|
F TORONTC Hill 382 19 |
|
UNIVERSITY III IIEI 1761 0 |
|
" |
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/constitutionfina03scotuoft
^^0
■J.
3P \(i\^'^
THE CONSTITUTION AND FINANCE
OF ENGLISH, SCOTTISH AND IRISH
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES TO 1720
VOLUME III
WATER SUPPLY, POSTAL, STREET-LIGHTING, MANUFACTURING, BANKING, FINANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
ALSO STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE CROWN FINANCES
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Eonfton: FETTER LANE, E.G.
C. F. CLAY, Manager
(fftitnburgi): loo, PRINCES STREET
aSerlm: A. ASHER AND CO.
ILetpjig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
^eia Sork: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
Bombag anU Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
A// rights reserved
THE CONSTITUTION AND FINANCE
OF ENGLISH, SCOTTISH AND IRISH
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES TO 1720
BY
WILLIAM ROBERT SCOTT, M.A., D.Phil., Litt.D.
LECTURER IN POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS
VOLUME III
WATER SUPPLY, POSTAL, StREET-LIGHTING,
MANUFACTURING, BANKING, FINANCE
AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
ALSO STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE CROWN FINANCES
Cambridge :
at the University Press
191 1
CatnfariUgt :
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE
r 1 1HIS volume completes Part II. of the constitutional and financial -*- history of British joint-stock companies to 1720. In its subject- matter it is differentiated from the second volume, in so far as in the latter most of the undertakings described were related to the shipping industry, whereas those, now dealt with, were mainly concerned with commerce at home.
Perhaps the addition of the concluding division, which treats of the Crown finances at certain periods, requires some explanation. In this and the second volume references have been necessary to the state of the credit of the Crown ; and, owing to the comparative treatment aimed at in Part I., it was essential to allude frequently to these and similar topics. It is unfortunate that there is no modern history of the Revenue, and therefore it became necessary to provide certain illus- trative statements of it, which, under the various qualifications mentioned in Division xv., would bridge the gap to some extent. But to have entered on such discussions in detail in Part I. would have been out of place, and hence comparatively full tabular statements have been pro- vided in this volume, so that reference from Part I. (vol. i.) to these may be as easy as possible to the reader.
In the case of companies, which still exist, I am indebted to the officials for information in several directions. The following accounts of such bodies have been read either in MS. or in proof by members of the directorate or of the staff, who have devoted special attention to the early history of the institutions with which they are connected. In this way, it is to be hoped that accuracy on many minor points has been secured, but, needless to say, I am altogether responsible for the explanations given of the phenomena. In addition there are a few
VI Preface
1
undertakings, no longer in existence, concerning which others have helped me. In both these connections 1 have to thank the following (the special assistance of each being generally mentioned in footnotes) — Mr J. S. Barbour, Mr C. A. Denton, Mr George Hakewill, Mr Henry J. Maguire, Mr D. McNeil, Miss Maud Sellars, Mr J. F. Stutchbury, Mr W. N. Whymper. I have also to acknowledge the courtesy of the proprietors of the Accountants' Magazine^ the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland and of the Scottish Historical Review in permitting me to reprint articles which have appeared in these publications. These portions of the work have been in some cases largely rewritten and in others revised and extended. I am also indebted to the Council of the Scottish History Society for allowing me to reprint parts of my introduction in the Records of a Scottish Cloth Manufactory at New Mills, Haddingtonshire, 1681-1703.
W. R. S.
The University St Andrews April 1911
CONTENTS OF VOLUME III
PAGE V
PART II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL HIS- TORY OF EACH OF THE CHIEF JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES FROM 1553 TO 1720, WITH RECORDS OF THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST PRICES OF THEIR STOCKS OR SHARES, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL AND THE DIVIDENDS PAID (continmd).
DIVISION VI. WATER-SUPPLY COMPANIES.
Section I. The Hampstead Aqueducts (authorized by act of Parliament to the City in 1546 and transferred to a Company in 1692) . . . . 3
Section II. The London Bridge Water Works (founded 1582): the City Conduits Company (about 1693). Amalgamated in 1703 as the London Bridge Water Works Company 11
Section III. The Governor and Company of the New River brought from
Chadwell and Amwell to London (1609) ....... 18
Section IV. Other London Water-supply Undertakings — the Governor and Company of the Waterwork and Water-houses in Shadwell (1681), the Borough Waterworks, Southwark (about 1690), Marchmont's Waterworks (1694), Savory's Waterworks (about 1708) 32
Section V. Water-supply Undertakings in Provincial Towns — at Chester, P. Mainwaring and others (1634): at Newcastle, William Gray (1646), " the Folly Waterworks" (1680), W. Soulesby (1694), W. Yarnold (1697) : at Derby, G. Sorocold (1693): at Liverpool, Water Company (1695), Cleave Moore (1709) 34
viii Contents
DIVISION VII. POSTAL AND STREET-LIGHTING COMPANIES.
PAGE
Section I. Companies for the Conveyance of Letters and Parcels — the Undertakers for reducing the Postage of Letters to half the former Rates (1651-3), the Undertaking of the Penny Post (1680-2) .... 39
Section II. Street-Lighting Companies — the Proprietors of the Convex Lights or the Partners in the Convex Lights (1684-1744), the Proprietors of the Light Royal (1687-94), the Proprietors of the Glass Glohe Lights (1692) 62
DIVISION VIII. MANUFACTURING AND MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
Section I. The Governor and Company of the VThite Paper Makers in England (1686) 63
Section II. Other Companies for the Manufacture of Paper — the Irish Paper Company (1600), the Governor and Company of the Royal Cor- poration of London for carrying on the Linen and Paper Manufacture within the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey (1691), the Blue Paper Company (1691), the Brown Paper Company (1692), Col. John Perry and Partners (1709) 71
Section III. The Royal Lustring Company of England (1688) ... 73
Section IV. The Governor and Assistants of the King's and Queen's
Corporation for the Linen Manufacture in England (1690) ... 90
Section V. Textile Industries in Ireland — the Governor and Assistants of the King's and Queen's Corporation for the Linen Manufacture in Ireland (1691), the Drogheda Linen Company (about 1691), the Calico-Printing Patent of John Pons and otliers (1693), the Flax and Hemp Company of Ireland (1696), the Linen Company founded by Louis Crommelin (1699), the Governor and Company of the Cambric Manufactory at Dundalk , 98
Section VI. Companies engaged in Manufactures dealing with Metals — the Company interested in the Manufacture and Invention of Milled-Lead (1670), the Dipping Company (1691-2), the Company formed to work the Patent of John Stapleton for making Brass for Ordnance (1691), the Governor and Company for casting and making Guns and Ordnance in Moulds of Metal (1693), the Venetian Steel Company (about 1692) . . 105
Section VII. Glass-making Companies — the Company of Glass-makers of
Loiidon(1691), the Glass-Bottle Company (1694) 110
Section VIII. Vegetable Oil Companies — the Annuitants and Sharers in the Beech Oil Company ; the Governor and Company for making and vending Beech Oil ........... 115
Section IX. Companies engaged in Miscellaneous Manufactures — the Tapestry-makers of England (1619-1703), the Patentees for Lacquering after the manner of Japan (1693), the Company for making imitation Russia Leather (1691), the Company for making ^^ German Balls" to preserve Leather from damp (1693), the Society for improving native manufactures so as to keep out the wet (1691) 118
Contents ix
DIVISION IX. COiMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIPS, CHIEFLY FOR MANUFACTURES, IN SCOTLAND.
PAGE
Section I. The Industrial State of Scotland in relation to the formation of
Companies 123
Section II. The Greenland Fishing and Soap Works Company, or the
Glasgow Soaperie (1667-1785) . . 130
Section III. The Sugar-refining and Rum-distilling Companies at Glasgow —the Wester Sugar Work (1667), the Easter Sugar Work (1669), the South Sugar Work (1696), the King Street Sugar Work (1700) . . 133
Section IV. Textile Companies.
A. The Woollen Manufactory at Newmills in the Shire of Haddington
(1681-1713) 138
B. Other Woollen Manufactories— Works at Glasgow (founded by
James Armour, 1688), at Paul's Work, Edinburgh (1683-1708), at Musselburgh {} 1695), at Aberdeen (1696), at Glasgow (founded by John Corse, 1700), William Hog's Manufacture (.^1703), William Black's Manufacture at North-Mills, Aberdeenshire (1703), Lyell's Manufactory at Gairdin (1704) ... 158
C. The Scots Linen Manufacture (1693) 162
D. The Silk Manufactory (1697) 169
E. Other Textile and Allied Industries — the Manufacture of Colchester
Baizes (1693), the Manufacture of Stockings (1700), the Sail- Cloth Manufactory at Leith (1694), Rope Work of James and Thomas Deans (about 1690), the Rope Manufactory at Glasgow (1690), Cordage Manufactory at Glasgow (1700) ... 173
Section V. The Wool-Card Manufactory at Leith (1663) .... 176
Section VI. The Society of the White Writing and Printing Paper Manu- factory of Scotland (1694) 181
Section VII. Industries related to Iron, Steel and Mining — Mine-draining Engine of Marmaduke Hudson and Partners (1693), tlie Company for working Mines and Minerals in the Kingdom of Scotland (1695), Co- partnery for the Smelting of Minerals (1701), John Meikle's Foundry (1686-1705), Glasgow Hardware Manufactures (1699 and 1700) . . 186
Section VIII. Glass and Bottle Works— the Glass Works at the Citadel of Leith (1664), the Glass Manufacture, North Leith (1699), Works at Morison's Haven (1696), Glass Manufacture at Wemyss (1698), the Glass Manufacture at Glasgow (1699) 189
Section IX. Companies formed to carry on Miscellaneous Manufactures — Gun-Powder Manufacture of James Gordon and Partners (1690), Gun- Powder and Alum Manufactures by Sir Alex. Hope and Partners (1695), Leather Works (1695), Leith Combmakers (1695), Leith Saw-Mills (1695), Porcelain and Earthenware Works at Glasgow (1703) .... 193
Contents
/ DIVISION X. BANKING AND FINANCIAL COMPANIES.
PAGE
Section I. The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (1694) . 199
Section II. The Land Banks — the Bank of Credit on Land Rents (founded by Hugh Chamberlain, 1695), the Land Bank, established Anno Domini 1695 (founded by John Asgill and Nicholas Barbon, 1695), the National Land Bank (founded by John Briscoe, 1695), the National Land Bank of England (1696) 246
Section III. The Bank of Scotland (1695) 253
Section IV. Tlie Bank on Tickets of the Million Adventure or the Million Bank (1695-1796) 275
Section V. The Governor and Company of the Merchants of Great Britain trading to the South Seas and for encouraging the Fishing.
A. The Position of the South Sea Company in relation to Public
Finance from 1711 to 1719 288
B. The first group of issues of Capital and Conversions, April to May
1720 308
C. The secret history of the South Sea Scheme ..... 314
D. Loans on Stock, April to June 1720 317
E. The second group of Subscriptions ...... 320
F. The beginning of the Collapse, August to September 1720 . . 324
G. ITie modification of the terms of the second group of Subscriptions
in September 1720 328
H. The Parliamentary Enquiry . 331
I. The final re-adjustment of the South Sea Scheme by Parliament,
1721 346
J. The incidence of the losses remaining to be borne after the re- adjustment of 1721 . 348
DIVISION XL UNDERTAKINGS FOR EFFECTING INSURANCES. Section I. The early history of Insurances in England .... 363
Section II. Undei-takings for Insurance against Fire.
A. The Insurance Office at the Back-side of the Royal Exchange, or
the Fire Office, or the Phoenix Fire Office, or Samuel Vincent, Nicholas Barbon and their partners for insuring houses against Fire, or Barbon's Office (1667-1703) . . . . . . 375
B. Mutual Societies from 1683 to 1714— the Friendly Society (1683),
the Hand in Hand Society (1696), the Insurance Department of the Charitable Corporation for relief of the industrious poor (about 1708-9), the Union or Double Hand in Hand (1714) . 378
Contents xi
PAGE
Tlie Exchange-House Fire Office for Town, the Exchang-e-House Fire Office for the Country, the Company of London Insurers or the Sun Fire Office (founded 1706-8) 381
Section III. Undertakings for Insurance relative to Life-contingencies.
A. The Society of Assurance for Widows and Orphans (1699) . 389
B. The Proprietors of the Traders' Exchange-House Office for Lives
(1606-7), the Amicable Society for a perpetual Insurance Office (1706) 390
C. The various schemes for Insurance on Life-contingencies of the
year 1710 391
D. The Company of London Insurers upon Lives (1709) . . . 394
Section IV. Marine Insurance Companies — the Undertaking for insuring Ships and Merchandize at Sea (1717), the Undertaking kept at the Royal Exchange for insuring Ships and Merchandize at Sea or the Mercers' Hall Marine Company ; the Governors, Assistants and Societies of and for the Mines Royal, the Mineral and Battery Works and for assuring Ships and Merchandize (1718), or the Old Insurance, or Onslow's Insurance, in- corporated (1720) as the Royal Exchange Assurance; Colebrook's Insurance (1719), Rain's Insurance (1719), Ram and Colebrook's Insurance (1719), or Chetwynd's Insurance incorporated (1720) as the London Assurance 396
DIVISION XII. CASES OF COMPANIES THAT USED THE SAME CHARTER OR GRANT FOR CARRYING ON DIFFERENT AND SUCCESSIVE UNDERTAKINGS.
Section I. Captain Poyntz and Company for planting the Island of Tobago
(1683) " 415
Section II. The Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising the Thames water in York Buildings.
A. The Water Supply Company (1665-1719) 418
B. The Land Development Undertaking (1719) .... 422
Section III. The Governor and Company for making Hollow Sword Blades in the North of England.
A. The Sword Blade Manufacturing Company (1691) ... 435
B. The Land Company (.?1702) 436
C. The Banking Partnership, or Elias Turner Esquire, and Company,
or the Sword Blade Bank Q 1712) 440
xii Contents
PAGE
DIVISION XIII. LIST, ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY, SHOW- ING THE NEW SCHEMES OR OLD UNDERTAKINGS REVIVED FROM SEFrEMBER 1719 TO AUGUST 1720 . . . . . 443
DIVISION XIV. STATISTICS OF THE CHIEF JOINT-STOCK COM- PANIES OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND TO 1720 . 469
DIVISION XV. STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE CROWN AND
NATIONAL FINANCES 483
Index .............. 645
Facsimile of Freke's List of Prices of Stocks for Saturday, November 12th, 1715 to Tuesday, November 15th, showing rise in price of stocks on receipt of news of the Battle of Preston .... between xii — 1
Chart showing maximum daily fluctuations of the Stocks of the South Sea Company, the East India Company and the Bank of England from May to September, 1720 ......... m pocket at end
I
FACSIMILE OF FREKE'S LIST OF PRICES OF STOCKS
12—15 NOVEMBER 1715
F R E K E'/ P R I G E S of Stocks, ^e
Divides
3lni><« — — ll&anh ■
Milliou-Bank Africart . ■
xo -6
RankcraA iTi^nmentsj Sourh-Sea Hondt —6, Jt>itro ^ — yj
Eaft-I nd la Bonus — ^ Bank ClrciiUtion ^j
®atttrti8^
128
tt4 f
3/. 10^.
«7 a 1
1
Difc.
^onlja^
119 117 90 90
a 50 a 1x9 a I
3/. jf. •)
Difc.
^ttegnap.
12s a
91
x5
40^.
2 /.I ff,
^i
\Difc.
ClalEs 1711. Fimd 186670/.
/«dr Anmtmy for 32 Years, on the Pofi'Offite^ leather^ Stamps^ H^ckney-Coaehes^ Chairs^ Cards^ and Dice*
Difcount per Cent.
|
Firft 1 |
^ a 9 |
|
Second |
7 a 10 |
|
Third |
IZ |
|
Fourth |
I3f T |
|
Fifth |
12 |
ClaflJs 171 a. Fund 168003/. fir Amnim^ for 32 Years, on leather f f^ellttm^ Parctment^ Starch, Cofee^ Gold and Sirew Wire^ and Stamfis,
Diicomit per Cent.
5 a 9 10 a 4-
XX
Firft
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
I
T 12 4
HottCV^ x7Xf. Fund 13^000/. per Annunt^ far 31 Years, on Tonnage and Poundage^ Cnah and Candles.
Courfes. Difc. pet Cent
loi t9 lyo fram 4 *o 6
Courfes. Difc. per Cent.
16 to too from a f# 4
Ho^tcrt 17x1. Fund x6f5oo3/. per /Jnnum, for 32 Years, in three Lotteries, on Soap ^ chequer'd and ftrip*d Li nnen^ Paper j and Stamps.
Courfes. Difc per Cent. I Courfes. Difc per Cent.
y to ^o from 4^61 8x ro 100 from 7/. to 8/. 31 to So fr<,m 6 t9 "J \ xoi to t%o from 8 ta 9
IrOteerB »7»3' f"»<l Jfooof. per ^»7!i»«, for 31 Years, Ciyil Lift, ^ to 1 from to I. fo 13/. I ax to 30 /r«m a6/. ro 28/. 10 from 13 f* 20 I 31 fo Ao'from 28 w 29
5 to It to
10 from Z.O to 26
iUttcrFi7X4« Ftmd 116573 J. fet Amunu for 34 Years, oaSoap^ Pa- per^ chequered and firip'd Unnen^ Starth^ Coals exported^ and Stamps.
Blanks ^t^per Cent. Prizes at 4 per Cent.
from 2 1, to 12 I,
from 12 f« 14
fr4m 14 to x6
from 16 to iS
from 18 r» 20
Ccairfes,
x to 10
1 1 to 20
21 f» ro
IGX
to to
XOO
T40
from
from from
from frAm
16
24 28
30
to to tfl to
to
16 L
24 28
22
3!0|n jTCCl^C, ^^okcr^ at his Office in (!5pcbange--3Uci», buys and qjf^J^ Any Gentleman may have tkis P*jpei left at lus Hoiife
Facsimile of Freke's List of Prices of Stocks for Saturday, November 12th,
receipt of news of
from jrtOiap to Zm^Up Nov. i 5. 1 7 1 5. N® 67
Amfterdani Socterdam- Antwerpe - Hamburg m Pans — -* Bourdeaux - Madrid •— Cadix — —
Courfc of crcljange*
36 1<
47 -
Leghorne Bilboa — Genoua — Venice — Lifboii — Porco Dublin
Int. 6
y
5 4 6
S f 6 6 6 6 6 $ 6 4 6 4 S
CjCCfiequet^ Advanc'd
I f th 4 Shilling Aid — 1880000
jda Shilling Aid —
4ch % Shilling Aid —
yth a. Shilling Aid —
Hops « ■
Malt 1715 — ■
Malt 17x4
Low Wines 170J Candles, c^c. — Subiidies 1709 — Tin
Chf.i7ixBlank8&Pr. Clafljsi7xa
Lottery 1711 — — t)itto 1713, Civil Lift. Ditto 17x2, in 3 Lotf. Ditto 171 4, Benefits — Ditto X714, Blanks —
940000
940000
940000
t 80000
700000
6 f 0000
700000
y 00000
645:000
1x1 4840
2602200
2541990
1928^00
633000
2541740
719040
1 1 y756o
PaidofF
1832420
92663^
84x007
22500
93^97 paid off.
328s:<!f4 638292 185^780 463^49
10733*9 763^0 30047 X79620 23570 83120
Pay.| 3^70
SO 45
yo
45- I
5^ 3 T 2
11604 X095r
4?
73
894 1722
2S37 ^^37
2^1
xo Payment 12 2 Payment S3
20 8
Jtli N.
yx
1 Lot.
2 ditto
3 ditto
^ii^ZS^ 17x0, dite Sefttmbtf 29, x<7i4, are.^id ^11 off. 1B&Unll0 1710, of X4 J. frr Annnm^ for 28 Years, 8 /.
25.
9nnuttfes;«
Years Purchafe.
x^93, 14/. fet Cent, Excife ■ — '
X70f, 3700/. ^^r Week Excife ■■ ' ■ — —
X7065 J AdditioHal Cuftoms and Excife — •
1707, Low Wines, Sweets, Pedlars, and Coftoms —
1708, 80000/. I Moiety of old Tonnage and Pound. 1708, 40000/. Surpluftes — — . -^— __™ 9/. perC. for 27 Years } Excife, Raifins, Spices, SnufF 11 1^?15W X710, for 28 Years i, Coals and Windows ix
M4- i f
«y a T
Mi
ly xy
Eaft-India Sale amounts already to 539400 1.
The Prices of the Stocks in this Paper are computed from the Morn »"g, to Three a-Clock each Day.
^lls Stocks, and all piiblick Securities, and Ituds Money on the fame. Twice » Week, for l^alf A Cw»n aQuartfr.
1715 to Tuesday, November 15tli, showing rise in price of stocks on the Battle of Preston.
PART II. (continued)
DIVISION VI.
WATER-SUPPLY COMPANIES
S. C. HI.
SECTION I. THE HAMPSTEAD AQUEDUCTS.
(Parliamentary powers [granted to the City] in 1546 — transferred to a company of above title in 1692
AND LEASED TO NeW EiVER COMPANY IN 1859.)
