operated in a great measure as a prohibition to carry materials upon that river.
Do you consider it would be to the interest of the proprietors to allow materials to be carried on their navigations at a lower rate than they are empowered to allow by law?—Yes, if they could.
Do you know any similar instance as applicable to canals?—I don't know an instance with respect to canal trusts, but there is an instance with respect to the Bath river at Bristol. No mitigation of the present rate of duty on that river can take place if objected to by any one proprietor, and therefore we have found great difficulty in carrying materials on the Bath river. In one particular place we have been entirely precluded from carrying any.
Have you found any impediment to the improvement of roads arising from the conditions upon which materials are permitted to be conveyed from one parish to another?—Yes; I found that in several cases in the Bristol district. One very strong instance occurred near Keynsham; we had a quarry close to the edge of one parish, and we could not carry the stones from it to the distance of ten yards, without the process of going to the magistrates.
Did you in that case make application to the magistrates?—I did intend to make application, but before I made that application, I found in the very next field, belonging to the same farmer, and in the parish where we required them, the necessary materials, and I was under the necessity of opening both the fields, to the detriment of the farmer's landlord I am persuaded.
Do you know an instance of such an application as that to which you have alluded, having been made to the magistrates, and having been refused?—No, I do not.
Do you think that a great inconvenience and loss of time would be saved if that necessity of application was dispensed with?—It certainly is a great inconvenience, and creates a great
