The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650

During the mid 16th century much of Rye's relative prosperity was built on the town's possession of the only major harbour of refuge between Portsmouth and the Thames. The harbour was probably doomed eventually to succumb to the effects of silting and of longshore drifting caused by the wave action along the Sussex coast, but it might have taken longer to succumb had the volume of tidal water flowing in and out of Rye Camber, and from the rivers Rother, Tillingham and Brede, remained sufficient to produce an effective scour. The intervention of man disturbed nature's rough equilibrium. Asked, in 1638, to explain the deterioration of the town's harbour, the 'men of most experience in the town of Rye' responded emphatically that 'The inning of salt marshes from time to time, for private men's gain and profit, hath been the utter decay of the harbour of Rye, which had certainly been good to this day if the salts had never been inned." Marshland drainage was evidently beneficial for some farmers, though in any given case its impact was more than likely adversely to affect others, but it was not good for estuarine harbours. Inning on the margins of rivers reduced their size, which diminished the volume of water entering on the floodtide. This in turn limited the effectiveness of the tidal scour, which caused rivers and marsh channels to silt up. Medieval inning in certain parts of coastal Sussex had often had unforeseen consequences, as had dam and sluice construction (Dugdale 1662, 20, 83, 87-89; Brandon 1971; Farrant 1972; Eddison 1985). A certain amount of inning and sluice building had taken place in the marshland around Rye during the 15th and early 16th centuries, the effects of which quickly became obvious to Rye corporation. A draft bill for the towns of Rye and Winchelsea in the Parliament of 1548 which sought, unsuccessfully, the construction of a number of sluices to increase the scouring action of the ebb tide, cited inning * In quoting from original sources spelling has been modernizt regarded as beginning on 1st January. of marshland adjoining the Rother levels as the cause 'whereby insufficient water is taken up to scour the harbour at ebb tide'. The bill also referred to the unhelpful actions of landowners who released water from sluices at the lowest ebb, and to the damage done by the casting of ballast into the harb~ur.~ That legislation was enacted covering the comparatively minor matter of ballast discharges, whereas no progress was made on the substantive proposals, which might have damaged local landed interests, was indicative of a pattern which was often to repeat itself in the ensuing century. During the mid 16th century the number and scale of reclamation projects rapidly increased (see Figs. 1 1.1 and 11.2). According to an enquiry in 1561 inning had been taking place over the previous 30 years 'on ground on every side (of the Rother) up at least 12 miles and more'. As a result, it was said, 'Appledore, which hath been agoodly town (is) now decayed by reason the water is gone from it, and also from Reading and Smalledd (sic), which were always replenished with shipwrights, where always a great number of ships, crayers and boats were made, where at this present there cannot be made a boat of 20 tons, by reason of inning.' Further reclamation work was in hand on the west side of Rye at Udimore and Peasmarsh. Groins and piles had also been set up between the Camber and Guldeford marshes, where the Guldeford family were continuing work begun at least a century earlier. The enquiry concluded that 'insatiable covetous inning' was responsible for the 'wonderfully decayed' state of the harbour. A survey the following year claimed the channel of the Rother between Reading and Rye had, in some places, narrowed from 200-300 feet to 16-24 feet. According to Rye fishermen in 1570, 'the shore weareth lower, the Camber being gone and worn away, therefore the force and rage of the sea hath more power to fall in here than ever heretofore it hath had ... ?d throughout. Dates are given in Old Style, but with the year The Impact of Marshland Draina !ge on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 We lose and are damaged among our sea craft, for want of good harbouring, in one foul night more than we are able in one whole year to get up again.' 139 Rye's town clerk, Robert Convers, graphically summed up the situation as follows, 'the revenues of the corporation are very small and not Soon, the fishermen concluded, they, their wives, families and craft would be gone 'to seek refuge and succour in some other place', unless some 'speedy remedy' were found.3 A holding operation was mounted while more ambitious schemes were put forward in the later 16th century for the wholesale renovation of the harbour (HMC Rye, 58, 64, 89-90,99-102, 108). But, costed at between £2,000 and £5,000, they were wholly impractical without considerable aid from central government, which was not f~rthcoming.