Although there are many gaps in the history of the water-supply of London, there remain sufficient materials to 'indicate the general development of the building up of the system that exists at the present day. At the time of the Norman conquest and for about a century afterwards drinking water was obtained from the Thames and from its tributary streams. The latter have now disappeared, but Stow mentions four brooks, one called the river Wells, the Wallbrook, another brook and the Oldborne. By 1235, these streams had been injured by the encroachments of buildings and were in some places partially filled up with rubbish, and in that year the brooks, within the City, were confined by bricked banks, while reservoirs were constructed, from which the water passed by pipes to fountains. These were known as conduits or wells. In 1236 the city authorities found it necessary to lay a 6 in. pipe to bring water from Tyburn. By 1342, though the conduits were useful in their respective areas, the water question had become acute through impediments placed in the way of persons desirous of carrying water from the Thames. Access to the river was gained by means of narrow lanes, and the adjoining householders exacted a toll from those passing through, which became a great grievance. An inquisition was held with a view to restoring the ancient rights of way. The resulting increase, in facilities for drawing water from the Thames, made the supply fairly adequate during the next century, but by 1439 it again became necessary to bring water from comparatively outlying districts by pipes. In that year a deed was signed by the Abbot of Westminster, granting the use of springs near Paddington. New conduits were made in several places from 1500 to 1528, and in 1535 a grant was executed by the Common Council to provide for the laying of pipes to convey water from Hackney ^
1 Stow, Survey of London, passim', HydrauliUf by W, Matthews, pp. 4-10.
1—2
4 The Hampstead Aqueducts to 1690 [div. vi. § 1
It ilnfortunately happened that the new conduits availed only to maintain the previous volume of water, owing to the drying up of some o^ the springs that had been long in use. Consequently, in spite of the Expenditure incurred, the supply was inadequate for an increasing population, and it became necessary to obtain water from a distance. Springs had been discovered at Hampstead, and the City decided, about 1544, to seek parliamentary powers for the acquiring of land and laying of pipes. The act was passed in 1546 ^ and it is of considerable interest, not only as the first private act giving compulsory powers, but also as constituting the foundation of an undertaking which was afterwards transferred to a company still in existence.
The act 35 Henry VIII. c. 10 states, in the preamble, that sweet and wholesome running water from fresh springs was commodious and profitable for the inhabitants of cities. The City of London had formerly been abundantly supplied, but a recent drought or other cause had diminished the supply of water from the springs that had been used previously. The Mayor, William Bower, was therefore authorized to convey to the City water from springs at Hampstead, Marylebone, Hackney, Muswell Hill or other places within five miles of the City. The Common Council, as undertakers of the work, was permitted to enter any grounds, where springs were to be found, and to convey the water by pipes, subject to the payment of compensation to be determined by a committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This privilege was subject to the limitation that water, necessary for the use of houses or villages, should not be diverted, nor might the servants of the corporation dig in the King's grounds without leave. Payment of 1 lb. of pepper annually was to be made to the Bishop of Westminster, as Lord of Hampstead Heath. The penalty for resisting the servants of the corporation, engaged in the execution of this act, was 40,9.2
It appears that, although the act was passed in 1546, it was not until 1590 that the works were completed. There were originally four reservoirs at Hampstead from which the supply for the north-west district was drawn ^ For over a hundred years, the history of this conduit is obscure. During that period the completion of the New River'' and the various pumping-engines for raising Thames water solved for the time the difficulty of the supply, and it is probable that the Hampstead conduit shared the fate of other similar works after the Great Fire and, while still in existence, was neglected.
It has been shown elsewhere how many undertakings had been
1 35 Henry VIII. c. x. 2 statutes, in. p. 967.
3 Matthews, Hydraulia, p. 13. ^ Vide infra j Division vi., Section 3.
Div. Yi. § 1] The Formation of a Company 1692 5
started from 1691 to 1695\ At that time the New River company had at length justified the high hopes of its founder, and the shares commanded a considerable premium. In view of this fact, the im- provement of the London water-supply was one of the schemes for which capital was readily procurable, and amongst the companies, then formed, was one intended to improve the Hampstead conduit. This company was promoted by William Paterson, the founder of the Bank of England, and the original shareholders included John Holland, the founder of the Bank of Scotland, Francis Tyssen, a prominent East India merchant, Dalby Thomas, Chief-Justice Chester and Sir John Trenchard. Paterson had induced the Mayor and Council to grant him and his assigns a lease for 31 years of all the rights of bringing water from the parishes of St Pancras, Hampstead and Hornsey, which were not, at January 10th, 1692, otherwise used by the Mayor or Commonalty or by persons claiming under them. The rent, payable by Paterson, was £S0 a year, and in addition he had already paid a fine of £9^00. To provide working capital, a company was formed (which is now known as the Hampstead Aqueducts) with a capital, divided into 600 shares of a nominal value of £9.0 each. Thus, when the shares were fully paid, the total capital would be <^12,000. By an agreement, signed on January 26th, 1692 by the members of the company, it was stipulated that 100 shares, of the nominal amount of c£^2,000, should be credited to Paterson and two others, who had co-operated with him in obtaining the grant and paying the £900 to the City, besides discovering certain new springs. These 100 shares were known as "maiden shares.'"* They were divided as to 35 to Paterson, 35 to Samuel Tucker and 30 to Israel Hayes. The three promoters reserved the right of receiving 100 of the remaining 500 shares, subject to the payment of £90 as called up. This ac- counted for 200 shares. 200 shares were divided amongst nine persons, of whom six held 30 shares each. There were still 200 shares to be issued. It was agreed that £9 per share on the 500 shares should be paid before the last Tuesday in March 1692 and the remainder as ordered by the committee of managers. No member was to transfer any share after the first Tuesday in May, without having paid it up in full. Shares, on which any call remained unpaid for 60 days, were subject to forfeiture. This agreement is unique in prescribing the liability of the members, which was to extend not only to the amount uncalled on each share, or that called but not paid, but also to "the payment of the rent of the lease or grant [from the City] and in all other costs, charges, damages or expenses, which shall or may arise from
^ Vide supra f Part i., Chapter xvii.
6 The Hampstead Aqueducts [div. vi. § 1
or by reason of the said undertaking.'' Members were entitled to one vote for each share. The qualification for a "committee"" was 10 shares. The ^'committee of management" consisted of a maximum of 15 and a minimum of 9; the majority being a quorum. It was further agreed that the £9.00^ paid by the three promoters, should be reckoned as a payment on the 100 '' chargeable " shares allotted to them. The com- mittee was given powers to negotiate with the City for the acquisition of additional springs ^
When the pamphlet, entitled Anglice Tutamen^ was written in 1694-5 there had been dealings in the shares of this company, and hence, in that work, it is characterized as one which had suffered the evils of stock-jobbing to prevail against it. Therefore, the writer predicted that the undertaking would come to grief. Anderson, in referring to this prophecy, is in error in saying that the company proved a failure, since, at the time he wrote, it was distributing modest but regular dividends^. As the shares, unissued in 1692, were placed and the calls were paid up, the pipes were extended and consumers supplied in the suburban district (as it was then) between Tottenham Court Road and Hampstead. Amongst the records of the company there is an old collector's book, dated 1762, in which rents were received from houses in the following localities. St Ann's Court, Broad St., Denmark St., Dudley Court, St Giles, Kentish Town, King St., Queen St., Russell St., Soho Sq., Tottenham Court Road, Tyburn Rd., Wardour St., Wind- mill St.
In 1700 the company became involved in a law-suit with a number of the residents at Hampstead, who complained that the operations of the undertaking had deprived them of water-rights they had previously possessed. It soon became apparent that, owing to the period which had elapsed since the original act had been granted and the interval during which the rights of the City had been in abeyance, the whole question was very obscure ; and the complainants, in endeavouring to define their grievances, began to dispute amongst themselves. The result was a long and involved Chancery suit, and the original complaint
1 MS. Articles made, concluded, and agreed this 26th January in the fourth year of our Sovereign Lord and Lady William and Mary... between Samuel Tucker and William Paterson of London, Merchants, and Israel Hayes of London, Gentleman, as well for themselves as all others who shall by or under them or any of them be admitted partners in the grant, undertaking and things hereinafter declared: in Transfer Book A of the Hampstead Aqueducts. (I am much indebted to Mr George Hakewill, of the Hampstead Aqueducts Office, 8, Staple Inn, London, W.C. for his kindness in placing all the documents relating to this company at my disposal. It is on these papers that the following account of this very interesting company is based.)
2 Anglice Tutamen, p. 27; Anderson, Annak of Commerce (ed. 1790), in. p. 159.
Div. vi. § 1] Dividends paid 1762 to 1830 7
against the company was not passed ». While this litigation was im- pending and while the success of the undertaking was still distant, the price of the shares appears to have been low. William Paterson had become liable for a large sum of money to the Darien company, and his shares in this and other companies had to be sold^. The holding in the Hampstead Waterworks disposed of was one of twenty shares for which, in the books of the Darien company, a payment by the broker of £9.50 sterling is acknowledged. A subsequent remittance of ^50 by the same person probably relates to this transaction, so that it may be assumed that the shares were sold at <^15 eachl Although this price was 25 per cent, below par, it was higher than that realized during the period of depression experienced by water companies from 1812 to 1815.
From 1700 to 1761 there is scarcely any information as to the fortunes of the company. About 1726 its office was totally destroyed by fire, and none of the papers were saved. The earlier part of the eighteenth century was a time of keen competition amongst London water com- panies, and the district of each was subject to invasion by its rivals, so that it was far from easy for the recently established companies to make profits. By 1762 the Hampstead company paid "an eighth" dividend of 5;y.; but; whether this was the eighth from the foundation of the company or from the burning of the papers, does not appear. From 1762 down to the present day, dividends have been paid regularly each year.
For the eleven years from 1762 to 1772 a distribution of 5s. per share was made annually. This was only 1^ per cent, on the original nominal amount of the share. As the company was capitalized (by a method to be explained below) the payment per cent, was less. For the next nine years, from 1773 to 1781, the annual dividend was 10^. per share, or an average of 7*. Qd. during 20 years from 1762. Then for the two years 1782 and 1783 there was a relapse to 5s. per share. From 1784 to 1798, 7*. Qd. was paid and from 1799 to 1801 the distri- bution was again 10^. From 1802 to 1829 the dividend rose, and by 1830 for the first time 9,0s. per share was paid, or a return of 5 per cent, on the nominal amount of the share. But, during the 138 years the company had been in existence, large sums had been set aside to form a reserve fund and for expenditure on capital account. According to a balance-sheet of the year 1834 there was an investment of d^l 1,000 in 3 per cents, at 91, and it appears to have been the custom of the directors to charge 10 per cent, annually of all new works to revenue.
1 Park, History of Hampstead, p. 74. ^ Vide supra, ii. p. 219.
3 The Life and Writings of William Paterson, by S. Bannister, London, 1858, ii. p. 269.
8
The Hampstead Aqueducts [div. vi. §
The following is a copy of this document, which is of considerable interest, as showing the basis on which the capital account of the company was compiled:
Balance-Sheet of the Havipstead Aqueducts for 1834. (From the Minute Book beginning May 4th, 1882.)
1
I
|
£ s. d. |
£ s. |
d. |
||
|
34. March 81. |
By works producing rental (de- |
|||
|
ducting empty houses) |
2,897 0 |
0 |
||
|
Deduct ordinary expenses ... 1,394 0 0 |
||||
|
„ extraordinary expenses 202 13 0 |
||||
|
„ 10 7o on expenditure of |
||||
|
£2,285. 12s. on new works 228 10 6 |
1,825 3 |
6 |
||
|
1,071 16 |
~6 |
|||
|
£ s. d. |
£ s. |
d. |
||
|
534. March 31. |
1834. March 31. |
|||
|
To dividends unpaid... 76 0 0 |
By £1,071. 16s. M. at |
|||
|
To adjustment |
of fine |
10 years' purchase... |
10,718 5 |
0 |
|
to the City of London 792 5 6 |
By stock on hands (es- |
|||
|
To balance divided into |
timated) |
150 0 |
0 |
|
|
600 shares, g"! ving per |
By £11,000 3% stock |
|||
|
share, £34. 11*. 4^d. 20,741 10 3 |
at 91 |
10,100 0 |
0 |
|
|
By cash |
641 10 |
9 |
||
|
£21,609 15 9 |
£21,609 15 |
~9 |
Probably a few years earlier the amount invested in government stocks was larger, for in 1833 a well had been sunk on Hampstead Heath and an engine erected to raise the water for supplying the town of Hampstead, where, hitherto, the inhabitants had been dependent on a water cart, the driver of which charged them ^d. per bucket-full. This well provided 200,000 gallons per day and the water was stored in eight reservoirs between Hampstead and Highgate\
The great obstacle hitherto to the success of the company had been the scantiness of the supply it could provide, and, with the addition of this new source, its business developed rapidly. The dividend of 20,9. per share was continued till 1837. By 1841 it had risen to 30*. and by 1844 to 40*. Thus it was only after the company had been in existence for more than a century and a half that a dividend was paid, which might be considered reasonable, taking into account the capital provided from revenue. In fact at this period it is probable that, if the shares had been valued relatively to the total existing assets, the return would not have been much more than 5 per cent. From 1844 to 1851 the dividend continued to improve, reaching a distribution of
Matthews, Hydraulia, pp. 13, 14.
Div. vi. § 1] Leased hy New River Co. 1859 9
50^. per share in the latter year. The improvement in the condition of the company is shown more by the price of the shares than by the dividends. From 1812 to 1815 transfers had been made at £\^ per share or very greatly below par. In 1732 sales were recorded at ^17 and £9.0 and at ^25 in 1733, falling to £9.0 in 1835. By 1848 the average of these prices had been doubled, a transfer having been made in that year at 40. Ten years later {i.e. in 1858) the price had again more than doubled rising to 90, and from 1859 transactions have taken place at 100 or over. The advance in the price of the shares in 1858 and 1859 was due to the transfer of the undertaking to the New River company. The Hampstead Aqueducts formed a wedge, driven into the New River district. The supply, that was available for the former, was limited, and thus the directors could not expect a great expansion in business. Therefore, increased profit might only be anticipated in the unlikely event of a great rise in rates. It follows that it was to the advantage of both companies to effect a working agreement, which took the form of the New River company leasing for ever the works of the Hampstead Aqueducts, subject to a payment of a yearly rent of d^3,500, which admits of a dividend annually of £5. \0s. free of tax on each Hampstead Aqueducts share. The latter company continues to exist, in its corporate capacity, for the division of the rent amongst its members, which was supplemented from time to time by occasional bonuses from a surplus fund, which is now (1908) devoted to the pay- ment of the largely increased Income tax^
Summary of the Capital and Dividends of the Hampstead Aqmdiccts.
Original Capital 600 Shares of £90 each = ^12,000.
Prices of Shares and Dividends.
|
Year |
Price of shares |
Dividend per share |
|
1700 |
152 |
|
|
1692—1761 |
— |
At least seven dividends were paid before 1762 |
|
1762—1772 |
— |
5/- |
|
1773—1781 |
— |
10/. |
|
1782—1783 |
— |
6/- |
|
1784—1798 |
— |
7/6 |
|
1799—1801 |
— |
10/. |
|
1802—1810 |
— |
12/- |
1 £3,500 a year, divided among 600 shares would give £5. 16*. 8c?. per share, but Qs. Sd. a share is now (i.e. in 1909) required for the payment of Income tax { = 5s. Qd. a share) and the expenses of rent, management, etc. ( = ls. 2d. a share). Mr Hakewill has supplied me with this statement of the present position of the
k
company.
2 Bannister, Life of William Paterson, n. p. 269.
10
The Hampstead Aqueducts [div. vi. § 1
|
Year |
Price of shares |
Dividend per share |
|
1811—1817 |
12 |
14/- |
|
1818—1829 |
— |
16/- |
|
1830—1837 |
17—25 |
20/- |
|
1838—1840 |
— |
25/- |
|
1841 |
— |
30/- |
|
1842—1843 |
— |
36/- |
|
1844-1846 |
— |
40/- |
|
1847—1850 |
40 |
45/- |
|
1851—1858 |
90 |
50/- |
|
1859—1862 |
1001—1052 |
55/- (half-yearly) guaranteed by New River company with occasional additions |
1 In 1859 and 1862.
2 In 1859. A transfer was made in 1871 at 103, in 1890 at 135, in 1896 at 207.
SECTION II. THE LONDON BEIDGE WATER WORKS (founded 1582). THE CITY CONDUITS COMPANY (founded about 1693). Amalgamated IN 1703 AS THE LONDON BRIDGE WATER WORKS COMPANY (1703-1822).
Besides the various conduits bringing water to the city, there were several inventions, in the latter part of the sixteenth and all through the seventeenth century, to force Thames water to a sufficient height to enable it to flow by pipes to the houses in the vicinity. One of the earliest and the most remarkable of these was a force-pump, invented by Peter Morice and established on London Bridge in 1582. Morice took advantage of a peculiarity in the construction of the bridge, as it existed in his day. Through the small size of the arches and the thickness of the piers, at certain states of the tide, there was a con- siderable fall of water. Morice's idea was to utilize this to drive a wheel which worked a force-pump'. He was able to demonstrate the feasibility of this invention, by forcing water over an adjoining church spire, and he made an agreement with the Council under which he obtained the use of the first and second arches on the north side of the river for 500 years from November 24th, 1582, at an annual rent of 10^.2 Morice was compelled to establish his entei-prize at his own cost, since it was noted in 1593 that "no great man or magistrate" would open his purse to help him, the invention not being considered " sensible ^"
In the year 1633 the London Bridge Water Works supplied the southern portion of the City as far as Gracechurch St. Morice and his successors had the advantage, over other proprietors of engines, that
1 Tlie wheel, as it existed at a later period, is illustrated in Hydraulia, p. 28. There are several old engravings of London Bridge and Morice's wheels inserted in a MS., preserved in the Guildhall Library, " A Short Account of the London Bridge Water Works and Memorandums relating to their Business."
2 Chronicles of London Bridge, by an Antiquary [Richard Thomson], London, 1827, p. 556.
2 A Brief e Apologie of Gertaine New Inventions whereof there hath bene a publicke View taken in London [1593]. Coll. Broadsides Soc. Antiq., No. 91.
12 London Bridge Water Works 1582-1703 [div. vi.
1
they did not need to provide horses for working their pumps, but the area to which water could be supplied was somewhat restricted by the — rise of the ground, which precluded the water from being pumped so^ as to find its way to houses in the higher districts. Therefore, as far as can be discovered, the Morice family had a steady business but one which had natural limits to its growth beyond a certain point, and, during the first half of the seventeenth century, the concern was fairly profitable. In the Great Fire the pumping-station was burned down, and the third generation of the family, engaged in the water-supply undertaking, found some difficulty in obtaining capital to erect new works. They eventually succeeded in borrowing =£2,000 on the security of the income to be derived in future from the business, but they complained that, while the rebuilding was in progress, the New River company had laid pipes into the part of South London they had been accustomed to supply. Accordingly in 1667 they presented a petition, asking that the New River company might be restrained from doing so^ From the re-erection of the pumping station until the Revolution, the proprietors continued to succeed, as is shown by the numerous imitations of their system during the latter part of the reign of Charles II. The somewhat reckless promotion of water companies from 1692 to 1695 no doubt caused serious competition, and thus, when an offer was made for the sale of the works in 1703, the Morices were prepared to accept it.
This offer was made by one of the recently established rival com- panies, which had been formed about 1694 by a banker, named Richard Soames. Like the Hampstead Aqueducts, other conduits had fallen into a condition of bad repair. When the City Council had become discredited over the mismanagement of the Orphans'' Fund 2, an act for the relief of the orphans was passed, which provided that, besides charging the city lands with <£8,000 a year, the rent accruing from any future aqueduct should be allocated towards making good the deficiency^. Under the spur of this legislation, the Council seems to have been disposed to receive offers for the construction of new conduits, or the handing over of disused ones to persons who would form a company and undertake to pay a certain rent. Soames obtained a lease of the conduits from Paddington, Marylebone, Islington, Hoxton, Hackney and Dalston, and he established a city office at the Black Horse against Poultry Compter. He, with a number of others, who
1 State Papers^ Domestic, Charles II. _, ccxxix. 162; Calendar, 1667-8, p- 132.
^ A Collection of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament in 1694 and 1695 upon the Inquiry into the late Briberies and Corrupt Practices, London, 1695, pp. 11-18, 92-6.
3 Statutes, VI. p. 464,
Div. VI. § 2] The City Conduits Company 1693-5 13
contributed the capital necessary for the extension of mains and the laying of service pipes, formed a company known as the City Comhdts. There are no details available as to the organization of this company, but in all probability its constitution resembled that of the Hampstead Aqueducts. In July 1694 the service pipes were being laid into houses, and Houghton records his impression that the new company would " make us abound with, not only useful, but more pleasant waters than ever^" In the following September the company advertized that "the water would wash very well, and is as fine as any other whatever and much finer than most^." It was announced, too, that in the case of any four persons, who lived within a distance of not more than 100 yards from an existing pipe, agreeing to take this water, service pipes would be laid into their houses. A few months later another advertisement appeared, which described the merits of the water in more glowing terms as " those fine conduit waters, which have been greatly esteemed and desired by all and by long experience approved the best for washing and for all other uses and have served the whole City for many hundreds of years, being now settled by act of Parliament for the benefit of the orphans^" A subsequent notice to intending consumers mentions the chief districts into which mains had been laid. There were six pipes, one starting from each of the following collecting places — Paddington, Marylebone, Islington, Hoxton, Hackney and Dalston. These were continued to Aldermanbury, Bond St., Broad St., Bun-hill Fields, Charing Cross, Charles St., Cheapside, Coleman St., Cornhill, Duke St., Fleet St., Fore St., Germain St., Green St., Grub St., King St., Leicester Sqr., Lothbury, Lombard St., Ludgate Hill, Ludgate St., Moorfields, Old Bailey, Pall Mall, Panton St., Piccadilly, Poultry, Spitalfields, St Albans St., St Bartholomew's Lane, St James' Market, St James' Sqr., St James' St., St Paul's Church Yard, Strand, Thread- needle St., Whitechapel, Wormwood St. It was added that more pipes were being laid daily and would be continued into other streets at the request of consumers ^ This list is not only of interest from its full record of places supplied, but also as showing the widespread com- petition fostered by free enterprize. Several of the places named were also supplied by the Hampstead Aqueducts, others again were within the districts of the New River, the Thames and the York Buildings ° companies. In the struggle to attract consumers, the City Conduits offered more favourable terms than had been given by the New River
1 Collections, No. 103 (July 20, 1694). ^ /^^.^ No. 112 (Sept. 21, 1694).
3 Ibid., No. 126 (Dec. 28, 1694). * Ibid., No. 133 (Feb. 15, 1695).
5 Owing to the York Buildings company having carried on other enterprizes besides that of water-supply, the account of it is placed with that of similar under- takings in Division xii.
