Chapter 6

Hugh Middleton and the New River Company, 1609-1613.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 trench63for 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,64the civic authorities were appalled at the enormity of their own proposals, and hesitated to carry out what at that time[pg 021]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.65At 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.66Opposition to Middleton's work.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,67the 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[pg 022]prejudiced Middleton deserved all that he gained.68A 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,69and 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 already been carried ten miles, and that Middleton had already expended more than £3,000 in carrying it out.71[pg 023]Pecuniary assistance granted to Middleton by James, May, 1612.Middleton was eventually allowed to proceed with his work, but the delay that had taken place made it necessary for him to apply to the Common Council for an extension of time within which to complete it. The City readily consented to grant him an extension of five years (27 Feb., 1611).72No application for pecuniary assistance however appears to have been made to the City at this or any other time whilst the work was in progress by Middleton, although he lacked funds and was compelled in the following year to seek the assistance of James himself. The king was familiar with Middleton and his undertaking, for the New River was carried past his own hunting-lodge of Theobalds. In May (1612) he agreed to pay half the cost of the whole work on condition that Middleton would convey to him one-half of the property. Middleton could not do otherwise than accept the king's offer, and in the following August executed a deed conveying thirty-six shares to James.73The New River opened, 29 Sept., 1613.With royalty at his back Middleton was enabled to complete his undertaking, and the New River was opened with befitting ceremony on the very day (29 Sept., 1613) that Thomas,74his elder brother,[pg 024]was elected to the mayoralty chair for the ensuing year.Compulsory use of the New River water, 1616.Even then the whole enterprise might have failed had not pressure been brought to bear to make the inhabitants of the city use the New River water to the exclusion of other supplies. In 1616, three years after the New River had been opened, the lords of the council wrote (23 Dec.) to the mayor and aldermen informing them that it was the king's wish that, inasmuch as few persons used the new supply, the city authorities should see that all such houses as could conveniently use it should be made to use it, for it was not to be supposed, said they, that two Acts of Parliament and an Act of Common Council affecting the health and safety of the city should be passed to no other purpose than to injure those who undertook so useful a work on the part of the city.75So again, in the following year (1617), when the brewers of London wished to erect waterworks on their own account at Dowgate, they were stopped by order of the Privy Council, and told to take their water from the New River, which had been made at great expense, "was of great consequence to his majesty's service, and deserved all due encouragement."76Even the civic authorities themselves were forbidden (11 April, 1634) to improve the supply from Tyburn, on which they had already expended much money, for fear of injuring the interests of the shareholders of the New River Company,77who had but recently received their first dividend.78[pg 025]A City loan of £3,000 to Middleton, Sept., 1614.Soon after the completion of the New River, Middleton applied to the City for a loan. The whole of his own capital had been sunk in his vast undertaking, and he required an advance of £3,000. The loan was granted (8 Sept., 1614) for three years at six per cent., security being given by his brother Thomas, the lord mayor, Robert, another brother, and Robert Bateman.79Middleton created a baronet, Oct., 1622.In 1622 (19 Oct.) James conferred on Middleton a baronetcy—a new hereditary title recently established for supplying the king with money to put down the Irish rebellion.80Middleton, however, appears to have been too poor to pay the sum of £1,000 or so for which the new title was purchasable; at any rate the money was not exacted.81A baronet in the city of London (by the way) enjoyed the special privilege of exemption from serving as sheriff. "It was unfit," wrote James to the lord mayor (11 Nov., 1613), "that a gentleman called to the quality of a baronet should be afterwards called to be sheriff," and he declared that he would have "no such precedent."82The City votes Middleton a gold chain, Nov., 1623.A year after Middleton had been created a baronet the Court of Aldermen voted him (13 Nov., 1623) a gold chain of the value of 200 marks in recognition of his services in supplying the city with water, and thereby preventing the spread of disastrous fires. Only the night before (12 Nov.) "a very[pg 026]terrible and fearful fire" had broken out, destroying many houses, and among them that of Sir William Cockaine, in Broad Street, and causing damage to the extent of £40,000 and more;83and the Court of Aldermen, in recording their vote, testified to the great danger which would have threatened the city had not a plentiful supply of water, thanks to Middleton, been at hand.84The chain was set with diamonds and had the City's arms by way of pendant. Middleton himself being a goldsmith of repute was allowed to supervise the making of it.85Death of Middleton, 10 Dec, 1631.All this time the City's loan to Middleton remained outstanding, and indeed it remained unrepaid at the time of his death in December, 1631, a circumstance which shows that the greatest engineer of the age died worse off than many believe. After considerable hesitation the Court of Aldermen instructed the City Solicitor to recover the money by suing on Middleton's bond.86Grant of £1,000 to Lady Middleton, 1634.If other evidence were wanting to show that Middleton died in reduced circumstances there is the fact that his widow was compelled, soon after her husband's death, to seek satisfaction from the City for losses sustained by his estate by means of "many breaches made in the pipes of water and otherwise upon occasion of divers great fires." After considering the matter for close upon two years the Common Council at length agreed (2 Oct., 