~ In 1596, amidst predictions that 'the channel will shortly swarve up . . . and become so shallow that no ship, bark or boat will or can be harboured there7, the corporation gambled on a scheme to make a cut to divert the waters of the Rother through marshland to the north of the town into the Tillingham, in the hope that with 'the force of the water thereof the late increased sands may be reared and carried away, and the said channel deepened'. It was an expensive gamble. Irate landowners had to be compensated, the sluice for the scheme alone was contracted for £600, and by mid 1599 a total of over £1,400 had been spent. To pay for the project the corporation utilized forced labour, levied local rates, borrowed money, sold off property and secured a licence to gather a benevolence from the inhabitants of 'divers' maritime counties. With the corporation subsequently unable to repay its debts from ordinary sources of income, more property had to be sold off in the early 17th century to satisfy creditors. This would have mattered less had not the scheme failed. In 1610 the sluice was di~mantled.~ Harbour deterioration was an important though by no means the only factor contributing to the rapid contraction of the economy of Rye after 1585. Since corporate revenue at Rye had long been more heavily dependent on taxation of trading activity than was the case in the majority of English provincial towns, the adverse impact of marked reductions in the levels of such activity on the amount of money flowing into the accounts of the land and sea chamberlains was particularly severe. To counter this the Rye assembly increased both the range and rates of taxes imposed on trading activity in the town during the first decade of the 17th century, but although these measures did something to cushion the immediate blows, in any medium-term perspective they could only deepen the economic crisis engulfing the town by further discouraging trade. Similarly, the wholesale liquidation of assets these measures accompanied sacrificed future sources of regular income in favour of short-term relief. As a result, during the early 17th century the town found it increasingly difficult even to meet the costs of routine but expensive harbour maintenance, which in turn gave a further twist to the vicious spiral of economic decline. In a letter to the Earl of Northampton, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, sufficient for the many charges of the same . . . and also for that the town and corporation is already very poor and greatly impoverished by reason of the great charges expended of late in and about the former project for the amendment of the haven. And that the land within the said corporation is of very small extent and the houses and tenements now inhabited very meanly rented it seemeth unto us a thing intolerable or rather impossible to levy upon the said corporation or of the lands and tenements within the same any proportional sum of money for the effectual amendment of the ruins and ruptures late made by the sea, whereby the danger might be avoided and the said town preserved.' By 1610, according to the mayor, the town was 'not able any longer, by reason of our poverty, to buy or provide any timber or planks to amend our jetties'. There remained, of course, the option of a general cesse, to which the town did indeed resort. But there was a limit to the number of general cesses the Assembly was prepared to contemplate, not least because freemen had no great desire to increase the fiscal burden on them~elves.~ The verdict of a jury enquiring into 'recent hindrances to shipping' at Rye in September 1597 gives some idea of the scale of reclamation projects then in progress around Rye. The jury found a total of 719 acres 'by estimation . . . of late enclosed', together with 600 acres recently inned 'near unto Lydd'. In addition, 13 dams had been 'lately erected'.' There is every reason to suppose that these figures indicate the general level of activity in other periods for which comparable evidence has not survived. In 1635 Sir Kenelm Digby gave his assessment in private correspondence with Sir John Coke, 'Having lain windbound here four or five days I went about the town and country adjacent and had some of the chief of the place still with me. By them and my own observation I perceive there is much land, above 20,000 acres, gotten from the sea out of the king's channel. It is as good land as any in Sussex; for it is let at 30 shillings, and the worst at 20 shillings the acre.' The figure of 20,000 acres may be taken without too much seriousness, but the claim that 'much land' had been reclaimed cannot be dismissed (HMC Coke, 93). For a number of reasons Rye found it extremely difficult to resist land reclamation projects. The commission of sewers 'for the preservation of Rye haven7, granted in 1576 and re-granted in 1604, had powers to intervene in all matters affecting, or which might affect the condition of the harbour over a wide area extending upstream to Appledore, Newenden, Robertsbridge, Udimore and Peasmarsh. But the commission was far from being under control of the corporation. In reality the most prominent voices on the commission were those of powerful landed 140 decayed harborough I of Rye, 1594. Philip Symondson. ; Reproduced by permrssion of Rye I Town Council, with whom copy rights remain. Stephen Hipkin '.-- - Ag. 11.1. The P -- . --= LA A -.:k? ,B , . - v . . ..- I.., .:.- ... ,- : ." I ;l- ..^.. . - . .,:-f .X, <-.