Stoke St Gregory History Pages
River Parrett - See HERE for Edward Pocock story (06/10/24)
The Name
There is no agreement on the origin of the name Parrett, but several derivations from the Celtic languages have been suggested. It may have come from the Welsh pared, a partition, and that it was the name which the native people of Somerset gave to the river because it was at one time the dividing line between themselves and the Saxons. Another possible source is the Welsh Peraidd meaning the sweet or delicious river, although this would seem unlikely if describing our local stretch. An alternative explanation, again with possible Welsh connections, is a derivation from Pedair or Pedride from pedr meaning four and the Old Cornish Rit meaning flow, which in this case would relate to the four waterways, the Tone, Yeo, Isle and Parrett, which have all joined by the time the waters reach Burrowbridge. In its time it has also been known as Fluvius Paredoe, Peryddon, Peret, Langport River and even the Great River.
The Confluence of the Tone and Parrett
We do know, however, that the Parrett was established as the border between the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex and the Brythonic kingdom of Dumnonia in 658, following the Dumnonians' defeat at the Battle of Peonnum. This natural border remained for almost a century, when further conflicts led to the border being moved west to its current location between the modern counties of Somerset and Devon. It has also been noted that various Somerset dialect words are pronounced differently on either side of the river. In particular 'rhyne', the local word for a drainage channel, rhymes with 'green' to the east and 'fine' to the west.
Navigation
There is some evidence of ancient wharves along the river that would suggest that the Parrett was used in Roman times as a link between Ilchester and the Bristol Channel. Since medieval times, however, the Parrett has been a known waterway used to carry goods inland. Until the end of the17th century this would have been by small craft, but during the next hundred it experienced a boom period. Improvements to the river co-incided with the formation of the partnership between George Stuckey, merchant, and Thomas Bagehot, maltster.
In 1836 the Parrett Navigation Company was formed to improve navigation on the River Parrett, Tolls were introduced to pay for the improvements by the Company, which was owned by Vincent (son of George) Stuckey and Walter (son of Thomas) Bagehot. Before this, maintenance of the banks had been the responsibility of the owners of the surrounding land.
Until railway competition became important, after 1853, up to 60,000 tons of goods were moved up and down the river each year. Although the neighbouring town of Langport saw the greatest benefit from this traffic, Stoke, especially it's eastern end also did well. Many boats were owned and run by local families, some of whom built new houses along the river and at Stanmoor. By 1900 the boom was over and barge traffic became rare.
As with other Bristol Channel rivers,
The Parrett has its own Bore
Burrowbridge
At the confluence of the Tone, Burrowbridge became an important meeting place for boatmen on the Parrett, frequenting the King Alfred pub and the now closed King William, a little further upstream. The new stone bridge was opened in 1826, the original design in cast iron having been deemed too expensive. The right to charge tolls for the bridge was auctioned annually at the Langport Arms Hotel. Another village pub, originally called The George, was situated near the bank of the Parrett. It became known as the Black Smock. Emrhys Coate recounted the tale that the landlord, his grandfather would hang a black smock outside the pub, where it could be seen by boatmen on the river. This would be a signal that he needed some particular item, or that he had goods to be collected.
Taking Tolls at Burrowbridge
Edward Pocock - Victorian Boatman & Beer House Keeper of Athelney
Edward Pocock, son of William and Anne Pocock, was baptised in Stoke parish church on 6th October 1822. He grew up in a cottage on Silver Street - what is now the footpath on the river bank between Athelney and Stanmoor Bridge. As his father and many of the local residents were, he became a boatman on the Parrett and the Tone. He married Mary Boobyer and in 1851 was still living in the family home with their two baby children and Mary’s brother Jacob. By 1861 the family had moved to the opposite bank of the river and he is recorded as being a Beer House Keeper (possibly of the old King’s Head that was later in the Winchester family). He had not given up his boating career as he is again recorded as Boatman in the 1871 census. Mary had died and Edward had remarried to Eliza Winslade. Two of his sons were now boatmen as well.
Tragedy struck the family in 1871 when Edward's boat collided with the pier of the railway bridge over the River Parrett. The Bridgwater Mercury and Western Counties Herald reported the inquest details on 4th October:
THE FATAL BARGE ACCIDENT AT BRIDGWATER.
The inquiry into the cause of death of Edward POCOCK was resumed before Mr. MUNCKTON, coroner, on Thursday, at the Railway Hotel, Durston, when Mr. A. G. PAIN, solicitor, of Bridgwater, attended to watch the proceedings on behalf of the relatives of the deceased, and Mr. COOPER, engineer, represented the Great Western Railway Company.
James WINCHESTER, boatman, said: On Thursday last I found the body of the deceased in the river Parret, at Bridgwater, about one hundred yards above the new railway bridge, where the tide had left it. The boat which sunk belonged to the deceased.
The Coroner: And I suppose you will admit that it was a very rotten boat – that nothing could be more rotten; in fact, as we say in Somersetshire, it was as rotten as tinder?
- Witness: Well, she had been in use about thirty or forty years, but there are many “worser” boats.
A juror here said that a few months ago between £20 and £30 were expended in the repair of the boat.
The Coroner: I think the jurymen who saw the boat will agree with me that the bottom part was as rotten as possible.