1634) to raise a sum of £1,000 for her by assessment on the[pg 027]wards, but hesitated whether to pay the money to Lady Middleton for her own use or as executrix only of the will of her late husband, "to be distributed according to the custome of this Citty whereof he dyed a Freeman." The court added this condition to the gift, viz.: that the City should be allowed to set up cocks in connection with the New River pipes in each ward, to be used in cases of fire, in place of cutting the pipes, as had been the custom on such occasions.87In 1635 Middleton's loan remained still owing to the City, and the £1,000 promised to his widow was not yet collected. On the 12th May Lady Middleton petitioned the Court of Aldermen to allow the £1,000 to be accepted in part payment of her late husband's debt and she would endeavour forthwith to discharge the remainder. To this the court acceded.88The New River Company petition the City for an immediate grant of all that had been conveyed to Middleton. 10 June, 1726.In 1726 the New River Company petitioned the Common Council for a direct conveyance to be made to the company of all the statutory rights and privileges the City had originally made over to Middleton. The reason given for this request was that the company found themselves obliged at the time to prosecute a number of trespassers, and that it had been advised by counsel that in order to get a verdict in the company's favour it would have to prove its title, "through all times and through all the mean conveyances," from the passing of the original Act of Parliament to the present time. The company represented that such a proceeding would involve enormous difficulty, but this difficulty could be got over if the City would consent to give an[pg 028]immediate grant to the company of all that they had formerly conveyed to Middleton, and upon the same terms. The matter, urged the company, was one that affected the interests of the City, for unless the offenders were punished the water of the New River would continue to be intercepted before it reached the city. The petition was referred to the City Lands Committee for consideration.89The plantation of Ulster.Just at the time when the City was meditating a transfer of their powers under the New River Acts to Middleton, a scheme was being set on foot for colonising a vast tract of land in the north of Ireland, which, after the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel in 1607, was declared to be confiscated to the Crown. In October, 1608, commissioners had been appointed to draw up a plan for the proposed colonisation, or, as it was called, the "Plantation of Ulster," and by the following January (1609) their reports were sent in.90The next step was the formulating of orders and conditions to be observed by the undertakers of the plantation, and by the end of January these were ready, although they do not appear to have been published before the following March.91The object of promulgating these orders and conditions was to attract persons to take a share in the work of the plantation, not so much with the view of benefiting themselves as of doing service to the Crown and[pg 029]commonwealth. Whatever attraction the scheme as put forth in this Collection of Orders and Conditions—often referred to in subsequent proceedings as the "printed book"—may have had for others, it had none for the Londoner.92The city merchant and trader required to be assured of some substantial benefit to be gained by himself before he would embark in any such undertaking, and in order to give him this assurance he was asked to consider a long list of "motives and reasons to induce the City of London to undertake plantation in the north of Ireland."93Motives and reasons to encourage the City to take part in the plantation, 28 May, 1609.In this document, bearing date the 28th May, 1609, the king offered to make over to the city of London the city of Derry and another place near the castle of Coleraine with adjacent territory, and with exceptional advantages as to custom dues and admiralty jurisdiction. As an inducement to accept the king's offer the citizens were assured that the country was well watered and suitable for breeding cattle; it grew hemp and flax better than elsewhere; it was well stocked with game and had excellent sea and river fisheries, and it contained such abundance of provisions as not only to supply the plantation, but also assist towards the relief of the London poor. Besides these advantages the city, which was so overcrowded "that one tradesman was scarcely able to live by another," would have an opportunity of getting rid of some of its surplus population, and at the same time render itself less liable to infectious diseases. If the citizens wanted a precedent for what[pg 030]they were now called upon to undertake, they were invited to look at what Bristol had done for Dublin in the reign of Henry II. The plantation of Dublin by Bristol, which reflected "eternal commendation" on the latter city, had done much towards civilising and securing that part of Ireland, and it was greatly to be hoped that the precedent so set would now be followed by London, more especially as the advantages to be gained were far greater.The matter laid before a special Court of Aldermen, 1 July, 1609.A goodly prospect indeed; but still the enterprise failed to commend itself to the Londoner. A month went by and nothing was done. At length, on Saturday, the 1st July, the matter was brought direct to the attention of a special Court of Aldermen and "divers selected comoners" of the city by the lords of the council. Again the citizens were assured that by taking a part in the work of the plantation they would not only be doing a work acceptable unto God but one which would be at once honourable and profitable to themselves.Referred to the livery companies.The project was received with favour to the extent that it was resolved to invite the livery companies to consider the matter, and to appoint committees to make suggestions to the court in writing by the following Wednesday (5 July),94and precepts to the companies were issued accordingly. The reply sent by the companies appears to have been considered unsatisfactory, for on the following Saturday (8 July) the mayor issued another precept rebuking them for the attitude taken up by their representatives, who had not, in his opinion, paid[pg 031]sufficient attention to the matter nor fully realised the motives and reasons which had been propounded. He bade