Romney Marsh: the Debatable Ground (ed. J. Eddison), OUCA Monograph 41, 1995

11. The Impact of Marshland Drainage on , 1550-1650*

Stephen Hipkin

During the mid 16th century much of Rye's relative of marshland adjoining the Rother levels as the cause prosperity was built on the town's possession of the only 'whereby insufficient water is taken up to scour the harbour major harbour of refuge between Portsmouth and the at ebb tide'. The bill also referred to the unhelpful actions Thames. The harbour was probably doomed eventually of landowners who released water from sluices at the to succumb to the effects of silting and of longshore lowest ebb, and to the damage done by the casting of drifting caused by the wave action along the ballast into the harb~ur.~That legislation was enacted coast, but it might have taken longer to succumb had the covering the comparatively minor matter of ballast volume of tidal water flowing in and out of Rye Camber, discharges, whereas no progress was made on the and from the rivers Rother, Tillingham and Brede, substantive proposals, which might have damaged local remained sufficient to produce an effective scour. The landed interests, was indicative of a pattern which was intervention of man disturbed nature's rough equilibrium. often to repeat itself in the ensuing century. Asked, in 1638, to explain the deterioration of the town's During the mid 16th century the number and scale of harbour, the 'men of most experience in the town of Rye' reclamation projects rapidly increased (see Figs. 1 1.1 and responded emphatically that 11.2). According to an enquiry in 1561 inning had been taking place over the previous 30 years 'on ground on 'The inning of salt marshes from time to time, for private every side (of the Rother) up at least 12 miles and more'. men's gain and profit, hath been the utter decay of the As a result, it was said, harbour of Rye, which had certainly been good to this day if the salts had never been inned." 'Appledore, which hath been agoodly town (is) now decayed by reason the water is gone from it, and also from Reading Marshland drainage was evidently beneficial for some and Smalledd (sic), which were always replenished with farmers, though in any given case its impact was more shipwrights, where always a great number of ships, crayers than likely adversely to affect others, but it was not good and boats were made, where at this present there cannot be for estuarine harbours. Inning on the margins of rivers made a boat of 20 tons, by reason of inning.' reduced their size, which diminished the volume of water entering on the floodtide. This in turn limited the Further reclamation work was in hand on the west side of effectiveness of the tidal scour, which caused rivers and Rye at and . Groins and piles had also marsh channels to silt up. been set up between the Camber and Guldeford marshes, Medieval inning in certain parts of coastal Sussex had where the Guldeford family were continuing work begun at often had unforeseen consequences, as had dam and least a century earlier. The enquiry concluded that 'insatiable sluice construction (Dugdale 1662, 20, 83, 87-89; covetous inning' was responsible for the 'wonderfully Brandon 1971; Farrant 1972; Eddison 1985). A certain decayed' state of the harbour. A survey the following year amount of inning and sluice building had taken place in claimed the channel of the Rother between Reading and the marshland around Rye during the 15th and early 16th Rye had, in some places, narrowed from 200-300 feet to centuries, the effects of which quickly became obvious to 16-24 feet. According to Rye fishermen in 1570, Rye corporation. A draft bill for the towns of Rye and in the Parliament of 1548 which sought, 'the shore weareth lower, the Camber being gone and worn unsuccessfully, the construction of a number of sluices to away, therefore the force and rage of the sea hath more increase the scouring action of the ebb tide, cited inning power to fall in here than ever heretofore it hath had ...

* In quoting from original sources spelling has been modernizt ?d throughout. Dates are given in Old Style, but with the year regarded as beginning on 1st January. The Impact of Marshland Draina !ge on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 139

