English townspeople relied on springs, wells, and particularly natural watercourses for their water. Up into the fourteenth century this meant for many regular trips to rivers and streams to pick up water, unless prosperous enough to have it brought by servants or tradesmen. As far as was within their power, borough authorities worked to protect these sources from contamination: attempting through prohibitions and fines to control dumping of refuse in the water, ordering property-owners (or even entire neighbourhoods) living beside watercourses to scour them periodically, and sometimes appointing officers to police rivers and streams and supervise clean-up operations. In London, for example, there were keepers of the Walbrook before the mid-fourteenth century.

The lead in the initiative to create a protected system drawing water to the community was most commonly taken by religious houses; they sought to meet the needs of their members within the confines of their precincts, were highly concerned (as any closed community must be) with matters of sanitation and health, faced in their regimented lifestyle a particular problem in accommodating peak period demands on water (e.g. washing and mealtimes), and had the resources to take the necessary action. It was not coincidence that many monasteries, nunneries or friaries were established close to streams, rivers or springs – the houses of Clerkenwell and Holywell just outside London are instances. St. Mary Clerkenwell had put in place a conduit by 1190, to pipe in water from the spring. Two other thirteenth-century foundations – St. Mary Spital, Bishopsgate, and the Franciscan friary – also piped in water from sources outside the city. The tremendous growth during the High Middle Ages of religious communities, and corresponding lay donations of land, watersources, or money with which to construct water supplies, provided an opportunity for the towns in which such communities were based.

If towns were, for the most part, unable to take similar initiatives, it was partly because in the thirteenth century their preoccupations were with acquiring jurisdictional independence, their administrative mechanisms were still under-developed, and their fiscal surplus (beyond payment of the fee farm) meagre. But growth in population meant both increased demand for clean water and increased threat to watercourses from pollution; attempting to control this situation through legislation had limited effectiveness, and so a technological solution may have appeared attractive to those towns where decision-makers were conscious of the solutions already implemented elsewhere. In due course, some towns were able to capitalize on the initiatives of the religious communities and create a public water supply serving at least some of the more populous neighbourhoods.

On continental Europe this was happening during the thirteenth century, but English towns were slower to do so. However, there are a few exceptions: Bristol by the early thirteenth century was taking advantage of the pipes bringing in water to several religious houses there, while archaeological and documentary evidence has shown that Gloucester, Litchfield, and Southampton did the same. For example, at Litchfield – where access to the conduit in the cathedral close was for a while allowed to laywomen, with resultant scandal – a friary conduit was extended into its marketplace. At Bristol an extensive conduit system developed over the course of the Middle Ages; in 1391, for instance – fifteen years after retaining plumber Hugh White to take charge of civic conduits – the city took over the Dominicans' conduit and the costs of maintaining it, in return for assuring the friars a branch pipe supply and a nominal annual payment. Gloucester's government likewise took over much of the Franciscans' conduit system in 1438, and proceeded to extend it – again, this approach must have looked mutually beneficial – and by the end of the century we find a plumber in the role of warden of the conduit.

Bristol burgesses' early experience with water-supply systems may have been exported with their colonists to Dublin where, between 1244 and 1254, such a system was established. It involved heightening a weir on the Dodder to increase the flow in a channel cut to the Poddle (the townspeople's main source of fresh water), then creating a canal from the Poddle into a cistern, from where an open channel led along Thomas Street and was then carried by pipes and troughs to a public fountain near Christchurch. The terms of the initial feasibility study, given to the city sheriff, suggest that an appropriate route was to be determined, and land along that route virtually appropriated – at least, the owners were to be arrested if they tried to refuse access, although the St. Thomas' abbey was powerful enough to force the channel to be diverted around its property. Despite that opposition, the Dublin initiative may have been a collaboration with religious houses, several of which were allowed to share in the water, through branch pipes. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries there are even several known cases of private supplies, tapped off the public conduits, being permitted by the Dublin authorities.

