At the close of 1846, Mr. Cubitt certified that a depth of six feet of water had been obtained from Lincombe to Gloucester, and the Commission consequently met on the 1st of January, 1847, and ordered tolls to be levied at all the locks in the terms of the Act of Parliament. Some opposition was offered, both by Gloucester Commissioners and by traders on the river; but on Mr. Cubitt’s certificate the step of raising tolls was obligatory on the Commission. There can be no doubt that at the time of Mr. Cubitt making the certificate there was six feet of water in the river, though every one saw that under the system of dredging it would be impossible to maintain that depth in all seasons of the year. At the annual meeting of the Commission in September, 1847, the traders complained that the depth of water in the river between Worcester and Gloucester was not six feet, and expressed their belief that it could not be secured without additional locks and weirs. The committee of works reported to the same effect, and declared the dredging a failure. A committee was, therefore, appointed to consider the best means of completing the improvement between Diglis and Gloucester. This committee reported to a meeting of the Commission, held on the 13th December, 1847, recommending that application should be made to Parliament for powers to put a weir in at Tewkesbury, and to raise a dam at Over bridge, near Gloucester, to divert the water into the other channel and to scour out the silt accumulating there. The meeting assumed a very unpleasant character—such personal and improper remarks being made that Sir John Pakington, at one time, left the chair, but was induced to return. The opposing commissioners negatived that part of the proposal which related to the dam at the Over bridge by a majority of seven to four. Preparation was therefore made to apply to Parliament for the Tewkesbury weir alone; but Parliament had, at this time, taken it into their heads that a “preliminary inquiry” ought to be made on the spot into measures of this sort; and, accordingly, in February, 1848, sent Mr. Cockburn Curtis, a young engineer, to take evidence, and make a report to the Admiralty. At Gloucester he took a show of hands as to whether the Commissioners had kept faith with the public in imposing toll or not! Mr. Curtis’s report was in accordance with the unfriendly influence then prevailing at the Admiralty, and he recommended a scheme of his own instead of the Tewkesbury weir—a scheme which few people, besides Mr. Curtis himself, have ever been able to comprehend. With this report in their hands, the interested opponents of all improvement on the river waited on those members of Parliament whom they could in any way influence, stole a march on the promoters, and threw out the bill most unexpectedly on the second reading by a majority of 104 to 91. This was on the 6th March, 1848.