- - , . " I.,. , - T:, : . , : ' J:" families, many of whom, like the Tuftons and the Culpepers, cited in June 1604, were themselves responsible for the inning and enclosing of marshland not far from Rye, to the detriment of the harbour. The commission in session (watercourt) issued various orders to 'cut up or cause to be cut up' offending dams and 'to abate and throw down walls' on pain of heavy fines, but Rye perceived 'many enemies which go about to cross our commission and seek to inn divers salt marshes, to the great prejudice and overthrow of our harbour', hence confrontations were not infrequent. In November 1595 Robert and Alexander Shepherd of Peasmarsh, the latter subsequently a member of the commission for the preservation of Rye haven, complained to the Privy Council that the mayor and jurats of Rye, in conjunction with the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, had prevented them from repairing a breach which the sea had made in the walls of their marsh, on the grounds that the breach would greatly amend Rye haven. Consequently, they claimed, the houses and mills built by them on the marsh when it was enclosed (value £100) were in danger of ruin. Nevertheless, orders, injunctions and opportunist measures, even if they had the support of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (which was not invariably the case), were not enough to prevent land reclamation. In 1604 the mayor and jurats of Rye were again suspicious of the intentions of Alexander Shepherd, and fully expected him to use his 'best endeavours to incense and possess such knights and gentlemen as (he) can win and gain ... to cross our proceedings in our commission of sewers'. The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 They were not mistaken, for by October Shepherd had begun to 'inn certain salt marshes a mile in length against Rye haven7, a total of 'about 200 acres'. On this occasion Rye succeeded in frustrating Shepherd's plan, but it required a full scale enquiry to do so, since Shepherd simply ignored the orders of the local assembly, and the fact remained that in the long term the moral economy to which Rye appealed on such occasions could not withstand the drive to agrarian improvement by local landowners (CSPD 1595-1597, 137; HMC Rye, 131).' Moreover, if the corporation wanted to prevent inning it also wanted the widest and most influential support for its campaign to secure financial aid to renovate the harbour. Proffering himself as a candidate for the town in the keenly contested parliamentary election in the spring of 1640 Sir John Culpeper showed himself acutely aware of Fig. 11.2. Interpretation of Symondson's map of 1594 on the base of OS 1:50,000 Second Series. what Rye wanted and eager to clear himself of the damaging allegations of his opponents. On 30th January 1640 he outlined his position to the corporation. 'I must clear a jealousy which, as I hear, some have fancied, that I thereby intend to taken an opportunity to inn some salts which I am owner of at Bromehill. In truth I may now without vanity remember that I have been an actor in head and purse to lay open 1,500 acres of salts for the benefit of your harbour, but never inned any. And that I was an opposer of that proposition which your whole town at the hearing before the late Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice protested against as most dangerous to your haven. Therefore I may justly hope that I have given no occasion of prejudice in that particular. I have often declared my opinion that the inning of salts hath produced (as a necessary consequence) the decay of your outfall.' 142 Stephen Hipkin As a piece of electioneering it could hardly have been bettered, and it contributed in no small measure to Culpeper's return as one of the two MP's for the town out of an original field of no less than nine candidate^.^ But if occasionally the town found itself being courted, more often the boot was on the other foot, and in general the more resolutely Rye opposed the reclamation projects of influential men, the more it jeopardised their broader backing. The dilemma got more awkward as conditions at Rye deteriorated, sometimes presenting itself in acute form. What, for instance, was Rye to do in November 1629 when John Sackville offered to support a petition 'touching a further gathering for your harbour' if, in return, the town did nothing to obstruct the plans of Peter Farnden of Seddlescombe, who intended to inn some salt marshes 'not far from' Rye? The Rye magistracy well understood the reasons for land reclamation projects; a number of jurats were established rural landowners in their own right. Indeed one or two of the Rye magistracy were clearly torn between their rural and urban interests. Among those presented at a watercourt at Rye in 1604 was John Fowtrell, who had inned marshland and built dams prejudicial to the condition of the harbour. Fowtrell also happened to be the mayor, serving a third term in office when his case came up. He had to put on his mayoral hat and legislate against himself. The Benbrick family was equally ambivalent about land reclamation projects. It was rumoured in the 1620s that Joseph Benbrick intended to 'prize his salt marshes to be inned', but it was not until 1645 that he sought permission from the corporation to 'inn a parcel of salt marshes against the town dike'. Not surprisingly the Assembly 'utterly rejected' Benbrick's plea. Such instances provided an opportunity for outsiders to disclaim responsibility for the decay of the harbour. Late 17th century landowners were to argue that the harbour had been ruined by