New Romney and the river of Newenden in the later Middle Ages

Introduction The main purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between the port of New Romney and its marsh hinterland in the later Middle Ages. The publication of the Romney Marsh Soil Survey memoir and map in 1968 by R. D. Green added a new dimension to marshland studies, and the implications of his work are still being examined closely. Its pertinence to an understanding of the archaeology and history of the Marsh has been discussed most helpfully by, among others, Cunliffe (1980) and Brooks (1981). This paper concentrates upon the link between Romney and Appledore, which originated in 'the river of Newenden' and ended by being known as 'the Rhee' (Fig. 11.1). The 'river of Newenden' was so referred to in 1258, when the citizens ofRomney maintained that their town had been founded on it. The name is elusive; but both the names 'river of Newenden' and 'river' or 'water of L~menee' were used occasionally for the channel from Robertsbridge or Bodiam to Appledore (Cal. Pat. Rolls 13 13-1 7,134,695; 13 17-2 1,609). The most that can be said confidently about the 'river of Newenden' is that, in the mid-thirteenth century, it flowed past Appledore and Snargate on its way to Romney, and that in so doing it must have collected some or all of the run-off now represented by the Horne Brook near Appledore and the Speringbrook drainage. Among the earliest uses of the name 'Rhee' that have come to light is a record of St. Augustine's Abbey at Canterbury dated 1360. The Abbey arranged that the vicar of Brookland church was to receive the greater tithes of lands "lying across the Re ..... viz. from beyond the bridge called Brynsete and towards the parish churches of Brynsete, Snaves and Ivercherche" (Davis 1934, 514). The antiquity of the Rhee (once thought to be a sea wall of Roman origin) was called into question by Ward (1940) and by the distribution of soils on Green's map (1968). It has since become clear that any short phrase purporting to account for the Rhee's whole length is likely to be wide of the mark. Two statements can be made about its eastern end. A channel from Old to New Romney was proposed in 1258 and subsequently dug; it became part of 'the land between the walls'. In the early fifteenth century this channel was allowed to dry up. Questions prompted by these events are followed up in the present paper. The Appledore-Snargate and Snargate-Old Romney sections of the Rhee had different histories; while the former can be seen dimly in reports of land submerged by the tides and subsequently reclaimed, references to the latter are scarce. The whole link had an effect upon the organization of marsh drainage apparent to this day. It was thought vital to the fortunes of New Romney; yet in the fifteenth century the Corporation built harbour works which seem not to have been related to the Appledore corridor. This calls into question Romney's management of other water channels, and indeed the whole nature of its trading activity. The conclusions reached depend upon evidence relating as much to marsh reclamation and drainage as to the affairs of New Romney itself. The first part of this paper is concerned to set familiar material in the context of the jurisdictions of the Marsh and of the Port, and thereby shed fresh light on a long-debated subject. The sections which follow introduce new material. Sources The paper has been shaped by the surviving archives of three kinds of medieval jurisdiction. Ecclesiastical institutions holding estates in the Marsh are one such, members of the Cinque Ports Federation and the Federation itselfare another, and the Liberty ofRomney Marsh proper is a third. Each of these authorities had frequent need to transact business with, or on behalf of, the king; and the king's letters as they appear in the Calendar of Patent Rolls are a mainstay of the paper. To the letters are added the findings of inquisitions and ordinances of the king's justices as they appear in various archives. Attention has been paid to the records of Robertsbridge Abbey as summarized by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and of the Priory of Bilsington (Neilson 1928). The accounts of the Corporation of New Romney c. 1380 - c. 1520, as reviewed by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, have been read year by year. Although the review contains only a modest selection of entries from the original, a study of its complete contents would permit a fuller account of the harbour and the life of the Port than is relevant here. The items of expenditure mentioned later in this paper tell their own story. The archives of the Liberty of Romney Marsh, once kept at Dymchurch New Romney and the 'River of Newenden' \ I / 'X \L___ '--TO ---,c -' '---. KENARDINGTON W,, : I' p m D 0 a Cn 9 , ..... ... .... WATERING FAIRFIELD COURT. --10-- 10 metre ~untu~lr = Rhee wall . . : ...G +SNAVE ROMNEY 129 Sewer *LL* Marsh wall 1 1 2 2 3 M~les K~lometres Fig. 11.1 New Romney and the Rhee Features shown on All Souls College, CTM 226a/65a (7. Gull) and BL Cotton Augstus I i 25. The Marsh Wall at Belgar is mentioned in a terrier of 1381 (Neilson 1928, 210-11). and now in the Kent Archives Office, do not go back further than the sixteenth century and the affairs of the Liberty in the later Middle Ages have to be understood from collections of notes and copied ordinances, many of them belonging to ecclesiastical archives. Among these, the registers of Christ Church, Canterbury are a storehouse from which much information relating to the Marsh has still to be gathered; valuable insights have been given by Smith (1943) and du Boulay (1966). The Liberties of the Marsh and of the Port As the title suggests, the Level and Liberty of Romney Marsh combined two aspects of jurisdiction. The jurats of the Level had powers in respect of land drainage and sea defence which had been formulated in the reign of Henry I11 (see below). Two hundred years later, additional powers and privileges in the form of civil and criminal jurisdiction were granted by Edward IV in 1461-62. This created a Liberty in the fullest sense of the term. Edward's charter provided for a bailiff and jurats to continue to be elected in the accustomed manner, and Teichman Derville (1936, 43, 51) considers that the charter was granted to the jurats of the Level in a new capacity. Moreover these jurats, in their task of maintaining walls and watergangs, had been freed by Henry I11 from interference by the sherie in this restricted sense they already had some autonomy. In what follows, the term 'Liberty of the Marsh' is used to indicate the administration of Romney Marsh proper from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. The Cinque Ports' jurisdiction, which bound together the ports of the south-east coast from Hastings to Sandwich, comprised the territorially distinct Liberties of its members. The Port of Romney, always smaller than Dover, Sandwich or Hastings, had the advantage ofa location midway between east and west. Thus it was within easy reach of the court of Shepway, nearer still to the site of the Brodhull (see below), and was itself chosen on occasion as a meeting place in which to conduct the business of the Ports (Gal. Pat. Rolls 1258-66, 152; Murray 1935, 153-4). Ease of access both by water and land was important to Romney, and the boundaries of its Liberty, which extended inland across the marshes to Appledore, played a part in shaping the physical history of the Marsh. The Marsh The Charter of Romney Marsh (1854) had its origin in the provision made by Henry I11 to give constitutional form to those marshland customs which had operated, in the words of the Charter, "time out of nlind". The principle applied in maintaining banks and water channels to protect the marsh from inundation was very simple: that "everyone, for the portion of acres subject to the same danger, do equally contribute to sustain them". The 130 Eleanor Vollans administration needed to put this principle into practice was based on the meeting of 'jurats', that is, individuals chosen by the men of the Marsh and representatives of the Lords of the Marsh. Henry 111's intervention meant that the decisions of the jurats about what was needed and how much should be contributed, were now backed by royal authority. The sheriff of Kent was expressly forbidden to meddle with the distraints made by award of the jurats and, were complaints to arise, justice was reserved to the king "or his especial mandate". Thus many of the disputes which came to the attention of Henry I11 and his successors were given a lasting expression in the ordinances of the king's justices. These amplifications of marsh law were enrolled by the royal clerks; also, at different times, copies were made either of the whole or in part. Thus it happens that, while the legal requirements of the Charter are well known, there may be found inserted in one copy or another items of more local or temporary importance (Richardson 19 19, 385-6). The Port The Liberty of the Cinque Ports is as venerable as that of the Marsh. It arose from the obligation of ship service which is recorded in the Domesday survey and ofwhich the origins reach back into Saxon England. This obligation, and its attendant privileges, was formalized by royal charters during the reign of Henry 11: that of Hythe is dated 1156. The first extant charter of Romney belongs to 1205, in the reign ofJohn, but this confirms an earlier grant (Rot. Chart. 