them reconsider the matter and send their representatives to the Guildhall on Friday, 14th July, with "such reasons and demands as are fit to be remembered, required or considered of in the undertaking of so great and honourable an action" set down in writing.95Accordingly, on the 14th, the committees of the various companies appeared before the Court of Aldermen with their answer in writing, and a deputation was nominated to carry their answer to the lords and to hear anything more that they might have to say on the matter.96The lords of the council being angry with the companies for sending in their answer before a conference had been held with them, the Recorder was instructed to inform them that the companies had acted under a mistake, and intended nothing undutiful in what they had done, and a deputation was again nominated to confer with their lordships.97This was on Tuesday, the 18th July.A conference with the lords of the council.Before the end of the week "a full and large conference" took place, and the lords of the council so satisfied the representatives of the companies of the profitable nature of the undertaking that they were encouraged to become adventurers. It was an[pg 032]understood thing between the parties that the citizens should send their own representatives over to Ireland to view the property, and if the undertaking proved to be otherwise than had been represented, and unprofitable, they were to be at liberty to withdraw from it altogether. The result of the conference was signified to the masters and wardens of the several companies on Monday, the 24th July, by precept of the mayor, who enjoined them to call together their companies on the following Wednesday, and after explaining the whole matter to them, to learn from each individual member what amount he was prepared to contribute towards the furtherance of so "famous a project," and to cause the same to be entered in a book "to the intent his majesty may be informed of the readiness of this city in a matter of such great consequence." A note was to be made of any who refused to contribute, and those who failed to attend the summons were to be fined. No time was to be lost, for the lords of the council expected a return of the amount to be contributed by the companies by Friday (28 July).98Commissioners appointed by the City to view the plantation, 1 Aug., 1609.On Sunday, the 30th July, a deputation of aldermen and commoners again waited on the lords of the council, and received permission to elect four wise, grave and discreet citizens to cross over to Ireland and view the proposed plantation. On Tuesday (1 Aug.) the Common Council nominated John Broad, goldsmith, Hugh Hamersley, haberdasher, Robert Treswell, painter-stainer, and John Rowley, draper, to be the City's commissioners for the purpose.99[pg 033]The system of deception practised on them.The lords of the council anticipated the arrival of the City's agents in Ireland by directing Sir Thomas Philips to accompany them in their travels, and by sending instructions to Sir Arthur Chichester, the deputy, to see that they were well supplied with necessaries and were assisted in every way. The latter was more particularly instructed to use great care in the selection of discreet persons to conduct and accompany them, men who from their experience and understanding might be able, "both by discourse and reason, to controule whatsoever any man shall reporte either out of ignorance or malice, and to give the undertakors satisfaccon when they shalbe mistaken or not well informed of any particular."100The conductors were to take care to lead the Londoners by the best roads, and to lodge them on their journeys where they might, if possible, receive English entertainment in Englishmen's houses. The lords of the council at the same time forwarded to Sir Arthur Chichester a copy of the "Project," and desired him to see that those who conducted the City's agents were "well prepared before-hand to confirme and strengthen every part thereof by demonstracon as they may plainly apprehend and conceive the commodities to be of good use and profit." On the other hand, matters of distaste, such as fear of the Irish, of the soldiers, of cess and such like must not be so much as named. These could be set right afterwards and were only matters of discipline and order. Lastly, if the Londoners should happen to express a wish[pg 034]respecting anything, "whether it be the fishing, the admirallty, or any other particuler wchmay serve for a motyve to enduce them," the same was to be conceded at once, and no private interests, whether of Sir Arthur Chichester himself or any other individual, were to be allowed to stand in the way.These instructions were carried out to the letter, and the City's representatives, as soon as they set foot in Ireland, were treated right royally. Sir John Davys, one of the king's commissioners engaged in surveying the country, wrote home on the 28th August101: "The Londoners are now come, and exceeding welcome to us. Wee all use our best rhetorick to persuade them to go on wththeir plantation, wchwill assure the whole island to the crowne of England forever. They like and praise the cuntrey very much, specially the Banne and the river of Loghfoyle." He goes on to say that one of the City's agents had fallen sick, and would have returned, but the lord-deputy and the rest had used every means to comfort and retain him, "lest this accident shold discourage his fellow cittizens." In other respects, too, they saw the country at its best, for they arrived at a time when the Irish were flocking in and making their submission in far better fashion than they had done for years. So pleased were they with what they saw that they assured Sir Arthur Chichester that the City would certainly undertake the plantation upon the report they were about to make. The deputy on his part assured them that if the Londoners did not undertake the[pg 035]work they would be enemies to themselves. He suggested that they should send home to the lord mayor some samples of the commodities of the country. The suggestion was adopted, and he obtained for them some raw hides, tallow, salmon, herrings, eels, pipe-staves, beef and the like at a cheap rate. He also procured them some iron ore and promised to furnish them with samples of lead and copper.102Report of commissioners, 28 Nov., 1609.By November the City's agents had returned to London. On the 28th they appeared before the Court of Aldermen and presented their report, together