London and the Kingdom - Volume II | Page 9

far as Leadenhall and Gracechurch. The civic
authorities were so pleased with the result of his first efforts that they
assisted him with a loan of £1,000 to perfect his work.(59) Ten years
later (1591) the famous Italian engineer--of "fire-ship" fame--Frederico
Gianibelli obtained the consent of the Court of Aldermen to erect new
water-works at Tyburn for the purpose of providing the city with a
better supply.(60) In 1593 Beavis Bulmer, another foreigner (to judge
from his name), obtained a lease for 500 years permitting him to set up
an engine at Broken Wharf for the purpose of supplying water to the
inhabitants of the city. The Court of Aldermen granted him the use of

the green-yard at Leadenhall for putting together his engine, whilst the
court of Common Council advanced him the sum of £1,000 on easy
terms.(61) Soon after the granting of Bulmer's lease the Common
Council conceded to Henry Shaw a right to convey water from Fogwell
pond, Smithfield, and to supply it to anyone willing to pay him for it,
for a similar term of 500 years.(62)
(M19)
At length a scheme was started at the opening of the seventeenth
century which not only proved itself equal to the task of supplying the
ever-increasing population of London with an adequate supply of water,
but was destined in after years to render its undertakers rich "beyond
the dreams of avarice." The New River Company, the original shares of
which are of almost fabulous value at the present day, had its
commencement in an Act of Parliament (3 James I, c. 18) which
empowered the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and their
successors at any time to make an open trench(63) for the purpose of
bringing a fresh stream of running water to the north parts of the city
from springs at Chadwell and Amwell, co. Herts. Whilst showing
themselves ready and anxious to render the city more healthy and less
subject to epidemics by cleansing the city's ditches of all filth and
draining Finsbury and the Moorfields,(64) the civic authorities were
appalled at the enormity of their own proposals, and hesitated to carry
out what at that time appeared to be an engineering task of stupendous
difficulty. Three years elapsed and nothing was done. Offers were
made by various individuals to execute the work for them, but these
were declined.(65) At length, on the 28th March, 1609, Hugh
Middleton, a goldsmith of London, but of Welsh extraction, declared
himself ready to undertake the work and to complete it within four
years. His offer was accepted, and an agreement was drawn up and
executed on the 21st April.(66)
(M20)
Notwithstanding the lords of the council having been desired by the
lord mayor to instruct the Justices of the Peace of Hertfordshire and
Middlesex to assist Middleton and his men in carrying out their

work,(67) the undertaking met with great opposition. Among the
various objections raised to the New River scheme was one to the
effect that the municipal authorities had done nothing in the business
themselves, but had by Act of Common Council irrevocably conveyed
their whole interest in fee simple to Middleton, who was carrying out
the work "for his own private benefit." To this objection answer was
made that if the mayor and citizens would not adventure upon so
uncertain a work Middleton deserved the greater commendation in
adventuring his money and labour for the good of the city, and if the
city was benefited and the country not prejudiced Middleton deserved
all that he gained.(68) A bill was introduced into parliament to repeal
the Acts authorising the construction of the New River, and a
committee appointed (20 June, 1610) to survey the damages caused or
likely to be caused by the work,(69) and report thereon to the House.
"Much ado there is also in the House," wrote a contemporary to his
friend,(70) "about the work undertaken and far advanced already by
Middleton, of the cutting of a river and bringing it to London from ten
or twelve miles off, through the grounds of many men who, for their
particular interest, do strongly oppose themselves to it, and are like (as
'tis said) to overthrow it all." The bill was opposed by the City. A
deputation consisting of two aldermen, the Town Clerk and the City
Remembrancer was appointed (25 May, 1610) to wait upon Sir John
Herbert, one of the principal Secretaries of State, Sir Julius Cæsar,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other influential members of
parliament, for the purpose of entreating them to use their efforts to
prevent the repeal of the statutes on the ground that the stream of fresh
water which would thereby be brought to the north parts of the city
would tend to the preservation of health; that the work had