1837, 154). Henry 11's charters show that at this time the status of each port was determined separately by the king. Later, the collective name of 'Cinque Ports' began to be used, and what had begun as an informal cooperation led eventually to a fully-fledged Confederation. This comprised the five ports originally owing ship service, and the lesser havens which were their members, together with the two ancient towns of Rye and Winchelsea. Their consti- tutional status was "summed up and rounded off in the great charter of Edward I in 1278" (Williamson 1959, 94; see also Murray 1935), which laid down the combined services required of the Confederation and put together all the legal and financial privileges which thenceforth characterised its members. Port affairs, as codified by the Charter, were to be administered in the court of Shepway, presided over by the Warden of the Confederation as representative of the Crown. For discussion of their interests independently of royal officers, the Portsmen developed the court of the Brodhull, which had existed previously as a place of casual meeting (Murray 1935, 139-46). The affairs of each port, managed by jurats, continued in the hands of its Barons, that is, with the freemen residing in the Liberty. The king wrote not only to the Warden of the Confederation but separately to the Barons ofeach Port. Issues common to all are noted in the rolls of letters patent and, often, in the records of the Confederation (Hull 1966). There was additional correspondence about the affairs of individual Ports, some relating to trade and shipping and others to harbour works, fortifications and the protection of the harbour against storms. Areas of jurisdiction The two jurisdictions, so different in function, were alike in needing a well-defined boundary. The Marsh jurats were the custodians of a chosen perimeter by virtue of their office; but it was equally important to the Port jurats that the limits of their Liberty, within which Port 'customs' held good and from which the sheriff's writ was excluded, should be made clear. Constitutionally, it would seem that there was nothing to prevent the two Liberties from sharing a common territory, at least in part. Indeed, in the Romney records there is a note of a meeting which took place c. 1484 between the jurats of the Marsh and those of the Port "that they might be one Corporation" (Historical Manuscripts Commission 5, 547). It did not happen; and it is easy to see that the interests of the Portsmen would have been difficult to reconcile with those of the men of the Marsh. The prime concern of the Portsmen was to keep open their harbour and to maintain what had once been a river channel linking New Romney with Appledore. The Port Liberty followed this link along the Rhee, and where the Port Liberty ended, the Marsh Liberty began (for this boundary, see Scott Robertson 1880,260 and Teichman Derville 1936, 3). Inevitably, dissensions arose. A minor dispute c. 1456 resulted from the Marshmen's intention of building a dam "to the nuisance of the town" (Historical Manuscripts Commission 5, 543). Earlier, quarrels had arisen out of allegations of trespass including, it was claimed by the Marshmen, offences of robbery and arson (Cal. Pat. Rolls 13 13-1 7,503). In 1324 it was reported to the king that the two sides were preparing to attack one another with arms; significantly, it was what was described as 'a trench' between Appledore and the port of Romney which had caused feelings to run so high (Cal. Close Rolls 1323-7, 209). Whatever the immediate cause of friction might have been, from the point of view of the Marshmen it is clear that the extension of the Cinque Port Liberty to Appledore was a major anomaly. It divided the marshland as a physiographic entity into two parts, and had a lasting effect upon the administration of drainage. The Port Liberty from Romney to Appledore The recorded boundaries The boundary of the Cinque Port Liberty of New Romney is shown on the first edition of the OS 1 : 10,560 (187 1-6). Two sections are reproduced on Figs. 1 1.2 and 1 1.3. Some of the marker stones which were once set out along the boundary can still be seen today, although most have disappeared. Early maps such as Symondson New Romnty and the 'River of Newenden' 1 Llherty bounds y Rhee wall Road or lane (not showrl along Rheei 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1 Km Fig. 11.2 The Cinque Port Liberty Boundary of New Romnty (Old Romney to New Romney). Based on OS 1:10560jrst edition, 1871-76. F ' ' ' ' ' # - Road or lane Fig. 11.3 The Cinque Port Liberty Boundary of New Romney (Appledore to Snargate) . Based on OS 1:10560jrst edition, 1871-76. 132 Eleanor Vollans (1596) and Poker (1617) show, not the Liberty boundary as such, but a double line ofwalls linking New Romney with Appledore. The custumal ofNew Romney (Forsett 1564, 7) says that the franchise "extendeth within the towne and porte .... begynnyng at the entrynge of the haven unto a certayne bounde called Reade Hyll besyde Apuldore". The earliest version of this custumal belongs to the Register of Daniel Rough, who was Common Clerk of Romney for nearly thirty years ( 1353-80), and the corresponding passage in Rough runs "between the town and the haven and the boundary called Rendehol near Apuldre" in cases of sudden death the only coroner was to be the bailiff of the town (Historical Manuscripts Commission 4, 425; Murray 1945, 23). This difference in wording, between the 'franchise' of the sixteenth century and the 'bailiff as coroner' of the fourteenth century, may be significant. It is entries of the sixteenth century in the Corporation records which define New Romney7s jurisdiction in terms of topography. A note of the time of Henry V111 refers to "the commen grounde, the which lyeth betwene the wallys to Apuldore ward" (Historical Manuscripts Commission 5, 554). A fuller account was given at an inquisition ordered by Elizabeth in 1562, which followed upon a law-suit between the Queen and the inhabitants of New Romney relating to the town's common lands. A report of the inquisition was entered in Romney's 'Book of Notte' (Scott Robertson 1880, 270-1). Part of this reads " .... certain land, called 'the lande betwene the Walles' .... extends in length from the fresh marsh called 'The Common Marsh' directly to a place called Readhill, between two walls, one ofwhich is called Romney Marsh Wall, and the other is called Wallande Wall. This land lies between the two walls occupying the entire site of a 'Cricke or water-way, sewared or dryed upp"'. Here is a clear indication that the liberty of the Port bounded that of the Marsh, and also, since the Port Liberty extended along the line of a dried-up watercourse, that the Marshland jurisdiction was marked off by this channel and its northern wall. Thirteenth-century Topography The drying-up of the channel can be traced in the fifteenth-century expenditure accounts of New Romney (see below), but evidence of its functioning as a watercourse belongs to the thirteenth century. This was a time when hostilities between England and France constantly drew the king's attention to the Channel coast. Also, in the second half of the thirteenth century storms of exceptional severity focused the royal attention upon the need to protect the coastal marshes and nearby ports from