At Bath the lead was also taken by a religious institution. The Roman baths fed by hot springs needed a good drainage system, and into the Middle Ages this provided some residents of suburban Southgate Street with a source of hot water running down into the River Avon. There were several springs on the hill on the south side of the river. In 1263 we hear of a cistern associated with one of these springs being rebuilt by Prior Walter de Anno. Water was piped thence, across the river (by bridge), and up Southgate Street to a public "fountain" (conduit) near the south gate. Prior Walter also arranged with the town authorities to set up another conduit, in the High Street north of the abbey, again to serve both monastic and urban communities. From the conduit near the south gate, more pipes and ducts led water into the cathedral-priory and to other parts of the town. Further conduits were added before the close of the Middle Ages, some taking advantage of other springs in hills north of the town. The system was sufficiently elaborate that Leland, upon visiting in 1534, found it remarkable.

Southampton's foray into this arena had its roots in the conduit project of the Franciscans, who had in 1290 been given Colewell Spring, outside the borough boundaries, by the lord of the manor there. Beginning in 1304 (with the work continuing into the early years of Edward III's reign), they had built a conduit to bring water from there to a lockable building that still stands and is known as the Water House. From there the pipes ran down English Street to the friary. The document transcribed above allowed the town to tap into that supply. But despite the assurances give by the friars, they allowed their conduit to fall into disrepair. A bequest by John Benet, thrice mayor of Southampton, put the borough into the position in 1420 of being able to negotiate purchase of the water system from the friars, who were doubtless happy to rid themselves of the burden. The old pipes had to be taken up and relaid, and a new lockable conduit house was built at the mid-point of the High Street. From there two pipes of equal diameter lead out, one to the friary, the other into a cistern for public use. The friary agreed to maintain the conduit head at Colewell, and in return received one of the keys to the new conduit house; the friars gave assurances that they would always allow authorized city personnel access to their key, on the understanding that if they failed in their duties under the agreement, the authorities could use force to take control of the conduit house. The borough agreed to shoulder all other costs associated with the system. During the course of that century, further pipes were laid and more conduit houses built, to serve more parts of the town. In the sixteenth century water began to be piped into a few private homes.

Lynn's southern marketplace seems to have been supplied with water by the middle of the fourteenth century. It is not known whether this was an extension of the subterranean conduit that the king in 1314 licenced to be constructed into the Minorites' friary or (less likely) of the Carmelites' conduit we hear of when it was vandalized in 1308. But the townsmen took advantage of the project of the Austin friars, whose house was in the northern section of town already served by a ditch system, to provide a supply that ran as far as the grass market to serve the residents of that populous part of the town. It may also have been intended for those using the northern marketplace, although this was served primarily by public wells: in 1365/66 we hear of expenditures (including the purchase of 24,000 tiles) on the upkeep of the old well and the new, and in 1384/85 the good-sized sum of £9 was spent on timber and tiles to reline the well then operating, provision of a new windlass and 2 buckets, and sending a carpenter to Swafham to obtain professional advice.

Such costs may have helped encourage the administration to explore other alternatives. The northern conduit was run from the River Gay (far enough back from the estuary to ensure no contamination from salt water) and fed, from the early fifteenth century, by a kettlemill, whose two horses probably worked alternate shifts to turn the wooden wheel to which were attached metal buckets. Not long after the arrangement with the Augustinians, we see that level of demand on the conduit system is already creating problems. Although further effort seems to have been put into public conduit system in the fifteenth century – in 1444 the bishop gave 100 marks towards making a conduit from the east gate down along Damgate as far as the northern marketplace – watercarts continued to do good business supplying residences and industry. Other religious houses may have built further conduits, but if so the civic authorities had no involvement with those until the Dissolution. In fact, several towns took over such conduits at that time.

Piggybacking on the projects of religious houses was not a universal solution. At Oxford, St. John's hospital obtained water after 1246 via an aqueduct coming from a spring in the north-east corner of the town, the Blackfriars were bringing water from a spring in Hinksey before 1285, and it was said that the Greyfriars had an extensive conduit system at a later date. Yet there was no civic conduit established until the seventeenth century. At Ipswich there are passing references to a conduit (1395) and a Conduit House (1417) in the centrally located parish of St. Laurence, although I find no evidence of any of the town's religious houses having had piped-in water; Speed's map shows a stream running from north of the town down Brook Street towards the river, skirting St. Laurence parish en route, so the conduit may have fed off that.