with an answer made by Sir Arthur Chichester to certain questions they had put to him on doubtful points, and also a map or "plott" of the country they had viewed. The court in the first place authorised the Chamberlain to re-imburse them the sum of £100 which they had found it necessary to borrow to supplement the allowance of £300 originally allowed for their expenses by the court;103and in the next gave orders for all the documents to be enrolled by the Remembrancer "in a faier booke, wherein the letters and other things comytted to his charge and care are recorded and entred," and also in the Journal by the Clerk of the Orphans.104The viewers' report came before the court of Common Council on the 2nd December,[pg 036]when it was openly read and referred to a committee specially appointed.105The City's proposal to undertake the plantation and to raise the sum of £15,000 for the purpose, 15 Dec., 1609.On Friday, the 15th, the committee were ready with their report. They had met five times, and had held long debate and consultation on the various matters incident to "so great a business," and on each and all of these they had something to say. As to the financial part of the undertaking they were of opinion that the Common Council should pass an Act for raising a sum of £15,000, and no more, upon the members of the wealthier livery companies, by poll, the inferior companies being spared. The report having been approved by the court a deputation was appointed to wait upon the Privy Council with the City's answer on the following Sunday (17 December).106The City's offer to raise £15,000 rejected as insufficient.When the lords of the council came to consider the City's proposals they found much to their liking, but the clause which restricted the amount of money to be furnished by the City to £15,000, and no more, was "much distasted" by them, seeing that that sum would scarcely suffice to buy up private interests, let alone the work of plantation. The City's offer in this respect was therefore rejected, and the Common Council had therefore to increase its offer to £20,000.107The sum of £20,000 levied on livery companies according to corn assessment.Early in the following year (8 Jan., 1610) a committee was appointed, including the four commissioners who had viewed the plantation, to confer with commissioners appointed by the Privy Council as to the best means of carrying out the work. In the meantime the sum of £5,000, or one-fourth part of the £20,000 required, was to be immediately levied[pg 037]on the principal companies according to their corn assessment.108Some of the companies complained of the unfairness of assessing them according to the existing corn rate, inasmuch as a great change had taken place since that rate had been made: "Divers companies are decayed and others growne to bee of greater liability, so as particuler men of some companies are now exceedinglie overcharged and others greatelye favoured." It was too late to make any alteration in the payment of the first two instalments, as the plantation was to commence in the summer,109but a new assessment for corn was made in July with the view of making the rate more equitable.110The "Articles" of the plantation signed, 28 Jan., 1610.On the 28th January (1610) the committee appointed by the court of Common Council came to terms with the Privy Council, and a special agreement was signed by both parties embodying all the essential conditions of the plantation in twenty-seven articles. A period of seven years was allowed the City to make such other reasonable demands as time might show to be needful.111The formation of the "Irish Society."The articles were read at the Common Council held two days later (30 Jan.), when it was decided[pg 038]to form a company in the city of London for the purpose of carrying out the plantation, the company to consist of a governor, a deputy-governor and twenty-four assistants, of whom the Recorder of the city was to be one. The governor and five of the assistants were to be aldermen of the city, the rest commoners.112On the 4th February the lords of the council informed Sir Arthur Chichester that the "noble and worthy work of the plantation in Ulster undertaken by the city" was concluded, and the articles signed. The city had chosen a governor and a council of assistants for the more orderly disposition of their affairs. They had also elected John Rowley to be their agent, and he and others would shortly set out for Ireland. The lords commended him to the deputy's care, and he was instructed to see that they were furnished with a sufficient number of labourers for felling timber, digging stone and burning lime. Sir Arthur's services in forwarding a work which the king had so much at heart would not go, they assured him, unrewarded.113The City forced to surrender 2,000 acres of their Irish estate, July, 1610.The articles of the plantation had not long been signed before the government broke faith with the City, and the latter were asked to forego no less than 2,000 acres of land agreed to be assigned to them. This iniquitous proposal on the part of the king's commissioners was laid before a special court of Common Council (7 June, 1610) by Alderman Cockaine, the governor of the Irish Society. After long deliberation the court decided to stand upon their rights, and[pg 039]rejected the proposal. Six weeks later (22 July) they saw fit to change their minds, and they agreed to surrender the 2,000 acres whilst refusing to accede to other demands.114Difficulties experienced in raising the £20,000 for the plantation.It was no easy task the City had undertaken. Great difficulty was experienced in getting the companies to pay up their quota of the £20,000 to be raised for the purpose of the plantation. The wardens of the Mercers, the Clothworkers and other companies were committed to prison by order of the Court of Aldermen for refusing or failing to pay the sums at which their respective companies had been assessed.115The masters or wardens of the companies were not so much to blame as the individual members of the companies who refused to pay. Thus, a sum of £200 due from Sir John Spencer, the rich Clothworker, remained unpaid at his death. It was eventually paid by his son-in-law, Lord Compton, after much solicitation.116Even when the money was got in there was a difficulty in forwarding it to its destination, so infested was the Irish coast with pirates who lay in wait for the money sent by the City for the works at Coleraine.117