the ravages of the sea. In consequence, the topography of the marsh at this time is relatively well documented. In 1257, Henry I11 commissioned Henry of Bath to resolve contentions about the repair of marshland walls. The resulting ordinances, the first of the series later to be known as the Charter of Romney Marsh, were accompanied by a definition of bounds and the measurement of holdings belonging to the jurisdiction of Romney Marsh proper. In 1258, the king authorized Nicholas de Hadlo to assist the port of Romney by bringing back 'the river of Newenden'. The timing of the actions of these two justices suggests that the restoration of the waterway and the definition of the Marsh boundary were in effect a coordinated enterprise (Table 1 1.1). The ordinances of John de Lovetot, drawn up thirty years later and directed to the area now known as Walland Marsh, augment our knowledge of their work. The authorization to Nicholas de Hadlo was in two parts. First, a new channel was to be dug not far from the old one which was obstructed. It was to be made "from a cross of the hospital of infirm persons of Romenal which stands near Aghenepend as far as Effeton, and from Effeton to the house of William le Wyll, and so to Melepend and from Melepend down to the said port" (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1247-58,635-6). From this it is clear that the new channel was to begin in Old Romney and lead to the harbour. The land of the hospital of St. Stephen and St. Thomas lies across the Rhee Wall west of Old Romney:' eight acres of this is referred to, before 1380 and probably before 1358, "in St. Clements at Old Romney, near the mill of Aghene called Spitellis" (Historical Manuscripts Commission 4, 427-8; Murray 1945, see introduction for discussion of dates). The present Court Lodge in Old Romney is Agney Court Lodgein 1649.2 Effeton (Offeton) in Langport hundred, now lost, was once a fair-sized holding linked with Old Romney: in 1086 Robert of Romney held Afettune from the Bishop of Bayeux; it answered for one sulung (Morgan 1983, 5, 176): in c. 1200 the sons of Gilbert of Old Romney held 20 acres of land in Offetune (Historical Manuscripts Commission 77, 1, 56) : in 1274-5 the heirs of Roger of Romney held Offetun (quandam partem terre) in Langport half-hundred for the dues ofserjeancy (Rot. Hund 1,226). The site of the house of William le Wyll is lost. The first element of Melepend may be maele (OE) meaning 'dyed, stained, multi- coloured', and may possibly refer to a brine pool or pound associated with the extraction of sea salt. An alternative derivation, from myln (OE), meln (Kent), would signify 'mill pond', and possibly raise the question of whether such a mill, close to the harbour, may have been worked by the tide (Smith 1956, pt 2. 33, 46). Second, there were to be built three sluices. The first sluice was to be built "below Apeltre to receive the salt water entering the river by inundation of the sea from the parts of Winchelse, and retain it in the ebb of the sea". A second sluice, of unspecified function, was to be sited at Snargate. The third sluice was to be made by the port "where the said water" (that is, the mixed salt and fresh water flowing from Appledore) "can fall into the sea, to retain merely the water of the sea's inundation on that side that it enter not the said course" (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1247-58, 635-6). It seems clear from these proposals that they refer to improvement and extension of the artificial waterway later known as the Rhee. Nicholas de Hadlo was at Romney in June 1258 to put New Romney and the 'River of Newenden' Table 11.1 Thirteenth Century Royal Commissions in Romney Marsh. 1252 2 Sept. 1257 16 April 1258 3 May 1258 21 June The King upholds the powers of "four and twenty lawful men" in making distraints for the safety of the marsh. (Chart. RM., 5-7). Commission to Henry of Bath, touching conten- tions relating to the repair of the walls of the marsh of Romenhale (CPR 1247-58, 592). Appointment of Nicholas de Hadlo, to make provision for the 'river of Newenden' being brought back to the port of Romney (CPR 1247-58, 662). The King commands Nicholas de Hadlo to implement the findings of his inquisition relating to the port of Romney (CPR 1247-58, 635-6). 133 Kent, including those now known as Walland ~i rsh. Lovetot applied Henry of Bath's regulations to the south-western part of the Marsh as far as the border with Sussex; he also arranged that the king's bailiff of the Marsh Liberty (that is, of Romney Marsh proper, in the constitutional sense) should oversee the newly appointed bailiffs and jurats of the south-western area. This was done because, in the words ofthe Marsh charter, "in that marish of Romeney beyond the water streams of the Docke (ultra cursum aquaeportus) stretching from Snargate towards Romenhale on the west part of the Creeke (portus) unto the county of Sussex, there was no certain law of the marsh appointed nor used, but ofsuch as have lands at will therein ...." (Charter of Romnty Marsh 1854, 36-9). 1258 2 Sept. week 1259 20 April 1287 16 Nov. 1287 5 Dec. Ordinance of Henry of Bath relating to Romney Marsh: Henry "joining to him Nicholas de Hadlo and Aulred of Dene and the sheriff of Kent assisting him ...". (Chart. RM., 9). The King orders the sheriff ofKent not to interfere with the jurats in making distraints ... "then followeth the number of all the acres within the same marsh ...". Henry ofBath is a witness (Chart. RM., 17-19). Commission to John de Lovetot and Henry de Appeltrefeld de wallis et fossatis for the coast ofKent (CPR 1281-92, 309). Ordinance of John de Lovetot and Hcnry dc Appeltrefeld of all the marshes of Romney and Oxney to the county of Sussex (Chart. RM., 31ff). Sources: Charter of Romney Marsh, 1854 (these entries are dated by regnal years respectively 36, 42, 43 Henry I11 and 16 Edward I). Calendar of the Patent Rolls in hand the work needed. Finding the labourers to dig the new channel may not have been his concern. His main task, ordered explicitly by the king, was to see that proper compensation for the land taken for the new channel and sluices was paid from "the land and money of the barons and good men" of the Port (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1247-58, 635-6). Presumably this kept Nicholas de Hadlo in Romney for much of the summer. In September he assisted Henry of Bath at that important gathering of the men of the Marsh, at which the ordinances for the Liberty of the Marsh were drawn up and agreed. These too, like Nicholas de Hadlo's proposal, needed implementation. The precision which was brought to bear on this task can be gauged from the text of Henry of Bath's ordinances as set out in a confirmatory charter of 13 13 (Cal. Pat. Rolls 13 13-1 7, 75-6). Measurement was made of the acreages at risk, for the repair of the walls. In April 1259 Henry of Bath witnessed the enrolment of these acreages at Westmin- ster. Thus the boundary of the Marshland jurisdiction could hardly fail to have been established in the knowledge of, and with regard to, the works of the Port, both existing and newly undertaken. In 1287, Edward I commissioned John de Lovetot and Henry de Appeltrefeld to oversee marshlands in Lovetot thus set up a second marshland jurisdiction, subsidiary to that of Romney Marsh proper and divided from it, between Snargate and Romney, by the flowing water of a creek or dock. The translation into English of Lovetot's ordinances, just quoted, belongs to the sixteenth century. The word 'dock', associated with Middle Dutch 'docke', became current in Tudor England; its early meanings were 'a bed in sand or ooze in which a ship lies dry at low water' and 'an artificial inlet to admit a boat' (Oxford English Dictionary). In these senses Lovetot's dock can be linked with both Nicholas de Hadlo's proposal to bring back the 'river of Newenden' to the port of Romney, and the "Cricke or waterway, sewared or dryed up", referred to in Romney's 'Book of Notte' (see above). There is a copy of Lovetot's ordinances which contains both the names of places to which the ordinances refer and an indication of the perambulation needed to define their 'metes and bound^'.