in Mr. Cubitt's hypothesis),
notwithstanding the dam, the river being 100 feet wide and 20 feet
deep, running bank-full, with a current sectional area of 2000 feet,
if the width was increased in the inverse proportion to the depth, by
the insertion of a dam of 16 feet in height, either directly transverse,
or obliquely, the width becoming 500 feet, and the entire depth above
the weir 4 feet, the sectional area remained the same; then, sup.
posing a mass of water moving along the channel at a given speed,
the centre of gravity of that mass would be situated at a depth of 10
feet from the surface; but when that same mass reached the weir,
it must extend itself laterally over a wider and shallower space, and
the centre of gravity, still remaining at its mean depth, or 2 feet from
the surface, it necessarily followed, that the centre of gravity had
been raised 8 feet; and he must contend, that, as power must have
23
been required to raise that centre of gravity, it might be represented
by the amount of engine-power necessary to lift that body of water a
vertical height of 8 feet.
Mr. BIDDER said, the position, as put by Mr. Gravatt, deserved
consideration, as it involved much of the principle of the oblique
weirs, the theory of which, up to the present time, did not appear
to be completely understood. The question was, whether the mass
of the fluid could be considered as a solid, the centre of gravity of
which required to be elevated a given distance, to cause it to pass
over the weir, or whether it should be viewed as a hydrostatic
question.
Mr. J. Thomson stated, that although the general principle of
Mr. Gravatt's illustration appeared calculated, so far as it went, to
demonstrate Mr. Cubitt's theory of oblique weirs, yet, he did not con-
sider, that, in practice, the interposition of a weir would so cause an
elevation in the centre of gravity of the stream, as to render the aper-
ture over the weir, incapable of discharging the body of water con-
tained in the stream above, although of the same sectional area;
which was the deduction from the position.
Mr. Thomson was of opinion, that the discharge over a weir, must
be considered as being materially different from the flood of an ordi-
mary stream, and that the centre of gravity of a moving stream was
not the point of greatest speed; these two circumstances, taken
together, accounted for what he had found to be the case, viz., that it
was impossible to discharge over a weir the whole amount of water
which flowed down a given channel, with a less sectional area over the
weir than that of the flowing current above.
While he stated this, in opposition to the illustration advanced by
Mr. Gravatt, he must not be understood as entirely acquiescing in
Mr. Cubitt's theory, the accuracy of which he had previously com-
bated.
Mr. R. B. GRANTHAM hoped it would be interesting to the mem-
bers, to learn the effect of the oblique weirs, which had been con-
structed on the river Shannon. The weirs were larger than those on
the Severn, and altogether the works were on a more extended scale.
The two rivers also differed in every respect: the Shannon had little,
or no deposit, and was not subject to sudden rising of the flood-
waters. It appeared, from Mr. Rhodes’ reply to Mr. Grantham’s
inquiries, that the weirs at Killaloe and Meelick were each 1100 feet
in length, and that they acted admirably; in summer there was a
depth of water of 6 inches over them, and in high-water floods, from
24
2 feet 6 inches to 2 feet 8 inches; and the meadow and low-lands
above, which, before the erection of these weirs, had been flooded for
several months in the year, to the depth of 6 feet or 8 feet, were now,
with the exception of a few days, entirely free from water. About
100 square miles of land had been thus relieved. Mr. Grantham
had calculated the quantities of water, which passed through the
narrowest part of the river Shannon, at the present site of the weir
at Killaloe, before it was constructed, and found, that in Summer,
it was 500 feet. At present in Winter the quantity was 2600 feet,
and over the weir, at 2 feet 6 inches deep, 2770 feet, and at 2 feet 8
inches deep, 2930 feet. Mr. Rhodes had, unfortunately, not given
the height of the weirs; but Mr. Grantham had brought the subject
forward, to show the effects which had been produced by the system
of oblique weirs in another locality.”
He also stated, that, by order of Government, a detailed account
of all the Shannon works was about to be published, which would
furnish some interesting practical engineering facts.
* Extract from a Letter from Mr. Rhodes, M. Inst. C. E., dated Killaloe,
May 10th, 1846.
“With respect to the oblique weirs, I like them made as long as possible,
consistent with the cross section of the channel, or river course. #I have found
the good effect of long weirs, and also of dredging above and below them, to
allow the water to pass off very freely. We expect to complete our works, up
as far as Lough Allen, by the termination of this year, at which time, steamers
and other craft may ply the entire length of 240 miles; and this may then be
ranked as one of the finest navigable rivers in Europe.”
London. Printed by WILLIAM CLowes and Sons, Stamford Street.
PLATE 20.
IMPROVEMENTs of THE RIVER severN.
LIN COMB WEIR AND EM BAN KMENT.
Zhe dotted. Zºnes denote &e orzyznaz àouza'azzes of the Chanze/.
H O LT W E 1 R .
ź
=º
Jezže of w & o 700 26%) JOO .6×7 foo Aſee:
: l
rº-HT; : A I - * . w ęy
** , ſo +. ." º º .. .7 6 7. 5 & Cºazºs .A. Grºßrº #&#. // Zanzrº...?rand



