Hi' HUGH MYDDELTON, M.P. PAST II. 



also pointed out that the Mayor and corporation would 

 have nothing to do with the business, but, by an irre- 

 vocable act of the Common Council, had transferred 

 their powers of executing the works to Mr. Myddelton 

 and his heirs, " who doth the same for his own private 

 benefit." 1 



The agitation against the measure was next taken up 

 in parliament. " Much ado there is in the House," 

 writes Mr. Beaulieu, on the 9th of May, 1610, to a friend 

 in the country, " about the work undertaken, and far 

 advanced already by Myddelton, of the cutting of a river 

 and bringing it to London from ten or twelve miles oft', 

 through the grounds of many men, who, for their par- 

 ticular interests, so strongly oppose themselves to it, and 

 are like (as it is said) to overthrow it all." 2 On the 

 20th of June following, a bill was introduced and com- 

 mitted to repeal the Act authorizing the construction of 

 the New Eiver. A committee of ten was appointed a 

 few days after " to view " the river and to certify re- 

 specting the progress made with the works, doubtless 

 with the object of ascertaining what damage had actually 

 been done, or was likely to be done, to private property. 

 The committee were directed to make their report in the 

 next session ; but as parliament was prorogued in July 

 and did not meet again for four years, the subject is not 

 again mentioned in the Journals of the House. 



The corporation of the City did what they could to 

 oppose the bill for the repeal of the New Eiver Acts. 

 On the 25th of May they sent a deputation of aldermen, 

 accompanied by the Town Clerk and Remembrancer, to 

 wait upon the Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Ex- 

 chequer, and other official men of influence, earnestly 



1 These objections and the answers 

 to them are stated in a curious docu- 

 ment deposited in the State Paper 



of 3 and 4 Jac. I., for bringing tin- 

 New Eiver into London ; stating the 

 objections against those Acts, and 



Office (' Domestic Calendar of State j answers to the objections.' 



Papers,' vol. 78), entitled, ' The effect 2 Nichols's Progresses of James I.,' 



of a [proposed] Bill to repeal the Acts i ii., 313. 