inning carried out by Rye inhabitants. Their claims were greatly exaggerated, but they contained just enough truth to make it difficult for the corporation to mount an effective response.I0 To complicate matters further, at the beginning of the 17th century there coexisted within the area of jurisdiction of the commission for the preservation of Rye haven no less than five separate commissions of sewers, one for each of the Rother levels, in addition to which Romney Marsh, which was partially drained by the Rother, had its own separate constitution (Rendel 1962). Each of these commissions had specific, self-interested and often conflicting aims. Dealings between commissions, and between the various commissioners and Rye corporation, were frequently acrimonious, with much time spent 'in crossing each others reasons ...p rovoking each others angers and not agreeing upon aim good'." The resulting climate of mutual suspicion, very evident from the tone of much of the correspondence preserved in the Rye corporation general files for the early 17th century, goes a long way towards explaining Rye's wary reaction on first being alerted to the proposal which had emerged by 1608 for a commission for the Upper Levels. In May 1605 the Privy Council reported to Rye on what look very much like preliminary discussions of the scheme to clear the Rother channel which is examined elsewhere (Eddison this volume, 148-163). Stressing its concern for the 'weak estate of the town and haven of Rye' and for the 'miserable condition of so many thousands of inhabitants' the Privy Council wrote of 'some hopeful projects having been of late presented unto us whereby we understand nothing to be more expedient for the present than the preservation and the increase of the brooks and fresh water courses or streams within the river of Rother and the channel of Appledore thereby to maintain a continual fresh current that, strengthened by its own proper weight and swiftness may scour and deepen that channel.' The letter went on to charge Rye corporation with acquainting all commissions of sewers with authority over any watercourses running into the Rother of the Privy Council's intention that all such commissions should 'not only keep and preserve all those brooks, streams or course of freshwater which now hath passage into or through the ... river of Rother, channel of Appledore, or creek called Weynway creek from all manner of stoppage or diversion; but also that they should have especial care by all the art and industry they may to increase and reinforce the same as well by cleansing, scouring and deepening, widening or any other means of helping and perfecting their several currents and passages where need shall be, or by drawing any other streams or watercourses to have issue into or through the said river of Rother, channel of Appledore or Weynway creek, if by their good endeavours the same may conveniently be effected; until upon a new view of the place for our better satisfaction of the means of remedy propounded we may resolve of some fit course of further proceeding.'I2 By 1608 the commissioners for the Newenden Levels had approached those of Shirley Moor and Ebony with a proposal that the three be joined in a single 'commissions general' so that they might control the Rother 'as far as the issue of the Five Waterings' in order to co-ordinate efforts to drain the wet lands. (The outfall of the Five Waterings Sewer of Romney Marsh can be seen on Figure 1 1.1, on the east bank of the Rother, opposite Wittersham Level.) The potential advantages of widening and scouring the Rother must have been as apparent to those interested in improving Rye harbour as to those interested in the effective economic exploitation of the Upper Levels. Yet, for reasons made clear in correspondence during June 1608, Rye corporation attempted to frustrate the proposal for a new commission. On 15th June Sir William Twysden wrote to Rye, sharply rebuking the corporation for being inattentive to developments upstream and informing it of The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 the approaching 'commissions general'. 'Since', Twysden continued, 'none of you were present at that agreement, and I know not by how much it may prejudice you by extinguishing the commission you now have in being, I moved the Lord Warden to stay the taking forth of the new until you might have knowledge and consider whether it will no way prejudice you, which he did accordingly.' Twysden urged the corporation to 'consider well whether you were not best take the commission forth and to have it in your custody and in your pleasure at any time to prevent your harm, rather than elsewhere in the hands of others.' 