Oyster Fisheries on the North Kent Coast

OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST By ROBERT H. GOODSALL In Polite Conversation1 Dean Swift wrote 'They say oysters are a cruel meat because we eat them alive; then they are an uncharitable meat, for we leave nothing to the poor; and they are an ungodly meat because we never say grace.' The countless generations that have consumed these esteemed molluscs have paid scant heed to such considerations. The civilized Athenians held them in high esteem as a dainty food whilst the Roman partiality to the edible British oyster is renowned. Juvenal in satirizing the epicure Montanus wrote: He, whether Circe's rock his oysters bore Or Lucrine Lake or distant Richboroughs shore Knew at first taste. Most of the coasts of Britain produce oysters, ostrea edulis, but from time immemorial those bred and matured in the waters of the Thames estuary have been held to surpass all others in their excellence. They owe this outstanding quality to a particular feature of the estuary shores, the great number of small streams—'freshets' as the dredgermen call them—which flow from the bordering marshlands carrying fresh water and suspended alluvial matter to mingle with the salt and so create ideal feeding conditions over the oyster beds. In these waters oysters breed in April and May, when they cast their spawn or spat. At first this spawn floats on the surface and if not killed by cold, devoured by fish or carried out to sea, after a few days sinks to the bottom and with an exuded sticky substance attaches itself to any rocks, stones, shells or other hard objects that lie to hand. Such host material has always been known a cultch and, as will appear later, has through the ages been guarded by special regulations enforced by the governing Water or Admiralty Courts of the individual Companies of Oyster Dredgers. From spawning time until about the end of July—Lammas-tide— oysters are said to be sick but by the end of August they have completely recovered. This has given rise to the time honoured rule that they should only be eaten when there is an 'r' in the month. i Dial ii. 118 Cheyney Rock SHEERNESS Scrafisgat-e OYSTER, FISHERIES ON . ,VE* MEDWAY THE NORTH KENT COAST Mi nsrer-in-Sheppey QUEENBOROUGH / H A M OYSTER Ham / FISHERY ....•- Gat / SCALE OF MILES Upnor !C°^ Kingsferry Reculver ^- ?- WHITSTABLE Vi / ^5" \ OYSTER /<^/\Ao l l a r d Sv FISH E RY JJ Shell /-V7''A}sPi f , - Ness..-"<,r^ POLLARD v - / WHITSTABLE OYSTER ROCHESTER HamptbrT^ HERNE BAY Swalecliffe CHATHAM THE SWALE \ FISHERY Sandy' row ley End./ Seasalter Milton Regis Island Teynham FAVERSHAM Snodland OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST The oyster's greatest natural enemy is the Asteria (star-fish) which devours the bivalves by inserting its rays into the shells when they lie open for feeding, a practice noted by the Greek naturalist Oppian when he wrote the lines: The prickly star creeps on with fell deceit, To force the Oyster from his close retreat. When gaping lids their widen'd void display The watchful star thrusts in a pointed ray, Of all its treasures spoils the rifled case, And empty shells the sandy hillocks grace. All the Kent Companies of Dredgers were alive to this danger of attack by star-fish or, as they were customarily known, 'five-fingers' and strict regulations were enforced to ensure that the dredgermen collected them from the trawls and brought them ashore to be destroyed. 2 For example we learn from a 1734 entry in the Queenborough Assembly Book.3 'Whereas the Oyster Grounds of this Borough are now very foul by the vermin called Five Fingers for want of a due care of the Dredgermen to Destroy them in the working Season for remedy thereof. It is now ordered that all the Five Fingers which shall be dredged up on any working day shall be gathered together and not thrown overboard but brought on shore and laid on such places as the Deputy Water Bailiff shall Direct and in case any person shall willfully Neglect to save such Five Fingers as shall be dredged by him or in his Boat or Vessele he shall forfeit and pay 5d. for every such Neglect and for encouragement of Persons to save such Five Fingers It is further Ordered that six pence per Bushell shall be paid by the Chamberlain upon the Deputy Water Bailiffs Certificate or taken for every Bushell which shall be saved and Deposited as the Water Bailiffe shall Direct.' A second and almost equally destructive hazard to the oyster broods has always been extreme cold. Over the centuries periods of exceptional frosts have often resulted in excessive mortality on the beds and following such winters the necessity to restock is duly noted in the annals of the several Kent companies. Some instances of this will be quoted later. A third and equally ruinous cause of mortality has arisen in the present century as a result of oil pollution of the sea, particularly during the two Great Wars. When primeval man first discovered the food value of shell-fish, particularly oysters, can never be established but there is ample evi- 2 Farmers were glad to buy them to spread on their land as manure. 