14 The City Conduits Company 1695-1703 [div. vi. § 2
company. Both undertakings did not guarantee to supply water a greater pressure than would enable the basements of houses to bei connected. The New River had been in the habit of requiring a deposit from new consumers (called a fine), as well as the signature of an agreement to take the supply for a number of years. This document was called a lease, and a fixed rent was charged irrespective of the quantity consumed \ At the end of the seventeenth century both the New River and City Conduits charged about 24^. a year rent, but the latter exempted its consumers from the payment of a fine or the signing of a lease 2. It is on record that this concession by the City Conduits had produced " a great fall in the actions of the New River company " by 1695 3, and probably the older enterprize retaliated. In 1697 the City Conduits made an attack on the New River company by the publication of the following advertisement — " in winter or rainy weather 'tis good for all folks to watch their waters to try whether the City Conduits waters be not very clear and most fit for drinking and all other uses^"" Although the New River is not mentioned by name, the innuendo (that the water supplied from it was muddy) is confirmed by other contemporary evidence — for instance Strype asserts that the London Bridge company's water " became clear sooner than New River water and was ever a clearer waters"
During the next five years the City Conduits continued to attract consumers to the detriment of the New River company and the pro- prietors of the London Bridge works. The latter decided in 1703 to sell their undertaking to Soames for <£^38,000^. This agreement was signed on June 29th, 1703', but Soames had previously negotiated through Morice for a lease of the fourth arch of London Bridge for m\\ years from August 24th, 1701, at 10^. a year rent and d^SOO fine«. This lease, like that made in 1582, was due to terminate in the year 2082. Soames thus obtained possession of the fu'st, second and fourth arches of London Bridge on the northern side. The third arch had been leased by the City at an early period as a wharf and could not be acquired at this date. . An agreement was also made with Sir Benjamin Ayloff, under which ^^300 a year was paid for the use of the adjoining
1 An original early New River "lease" is preserved at the Guildhall Library, MSS. No. 191. In this case the " rent" was 51*. per annum for a ^-inch pipe.
2 A New View of London, by E. Hatton^ 1708, p. 785.
3 Anglice Tutamen, p. 27.
* Houghton, Collections, No. 234 (Jan. 24, 1697).
• 6 Stow, Chronicle (ed. Strype, 1754), i. p. 27. ^ Ibid., p. 28.
7 Copy Deed of Covenant from New River company to the Proprietors of the London Bridge Water Works in vol. iv. of "MS. Papers Relating to Water Companies," Guildhall Library, London.
* Chronicles of London Bridge, ut supra, p. 556.
•I
be^
Div. VI. § 2] London Bridge Water Works Go, 1703 15
site on the river bank, known as Broken Wharf. On this two engines were working in 1708\ Thus in 1703 Soames and his partners had the City Conduits and the London Bridge Water Works under their control, and they were spending capital freely in developing these various under- takings. In addition, a further supply from Marylebone, originally established by the City, was acquired. This conduit had been let, on the passing of the Orphans' act, at an annual rent of J'TOO, one year of which was payable in advance with a fine of .5^5,650. This price was found burdensome, and the lessees were discharged from the bargain. Soames, thereupon, acquired this undertaking also at the same rent, but without the fine 2.
The capitalization of this extensive system was accomplished by the formation of a new company known as the London Bridge Water Works Company, the management of which was in the hands of a governor and' nine assistants. The capital in 1703 was i?l 50,000, divided into 300 shares of £500 each. Subsequently, each share was divided into five, so that, instead of 300 shares of ■£*500 each, the number became 1,500 shares of ^100 each, and this division was continued during the remainder of the company's history ^
The energetic management, that had marked the amalgamation of the dififerent systems, now united as the London Bridge undertaking, was continued. The mains were extended and the Bridge works were enlarged. In 1708 there were thirteen engines at work, and at that date Goodman's Fields, the Minories, Houndsditch, Whitechapel and Birchin Lane were supplied from the Thames ^ In 1718, and again in 1743, efforts were made to secure the third arch of the bridge but this was not acquired until 1761, and the lease in this case also was renewed so as to terminate in 2082 ^ In 1765 negotiations were entered into for the fifth arch, which were continued for a number of years.
For a considerable period after the formation of the London Bridge company, it appears to have been very successful and to have been a dangerous rival to the New River. Dividends were announced in the advertisements of meetings in the London Gazette for 1710^ and about 1778 a reserve fund of .£15,000 nominal in government stocks had been formed''. This was only 10 per cent, on the capital and was smaller in proportion than the reserve and depreciation funds of the New River and Hampstead Aqueducts.
1 Hatton, A New View of London, p. 791.
2 Stow, Chronicle (ed. Strype, 1754), i. p. 29.
3 Deed of Covenant between the New River company and the Proprietors of the London Bridge Water Works, ut supra.
* Hatton, A New View of London, p. 791.
6 Chronicles of London Bridge, p. 656. ^ E.g. Nos. 3962, 4729.
7 MS, Short account of London Bridge Water Works [Guildhall Library], f. 21.
16 London Bridge Water Works Company [div. vi. § 2
Towards the end of the eighteenth century the company had to facJI the loss of supply from the various conduits, since the collecting areas had become converted into building ground by the extension of the suburbs. As time went on, the Thames became a less and less desirable source of supply ; and, when the height of buildings in the city increased and water was required on the higher storeys, the machinery at London Bridge was no longer able to generate the power required. For these reasons, by 1790, the dividend was 3 per cent, and the price of the shares 70. From 1794 to 1797 the dividend fell to 2 per cent., rising to 3 per cent, from 1798 to 1811 ^ After 1810 the demands on the company for very large capital outlay, if it was to hold its own, proved to be beyond what the shareholders could provide. Not only was more powerful machinery required to increase the pressure, but the action of the New River company in laying down iron pipes, in place of the wooden ones previously in use^, forced other companies either to follow its example or work at a disadvantage. The company was either unable or unwilling to adopt any improvements, beyond introducing an iron wheel to replace one of the wooden ones of the old type; and, once the rebuilding of London Bridge was decided upon, it was seen that the company would find it difficult to carry on its business. Had it decided to stand on its rights, the erection of the new bridge might have been considerably delayed, since the company's lease could not have been terminated, without compensation, until 2082. On the whole, the company was well-advised in the decision it came to, namely to retire from business, provided it could obtain a fair price for its property and rights. The New River company was at this date in a strong financial position and, after some negotiation, it offered, in consideration of the transfer of the greater part of the mains of the London Bridge company, to guarantee the same dividend that had been paid from 1818 to 1820, namely 2 J per cent., during the remaining 260 years the leases had to run from 1822^
Once this covenant had been signed and the property of the company disposed of, there was no reason for its continued existence and it was accordingly dissolved by an act of Parliament 3 George IV.
^ Beportsfrom Parliamentary Committees Session 1821^ v. p. 201,
2 Vide infra, p. 26.
3 Deed of Covenant between the New River company and the Proprietors of the London Bridge Water Works, ut supra.
Div. VI. § 2] Capital 1693, Dividends from 1790 17
Summary of the Capital^ Dividends and Prices of Stock, London Bridge Water Works Company.
Capital .£^150,000 in 1,500 Shares of .^100 each.
Prices and Dividends.
|
Year |
Price of shares |
Dividend per cent |
|
17901—1793 |
90 |
3 |
|
1794—1797 |
— |
2 |
|
1798—1811 |
— |
3 |
|
1812 |
— |
2| |
|
1813—1815 |
— |
2i |
|
1816—1817 |
— |
2| |
|
1818—1820 |
50 |
2i |
|
From 1822 |
— |
2^2 |
1 Prior to 1790 numerous dividends were paid.
2 Guaranteed by New River company until the year 2082.
s. c. III.
SECTION III. THE GOVEENOR AND COMPANY OF THE NEW RIVER BROUGHT FROM CHAD- WELL AND AMWELL TO LONDON (1609).
The foregoing accounts of the Hanipstead Aqueducts and London Bridge undertakings show the progress of two typical methods of supplying London with water; the former representing the system of conveying spring water in pipes from higher ground and the latter that of pumping it from the Thames. The utility of each was limited, in the one case by the smallness of the supply and in the other by the limited powers of the force-pumps, available in the time of Elizabeth and the Stuarts. When it is considered that in 1590 the population of London was 160,000, it will be seen that, even then, it had become necessary to augment the supply by bringing it from a distance \ As early as 1577 a plan had been proposed for drawing water from the Lea and making a conduit to bear it to London I Towards the end of the reign of Elizabeth the Corporation obtained parliamentary powers, similar to those contained in the act authorizing the Hampstead Aqueducts, enabling it to convey water to the City from any pai-t of Middlesex or Hertfordshire ^ No record remains of any effort being made to formulate a definite scheme, and it was not till early in the reign of James I. that a possible source of supply was selected and consideration given to the engineering problems involved. In 1605 an act was passed, empowering the Corporation to acquire land, suffi- cient to excavate a trench for bringing a fresh stream of running water from the springs of Chad well and Am well in Hertfordshire. This measure provided machinery for the settlement of the price to be paid landlords for the ground to be acquired, and it bound the undertakers to provide bridges for the public to cross the canal, where such were necessary*. A survey was made soon afterwards; and, in deference to the views of the proprietors through whose lands the cutting was to
» ^ Anderson, Annals of Commerce, ii. p. 235.
2 Calendar Treasury Papers, 1547-80, p. 569.
3 Mattliewsj Hydraulia, ut supra, p. 43. * 3 James I., c. 18.
Div. VI. § 3] The New River Scheme 1570-1610 19
be made, it was enacted in 1606 that the stream should be enclosed in "a vault" of stone or bricks This proviso would have increased the cost of the work so much that the Corporation did not avail itself of its statutory powers.
After a delay of two years, when it was recognized that the Cor- poration would take no steps in the matter, Hugh Myddelton or Middleton proposed that, on a transference of the acts being made to him, he would undertake to construct the required channel, within three years from the date of the signature of the agreement. Accord- ingly, on March 28th, 1609, a preliminary covenant was executed and a more formal indenture on April 21st of the same year, followed by a third dated March 28th, 1611 ^
Middleton underestimated the cost of acquiring the land necessary for the channel. Although he had compulsory powers for taking ground, the owners impeded him in several ways, and many of them endeavoured to obtain abnormally high prices for the portions of the estates, pur- chased compulsorily. Thus the opposition to the progress of the work was " very strong^" indeed in 1610 a bill was promoted in Parliament to repeal the acts under which the construction of the channel was proceeding. It was objected that the navigation of the river Lea would be hindered, mills and meadows decayed and the adjoining lands impoverished ^ To this it was replied that the enterprize would be highly beneficial to the health of the City, in giving wholesome water to the poor; it would also be advantageous in cleansing the sewers, cooling the streets in hot weather, for extinguishing fires, besides being convenient for cattle^. On the one side it was argued that the City should not have transferred its powers to a private entrepreneur-^ while upon the other it was contended that, if he proceeded with the work after the Council had refused to undertake it, his success would be all the more creditable. Besides, attention was drawn to the injustice to which Middleton must be subjected, were the parliamentary powei-s cancelled, since he had already expended considerable sums and at the date of the controversy was employing 1,700 men*. Though the bill was not passed, the opposition was sufficiently powerful to cause delay,
1 4 James I.^ c. 12.
2 Matthews, Hydraulia, p. 45 ; London and the Kingdom, by Reginald R. Sliarpe, 1894, II. p. 21.
3 Copy of the Charter of the New River company: Guildhall Library MSS., No. 190, printed in The London Water Supply, A Retrospect and a Survey, by R. Sisley, 1899, Appendix.
* Objections against the New River : MS. Tanner (Bodleian Library), 98, & 48, 49, State Papers, Domestic, James L, lxxviii. 106.
^ Benej&ts of the Proposed New River : MS. Tanner, 98, f. 47. ^ The State of the Case concerning the Waterwork: MS. Tanner, 98, f., 113.
2—2
20 The New River Company [div. vi. § 3
and on February 27th, 1611, Middleton was forced to apply for an] extension of time to complete the work.
The attempts made to impede the progress of the enterprize arej probably not without bearing on the next important event in the history of the New River. This was the execution of agreements on November 1st, 1611, and May 2nd, 1612, whereby the Crown, by undertaking certain financial responsibilities, acquired a moiety of the whole undertaking. There is reason to doubt whether the account, given of the motives which led to this transaction, is altogether comw plete. It is said that Middleton had found the cost of construction much larger than he had expected, and that, after selling shares, his resources were exhausted and hence he was compelled to appeal to James I. for financial assistance. It will be shown below that the whole original capital expenditure was surprisingly smalP, and it would not have been outside the capabilities of even a small company. Still more significant is it that it does not appear that Middleton sought monetary assistance from the City Council, to whom it might have been expected he would have first applied 2. Moreover, from the state of the Exchequer at this time^, it is certain that no unhesitating reliance could be placed on any financial promise made by the Crown, and therefore, on the whole, it seems probable that the main motive for the agreement was the necessity of securing the intervention of the King, in order to overcome the objections of powerful landowners whose estates were to be intei^sected by the channel.
The indentures between James I. and Middleton provided that the latter should convey one-half of the whole enterprize to the Crown; the King, on his part, undertaking to pay Middleton one-half of all the outlay already incurred and to provide one-half of such funds as were needed to complete the work*. It follows then that the whole enter- prize was divided into two equal moieties (and similarly the capital expenditure from the beginning till completion) and that one of these was assigned to the King and the other to Middleton. Further, it was not long before the second moiety was sub-divided into thirty-six parts or shares and these, as will be seen, constituted the New River company^.
Once the support of James I. had been secured, the construction proceeded rapidly, and the New River water was admitted into the reservoir at Islington on Michaelmas Day, 1613. Though the main
1 Vide infra, pp. 21, 31. ^ Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, 11. p. 23.
3 Vide supra. Part i.. Chapter vii.
* Indenture between James I. and Hugh Myddleton, May 2, 1612: State Papers, Domestic, Close Roll, No. 2,115 (10 James I., Pt, o). ^ Vide infra, p. 22.
Div. VI. § 8] Original Capital Outlay 1609-18 21
capital expenditure had been finished by this time, Middleton experi- enced considerable difficulty in obtaining the calls, due on the King's moiety, from the Exchequer. It is true that orders were punctually made, as each considerable section of the channel was finished^, but a considerable period elapsed before all of these were duly honoured, the final payment only having been made on September 22nd, 1617. There is a complete account of the total sums handed to Middleton, which was made up in 1631, consisting of sixteen separate payments (the first of which was made on xVugust 26th, 1612) varying from ^£^1,000 each down to 1^242. lav. S^d, and amounting in all to ^,262. 9*. bU^ This fixes the initial capital outlay which may be detailed as follows:
Original Capital Expenditure on the New River.
£ s, d.
The King's Moiety 9,262 9 6
The adventurers' moiety, consisting of 36 shares of a par
value of £257. 5*. 9frf. each 9,262 9 6
Total of both moieties £18,524 19 0
Considering the later history of the New River, this result appears to be almost ridiculously small. Further too, it is much below a number of estimates, framed on various bases, about the beginning of the nineteenth century. According to the figures, given by the company, the original cost of construction was at least ^^500,000. This cal- culation was issued in an Address- to Occupiers of Houses, during a period of somewhat acute controversy on the water-question^; and, in view of the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect greater exactitude than in the electioneering address of a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons. William Matthews, writing in 1835, places the original cost between ^^00,000 and ^200,000^ Possibly the excess of these estimates, over the actual original expenditure, is accounted for, partly by their neglecting the lower scale of wages in the first quarter of the seventeenth century, partly too by the tendency to endeavour to arrive at the expense of reconstructing the undertaking, rather than to
^ Issties of the Ejcehequer being payments made out of his Majesty's Revenue during the Reign of James L, by Frederick Devon, 1836, pp. 156, 172, 190.
2 State Papers, Domestic, Charles I., cci. 22; cf. An Abstract or Brief Declara- tion of the present State of his Majesties Revenew, with the Assignations and Defalcations upon the Same, 1651, p. 15; History of England, 1603-16, by S. R. Gardiner (edition 1863), II. p. 420,
^ Reports from Parliamentary Committees, Session 1821, v. p. 75.
^ Matthews, Hydraulia, p. 57. There is a calculation, starting from the terms of the assignment of the King's moiety to Middleton in 1631, in "Papers relating to Water Companies" at the Guildhall Library, vol. iv., which estimates that the value of the share at that time, for the purpose of this transfer, was taken at £280.
Tm
22 The New River Company [div. vi.
discover the outlay on making it as it was in 1613, from which date onwards large sums were disbursed in improvements. However this may be, it is important to notice that the original capital expenditure of ^^18,524. 19,9. can be supported to some extent from contemporary and independent sources. Taking the number of men employed byfl Middleton, the time of construction and the rate of wages, the sum so arrived at, as spent on labour, would leave an ample margin to meet the cost of the acquisition of land and other expenses. Further, there is the positive information that the whole expenditure on the first ten miles of the New River was d£'3,000\ This was approximately one- quarter of the total length, but it is to be remembered that land would rise in value nearer to the city, and that provision must be made for the supply of mains and service pipes, also for the loss of time before James I. countenanced the undertaking, so that, allowing for these considerations, the recorded figure of c^l 8,524. 19*'. would, on this basis, just about suffice for the completed enterprize.
Not only was the assistance of James I. important in enabling the New River to be finished, but it was helpful in many ways during the earliest years of its history. On the one hand he supported the venture in which he was interested; while, on the other, he discouraged rival concerns. Further, the citizens were urged to use the New River water in their houses, and in 1617 the King again aided the partners of Middleton in certain transactions relating to a water-house at Dow-gate, besides impeding another source of supply, which had been proposed at South wark ^ A more signal mark of the royal favour was manifested by the grant of a charter of incorporation on June 21st, 1619. This document is unique, since it was obvious that James I. could not in- corporate himself, and therefore it applies only to the thirty-six original shares into which Middleton's moiety was divided. The owners of these comprised the corporation which was entitled the Governor and Company of the New River brought from Chadwell arid Amwell to London. This grant recapitulates and confirms the powers, conferred on the City, and sanctions the transfer of them to Middleton. In the preamble, it is explained that, by reason of difficulties and delays, the charge had been greater than was expected and that Middleton had been forced to assume partners. Although the New River water had been available for some years, the supplying of it had not as yet yielded the profits anticipated, " partly from expenses daily arising far greater and heavier than were expected, partly from want of government.''
1 The State of the Case concerning the Waterwork : MS. Tanner, 98, f. 113. The same statement {i.e. that the first 10 miles cost £3,000) also occurs in the Repertory of the CJity, vide Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, ii. p. 22.
2 A History of Private Bill Legislation, by F. Clifford, 1887, ii. pp. 73, 74.
I
Div. VI. § 3] Kiiig's Moiety transferred 1631 23
It was, ostensibly, to remedy the latter defect that the charter was granted. It ordained that the officials of the company should consist of a governor, deputy-governor and a treasurer. At all general meet- ings five shareholders or adventurers constituted a quorum. It was also declared that no person or persons, other than the company, might "bring any river to London,"" without its consents In 1621 a bill was promoted to confirm the privileges of the company. Another effort was made in 1623, and again in 1642, to obtain parliamentary sanction of the transfer of the powers granted to the City, but without success^.
The earliest information of the return from the New River consists of the income received by the Crown on its moiety in 1623, which amounted to ^£325^ This would give a dividend of a little over £^ on each adventurer's share, being a yield of under 4 per cent, on the original nominal value; that is only about one-third of the return which might have been expected on an investment of a similar degree of risk. Though exact particulars are not procurable, it can be shown that income had accrued since 1615, for as early as that date there were arrears of water-rents. The next light obtainable on the financial status of the concern covers the years immediately preceding 1631. Charles I. had now entered on his career of personal government and, owing to his difficulties with Parliament, was anxious to "improve"''' his revenue. Most of the "branches" were investigated, in order to discover where an increase might be obtained, and, amongst these, was the King's moiety in the New River. P'irst of all, the cost of this investment was ascertained, and it is from the itemized account that the original expenditure is arrived at^ Further, the income was ex- amined and, though the statement (if one was prepared, as is probable) has not been discovered, certain deductions founded on it are extant. The arrears from 1615 to 1630 were very large, being as much as ^^2,580. 0^. Sd. in sixteen years. Thus the Crown had lost temporarily one-half of this (or <£*1,290. 0*. 4d), or at the average rate of about -£'85 per annum. Further, since the King's moiety did not form part of the property of the company, a special surveyor was appointed to represent the Crown, who was paid .^'lOO a year. The income received (presumably after providing for this charge) "did not come one year
1 Charter, ut supra.
2 Journals of the Home of Commons, i. pp. 611, 727, n. p. 554.
3 State Papers, Domestic, James 1., clviii. 59; Gardiner, History, 1628-37 (1877), II. p. 344. The King's moiety was subject to a charge of £100 for a surveyor, but it is to be inferred that the revenue in the text is the income before deduction of this expense.
* Vide supra, p. 21 .
24 The New River Company [div. vi. §
with another to dfi^SOO,'^ so, that, while the accounts showed a credit of approximately ^485 in favour of the Crown, the amount of the arrears and the expense of the surveyor reduced the nett income to about i?300. In view of these considerations, Charles I. expressed a wish that Middleton should " reduce his moiety into a constant revenue/' The method adopted, to effect this object, was an ingenious one. The Crown conveyed its moiety to Middleton by a grant dated November 15th, 1631; Middleton, on his part, guaranteeing the Crown an annuity of ^500. Middleton intended to subdivide this moiety into thirty-six shares and to charge these with an equal proportion of the annuity. Therefore the position in 1631 was that each of these new shares would be subject to a liability of ^£^13. 17*. Off/.; whereas the average dividend, on the adventurers' shares for some years before, had been only about £\\. 9^. Sd. In order to provide an immediate prospect of some in- come for the purchasers of the shares, into which the King's moiety was to be divided, it was further agreed that the Crown should grant to Middleton all the arrears due to it, and these were to become the property of the new shareholders \ Since further the annuity was guaranteed by Middleton, personally, it was charged on all the shares he possessed at the time the arrangement was made. It happened that some of the shares in the King's moiety had been already sold and so escaped this charge, known as the " King's Clog," which was levied on 29 J "King's shares" and 1^ "Adventurers' shares." Thus, while the clog was levied in this manner — on most of the " King's" and on some of the adventurers' shares — the former class as a whole continued to be outside the incorporation, that is, for instance, without powers of voting for the election of officials.