We lose and are damaged among our sea craft, for want of Rye's town clerk, Robert Convers, graphically summed good harbouring, in one foul night more than we are able up the situation as follows, in one whole year to get up again.' 'the revenues of the corporation are very small and not Soon, the fishermen concluded, they, their wives, families sufficient for the many charges of the same . . . and also for and craft would be gone 'to seek refuge and succour in that the town and corporation is already very poor and some other place', unless some 'speedy remedy' were greatly impoverished by reason of the great charges found.3 expended of late in and about the former project for the A holding operation was mounted while more ambitious amendment of the haven. And that the land within the said corporation is of very small extent and the houses and schemes were put forward in the later 16th century for the tenements now inhabited very meanly rented it seemeth wholesale renovation of the harbour (HMC Rye, 58, 64, unto us a thing intolerable or rather impossible to levy 89-90,99-102, 108). But, costed at between £2,000 and upon the said corporation or of the lands and tenements £5,000, they were wholly impractical without considerable within the same any proportional sum of money for the aid from central government, which was not f~rthcoming.~ effectual amendment of the ruins and ruptures late made In 1596, amidst predictions that 'the channel will shortly by the sea, whereby the danger might be avoided and the swarve up .. . and become so shallow that no ship, bark said town preserved.' or boat will or can be harboured there7, the corporation gambled on a scheme to make a cut to divert the waters By 1610, according to the mayor, the town was 'not able of the Rother through marshland to the north of the town any longer, by reason of our poverty, to buy or provide into the Tillingham, in the hope that with 'the force of the any timber or planks to amend our jetties'. There remained, water thereof the late increased sands may be reared and of course, the option of a general cesse, to which the town carried away, and the said channel deepened'. It was an did indeed resort. But there was a limit to the number of expensive gamble. Irate landowners had to be general cesses the Assembly was prepared to contemplate, compensated, the sluice for the scheme alone was not least because freemen had no great desire to increase contracted for £600, and by mid 1599 a total of over the fiscal burden on them~elves.~ £1,400 had been spent. To pay for the project the The verdict of a jury enquiring into 'recent hindrances corporation utilized forced labour, levied local rates, to shipping' at Rye in September 1597 gives some idea of borrowed money, sold off property and secured a licence the scale of reclamation projects then in progress around to gather a benevolence from the inhabitants of 'divers' Rye. The jury found a total of 719 acres 'by estimation .. . maritime counties. With the corporation subsequently of late enclosed', together with 600 acres recently inned unable to repay its debts from ordinary sources of income, 'near unto Lydd'. In addition, 13 dams had been 'lately more property had to be sold off in the early 17th century erected'.' There is every reason to suppose that these to satisfy creditors. This would have mattered less had figures indicate the general level of activity in other not the scheme failed. In 1610 the sluice was di~mantled.~ periods for which comparable evidence has not survived. Harbour deterioration was an important though by no In 1635 Sir Kenelm Digby gave his assessment in private means the only factor contributing to the rapid contraction correspondence with Sir John Coke, of the economy of Rye after 1585. Since corporate revenue 'Having lain windbound here four or five days I went at Rye had long been more heavily dependent on taxation about the town and country adjacent and had some of the of trading activity than was the case in the majority of chief of the place still with me. By them and my own English provincial towns, the adverse impact of marked observation I perceive there is much land, above 20,000 reductions in the levels of such activity on the amount of acres, gotten from the sea out of the king's channel. It is money flowing into the accounts of the land and sea as good land as any in Sussex; for it is let at 30 shillings, chamberlains was particularly severe. To counter this the and the worst at 20 shillings the acre.' Rye assembly increased both the range and rates of taxes imposed on trading activity in the town during the first The figure of 20,000 acres may be taken without too decade of the 17th century, but although these measures much seriousness, but the claim that 'much land' had did something to cushion the immediate blows, in any been reclaimed cannot be dismissed (HMC Coke, 93). medium-term perspective they could only deepen the For a number of reasons Rye found it extremely difficult economic crisis engulfing the town by further discouraging to resist land reclamation projects. The commission of trade. Similarly, the wholesale liquidation of assets these sewers 'for the preservation of Rye haven7, granted in measures accompanied sacrificed future sources of regular 1576 and re-granted in 1604, had powers to intervene in income in favour of short-term relief. As a result, during all matters affecting, or which might affect the condition the early 17th century the town found it increasingly of the harbour over a wide area extending upstream to difficult even to meet the costs of routine but expensive Appledore, Newenden, , Udimore and harbour maintenance, which in turn gave a further twist Peasmarsh. But the commission was far from being under to the vicious spiral of economic decline. In a letter to the control of the corporation. In reality the most prominent Earl of Northampton, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, voices on the commission were those of powerful landed 140 Stephen Hipkin

'.-- ,. -v. ...I.., . . ..-,- .:.-: ." I ..^.. . ;l- - .,:-f -- . .X, <-.- - , -, T:, I.,. Ag. 11.1. The P . " :.,: ' decayed harborough I J:" of Rye, 1594. --= Philip Symondson. -; Reproduced by

permrssion of Rye I LA

Town Council, with A -.:k? whom copy rights ,B remain. families, many of whom, like the Tuftons and the conjunction with the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Culpepers, cited in June 1604, were themselves responsible had prevented them from repairing a breach which the sea for the inning and enclosing of marshland not far from had made in the walls of their marsh, on the grounds that Rye, to the detriment of the harbour. the breach would greatly amend Rye haven. Consequently, The commission in session (watercourt) issued various they claimed, the houses and mills built by them on the orders to 'cut up or cause to be cut up' offending dams marsh when it was enclosed (value £100) were in danger and 'to abate and throw down walls' on pain of heavy of ruin. Nevertheless, orders, injunctions and opportunist fines, but Rye perceived 'many enemies which go about measures, even if they had the support of the Lord Warden to cross our commission and seek to inn divers salt of the Cinque Ports (which was not invariably the case), marshes, to the great prejudice and overthrow of our were not enough to prevent land reclamation. In 1604 the harbour', hence confrontations were not infrequent. In mayor and jurats of Rye were again suspicious of the November 1595 Robert and Alexander Shepherd of intentions of Alexander Shepherd, and fully expected him Peasmarsh, the latter subsequently a member of the to use his 'best endeavours to incense and possess such commission for the preservation of Rye haven, complained knights and gentlemen as (he) can win and gain ... to to the Privy Council that the mayor and jurats of Rye, in cross our proceedings in our commission of sewers'. The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650

Fig. 11.2. Interpretation of Symondson's map of 1594 on the base of OS 1:50,000 Second Series.