Hugh Middleton and the New River Company, 1609-1613.

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 trench63for 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,64the civic authorities were appalled at the enormity of their own proposals, and hesitated to carry out what at that time[pg 021]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.65At 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

Opposition to Middleton's work.

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,67the 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[pg 022]prejudiced Middleton deserved all that he gained.68A 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,69and 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 already been carried ten miles, and that Middleton had already expended more than £3,000 in carrying it out.71

Pecuniary assistance granted to Middleton by James, May, 1612.

Middleton was eventually allowed to proceed with his work, but the delay that had taken place made it necessary for him to apply to the Common Council for an extension of time within which to complete it. The City readily consented to grant him an extension of five years (27 Feb., 1611).72No application for pecuniary assistance however appears to have been made to the City at this or any other time whilst the work was in progress by Middleton, although he lacked funds and was compelled in the following year to seek the assistance of James himself. The king was familiar with Middleton and his undertaking, for the New River was carried past his own hunting-lodge of Theobalds. In May (1612) he agreed to pay half the cost of the whole work on condition that Middleton would convey to him one-half of the property. Middleton could not do otherwise than accept the king's offer, and in the following August executed a deed conveying thirty-six shares to James.73

The New River opened, 29 Sept., 1613.

With royalty at his back Middleton was enabled to complete his undertaking, and the New River was opened with befitting ceremony on the very day (29 Sept., 1613) that Thomas,74his elder brother,[pg 024]was elected to the mayoralty chair for the ensuing year.

Compulsory use of the New River water, 1616.

Even then the whole enterprise might have failed had not pressure been brought to bear to make the inhabitants of the city use the New River water to the exclusion of other supplies. In 1616, three years after the New River had been opened, the lords of the council wrote (23 Dec.) to the mayor and aldermen informing them that it was the king's wish that, inasmuch as few persons used the new supply, the city authorities should see that all such houses as could conveniently use it should be made to use it, for it was not to be supposed, said they, that two Acts of Parliament and an Act of Common Council affecting the health and safety of the city should be passed to no other purpose than to injure those who undertook so useful a work on the part of the city.75So again, in the following year (1617), when the brewers of London wished to erect waterworks on their own account at Dowgate, they were stopped by order of the Privy Council, and told to take their water from the New River, which had been made at great expense, "was of great consequence to his majesty's service, and deserved all due encouragement."76Even the civic authorities themselves were forbidden (11 April, 1634) to improve the supply from Tyburn, on which they had already expended much money, for fear of injuring the interests of the shareholders of the New River Company,77who had but recently received their first dividend.78

A City loan of £3,000 to Middleton, Sept., 1614.

Soon after the completion of the New River, Middleton applied to the City for a loan. The whole of his own capital had been sunk in his vast undertaking, and he required an advance of £3,000. The loan was granted (8 Sept., 1614) for three years at six per cent., security being given by his brother Thomas, the lord mayor, Robert, another brother, and Robert Bateman.79

Middleton created a baronet, Oct., 1622.

In 1622 (19 Oct.) James conferred on Middleton a baronetcy—a new hereditary title recently established for supplying the king with money to put down the Irish rebellion.80Middleton, however, appears to have been too poor to pay the sum of £1,000 or so for which the new title was purchasable; at any rate the money was not exacted.81A baronet in the city of London (by the way) enjoyed the special privilege of exemption from serving as sheriff. "It was unfit," wrote James to the lord mayor (11 Nov., 1613), "that a gentleman called to the quality of a baronet should be afterwards called to be sheriff," and he declared that he would have "no such precedent."82

The City votes Middleton a gold chain, Nov., 1623.

A year after Middleton had been created a baronet the Court of Aldermen voted him (13 Nov., 1623) a gold chain of the value of 200 marks in recognition of his services in supplying the city with water, and thereby preventing the spread of disastrous fires. Only the night before (12 Nov.) "a very[pg 026]terrible and fearful fire" had broken out, destroying many houses, and among them that of Sir William Cockaine, in Broad Street, and causing damage to the extent of £40,000 and more;83and the Court of Aldermen, in recording their vote, testified to the great danger which would have threatened the city had not a plentiful supply of water, thanks to Middleton, been at hand.84The chain was set with diamonds and had the City's arms by way of pendant. Middleton himself being a goldsmith of repute was allowed to supervise the making of it.85

Death of Middleton, 10 Dec, 1631.

All this time the City's loan to Middleton remained outstanding, and indeed it remained unrepaid at the time of his death in December, 1631, a circumstance which shows that the greatest engineer of the age died worse off than many believe. After considerable hesitation the Court of Aldermen instructed the City Solicitor to recover the money by suing on Middleton's bond.86

Grant of £1,000 to Lady Middleton, 1634.