The speculation of taking the risk of providing the annuity to the Crown of £500 was soon justified by results. The population of London was increasing, and was returned at 700,000 in 1636^ The dividend on adventurers' shares had been only ^14Mn 1635 but it had risen to <£33 in 1640.
With regard to the financial history of the company, it is thus evident that the disposal of the King's moiety constituted a turning point in its progress. The same remark is true of the legal status, though in this case the turning was in the reverse direction. During the reign of James I., the company had enjoyed a full measure of royal support, but in the time of Charles I. and the Civil Wars, it had to encounter the opposition of the heads of the State. James I. had discouraged rival schemes, while Charles I. fostered and encouraged
1 State Papers, Domestic, Warrant Book, No. 30, Grant to Middleton, Nov. 15, 1631. 2 Londinopolis, by James Howell, 1657, p. 403.
* Omitting shillings and pence.
I
Biv. VL § 3] Position and Profits 1631-90 25
them. Thus, in 1631 — the year of the sale of his moiety — he em- powered Edward Stradling and his partners to convey spring water from Hoddesdon in Herts., subject to an annual payment of ^^4,000 to the Crown ^, and in the same year he made a grant to Edward Main- waring (whose name is associated with a scheme for supplying Chester with water) to raise a lottery for a new water undertaking at London I Again in 1641 there were two rival proposals for conveying water to London from Hertfordshire, neither of which appears to have been accomplished^.
The most successful period of the operations of the New River company, during the first hundred years of its history, was that from the Great Fire up to the formation of numerous rival companies in 1692-3. One effect of the Great Fire was to injure the conduits, which had afforded a free, if scanty supply previously. In the rebuild- ing, owners of new houses would be ready, even anxious, to have supply-pipes laid in. When this opportunity came to the proprietors of water-supply undertakings, the New River alone was prepared to take advantage of it. The prudent financial methods adopted had placed the company in a strong position, while its few rivals were in embarrassed circumstances. The owners of the London Bridge works, for instance, found it an arduous matter to rebuild their pumping- station, without trying to extend their mains ^ Another company or partnership, of which Sir William Smith and Sir John Hooke were members, had been competing with the New River company ; and it was ordered on September 2nd, 1668, by the Privy Council that a committee should fix a scale of reasonable rates, so that neither under- taking should undersell the other. After more than a month no appearance had been made by Smith, and the New River company complained that this delay had hindered the laying of mains ^ By 1680 the dividend had increased to c^l45. 1,9. 8^^. per share: this being about ten times the amount paid in 1635 and four times that of 1640. No mention of the price of the shares has been discovered relating to this time, but it would appear that any shares sold from 1680 to 1690 may have changed hands at about ^4,500. At this price, the dividend, required to give a moderate return, would need to have been higher than that paid in 1680, but there is every reason to expect that it continued to increase till about 1693.
It was not long before the great growth in London water companies, towards the close of the seventeenth century, began to affect the profits
^ Fcedera, xx. p. 246.
2 State Papers, Domestic, Charles I., cLxxvn. 46; Calendar , 1629-31, p. 553.
^ Matthews, Hydraulia, p. 32.
^ Vide supra, p. 12. ^ Add. MS. (Brit. Mus.) 15,858, f. 184.
26 The New River Company [div. vi. § 3
of the New River company., The York Buildings undertaking had been established in 1675 and was transferred to a company in 1690. In the latter year, the Shad well company was incorporated, and about 1692 the Hampstead Aqueducts and City Conduits were rebuilt by progressive companies. The remodelling of old sources of supply by Soames and the eventual amalgamation of these and the London Bridge works in 1701 were especially dangerous. He gave his consumers very favourable terms, and it is recorded that the effect of this keen competition had been to produce a great fall in the shares of the New River company \ In 1698 a price of about d£*4,000 a share is mentioned, and in 1700 there is record of a dividend of £91\ per share being paid. In 1708 the shares were spoken of as " being somewhat more valuable,*" than had been the case recently, and the price then was about 4,500 guineas 2.
From 1700 to 1720, the profits appear to have been fairly steady ; or, if there was a fall, it had been recovered at the later date, but, in view of the increase of building about London, it is a significant commentary on the effects of competition that the dividend of 1720 exceeded that of 1700 by less than £^. Thus in forty years from 1640 to 1680 the dividend had quadrupled, in the twenty years from 1680 to 1700 it was increased by one-half, and in the same period from 1700 to 1720 by only one-seventieth =*. The next price obtainable after 1720 was mentioned in 1739 and it was c£*5,250. A great part of the increase, over that recorded in 1708, is to be attributed to the fall in the general rate of interest on capital.
The competition of the water companies, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, no doubt brought better terms to the consumer, but in another respect he suffered considerably. The Londoner of the present day makes many complaints, concerning the disturbance of the streets through repairs of water, gas and electric mains, but the state of the thoroughfares, owing to repairs of pipes two hundred years ago, must have been something which at present it is difficult even to imagine. All mains, at that time, were made of wood, generally of the trunks of elm trees, to which leaden service pipes were connected. The extreme life of these wooden pipes did not exceed twenty years, sometimes it was as little as three years. It often happened that the company, prior to 1810, had to lay over twenty miles of mains in a year. Another peculiarity of early water-supply arose out of the fact, that it was difficult to obtain tree-trunks that would give a sufficient bore and it became necessary to lay several sets of mains in the same street. When a leak occurred, all of these had to be examined,
1 Anglice Tutamen, p. 27. ^ Hatton, A New View of London, p. 792.
3 Vide infra, Summary of Capital a/nd Dividends, p. 31.
1
BIT. vi. § 3] Competition in Water Supply 1693-1720 27
and sometimes as much as 200 yds. of roadway was opened up for nearly a month. To modern ideas this would be unbearable in a district, served by a single company; but when the undertakings, formed in the reign of William III., were competing for consumers, it happened that two or even more companies would lay mains in the same street. When all these were subject to the same rapid rate of depreciation, but requiring renewal at different times, the streets were probably more often opened up than available for traffic. The companies too suffered from their defective mains, as it was estimated that, of the water that was delivered into the mains, only about 75 per cent, found its way into the cisterns of consumers.
In order that the relation of companies to the water-supply of London may not be left in a fragmentary condition, it is necessary to continue the history of the New River company beyond the year 1720. That epoch, so full of disaster or at least of change for the companies of the time, left the bona Jide water companies almost unaffected. It is true that, for reasons explained elsewhere % the York Buildings company was made a medium of extensive speculation ; but this was attributable to its character of a land-development, rather than to that of a water company. Besides the New River and the York Buildings companies, there were the London Bridge, the Hampstead Aqueducts, the Shadwell and St Paul's, the Chelsea companies and a number of private undertakings. Of these the most important were the New River and the London Bridge companies, but it would be a great mistake to suppose that the former occupied the leading position that it held at the end of the nineteenth century. On the contrary, the general opinion in the time of William III. and Queen Anne was that the London Bridge company, as reorganized by Soames, was the chief water company. Allowing for the fact, that much of the capital outlay on the city conduits, incorporated into this system, had been borne by the corporation for which the company paid interest in the form of rent, it is probable that the whok capital expenditure on this under- taking was larger than that on the New River. It had the advantage of at least eight different sources of supply, which tended to diminish the cost of laying pipes, and the management had the reputation of being far-seeing and less exacting than that of the older company. Thus it required about a century for the New River to thoroughly establish itself, and it was only after the first quarter of the nineteenth century that the remarkable improvement in dividend and price of the shares began.
The recent appreciation in the shares, as a species of property, has been so remarkable that one loses sight of the slow steps by which it 1 Vide infra, Division xii.. Section 2 b.
28 The New River Company [div. vi. § 3
has been reached, and the large number of causes which contributed to this result. Besides, the development of the undertaking in the nineteenth century was conditioned by its history in the eighteenth. The position of the supply of London, north of the Thames in 1720, ^ was instructive. There were four companies and several individuals ■ authorized to lay pipes and provide water. Each of them was subject to competition from one or more of its rivals, and it is doubtful whether the gain in cheapness to the consumer compensated for the inconvenience of the general public. Unless each undertaking was content to confine itself to a comparatively small area, there was bound to be competition until the stronger company had absorbed its rivals. The struggle between the chief combatants lasted for over a hundred years, and, before it was finally concluded, a new era of strife began in the nineteenth century. The conditions that made for success in the competition of the eighteenth century were partly natural advan- tages and partly skill in management, including prudent finance. The New River company was favourably situated in respect to its supply, but not remarkably so. The New River proper, that is the springs conveyed from Chadwell and Amwell, could not long have sufficed for the growing demands made upon them. The wisdom of the committee was shown in the early supplementing of the original supply by a new one, drawn from the Lea, and, by this acquisition, the company not only strengthened its position but made it difficult for its competitors to tap new sources on the north of London. Then in respect to capital resources, the New River and Hampstead Aqueducts acted prudently in placing themselves in a strong financial position, the York Buildings company emerged from its speculative operations almost in a bankrupt condition ; and the London Bridge, while forming some reserve, had not made such liberal allocations to it as the two older companies had done.
During the fifty years after 1720 {i.e. up to 1770) the New River company just held its own. In that long interval the dividend improved from £91^. \bs. l\d. paid in 1720 to i^255. 13^. \\(U in 1770— an increase which was probably less than proportionate to the growth of population in its district. But although no gain in profitableness had been made, commensurate with the extension of building, all the con- ditions were in existence for great future developments at the expense of rival concerns. The New River company was in a position to increase its supply with the growth of demand, whereas its competitors were not. The extension of the suburbs rendered some of the springs no longer available ; and, as time went on, water pumped from the Thames became
1 The dividends paid from 1770 to 1827 are given in Reports from Parliamentary Committees, Session 1821, v. p. 206; ibid., Session 1828, viii. p. 56.
Div. VI. § 3] Extension of the System 1810-59 29
less and less desirable. Therefore, towards the close of the eighteenth century, not only did the New River obtain the custom of most of the new consumers in competitive areas, but it drew away business from some of the other companies. The effect of these causes is shown both in the growth of the New River dividend and (where information is available) in the decline of the competing undertakings. It required fifty years for the dividend on New River shares to increase (at 1770) by ^^40, but in the eleven years from 1770 to 1781 it advanced by nearly d£>90, or in other words the increase in eleven years was twice what it had been in the previous fifty. By 1788 the distribution per share was over =^400, and in 1794 it was more than double what it had been in 1720, or more than half as much again as that paid in 1770. The highest payment in this series was made in 1805, when it was ^486. 0.y. 0\d.
After 1805 the dividend remained over =£^400 until 1811. In the latter year, there was an abrupt fall from ^^465. 0,9. ^\d. to d£^282. \%s. d^d. The next year, 1812, the distribution was ^220. \%s, 2|J., in 1813 ^113. 18*. l\d. and in 1814 only £^'6. 2,9. Id, The latter return was probably the lowest for at least a century and was caused by a com- bination of circumstances. In 1810 the company had begun to replace its wooden pipes by iron ones, and at the same time there was fresh competition from newly formed companies. That of the East London company, which had been incorporated in 1807, was specially severe, and the fight was waged so fiercely, on both sides, that a series of Parliamentary Commissions were necessary to adjust the differences.
Although the events from 1810 to 1820 involved a temporary reduction of the dividend, they eventually resulted in the great success of the New River company. The completion of the recently in- corporated undertakings led to the assigning of a general sphere of territory to each surviving company, while the joint effect of new capital outlay on iron mains and the excess of rivalry had been to embarrass those, that were weakest, of the older companies. Of these the least stable was the York Buildings company. Its directors, since 1719, had never paid much attention to the waterworks, their specu- lations in land had failed, and by 1802 the debts so contracted had been liquidated. The water-supply undertakings had long been let on lease; and when, in 1818, the New River company had an opportunity of arranging with the proprietors, it was decided to take advantage of it. The agreement made provided for the leasing of the York Buildings undertaking by the New River company for 2,000 years, on consideration of the latter paying an annuity of o£'250. 18,?. Qd. to the holders of certain York Buildings securities \
^ Vide infra, Division xii., Section 2 a.
30 The New River Company [div. vi. § 3
When it was decided to rebuild London Bridge, the New River company acquired the London Bridge company's goodwill in 1822, by paying an annuity of ^^3,750 (or 9,\ per cent, on the stock) for the 260 years remaining of the lease granted by the City^ Having made this arrangement, the New River company executed sub-contracts with the East London company and the proprietors of the Southwark Waterworks, which relieved it of d^l,220 of the guaranteed annuity. In consideration of transferring to the East London company as m.uch of the goodwill of the London Bridge undertaking as fell within the district of the former, the New River company received £\Q0 of the annuity, payable to the London Bridge shareholders, from the East London company. On similar conditions, the proprietors of the South- wark works undertook to pay <£*1,060 of the annuity, so that the balance to be obtained by the New River company was only ^2,530.
The last of the early companies to be acquired by the New River company was the Hampstead Aqueducts, which was leased in 1859. This undertaking had remained in a sufficiently strong financial position to be able to increase its supply by sinking a well in 1833% Its dividend had improved steadily from 1801, and the New River company found it necessary to undertake to make a considerable increase on the dividends immediately before the transfer. The total annuity now payable to the Hampstead Aqueducts shareholders is c£^3,500. This yields £6. 10*. for the original ^^20 share, or 27^ per cent. As shown, however, in the account of this company^, the true return is considerably less than this, owing to all capital expenditure, after the formation of the company, having been provided from undivided profits.
Some years prior to the acquisition of the Hampstead Aqueducts, the New River system, as a modern water-supply undertaking, had been welded together. The grant of a private act (which for the first time brought the company under direct parliamentary sanction) in 1852 may be taken as the outward sign of a new period in the interesting history of this organization, which falls outside the scope of this work^
1 Vide supra, p. 16. ''^ Vide supra, p. 8.
3 Vide supra, pp. 8-10.
* For the sake of completeness it may be added that the water-supply under- taking, under the Metropolitan Water Act of 1902, has been acquired by the Metropolitan Water Board. The company still exists to administer certain real property, which was not included in this sale.
Div. vi. § 3] Capital, Dividends, Prices 1607-1770 31
Summary of Capital, Dividends and Prices of Shares. Capital,
Original outlay, 1607-15. Tlie King's moiety (converted in 1631 into 36 King's
shares)
The adventurers' moiety, consisting of 36 shares of an original nominal value of £257. 6s. 9f rf. each, which were incorporated in 1619 as the New River Company
0,262 9 6
Total original outlay
9,262 9 6 ... £18,524 19 0
Dividends and Prices of Shares.
|
Year |
Dividend on an adventurer's share, not subject to the " clog" £ s. d. |
Price of an adventurer's share |
|
1623 |
About 9 0 6 |
_ |
|
.?1630 |
„ 11 2 31 |
|
|
1633 |
1119 P |
|
|
1635 |
14 14 3i |
|
|
1640 |
33 2 83 |
|
|
1680 |
145 1 8 |
|
|
1698 1700 |
211 16 7i^ |
about £4,000* |
|
1708 1720 |
214 15 7F |
4,500 guineas^ |
|
1727 |
— |
5,000 guineas ^ |
|
1739 1754 |
— |
£5,250 » about £5,000 »o |
|
1770 |
255 13 11" |
£6,700^2 |
I Vide aupra, p. 24.
'^ History of the Parish of St Mary, Islington, by S. Lewis, 1842, p. 428. In 1634 sufficient arrears had been collected to enable £3. 4.S'. 2d. per share to be paid on account of these.
^ History of the Parish of St Mary, Islington, by John Nelson, 1811, p. 166.
• A True copy of the several affidavits and other proofs of the largeness and richness of the mines of the late Sir Carbery Price, p. 2.
^ Lewis, History, ut supra. ^ Hatton, A New View of London, p. 792.
^ Nelson, History of ..Islington, p. 166.
^ Lewis, History, ut supra. '-^ Maitland, History of London, p. 629.
10 Ibid., p. 1270.
II Reports from Parliamentary Committees, Session 1828, viii. p. 55. Lewis gives the dividend on a King's share in 1766 as £154.
1'^ Lewis, History, ut »upra.
SECTION IV. OTHER LONDON WATER-SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGS.
The Governor and Company of the Waterwork and Water-houses in Shad well (patent 1681, incorporated 1691).
The Borough Waterworks, Southwark (founded about 1690).
Marchmont's Waterworks (1694).
Savory's Waterworks (about 1708).
Besides the various companies already mentioned, there were some other undertakings which, in the fifty years prior to 1720, supplied water to certain districts in London.
One of these was the Shadwell company which was originated by Thomas Neale, who about 1681 obtained a patent authorizing him to construct waterworks at Shadwell to supply the manors of Stepney and East Smithfield^ Neale, unlike some other patentees, had devoted himself to the work for which he had obtained privileges; and, by 1691, he had not only erected works and laid pipes into the East London district, but had, by " costly experiments,"" found out an improved method of supplying Southwark with water, "sweet and clear^'' In the following year, he obtained a private act incorporating himself and his partners in the Shadwell undertaking, with the usual privileges, as the Governor and Company of tlie waterwork and water-houses in Shadwell^ with the right of electing a governor and twenty -four assistants^. In 1754 the supply was drawn from the Thames by means of two steam-engines and distributed by mains of 7 in. bore"*. Towards
^ Reports Hist. MSS. Com.y xiv., Pt. 6, p. S8 ; Journals of the House of Commons, x. p. 679.
2 State Papers, Domestic, Petition Entry Book, i. p. 176; Calendar , 1690-1, p. 497.
3 Report.s- Hist. MSS. Com., xiv., Pt. 6, p. 83. * Maitland, History of London, p. 1272.
I
Div. VI. § 4] Other London Water Works 1681-1822 33
the end of the eighteenth century, the same causes that had injured other undertakings, which drew water from the Thames, affected this company; and, besides, its business was injured by the West Ham company, so that it became necessary to make a call on the proprietors \ For a number of years the undertaking was in an embarrassed condition and its business was finally taken over by the East London company.
Neale's petition, offering to supply Southwark with water, shows that, at the beginning of the reign of William III., it was considered there was still room for a water company south of the Thames. At the time the City authorities were disposing of the right to supply certain districts, an offer had been made by a group of partners for the privilege of working in this district at a fine of ,^550 and a rent of £^50 a year, but they failed to find water and retired from the enter- prized Thereupon William Gulston took a lease of the south arch of London Bridge and erected water-houses, besides laying great numbers of "pipes and trunks.'"* In 1691 he was supplying the parishes of St Olave and St Saviour, and he petitioned for powers authorizing him to open streets for the laying of pipes ^ On August 28th a warrant was signed for the preparation of a bill, granting him these powers*. In 1770 a steam-engine was erected to improve the pumping^ and in 1822 a portion of the goodwill of the London Bridge company was leased by the New River company to the proprietors of these works ^
In 1708 the inventor Savory had a steam-engine at work, which supplied a part of Southwark''.
A somewhat interesting undertaking was one founded in 1694 by Hugh Marchant, Marchmont or Merchant, Craven Howard and a number of other persons, who had obtained the right of using all common sewers within the Bills of Mortality, excepting those in the City, to generate power for the pumping of water from the Thames. The rent payable was five nobles a year for 99 years ^ By January 5th, 1696, the partners had erected pumping-houses near Tom's Coffee House, at St Martin's Lane and Hartshorn Lane in the Strand", and they petitioned for the right to lay pipes. In 1754 the power derived from the sewers was supplemented by a windmill at Tottenham Court Road Fields ; and, at that date, the company owned three mains of 6 inches and 7 inches, and it was in a position to divide profits to the members^".
1 Observations on the Establishment of New Water Works Companies (Guildhall Library). 2 stow, Chronicle (ed. Strype, 1754), p. 29.
3 State Papers, Domestic, Will, and Mary, Petition Entry Book, i. p. 178; Calendar, 1690-1, p. 499.
4 Ibid., H. O. Warrant Book, vi. p. 165; Calendar, 1690-1, p. 503. ^ Chronicles of London Bridge, p. 567-
6 Vide supra, p. 30. ^ Hatton, A New View of London, p. 797.
8 State Papers, Domestic, Will, and Mary, Petition Entry Book, iii. p. 97.
9 Maitland, History of London, p. 1268. ^^ ^^•
S. 0. III.
SECTION V. WATER-SUPPLY UNDERTAKINGS IN PROVINCIAL TOWNS.
Chester. P. Mainwaring and others (1634). Newcastle. William Gray (1646).
"Folly Waterworks" (1680).
W. Soulesby (1694).
W. Yarnold (1697). Derby. G. Sorocold (1693). Liverpool. Water Company (1695).
Cleave Moore (1709).
Outside London there was considerable activity in the supplying of towns with water. As early as 1634, there is a record that Philip Mainwaring (who had a scheme for a London undertaking^) was interested, with others, in a water company at Chester^
There is also fairly complete information as to the early supply of Newcastle-on-Tyne. In 1583 the town was supplied by three conduits, but by 1647 there was great scarcity, owing to one of these having been declared dangerous to health, and the springs that fed the others having been impaired by the sinking of coal shafts^ On July 26th, 1647, the Corporation agreed to grant certain waste land, known as King's Dykes, to William Gray, in return for "his conveying water from his conduit in Pandon Bank to Sand-Gate^" Evidently this measure only provided a temporary relief, for in 1671 it was necessary for the magistrates to prohibit the use of taps in private houses. In 1680 Cuthbert Dikes proposed to supply the whole town by means of an engine pumping water from the Tyne. This engine was erected outside the Sand-gate**. Cuthbert Dikes formed a company to carry
1 Vide supra, p. 25. The Christian name of the promoter of the London scheme is entered in the grant as "Edward/' but there is reason to beheve that the person, referred to in the text, is intended.
2 State Papers, Domestic, Charles I., cclxiii. 7; Calendar, 1633-4, p. 513.
3 History of the Trade and Manufactures of the Tyne, Wear and Tees, 1863, p. 190.
* The History and Antiquities of the Town of Newcastle, by John Brand, 1789, i. p. 443.