They were not mistaken, for by October Shepherd had what Rye wanted and eager to clear himself of the begun to 'inn certain salt marshes a mile in length against damaging allegations of his opponents. On 30th January Rye haven7,a total of 'about 200 acres'. On this occasion 1640 he outlined his position to the corporation. Rye succeeded in frustrating Shepherd's plan, but it required a full scale enquiry to do so, since Shepherd 'I must clear a jealousy which, as I hear, some have fancied, that I thereby intend to taken an opportunity to inn some simply ignored the orders of the local assembly, and the salts which I am owner of at Bromehill. In truth I may now fact remained that in the long term the moral economy to without vanity remember that I have been an actor in head which Rye appealed on such occasions could not withstand and purse to lay open 1,500 acres of salts for the benefit of the drive to agrarian improvement by local landowners your harbour, but never inned any. And that I was an (CSPD 1595-1597, 137; HMC Rye, 131).' opposer of that proposition which your whole town at the Moreover, if the corporation wanted to prevent inning hearing before the late Master of the Rolls and the Lord it also wanted the widest and most influential support for Chief Justice protested against as most dangerous to your its campaign to secure financial aid to renovate the harbour. haven. Therefore I may justly hope that I have given no Proffering himself as a candidate for the town in the occasion of prejudice in that particular. I have often declared my opinion that the inning of salts hath produced (as a keenly contested parliamentary election in the spring of necessary consequence) the decay of your outfall.' 1640 Sir John Culpeper showed himself acutely aware of 142 Stephen Hipkin

