executed a conveyance of one-half of the whole undertaking to the King on the 2nd of August following, and the conditions seem to have been faithfully adhered to on both sides. One of the first benefits Myddelton derived from the arrangement was the repayment to him of one-half the expenditure which up to that time had been incurred. It appears from the first certificate delivered to the Lord Treasurer, that the total expenditure to the end of the year 1612 had been 44857. 18s. 11d., as attested by Hugh Myddelton acting on his own behalf, and Miles Whitacres acting on behalf of the King. The following is a copy of the entry in the Pell Records, in the State Paper-office

66

Hugh Middleton.' 30th of January. By order, dated the last of December, 1612. To Hugh Middleton, of London, goldsmith, the sum of 22427. 19s. 5d., being the moiety of 4485l. 18s. 11d. for charges by him disbursed and expended since the 24th August, 1611, until the 1st of December, 1612, inclusive, about the bringing and conveying the New River from the springs of Chadwell and Amwell, in the county of Hertford, unto the north parts of the city of London, which is to be borne by His Majesty, the said charges appearing by a book of the particular expenses thereof, subscribed by the said Hugh Middleton, and Miles Whitacres, gentleman, according to the tenor of the letters patent for warrant hereof, dated 2nd May, 1612 £2242 19s. 54d."

Further payments were made out of the Treasury to Myddelton, in like manner, for charges disbursed by him in executing the works done to the end of November, 1614, amounting to 41047. 5s. 6d. ; and in the Domestic State Papers, under date April, 1616, we find a further and final payment from the Exchequer of 22627. 9s. 64d.; making the total payments out of the royal Treasury on

We may observe that the name is variously spelled in different documents, as Middleton, Mydelton, Mid

delton, &c.; but he himself usually signed his name "Myddelton."

account of the New River works amount to 86097. 14s. 6d. As the books of the New River Company were accidentally destroyed by a fire many years ago, we are unable to test the accuracy of these figures by comparison with the financial records of the Company; but, taken in conjunction with other circumstances hereafter to be mentioned, the amount stated represents, with as near an approach to accuracy as can now be reached, the half of the original cost of constructing the New River works.1

It appears from the "pageant which took place on the day of opening, that as many as 600 labourers were employed upon the works at one time. As the pay of labourers was not then more than 6d. a day, and of artificers 1s. a day, the amount expended on labour during the period the works were under constructionallowing for their suspension for a time through local opposition and bad weather and on land, materials, inspection, &c., could not have amounted to more than about seventeen thousand pounds. The statements heretofore printed as to the original cost of constructing the New River are, for the most part, gross exaggerations. The assertion that 500,0007. of the money of the period, or equal to about two millions of our present money, was expended on the works, has been repeated by various writers, but without any data, excepting the loose statement made by Pennant in his Tour in Wales,' to the effect that "20007. a nonth, which Sir Hugh gained from the Cardiganshire mines, were swallowed up in this river." Whereas the fact was, that Myddelton lost heavily by his first mining enterprise near Denbigh, which proved a complete failure, and he did not

enter upon his mining operations in Cardigan until long after the New River had been completed. The fact that so large a sum as 17,000l. was expended in the construction of a public work at the beginning of the 17th century is quite strong enough, and stands in no need of exaggeration. It was a very large sum to be expended at that time, when London was comparatively small, and England comparatively poor. It was a larger sum to raise at that periodtaking trade, commerce, and public wealth into account-than as many millions would be at this day. It must also be added that Stowe, Maitland, Fuller, Pennant, Morant (who have been generally followed by subsequent encyclopedists and biographic compilers), evidently drew largely upon their imaginations when describing the achievements of Sir Hugh. They all repeat the same story of the "silvermine in Wales," of his having died in obscurity and poverty, and other like groundless fables. Maitland even magnifies the few and unimportant bridges over the New River to the number of eight hundred, and the fiction is copied by most subsequent writers on the subject.

CHAPTER IV.

SIR HUGH MYDDELTON, M.P.-THE NEW RIVER COMPLETED.

ALTHOUGH the cutting of the New River may now be regarded as a work of comparatively small account, by men familiar with the canals and railways of this day, it was very different at the time of its projection. It will be remembered that though successive Acts of Parliament had been obtained to enable such a work to be carried out, none dared venture upon its execution until Hugh Myddelton declared himself willing to be its undertaker. It was the greatest enterprise of the kind that had yet been attempted in this country. It was both much more costly and more difficult of execution than the Leet at Plymouth, which consisted mainly of the diversion of one stream into another, whereas this was an entire new river from end to end. Myddelton had no past experience to serve as his guide, nothing but strong good sense and sound practical judgment, whilst in the earlier period of the enterprise he had to encounter the lot of the bold, original man in all times, --sneers, derision, and ridicule, and at the same time. to battle at every step against the harassing opposition of the tenantry and landowners. But all these obstructions he eventually overcame, with his own and the King's help.

The general plan adopted by Myddelton was to follow a contour line, as far as practicable, from the then level of the Chadwell spring to the circular pond at Islington, subsequently called the New River Head.' The stream

1 The site of the New River Head had always been a pond, "an open, idell poole," says Hawes, "commonly

called the Ducking-pond; being now by the master of this work reduced into a comley pleasant shape, and

originally presented a fall of about 2 inches in the mile, and its City end was at the level of about 82 feet above what is now known as Trinity high water mark. Where the fall of the ground was found inconveniently rapid, a stop-gate was introduced at such places across the stream, penning from 3 to 4 feet perpendicularly, the water flowing over such weirs down to the next level.

By the charter granted by King James, power was given to Myddelton to negotiate and arrange for sufficient land to form a watercourse of 10 feet in width, together with a right or easement to pass with carts and horses along either side of the stream, for the purpose of cleansing and repairs. The bridges over the stream were about a hundred and sixty in number, mostly of timber, and they were invariably executed with a water way under them not exceeding 10 feet. Taking the width of the original river at 10 feet, the probability is that it could not have been more than 4 feet in depth.

To accommodate the cut to the level of the ground as much as possible, numerous deviations were made, and the river was led along the sides of the hills, from which sufficient soil was excavated to form the lower bank of the intended stream. Each valley was traversed on one side until it reached a point where it could be crossed; and there

an embankment became necessary, in some cases of from 8 to 10 feet in height, along the top of which the water was conducted in a channel of the dimensions above stated. In those places where embank

many wayes adorned with buildings," &c. The basin is now thrice its original size. The house adjoining it, belonging to the Company, was erected in 1613, but having been new-fronted

in 1782, and more recently enlarged, it has lost all external appearance of antiquity. A view of it is to be found in Lewis's Islington.'

ments were run out, provision had of course to be made for the passage of the surface waters from the west of the line of works into the river Lea, which forms the natural drain of the district. In some cases these drainage waters were conveyed under the New River in culverts, and in others over it by what were termed flashes. Openings were also left in the banks for the passage of roads under the stream, the continuity of which was in such cases maintained either by arches or timber troughs lined with lead. One of these troughs, at Bush Hill, near Edmonton, was about 660 feet long, and 5 feet deep.

A brick arch also formed part of this