Jump to content

Thames Navigation Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Thames Commissioners)

The Thames Navigation Commission managed the River Thames in southern England from 1751 to 1866. In particular, they were responsible for installing or renovating many of the locks on the river in the 18th and early 19th centuries

History

[edit]

The first commission concerned with the River Thames was the Oxford-Burcot Commission, appointed in the Thames Commission of Sewers Act 1605. It took responsibility for the river between Oxford and Burcot.

Thames and Isis Navigation Act 1750
Act of Parliament
Long titleAn Act for the better carrying on and regulating the Navigation of the Rivers Thames and Isis, from the City of London Westward, to the Town of Cricklade, in the County of Wilts.
Citation24 Geo. 2. c. 8
Dates
Royal assent22 March 1751
Other legislation
Repeals/revokesThames Navigation Act 1694

The Oxford-Burcot Commission was reasonably successful. Thus, the permanent Thames Navigation Commissioners were appointed through a further act under King George II in 1751, the Thames and Isis Navigation Act 1750 (24 Geo. 2. c. 8). This commission had similar powers covering the whole of the river down to Staines as far as a point marked by the London Stone; below this point the rights and responsibilities for managing the Thames were vested in the City of London Corporation. Earlier commissions had been created by acts as early as 1695, although these had limited terms.[1]

The Thames Conservancy was established in 1857 to take over duties from the City of London because of falling revenue from boat traffic. Not long after, in 1866, it was considered best to have the navigation of the whole river under a single management, so the Thames Navigation Commission was subsumed by the Thames Conservancy.

Locks built by the Thames Navigation Commission

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Oliver, Stuart (June 2010). "Navigability and the improvement of the river Thames, 1605-1815". The Geographical Journal. 176 (2): 164–177. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00354.x. JSTOR 40835641.

Further reading

[edit]