As a piece of electioneering it could hardly have been a long way towards explaining Rye's wary reaction on bettered, and it contributed in no small measure to first being alerted to the proposal which had emerged by Culpeper's return as one of the two MP's for the town out 1608 for a commission for the Upper Levels. of an original field of no less than nine candidate^.^ But In May 1605 the Privy Council reported to Rye on if occasionally the town found itself being courted, more what look very much like preliminary discussions of the often the boot was on the other foot, and in general the scheme to clear the Rother channel which is examined more resolutely Rye opposed the reclamation projects of elsewhere (Eddison this volume, 148-163). Stressing its influential men, the more it jeopardised their broader concern for the 'weak estate of the town and haven of backing. The dilemma got more awkward as conditions at Rye' and for the 'miserable condition of so many thousands Rye deteriorated, sometimes presenting itself in acute of inhabitants' the Privy Council wrote of form. What, for instance, was Rye to do in November 1629 when John Sackville offered to support a petition 'some hopeful projects having been of late presented unto 'touching a further gathering for your harbour' if, in us whereby we understand nothing to be more expedient for the present than the preservation and the increase of the return, the town did nothing to obstruct the plans of Peter brooks and fresh water courses or streams within the river Farnden of Seddlescombe, who intended to inn some salt of Rother and the channel of Appledore thereby to maintain marshes 'not far from' Rye? The Rye magistracy well a continual fresh current that, strengthened by its own understood the reasons for land reclamation projects; a proper weight and swiftness may scour and deepen that number of jurats were established rural landowners in channel.' their own right. Indeed one or two of the Rye magistracy were clearly torn between their rural and urban interests. The letter went on to charge Rye corporation with Among those presented at a watercourt at Rye in 1604 acquainting all commissions of sewers with authority was John Fowtrell, who had inned marshland and built over any watercourses running into the Rother of the dams prejudicial to the condition of the harbour. Fowtrell Privy Council's intention that all such commissions should also happened to be the mayor, serving a third term in office when his case came up. He had to put on his 'not only keep and preserve all those brooks, streams or course of freshwater which now hath passage into or through mayoral hat and legislate against himself. the ... river of Rother, channel of Appledore, or creek The Benbrick family was equally ambivalent about called Weynway creek from all manner of stoppage or land reclamation projects. It was rumoured in the 1620s diversion; but also that they should have especial care by that Joseph Benbrick intended to 'prize his salt marshes all the art and industry they may to increase and reinforce to be inned', but it was not until 1645 that he sought the same as well by cleansing, scouring and deepening, permission from the corporation to 'inn a parcel of salt widening or any other means of helping and perfecting marshes against the town dike'. Not surprisingly the their several currents and passages where need shall be, or Assembly 'utterly rejected' Benbrick's plea. Such by drawing any other streams or watercourses to have instances provided an opportunity for outsiders to disclaim issue into or through the said river of Rother, channel of Appledore or Weynway creek, if by their good endeavours responsibility for the decay of the harbour. Late 17th the same may conveniently be effected; until upon a new century landowners were to argue that the harbour had view of the place for our better satisfaction of the means been ruined by inning carried out by Rye inhabitants. of remedy propounded we may resolve of some fit course Their claims were greatly exaggerated, but they contained of further proceeding.'I2 just enough truth to make it difficult for the corporation to mount an effective response.I0 By 1608 the commissioners for the Newenden Levels had To complicate matters further, at the beginning of the approached those of Shirley Moor and Ebony with a 17th century there coexisted within the area of jurisdiction proposal that the three be joined in a single 'commissions of the commission for the preservation of Rye haven no general' so that they might control the Rother 'as far as less than five separate commissions of sewers, one for the issue of the Five Waterings' in order to co-ordinate each of the Rother levels, in addition to which Romney efforts to drain the wet lands. (The outfall of the Five Marsh, which was partially drained by the Rother, had its Waterings Sewer of can be seen on Figure own separate constitution (Rendel 1962). Each of these 1 1.1, on the east bank of the Rother, opposite Wittersham commissions had specific, self-interested and often Level.) The potential advantages of widening and scouring conflicting aims. Dealings between commissions, and the Rother must have been as apparent to those interested between the various commissioners and Rye corporation, in improving Rye harbour as to those interested in the were frequently acrimonious, with much time spent 'in effective economic exploitation of the Upper Levels. Yet, crossing each others reasons ...provoking each others for reasons made clear in correspondence during June angers and not agreeing upon aim good'." The resulting 1608, Rye corporation attempted to frustrate the proposal climate of mutual suspicion, very evident from the tone of for a new commission. On 15th June Sir William Twysden much of the correspondence preserved in the Rye wrote to Rye, sharply rebuking the corporation for being corporation general files for the early 17th century, goes inattentive to developments upstream and informing it of The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 143 the approaching 'commissions general'. 'Since', Twysden realized. The new commission CO-existedalongside rather continued, than superseded the commission for the preservation of Rye harbour, and, presumably in recognition of the perilous 'none of you were present at that agreement, and I know state of the Rye economy and of the fact that all available not by how much it may prejudice you by extinguishing funding needed to be spent directly on the harbour, Rye the commission you now have in being, I moved the Lord was not forced to contribute to the massive sums expended Warden to stay the taking forth of the new until you might on attempts to clear the Rother channel between 1613 and have knowledge and consider whether it will no way 1624 (Eddison this volume, 152). Indeed, Twysden's prejudice you, which he did accordingly.' subsequent advice to the corporation is an interesting Twysden urged the corporation to example of political realism: if inning was going to take place it would be best to try to gain some advantage from 'consider well whether you were not best take the it. In June 1609 he urged Rye to petition the crown for commission forth and to have it in your custody and in your pleasure at any time to prevent your harm, rather than 'some benefit to be had in time to come of such lands as elsewhere in the hands of others.' shall be inned or gained out of the channel of Rother by reason of a dam that is in short time to be made in the said The corporation replied two days later, river near unto Appledore according to a commission of late granted to that effect.' 