Proc. Hampshire Field Club Archaeol. Soc. 72, 2017, 142–165 (Hampshire Studies 2017) https://doi.org/10.24202/hs2017001 AN EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY RIVER ENVIRONMENT: THE 1618 SURVEY OF THE ITCHEN By JOHN LANGDON† and JAMES WHITE ABSTRACT in having an accompanying map, produced by John More (or Moore) sometime over 1618–19 In 1618, a survey was made of the river Itchen and following the written survey’s appearance in the barriers that existed to its navigation: the mills, early 1618 (Figs 2–4). Altogether, in addition to dams and weirs, the bridges, the overhanging trees providing an exceptional description of a river and collapsed riverbanks. It provides a contemporary environment of the time, as we shall demon- view of the state of the river. The survey was part strate, it also helps to illuminate the evolution of a longstanding struggle to open river navigation of the river’s environment for decades and between Winchester and Southampton, seen as eco- arguably centuries before. nomically beneficial by the inhabitants of the former Certainly the state of the river that the survey city. Some of the barriers were described as recent and and map together describe in 1618 was not reflect the changing developments of the previous amenable for such activities as navigation, being century, the destruction of mills by Henry VIII in the dominated by a number of obstructions that 1530s, the secularisation of lands belonging to the would have rendered passage by boats virtually bishop of Winchester, and the subsequent rebuilding impossible. This alone would have been bad of some of the mills. This article incorporates the full enough, but the obstacles also likely impeded text of the survey and an introduction and discus- the movement of migratory fish, especially sion of the wider issues. salmon, as well as reducing the amount of land available for agricultural purposes in the river valley. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Comprising one of the most important categories of these barriers were clearly the The purpose of this article is to provide a mod- mills and accompanying weirs or dams strung ern-English translation of a document with an out along this stretch of river from Winches- exceptionally detailed description of a river ter to Southampton Water. There were at environment from almost four centuries ago, least six according to the numerical summary that is, a survey of the 10½ -mile stretch along of ‘impediments’ at the end of the survey the Itchen River from Woodmill in the parish of (fol. 14v), but also at least four more were Bitterne, now a northern suburb of Southamp- mentioned or indicated in the survey and/or ton, to that part of the river opposite the East map, making a total of ten drawing upon the Gate of Winchester (Fig. 1).1 Its purpose was to river’s water resources.4 Even if such mills did establish – or re-establish?2 – a navigation from not comprise a direct block on the river, but Southampton to Winchester, while respecting instead drew water from the river by means of a the rights of riparian landholders, especially long mill-leat, as at Shawford Mill (Fig. 3), they those who operated or leased mills along this nonetheless significantly affected overall water stretch of the river. It is not exceptional, since flow. On at least two points along the river – at least one other similar survey is known for first, when water was drawn off separately for around 1675–6, concerning the Hampshire/ Shawford and Twyford Mills, and, second, Wiltshire Avon from Christchurch to Salisbury.3 further downstream for Barton Peverill and The Itchen survey, however, is probably unique ‘Stoke’ (Bishopstoke) Mills (Fig. 4) – the 142 LANGDON & WHITE: AN EARLY 17TH-CENTURY RIVER ENVIRONMENT: THE 1618 SURVEY OF THE ITCHEN 143 Fig. 1 Map of river Itchen showing the stretch covered by the survey, from Woodmill (Bitterne) to Winchester river’s flow, for a short distance at least, was be restricting easy passage of boats in particular. effectively divided into three parts. In each of Eight ‘bridges’, presumably for vehicles and/ these cases two of the channels powered mills or pack-animals, and a further four footbridges, and whatever water flow remained dumped were seen as problematic in the 1618 Itchen into the old channel of the river, described in survey. The most common negative characteri- the survey as the ‘ancient’ or ‘main’ course.5 zation of these bridges was that they were ‘low’ This implicit priority for mills rendered any or, in one case, ‘very low’.7 Here the contrast with channel for navigation (or fish) much more the c.1675–6 Hampshire/Wiltshire Avon survey prone to the vagaries of weather, particularly is instructive, where the main concern about during the