If other evidence were wanting to show that Middleton died in reduced circumstances there is the fact that his widow was compelled, soon after her husband's death, to seek satisfaction from the City for losses sustained by his estate by means of "many breaches made in the pipes of water and otherwise upon occasion of divers great fires." After considering the matter for close upon two years the Common Council at length agreed (2 Oct., 1634) to raise a sum of £1,000 for her by assessment on the[pg 027]wards, but hesitated whether to pay the money to Lady Middleton for her own use or as executrix only of the will of her late husband, "to be distributed according to the custome of this Citty whereof he dyed a Freeman." The court added this condition to the gift, viz.: that the City should be allowed to set up cocks in connection with the New River pipes in each ward, to be used in cases of fire, in place of cutting the pipes, as had been the custom on such occasions.87In 1635 Middleton's loan remained still owing to the City, and the £1,000 promised to his widow was not yet collected. On the 12th May Lady Middleton petitioned the Court of Aldermen to allow the £1,000 to be accepted in part payment of her late husband's debt and she would endeavour forthwith to discharge the remainder. To this the court acceded.88

The New River Company petition the City for an immediate grant of all that had been conveyed to Middleton. 10 June, 1726.

In 1726 the New River Company petitioned the Common Council for a direct conveyance to be made to the company of all the statutory rights and privileges the City had originally made over to Middleton. The reason given for this request was that the company found themselves obliged at the time to prosecute a number of trespassers, and that it had been advised by counsel that in order to get a verdict in the company's favour it would have to prove its title, "through all times and through all the mean conveyances," from the passing of the original Act of Parliament to the present time. The company represented that such a proceeding would involve enormous difficulty, but this difficulty could be got over if the City would consent to give an[pg 028]immediate grant to the company of all that they had formerly conveyed to Middleton, and upon the same terms. The matter, urged the company, was one that affected the interests of the City, for unless the offenders were punished the water of the New River would continue to be intercepted before it reached the city. The petition was referred to the City Lands Committee for consideration.89

The plantation of Ulster.

Just at the time when the City was meditating a transfer of their powers under the New River Acts to Middleton, a scheme was being set on foot for colonising a vast tract of land in the north of Ireland, which, after the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel in 1607, was declared to be confiscated to the Crown. In October, 1608, commissioners had been appointed to draw up a plan for the proposed colonisation, or, as it was called, the "Plantation of Ulster," and by the following January (1609) their reports were sent in.90The next step was the formulating of orders and conditions to be observed by the undertakers of the plantation, and by the end of January these were ready, although they do not appear to have been published before the following March.91The object of promulgating these orders and conditions was to attract persons to take a share in the work of the plantation, not so much with the view of benefiting themselves as of doing service to the Crown and[pg 029]commonwealth. Whatever attraction the scheme as put forth in this Collection of Orders and Conditions—often referred to in subsequent proceedings as the "printed book"—may have had for others, it had none for the Londoner.92The city merchant and trader required to be assured of some substantial benefit to be gained by himself before he would embark in any such undertaking, and in order to give him this assurance he was asked to consider a long list of "motives and reasons to induce the City of London to undertake plantation in the north of Ireland."93

Motives and reasons to encourage the City to take part in the plantation, 28 May, 1609.

In this document, bearing date the 28th May, 1609, the king offered to make over to the city of London the city of Derry and another place near the castle of Coleraine with adjacent territory, and with exceptional advantages as to custom dues and admiralty jurisdiction. As an inducement to accept the king's offer the citizens were assured that the country was well watered and suitable for breeding cattle; it grew hemp and flax better than elsewhere; it was well stocked with game and had excellent sea and river fisheries, and it contained such abundance of provisions as not only to supply the plantation, but also assist towards the relief of the London poor. Besides these advantages the city, which was so overcrowded "that one tradesman was scarcely able to live by another," would have an opportunity of getting rid of some of its surplus population, and at the same time render itself less liable to infectious diseases. If the citizens wanted a precedent for what[pg 030]they were now called upon to undertake, they were invited to look at what Bristol had done for Dublin in the reign of Henry II. The plantation of Dublin by Bristol, which reflected "eternal commendation" on the latter city, had done much towards civilising and securing that part of Ireland, and it was greatly to be hoped that the precedent so set would now be followed by London, more especially as the advantages to be gained were far greater.

The matter laid before a special Court of Aldermen, 1 July, 1609.

A goodly prospect indeed; but still the enterprise failed to commend itself to the Londoner. A month went by and nothing was done. At length, on Saturday, the 1st July, the matter was brought direct to the attention of a special Court of Aldermen and "divers selected comoners" of the city by the lords of the council. Again the citizens were assured that by taking a part in the work of the plantation they would not only be doing a work acceptable unto God but one which would be at once honourable and profitable to themselves.

Referred to the livery companies.

The project was received with favour to the extent that it was resolved to invite the livery companies to consider the matter, and to appoint committees to make suggestions to the court in writing by the following Wednesday (5 July),94and precepts to the companies were issued accordingly. The reply sent by the companies appears to have been considered unsatisfactory, for on the following Saturday (8 July) the mayor issued another precept rebuking them for the attitude taken up by their representatives, who had not, in his opinion, paid[pg 031]sufficient attention to the matter nor fully realised the motives and reasons which had been propounded. He bade them reconsider the matter and send their representatives to the Guildhall on Friday, 14th July, with "such reasons and demands as are fit to be remembered, required or considered of in the undertaking of so great and honourable an action" set down in writing.95Accordingly, on the 14th, the committees of the various companies appeared before the Court of Aldermen with their answer in writing, and a deputation was nominated to carry their answer to the lords and to hear anything more that they might have to say on the matter.96

The lords of the council being angry with the companies for sending in their answer before a conference had been held with them, the Recorder was instructed to inform them that the companies had acted under a mistake, and intended nothing undutiful in what they had done, and a deputation was again nominated to confer with their lordships.97This was on Tuesday, the 18th July.