'we stand in great fear that if this new commission of sewers be granted for the draining of their wet lands it will Specifically he suggested a petition for be greatly prejudicial to us, in regard our commission formerly granted will be by the same extinguished. And 'all lands contained within the banks of the channel called then such salt marshes as are near unto our channel will be Appledore channel between Oxney ferry' (which led from inned by the owners thereof, to the utter overthrow of our the north-east corner of the Isle towards Appledore) 'and haven.' the low water mark at the sea near unto the black shore, which are at every tide flowed and covered with the sea Allied to this concern about the possible dissolution of a water . . . and which may be won . .. either by straightening forum in which the representatives of Rye might at least try of the channel or by directing of the same out of his now to exert a restraining influence on local land reclamation course (sic), to be given by his majesty unto your town of projects were fears that any large-scale operations to clear Rye and to be conveyed ...unto the only use of the haven and harbour of Rye.' the Rother resulting from the decisions of the proposed new commission for the Upper Levels would mean Such realism had an obvious appeal, and in July 1609 significant taxation on Rye's inhabitants at a time when Twysden wrote to the mayor and jurats informing them that the petition they had duly submitted had been granted, but 'our corporation is so poor and so greatly indebted, having spent all our revenues already upon the amending of our the corporation was still awaiting confirmation of the grant harbour, as we are not able in any manner of ways to effect in May 1610, and it appears that the grant may never have the same.' been confirmed.14 According to Kenelm Digby in 1635, Rye was still seeking to have 'some yearly allowance made As has already been suggested, there is abundant evidence out of the drained lands towards the preservation of the to support the contention that although Rye complained harbour' and had 'petitioned the king and the Lords that frequently and vigorously about the scale of poverty and 1,000 acres.. . should be allotted to the benefit of the town economic contraction the town was experiencing in the for the maintenance of the port'. Exactly which lands Rye early 17th century, it was not greatly exaggerating the real had in mind at this date is not clear, but evidence dating state of affairs.13 from April 1636 in the form of a petition to the Privy The corporation formally registered its objections, Council, from amongst others the Earl of Winchelsea and arguing that the commission for the preservation of Rye the Earl of Thanet, suggests that Rye had applied for a grant haven 'would serve their turns as well as ours . . . for that of lands 'anciently' rather than recently inned (HMC Coke, all those places which their new commission should extend 93-95; CSPD 1635-1636,396-397). unto are included in our commission', an objection which, Barely two years after its establishment the plans of if upheld, would have reduced fears of a new round of the commission for the Upper Levels, as well as those of more or less unrestricted inning in the immediate hinterland the commission for Rye harbour, were directly threatened of the town and of the external imposition of taxation. by the grant, in 1611, of a new commission of sewers 'for Rye's objections did not prove decisive, but they may the whole shire' of Sussex. This commission, granted at have been taken into account, for although a joint the behest of a number of Sussex nobility and gentry, not commission for the three levels, known as the Commission only extended to the whole county and superseded the for the Upper Levels, was issued in April 1609, neither of commission for Rye harbour (which otherwise still had the fears Rye had associated with the proposal were three years to run), but had also excluded representatives 144 Stephen Hipkin of Rye corporation. Under its aegis, fresh inning of about the situation at Rye (CSPD 1611-1618, 201, 388; marshland 'near unto Rye' and likely, in the view of the HMC Rye, 145, 150). But little if anything was done.I6 mayor and jurats, to cause further harbour deterioration, Most of the time, however, the inhabitants of Rye had already begun by June. Replying to the corporation's continued to believe, as they had since the mid 16th request for help the Earl of Northampton explained that century, that salvation could only be achieved by means he had already intervened on behalf of the commissioners of substantial external financial assistance. Hence, for the Upper Levels strenuous efforts continued to be made to enlist aid from central government, and much time was spent in 'to further the renewing of their commission upon the river campaigning for parliamentary legislation which would of Appledore and the drowned ground around Newenden, provide the wherewithal for the major remedial works made frustrate by the aforesaid general commission, as the required. But Parliament proved a great disappointment. best means to finish the works in part begun there, and prevent anything by the said general commission to be In 1601 Rye instructed its MPS to 'proffer a bill ... done to the prejudice thereof.' towards the amendment of our decayed haven', but nothing came either of this or of a further attempt in 1604. Dover While promising to assist Rye in withstanding 'the mischief meanwhile obtained a renewal of the act granting tunnage that may ensue to your town by those innings', for seven years 'for the repairing of Dover haven' in 1604 Northampton also warned the mayor to tread carefully (Kepler 1976). Efforts to secure a similar act for Rye and especially to failed in 1598, 1610 and again in 1621, and a fruitless attempt was made in 1624 to secure an act transferring the 'have regard that you no way cross the course taken on control and profits of Dungeness lighthouse to the town Appledore channel for bringing down the waters of (Gruenfelder 1969; Russell1979,37-38; HMC Rye, 144- Newenden unto you, which will be to your advantage.' 146, 166-171; CSPD 1619-1623, 222; CSPD 1623- 1625, 184-185).'7 Northampton's comment may reflect not only a clear By 1618 over £2,000 had been spent on work carried recognition of the potential benefit for Rye harbour should out under the auspices of the commission for the Upper the programme of works envisaged by the commissioners Levels upstream from Appledore, yet without evident for the Upper Levels prove successful, but also an benefit to any of the levels (Eddison this volume, 155). awareness of the capacity of Rye corporation to offend There is certainly no reason to suppose that Rye benefited powerful landed interests, and on occasions even those from the results of this work either. Indeed, to judge from with whom, like the commissioners for the Upper Levels, the number of petitions issued by Rye corporation around the town ought to have been able to forge a temporary 16 18 - and from the unprecedentedly bleak language alliance. It was no mere oversight which led the employed in them - a further qualitative deterioration in commission 'for the whole shire' to exclude representatives the condition of the harbour had taken place.'" of Rye from their deliberations. The frequency of Rye's It was not until February 1628, when Rye obtained a objections to land reclamation schemes profoundly brief from Charles I to collect alms and charitable irritated such energetic adversaries as William Shepherd, benevolence, that the corporation's efforts to secure some who had inherited his father's fractious relationship with external assistance for harbour restoration were rewarded Rye, and there was the danger that too many complaints (HMC Rye, 181, 189). It was a hard won victory; the town might prove counter-productive. As one well-wisher had first to borrow money from a jurat to meet the expenses pointed out in July 1612, if the Rye magistracy wished of procuring the brief, and then to suffer a long dispute seriously to limit the extent of damaging change then it with the then mayor, John Sharp, over