^ Ibid., p. 444.
Div. VI. § 5] Provincial Water-Supply Companies 35
out his agi-eemeiit with the magistrates and started operations, it is said, with a subscribed capital of =£'3,500 ^ The water suppHed was not acceptable to the townspeople, and the undertaking was described as the "Folly Waterworks." The company transacted business for a number of years, and then leased its works to William Yarnold for ^40 a year. On the failure of Yarnold's venture, the company resumed possession and carried on the concern until the great frost of 1739, when the works suffered severely, and the prospects were not sufficiently encouraging to lead the proprietors to incur the expense of making the extensive repairs which were necessary 2. In 1827 the minute books of the company were still in existence, but all attempts to trace them have failed ^
In 1694 there were fresh complaints of the scarcity of water, and the Council treated with William Soulesby for conveying a supply from springs at Castle Leazes^ In 1697 William Yarnold, who was known as the inventor of a pumping engine, brought a scheme before the Council, and on October 11th an agreement was made with him, which provided that, on his supplying the town with good wholesome drinking water, he should receive a lease for 300 years, at 13.y. 4^. per annum, of all waste ground, outside the city walls but within the liberties of the town. The Corporation also granted him full powers of laying pipes, but subject to the rights of existing undertakings. Yarnold's scheme was to sink wells and raise the water by means of his engine, which was capable of raising 120 tons of water 300 feet in an hour^ The site, chosen for the wells, was at a place known as Waterworks Farm, about three miles from Newcastle ; and, as the land required was outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation, it became necessary to apply for parliamentary powers, which were obtained in 1698-9^. Yarnold discovered good water and succeeded in conveying it to the City in elm-wood pipes. He found, however, that the supply failed in the summer, and he was forced to rent the Folly Works. Yarnold ulti- mately sold the undertaking, which was acquired by a new company formed in 1734 ^
Mention is made in 1693 of the enterprise of George Sorocold for supplying Derby with water and at that date mains and service pipes were being laid. Houghton says that it was probable "this supply would be much used^""*
1 Hist, of the Trade of the Tyne, p. 190. ^ Ibid., p. 191.
3 Descriptive Account of Newcastle-on-Tyne, by E. Mackenzie, 1827, p. 725.
* Brand, History, ut supra, i. p. 44o.
° London Gazette, No. 3581, Marcli 4, 1700.
6 Statutes, VII. p. 450. ^ Hist, of the Trade of the Tyne, p. 191.
8 Collections, No. 37, April 21, 1693.
3—2
36 Provincial Water-Supply Companies [div. vi.
The wave of industrial activity, that was so marked about London from 1690 to 1695, extended to Scotland and the provinces. In 1695 a group of "men from London'"* undertook to supply Liverpool with drinking water, obtaining from the Corporation a lease empowering them to lay pipes for 100 years. They failed to accomplish the project, and in 1709 Sir Cleave Moore proposed to bring water from Bootle. An act was obtained authorizing the acquisition of lands, but Moore failed to float the company, which was to provide the necessary capitals During the remainder of the eighteenth century, Liverpool was " scantily supplied"" with water by the agency of water carriers ^
1 History of the Commerce and Town of Liverpool, by Thomas Baines, 1852, pp. 349, 350.
2 The History of Liverpool, 1810, p. 208.
DIVISION VII.
POSTAL AND STREET-LIGHTING COMPANIES.
SECTION I. COMPANIES FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF LETTERS AND PARCELS.
The Undertakers for Reducing the Postage op Letters
TO Half the Former Rates (1651-3). The Undertaking of the Penny Post (1680-2).
After the Civil Wars, there was a considerable increase in the demand for postal facilities. Up to the end of the reign of Charles I., the service had not proved self-supporting ; but, when Edmund Prideaux, who had been appointed Post-master in 1644, had been in office for a few years, he claimed that not only had the posts been augmented but that they were maintained without a subsidy. Though improvements had been effected, the service was not sufficient for the needs of the time, and in 1649 the Common Council of the City of London estab- lished a postal service to Scotland. The reason given for this step was the infrequency of Prideaux' mails, which were only collected once a week\ At this period the control of private correspondence by the State was considered of great importance, in order that information might be obtained as to the state of feeling in the country; and, on the petition of Prideaux to the Council of State, the City post was suppressed ^
In order to secure his monopoly, Prideaux had been compelled to produce a statement of the revenue he derived from the posts, with the result that the House of Commons exacted a rent of <36'5,000 a year from him. The imposition of this annual payment, on the farmer, meant the continuance of rates, which might otherwise have been reduced, had the State made the latter alternative a condition in the renewal of its contract with Prideaux. It appears, then, that the standard charge for a letter would have remained at 6d. during the continuance of this farm. A new phase of the situation came into existence through the formation of a partnership, consisting at first of Clement Oxenbridge, Richard
1 The History of the Post Office, by Herbert Joyce, London, 1893, pp. 24, 25.
2 The Post in Grant and Farm, by J. Wilson Hyde, London, 1894, p. 224.
40 Co. for reducing Postage Rates 1652 [div. vii. § 1
Blackwell, Francis Thomson a^nd William Malyn, with the avowed object of reducing the rate to 3cZ.^ and providing a more frequent service. The first four partners were soon joined by others, and they developed their postal system vigorously. It is remarkable that the new unauthorized service was not interdicted ; especially, since as early as December 6th, 1652, it was proposed to borrow money, on the security of the rent payable by Prideaux^. The probable reason of the inaction of the executive is to be found in the fact that the new undertakers were favoured by Cromwell and his party ^
Thus Prideaux was left to face the competition, that had sprung up, as best he could. His agents circulated notices which stated that, the new undertaking being unauthorized, letters consigned to it were subject to detention, while " the old post will pass freely^'*' Efforts were made to stop messengers employed by the new undertakers, with the result that there were frequent collisions between the post-boys of the rival services, followed by actions at law^ The "new post" was still continued, and Prideaux was forced to reduce his rates and to provide a more frequent service. To meet this reduction, the new undertakers adopted the role of the champions of free enterprize, contending that they were justified by " the light of nature in a free state," in opposition to a grasping and greedy monopoly^. They appealed to the public, stating that, as the benefit had come by their action, so its continuance depended on the success of their enterprize'^.
The bitterness of the contest now extended to the servants of the rival posts. Every messenger had to protect the letters committed to his charge from the violence of his rivals. Even outsiders joined in the fray. A son of one of the old postmasters assaulted a messenger of the new undertakers with a sword, and soon afterwards one of their men was murdered when in charge of the mails. The campaign, as conducted by Prideaux, not only included violence against his competitors but also the
^ The former rate had been Qd. for a single letter for places 100 miles distant by post route from London, that of the new undertakers was 3d for 80 miles and over, and 2d. for lesser distances.
2 Journals of the House of Commons, vii. p. 226.
3 State Papers, Domestic, Inter., lxvii. 65; The Case of the First Undertakers for
adducing of Letters to half the Former Rates truly Stated Brit. Mus. '-^ — .
* To all Ingenious People — A Second Intimation from the New Undertakers for conveyance of letters at half the rates to Severall Parts of England and Scotland [1653]
Brit. Mus. ^ — . As far as can be discovered no copy of a first intimation is
in existence.
fi IUd.\ State Papers, Domestic, Inter., lxvii. 65; Calendar, 1654, p. 23.
^ State Papers, Domestic, Inter., lxv. 51 (1); Calendar, 1653-4, p. 373.
7 To all Ingenious People — ut supQ-a, State Papers, Domestic, Inter., lxvii. Q5.
Div. ^^I. § 1] Co, for reducing Postage Rates 1653 41
forcing of their employees to observe the Sabbath, while the letters com- mitted to him were hurried forward on the " day of rest." In spite of all obstacles, the new undertakers continued to maintain their service and, on the dissolution of the Long Parliament, they received the State- despatches, both ordinary and extraordinary. Having met with this measure of success, they published their Second Intimation to all ingenious People, announcing that, on and after April 28th, 1653, letters would be conveyed from London on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Prideaux now retired from the contest, and the undertakers took the old posthouse, provided packet-boats for the Irish service and laid plans for organizing a stage from I^ondon to Yarmouth.
The success of the partnership was destined to prove the cause of its downfall. Though Prideaux received little support from the government, the Council of State was forced to take action, when the rental from the farm of the posts was in danger of being lost. It was decided that tenders should be invited for a new farm. The undertakers showed that their whole charge and losses had been £5,146. 10s. 8d., their returns were dfi'1,907. 14^. 5d., leaving a balance of nett loss, at this date, of ^3,238. 16.9. Sd.^ They were called before the Committee of the Council of State, that had been appointed to consider the farming of the posts ; and, according to their account of the interview, they were assured that they should have the refusal of the farm and that, if their offer was not accepted for any reason, they should be reimbursed their expenditure. Accordingly, the company agreed that one of the shareholders, named Benjamin Andrews, should offer a rent of i^9,100 a year, which it was stipulated was to be devoted to the relief of disabled soldiers. Owing to the financial necessities of the government 2, this proviso was considered objectionable. A Captain John Manley was favoured by the Committee, but his tender was less than that of the undertakers. An arrangement was however made, under which Manley was permitted to raise his offer to the highest amount handed in. This was <^10,000, and, after half-an- hour's deliberation on June 29th, 1653, the Committee accepted Manley, as farmer of the inland posts ^ This was followed by an order to the undertakers, dated the following day, commanding them to hand over all letters to Manley at midnight-*. The undertakers considered that they were aggrieved by this decision, since they contended that, if credit was given them for their outlay (as they said had been promised), their offer was in reality better by .^2,000 than that finally made by Manley^ In
1 State Papers, Domestic, Inter., lxv. 51; Calendar, 1658-4, p. 372. ^ Vide supra, Part i. , Chapter xiii.
3 State Papers, Domestic, Inter., xxxvii. 152-8; Calendar, 1652-3, p. 450. * State Papers, Domestic, Order of Council of State, June 30, 1653; Calendar, 1652-3, p. 456. ^ Ibid., lxvii. 66-8; Calendar, 1654, p. 25.
42 Co. for reducing Postage Rates 1653-4 [div. vii. § 1
the brief space left them, before the order of the Council was to take effect, they pleaded vainly for a postponement of the hour of transfer, but the most that they could gain was a grudging permission to deposit the moneys belonging to the post-office in the custody of an impartial person, pending the confirmation of the Order of the Council. While this arrangement was being made, other events were in progress, which made the evening of June 30th a stirring one. Manley had mustered and armed a following, consisting of his friends and servants of the "old post." This body marched on the head-quarters of the undertakers, made a forcible entry, seized the books and ejected the clerks who had been in possession. Some of the leading shareholders had assembled at the house of one of their number in Wood Street, to which some letters for the outgoing mail had been removed. Manley, hearing of this, broke into the house, secured the letters and pursued his rivals, who were com- pelled to barricade themselves in a room, to which they had retreated. It was by these drastic methods that the transfer of the posts was effected \
The undertakers, having been forced to resign possession, endeavoured first to obtain redress, petitioning the Council of State on January 30th, 1654, but without results Afterwards, they attempted to secure a reimbursement of their outlay, but the Committee of Posts reported adversely on March 13th^. Technically, Oxenbridge and his partners were interlopers, who carried on an unauthorized service. Since Prideaux had been legally appointed farmer in consideration of his paying a sub- stantial rent, he should have been supported by the executive. Such support not being forthcoming, the undertakers were able to show that there was a reasonable probability that, in time, the reduction of rates, which they had inaugurated, would result in an increase of revenue. By establishing this principle, they had performed a public service ; and, after the Revolution, this was recognized in the case of one of the founders of the enterprize. Oxenbridge was then an old man in straitened circum- stances, and he was allowed £60 a year from the profits of the post-office. After his death this pension was continued in favour of his widow*.
For more than twenty-five years the history of the post-office consists first of efforts to improve the organization, and subsequently to increase the revenue obtainable (which had been settled on the Duke of York
^ State Papers, Domestic, Inter., lxvii. 65 ; Calendar, 1654, p. 24.
2 xi^cL., Lxv. 51; Calendar, 1653-4, p. 372.
3 Ihid., LXVII. 69; Calendar, 1654, p. 25.
* Treasury Papers, xliii. 58 ; Calendar, 1697-1702, p. 13. For a short time after the Restoration, Oxenbridge was employed in the post-office, but his name does not appear in a list of the officials compiled about the end of 1661 — The Post in Grant and Farm, pp. 257-9. A good account of the organization of the " New Under- takers" is given in this work, pp. 225-33.
Div. vn. § 1] Undertaking of the Penny Post 1679 43
after the Restoration) on the basis of maintaining the existing rates. The increase in the number of letters in England during the reign of Charles II. was described by a contemporary writer as being "so prodigiously great that the Post-Office was farmed at =£^50,000 a year\"''' As yet, however, London itself was poorly supplied with postal facilities. Letters, written in one part, had to be sent to another by means of a special messenger, either by a servant or by a porter. The officials of the post-office were far from recognizing that a new class of business was waiting to be developed, and it remained for a private company to establish a local post for London. This scheme was under consideration in the closing months of 1679 and early in 1680^ Many claims have been advanced on behalf of different persons as being " the inventor " of the new post, which was eventually established at a penny rate. The names of three men, who subsequently became important promoters of new enterprizes, are frequently mentioned in connection with the incep- tion of "the Penny Post.'' These were Hugh Chamberlain, Robert Murray or Moray and William Dockwra^. The adjudication between the claims, made on behalf of each, is complicated by the fact that most of the information relating to this enterprize is derived from statements furnished by Dockwra, and there were reasons which led him to give the maximum degree of weight to his own share in the founding of this post. On the other hand, the question is simplified to some extent when it is noted that the idea of a penny -post was not a new one, having been formulated in 1659 by John Hill of York''. The idea having been in existence for a considerable time, it is by no means improbable that it may have occurred to several persons that the period from 1679 to 1680 was a suitable one to put it into practice. From the connection of Chamberlain and Murray with various financial schemes it may be inferred that it was to these that the proposal for insuring the contents of letters up to a value of d^lO was due'^, while Dockwra was responsible
1 The Merchant's Dayly Companion, by J. P., London, 1684, p. 388; cf. Financial Statements L and M.
2 Anthony A. Wood gives the date as "the latter end of 1679." Athena Oxoniensis, London, 1817, m. p. 726. Tliis may mean January to March 16,|§.
3 As to Chamberlain— ITercwrms Civicus, No. 4, April 1, 1680, London Gazette, No. 1614, May 20, 1680; as to MxirTaj— Inquiry into Authenticity of certain Miscellaneous Papers .. .attributed to Shakespeare, by Edward Malone, 1796, p. 387; Anderson, Annals of Commerce, iii. p. 88 ; Wood, Athence Oxoniensis, iii. p. 726. In the latter it is said that Dockwra lost the benefit " by a wrong name only," Anglia Metropolis, p. 345: as to Dockwra vide subsequent references, and Daily Courant, No. 229, Jan. 11, 1703; An Essay upon Projects [by D. Defoe], 1697, p. 27.
* A Penny Post, London, 1669 [Brit. Mus. 1391 . e . 25].
s Murray is said to have been the founder of the "'Bank of Credit," while an account of Chamberlain's Land Bank will be found infra, Division x.. Section 2.
41
I
44 Undertaking of the Penny Post [div. vii. § 1
for the actual organization of the system by which letters were collected and delivered \
Early in March 1680 the scheme was well advanced. A company was formed, and an elaborate constitution appears to have been under con- sideration, since it was at one time proposed to have trustees in addition to a committee of management^, it being the duty of the former to hold certain property or security, vested in them, to ensure the payment of any claims that might be made on account of letters or parcels lost in transit. Since the preliminary outlay was very small, it would not be necessary to subscribe capital at the beginning ; but, once operations had been begun, it was found that the receipts did not meet the expenses, and the deficiency had to be provided by the shareholders. Thus the initial cost of estab- lishing the enterprize, arrived at in this way, would constitute its capital.
The scheme was conceived in a liberal spirit. The service was made available to the public on Lady-Day (March 25th), 1680. The sum of 1^. would pay for the collection at any one of the receiving-houses (of which there were eventually 400) and for delivery at an address within the Bills of Mortality. Further, this rate would secure transmission to the places of collection in Hackney, Islington, South Newington Butts and Lambeth, or, if the addressee desired his packet to be left at his residence, this further service could be obtained by the payment of an extra penny. Collections and deliveries were to be made frequently daily, except Sundays and the following holidays — three days at Christmas, two days each at Easter and Whitsuntide and January SOth. Besides letters, parcels (not exceeding 1 lb. in weight and ^10 in value) were taken at the rate of \d. each, and the undertakers engaged to compensate the owners of such packets as were lost in their post ; there being no extra charge for such insurance ^
The company soon found itself confronted with numerous difficulties. Though the idea of a cheap local post had been long under consideration amongst men of enterprize, there were many who regarded the project as
1 Thus Dockwra stated a previous scheme " was rejected as impracticable^ as indeed were all the rest of their notions, nor ever was by any of them [i.e. Foxley, Henry Neville, Payne, Murray, Chamberlain] or any other person whatsoever, put into any method to make it practicable." Daily Gourant, Jan. 11, 1703.
2 Hugh Chamberlain was to have been one of the Trustees. This is said to have been his only actual connection with the founding of the undeiiaking. London Gazette, May 20, 1680.
3 A full account of the organization of the penny post is given by Harry J. Maguire in William Dockwra and the London Penny Post of 1680 {Gibbon's Monthly Journal, xviii. pp. 16, \1, 67-9, 89, 90). I am much indebted to Mr Maguire for his furnishing me with valuable information in addition to that contained in this article, also for reading this account in MS. and making several suggestions. Many of the ''\ sources of information referred to below have been printed in the Stamp Lover, No. 1,
et aeq. Cf. Joyce, History of the Post Office, pp. 33-42.
Div. vn. § 1] Orgmuzation and Prospects 1679-80 45
chimerical — like " those others we have formerly heard of, sailing against the wind or paying debts without money i.'' The chief obstacles consisted in the want of numbers on the houses (which made accurate and quick delivery troublesome) and the hostility of the porters, who had formerly derived employment from the carrying of letters. Sympathizers spoke of the "ruine of the poor porters^," who revenged themselves by tearing down the signs, used to distinguish the receiving-offices, until they were deterred by* prosecutions at the Sessions I The delay, occasioned by the want of a precise system of street-numbers, became a frequent source of complaint, and the company had to publish advertisements asking the indulgence of the public until the service was fully organized and its letter-carriers became more experts
In one important respect, the company found itself in a dilemma. To attract custom, it was necessary to advertize, and accordingly notices were inserted in the papers before the offices were opened; while, during the first months of the history of the post, every excuse was taken of drawing public attention to it in the press % while a broadside was printed for gratuitous distribution I The danger of publicity, however, was that it was likely to bring the venture under the notice of the Duke of York, since it might be contended that his monopoly was infringed. This monopoly, too, was not so much important on its financial, as on its political side. The control of the public correspondence was regarded as an important asset in maintaining the position of any party or interest in the State, and, since the Penny Post began its career at a time when public opinion was excited by rumours of Popish Plots, it was perhaps not unnatural that the opponents of the company should point to the encouragement its service gave to correspondence regarded as treasonable^ nor that the Duke of York might be tempted to seize the undertaking in order to obtain control of the local correspondence of London. Whatever may have been the cause, an action was brought
1 Smith's Currant Intelligence, No. 15, March 30, 1680. For the first project cf. The Century of Inventions, by the Marquis of Worcester, 1663, No. 15, in The Life of the Second Marquis of Worcester, by Henry Dircks, 1865, pp. 407-8 ; Anderson, Annals of Commerce, in. p. 73. The second project may be that of M. Lewis. Cf. Proposals., for a large Model of a Bank, 1678, Brit. Mus. 1139. f. 19.
2 The True News or Mercurius Anglicus, No. 37, March 24, 1680 ; Smith's Currant Intelligence, No. 15, March 30, 1680.
' Smith's Currant Intelligence, No. 14; Mercurius Civicus,'No. 12, April 27, 1680.
* Mercurius Civicus, Nos. 6, 12, April 6, 27, 1680.
^ Ibid., Nos. 1, 2, March 22, 24, 1680.
« A Penny Well-Bestowed, or a Brief Account of the new Design, Contrived for the ffreat Increase of Trade and Correspondence, 1680, Guildhall Library.
' The True Domestick Intelligence, No. 79, April 2, 1680 ; Smith's Currant Intelli- gence, No. 15, March 30 ; Mercurius Civicus, Nos. 3, 4, March 29, April 1, 1680 ; Heraclitus Ridens, March 1, Dec. 27, 1681.
1
46 Undertaking of the Penny Post [div. vii. § 1
against the company as infringing the rights of the General Post Office. It is probable that very soon after the scheme was advertized legal proceed- ings were threatened and one suit was heard before the end of March 1681 ^ The combined effects of the dread of a powerful opponent and the continual drain of the payments necessary, on the part of the shareholders, to meet the weekly bill for wages had frightened many, who abandoned their shares and withdrew from the company. Murray, though not deterred by these causes (since he set up a rival post-office in Wood St.)'^, also retired from the partnership^, and Dockwra alone remained. The date of the dissolution of the first penny-post company can be fixed within certain limits as follows. The history of the first year of the enterprize is described very fully by De Laune on the authority of one of "the gentlemen concerned" (who was certainly Dockwra). In this account it is said that the undertaking was " little more than a year old.''^ Since it began on March 25th, 1680, De Laune's account must have been written about April 1681 ^ At this time a second company had come into existence which probably began business on Lady-Day, 1681. Dockwra, according to De Laune, had carried on the post at his sole charge "for above half a year." Taking Dockwra''s period of sole- proprietorship at seven or eight months, this leaves four or five months as the duration of the first company, which would thus have been dissolved in July or August 1680. There are no very definite particulars of the loss made by the first company. The charge for the first year is given in general terms as being " some thousands of pounds''," and the bulk of this would fall within the earlier months, at which time it seems probable that the receipts were, on an average, less than half the out- goings. On the basis of the results achieved by Dockwra in the next seven or eight months, it may be estimated that the loss of the first company would be close on ^2,000 ^
1 The Present State of London, by Thomas De Laune, 1681, p. 350.
2 Maguire, William Dockwra, ut supra — Gibbons Monthly Journal, xviii. p. 68.
3 Dockwra stated publicly that certain articles of co-partnership between himself and Murray (presumably those for the undertaking of the penny post) liad been *' sacredly kept on his part, but never performed by Murray." Daily Courant, No. 229, Jan. 11, 1703.