3 Queenborough Borough Records A.C.I, K.A.O. 119 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST dence that their gathering on the north Kent coast at the time when the Romans became established here was an important local occupation and provided a valuable item for export as well as a welcome addition to home diet. At this time and through the centuries of Saxon domination the garnering of this sea-harvest would have been quite uncontrolled, each fisherman working alone, or perhaps with one or two others, if some primitive craft was available, but as soon as Kent came under Norman rule and great monastic establishments arose to power large supplies were needed to satisfy the tastes of the refectory tables and the monks of such houses as Christ Church and St. Augustine's at Canterbury, the Abbey at Faversham and St. Andrew's Priory, Rochester, hastened to acquire control of sea manors where oysters might be nurtured. Additionally bands of local fishermen at such places as Herne, Whitstable, villages adjacent to the Swale—particularly the future Queenborough— and Stroud gradually acquired a prescriptive right as individuals to gather oysters for sale in the local markets or the Queenhithe fishmart of the City of London. The earliest controlled fishery on the North Kent coast may well have been the one at Seasalter which, as part of the manor, belonged to Christ Church, Canterbury.4 As well as working the off-shore bank in shallow water known as the Pollard which was included as part of the manor, the 'Men of Seasalter' at the end of the twelfth century, held 'the fisheries of Milton' (next Sittingbourne) by the yearly rent of 20s. payable to the Manor of Milton.5 It seems probable therefore that at this early date the Seasalter fishers cultivated and collected oysters along the whole length of the Swale. Then in the seventh year of his reign King John by Charter granted the Milton fishery to the Abbey of Faversham. Subsequent to this period organized oyster fisheries became established in the waters of the Lower Medway from Rochester Bridge to the Thames, at Queenborough and various other points in the Swale, and Minster in Sheppey, in the Thames estuary off Whitstable, for a time in the eighteenth century at Swalecliffe and as late as the mid-nineteenth century at Herne Bay. I t was in the Tudor period that groups of free dredgermen first acquired charters for their organizations and were formed into Companies under the control of appointed officials and with bylaws to limit entry and regulate the work. Later in this paper each of these companies and its constitution will be reviewed. Medieval refuse pits and middens when examined bear witness to the vast quantities of oysters that were consumed by all social grades * Hasted, III. * Hasted, II, 550, 630. 120 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST of society.6 Professor Rogers in his History of Agriculture and Prices recorded that in 1273 oysters sold at £d. per hundred. Later it was customary to sell them by the bushel, the price for which in 1388 was 8d. although ten years later it had fallen to 6d. As money depreciated in value so the price slowly increased, in 1572 they cost 4d. per hundred, some 500 going to a bushel. A century later this figure had risen to 2s. 4d. a bushel and by 1680 3s. 6d. a bushel. The Kent fisheries carried on a big trade with London but also they were distributed in large quantities throughout the county. Prior to the establishment of Companies of Oyster Dredgers under Acts of Parliament from the seventeenth century onward, the fisheries operated under licence from Lords of the respective Manors and the State Papers bear witness to many cases of the conviction of individuals for fishing without licence. Also through the centuries there is a continuous story of friction between the Essex fishermen (the earliest notice in the Patent Rolls of Brightlingsea's participation in the Colne Fishery is 13627) and those of Kent, the former making repeated raids on the Kent beds. Also in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were arguments over boundaries between the different Kent fisheries. These troubles came to a head in 1598 when the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, was moved to