its administration. needed to provide 'forcible and weighty objections' and Moreover, in terms of income generated it was at best a free itself 'from all aspersions and imputations of unjust qualified success. The corporation had already complaints that otherwise may be cast upon you7." If the corporate voice of Rye sometimes sounded shrill 'caused the harbour to be surveyed by men of best skills by the early 17th century this was at least partly the product and experience . .. in whose judgement less than f3,000 of weakness and dependency. From its own resources the will not defray the necessary charges of the timber and town could at best do no more than reduce the speed of other work to be employed about the same.' harbour deterioration, though in addition to any expectations raised by the schemes of the commission for the Upper The licence to collect extended over the whole of southern Levels there were occasional bouts of optimism that , but collecting brief money was no easy matter. substantial improvements might be achieved with little Giles Green, who had been employed as such a collector financial outlay. In 1610 John Stoneham, 'an ingenious for Weymouth in 1620, had found the job 'so laborious as workman' recently employed at Dover harbour, was said to I protest were it not a work of charity I could not be hired have some impressive ideas on how to improve things to do the same'. He had found it necessary to solicit the 'without charge to the town of Rye', and in 1616 Lord ministers of the parish and county to 'stir up the people's Zouche, Northampton's successor as Lord Warden of the devotion to be liberal in the alms, who will otherwise be Cinque Ports, was corresponding with Dutch harbour experts very sparing, in regard the frequent use of briefs is The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 145 nowadays much abused'. Information is too sparse to Appledore channel from Thorney Wall to the sea would make any reliable assessment of the sums collected since swarve up and impede navigation, and reports reaching the money was directly spent on the harbour without commissioners meeting at Tenterden in May 1634 passing through the land chamberlain's account, but the suggested that this was already happening. The evidence that does survive suggests that the total was magistracies of Rye and Tenterden later claimed that nearer to £300 than to £3,000. Even so, the money did when the commissioners for the Upper Levels first enable some repairs to be carried out, perhaps bringing a discussed their proposals with the towns' representatives temporary improvement in the condition of sea walls, they had been assured that far from damaging the harbour jetties, groins and sluice^.'^ and disrupting navigation the proposed scheme would A description of Rye harbour in 1677 placed special improve both. Such assurances were still being given by emphasis on the impact of recent land drainage by means the Newenden (i.e. Upper Levels') commissioners in of sluices in the Upper Levels, suggesting that it had March 1635, along with requests for patience. 'We may seriously diminished the extent of good navigation. Robert take it for a certain rule' they wrote, Culpeper, a merchant of Rye, writing at the end of the 17th century and confirming this emphasis, noted the first 'that in the main nothing can be hurtful to the harbour of sluice across Appledore channel in 1623, and across Rye that is not likewise hurtful to our wet marshes, neither Wittersham channel in 1646, with others following at can there anything to be good to the general of the levels fairly regular intervals for the rest of the century (Andrews but must likewise be good for your harbour; therefore we 1956). It seems safe to assume that the scheme for a non- need the less be jealous of one another. Hitherto there is nothing done but what was done by the hand of God, but navigable sluice across the Rother at Thorney Wall to when the sea shall be let into the great quantity of low which Culpeper refers, which was proposed by the lands of Wittersham, for which we pay so large a rent of commission for the Upper Levels and put into operation purpose to make an indraught, we have no doubt but both in 1623 (Rendel 1962, 65; Eddison this volume, 156) we and you shall receive the good we hoped for by our was, in all essentials, the same as an earlier proposal work. Besides our charge and pains, we have had a great which had been blocked by the Lord Warden in July 16 12 deal of patience and we must desire you to have a little, till in the wake of representations from the inhabitants of Rye our work be finished.' and Tenterden that it could only damage 'the ancient and navigable river of Rother' and impoverish both ports But no sooner had the Rother been diverted in 1635 than (HMC Rye, 148). It is doubtful whether Rye changed its it was found that navigation to Appledore, and view between 1612 and 1623, but resistance was softened beyond was 'greatly prejudiced'. At a rowdy meeting of by political weakness, by offers of compensation for the commission of sewers at Tenterden on 4th May 1635, delays caused by loading and unloading goods at Thorney in response to complaints - amongst others - from Rye, Wall, and perhaps by hopes that the recent shift of emphasis Appledore, Reading, Smallhythe, Tenterden, Newenden in the work sponsored by the commission of the Upper and Bodiam about navigation, it was decided, under the Levels towards improving the channel downstream from leadership of Sir Walter Roberts and despite the vigorous Appledore would bring compensatory benefits to Rye. protests of a group of commissioners led by Sir Thomas In so far as such hopes were entertained they were to Culpeper, that three pends be made in Maytham Wall, the be disappointed. By the end of the 1620s the earth bank (dating from the 14th century) which ran commissioners for the Upper Levels were deciding, in across the west end of Wittersham Level and which view of the problems and costs involved in their attempts separated that Level from the Upper Levels, in order to to clear the Rother channel, to revert to the idea of making return the Rother to its old course. But after protracted a new course for the Rother through the Wittersham dispute this decision was finally overturned in June 1636 Level, an idea which they had promoted, unsuccessfully (HMC Rye, 196; CSPD 1635-1636, 28-30). in the face of resolute opposition from Wittersham, at the The impact at Rye of the change in the course of the beginning of the 17th century. Once again the Wittersham Rother seems to have been mixed. Coastal exports from commissioners resisted, and over two years of wrangling Rye in the later 1630s do appear to have been adversely ensued before a final agreement was reached, in February affected as the volume of goods that could be conveyed 1633, which provided for the re-direction of the Rother to and from Rye by barge was permanently reduced. On through the Wittersham Level (Rendel 1962, 66-69). the other hand, the Newenden commissioners had not Although relations between the commission for the entirely misled the corporation. In 1638 the 'men of most Upper Levels and Rye corporation had not always run experience in Rye' did grudgingly admit that although the smoothly, until 1629 both had shared a common interest redirection of the Rother had not prevented harbour in improving the existing Rother Channel. But the whole deterioration it might have done something to slow the idea of diverting the Rother south of the Isle of Oxney pace of decay.20 was, from the start, viewed with deep suspicion at Rye. At Meanwhile inning continued to undermine all attempts the very least, one likely consequence of diverting the to rescue the harbour. 'If it were not prejudicial . .. we Rother through the Wittersham Level was that the should not oppose it', the corporation assured the Duke of 146 Stephen Hipkin