summer when water flow was tradi- bridges in this later case was for the narrowness tionally at a low point.6 of arches,8 where the lowness of the bridge was The perceived obstructions did not stop at only mentioned once.9 This might suggest that mills. Bridges crossing the river were also felt to the Itchen bridges were relatively rudimentary 144 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY in 1618, perhaps even of flat, timber construc- the third was categorized, along with other tion from bank to bank without arches, which matters concerning the river at this point, as would have had their road-beds closer to the a ‘nuisance’. water surface, creating greater trouble for The implication is that this new weir, dam, navigators. There were also two mentions of etc., construction was relatively recent, but boundary rails (fols 13v, 14r), which were also there is a larger story to tell here, going back clear blockages for boats, although they would at least eighty years. Certainly in the case of have been easy enough to clear. Woodmill, and very plausibly in the case of the What was probably much more pernicious dam directing water to the St Cross mill (Fig. to navigation, as described in 1618 survey, 2) and the erecting of part of ‘Seagrove’ Mill was the generally slovenly state of the river. hard by Winchester, the new constructions Two very obvious signs of this decrepitude were in fact reconstructions following demoli- were the ‘weir athwart the said main river now tion in the late 1530s. This was connected to somewhat decayed’ on the lands of Sir John the legislation known as the ‘Statute of Sewers’, Seymour near Otterbourne (fol. 13v) and the enacted in 1532.13 A memorandum of Thomas ‘diverse stakes’ standing near the low bridge at Cromwell, Henry VIII’s chief minister at the Bishopstoke (fol. 13r), the latter possibly being time, catches its spirit: ‘An Act that never stakes upon which to array fishing nets or weir nor water-mill shall hereafter be erected stray piles from a pre-existing weir (see more or made within this realm.’14 This mood was on this below). Even more importantly, there riding the wave of generally frustrated legisla- were over twenty references to sunken banks tive activity about river blockages, going back and over thirty-five to trees and bush overhang- all the way to Magna Carta.15 ing the stream,10 obvious hindrances for the Nor was it the usual, soon-to-be-disillusioned towpaths that would be an essential feature bluster about such river obstructions. Both of later navigation on the river.11 Taking this Henry VIII and his chief minister at the time, together with the problematic weirs (either in Thomas Cromwell, were particularly deter- operation or decayed), bridges and boundary mined to see the legislation carried through rails, this provided a trenchant indictment con- to its intended conclusion across the entire cerning the neglect of the river for virtually any kingdom. In addition to the firmness indicated economic purpose other than milling. in Cromwell’s memorandum, the king himself Some of the more recent history of the river, was resolved to lead by example, allegedly however, is tellingly revealed in the survey’s suffering a loss of over 500 marks (£366 13s. pages. Three comments from it are particularly 4d.) income per year through the uprooting of noteworthy. When discussing Woodmill the royal weirs and mills by late 1535.16 survey remarks that its two ‘great’ weirs were The total impact of this legislation through- blocking the navigation between Southamp- out the kingdom is still to be determined, but ton and Winchester. Significantly the survey demolition of mills, weirs, arrays of fishing nets goes on to say in its original English that these and the like in various river systems in England weirs ‘are not very auntient’ (fol. 12r), with the were carried out over a reasonably lengthy implication that the blockage of the river by period from 1535 to 1539.17 Hampshire was them was relatively recent. Similarly, there is a certainly an early target. After a two- to three- reference to ‘one baye [that is, a dam] w[ith] year hiatus after the legislation’s creation, likely Pyles newly made a little above S[t] Crosses the time it took to set up the various commis- [sic] athwart the said maine River tor[n]inge sions,18 a letter patent designating those sitting the whole course of the same River out of his on the commission of sewers for Hampshire anciente course towards S[t] Crosse Mill’ (fol. was issued on 28 January, 1535.19 The actual 14r) (Fig. 2). Finally, there was a reference to demolitions seemingly started in middle or late part of ‘Seagrove’12 Mill (near to the East Gate 1535, with the king himself allegedly directing of Winchester) being ‘lately erected’ (fol.