143 realized. The new commission CO-existed alongside rather than superseded the commission for the preservation of Rye harbour, and, presumably in recognition of the perilous state of the Rye economy and of the fact that all available funding needed to be spent directly on the harbour, Rye was not forced to contribute to the massive sums expended on attempts to clear the Rother channel between 1613 and 1624 (Eddison this volume, 152). Indeed, Twysden's subsequent advice to the corporation is an interesting example of political realism: if inning was going to take place it would be best to try to gain some advantage from it. In June 1609 he urged Rye to petition the crown for 'some benefit to be had in time to come of such lands as shall be inned or gained out of the channel of Rother by reason of a dam that is in short time to be made in the said The corporation replied two days later, 'we stand in great fear that if this new commission of sewers be granted for the draining of their wet lands it will be greatly prejudicial to us, in regard our commission formerly granted will be by the same extinguished. And then such salt marshes as are near unto our channel will be inned by the owners thereof, to the utter overthrow of our haven.' Allied to this concern about the possible dissolution of a forum in which the representatives of Rye might at least try to exert a restraining influence on local land reclamation projects were fears that any large-scale operations to clear the Rother resulting from the decisions of the proposed new commission for the Upper Levels would mean significant taxation on Rye's inhabitants at a time when 'our corporation is so poor and so greatly indebted, having spent all our revenues already upon the amending of our harbour, as we are not able in any manner of ways to effect the same.' As has already been suggested, there is abundant evidence to support the contention that although Rye complained frequently and vigorously about the scale of poverty and economic contraction the town was experiencing in the early 17th century, it was not greatly exaggerating the real state of affairs.13 The corporation formally registered its objections, arguing that the commission for the preservation of Rye haven 'would serve their turns as well as ours . . . for that all those places which their new commission should extend unto are included in our commission', an objection which, if upheld, would have reduced fears of a new round of more or less unrestricted inning in the immediate hinterland of the town and of the external imposition of taxation. Rye's objections did not prove decisive, but they may have been taken into account, for although a joint commission for the three levels, known as the Commission for the Upper Levels, was issued in April 1609, neither of the fears Rye had associated with the proposal were river near unto Appledore according to a commission of late granted to that effect.' Specifically he suggested a petition for 'all lands contained within the banks of the channel called Appledore channel between Oxney ferry' (which led from the north-east corner of the Isle towards Appledore) 'and the low water mark at the sea near unto the black shore, which are at every tide flowed and covered with the sea water . . . and which may be won . . . either by straightening of the channel or by directing of the same out of his now course (sic), to be given by his majesty unto your town of Rye and to be conveyed ... unto the only use of the haven and harbour of Rye.' Such realism had an obvious appeal, and in July 1609 Twysden wrote to the mayor and jurats informing them that the petition they had duly submitted had been granted, but the corporation was still awaiting confirmation of the grant in May 1610, and it appears that the grant may never have been confirmed.14 According to Kenelm Digby in 1635, Rye was still seeking to have 'some yearly allowance made out of the drained lands towards the preservation of the harbour' and had 'petitioned the king and the Lords that 1,000 acres.. . should be allotted to the benefit of the town for the maintenance of the port'. Exactly which lands Rye had in mind at this date is not clear, but evidence dating from April 1636 in the form of a petition to the Privy Council, from amongst others the Earl of Winchelsea and the Earl of Thanet, suggests that Rye had applied for a grant of lands 'anciently' rather than recently inned (HMC Coke, 93-95; CSPD 1635-1636,396-397). Barely two years after its establishment the plans of the commission for the Upper Levels, as well as those of the commission for Rye harbour, were directly threatened by the grant, in 161 1, of a new commission of sewers 'for the whole shire' of Sussex. This commission, granted at the behest of a number of Sussex nobility and gentry, not only extended to the whole county and superseded the commission for Rye harbour (which otherwise still had three years to run), but had also excluded representatives 144 Stephen Hipkin of Rye corporation. Under its aegis, fresh inning of marshland 'near unto Rye' and likely, in the view of the mayor and jurats, to cause further harbour deterioration, had already begun by June. Replying to the corporation's request for help the Earl of Northampton explained that he had already intervened on behalf of the commissioners for the Upper Levels 'to further the renewing of their commission upon the river of Appledore and the drowned ground around Newenden, made frustrate by the aforesaid general commission, as the best means to finish the works in part begun there, and prevent anything by the said general commission to be done to the prejudice thereof.' While promising to assist Rye in withstanding 'the mischief that may ensue to your town by those innings', Northampton also warned the mayor to tread carefully and especially to 'have regard that you no way cross the course taken on Appledore channel for bringing down the waters of Newenden unto you, which will be to your advantage.' Northampton's comment may reflect not only a clear recognition