Buckinghamz1in response to his enquiries about a fresh intervene on the town's behalf. But in this, as in other project in November 1626. But similar cases in 1676, 1692 and at the turn of the century, the corporation was thwarted by counter-petitions.23Rye 'our ancestors and we have found by experience for our was still engaged in despairing attempts to get own particulars that inning of lands near and about our parliamentary aid for the harbour in the early 18th century harbour have been a principal cause of the decay of our (JHC 1699-1702,67, 125,314-315,511,541,664,701, harbour . . .This land which now is intended to be inned, if 703,778-779). it be suffered, will be the utter destruction of our harbour A report by a commission of investigation in 1652 and an inducement for the owners of many hundred acres of salt joining near our harbour to inn them, who may as included an optimistic assessment of the condition of the well as they pretend that it will not hurt the same.' harbour, concluding that 'there may lie afloat at low water 15 or 20 sail of ships . . . and at the same time, further up in When Kenelm Digby stayed at Rye in September 1635 he the channel may ride afloat at low water 50 or 60 sail' (HMC concluded, in a private letter to Sir John Coke, that Rye, 219). The general tone of this report was endorsed a 'something must speedily be done for the preservation of quarter of a century later in a 'brief narrative of the harbour' the port, else in a few years it will be quite choked up' (Andrews 1956, 3942) which commented that (HMC Rye, 179-180; HMC Coke, 93-95). As one of the few surviving pieces of relatively disinterested testimony 'it is well known by many yet still living that ... within these 20 years last past and less, more than 20 sail of good on the condition of the harbour Digby's evidence deserves ships might ride afloat at low water in the harbour of Rye to be taken seriously. In March 1635 a commission was as high up as the ferry to .' being organized by the Privy Council to view the haven of Rye and to report on the likely impact of yet another But to those with nothing a little seems much. The harbour projected round of inning of land near the sea. The Council of mid 17th century Rye may not have been a 'duckpond' duly appointed a commission of enquiry which included (the term used by contemporaries to describe the Seaford the jurats of Rye, but by 1635 the big local landowners harbour in the 16th century), but, even after some of the had had enough and attempted to silence the corporation. conventional rhetoric of petitions has been discounted, A group led by Thomas, Earl of Winchelsea, John, Earl the weight of evidence pointing to a sustained and serious of Thanet, Sir Henry Guldeford and Sir Norton Knatchbull deterioration in the condition of the harbour since the mid attempted to have the jurats of Rye replaced as 16th century must be respected. As described in 1652 it commissioners for the harbour by 'three or four knights could not have accommodated half the number of boats or gentlemen of the country'. The commission, under the known to have been based at Rye a century earlier. leadership of Sir Edward Hales, nonetheless confirmed in However, more important than this was the harbour's August 1636 that inning had 'conduced to the decay of inability to protect ships from storm damage. Long before the harbour' and that a great bank of sand cast up by the 1650, deteriorating conditions at Rye had undermined the sea would shortly cause the haven to 'swarve up' (CSPD ability of the town's staple industry, fishing, to compete 1634-1635,607; CSPD 1635-1636,396-397). In October with a growing number of rivals. 1636 booms, buoys and lights had to be set up to guide shipping around the 'great bar' of sand which, according to Rye's 'best experienced seamen' in 1638, had risen Acknowledgements 'not less than four feet' within the preceding four yeamZ2 I am grateful for advice and assistance to Jill Eddison and Conflict over land reclamation schemes, and to my doctoral supervisor, Dr Joan Thirsk. Figure 11.1, increasingly over the effects of sluice construction, Philip Symondson's map of the decayed harborough of continued to sour relations between the corporation and Rye, dated 1594, is reproduced by permission of Rye local landowners during the later 17th century. In 1652, Town Council with whom copy rights remain. This map for example, a dispute erupted between Rye and the must not be further copied or reproduced without the Wittersham Level commissioners over a dam due to be Council's permission. Jane Russell undertook the final laid at Knock. The corporation appealed to its MPS to drawing of Figure 1 1.2.