A conference with the lords of the council.

Before the end of the week "a full and large conference" took place, and the lords of the council so satisfied the representatives of the companies of the profitable nature of the undertaking that they were encouraged to become adventurers. It was an[pg 032]understood thing between the parties that the citizens should send their own representatives over to Ireland to view the property, and if the undertaking proved to be otherwise than had been represented, and unprofitable, they were to be at liberty to withdraw from it altogether. The result of the conference was signified to the masters and wardens of the several companies on Monday, the 24th July, by precept of the mayor, who enjoined them to call together their companies on the following Wednesday, and after explaining the whole matter to them, to learn from each individual member what amount he was prepared to contribute towards the furtherance of so "famous a project," and to cause the same to be entered in a book "to the intent his majesty may be informed of the readiness of this city in a matter of such great consequence." A note was to be made of any who refused to contribute, and those who failed to attend the summons were to be fined. No time was to be lost, for the lords of the council expected a return of the amount to be contributed by the companies by Friday (28 July).98

Commissioners appointed by the City to view the plantation, 1 Aug., 1609.

On Sunday, the 30th July, a deputation of aldermen and commoners again waited on the lords of the council, and received permission to elect four wise, grave and discreet citizens to cross over to Ireland and view the proposed plantation. On Tuesday (1 Aug.) the Common Council nominated John Broad, goldsmith, Hugh Hamersley, haberdasher, Robert Treswell, painter-stainer, and John Rowley, draper, to be the City's commissioners for the purpose.99

The system of deception practised on them.

The lords of the council anticipated the arrival of the City's agents in Ireland by directing Sir Thomas Philips to accompany them in their travels, and by sending instructions to Sir Arthur Chichester, the deputy, to see that they were well supplied with necessaries and were assisted in every way. The latter was more particularly instructed to use great care in the selection of discreet persons to conduct and accompany them, men who from their experience and understanding might be able, "both by discourse and reason, to controule whatsoever any man shall reporte either out of ignorance or malice, and to give the undertakors satisfaccon when they shalbe mistaken or not well informed of any particular."100The conductors were to take care to lead the Londoners by the best roads, and to lodge them on their journeys where they might, if possible, receive English entertainment in Englishmen's houses. The lords of the council at the same time forwarded to Sir Arthur Chichester a copy of the "Project," and desired him to see that those who conducted the City's agents were "well prepared before-hand to confirme and strengthen every part thereof by demonstracon as they may plainly apprehend and conceive the commodities to be of good use and profit." On the other hand, matters of distaste, such as fear of the Irish, of the soldiers, of cess and such like must not be so much as named. These could be set right afterwards and were only matters of discipline and order. Lastly, if the Londoners should happen to express a wish[pg 034]respecting anything, "whether it be the fishing, the admirallty, or any other particuler wchmay serve for a motyve to enduce them," the same was to be conceded at once, and no private interests, whether of Sir Arthur Chichester himself or any other individual, were to be allowed to stand in the way.

These instructions were carried out to the letter, and the City's representatives, as soon as they set foot in Ireland, were treated right royally. Sir John Davys, one of the king's commissioners engaged in surveying the country, wrote home on the 28th August101: "The Londoners are now come, and exceeding welcome to us. Wee all use our best rhetorick to persuade them to go on wththeir plantation, wchwill assure the whole island to the crowne of England forever. They like and praise the cuntrey very much, specially the Banne and the river of Loghfoyle." He goes on to say that one of the City's agents had fallen sick, and would have returned, but the lord-deputy and the rest had used every means to comfort and retain him, "lest this accident shold discourage his fellow cittizens." In other respects, too, they saw the country at its best, for they arrived at a time when the Irish were flocking in and making their submission in far better fashion than they had done for years. So pleased were they with what they saw that they assured Sir Arthur Chichester that the City would certainly undertake the plantation upon the report they were about to make. The deputy on his part assured them that if the Londoners did not undertake the[pg 035]work they would be enemies to themselves. He suggested that they should send home to the lord mayor some samples of the commodities of the country. The suggestion was adopted, and he obtained for them some raw hides, tallow, salmon, herrings, eels, pipe-staves, beef and the like at a cheap rate. He also procured them some iron ore and promised to furnish them with samples of lead and copper.102

Report of commissioners, 28 Nov., 1609.