At Coventry also it seems that the burgesses took action independently of any initiatives of religious communities within their midst. In 1322 they acquired a licence from the king to construct a conduit. By the time that regular records, in the form of the leet book, appear in the early fifteenth century, the conduit system is evidently well-established, although continuing to undergo expansion. The cathedral-priory also had its own conduit by this time. At the October 1404 parliament the prior complained that the underground conduit serving residents within the cathedral-priory precinct – said to have been in existence since time immemorial – was being damaged by citizens tapping into it to draw water off in private pipes, and then obstructing priory officials who tried to repair the conduit. The prior also complained of dumping of refuse into the Sherbourne, resulting in stinking and polluted water. The king was persuaded to impose a £10 fine payable to the court plus damages triple the cost of repairs on offenders in either category.

In 1421 we have our first reference to townsmen tapping into the civic conduits to create a private water supply for their homes; those at Bablake and West Orchard, as well as one leading to the house of John Patch; were ordered destroyed or stopped up. In September 1426 a series of orders issuing from the leet involved not only protecting the quality of the Sherbourne, by prohibiting casting of refuse into it, and appointing men to oversee the quality of different sections of the river, but also provisions for supervision and repair of stretches of the conduit; responsibility for paying for the upkeep fell to the wards. It was also ordered that any pipes leading off the conduit, to private property, have a diameter no greater than that of a swan's quill.

In 1434 we hear of a standard – presumably like those in London, equipped with cisterns – half-way along Smithford Street (the western arm of the High Street, no longer in existence) for which a householder, in front of whose property it was situated, was trying to obtain assurance that it would not be removed. At the same time it was decided to remove the standard at Bablake (just inside Spon Gate) and not to authorize any private pipes tapping into the conduit. In 1448 the prohibition against brewers using the conduit for professional needs was reiterated, and the fine doubled. In 1461 it was prohibited for anyone to do their washing at the conduit, with a fine of 2d. being set for offenders; in 1468 this was further elaborated, forbidding the washing of cloths off the loom as well as fetching water for purposes of brewing or steeping, and the fine was increased to 4d.

By 1483 there were evidently several pipes leading from the river on the west side of the town eastwards towards the town centre, and one leading westwards from the same stretch of river (perhaps into the suburb of Spon). In 1493 the city authorities decided not only to allow private pipes, but to use them as a source of revenue. On the same occasion that the ward aldermen were ordered to keep the wells in their wards in good repair, or face a 40s. fine, a licence fee of 4s. a year was set for those who had private pipes tapping into the conduit; higher fees, ranging from 6s.8d to 13s.4d were charged to six men and one women (identified only as "Heddis wife"), for using conduit water for commercial purposes (brewing or dyeing) – whether these were to be annual payments or a one-time contribution to conduit upkeep is not clear.

In 1497 it was decided that every householder within certain wards should pay quarterly towards conduit upkeep 1d. per, whileshopkeepers should pay ½d. and cottagers ¼d.; special collectors – two for five of the wards involved, and three for the sixth – were to be appointed and paid 4d. each per quarter for their services, and were authorized to distrain for twice the amount on anyone refusing to pay. On the assumption that the wards contributing were those through which conduits ran, the areas served were much of the principal east-west road running through the city (Spon Street/Smithford Street/Earl Street), i.e the High Street, and the roads leading through the marketplace (Broadgate/Cross Cheaping); perhaps there was an offshoot from the High Street conduit into Bailey Lane, which skirted the former castle grounds to lead to St. Michael's.

Some towns, such as York, had no conduit system in the Middle Ages. But this was not due to any north-south divide, for at Newcastle we encounter a royal licence (1349) to build an aqueduct bringing water into the town via the Blackfriars' property; this was shortly after a quarrel between the town and the Franciscans, over access to the latter's conduit. And at Kingston-upon-Hull various initiatives were taken to provide the fresh water not available from the town's haven: by 1401 it was being shipped in from further up-river, but the overheads meant that the water was too expensive for the town's poorer residents. So it was decided to dig a dike to connect a spring at Anlaby and others in the vicinity; with a ditch on the west side of Hull, from where water could be brought into town by sled. The project had its share of problems: resistance from villagers through whose lands the dike was dug (in at least one case so violent that objectors were hanged), occasional flooding of neighbouring fields, and keeping the dike dredged and free of pollutants – several carcasses were removed, for instance, in the 1450s. In 1447 the town authorities obtained licence to acquire other springs and lay subterranean pipes from them; after two years £36 had been expended in laying pipes. But the project had its ups and downs: twenty years later the cash-strapped authorities were digging up the pipes and selling them to pay debts, and in 1476 John Adam was rewarded with a life exemption from being obliged to serve in any borough office as thanks for him donating four fothers of lead for the conduit.