A juror said its rottenness showed more now that it was partly broken up, and another juryman said he had not yet seen the boat.
The Coroner: If you have any doubt about it I will have some of the materials brought before you.
A juror: Some of the planks at the bottom of the boat were rotten, but the sides were very good.
Another juror said he heard the deceased had recently said he intended to have a new bottom put to the boat.
Mr. COOPER said if it was considered that the Railway Company was involved in any way he should like to see the boat himself, when he should be prepared to give his own evidence respecting it.
The Coroner said he thought Mr. COOPER should be afforded this opportunity, and as the matter was a very important one the inquiry would stand adjourned for the purpose. The adjournment would be attended with some expense to the county and inconvenience to himself and the jury, but they must do their duty.
After conferring with the jury and with Mr. COOPER, who said he had to be in London on the morrow, the inquest was adjourned until the following Monday, at Durston, at one o'clock.
The inquest on the body of Edward POCOCK was resumed at the Railway Hotel, Durston, on Monday, by Mr. MUNCKTON. Mr. A. G. PAIN, of Bridgwater, represented the family of the deceased.
The Coroner explained that the inquest was adjourned to enable Mr. COOPER, the engineer of the company, to examine the boat. He was now present, and would speak as to the boat, and of the navigation of the river.
Mr. Barnard Sussex COOPER, district engineer to the Great Western Railway Company, said he knew the “rolling” bridge over the river Parret, at Bridgwater, and it was worked by machinery. It was supported by two columns, standing abreast in the river, allowing the rolling part of the bridge to pass to and fro over them. There were 60ft. of a clear passage for shipping between the pillars and the abutments. An Act of Parliament, of 1866 and 1867, gave the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company power to construct this bridge. There were no stipulations, except that it should be constructed in any way that might be deemed expedient or preferable. There was a short curve in the river near the docks, but it ran straight some 100ft, as it advanced towards the bridge.
In answer to Mr. PAIN, as to whether there was a plan of the bridge presented on the passing of the Act, Mr. COOPER replied that the construction of the bridge was left entirely to the company.
Mr. COOPER further stated that he had examined the remains of the boat, of which he produced some specimens, which were very much decayed. Portions of the sides were better than the bottom, but altogether the boat was as rotten as it possibly could be.
One of the jury said the boat would have lasted for years but for the accident, and that £20 had been laid out a short time ago by the deceased in repairing it.
The Coroner said Mr. PLIMSOLL[?] was now doing a good deal for mariners, and he (the coroner) was inclined to think that his attention should only be directed to vessels on the high seas, but also to flat bottom boats in the river Parret. There could be no doubt that the boat in question was in a very dangerous and rotten condition.
One of the boatmen present said the accident would not have happened if it had not been for the pillars of the bridge.
A juror said there were not sixty feet of water between the pillars and the abutments when, as often was the case, two vessels were lying abreast close by.
Mr. COOPER remarked that when that was the case boatmen should take more care in passing.
The Coroner said he did not propose to call any more evidence, but if the jury thought proper they could do so. The requirements of the Act of Parliament authorising the construction of the bridge appeared to have been complied with. If they had not been so it would, of course, have been his duty to have gone further into the matter. It must be clearly understood by boatmen traversing the river that in dangerous places they should use extra care. It seemed to him that in this instance they should have waited a little longer after the passing of the “bore” before attempting to proceed. About the month of October the “bore” was much stronger than at other times of the year, being very dangerous to navigation, and it was therefore necessary that those engaged in the navigation of the river should be very careful. The boat was in a very rotten condition, and ought to have been condemned; and he had no doubt that the condition of the boat partly contributed to the accident. If the jury were satisfied that death occurred by accident they would, of course, return a verdict to that effect; and if they wished to say anything with reference to the bridge they could add it as a rider.
After a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death;” and added their opinion as a rider to the effect that the pillars were standing too far into the river, and were dangerous to navigation.
The Coroner said he was quite sure Mr. COOPER would inform the company of the opinion of the jury, and Mr. COOPER promised to do so.
The Foreman said the jury thought the widow of the deceased should be in some way compensated."
But this was not the end of tragedy for the Pocock clan. Ten years later the Parrett claimed another Athelney boatman. Robert and Sarah Pocock, who also lived in a cottage on the north west bank of the Tone, had a son Charles, who also followed the boating tradition. He lost his life in 1886 in a tragic accident where his own son, also Charles, also a boatman, managed to get him back on board, but he later died at home:
"SAD DEATH. - Charles POCOCK, a well-known boatman, of Boroughbridge, died under sad circumstances on Thursday last. It is understood that on Tuesday last before proceeding with his barge to Boroughbridge by the evening tide he drank rather heavily, and was seen to be unable to conduct the boat properly. At Somerset Bridge, by some means or other, he fell overboard, when the tide was running up rapidly. His eldest son Charles, who was in the boat at the time, saw him rise to the surface on the opposite side of the boat from which he fell, and managed to catch him hold by the hair, and pull him into the boat. It is supposed that deceased when in the water swallowed a quantity of water, and he was obliged to remain in bed up to Friday last, when he succumbed. Much sympathy is felt with the widow, who has a family of ten children."