By November the City's agents had returned to London. On the 28th they appeared before the Court of Aldermen and presented their report, together with an answer made by Sir Arthur Chichester to certain questions they had put to him on doubtful points, and also a map or "plott" of the country they had viewed. The court in the first place authorised the Chamberlain to re-imburse them the sum of £100 which they had found it necessary to borrow to supplement the allowance of £300 originally allowed for their expenses by the court;103and in the next gave orders for all the documents to be enrolled by the Remembrancer "in a faier booke, wherein the letters and other things comytted to his charge and care are recorded and entred," and also in the Journal by the Clerk of the Orphans.104The viewers' report came before the court of Common Council on the 2nd December,[pg 036]when it was openly read and referred to a committee specially appointed.105

The City's proposal to undertake the plantation and to raise the sum of £15,000 for the purpose, 15 Dec., 1609.

On Friday, the 15th, the committee were ready with their report. They had met five times, and had held long debate and consultation on the various matters incident to "so great a business," and on each and all of these they had something to say. As to the financial part of the undertaking they were of opinion that the Common Council should pass an Act for raising a sum of £15,000, and no more, upon the members of the wealthier livery companies, by poll, the inferior companies being spared. The report having been approved by the court a deputation was appointed to wait upon the Privy Council with the City's answer on the following Sunday (17 December).106

The City's offer to raise £15,000 rejected as insufficient.

When the lords of the council came to consider the City's proposals they found much to their liking, but the clause which restricted the amount of money to be furnished by the City to £15,000, and no more, was "much distasted" by them, seeing that that sum would scarcely suffice to buy up private interests, let alone the work of plantation. The City's offer in this respect was therefore rejected, and the Common Council had therefore to increase its offer to £20,000.107

The sum of £20,000 levied on livery companies according to corn assessment.

Early in the following year (8 Jan., 1610) a committee was appointed, including the four commissioners who had viewed the plantation, to confer with commissioners appointed by the Privy Council as to the best means of carrying out the work. In the meantime the sum of £5,000, or one-fourth part of the £20,000 required, was to be immediately levied[pg 037]on the principal companies according to their corn assessment.108Some of the companies complained of the unfairness of assessing them according to the existing corn rate, inasmuch as a great change had taken place since that rate had been made: "Divers companies are decayed and others growne to bee of greater liability, so as particuler men of some companies are now exceedinglie overcharged and others greatelye favoured." It was too late to make any alteration in the payment of the first two instalments, as the plantation was to commence in the summer,109but a new assessment for corn was made in July with the view of making the rate more equitable.110

The "Articles" of the plantation signed, 28 Jan., 1610.

On the 28th January (1610) the committee appointed by the court of Common Council came to terms with the Privy Council, and a special agreement was signed by both parties embodying all the essential conditions of the plantation in twenty-seven articles. A period of seven years was allowed the City to make such other reasonable demands as time might show to be needful.111

The formation of the "Irish Society."

The articles were read at the Common Council held two days later (30 Jan.), when it was decided[pg 038]to form a company in the city of London for the purpose of carrying out the plantation, the company to consist of a governor, a deputy-governor and twenty-four assistants, of whom the Recorder of the city was to be one. The governor and five of the assistants were to be aldermen of the city, the rest commoners.112On the 4th February the lords of the council informed Sir Arthur Chichester that the "noble and worthy work of the plantation in Ulster undertaken by the city" was concluded, and the articles signed. The city had chosen a governor and a council of assistants for the more orderly disposition of their affairs. They had also elected John Rowley to be their agent, and he and others would shortly set out for Ireland. The lords commended him to the deputy's care, and he was instructed to see that they were furnished with a sufficient number of labourers for felling timber, digging stone and burning lime. Sir Arthur's services in forwarding a work which the king had so much at heart would not go, they assured him, unrewarded.113

The City forced to surrender 2,000 acres of their Irish estate, July, 1610.

The articles of the plantation had not long been signed before the government broke faith with the City, and the latter were asked to forego no less than 2,000 acres of land agreed to be assigned to them. This iniquitous proposal on the part of the king's commissioners was laid before a special court of Common Council (7 June, 1610) by Alderman Cockaine, the governor of the Irish Society. After long deliberation the court decided to stand upon their rights, and[pg 039]rejected the proposal. Six weeks later (22 July) they saw fit to change their minds, and they agreed to surrender the 2,000 acres whilst refusing to accede to other demands.114

Difficulties experienced in raising the £20,000 for the plantation.

It was no easy task the City had undertaken. Great difficulty was experienced in getting the companies to pay up their quota of the £20,000 to be raised for the purpose of the plantation. The wardens of the Mercers, the Clothworkers and other companies were committed to prison by order of the Court of Aldermen for refusing or failing to pay the sums at which their respective companies had been assessed.115The masters or wardens of the companies were not so much to blame as the individual members of the companies who refused to pay. Thus, a sum of £200 due from Sir John Spencer, the rich Clothworker, remained unpaid at his death. It was eventually paid by his son-in-law, Lord Compton, after much solicitation.116Even when the money was got in there was a difficulty in forwarding it to its destination, so infested was the Irish coast with pirates who lay in wait for the money sent by the City for the works at Coleraine.117

Back to Index Next