References HMC Rye Historical Manuscripts Commission, 13th Report, Appendix Part IV, The Manuscripts of Rye and Hereford (Superscript numbers in the text refer to unpublished sources, Corporations 1892. listed below.) JHC Journals of the House of Commons 1699-1702.

Published sources Andrews, J.H. 1956: Rye Harbour in the Reign of Charles 11. SAC. 94, 35- 42. CSPD Calendars of State Papers, Domestic Various Dates. Brandon, P.F. 1971: The Origins of Newhaven and the Drainage of HMC Coke Historical Manuscripts Commission, 12th Report, the and Laughton Levels. SAC 109, 94-106. Appendix Part 11, Manuscripts of the Earl of Cowper at Dugdale, W. 1662: History of Drainage and Imbanking (). Melbourne Hall, Derbyshire Vol.11. 1888. The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 147

Eddison, J. 1985: Developments in the lower Rother valleys up to 6. Hipkin, Economy of Rye, chs 4, 8, and Appendix One; RYE 1600. Arch. Cant. 102, 95-110. 99113. Eddison, J. 1995: Attempts to clear the Rother Channel, 1613- 7. RYE 9511; RYE 98111. 1624. In Eddison, J. (editor), Romney Marsh: the Debatable 8. RYE 9411-3; RYE 9511-2; RYE 9611-4; RYE 9711-3; RYE Ground. OUCA Monograph 41, 1995, 148-163. 98/9-12; RYE 117 fols. 511r, 526v, 532v, 535, 548v; RYE Farrant, J. H. 1972: The Evolution of Newhaven Harbour and the 47168. lower Ouse before 1800. SAC. 110, 44-60. 9. RYE 471131; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 253-255. Gruenfelder, J.K. 1969: Rye and the Parliament of 1621. SAC. 107, 10. RYE 4711 13; RYE 1113 fol. 146v; RYE 9512; Hipkin, Economy 25-35. of Rye, 298. Kepler, J.S. 1976: The Exchange of Christendom: The International 11. RYE 47168; BL Add. MS, 34218 fols. 174-180, esp. fol. 174. Entrepot at Dover 1622-1641 (Leicester University Press). 12. RYE 99/12. Rendel, W.V. 1962: Changes in the course of the Rother. Arch. 13. RYE 47172; RYE 47/75; RYE 99/13; Hipkin, Economy of Cant. 77, 63-76. Rye, Part Two. Russell, C. 1979: Parliaments and English Politics 1621-1629 14. RYE 47175-78; RYE 118 fols. 116r, 119r, 163v, 218v. (Oxford University Press). 15. RYE 47180-84; RYE 119 fols. 334v, 351v, 3557, 380r, 421r, 429r, 4.54~.457r, 462v, 465, 477v, 484v, 486v, 488r, 494r, 500v, 533v, 581r, 584v, 589r, 590v. Unpublished sources 16. RYE 119 fol. 542r. 17. RYE 117 fol. 509v; RYE 118, fols. 198v, 250r, 264v; RYE471 1. Record Office RYE (hereafter RYE) 471129. 76, 78; RYE 47197; RYE 119 fol. 574r; RYE 1110 fols. 211r, 2. RYE 9911. 217r. 3. RYE 9912-4; BL Add. MS, 5704 fol. 20; RYE 9915; The 18. Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 49-50; BL Add. MS, 5705 fol. 140; Guldefords, proprietors of the Saltcote () ferry and of RYE 47194; RYE 1110 fols. 72v, 83r, 93r. the harbour known as Wenway or Wainway creek, were active 19. RYE 1/11 fols. 153r, 180, 187, 189r, 195, 197-198,210,228, during the 15th century acquiring marshland and inning on the 236v, 291v, 328r; RYE 47/95; RYE 471109; RYE 99114, 15, east side of the Rother estuary, culminating c. 1465 with the 19, 23-56; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 298-300, 308. enclosure of the East Guldeford Level by Richard Guldeford. 20. Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 138; RYE 471117; RYE 471126; By 1490 it had become practical to enter the marsh at this RYE 471129. point. 21. Buckingham had by this date had added the office of Lord 4. RYE 13214-6; RYE 7212. Warden of the Cinque Ports to his inventory of perquisites. 5. RYE 9511; RYE 9611-3; RYE 9711; RYE 98/8-11; RYE 991 22. RYE471126; RYE 471129; RYE 1112 fols. 205v, 294v; RYE 11 8-11; Hipkin S. A. 1985: The Economy and Social Structure 14 fol. 232r; RYE 471157; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 320-321. of Rye 1600-1660. University of Oxford D.Phil thesis 23. RYE 1114 fols. 56r, 57v, 58v, 59v, 60r, 89v, 123v, 149r, 150r; (hereafter Hipkin, Economy of Rye), 101-102. RYE 471146; RYE 471148; RYE 471152; RYE 991 71.