A Tudor Canal Schemefor the River Lea

Abstract

IN1571 an Act of Parliament (13 Eliz c.18) was passed 'for the brynging of the Ryver of Lee to the Northside of ye Citie of London' . The act, sponsored by the City, outlined plans to build a 'newe cut' which was to leave the Lea 'in the most aptest and meetest place .. to have from thence the leadinge and passage of the saide Water throughe such a convenyent and meete cut .. unto the saide Citye of London ... '. The City proposed to construct and control this canal themselves, but they also sought additional powers whereby, once this task had been completed, further improvements could be carried out by a newly elected Commission of Sewers with representatives from the counties of Essex, Middlesex and Hertfordshire. The City's main reason for sponsoring such ambitious plans was a desire to improve the supplies of agricultural produce, but they also envisaged that the new canal could also be used for local passenger traffic. The problems of shortages and rising prices in the city markets were becoming so acute, that the city authorities were themselves forced to take active steps to promote trade, and their proposals to improve the Lea must be seen as one facet of this policy. The Lea was in use before the City made their plans, but the boats were small, and most of the traffic involved the small communities which lay along its course. The City hoped that improvements to its navigable condition would stimulate an important trade in grain from the rich agricultural lands of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. The act itself did not specify' the course which the canal was to take, this was left to the discretion of its promoters. However the map reproduced in Figure 1 must, I think, show the plans which the City had in mind when they sponsored the act.! Two alternative courses are shown, but the inscription 'This Lyne is for ye Newe Cutte' does suggest that the longer cut was preferred, the shorter alternative probably being presented as a precaution when parliamentary approval was sought. Traditionally, the City enjoyed rights of jurisdiction over the tidal waters of the Thames, and an investigation in 1560 had fixed the limits of such waters along the Lea at Temple Bridge in Hackney.2 The City might well have expected Parliament to restrict their powers to use water from the Lea to within these traditional limits, so the shorter course might well have been surveyed in readiness for such a contingency. Since Parliament did not impose any such restriction, it does seem likely that it was the longer course which was under consideration when the act was passed. Unfortunately the top edge of the map has been torn off, so the exact place where the canal was to leave the Lea cannot be ascertained.