^ The fly-leaf of the MS volume shows that it was the private memorandum book ofHenry ofEastry, who was Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury from 1285 to 1331. The ordinances are written in a uniform hand, without addition or alteration, and they should be close to, if not identical with, the original of 1288. The places named are Fairfield, Brookland, Moreland, Snargate and Agney. Of these, only Moreland has disappeared: Court at More is marked on an early manuscript map in the British Librar~.~ The perambulation is agreed to begin at 'Old Woderove' (Woodruff) and to pass from there as far as Nicholesland next to the Newland and from the enclosures called Baldwin's inning and St. Thomas' inning as far as the watercourse between Romney and Appledore. These are the lands which it is aimed to protect, after 1288, from all incursions of the sea (Fig. 11.1). The Appledore-Snargate watercourse and the Appledore Walls Nicholas de Hadlo's plan to regulate the passage of tidal water down the river channel to Romney harbour had two important consequences. It confirmed Romney's interest in the future of the watercourse, to the detriment of the men of the Marsh, and it marked a division of the 134 Eleanor Vollans channel into two sections, from Appledore to Snargate and from Snargate to Old Romney, each of distinctive character. Between Snargate and Old Romney, as noted in the foregoing section, the Port Liberty followed the walled channel, marked at each end by a sluice. To the north lay the Liberty of Romney Marsh and to the south, after 1288, the similar but subsidiary jurisdiction set up by Lovetot. Thus along this section of the watercourse, in the fourteenth century, the relationships between the Port and Marsh Liberties, and between the Port Liberty and its bounding walls, are plain. Between Appledore and Snargate the corresponding set of relationships was directly affected by the inroads of the sea and the surviving record of the physical boundaries in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is fragmen- tary. The following section examines some of the documentary evidence bearing on the delimitation of the Marsh and Port Liberties in the area, and their relationships to the Appledore Walls, Great and Little. The Marsh Liberty The Liberty of the Marsh was bounded by the Appledore embankment. The record ofApril 1259 refers to the extent and nature of the Marsh jurisdiction near Appledore and indicates the importance of the Appledore Walls. It reads "To the Sheriff of Kent .... a command in no wise you meddle with the same distraints . . . . . Then followeth the number of all the acres within the said marshe, as found by the measurements of the 42nd year of Henry 111, and also the agistation as well in the great wall ofAppledore, as in the little wall, to the quantity of lands holden within ...." (Charter of Rornney Marsh 1854, 17-19). The boundaries of the Marsh to be protected must have been made plain at the time that the measurements were carried out. Within these boundaries, there appears to have been a distinction between the acres belonging to the marsh and the agistation within, or behind, the walls of Appledore. 'Agistment' may refer to a particular form of land use based on rights of grazing; land agisted is frequently land held in common and used only for pasture. In more general terms, 'agistation' may signify land subject to some form of rating; in the Appledore context, land rated for the purpose of maintaining the outer embankment. Henry of Bath's ordinance suggests that the land agisted behind the Appledore walls was being taken into Romney Marsh proper, and this would imply that, before 1259, another feature had marked the boundary of the Marsh Liberty in this area. The Appledore Walls The lawsuits which followed upon Henry of Bath's ordinance of 1259 showed that, for many holders of land in Romney Marsh, a responsibility towards the Appledore Walls was a new obligation. There were different reasons for their protests. Richard Feryng, parson of Lympne, acknowledged his liability in respect of a wall at Westhecce (near Dymchurch), in view of which - so he submitted - he should not have to contribute to the repair of other walls (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1281-92, 514). A test case, resolved in 1261, was that of Godfrey le Fauconer of Hurst who held land, like Richard Feryng, in the eastern part of the Marsh. Godfrey le Fauconer's main argument was based on the standing of his ancestors, who had received their lands by royal grant and were thereby exonerated from obligations other than those contained in the grant, terms which were to apply equally to the heirs of their estates. Godfrey claimed that the charter of Henry I1 was not to be set aside by a decree of Henry 111; this claim was disallowed. But Godfrey le Fauconer also made the objection that "this custom for the repair of those banks and watergangs was never required, neither of his ancestors nor himself, till about five years then last past" (Charter of Rornney Marsh 1854, 29). Thus his suit provides an interesting pointer to the onset of danger, especially in the western part of the Marsh. Another instance comes from the cartulary of Bilsington Priory. In a charter which can be dated to 1256-62, Nicholas clerk of Bilsington receives a field for which he pays to the grantor 8d annually. This covers all his dues, except that Nicholas and his heirs are to L'make and look after one virgate in the wall of Appledore" (Neilson 1928, 107). Teichman Derville (1936, 7) points out that Horton Priory had benefactors who undertook the upkeep of portions of the Great Wall ofAppledore; of the charters which record these commitments, none is known to be earlier than 1263, although several renew earlier obligations. The same author also instances the obligation of the Master of Domus Dei in Dover, recorded more than a century later, in 1384, to repair nearly 35 perches of the Great Wall of Appledore and rather less than 15 perches of the Little Wall; this in respect of a total of 681 acres in the Marsh. Thus the Appledore embankment is seen to be a protective wall of considerable duration. Although the function of the Appledore embankment remained unchanged during the fourteenth century, and perhaps for longer, sections of the wall itself may have been rebuilt and perhaps re-aligned. The obligation of Godfrey le Fauconer to help maintain this wall was carefully worded by the jurats of the Marsh, and their last sentence is to be noted. Godfrey is assigned "three perch and a half at the least, for his proportion in the bank of Apuldre, to be repaired at his costs; and according to the overflowing of the waters, more, if need should be, in divers places" (Charter of Rornney Marsh 1854, 21). Thus, while the course of the Appledore embankment may be envisaged in general terms, variations in its line have probably been lost. The likelihood is that the embankment had long flanked the northern side of a complex of river and/or tidal channels which lay between Appledore and Snargate, and which included the watercourse upon which the extension of the Port Liberty towards and beyond Appledore was founded. New Romney and the 'River of Newenden' The Port Liberty The storms which overwhelmed the marshland between Appledore and Snargate in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries must have caused Romney to adjust its claims of jurisdiction but, topographically, these adjustments remain obscure. In logic, the Port Liberty followed the river channel upstream to Appledore, but the channel's course was changed by flooding. The sea had reached the Great Wall of Appledore in that well-known and quite exceptional storm of early February 1288, of which Gervase of Canterbury wrote 135 Table 11.2. Old and new 'trenches' leading from "the arm of the sea called Appledore to the town of Romeney" in 1337. Old trench Length Width State 700 perches 10 perches "so obstructed by sand and shingle that ships could not pass thereby to the town of New trench 500 perches 20 perches "lately made by the force of the sea, by which boats and ships might pass without Romeney as they had impediment" to Romney used" Owners that "the sea rose to such an extent .... that ... . nearly all the ground was covered from the great dyke at Appledore to Winchelsea, both toward the south and the west" (Britton 1937, 124). But it had not needed an exceptional surge to carry the tide inland as far as Appledore. Nicholas de Hadlo's proposal to build the three sluices shows that, already, in 1258, ordinary tides flowed at least to Appledore. One diversion