Even a few of the smaller, less prosperous towns had conduits by the close of the fourteenth century. At Chelmsford, for example a spring just west of the town fuelled subterranean pipes that led into a cistern in the central marketplace, from where it flowed out again into an open drain that passed down the middle of the high street, eventually emptying into a channel connecting the two rivers that bounded the town. With this example too it has been suggested [H. Grieve, The Sleepers and the Shadows. Chelmsford: a town, its people and its past, Essex Record Office Publication no.100 (1988), vol.1, 55] that a local friary's initiative in 1341 to draw water from the same spring to its house south of the town may have provided the catalyst for the borough authorities to take action – curiously, at a location used for washing clothes and watering animals! Whether the open drain down the high street was intended for sanitation or as a source of domestic water for purposes other than drinking is not clear. Possibly the latter, since the drain entered the river at a place where clothing was washed and animals watered, and since in the late fifteenth century the authorities prohibited privies from emptying into the drain and women from washing clothing where the pipes surfaced in the marketplace. By the close of the Middle Ages it had the character of a sewer, however.

A recent survey by John Lee ["Piped water supplies managed by civic bodies in medieval English towns," Urban History, vol.41 (2014)369-93] has identified 46 towns where some kind of provision, whether originating in ecclesiastical or secular initiative, was in place by mid-sixteenth century. That many English towns, small and large, had no conduit system in the Middle Ages is due to a variety of factors and local circumstances. It was certainly too expensive an undertaking for most small towns. Conduits required some source of water that would involve the necessary pressure to maintain a flow of water. Where a town had no immediate springs available, or topography that did not favour a gravity-flow system, conduits would have been impracticable. It was also necessary to provide a route for the conduit. This involved either acquiring the lands across which the conduit was to pass – for, particularly in an urban context, there were usually involved several properties with different owners – or negotiating an easement (right of way) across those lands, as in the cases above at Lynn and Coventry. Professor Magnusson [Water Technology in the Middle Ages, Baltimore, 2001, 42] suggests that granting an easement rather than selling the property through which a conduit ran may have been preferred by the parties to the transactions, in part because of the work and cost involved in alienating in mortmain, and in part because an easement represented a relatively inexpensive form of pious or charitable donation believed to benefit the soul of the donor, or show civic-mindedness; on the other hand, some with a more worldly outlook charged a small annual rent for the land used. At some places the obstacles to building a conduit probably derailed projects; the townsmen of Scarborough were thus thwarted, but subsequently granted a spring for the use of a conduit of for the Franciscans, on condition the town could share in its use.

Donors may have shown practicality similar to that of the Lynn authorities, in their concern to obtain guarantees that their property would not be damaged by the conduit's presence. The Colchester Franciscans were given permission for their planned conduit to pass through the town wall, so long as they repaired, at their own cost, the hole they had to make in the wall. At Exeter in 1387 the city authorities conceded St. Nicholas' Priory the right to dig up city streets to lay and repair conduit pipes, but on certain conditions: the work had to done under supervision of a committee appointed by the authorities, while work was underway the trenches had to be covered and guarded to prevent public injuries, any injuries that did occur had to be compensated by the Priory, and streets had to be restored to their original condition within three days of work being completed. Some of the conduits in the city, however, possibly including those built by civic authorities in 1420, were in large, stone-lined underground passages, in which repairs may have been effected without tearing up the streets. The conduit repairs mentioned in the 1340s, sometimes paid for by the principal city financial officers and sometimes by the murage collectors from their proceeds, entailed mainly soldering the lead pipes; only in one instance is there the suggestion that anything had to be dug up to get at a pipe.