On the 30th April, 1841, the committee sat for the first time, and then began a struggle which, in the Parliamentary annals of private bills, had up to that time been quite unprecedented. Twenty petitions were presented against the bill, but for several of them nobody appeared in support, and the opposition almost resolved itself into the Gloucestershire, Shropshire, and Birmingham Canal interests, and the landowners. Mr. Sergeant Merewether, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Craig were engaged as counsel for the bill, and Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Austin were the principal opposing counsel. The first day was taken up by Mr. Sergeant Merewether’s opening speech. For eight days following the promoters called evidence in support of the preamble—their engineers especially being subjected to the most searching cross-examinations by the opposition. On the tenth day Mr. Talbot summed up the evidence for the promoters, and Mr. Austin commenced his address for the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, and the examination of his witnesses occupied two days longer. On the thirteenth day Mr. Sergeant Wrangham spoke for the Gloucester interest. Six days more were taken up by other opponents and their witnesses; and on the twentieth Mr. Sergeant Merewether replied, and the committee, after a short consultation, unanimously resolved—“That the preamble of the bill is proved.” This great victory was not achieved, however, without most material damage to the scheme; for in order to meet the opposition of the landowners, which evidently had great weight with the committee, the promoters had to abandon the weir below Upton, and consent to dredge the river up to Diglis. Weirs in large rivers of this kind had not been much known, and it was thought that they might increase the floods. Mr. Walker, the engineer, too, was very positive that the required depth might be obtained by dredging, and the committee, therefore, determined that that should have a trial—and a most unfortunate determination it has proved. Some other important alterations took place in the discussion of the clauses, the principal of which was the exemption of the Shropshire trade from toll; though it could not be denied that they would derive a benefit, like all other traders, from the Improvement. A long discussion took place upon the position of the lock at Diglis, which the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company wanted put above the mouth of their canal; but to this the committee would not consent. The Commission, after much debate, was constituted as follows: three justices of the peace for the county of Worcester, three for the county of Gloucester, four for the Worcester and four for the Gloucester town councils, one for the council of the city of Bristol, one for Droitwich, one for Tewkesbury, one for Wenlock, one for Newport, one for the Upper and Lower Avon Navigation and the council of Evesham, two for Stourport, two for the Staffordshire and Worcestershire