of a channel near Appledore of considerable length is recorded in 1337 (Table 11.2), and there were probably others. The lawsuit through which we learn of this diversion indicates the instability of the tidal watercourses upon which navigation depended, and illustrates some of the problems of tenure which arose in the tidal marshes. It may also point indirectly to the inclusion of the channel here within the Port Liberty. The lawsuit resulted in the grant of a licence fbr an old tidal channel to be filled in, the sea having opened up a new channel which, it was claimed, was better suited than the old one to vessels passing from "the arm of the sea called Apuldre to the town of Romeney" (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1334-38,457). From this and from the land-holders named, the channels may be placed in the marshes between Appledore and Snargate. Given the 'Marsh' perch of 20 feet (and a shorter perch of 163 feet may have been used), the old trench would have been more than two and a half miles and the new one rather less than two miles in length. The old channel crossed the lands of three holders, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, and Margaret de Basinges, but the new channel took in the land of these three and a fourth as well, the holding of the Abbot ofRobertsbridge. It is this which suggests that the new channel passed not far from 'Woderove' (Woodruff), while the old channel curved further to the north (Table 1 1.2, Fig. 1 1.3) (see also Tatton-Brown 1988, eds.). A curious feature of the record is that it does not mention the corporation of New Romney. Did the Port Liberty follow the old trench and, if so, was it to be transferred to the new one? There is no certain answer to such a question, yet the phrase "the soil of the trench is held by ..." is to be noted; it suggests that other rights pertaining to the channel, such as the right of transit and of jurisdiction over those in transit, may have rested elsewhere. A suitable candidate for the exercise of such authority was the bailiff of Romney Corporation, whose duty it was according to the custumal of Daniel Rough (see of soil Archbishop Canterbury Prior of Christ Church Margaret de Basinges Archbishop Canterbury Prior of Christchurch Margaret de Basinges Abbot of Robertsbridge The soil of both trenches held in chief as parcel of the manors of Aldington, Appledore, Kenardington and 'Woderove' (Woodruff) Sources: Cnl. Pat. Rolls 1334-38, 457 Notes on the manors: Aldington: held by the Archbishop of Canterbury, extended into several Marsh hundreds, including Aloesbridge. The Archbishop also held land in Oxney hundred. Appledore was held by the Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, who also held lands in Snargate and Fairfield (Feudal Aids 3, 13 16 Nomina Villarum, S19). Kenardington: in 1316 William de Basinges died holding Kenardington for one knight's fee, of the inheritance of Margaret, his wife. In 1341, Margaret, wife of William, died holding as dower part of Kenardington, for one quarter knight's fee. In 1349, Thomas, son of William and Margaret, died holding Kenardington for one knight's fee; at this time the manor included "400 acres salt land at the sea by Appledore of no value". (Cal. Znq. Post Mortem 5, no. 566; 8, no. 307; 9, no. 318). Woderove (? manor): In the early 13th century, the Abbot of Robertsbridge held land in Snargate which included an enclosure by 'newewoderove'. The boundary with Applcdore was contested by the Prior of Christ Church Canterbury, and later obliterated by tidal flooding. r. 1400 the abbot was enclosing land again "by the parcel of newewoderove" (Dugdale 1662, 86). above) to act as coroner between Romney and the Liberty boundary near Appledore. In medieval law a coroner was 'guardian of the pleas of the Crown' (Oxford English Dictionary), which would imply an authority to inquire into disturbances however arising, one of the most grave being sudden death. Along a shipping channel such contingencies were to be expected, and would have to be provided for. The right to navigate tidal rivers and channels was in common law open to all, a parallel to the freedom of movement obtaining along the king's highway. It was asserted successfully in suits brought against those committing obstructions, and many issues raised by these suits are examined in the case-histories edited by Flower ( 19 15, 1923). He quotes a passage relating to the river Limene. It comes from the Kent Eyre of 11 Henry 111,5 at which a jury of Blackbourne hundred made a presentment that weirs constructed in the Limene, which was the king's highway for the passage of ships, formed encroachments (de purprestris dicunt quod in aqua de Limene Eleanor Vollan~ Table 11.3~. Expenditure on New Romney Harbour and on two harbour sluices, 1387-1415. Year quod est chiminium domini regis ad naves portandas facta sunt gurgites) (Flower 1915, xxvi). It was a strict judicial rule that offences had to be brought before the court of the hundred in which, as alleged, they had taken place. Most of Blackbourne hundred lies well to the north of Romney Marsh, and that part of the Limene which harboured the offending weirs must have flowed across the la~ids of Appledore, and possibly also those of Kenardington. Thus this brief entry in the assize roll of 1226-7 is a welcome, though isolated, pointer to the course of the Limene in the early thirteenth century, and a firm indication of the importance of its waterborne traffic. Romney harbour and the link with Appledore c. 1400-1 450 The Port The first record extant of the Corporation of New Romney is Daniel Rough's memoranda book (Murray 1945) which, among other material, contains a list of dues (maltotes) which were levied on those practising trades, and on market transactions. Useful as the list is, it does no more than hint at the life of the port. Thus, from Digging Maintenance of 'Slow' I The 'Slow' and some other items, unspecified Work by a mason, his men, and a carpenter A panel for the 'Slow' Unspecified small items Repair of the house of the 'Slow' A visit by John Rone of three days, "coming from Flanders to make the Sluice" Planks, timber, carriage, labour, for the repair of Ilesbridge and digging at the Sluice A new gate for the 'Slow' Construclion of 'Slow' 2 (known as the 'Great Sluice') Men labouring in the new Sluice To a Hollander (Gerard Matthyessonne) in part payment of El00 for the Sluice Carpenters and labourers drawing timber to the Sluice near Jeffs Saltcote Men making the dammes for the site of the Sluice Walling around Jeffs Saltcote and digging about the Sluice To Gerard Matthyessonne To the same, final payment In the Rhee A delve for the barge 4 new harbour (nouum porturn) In the Rhee In the port kJ d 13 6 8 3 15 0 26 13 4 18 0 ? 41 6 6 210 7 6 2 1 9 14 3 43 0 0 22 2 5 21 15 9: a master carpenter of ships "of new passage" 12d was due; from a carpenter of houses, by the week, rd, and from a ship carpenter, by the week when at work, also id; from the master fisherman of every boat, weekly td, and from the other men of the boat, each week one farthing. Among the commodities sold in the market and coming in by sea, was coal, for which one farthing was paid on every two seams; and an abundance of fish, including porpoises, for which the vendor paid one penny for every beast cut up. Other details of the port's trading, still unfortunately with little context, come from lists of royal licences in the Exchequer Rolls. In 1366, for example, licences were issued for men to ship in Romney and sell abroad "to make profit" corn (100 quarters), cheese (200 weys), butter (100 tuns) and beans and oats (100 quarters) (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1364-67, 195, 246, 377). In 1371, William Seford of Romney was among those authorized to ship corn to Gascony "for his profit and the sustenance of the king's lieges"; two years later, a licence is given for butter and cheese from Romney to be sold in Flanders (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1370-74, 136, 333). Romney exported wool, sometimes with due payment of the customs required, sometimes not. Among the imports, wine was prominent; an officer of the king's household, appointed to buy wine, was often responsible for the New Romney and the 'River of Newenden' Table 11.36 Expenditure on Snargate sluice, and associated receipts from Snargate and 'land between the walls'. 