write to his 'verye lovinge ffriends Mr Peter Manwood and Mr John Boys' in the following terms: '. . . by a petition exhibited to me, by the Inhabitants of Whitstable there is a very great wrong latilie offered unto them woh if it should be suffered would lend to their undooinge and would be a great hinderance both to the Citty of Canterbury, and to all the townes of the east partes of Kent, specially to the poorer sorte of people, who in these deere tymes are not able to bye flesh for their sustenance, but live altogether or for most pt e on such victailes, as by daylie travaile is brought from the sea there. Now so it is (as they inform me) that certaine seafaring men of the Essex coast and other places have verye latelie repayred thither into Kent and there dredged oysters and caught great store of other fishe wthin the banks sholes and streames, and places of ffishinge neare Whitstable and thereabouts yea and wthin the psoinots 0 f divers liberties woh are yet pfeotly knowne and the bounds thereof. And for as much as it is a great injury committed against the ould customes and privileges of the inhabitants of that Kentishe cost woh they have ever quietly enioyed wthout disturbance 6 Mr. John Evans told the writer that when excavations were in progress at Wallend, in Grain, in 1939, a large deposit of oyster shells together with thirteenth century potsherds came to light and, he suggested, the former may have been derived from the fishery in Grain called NIWEWERE confirmed by Henry I (1100-1136) to the Priory of St. Andrew, Rochester (see Textus Roffensis and Registrum Roffensis). ' E. P. Diokin A. History of the Town of Brightlmgsea, 1913. 121 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST and for that the matter requireth a speed in reformation for avoydinge of a further inconvenience that may growe therby. These are to praye you that you would call before you the pt i e s so offendinge and take such order wth them, as to Justice shall appertaine and as in your discreation, it shall seeme meete and hinderances as have bene allreadye donn to the Inhabitants of Whitstable and of those parts and for the pventinge 0 f furder injuryes that mey in like form be offered unto them hereafter. And that you would acquaint me wt h your proceadinges herein. And soe I committ you to the tuition of Almightie God. ffrom Lambeth the 29th of March 1598. Jo: Cant.' A few days earlier the Earl of Nottingham, Lord High Admiral and Henry Cobham had each written in similar terms to Peter Manwood and John Boys, the former on 19th March from 'the Court at Richmond' and the latter from 'his house in the Blaokfriars this 21st day of March 1598'. The High Admiral reinforced his direction to support the Whitstable men's petition 'because here are allwayes manye good Pilots, and men of great experience in sea matters for all these coasts, wch are contynuallye at hand, and are verye wiUinge and readie to be employed about her Mat y shippes and Navye Royall whensoever occasion requireth.' He must surely have written from his personal experience of these Whitstable seamen some of whom may have served under him on the 1596 Cadiz expedition and even during the invasion scare of the previous month. On receipt of these directives Manwood and Boys lost no time in taking action; they issued the following: 'To the constables of Whitstable hundred and unto all other her Ma*y officers there and unto Thoman Rucke, Laurance Hewson, John Saver, Thomas Bread, Edward Bassett and John Bassett, William Saver, Christopher Spice, John Stephens, William Bredby (the petitioners) These are in her Maty name to command you, and by reesen of letters to us directed from the most Reverend father in god my Lord his grace of Canterburye, premat, and Metropolitan of all England, and one of her Maty honorable Councell, to require you to bringe before us such seafayringe menn, not beinge of this Countie, as shall come, and catch fishe, or dredge oysters in your baye of Whitstable, or groundes, unto you of ancient tymes knowen, used, belonginge, and appatayninge; To the great losse and hinderance of All the Inhabitantes of this Countrye, whereof his grace hath a most honorable and noble care, and this shall be your warrant.' The pious hopes that the offending malefactors would be appre- 122 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST hended cannot have been realized for on the 7th March, 1601 Manwood and Boys issued a second directive couched in almost identical terms as the first. Apparently this had no better result, the raids by the Essex men continued as before and on the 18th March, 1608 a long report on the situation was sent to the Archbishop signed not only by Peter Manwood