* This date is confirmed by the fact that De Laune speaks of the future appear- ance of a small tract. This was evidently The Practical Method of the Penny Post, the MS. of which possibly formed the basis of his account. Now on March 29th, 1681, it was announced that this pamphlet would appear " in a few days" — " Advice from the Undertakers of the Penny Post," in The Protestant Domestic Intelligence, No. 109.
5 The Practical Method of the Penny Post, 1681, Brit. Mus. 8245. g.Q (reprinted in The Stamp Collector, ix. pp. 47, 98, 99, 113-16).
8 Taking the duration of the company at 20 weeks, the expenses at £160 a week and the average receipts at f of the expenses : vide infra, p. 47.
Div. vn. § 1] Income and Expenditure 1680-1 47
Dockwra, being left to carry on the enterprize at his own risk, devoted his whole time to it\ He complained of the rival scheme of Murray as being a great discouragement of his invention I While, even at a later date, he found some houses " so sottish as not to take letters in even gratis," and he recommends a correspondent " to cast no more of your pearls before such swine^" Some, if not all, of the expense of the costly law-suit with the Duke of York had to be borne by Dockwra, but as against this outlay it was thought in 1681 that the legal position of the Post had been established^. The revenue was increasing, though, after the undertaking had been six months in Dockwra's hands, it did not as yet suffice to answer three-quarters of the expenses. It is possible to make some attempt to reconstruct the financial position of the post at this time, on the basis of a number of statements made at a later date by Dockwra"*. While these apparently differ in the total sum, which he alleges he lost by the undertaking •*, they all agree in stating that the money he found, together with interest at 6 per cent, to 1690, amounted to d^4,400. It follows that the capital sunk by him would be £%60(i. By far the greater part of this outlay would have been incurred during the period he was sole proprietor, and therefore, it may be inferred, that as much as =^2,000 is to be assigned to this period. Further, it is recorded that, at the end of that time, the revenue was barely three- quarters of the charges''; and, if it be assumed that Dockwra was sole owner for 32 weeks, it is probable that at the beginning of this interval the proportion would be about one-half. It follows then that the ratio of income to expenditure may be averaged at five-eighths from the middle of August 1680 to Lady -Day 1681, and therefore the total expenses per week would have been approximately ^166^. To a certain extent this calculation can be verified from other sources. It has been estimated that the staff employed by the Penny Post numbered 300 persons'. About this time the wages, paid by the General Post, varied from 10*.
1 A True State of the Hard Case of Wm Dockwra that set up the Penny Post in 1680 and which the late King James ravisht from him : Treasury Papers, xliv. 56.
2 De Laune, The Present State of London, p. 350.
3 Letter of WiUiam Dockwra, ^^ Author of the Penny Post," to John Houghton, 25th April, 1698 ; [Brit. Mus.], Stowe MS., 747 . f. 93.
* De Laune, The Present State of London, p. 350.
5 Treasury Papers, xliv. 56, lxxx. 55 ; Journals of the House of Commons, x. pp. 226, 384.
8 To this amount Dockwra adds £4,000, as representing the salary he should have received and, in petitions after 1690, interest to date. He deducts " the present value" of his pension and the salary he received as comptroller.
7 De Laune, The Present State of London, p. 350.
8 I.e. Expenses £5,330, Receipts £3,330(|): Loss £2,000(|).
* Maguire, William Dockwra — Gibbons Monthly Journal, xviii. p. 17.
48 Undertaking of the Penny Post [div. vn. § 1
to Qs. a week\ If Dockwra paid his people on an average 8*. a week, his wages bill would be £1^0 a week, in addition to which he would have to pay something to the tenants of the receiving-houses, provide for compensation for lost parcels, as well as for law-costs and for the remaining incidental expenses. Thus it is not improbable that his whole weekly outlay would have been between £\50 and ^^175.
In March 1681 Dockwra had sunk more than ^£^2,000 in the post^ and he had brought it to a point at which it was likely a profit would soon be earned. His circumstances were such that he could not continue to provide the deficiency, that still had to be found, as he was already largely in debt^ Since the prospects for the future were pro- mising, he was able to form a new company, being joined by several partners " who were all natives and free citizens of London ^.'''' There is no information as to the arrangement made between Dockwra and those who united with him. Having spent so much on the venture, it would be disadvantageous for him to share the prospective profits with othei*s, unless the new members on their part paid him a sufficient amount to cover a portion of the cost of establishing the business. This method was adopted in other cases ; but, at the same time, it is to be remembered that Dockwra was in difficulties, and he may have been forced to admit the new shareholders, on condition that they would each provide a pro- portionate share of the weekly deficit but without paying anything towards such goodwill as had been established.
The new company described itself as William Dockwra a7id the rest of the Undertakers of the Penny Post, and, judging by the efforts made to effect improvements and to draw public attention to their service, the date of the transfer may be fixed as having been on or about the first anniversary of the establishing of the post, namely March 25th, 1681. The deliveries were augmented and quickened. It was now announced that the average time occupied by a letter in transit, within the Bills of Mortality, should have been three hours. To meet the complaints of delay, a system of post-marks was invented, which showed the hour at which a letter had been received at some one of the sorting-depots*. Evidently there had been both bogus and excessive claims on account of lost parcels, and it was now stipulated that compensation was not
1 The Post in Grant and Farm, by J. Wilson Hyde, London, 1894, pp. 297-8.
2 I.e. £2,000 during the time he was sole proprietor and his proportion, as a shareholder, of the previous loss which was altogether of about an equal amount.
3 Journals of the House of Commons, x. p. 384.
* De Laune, The Present State of London, p. 350 ; The Practical Method of the Penny Post, ut supra.
^ These are reproduced in Joyce, History of the Post Office, p. 38; Gibbon's Monthly Journal, xviii. p. 67.
Div. VII. § 1] Attacked by the General Post 1682 49
recoverable, unless the packet was securely sealed and the nature of the contents endorsed on it\
Signs are not wanting that, as both the public and the letter-carriers became acquainted with the conditions of an expeditious service, the Penny Post became increasingly popular. It is probable that, before the end of the year, some small profit was being made. It was soon found that the new postal facilities had made possible new methods of business. Thus, when in April 1682 it was proposed to float a new subscription of East India stock of 3 millions, it is noticed that the post was used to reach persons who were thought likely to become adventurers 2.
By 1682 the undertaking was yielding a profit, and the farmers of the General Post again took action against the London enterprize. Proceedings were begun by Lord Arlington, and the case was heard in Michaelmas term at the King's Bench in 1682. It was claimed that the Penny Post was an invasion of the monopoly of the conveyance of letters, settled on the Duke of York, and £%bQ(} was sought as damages, besides .^'lOO per week as the receipts of the undertaking in the Westminster district. It was argued on behalf of the company that, in cases where in any town no local post had been established, the monopoly did not apply and such enterprize might be lawfully carried on by private individuals. On behalf of the Postmaster-General it was pleaded that such possible exception only held good in places, which were not reached by the routes of the General Post, and that, since this was admittedly not so in London, the company had invaded the mono- poly. By the verdict of the Court the company was exempted from the damages claimed but was fined £100 for contempt of courts
The decision of the King's Bench was announced in the last days of November 1682 and the company was in an exceedingly difficult position. At this time, it is related that the post " had been brought to good per- fection and began to bring in a small profit '' towards the reimbursement of former losses " with hopes of future recompense*.'' It is possible that those shareholders, who had joined the second company, may have been receiving an income on their investment, but it is clear that Dockwra
1 The Protestant {Domestick) Intelligence or News Both from City and Country, No. 109, March 29, 1681 ; Smith's Protestant Intelligence, No. 19, March 31, 1681 ; The Practical Method of the Penny Post, ut supra.
2 London Mercury, No. 4, April 20, 1682. With reference to this proposed issue of East India stock, vide supra, ii. p. 143.
3 State Papers, King's Bench, coram Rege, Roll 2023, mem. 24— Hulkes v. Wm. Dockwra.
4 Journals of the House of Commons, x. p. 226. It may be noted that in this case (as elsewhere, when Dockwra .says the Post was "set up at his sole charge") he assumes that the whole loss was his.
s. c. III. *
50 Undertahing of the Penny Post [div. vii. § 1 —
himself could not, as yet, have obtained enough to make any great . reduction in his loss as sole proprietor and as a partner in the first company.
The members of the undertaking doubtless feared that such profits, as were being made, might be swallowed up in law costs and damages. By November 27th the General Post Office, in advertizing the decision of the King's Bench, gave notice that it would " forthwith *" establish a penny post and would employ those " lately '' in the service of the com- pany^, whence it is to be inferred that at this date Dockwra''s organization i had suspended its service. The revived delivery of letters at a charge of ^ Id, within the specified area, was announced to begin on December llth^, and this event involved the frustration of the last hopes of the company.
Since the enterprize was taken over by the General Post Office without any compensation being paid to the shareholders, it is likely that the second company, like the first, sustained some loss. For a time after the shareholders in this body had joined it, they had to meet the losses on the service, but towards the end of its existence a profit was being made. But, in so far as the whole nett revenue of the Penny Post from March 25th, 1686, to March 25th, 1687, was under <^800, it is obvious that any balance of profit in 1682 over the losses from March 1681 can only have been very small. Further, from this must be deducted the expense of the law-suit in 1682, so that on the whole the second penny post company was probably not profitable as an investment. Such however was not the judgment of some of those living at the time. In 1698 this undertaking was one of those men- tioned, in conjunction with the New River and Hudson's Bay enterprizes, in which the adventurers had made large profits^. In so far as there is any foundation for this statement it may be based on the pension granted to Dockwra personally of ^^500 annually for ten years, in addition to which he received a salary as comptroller of the Penny Post, and, after he was dismissed from this office, the promise of other employment under the State. His own account of the financial results of his connection with the Penny Post up to 1697 was that his loss and interest thereon at 6 per cent, up to 1690 was i^4,400 ; to this he added ^4,000 to cover the time he had devoted to planning and managing the undertaking for three years from the end of 1679 to 1682 and also the expense of
1 Lmdm Gazette, No. 1776, Nov. 27, 1682.
2 lUd,, No. 1779, Dec. 7, 1682.
3 A True Copy of Several Affidavits and other Proofs of the Largeness and Richness
qfthe Mines of the late Sir Carh&ry Price Brit. Mus. '^-'^
I
DiY. VII. § 1] Financial Results 51
re-establishing his business connection for a year afterwards. This made .5^8,400, from which he deducted the capitalized value of his pension, which he placed at <^2,400, making his loss, to 1690, i^6,000. There was still to be added interest on the balance from 1690 to 1697, which was placed at J'2,500, giving a total nett loss, according to this mode of statement, of ^8,500\
1 Treasury Papers, xliv. 56.
4-2
SECTION 11. STREET-LIGHTING COMPANIES.
The Proprietors of the Convex Lights or the Partners
IN THE Convex Lights (1684-1744). The Proprietors of the Light Royal (1687-94). The Proprietors of the Glass Globe Lights (1692-3).
The civic authorities in London had made efforts from time to time to secure the lighting of the streets. As early as 1599 an order was made by the Common Council that householders should hang from their dwellings " a good substantial Ian thorn and candle " between October 1st and March Ist^ After the rebuilding of London in the reign of Charles II., there was a tendency to improve the state of the thorough- fares, chiefly with a view to the prevention of murders and robberies. Means to give effect to this improvement were found in the enterprize of individuals, who were willing to contract with householders to light and extinguish the lanterns required by the City Council. Thus in 1682 a group of persons, who described themselves as the Proprietors Jbr the Lights, advertized that they were prepared to perform this service^. As yet, however, nothing of the nature of a street-lamp had been invented. Samuel Hutchinson claimed the distinction of having discovered a method for " the great and durable increase of light by extraordinary glasses and lamps, very useful for... ship's lanterns, lighthouses and dispersing of light in mines and other necessary and like profitable uses^." Hutchinson was in pecuniary difficulties, and he arranged that a patent should be applied for by Edward Windus. This grant, which was signed on February 27th, 1684, conferred the sole right of using this invention, in England and Wales for the ensuing fourteen years, on the patentee, his assigns and those duly authorized by him.
Hutchinson's method of increasing the efficiency of light consisted in the use of convex reflectors, which were probably of glass, and therefore his system was known as the " convex lights '"' or " convex glasses." It
1 Minutes of the Common Council^ Guildhall Library, xxv. f. 98.
2 Domestic Intelligence, No. 132, Aug. 24 to 28, 1682.
3 Patent Roll, 36 Charles II., Pt. 6, No. 23.
Div. vn. § 2] The Convex Lights Company 1684-94 53
soon appeared that there was scope for the improved scheme of street- lighting, and there were ample indications that many householders would be willing to pay a small sum annually to Hutchinson, provided he undertook to supply and maintain lamps of the new type, besides lighting and extinguishing them. At this stage the enterprize entered on a new phase, for which some capital was required to provide the necessary materials, as well as a system for organizing the work of the lamp- lighters. Hutchinson himself was without resources and he was joined by others, who furnished the necessary funds. At first the undertaking was divided into four parts, and one of the original partners, John Reeve, found it incumbent on him to take proceedings in Chancery to obtain a title to his share in the business. It was not long before sales of sub- divisions of the original quarter-interests were made, and eventually an arrangement was effected, by which the benefit of the patent was regarded as divided into 32 shares \ Of these Hutchinson owned 12 up to 1692, when he was forced to raise money by mortgaging two of them, leaving him with power of disposition over 10 shares ^ The average amount, that he had received for the 22 shares which had passed out of his possession, was c£^29 per shared It seems probable that the whole calls ordered, until some time after the Revolution, were £1^0 per share, which would make the paid up capital at that time over ^^5,000. There is one element of uncertainty in this calculation. It is based on the fact that the total amount called up on each share in 1695 was ^£^800. Through certain circumstances to be detailed below ^, Roman Russell became possessed of a share early in 1694, and he complained that the amount he had to " reimburse "" the company, as calls, came to c£'640. This share had been transferred by Hutchinson out of the two he had mortgaged, and it may have been that some of the calls, due on it at the time it was handed over, had not been paid. If this were so the capital called up by 1690-1 would be proportionately larger than ^5,000.
Just when the company was beginning to succeed, it found itself faced by the competition of Edmund Hemming, who had invented another type of street-lantern, which he named the " Light Royal.'' This scheme is said to have been in operation in 1687^ and Hemming applied to the
1 Hist. MSS. Com.— The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1693-5, i. p. 373.
2 Chuiicery Proceedings, Mitford \^^.—The Severall Answers of Samuel Hutchinson Gent, one of the defendants to the bill of Arthur Moore Esq. and Roman Russell Gent.
3 The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1693-5, i, p. 544. It thus appears that the figure 22 in the MS. is correct and the suggested emendation to 32 in the Calendar is not required.
* Vide infra, p. 58.
^ London and the Kingdom, by Reginald R. Sharpe, London, 1894, ii. p. 582 (note).
54 Street- Lighting Companies [div. vii. § 2
City Council for encouragement on October 15th, 1689\ At this time the position of what was known as the Orphans'* Fund had become most unsatisfactory, and the situation, which had arisen, eventually affected the finances of both street-lighting and water-supply undertakings^ This fund had been established for the supervision and administration of estates, bequeathed to minors. At the Revolution it had been found impossible to pay the claims of the beneficiaries, and, as the result of an investiga- tion, made in 1689, it was discovered that the deficiency was about d£^500,000^. The default was assigned to the loss of interest on monies lent to the Crown at the time of the stop of the Exchequer in 1672, but the full explanation depended on other events both of an earlier and also of a later date. As early as 1642 the Orphans' Fund had been drawn upon not only to provide a part of the contributions demanded from the City at that time, but also, it was alleged, in the case of Major-General Skipton, to furnish a pension of d£*300 a year^ It was said that payments, from the fund to one applicant, were made out of the resources lodged on behalf of others, who could not claim their principal until a later date, and no doubt the insecurity of the fund was accentuated by the financial expedients adopted by Charles II. in 1672. The last shock to the credit of the Chamber came from its excursion into banking in 1681 and the large withdrawals made in 1683, during the crisis of that year^ The result of these successive adverse influences was that, in 1689, neither principal nor interest could be paid to the Orphans^. Defoe describes how the treasury of a great city " was shut up and forty thousand orphans turned adrift in the world, some with no cloaths, some no shoes, some no money ; and still the city magistrates calling upon other orphans to pay their money in. These things put me in mind of the prophet Ezekiel and methoughts I heard the same voice that spoke to him calling me and telling me, 'Come hither and I will show you greater abominations than theses'""' It remained for the City to obtain the assistance of Parliament, in working out a scheme, which would meet some of the liabilities that had matured. The fact that there was competition in street-lighting suggested that a part of the revenue
^ Minutes of Common Council^ li. f. 12 b.
* Cf. supra, pp. 12, 33.
3 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, ii. p. 545.
* A Letter from Mercurius Civicus to Mercurius Rusticus : Or London's Confession, hut not Repentance, by Samuel Butler, 1643 (Somers' Tracts, 1750, v. p. 411).
* A Dialogue between Franciso and Aurelia, two unfortunate Orphans of the City of London, 1690 (Harleian Miscellany, 1745, iv. p. 656).
" England's Calamities Discovered, by James Whiston, 1696, in Harleian Miscellany, VI. p. 339.
7 The Consolidator or Memoirs of Sundry Transactions from the World in the Moon, London, 1705, p. 75.
Div. viT. § 2] The Light Royal Company 1687-92 55
required might be obtained, by letting out the contract for this service at a rent which could be devoted towards satisfying the claims of the Orphans. In 1690 the Corporation repeated its former orders, requiring householders to hang out lamps after dark from Michaelmas to Lady-Day up till midnights Hemming had assumed partners for the development of his invention and the company described itself as the Proprietors of the Light Royal. This syndicate claimed that its lantern was superior to that supplied by the Convex Lights company, in so far as it cast fewer dark shadows. The terms made with householders were that, in con- sideration of a fine of 5s. and an annual payment of a like amount, the lighting company undertook to discharge the obligation, imposed by the by-law of the Corporation, during the lighting-hours specified. As lamps need not be lit on moonlight nights, the contract applied to 120 nights, the charge for which, according to the proposals of the Light Royal, was \d. per night for the first year, and ^d. per night for each of the four subsequent years 2.
On September 6th, 1692, the proprietors of the Light Royal had submitted proposals to the Common Council, stating that they were prepared to supply lights at the current rates, consisting " of one entire body of glass, giving light all round about and underneath, without any darks or shades."" The proposed lanterns were to have an inscription on them of the word " Orphans,"" and the promoters were prepared to pay one-half of the clear profit to the Orphans' Fund. The company professed itself so convinced of the advantages of its light that it asked no modifi- cation of the existing regulations, only requiring that the Mayor and Common Council should encourage the use of the lamp in London and they were asked to aid in its adoption in the provinces, where it was proposed the lights should be lettered "Disabled Seamen,'"* a "great part'"* of the provincial profits being intended to be devoted towards the erecting of a naval hospitaP.
Another offer came from the Glass Globe Lights. These lamps were to be set on posts, 10 feet above the ground, so that there should be "no dark shadows whatsoever but that the light shall be always clear and
1 A History of Inventions , by John Beckmann_, 1846, ii. pp. 178, 179.
2 AnglicB Metropolis, 1690, p. 365. In January 1693 the Proprietors of the Light Royal advertized that " they had set up lights pursuant on the order of the Lord Mayor on the Exchange and Cornhill," and, " whereas several of them had been shot by bullets," a reward of £5 was offered for information which would lead to the discovery of those who had fired the shots. London Gazette, No. 2839, Jan. 23, 1693.
3 Minutes of Common Council, li. f. 188 ; Proposals humbly offered for the better
lighting of all the Streets, Lanes, Allies and Public Courts within the City of London and
r . ^^ 816.m.9~l the Liberties thereunto belonging Brit. Mus. ^ •
56 Street-Lighting Companies [div. vii.
§2!
equally dispersed... delightful and useful to passengers, without glaring or dazzling the eye.*" The illuminant was to be rape-oil, with a cotton wick, and it was provided that the glasses should be cleaned every night, and the wicks snuffed as often as required. The charge for street-lamps was to be 6s. per annum, for those in schools, churches, halls, 8*. The rent of c£*800 a year was offered, provided that the City prohibited the use of any other lights during the currency of the proposed grants The latter condition could not be complied with, since the patent for the Convex Lights was not due to determine till 1698, and nothing more is heard of the Glass Globe company in these negotiations. The struggle lay between the Light Royal and the Convex Light companies, and it was announced on November 6th, 1693, that "new and advantageous proposals had been received 2. " The Convex Lights company had been somewhat slower than its opponents in tendering. Hutchinson, the inventor, who was still a large shareholder, took the attitude that he was entitled to enjoy the benefit of his patent for the residue of the term and that the imposition of a rent was, in effect, to deprive him and his fellow- shareholders of a portion of that benefit ^ There was however a difference of opinion within the company. During the boom in the stock and share market, there had been fairly numerous sales of shares in this undertaking, which had changed hands at prices between £\fiOO and <i^l,500, repre- senting a substantial premium on the sums called up, possibly as much as 100 per cent."* Persons who had bought at a high price were only exercising ordinary prudence, in endeavouring to effect some arrangement which would secure the good will of the Corporation, before the patent had determined. Moved by these considerations, it was decided by a majority to offer a rent of <^600 a year for a contract of 21 years. This offer was considered by the Common Council on November 24th, 1693°, while, on December 13th, the Light Royal presented an amended pro- posal which now took the form of a rent of ^"'1,000 a year, provided that an act of Parliament or of Common Council was obtained " for raising the yearly sum of .£'^3,000 from the inhabitants " of places which were improved by the lighting". The proposition from the Convex Lights company was clearly the more favourable, and it had the advantage of the personal advocacy of thirteen prominent merchants (including mem- bers of the Houblon family), who appeared before the Committee. On a division, therefore, the contract was assigned to the Convex Lights
^ Proposals about Lights for this City Brit. Mus. —^ — .