1400 - c. 1440. Year Expenditure 140142 New gates for the sluice at Snargate 1409-10 Material for repairing the sluice For carpenters and labourers there For divers countrymen digging there and for the wages of the keeper For the repair of "our house" there and for the wages of the keeper 1413-14 1433-34 1433-34 1434-35 For the repair of "our houses" at Snargate for three years past Expenditure on the common house For "trouble on the 'Slow' at Snargate" For carriage of timber from Snargate to Romney 143637 For carriage of timber from Snargate to the Great Sluice Receipts i) Snargate 1403-10 The common house at Snargate is rented several times, for sums from 10.0d to 17.6d The common house is rented for three years, for 35.0d The sluice house (Slouesshouse) is rented for five years, for the yearly sum of 10s Received for the barn and garden belonging to the community at Snargate For the gate of the sluice sold at Snargate for 40s, part payment Small receipts, including "for the tenement of the community" For stone sold to the men of Snargate ii) 'Land between the Walls' 1433-34 For rent of land between the walls 1437-38 1438-39 For rent of pasture, Ilesbridge to New Romney For the same, Ilesbridge to Old Romney bridge Source: Historical Manuscripts Commission, 5, 533-54. Notes 1. 2. 3. According to later entries, the payment for unskilled labour was 4d per day. A new barge was bought in 13967 for the sum of £53.6.8. L s d Ilesbridge had been made (of wood) in 1388-9, for which New Romney paid 7s.10d. It carried the traffic between Lydd and New Romney and its maintenance was shared between the two. Ilesbridge has persisted as a place-name. Its mention in Table 11.3a helps to place the site of 'Slow' 1, and in Table 11.3b makes clear that, the water-course between Old and New Romney having dried up, 'Slow' 1 had ceased to function. 4. The three payments to Gerard Matthyssonne listed here fall short ofthe L100 contracted: some items have been omitted. 5. A list of the materials used in the construction of 'Slow' 2 has been omitted. combined transactions of Rye, Winchelsea and Romney (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1348-50,60,349; 1354-58, 107; 136 1-64, 174). This is the merest sketch of Romney's interests. There were also vessels sailing the English Channel which had no business with the Kentish coast unless they had the misfortune of being driven there. Some indication of this traffic is given by numerous claims for compensation for cargoes plundered from shipwreck, brought to the king's attention. In 1353, a ship loaded in Flanders with merchandise for London foundered on the coast of Romney; in 1361 a cog from la Rochelle was driven ashore by Romney and broke up. The year before a 'great ship' and a cog laden at Bruges and sailing for Genoa had been wrecked on a sandbank near the shore at Dengemarsh by Romney, and the cargoes plundered; another version, not necessarily compatible with the first, says that the vessels had been boarded at sea by men Eleanor Vollans from the port. In 1364 a similar fate befell a ship from Lescluse in Flanders, sailing for Brittany, which "by accident got on the sand at Dengenesse by Romeneye and there remained for two days high and dry in the marshes" (Gal. Pat. Rolls 1350-54, 520; 1358-61, 482, 483; 1361-64, 150, 536). All these were voyages and cargoes in the time of Daniel Rough, who notes that Romney was entitled to a fourth part of all the wrecks between Denge and Hythe. For the sailing vessels of the fourteenth century, the headland of Dungeness and the marshes and sandbanks by Romney offered a particular kind of danger; these were low shores lying in the path of Channel traffic, and especially of vessels heading south from Flanders. Single- masted ships, relying on a large, square sail, could not make headway against adverse winds, and needed oars to negotiate awkward channels; most harbours could be entered and left only on the right tidal flow (McGowan 1981, 9). These were the vessels for which, at the end of the fourteenth century and in the early fifteenth century, New Romney sought to maintain its harbour. The account books of the Corporation begin in the 1380s and from then yearly entries continue with few breaks throughout the following century. Receipts include the annual sums regularly paid by freemen, and ad hoc items such as fines, proceeds of sales and gifts. There are notes of matters affecting finance, such as agreements, leases and court rulings. But it is the expenditure accounts which point to the constant efforts of the jurats to maintain the port. The Rhee Channel and Sluices: Snargate to Romney Table 11.3 shows items of expenditure arranged chronologically by subject-matter. The presence of a harbour sluice at Romney ('Slow 1') and of a sluice and other property at Snargate maintained by the Corporation, is attested. These are logically the outcome of Nicholas de Hadlo's proposal of 1258. The function of the Snargate sluice is not specified in the authorization which Nicholas de Hadlo received from the king, but a petition from Romney to the Crown, c. 1316, shows that by the operation of the sluice, water was diverted into the channel leading to Romney harbour. The complaint of the Portsmen was that a sluice-gate set up at Snargate had been broken down by the Marshmen, with the result that the haven at Romney had been left dry and useless6 (Teichman Derville 1936, 44). The function of the harbour sluice, according to the 1258 proposal, was to prevent the tide from entering the walled channel which ran up from Romney to Snargate. The channel would therefore discharge river water when the tide was ebbing and, possibly, at times chosen to suit the harbour traffic. Whether the discharge was intended to help scour the harbour channel is not clear. What seems plain is that, by shutting out the tide from the channel upstream, the sluice may have raised the level of high water in the entry channel and harbour basin and, by discharging water during the ebb, it would have assisted vessels leaving the harbour and would very likely have extended the hours of departure. The demise of 'Slow 1' and of the Snargate sluice is apparent in the timing of expenditure. Over a period of twenty years (1387-1407) about £50 is spent on repairs at the harbour sluice, £41 on the digging of a new harbour, and at least £13 simply for 'digging in the Rhee' (Table 11.3a). The last major expenditure on Snargate sluice was £16.10.9 for new gates to be made (1401-2), and another £5 was spent later on small repairs of which 'digging to cleanse the gates' accounts for more than half (1409-10) (Table 11.3b). While these sums were undoubtedly a drain on the Port's finances, the severity of the burden can only be assessed in relation to other charges; at this period, the costs of keeping shipping at sea would seem to have exceeded by far the costs of the harbour works. After the first mention of a new harbour sluice (1409-10), there come items of receipt, notably "from moneys assessed by the community for making the Sluice anew", £33.6.8. (1410-1 l), and later from several donors "a gift this year to the Sluice" (1412-13). Under the guidance of a Hollander, by name Gerard Matthyssonne, the new sluice ('Slow 2') is all but completed in the space of three years, and its completion coincides with the accession to the throne of Henry V. Items of support for the king's campaign in France follow, together with lesser tasks such as walling and 'groynynge' to strengthen the sluice (1415-16). The disappearance of the sluice at Snargate belongs to the period 1426-50, though evidence of its dismantle- ment is only circumstantial. A sluice-gate was sold at Snargate in 1426-27 for the sum of 40s and it is probable that the stone sold there eight years later, for £4.6.8, also came from the sluice. Between 1434 and 1437 there are two entries for the carriage of timber from Snargate, the first to Romney and the second to the Great Sluice ('Slow 2'); these are items which suggest the possibility of the banks of the Rhee being used for carted traffic. After many separate lettings the sluice-house in Snargate belonging to New Romney was sold in 1452-53. The fate at this time of the Rhee between Snargate and Old Romney, whether drained or undrained, remains obscure, but the closure of the Rhee between Old and New Romney can be dated closely. By 143 1, the 'land between the walls' of the Rhee offered