and John Boys but also by Thorn. Wilford, Henry Palmer, Ro. Edolphe, Alan Gprackling, Charles Hales, Henry Finch, George Newman, Charles Fotherby, Ri. Hardes, Mathew Hadd and William Mann. From this report it appears that one offender who had been apprehended, upon being questioned, 'gave the inclosed answers besides other lewd behaviours', and as a result was committed 'to the common goale of the Countye, according as the greatness of his offence, as we take it, requireth'.8 The report continues, 'Also we have thought it our duties to inform your grace that since that tyme as well the fishermen of Essex and divers pt s of the Countie com in such numbers, to Dredge oysters and catch fishe there wth manye boates at once, that they will utterlie Destroye the grounds there and not obeye anye warrany (as we are informed) carryinge themselves in a dangerous manner havinge abourd musketts and other offensive weapons. And since that tyme have (as we are likewise informed) sued two of the Whitstable men for comminge wth warrants by vertue of your Grace's lre and my Lord Admirals, m the Vice Admiralls Court at Rochester, and upon their appearance there, besides the multitude of them exclaiming against them, there was also taken from them against their wills (as we are informed) the warrants wch they carryed wth them to Justefye their proceedings, and a warrant in like manner by vertue of my Lord prevye Seales lres woh was never used. Also we are informed they make common purses to beare out all charges that may befall them, so that except there be order therein pvicon of fishinge in these p t s wilbe spoyled.' On the same day a letter in similar terms was sent to the Earl of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer; because of the information it contains the preamble is worth recording. 'Whereas heretofore the Cittie of Canterburye hath bine verye much releved by the Inhabitants of Whitstable, by serving the same market wth oysters and other fishe taken upon the shores, streames, banks and shelves near Whitstable, woh is bounded and lyeth from the Kings deepe channell called Reddeepe unto the mayne land. And between the land of the most, reverend ffather in God, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the late Abbot of S* Augustine. And between the sayde Archbishop and the late prior of Christchurch now the Deane and 8 This must be a matter referred to in some previous communication which is not inoluded among those examined by the present writer. 123 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST Chapter of Christchurch. And because this business hath bine formerly directed and ordered by the Kings Ma^ great Counsaile in the tyme of Henrye the 7th and so hath accordinglie continued quite tyll now of late. And because your honnor, as we are informed, hath the Royaltie, wch the late Abbot of S* Augustine had touchinge some parte of the pmisses. ^jjd because the heire of S' John Smith Lord of the Mannor of Whitstable is now the kinges Ma'? warde, we thought it our duties to certefye the state of some accidents that hath fallen out about the same fishinge of late.' The letter then reiterates the story contained in the report sent to the Archbishop. To exert as much pressure as possible in high places still another letter in the same terms was despatched to the Earl of Northampton, Lord Privy Seal and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. Apparently these efforts had no effect for in the following December the same group of signatories in desperation wrote once more to the Archbishop—'we must treulie enform your grace we know not what to do' and to reinforce their appeal for his help continued, 'in the Reign of King Henry the 7t h the lorde Archbishop Moorton being then the Chanceller of England, the certentye of all their liberties and privileges (by order from him and the rest of the Lords of the Kings great Councell) was sett downe by the principall and most learned gentlemen of this sheire upon veiwe of the grounds, of evidence, and the church of Canterbury confine9 and so have some Interest. After by the Archbishop Cranmer who to bring the greater relief from that place to his Cittie, made at his own charge that fayer waye of S' Thomas Hill (woh is the best about this Cittie) out of his owne land, and other wch he purchased, and lastlie what care your last most worthie pressor tooke for it, whose vertue and honnor liveth for ever and shall never dye amongst us his will shewe your grace. After woh tyme all things were in peace till now, that both straingers and other fishermen of this shire make spoyle of all. Therefore we humbly beseech your grace to take such order therin as to you shall seem meet to you in following the last orders and speaking to my Lord prevy Seale and my Lo: Admirall to ioyne in it Because of their jurisdictions upon the Sea, and to my Lord Wotton Lord Lieutenant of the Countie of Kent, or otherwise as to you grace shaU best seem. And soe we humble take our leave, ffrom Canterburye the 19t h of December 1608.' Archbishop Bancroft replied, not very helpfully, to this letter on 24th December suggesting that the offenders should be called before the signatories who were to take such steps at law as 'seeme meete and convenient' in other words, to use a horrible modern expression, 'he passed the buck'. 