2 Minutes of Common Council, li. f. 281.
^ Journals of the House of Commons, xi. p. 116.
^ The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1693-5, i- PP' 541-5.
^ Minutes of Common Council, li. f. 282 b.
8 lUd., LI. f. 284.
Div. TIL § 2] A Concession sought from the City 1692 57
company, subject to the assent of Parliament. The obtaining of such assent was subject to two special difficulties — the one affecting the bill as a whole, the other relating to the lighting clause only. The City had promoted an Orphans' Bill in each session since 1691, only to discover that " the cart was bewitched " ; because, " hitherto, they had sneakingly with-holden the wonder-working guineas." There was a consensus of opinion that the adverse spell must be lifted during the proceedings of 1694, and the Corporation on January 24th had authorized the Chamber- lain to make such payments, as were required, in soliciting Parliament ; while the Orphans, on their part, undertook to pay certain agents 5 per cent, of the monies they received, on the bill being passed. A sum of 1,000 guineas was subsequently traced to Sir John Trevor, the Speaker, and he was expelled from the Housed The main difficulty having been surmounted, there remained a minor one, which it was feared at one time would wreck the bill. Hutchinson, together with Arthur Moore who was the mortgagor of two shares belonging to the former, had refused to assent to the agreement with the City. As dissentient shareholders, they prepared a petition, which was drawn up in the name of Hutchinson, asking for a saving clause in favour of the inventor and requiring certain concessions from the other partners 2. This petition was presented on March 3rd, 1694, but the House was not satisfied as to the bona fides of Hutchinson and Moore, and it was resolved on March 8th, by 138 votes to 59, that his name should not be included amongst those mentioned in the bill, as partners in the Convex Lights. The claim of Moore was dealt with similarly ^ The Light Royal company also opposed this clause, contending that the claim made on behalf of the Convex Lights, that many thousands of pounds had been spent in developing the enterprize, was misleading, in so far as the greater part of such outlay had been partly on stock-jobbing the shares, partly on buying up competitive lighting undertakings. It was also alleged that the Light Royal was superior, inasmuch as it would be cheaper to the people and " did not drop oil to the annoyance of any-body*."" It was possibly in connection with the former complaint that, on March 25th, the secretary was ordered to attend with the books ; but, the bill being hurried forward, there is no record of the investigation having been made''. Hutchinson's opposi-
^ A Collection of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament in 1694 and 1695 upon the Inquiry into the Late Briberies and Corrupt Practices, London, 1695, pp. 11, 12, 16 ; A Supplement to the Collection of Debates... upon the Inquiry into the Late Briberies, London, 1695, p. 93.
2 Journals of the Hou^e of Commons, xi. p. 116. ^ Ibid., p. 122.
* Reasons humbly offered against the Bill for the sole use of Convex Lights or Glasses
Td : AT 816 . m . 13"| I Brit. Mus. -^ J.
^ Journals of the House of Commons, xi. p. 281.
58 Street-Lighting Companies [div. vii. § 2
tion was not yet at an end. He was advised that it was necessary to gratify some person, having influence, so that his case should be considered in the House of Lords K Accordingly, on March 15th he executed an assignment, authorizing Moore to dispose of one of his shares, with a view to promoting his interest in Parliaments This share was transferred to Roman Russell, who had influence with the Marquis of Normanby. Hutchinson's petition was presented on the 17th, and his counsel was heard on the 20th S Suddenly the clause relating to the Convex Lights acquired such importance that it was thought the fate of the whole measure depended on it. If the opposition was continued, it could be represented that the company was not unanimous and, therefore, the rent might not be secure. There was an excited body of persons, in the vicinity of the House, consisting of the orphans, their agents, some of the shareholders in the company and Hutchinson's friends. Normanby came to them and declared that, unless the other shareholders came to terms with Hutchinson, the whole bill would be lost. This statement increased the perturbation of the orphans, who brought great pressure to bear on the members of the company who were present. These deposed after- wards that a reluctant consent was wrung from them by the fear of violence. One of them, John Lilley, said that he was constrained to sign owing to the orphans "pulling him and threatening him." Sir Thomas Millington was " tossed about "" by the crowd, till he, too, assented^. Immediately this settlement had been made, the bill pro- ceeded swiftly, and it received the Royal Assent on March 23rd ^ The clause, in its final form, was a confirmation of the lease made by the City to the company for 21 years from June 24th, 1694, at the agreed upon rent of £Q00 a year^. This measure was defined by an act of Common Council, dated October 25th, 1695, which recapitulates the agreement already reached and confirmed by Parliament in the previous year. This covered the sole use "of all public lights in public places, within the City and liberties " for the term of 21 years. Further, the former orders com- pelling householders, whose dwellings fronted on any public thoroughfare, to light the roadway, were repeated. The penalty of 1*. for each default was to be exacted, unless those liable had agreed with the proprietors of the Convex Lights to install and tend the necessary lamps''.
This act was the last step required to secure the legal position of the company; and, in anticipation of obtaining such authorization, steps had
1 The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1693-5, i. p. 541.
2 Journals of the House of Lords, xv. p. 547.
3 The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1693-5, i. pp. 372, 373.
4 Ibid., pp. 544-5. 5 lUd., p. 372.
6 5 and 6 Will, and Mary, c. x., § 4 ; Statutes, vi. pp. 464, 465. ^ Lane Mayor — Commune Condi' tent' in Camera Gnildhald' Civitat' London ...An Act of Common Council for Lighting the Streets [Brit. Mus. 1881 . b . 3 (9)].
I
Div. vn. § 2] Peers, Orphans and the Company 1695 59
been taken to make the resources of the undertaking adequate to the en- larged field of its operations. Early in 1695, i^800 per share had been called up. Thus the nominal capital was .£25,600 and this large sum (in relation to the nature of the business carried on) lends some colour to the allegations of the Light Royal that money was spent in buying up competing concerns. About the same time the number of shares was doubled and these, in the new denomination, sold at £^^^^. This price was equivalent to par ; so that, as stated by the writer oi AngVwe Tutamen, several shareholders had lost considerably 2.
It was scarcely to be expected that the majority of the company would abstain from attempting to exact retribution from Hutchinson, Moore and Russell. Possibly the excuse for retaliation was to be found in the inability of some of them to pay the recent calls on their shares. According to Russell's own testimony, as much as X^640 was due from him for calls on the single share he had acquired. However this may have been, the company refused to recognize these three as members. They were not consulted at the time of the doubling of the shares, nor were the accounts or documents submitted to their perusaP. It was found necessary to institute proceedings in Chancery early in 1695. When the bills, answers and cross-bills came to be filed, it was dis- covered that the important fact had been divulged that Russell acquired his share without giving any valuable consideration for it. Indeed it was deposed that this share had been transferred in order that " Hutchinson's interest in Parliament should be advanced ^'^ On this statement being communicated to the House of Lords, the Peers decided on March 25th, 1695, to institute an inquiry ^ Numerous witnesses were called and examined on March 29th, April 1st, 8th and 9th. It soon became apparent that Normanby was the peer whom Russell had been induced to influence, and the investigation was merged in another, which was examining the alleged too favourable terms, on which the former had obtained the lease of a piece of ground from the City^ On April 18th it was carried by a majority that "there was no just cause of censure on the Marquis of Normanby," but at the same time there was a powerful minority which entered a protest, contending that it was " an extraordinary offence for a peer to deliver an opinion without doors,"" as to the fate of a measure which was then pending ^ There is no evidence to show whether the dispute within the company proceeded further.
1 The Manuscripts of the House of Lords , 1693-5, i. pp. 543-5. ^ p. 31.
3 Chancery Proceedings, Mitford ^jV-, June 11, 1695.— ''The Severall Answers of Samuel Hutchinson."
* Ibid. ; Journals of the House of Lords, xv. p. 547.
6 Journals of the House of Lords, xv. p. 527. ^ I^id., p. 546.
7 Ibid., p. 557. The protesting Lords record that they helieved the share, assigned to Russell, to have heen worth £2,000. ITiis appears to be due to a misinterpreta-
60 Street-Lighting Companies [div. vii.
After some conclusion had been reached, as between Hutchinson \ his supporters on the one side and the remaining members of the company on the other, attention was given to the development of the business/ It is not improbable that this company bought out the owners of the Light Royal, since Samuel Garret, who had been a supporter of Hemming''s invention as one of the proprietors in 1693, appeared at a later date as a shareholder in the Convex Lights \
Contemporary writers, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, spoke of the light with a considerable amount of satisfaction. Guy Miege described London as " being singular in the use of the Convex Lights, commonly called lamps. Which give a great and extensive light and are very convenient to prevent murders and other outrages, so frequent in great and populous cities beyond sea'^." About this time the office of the company was situated at the White-Hart on the East side of Bread Street^, and the charge for a single lamp, outside a private house, was 6^. a year^ By 1713 the rent had fallen into arrear', and on June 19th, 1716, it was agreed that a new lease should be executed at d£*400 a year, to date from Midsummer 1715^. On December 15th of the same year it was determined that the acts, governing the lighting of the streets, should be printed and circulated at the cost of the company ^ In view of the determination of the lease in 1736, a committee was appointed on July 29th, 1731, to make enquiries and report as to the best manner and method of street-lighting ^ The result of this investi- gation was adverse to the Convex Lights company, whose methods were then described as being subject " to great defects."" The company replied that householders had lately contracted with diverse tin-men for the lighting of their premises, and that this practice had not only diminished the revenue of the undertaking but had also impaired the quality of the lighting". Though proposals were submitted by this body, as well as by a number of other undertakers, the corporation determined to change its contractors, and in 1744 it was remitted to the aldermen and council of each ward to let out the lighting, snuffing, cleansing, supplying, main- taining and repairing of the public lamps ; but the annual rate was now advanced to 38*.^"
tion of the evidence. Moore said he had been oiFered £2,000 for his holding {The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1693-5, i. p. 545), but it will be remembered Moore had two shares mortgaged to him, only one of which he transferred to Russell.
1 Minutes of Common Council, li. f. 284, lvii. f. 236.
2 The Present State of Great Britain, 1707, i. p. 138.
3 A New View of London, by Edward Hatton, 1708, p. 785. * Minutes of Common Council, lvi. f. 35.
^ Ibid. « Ibid., f. 226. ^ j^d,^ f. 259.
8 Ibid., LVII. f. 236. 9 Ibid., f. 348. lo Ibid,, lviii. f. 353.
DIVISION VIII.
MANUFACTURING AND MISCELLANEOUS COM- PANIES IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
I
SECTION L THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE WHITE PAPER MAKERS IN ENGLAND.
The manufacture of paper had been established in England as early as the reign of Elizabeth, if not before that time^ The industry increased, and a century later there were upwards of a hundred mills at work 2. Their output however was confined to the coarser kinds, such as brown paper, and it was necessary to import the finer qualities from abroad. In 1673-4 the quantity of paper brought from France was 160,000 reams which, at the valuation of 5s. per ream, amounted to £4iO,000 annually^ ; while, later in the century, it was stated that the imports of this com- modity cost as much as ^100,000 a year^. It is said that the first attempt to produce the better kinds in England was due to E. Burnaby in 1678, but his enterprize resulted in failure ^ In 1682 a further effort was made to achieve success by George Hagar, who obtained a patent for the sole production of white writing and printing paper for 14 years by the method of " sizeing it in a mortar ^" A company was formed to work the invention, and ^"^6,000 was paid by a number of persons for shares^ A mill was erected at Ensham and others were leased elsewhere^ For some time a considerable trade was carried on, but Hagar's success came to the notice of those persons who had made him bankrupt in 1677 and these now attempted to make the funds of the company liable for his by-gone debts. The shareholders were indignant and accused Hagar of having obtained their money by means of fraud. It appears however that
1 In A Spark of Friendship (1588), in Harleian Miscellany, iii. p. 249, it is noted that a paper-mill had been erected at Dartford by Spilman, the Queen's Jeweller, cf. Paper and Paper-making Chronology j London, 1875, p. 20.
2 Reports Hist. MSS. Com.— The Manuscnpts of the House of Lords, 1690-1, xxii., Pt. v., p. 76.
3 A Scheme of the Trade as it is at present carried on between England and France, by Patience Ward, Thomas Papillon and others, 1674, in Somers TracU (1748), iv. p. 537*
* Anderson, Annals of Commerce, in. p. 131. ^ Paper and Paper-making Chronology, p. 20.
6 Reports Hist. MSS. Com., xiii., Pt. v., p. 436.
7 Ibid., p. 497. s Ibid., p. 496.
64 The White Paper Makers' Company [div. viii.
1
he had some knowledge of paper-making, since he was, at a later date, a frequent petitioner for encouragements There were several suits for the possession of the patent, which eventually remained in the hands of fl William Sutton, who made paper at the King's Mills, Bjfleet^.
While matters were in this condition, John Briscoe had obtained the assistance of some Frenchmen, who instructed him in the secrets of the trade; and, on April 15th, 1685, he applied for a patent for "making, sizeing and whitening writing, printing and other paper^"" Having obtained his grant, a company was formed, including John Dunston, Nicholas Dupin, Adam de Cardonell, Henry Longueville and a number of others. On June 13th, 1686, a petition was presented, which stated that " a vast expense "" was necessary to carry on the manu- facture to advantage. It was pleaded that a capital outlay of ^£^100,000 was required, " which sum, being so great, cannot be raised but by a considerable number of persons, incorporated and joining in a joint- stock."" It was also urged that, in spite of the patent, the company " laboured under great inconveniences, met with insupportable difficulties and ran great hazards '"" ; and, for these and other reasons, a charter of incorporation was asked ^ Accordingly, a grant was signed on July 3rd, 1686, creating a "body politick" to be known as the Governor and Company of the White Paper Makers in England with powers to elect a governor, deputy-governor and assistants — the latter not to exceed 23 in number. The governor and deputy-governor were to be present at all meetings for the making of orders. The shareholders were entitled to one vote for each share held. This charter confers on the company the sole right of making white writing and printing paper for the space of fourteen years from July 3rd, 1686, and its officials were entitled to break open doors of premises where they suspected paper, made in contravention of the patent, was stored, and to call on constables to assist them. The King promised to grant such further powers and privileges as should be necessary for the carrying on and improvement of the manufacture, and, in particular, to assent to any bill promoted by the company ^ Recourse was soon made to the royal protection ; and, on June 12th, 1687, the company petitioned that a fine of £500, imposed on Theodore Janssen at its prosecution, should be granted to it*. The same year a proclamation was issued " for establishing the manufacture of white paper,"*' which was designed to assist the company in discovering
1 State Papers, Domestic, Petition Entry Book, xii. pp. 161, 451.
2 Reports Hist. MSS. Com., xiii., Pt. v., p. 436.
3 State Papers, Domestic, Petition Entry Book, lxxi. p. 127.
* Ibid., Petition Entry Book, lxxi. p. 268; Ibid., James II., iii. 97. ^ Ibid., James II., iii. 98 ; Ibid., H. O. Warrant Book, iv. p. 67. « Ibid., Petition Entry Book, lxxi. p. 351.
Div. VIII. § 1] A Private Bill in Committee 1690 65
those who were copying its processes ^ Obviously there was an incon- sistency between the privileges of this body and those previously granted to Hagar and which had been exercised by Sutton. The legal position of the latter was not strong, and the company succeeded in preventing him from making white paper^.
On the signature of the patent, great energy was shown in developing the business. The capital was divided into 400 shares which were taken up, and c^50 per share was subscribed, making the whole sum paid (or credited as paid) 6^20,000^ No less than five mills were leased or purchased, and considerable quantities of paper made"*. On the outbreak of war with France after the Revolution, the importation of French paper was prohibited, and the company was in a position to take advantage of the wide field open to its enterprize. It soon found that more capital was needed, but there were doubts as to the validity of its charter. The governor and assistants decided that the boldest course was the most safe, and an appeal was made to Parliament for an act confirming the charter and authorizing an increase of capital. There was considerable opposition. William Sutton, the Dean and Chapter of Windsor and " the ancient paper-makers of the kingdom " all petitioned against the bill. On a conference between the parties, Sutton withdrew his petition, on condition that four of the original shares should be assigned him free of expense on the passing of the bill, and that further, whether it passed or not, the company was to rent his paper-mill, paying a fine of .£^100 and such rent as was fixed by arbitration ^
The bill was considered by a committee of the House of Lords on May 15th, 17th and 19th, 1690. The Dean of Windsor contended that the proposed legislation would lessen the value of the paper-mills belong- ing to the chapter. The ancient paper-makers were supported by the Mayor and aldermen of Chipping Wycombe. Counsel on their behalf argued that the confirmation of the company's charter by Parliament would be prejudicial to other paper-makers, "who could make good white printing paper,'' and it was asserted that many of these would be ruined, thereby becoming chargeable on the rates. The privileges asked for by the company were described as " a plain monopoly," under cover of which the whole supply of rags would be engrossed.
To these arguments, counsel for the company replied by showmg that those opposing the bill were unable to produce fine white paper.
^ Paper and Paper-making Chronology, p. 20.
2 Reports Hist. MSS. Com., xiii., Pt. v.^ p. 436.
3 MS. Act to encourage the manufacture of White Paper, 2 Will, and Mary, No. 25, House of Lords MSS.
* Reports Hist. MSS. Com., xui., Pt. v., p. 76. 6 Ibid., p. 436.
s. C. III. ^
66 The White Paper Makers' Company [div. viii. § 1
Attention was directed to the clause in the bill, which stated that the confirmation of the monopoly of the company only applied to such paper as was commonly sold at a price, exceeding 4*. per ream, and that the chartered undertaking was precluded from manufacturing any that realized that price or less. Thus the monopoly was confined to a class of paper which was not made by the owners of mills who were opposing the bill, and therefore nothing in it could take from them any trade they had had previously. Further, the company offered to lay open lists for further subscriptions of capital to any who chose to adven- ture, while security would be given for the rent of the additional mills which it was proposed to lease. This concession met the case of the Dean of Windsor, and it was agreed that a clause should be inserted, under which the company bound itself to take the mills belonging to the chapter, if required to do so\
The argument was against the ancient paper-makers, and it was stated that the opposition was aided by French agents. It is remarkable that this statement was accepted by the Committee and was incorporated in the preamble of the bill (which received the royal assent on May 20th), where it is said the members of the company had "at great charges purchased and erected diverse mills, with great hazards of their persons and estates, the said attempt being highly opposed by agents of the French King'^."" The act also sets out that, in spite of these and other hindrances, the manufacture had been set up and great quantities of paper were produced. In order to encourage the undertaking, so that the demand for white paper should be supplied from home manufacture, it is enacted that the charter should be confirmed for a period of fourteen years to be computed from the end of the session. Further, " for the better carrying on and improving the said manufacture and to the intent that the stock may be so increased as to establish the same in all parts of the kingdom and that all and every their Majesties' subjects, who shall be desirous to become members of the said company, may have liberty to do so,'' it is provided that the original capital of d£^20,000 was to be increased by a new subscription, the books for which were to lie open in Abchurch Lane and in some other public place till September 20th, 1690, " when any person may subscribe as many shares as he pleases at £60 each " — that is at the par value. This clause is of considerable interest as possibly the earliest case of parliamentary control of the capitalization of a company. The act proceeds by prohibiting the export of rags, under pain of forfeiture, and it also ratifies the agreement reached for
1 Imports Hist. MSS. Com., xin., Pt. v., pp. 74-6.
2 There is evidence of such intrigues in the case of the Royal Lustring company^ vide infra, p. 74.
Div. vm. § 1] Gh^eat Advance in Price of Shares 1692-4 67
the protection of other paper-makers by forbidding the company to make paper, usually sold at 4,9. per ream or less^
There is no evidence to show whether the subscription of additional capital in 1690 was large or not. The earliest quotation of the shares was on March 30th, 1692, when the price was 60, or a premium of 20 per cent. This was followed by a relapse until 41 was touched on May 5th. A recovery then set in and 49 was quoted at the end of June. There is no record of the movements of prices for the remainder of the year, but in January 1693 the shares stood from QB to 67. Up to the end of April they were over 70. Towards the close of May there was a fall to 69 which was continued till 59 was recorded on July 19th. From this date there was a steady advance — 70 being quoted on September 13th, 80 on the 28th, and 90 on October 11th, while on December 29th the price was 94. At this time the company seems to have been doing a large business. Sales were frequently advertized as to be held at its house in Queen St.'^, while Houghton describes it " as a great manufac- ture^.'' Even the person of quality, who wrote the jeremiad which he entitled Anglice Tiitamen, is forced to confess that, though the perfection of the finer French papers had not been wholly attained, the English makers " had then come pretty near it ""' and their work had " wonderfully improved.'"* The rag-pickers, all over the country, were kept busy in supplying the raw material, and the industry, as a whole, was described as being in a flourishing condition ^
These favourable estimates of the future of the company are reflected in the quotations of its shares, during the early part of the year 1694. Up to January 17th the price remained at 94. From the 24th (when it was 97) it steadily advanced. The rapidity of the rise is shown by the following summary of fluctuations, during the ensuing three months :
|
1694 (week ending Friday) February 2nd, 9th « „ „ 16th „ „ „ 23rd, March 2iid . |
98 . 105 . 120 |
|
„ „ March 9th, 16th, 23rd |
. 150 |
|
„ month of April |
. 140 |
For some reason, Houghton ceases to print quotations of these shares after April 1694. It is probable that there was a considerable reaction in the price. In 1696 the Commissioners of Trade reported that the
1 MS. Act to encourage the manufacture of White Paper, 2 Will, and Mary, No. 25, House of Lords MSS.
2 London Gazette, No. 2959, March 19, 1694 ; No. 3000, Aug. 9, 1694 ; No. 3053, Feb. 11, 1695 ; No. 3129, Nov. 4, 1695.
3 Collection for Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, by John Houghton, No. 103, July 20, 1694.
* Pubhshed 1695, p. 25.