pasture; two men of the Marsh put their sheep to graze only to be distrained by the men of the Port. In what was evidently regarded as a test-case, William Kene agreed to pay for his occupation of the land, and the Port jurats agreed to let the same parcel to him and to his assigns. In this way the title of the Portsmen to the land was re-stated. A few years later, there appear in the accounts several items of land and pasture at rent 'between the walls', and these items recur at intervals for the rest of the century. Among them, leases of pasture from Ilesbridge to New Romney (1437-38) and between Ilesbridge and Old Romney bridge (1438-39) show that the channel recommended by Nicholas de Hadlo in 1258 had now effectively dried up. New Romnty and the 'River of Newenden' The harbour sluice built by Gerard Matthyssonne poses as many questions as the one which it replaced. It was sited near Jeffs Saltcote and not very far from the Quenhalle, but these names have disappeared (see, however, Scott Robertson 1880, 279). It provided a convenient passage to the salt-marsh beyond, so much so that the way could be closed and payment exacted. Thus men carrying and riding beyond the Sluice in 'sprot- time' pay 6s Od (1414-15). Some years later, John Bate pays 4s Od for going beyond the Sluice and for his pasture on the salt-marsh, 20s Od, and John Harneys pays one bushel of white salt (1427-28). For as long as these comings and goings persisted, tracks must have converged on an entry point into the marsh made possible by the Sluice. The first edition of the OS 1 : 10560 maps shows that in the nineteenth century the land known as Romney Salts lay well to the east of the Dengemarsh Sewer; and the 1562-63 survey of the common lands of Romney placed the Sextry Salts, which did not belong to Romney, on the west side of the Romney salt-marsh (Scott Robertson 1880, 270-1). West of the Dengemarsh Sewer, the lands attached to Belgar had been extensively reclaimed by the tenants of Bilsington Priory, as is shown by the 1381 terrier (Neilson 1928, 207-9). Thus there is a strong indication that Matthyssonne's sluice controlled the outflow from Dengemarsh. Since this was known as the Great Sluice, however, it may have controlled more than one watercourse. West of the Lydd-Ilesbridge road is a tract of land once known as King's Marsh which is now drained in three directions, westwards by the White Kemp, southwards by the Jury's Gut and north- eastwards by the Cutter's Bridge Sewers. It is this north- east flow, bridged by the Lydd road, which would have led barely half a mile further on to Linkhook, and so to the Sluice. If this Great Sluice was intended to function in the same way as its predecessor, that is, to raise the level of water in the harbour channel at crucial periods and assist vessels leaving on the ebb, as has been argued, then Matthyssonne must have sought as large a catchment area as possible, and this could easily have included the drainage from the land of King's Marsh. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence about what was intended, or about the actual construction of the Sluice. So far, nothing has been discovered of Gerard Matthyssonne's life before or after his work at Romney. His name may be written in one of the lists of safe- conducts to trade in this country issued to foreign merchants. Aliens were also granted permits to reside. Among these, licensed "to inhabit the realm peaceably and enjoy their goods", were three men who had been born in the district of Litge and who were living c. 1430 in Appledore and Romney Marsh (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1429-36, 569, 572, 583). Items such as these are one aspect of the strong trading links which existed between the Cinque Ports and the Low Countries. They suggest that the employment of a Hollander by Romney Corporation was an informed choice, based on the recognition that advanced techniques ofwater manage- 139 ment were known and practised in the countries bordering the Rhine delta. This is a topic which lies outside the scope of the present paper. The Rhee Channel aboue Snargate What was happening upstream along the Rhee in the early fifteenth century is more conjectural at present. Given the evidence of reclamation in the neighbourhood of Fairfield, Snargate and Appledore (Dugdale 1662, 86), it seems probable that from c. 1400 the flow of inland and tidal water reaching Snargate from the direction ofAppledore was diminishing year by year. On the other hand, the Speringbrook drainage, possibly joined by that of the Sedbrook, would probably have continued along the Rhee (subject perhaps to the operation of the Snargate sluice). After the closure of the Rhee at Old Romney, an outlet for this discharge may have been found by making an exit from the Rhee upstream of Old Romney (possibly into what is now the Cutters Bridge Petty Sewer), or else by making the Appledore Gutt leading into the Appledore estuary just below Appledore. By the middle of the sixteenth century, as an order made by the commissioners of sewers for Kent shows, the latter outfall was replaced by a course across Woodruff to an outlet lower down the estuary. From that time, the landowners of the Five Waterings of Romney Marsh were to be responsible for the combined discharges of their waterings at one exit across the Rhee at Arrowhead Gutt and so by a further pinnock and gutt into the sea (L.P. Hy V111 1544, 172). In 1452, some years after the sluice at Snargate ceased to be mentioned in the Port's accounts, New Romney sold property in Snargate. Yet, as indicated by the customary duty of the Port bailiff to act as coroner, New Romney retained its jurisdiction along the Rhee. No doubt more than one consideration gave rise to this tenacity; the main justification, however, is likely to have been a continuing use of the banks of the Rhee to accommodate traffic. Such a use would have served several purposes. Between Snargate and Old Romney, side roads reached the Rhee from lands, including the innings of Baldwin and St. Thomas, which had been the concern ofJohn de Lovetot in 1288. As subsequent inquisitions showed, roads were not necessarily present across newly reclaimed land to the shore of the Appledore estuary: to maintain new innings, ad hoc access had to be provided. Thus the banks of the Rhee would have continued to offer a useful route for the export of corn, wool and dairy produce from the ecclesiastical holdings lying to the south. New Romney itself had reason to value a direct route to the upper reaches of the Appledore estuary and the margins of the Weald. Near Appledore, the Port Liberty extended over the lower slopes of Redhill, one of several sites along the estuary where ships were built and rigged. In 1400-01, New Romney bought a barge in Smallhythe, and there is a later mention, in 141 7, of the town having sent "our ship" to 'Apuldreflet' for re- 140 Eleanor Vollans fitting. But wider interests were involved than the trading concerns of the Port and those using its harbour. The administration of drainage on both sides of the Rhee entailed the regular meeting of jurats and an unremitting inspection of banks and sea walls. To the journeys of the marsh bailiffs were added those of the king's commissioners, charged with one aspect or another of coastal defence. All these interests would have gained by the use of the Rhee as the king's highway. There remains the question of how the corridor between Appledore and Snargate (Fig. 1 1.3) came to be defined as part of the Port Liberty; in other words, of how New Romney's jurisdiction established or re- established itself within fixed limits. The shape of the corridor, with its irregular outlines and varying width, suggests that it was of composite origin. Towards Snargate, winding bends preserve the form of an early channel; towards Appledore, relatively straight portions may have incorporated the forelands of banks or causeways. Flanking as it did the Liberty of Romney Marsh, which lay to the north, this zone of transit must have been increasingly constricted by enclosures in the Woodruff lands to the south. Somehow, during the fifteenth century, the corridor came to be accepted as a part of the common lands of New Romney and, with the rest of the Rhee, it was referred to as 'the land between the walls'. As such it was formally granted to the town by Elizabeth I in 1563 (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1560-63, 499). Conclusion The link between Romney and Appledore, which owed its origin to the 'river of Newenden', had a lasting effect upon the geography of the Marsh as a whole. The Liberty of Romney Marsh proper, of which the beginning dates back to the mid-thirteenth century, was made to terminate along the Rhee. 