|M|PROVEMENTS OF THE RIVER SEVERN. - PLATE 21.
BEVERE WE R.
Z%e d'oºzea. Zºnes d'enoſe Zhe orzyznać Čozzzzzzzzzes of &e (%azzez
D I C L I S W E I R.
Scaze of # 50 0 f(00 200 300 400 300 Aeet
CŞ. * 6%azzo.9
%262 jø 0 f 2 3. 4. 3. 6 7
Jº. & Zºrzā Āzz/... //Homzzzz Jº...ºrzzzzz.








2
2
|M|PROVEMENTS OF THE RJºy H.R SEVERN .
Jeczzozzly of
L IN COM B E M BAN K M K M E N T .
A*Arkazºº 2% lºº,
º º rº,
Orzzzzzaz Zom Wäzer Zzyze &º: fº º lº
#=23 ºf ºf 3 2/3
º §3. #º º
º; *
-- * 2. º. Lº º =====
ºx/? Yº
a- º Yº - ſº- --- -
* * S-\º *** wº. º. =º - -w -
•=-en------- waſ . === —
º
w j Ö
Aozzłozzzzz Jeaze of Żzzózzázzezzº
33TZº, TzTºo A&et
* ~ :
Tºm-- - - - - --~ . - tºº
& Yo 3 /ø ſº 2a 25 Jø
B EVE RE W E J R .
rºyº-
* 4or &&.
Ll NCOM B W E I R .
* =rnºś
ºlº-
º
§
*
#
. cº-ºts: . ~~~.
* = ** =#=ºg tººk ºf .
:* : * Nº ºt , lºº ſº §§ J. & sº sº.
---- º sº *-*.
::...:*~~~ - * :-siº,
i:... * -
* * $º.
* * ~ſº • *> -- ----.
º
^ is:
- aſsº
: 2. % - º r: º &
wałºś. #3; zº 5- F * ~ *-* - ** - - wº-, - . ***
is §º \º º §º º ºr-º-...-- a- -tº-: Tººeº-" — ca. ~...~ - ~ * -- F - F.
*º *-* = * --~ * . . &
\s:
gºsºs
Jº . ~ * ~ * *, * w"
Wº
zºº. -il. *: º
* ...-: º-º-º: ºº:
:*.**~5 = sºrºrº
- * - "... *~. *
* - ce- * *
> R,
sº-º-º-º-E-FEFºg "Yº
-º-º-º- º !"
ex, * *
D C L | S W E 1 R .
HOLT W E 1 R ,
—4**
§§ E -
gº– rºſº
Sºğ. =*==-ºrsº Jānis º
sºlº Gº
& º Sºlſº %
* tº ź sº Sº - - - alsº fººtº i
fºllº =#############sº
- -- ~ sº ºk…º.º.º.º. º: - * Nº. tº 35 º º
\
* * *
t
º
sers :
s *> S > Pºsº ºr * **, zºº tº
㺠Fº;
& Jºº Sºś--> E.
ÉFººl §§§ º t
tºº º
--- sº ºlºlº-
º: º * *: jº. †: sºme =~! *:: *-ā- ass *~~ º: * -
* A'ea. Jazza...stone Aocł.
|
Jºzſe of Aºzºs and Wºrtz.ca/ Jeaſe
3" G J 2:3 25 Keet
yº
of Zºrzóan Azzezet |
7.5
A. &4/ºrówkº Z.Z. Aſ ſºonzº.ca/ .37 .Yºrozz,"
A.Z.º.am's de&”






- f; |
*;" ||||||||||||||
Gaylord Bros. Inc.
90.15 O21 O2 1855
Makers
|
~|
:
sº ºw
º
ºf . º.º.e.
:
8 ºr * : * *
tº . . . . . . .
a *, * * * * * *
"...*.*.*.*.*.*.
zº *-. .” -
:
§
Š
|
º
º
§
É
:
..R.
º
:
º
#.
|

ſaeº ^•**ē āžāšēā（~~~~，~~~~šāſā， ºs-----：*- *****-,·-• -·-¿<:* **…*✉ºſ，-----*~--~}}>&. ，•·******
§§§§3:（№º！！!！！！！！!！！！！！--~--~|-§¶•-•ºg~-ſaeae،-· ：§.·- -
.*¿¿.*?） **********
#ź！！! :（
<！~， ， ，–§§§se ſº:
£
، ،s
*****