5—2
68 The White Paper Makers' Company [biv. vm. § 1
company " was not in so thriving condition as it might have been,"'"' and they attributed its dechne to the evils of stock-jobbing management. Just at this time a number of companies, founded during the recent boom, had come to grief in the subsequent crisis, and the charge of stock-jobbing became the facile explanation of the failure — ;just as the diagnosis of " a fever,'' by the medical practitioners of the period, covered a multitude of disorders ^
At this time the paper-making industry was experiencing the effects of the prevailing depression, and a further adverse influence arose out of the financial necessities of the government. The House of Commons decided early in 1697 to impose a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on all paper made in England and one of 25 per cent, on that imported. The company joined with the other manufacturers in petitioning against the former tax which was intended to last for two years and which was to be levied on vellum, parchment and pasteboard. The line of argument adopted, against the imposition of the tax on home-made paper, was the contention that great injury would be done to the trade, while the pro- duce of the tax, if consumption remained the same as in the previous year, would be only ,£'^17,600. The whole amount of paper, used in England, was estimated to be worth d£^68,000, of which ,^£'40,000 was imported. There were 100 mills making coarse papers with an average annual production of £9^00 each, or ,^20,000 in all. The company had eight mills the output of which was valued at ^8 ,000 2. In spite of this protest, the duties were imposed by the act 8 and 9 Will. III. c. 7^.
It is probable that the paper-makers had considerably underestimated their output. • This was certainly the case with the company, since according to a report of the Commissioners of Trade dated December 23rd, 1697, that is after the duties had been imposed for six months, its annual production was 100,000 reams of white paper. Now, under its act, the company was forbidden to make paper, which sold at ^s. per ream or less, therefore, instead of its annual production being only £SfiOO a year, it must have been at least ^20,000 and may have been worth double that sum. This report assigns, as causes of recent hindrances to the progress of the trade, the charge of stock-jobbing and also that there had been a scarcity of white rags*. The fact, that the supply of rags was deficient, is indirect evidence that the production of all kinds of paper was con- siderably greater than it was stated to have been in the petition of the
1 Journals of the House of Commons, xi. p. 595.
2 The Case of the Paper-Traders, Humbly offer d to the Honourable House of Commons
[P1697], Brit. Mus. '-^ — . The proposed duties at the specified rates would
amount to £16,600. The remaining £2,000 arose from the tax on parchment, &c.
3 Statutes, VII. p. 190. * Journals of the House of Commons, xii. p. 435.
Div. vm. § 1] Consequences of Taxes on Paper 1697-9 69
manufacturers, while the complete absence of any quotations of the shares for more than three and a half years shows that there can have been no active speculation in that period. At the same time, there is independent testimony that the industry soon became depressed and it was described as being " almost quite sunk under the weight of the present tax^" The company appears to have been particularly affected by the check to the demand, which followed the rise in prices, and it is recorded that many mills were compelled to abandon the making of white paper and to con- fine themselves to the production of the commoner and cheaper varieties 2. Such a change would have meant the winding up of the company, since the act, it had obtained, precluded it from adopting this course, and it is significant that when in 1699, the duties of 1697 having expired, there was a warm debate for and against the increase of the protection of English-made paper, there is no mention of this company^. It was eventually resolved by the House of Commons that the duty on home- made paper should remain at 20 per cent, while that on foreign was to be increased to 30 per cent.^ On the bill being sent to the Lords, an amendment was inserted by the latter House resulting in considerable friction. Neither side would recede from the position it had taken up, and the bill did not become law\ Therefore the paper-makers lost the protection of 10 per cent., in addition to that afforded them by " the book of rates.*" There is no evidence to show at what time the company retired from business. The English paper-making trade, on the whole, progressed. About 1710 there were 150 mills, producing 60,000 reams annually^, while three years later all " the lower sorts," used in England, were made at home, and it was estimated that the production of white paper then amounted to between ^£30,000 and .£^40,000 a year^ On the
1 A Proposal for Building a Royal Library and establishing it by Act of Parliament [by Richard Bentley], London, 1697 T Brit. Mus. '-^ — J.
, „ . ,^ 816. m. 12
2 Reasons for further additional Duties on Paper [? 1698-9], Bnt. Mus. — gg •
3 An Abstract or Short Account of the Duty laid upon Paper ; Reusom Humbly offered., for laying a farther duty on all foreign paper ; Reasons humbly offer d... against laying a farther duty upon Paper ; Reasons against further additional Duties on Paper [Brit. Mus. 816 . m . 12, Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43] ; Journals of the House of Commons, xii. p. 661.
* Journals of the House of Commons, xii. p. 648.
5 Ibid., p. 683 ; Journals of the House of Lords, xvi. pp. 461-3 ; The Manuscnpts of the House of Lords, 1697-9, in. pp. 424-35.
6 The Case of the Merchants importing Genoa Paper. . .in relation to the Duty on Cardi
fr, .. A^ 816 . m . 121 Bnt. Mus. ~ J.
7 The British Merchant or Commerce Preservd, by Charles King, London, 1721, i. p. 14.
70 The White Paper Makers' Company [div. viii. §
other hand it was contended, at this time, that the paper trade was one which had suffered from the remission of the previous high import duties^
Summary of Capital and Prices of the Shares.
Capital.
Up to May 1690, 400 original shares of £50 each £20,000
A new siihscription was taken from June to September 20th, 1690.
1
I
|
Prices of |
Shares. |
||
|
Year |
Date of highest price |
Prices |
Date of lowest price |
|
1692 |
March 28 |
60—41 |
May 5 |
|
1693 |
December 27 |
94—69 |
July 19 |
|
1694 |
Feb. 28, March 7, 14, 21 |
150—94 |
Jan, 5, 10 |
I
^ Extracts from Several Mercators, being considerations on the State of British Trade, 1713 [Brit. Mus. 8246. b. 9], p. 7.
SECTION 11. OTHER COMPANIES FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF PAPER.
The Irish Paper Company (1690).
The Governor and Company of the Royal Corporation OF London for carrying on the Linen and Paper Manufacture within the Islands op Jersey and Guernsey (1691).
The Blue Paper Company (1691).
The Brown Paper Company (1692).
Col. John Perry and Partners (1709).
Besides the company of White Paper Makers and the Scots Paper Manufacture^, there were several other paper companies. One of these was also founded by Nicholas Dupin, and arose out of a patent granted to him in 1690 for the manufacture of white paper in Ireland for 14 years 2. On August 7th of the following year a warrant was issued to incorporate a paper and linen company for Jersey and Guernsey, which was to have a governor, deputy -governor and eighteen assistants. The qualification for office consisted in the holding of shares, and seven members of the court constituted a quorum. Power was also given to elect a sub-committee to manage the affairs of the company in the Channel Islands ^ In Aiiglice Tutamen mention is made of a Brozmi Paper Compani/\ which probably originated out of an invention by Thomas Neale and another for making brown and coloured papers, '' without using coarse or fine rags or linen cloth,"' out of a material of which store may be had in England and Ireland ^
The most interesting of these minor paper companies was the one that went by the name of the Blue Paper Company/. As in many similar
^ Vide infra, Division ix.. Section 6.
2 State Papers, Domestic, Signet Office, xii. p. 354 ; Patent Rolls (Four Courts, Dublin), April 7, 3 Will and Mary.
3 State Papers, Domestic, H. O. Warrant Book, vi. p. 142. * p. 25. ^ State Papers, Domestic, Petition Entry Book, i. p. 400.
72 Irish, Brown and Blue Paper Cos. [div. viii. § 2
cases, where there was no charter of incorporation, the title is uncertain, the company having arisen out of the sale of shares in the benefit of afl patent, and the rights and responsibilities of membership were defined by an agreement. The particular patent, on which this undertaking was based, was one granted to William Bayly in November 1691 for printing paper " with all sorts of figures and colours by several engines made of brass, without paint or stain, which will be useful for hanging in rooms \"''' An advertisement of the company gives a clearer idea of the nature of its product, which is described " as Japan and Indian figured hangings and another sort, consisting of large Japanese subjects and forest work also imitation of wainscot^." The shares of this company were quoted in 1692 from 11 to 10 and in the following year from 12 to 9, while in 1694 the price fell to, and remained at, 8. But despite the depression in the stock-market, the business seems to have been flourishing. During the year 1694 the accommodation at the company's office — the Blue Paper Warehouse in Aldermanbury — was insufficient, and sales were conducted at the ''large Japan Warehouse*" in Henrietta St., Covent Garden {i.e. the premises of the " company for lacquering after the manner of Japan'''"), while in addition a number of agencies were opened. Evidently the new wall-paper had become popular, for imitations began to be put on the market on a thinner paper and coloured " with a slight and superficial paint*" ; and, besides wall-papers, in the same year " blue sugar loaf and royal purple papers " were advertized for sale^. During the next ten years similar advertisements were frequent, so that it may be concluded that the business continued to flourish throughout the fourteen years for which the original patent had been granted^.
In 1709 there was a partnership for the production of white paper in Ireland under the management of Col. John Perry. In that year this undertaking appears to have met with some success, since it petitioned the House of Commons for legislation which would prevent the destruc- tion of white rags which were required for the manufacture'^.
^ State Papers^ Domestic, H. O. Warrant Book, vi. p. 225.
^ Houghton, Collections, No. 114.
3 Vide infra, Section 9. ^ Houghton, Collections, No. 114.
^ London Gazette, No. 2956, Mar. 12, 1694.
6 E.g. London Gazette, No. 3117 ; Postman, July 8, 1703.
^ Petitions to the Irish House of Commons, Four Courts, Dubfin ; Petition of Col. John Perry and Partners, June 2, 1709 ; The Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland (1796), ii. p. 206.
SECTION III. THE ROYAL LUSTRING COMPANY OF ENGLAND (1688-1720).
During the controversy which raged in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. over the commerce between England and France, much attention was directed to the trade in silks. In 1674 the value of the imports of these goods was estimated to have been =£^300,000^; while in 1686 the amount, recorded as having passed the Customs, was slightly more, though it was calculated that so much was smuggled that the total annual consumption could not have been less than ^500,000^. By the later date a material known as alamodes, lustrings, lutestrings, lutes or renforcez had become fashionable. It was "a fine, light, glossy, black silk^,*" the peculiarity in the production of which consisted in the secret of the "lustrating," i.e. in the imparting of the lustre or gloss. A Frenchman, Pierre de Cloux, was acquainted with the art ; and, having obtained the support of a number of persons who were prepared to provide the requisite funds, a petition was presented on behalf of the syndicate on November 28th, 1687, asking for a patent for the industry as one new to England^. That the manufacture had not been hitherto practised in the country seems to have been admitted at the time, though later very circumstantial accounts were given of the early production of considerable quantities of lustrings. The Weavers' company asserted that in 1663 several pieces had been made^ In 1696 a number of persons testified that between 1681 and 1686 they had seen many pieces that had been made in Spitalfields, indeed one of these asserted that the English
1 A Scheme of the Trade at Present carried on between England and France (in Somers' Tracts, iv. p. 536*).
2 Charles King, The British Merchant or Commerce Preservd, 1721, i. pp. 320, 328.
3 Murray's Dictionary— " Alamodes." It is interesting to notice that in 1622 Malynes mentioned "lutestrings" as a luxury, which he considered might reason- ably be made a monopoly. Consuetudo, p. 213.
4 State Papers, Domestic, James II., Petition Entry Book, lxxi. p. 394.
^ The Weavers Answer to the Objections made by the Lustrings" Company (1696)
[BHt.Mu.. -«,»-«].
1
74 The Royal Lusti^ing Company [div. viii.
production at that time was 4,000 or 5,000 pieces a year>. These statements can be shown to be false. The writer of a political pamphlet wishing to find a metaphor which characterized arbitrary J government, as a recent importation from abroad, speaks of it as "this Allamode de France^.'''' Moreover, about 1683, Stephen Seignoret, a silk merchant then living at Lyons, having consigned a consider- able quantity of lustrings to London, which had been damaged on the voyage, could not obtain a dresser in England who was able to restore the gloss. It is highly significant of the jealousy with which the weavers of Lyons guarded their trade-secrets, that the municipality would only consent to a French dresser leaving for London to under- take the work on condition that Seignoret himself should be kept in custody till the man returned I Later in 1687 another French lustring dresser, who had come to England, was paid £1B by the French Ambassador to return home again, and, on his attempting to set out for London, he was imprisoned, while in 1698 it was supposed he was still in confinement.
It will thus be clear that, at the date of the petition of De Cloux, the production of lustrings had not been regularly carried on in England. At the same time there were difficulties to be surmounted before a patent could be obtained. The law officers of the Crown reported in favour of the petitioners, in so far as the trade they proposed to start was new, but they recommended that reference should be made to the Commissioners of Customs to ascertain whether the revenue would suffer by the lustring industry being established'*. The result of this enquiry was not unfavourable to the hopes of De Cloux and his supporters. On March 9th, 1688, a warrant for a patent was made out, though the grant itself was not sealed till November 23rd. This document conferred on a number of persons named in it, together with any others they might subsequently assume as partners, the sole right of exercising the invention of making, dressing and "lustrating" those silks, known as plain black a la modes, renforcez and lustrings, subject to the following conditions. The patent extended only to such black silks, of the species described, as were used for scarves and hoods, the work was to be carried on under the inspection of the Weavers' company
1 The Manuscripts of the Hotise of Lords, 1695-7^, ii. p. 139.
2 The Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government, by Philo Veritas, Cologne, 1682, p. 161.
3 The Report of the Committee of the House of Commons to whom the Petition of the
Royal Lustring Company of England was referred, London, 1698 Brit. Mus. j
— ' L reprinted in Journals of the House of Commons, xii. p. 213. J
* State Papers, Domestic, Petition Entry Book, lxxi. p. 402. ■
Div. VIII. § 3] The Patent and Issue of Shares 1688-92 75
of London, and monthly accounts were to be furnished by the members both of pieces made and of the looms employed \
The patent establishing the undertaking was completed just when the country was in the throes of the Revolution, and it was unfortunate that De Cloux, who was the only person possessing the requisite techni- cal knowledge, happened to be a Roman Catholic and left England in the train of James II. The company, which was in process of forma- tion, was thus brought to a standstill through want of expert advice; but, as the French refugees began to arrive in increasing numbers, it became possible to obtain a certain amount of suitable labour, and two looms were started and kept at work. On the prohibition of commerce with France, arising out of the declaration of war against that country, the patentees were not slow to recognize that a wide field had been opened up for their enterprize. Towards the end of 1691 or in the first months of 1692, sustained efforts were made to greatly extend the operations of the company. The financing of the undertaking was arranged by a Mr Gervaise who fixed the capital at ,£*60,000, divided into 2,400 shares of ^25 each 2. The earliest transaction recorded was on April 14th, 1692, when the price realized was 32. In May the assistants decided that sales should be made to the public at 30, and many purchases were arranged at this price during the remainder of the year. In the accounts of the company the capital was always regarded as being ^£^60,000 and therefore it may be inferred that, out of the issue price of d£*30, £6 consisted of a reimbursement to the owners of the patent of their outlay together with promoters' profits, while the remaining ^25 per share was used in carrying on the business. On May 14th, 1692, a petition was presented which stated that lustrings were being produced and asking that, since there were now 134 persons interested in the patent, a charter of incorporation should be granted to them^ The Solicitor-General reported on May 30th that great per- fection had been attained in this manufacture, and he recommended that the company should be incorporated*. On July 28th a warrant was issued for the preparation of a charter ^ Some delay arose from the intervention of the Weavers' company, but at a full court of this body, held on October 10th, a clause was read, which it was proposed should be included in the grant, and which stated that this document
1 State Papers^ Domestic, H. O. Warrant Book, iv, p. 400; Journals of the House
of Commons, xii. p. 221 ; The Case of the Weavers who are Petitioners to be relieved
-, r^ . ,. 816 . m . 13"! against a Clause in the Coale Act [1695] Brit. Mus. zrz^ .
2 Journals of the House of Commons, xii. p. 221.
3 State Papers, Domestic, Petition Entry Book, i. p. 292. * Ibid., p. 307. 5 Ibid., H. O. Warrant Book, vi. p. 383.
76 The Royal Lustring Company [div. viii.
was to be interpreted as cqntaining nothing prejudicial to the Weavers' company, whereupon it was agreed that all opposition should be with- drawn \ When at length the charter was sealed, it incorporated those interested in the patent of James II. as the Royal Lustring Company of England with the usual powers, which however were to be subject to all the conditions embodied in the grant of 1688. The government of the company was committed to a governor, deputy -governor and twelve assistants. The minimum qualification for a vote was the ownership of 10 shares, and no holding entitled the proprietor to more than a single vote^ In addition to the royal charter, there came encouragement frpm Parliament, since it was enacted that, after March 25th, 1693, no foreign lustrings might be imported except under licensed
The company received influential support. The Stephen Seignoret, already mentioned, purchased 382 shares*. A "Lustring House" was opened at Austin Friars, where large sales of alamodes were made from time to time for many years ^ Office-hours, except before and after sales, were from 8 till 12 o'clock, and from 2 to 6 o'clock daily, except Sundays and holidays^. Business proved good, and at one sale alone, in October 1693, the lustrings, auctioned by "inch of candle," realized cj^l4,000 '. The company was able to increase the number of looms, but it was not long before friction arose with the English silk weavers. At first, as was indeed necessary, French artisans had been employed. These worked at a cheaper rate than had previously obtained in London. As the English apprentices had begun to acquire skill, pressure was put on the governor and assistants to discharge their foreign hands. The company was accused "of taking bread out of the mouths of the native weavers," and the men themselves were not slow to take forcible means of persuading the governing body. They followed the assistants to their homes in a riotous manner, making threats and breaking windows ^ Compulsion in the same direction was exerted by the powers of inspection granted to the Weavers' company; and, eventually, the governor had to give way and many of the French workmen were dis- missed. This action had a double result which manifested itself in the future. On the one hand, the piece-work wages were higher, though in all probability not to the extent recorded by Charles King, who gives the English rate in this trade as more than double the French^. On
1 Court Books of the Weavers' Company (1692-4), xii., Oct. 10, 1692.
2 The Charter of the Royal Lustrmg Company [Brit. Mus. 8223. e. 69].
3 4 Will, and Mary, c. 5, § 5, Statutes, vi. p. 384. * Journals of the House of Commons, xii. p. 222.
s London Gazette, No. 2855, Mar. 30, 1693. « /jie?., Feb. 11, 1696.
7 Houghton, Collections, No. 65, Oct. 27, 1693.
8 Treasury Papers, cxxxix. 19 ; Calendar, 1708-14, p. 327. ^ Charles King, The British Merchant, i. p. 8.
Div. VIII. § 3] Position of the Industry 1692-B 77
the other side, it is to be feared that the change was accompanied by a deterioration in the quality of the product; for if, as was frequently stated, the secret of "lustrating" silks was unknown to English weavers up till 1690, it would necessarily take a considerable period for the art to be thoroughly mastered by them.
It needed time for these disadvantageous elements in the organization of the company to manifest themselves, and in 1694, 1695 and 1696 it enjoyed great prosperity. Houghton spoke of this trade in 1694 as one which England had "wanted much," and he considered that the Royal Lustring company was likely to outdo all the others that had been recently established ^ Even the pessimistic writer of the tract, AngUw Tutamen, finds himself compelled to admit that this under- taking was thriving, and he believed it would continue to do so, "whilst it kept stock-jobbers from breaking in upon itl"' Publicity was given to the quarterly sales, and from time to time paragraphs appeared in the press, which were designed to draw attention to the enterprize, as for instance when it was recorded in 1695 that the King had been pleased to assure the company of his protection, that he had lately granted further encouragement, to which the practical note was added that the assistants were willing to employ weavers free of the Weavers' company^. By the act 6 and 7 Will. III. c. 18 it was provided that lustrings, imported under license, must be sealed at the Custom House, those produced at home were to be sealed by the Lustring company. Any of these fabrics, found without either of these seals, were subject to for- feiture, and the goods seized according to this section might, after being condenmed at the Custom House, be purchased solely for exportation. In 1696 a bill was promoted in the interests of the Weavers'* company, giving that body equal rights in the sealing of lustrings made in England, but the measure did not become law^. This legislation was important, not only in aiding in suppressing smuggling, but also in giving the Lustring company some supervision over the Weavers' company, so that both organizations met on more equal terms.
In another respect too the company had strengthened its position. The Duke of Savoy, like the rest of the allies, had prohibited the entrance of French goods into his territories. The people, however, were in want of cloth; and, unless the prohibition was relaxed with regard to this commodity, they must obtain it from England. Since the Lustring company brought silk in large quantities from Piedmont,
1 Collections, No. 103, July 20, 1694.
2 p. 30. It is significant too that Defoe {Essay upon Projects, 1697, p. 13) does not mention this company as one of the failures through stock-jobbing.
3 Houghton, Collections, No. 169, Oct. 25, 1695.
^ The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1695-7, ii. p. 138.
78 The Royal Liistrmg Company [div. vni. §
it was suggested that it should export cloth there; and accordingly \i 1696 an experimental shipment valued at ,£*1,500 was made^
Testimony to the progress, already made by the company and to its future prospects, is borne by the quotations of the shares. From the issue-price of 30 there had been a fall till 20 was touched at the end of 1694. From that date, contrary to the general course of industrial securities, the shares rose till 33 (for cash) or 38 (in bank-notes) was recorded in 1696. Such a price, in view of the prevailing depression during the crisis, shows that the company was considered to be doing well.
It is possible to some extent to reconstruct the state of its finances in 1696. It had, at that time, 670 looms at work in London and 98 at Ipswich, making a total of 768, which gave employment to about 6,000 persons 2. A loom was capable of making 10 to 12 pieces of lustrings in the year, each of which contained on an average 4 lbs. of silk and con- sisted of some 60 ells in lengths Since the total demand of England for lustrings, while this trade with France was open, was estimated at 10,000 pieces annually, it will be seen that the company had brought its capacity up to a point which approximated to the amount required just before the Revolution. Whatever might have happened in the future, as yet the maximum output was not being produced. It was said by the Weavers' company, which at that time was hostile to the Lustring company, that the latter during the first four years of