'The land between the walls' running from Romney harbour to the old cliff- line at Appledore was granted formally to New Romney by Elizabeth I, and the boundary of the Port Liberty, thus defined, has persisted into the present century. In summarizing the history of the 'river of Newenden', subsequently known as the Rhee, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, three sections can be recognised, each with a distinctive history. These sections respectively link New Romney harbour to Old Romney, Old Romney to Snargate, and Snargate to Appledore. 1. An artificial channel, from Old Romney to the harbour, was planned in 1258 and was constructed then or soon afterwards. Part of the plan was to build a sluice towards the harbour end of the channel to keep out the sea. The harbour sluice of c. 1400 was sited near Islesbridge, and on the assumption that it fulfilled the function intended in 1258, this would have been the limit of the flowing tide. Boats making the passage upstream to Snargate, and perhaps too even those moving downstream, would have needed to be poled or rowed, or towed from the banks, and this in turn would have lent importance to the maintenance of a path and the right of passage along the banks. The closing of the Rhee below Old Romney is closely dated. It followed the completion of the new sluice c. 1412-15, sited at or near the exit of the Dengemarsh Sewer into the Romney estuary. About this time, digging round the Islesbridge sluice and in the Rhee came to an end. In and after 1438, the 'land between the walls' from the harbour to Islesbridge and Islesbridge to Old Romney was leased regularly for pasture. 2. Between Snargate and Old Romney, the Rhee consists of three or four almost straight lengths, each meeting the next at an angle little short of 180 degrees, and the whole consistent with having been planned and dug in assigned portions. It cannot have been built later than the Old Romney-harbour channel which forms its continuation, and may have been made much earlier. Some support for the latter view is found in the absence of documentation. An oblique reference may lie concealed in complaints about the king's eschaetor (Richard de Clifford) having extracted sums of money from the manor ofAldington to pay for 'the king's work', which is otherwise unspecified. The complaints relate to the period 1270-74 and are recorded in the Rotuli Hundredorurn. Yet supposing that the king's work was indeed directed to the channel between Snargate and Old Romney, it might as easily have been concerned with improvement as with construction. Nevertheless, the role of the king, not only as ruler responsible for the defence of the Kentish coast but also as feudal lord in Aloesbridge hundred, needs further consideration. (See also Tatton-Brown 1988, eds.). 3. Between Appledore and Snargate, in the marshes swept by the storms of the later thirteenth century, the course of the 'river of Newenden' has been lost, perhaps without trace. The recognition by the Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, and the Abbot of Robertsbridge, in an agreement of 1390-1400 (Dugdale 1662,86), that some boundary marks between the two townships had been obliterated long ago by the sea, speaks plainly. Edward 111's licence of 1337, for the filling-in of an old trench, showed that shipping made use of whatever channel was open. It seems probable that New Romney's interest attached itself to the new channel without need of formal permission from the king: in principle, the right of passage on a tidal river was open to all. But there is no evidence that Romney claimed the banks of the channel along which shipping passed; between Appledore and Snargate its jurisdiction was not fixed territorially as it was below Snargate. During this period of changing shorelines and fluctuating reclam- ation there was every opportunity for conflict between the Marshmen and the men of the Port. In 1259, the boundary of Romney Marsh proper had been fixed along the Appledore embankment, and this is the line which appears to have withstood the storm flooding of 1287-88. The Appledore banks continued to protect the Marsh long after this date, but details of their history, especially the early and late chapters, need to be sought in the records of the ecclesiastical lords of the Marsh. Until this has been done, the alignment of 1259 must remain uncertain, and the possibility of later re- alignment has to be recognized. New Romney and the 'River of Newenden' References (Superscript numbers in the text refer to unpublished sources, listed below.) Published sources Calendar of the Close Rolls Calendar of the Inquisitions Post hforlem Calendar of the Patent Rolls Charter of Romney Marsh (printed by J. Wolfe 1597, rep. Dover Chronicle 1854) Feudal Aids 1284-1431,3, Kent-Norfolk. (Record Commission, 1904) Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry V111 Rotuli Chartarunl in Turri Londonensi asseruati 1 199-1 2 16 (Record Commission, 1837) Rotuli Hundr~dorum, 1, 200-36 Kent. (Record Commission 1812) Historical Manuscripts Commission, (1874) Rep. 4, 424-28, 43942, Corporation of New Romney Historical Manuscripts Commission 11876), Rep. 5, 533-53, Corporation of New Romney Historical Manuscripts Commission ( 19251, Rep. 77, pt. l, 33-1 71, Robertsbridge Abbey Brooks, N. P. 1981: Romney Marsh in the early Middle Ages. In Rowley, R. T. (editor), The Evolution of Marshland Landscapes (Oxford Dept. for External Studies) 74-94. Britton, C. E. 1937: A Meteorological Chronolo~ to AD 1485, Meteorological Office, Geophys. Mem. 70. (London, HMSO). Cunliffe, B. W. 1980: The evolution ofRomney Marsh: a preliminary statement. In Thompson, F. H. (editor), Archaeology and Coastal Change (London, Soc. Antiquaries), 37-55. Davis, A. H. (translator) 1934: Thorne's Chronicle of St. iiugustine's Abbey. (Oxford, Blackwell). Du Boulay, F. R. H. 1966: The Lordship of Canterbury: an essay on mrdiroal society. (London, Nelson). Dugdale, W. 1662: The Imbanking and Drayning of divers Fenns and Marshes. (London). Flower, C. T. (editor) 1915: Public Works in Medieval Law, pt.]. Selden Society 32 (London, Quaritch). Flower, C. T. (editor) 1923: Public Works in Medieval Law, pt.2. Selden Society 40 (London, Quaritch) . Forsett, J. 1564: Custumal of New Romney. End paper in Kent Arch. Soc. Records 16. Green, R. D. 1968: Soils ofRomney Marsh. Soil Survey Gt. Britain, Bull. 4. (Harpenden). Hull, F. (editor) 1966: A Calendar ofthe White andBlack Books of the Cinque Ports. 1432-1955. Kent Arch. Soc. Records 19, and Historical Manuscripts Commission (joint publication series 5) (London, HMSO). McGowan, A. 1981: Tiller and LVhipstaff: Development of the Sailing Ship 1400-1700. (London, Nat. Maritime Mus.). Morgan, P. (editor) 1983: Domesday Rook, 1, Kent. (Phillimore). Murray, K. M. E. 1935: The Constitutional Histoy of the Cinque Ports. (Manchester). Murray, K. M. E. (editor) 1945: Register of Daniel Rough. (Kent Arch. Soc. Records 16). Neilson, N. (editor) 1928: Cartulay and Terrier of Bilsington Priory, Kent. (London, British Academy Records 7). Richardson, H. G. 1919: Early history of the Commissions of Sewers. Eng. Hist. Reu. 34, 385-92. Scott Robertson, W. A. 1880: The Cinque Port Liberty of Romney. Arch. Cant. 13, 261-80. Smith, A. H. 1956: English Place-name Elements. English Place-name Society 25 and 26. (Cambridge). Smith, R. A. L. 1943: Canterbury Cathedral Priory: a Study in Monastic Administration. (Cambridge). Tatton-Brown, T. W. T. 1988: The topography of Walland Marsh between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. In this volume, chapter 9. Teichman Derville, M. 1936: The Level and Liber9 of'Romney Marsh. (Ashford). Ward, G. 1940: Discussion in Lewis W. C'. and Balchin W. G. V. Past sea-levels at Dungeness. Gtog. JOU~N. 96, 258-85. Willianlson, J. A. 1959: The English Channel. (London, Collins). Unpublished sources l. Magd. Coll. (Oxford) Maps 24 (information supplied by the editors). 2. KAO U1506 P1/45. 3. 4. 5. BL Cotton Galba E iv f. 152. BL Cotton Augustus 1 i 25. PRO Just. itin. 358 memb. 20d. 6. PRO Ancient Petition 3402.