0 Confine = neighbouring or adjacent. O.E.D. 124 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST As the law seemed quite unable to stop the raids it is hardly surprising that in the following years the situation remained as before. This is clear from a letter sent by George, Duke of Buckingham, and addressed from Whitehall on 22nd May, 1625, to Sir Thomas Walsingham, then the vice-Admiral of Kent. The story it tells and the suggested remedy are the same as those figuring in the correspondence of two decades earher. Finally among this collection of related documents is a letter written by James, Duke of York, from St. James, 7th May, 1669. The Duke, who was Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports at this time, had a personal interest in the oyster industry of the Thames estuary—he owned oyster layings on the Essex coast and when a storm blew up over an ejection order served on one of his tenants the matter was raised in the House of Lords in January 1670.10 His concern for the Whitstable fishermen is therefore understandable. This letter reads: 'After harty S: Whereas I am informed That divers ffishermen in ye County of Essex and others of Stroud and Milton in Kent have lately wronged the ffishermen of Whitstable in Kent by drudging Oysters and flashing in y6 Banks, Shoals and Streams heretofore used, kept and maintayned as of Right belonging to that Town, woh Intrusion tends (as I am Informed) very much to ye preuidice of ye Inhabitants of Whitstable and Hinderance to y8 Citty of Canterbury and other Townes and places thereabouts, wch have heretofore beene by them furnished with all their provision of ffish:—I have therefore thought good and doe (upon ye humble peticon of the ffishermen of Whitstable delivered by the hande of Cap' Edward Roberts Esq1 on the behalfe aforesaid) hereby pray and Authorise you from time to time as often as ye ffishermen from Essex, Stroud, Milton or other stangers shall resort thither, and their ago fnshing contrary to Right & custome to take order for redress thereof as shall upon examinacon and proofe bee according to equity & Justice, as I have ordered my Judge of Admiralty in such cases and if any of them shall nott followe ye Directions by you sett downe therein, then to demand good bond of all and every such Refractory person for his or their appearance before you att ye next Admiralty Co1' holden at Rochester, or else where, (thus not doubting of yor Care and reliefe of these poore peticoners committing of them to you I haveing allsoe ordered Sr Lyonell Jenkin Knti & my Judge of Admiralty allsoe to take care therein) I rest yor Affect Coz Yorke S* James May 7,1669 (In a different hand) This letter was sent by his Royl Highness' 10 Dickin A History of the Town Brightlingsea 136. 126 OYSTER FISHERIES ON THE NORTH KENT COAST Although this practice of oyster poaching on the Whitstable beds went on for so long it was not altogether a one-way business, the Whitstable dredgers were quite capable of giving, and probably often did, tit for tat by making sorties on the Essex beds. Following one such expedition in 1725 the Company of Southend Dredgers instituted a claim for damages amounting to the large sum of £17,000.u Another source of friction between the fisheries was the demarcation of boundaries of the sea manors. One such dispute was investigated by certain 'principall and most learned gentlemen of this shire' and an 'awarde for the liberty of Whitstable' was made on the 18th December, 1608, signed by Peter Manwood, Robert Edolph, John Boys, Adam Spracklinge, Charles Hales, Charles Fothernye, George Newman, Richard Hardes and Willman Man. The dispute was between Milton and Whitstable and the Privy Council called for a true report on the boundaries of the Whitstable and Seasalter Fisheries. Accordingly on the 1st May, 4. Henry VII (1490) at Whitstable before William Hawte, Henry Ediall, John Diggs and Reynold Sands evidence was given by persons representing both sides including William, Prior of Christchurch Canterbury, James Crowe, knight, Thomas Eden Es <