of the potential benefit for Rye harbour should the programme of works envisaged by the commissioners for the Upper Levels prove successful, but also an awareness of the capacity of Rye corporation to offend powerful landed interests, and on occasions even those with whom, like the commissioners for the Upper Levels, the town ought to have been able to forge a temporary alliance. It was no mere oversight which led the commission 'for the whole shire' to exclude representatives of Rye from their deliberations. The frequency of Rye's objections to land reclamation schemes profoundly irritated such energetic adversaries as William Shepherd, who had inherited his father's fractious relationship with Rye, and there was the danger that too many complaints might prove counter-productive. As one well-wisher pointed out in July 1612, if the Rye magistracy wished seriously to limit the extent of damaging change then it needed to provide 'forcible and weighty objections' and free itself 'from all aspersions and imputations of unjust complaints that otherwise may be cast upon you7." If the corporate voice of Rye sometimes sounded shrill by the early 17th century this was at least partly the product of weakness and dependency. From its own resources the town could at best do no more than reduce the speed of harbour deterioration, though in addition to any expectations raised by the schemes of the commission for the Upper Levels there were occasional bouts of optimism that substantial improvements might be achieved with little financial outlay. In 1610 John Stoneham, 'an ingenious workman' recently employed at Dover harbour, was said to have some impressive ideas on how to improve things 'without charge to the town of Rye', and in 1616 Lord Zouche, Northampton's successor as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, was corresponding with Dutch harbour experts about the situation at Rye (CSPD 1611-1618, 201, 388; HMC Rye, 145, 150). But little if anything was done.I6 Most of the time, however, the inhabitants of Rye continued to believe, as they had since the mid 16th century, that salvation could only be achieved by means of substantial external financial assistance. Hence, strenuous efforts continued to be made to enlist aid from central government, and much time was spent in campaigning for parliamentary legislation which would provide the wherewithal for the major remedial works required. But Parliament proved a great disappointment. In 1601 Rye instructed its MPS to 'proffer a bill ... towards the amendment of our decayed haven', but nothing came either of this or of a further attempt in 1604. Dover meanwhile obtained a renewal of the act granting tunnage for seven years 'for the repairing of Dover haven' in 1604 (Kepler 1976). Efforts to secure a similar act for Rye failed in 1598, 1610 and again in 1621, and a fruitless attempt was made in 1624 to secure an act transferring the control and profits of Dungeness lighthouse to the town (Gruenfelder 1969; Russell1979,37-38; HMC Rye, 144- 146, 166-171; CSPD 1619-1623, 222; CSPD 1623- 1625, 184-185).'7 By 1618 over £2,000 had been spent on work carried out under the auspices of the commission for the Upper Levels upstream from Appledore, yet without evident benefit to any of the levels (Eddison this volume, 155). There is certainly no reason to suppose that Rye benefited from the results of this work either. Indeed, to judge from the number of petitions issued by Rye corporation around 16 18 - and from the unprecedentedly bleak language employed in them - a further qualitative deterioration in the condition of the harbour had taken place.'" It was not until February 1628, when Rye obtained a brief from Charles I to collect alms and charitable benevolence, that the corporation's efforts to secure some external assistance for harbour restoration were rewarded (HMC Rye, 181, 189). It was a hard won victory; the town had first to borrow money from a jurat to meet the expenses of procuring the brief, and then to suffer a long dispute with the then mayor, John Sharp, over its administration. Moreover, in terms of income generated it was at best a qualified success. The corporation had already 'caused the harbour to be surveyed by men of best skills and experience . . . in whose judgement less than f 3,000 will not defray the necessary charges of the timber and other work to be employed about the same.' The licence to collect extended over the whole of southern England, but collecting brief money was no easy matter. Giles Green, who had been employed as such a collector for Weymouth in 1620, had found the job 'so laborious as I protest were it not a work of charity I could not be hired to do the same'. He had found it necessary to solicit the ministers of the parish and county to 'stir up the people's devotion to be liberal in the alms, who will otherwise be very sparing, in regard the frequent use of briefs is The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 nowadays much abused'. Information is too sparse to make any reliable assessment of the sums collected since the money was directly spent on the harbour without passing through the land chamberlain's account, but the evidence that does survive suggests that the total was nearer to £300 than to £3,000. Even so, the money did enable some repairs to be carried out, perhaps bringing a temporary improvement in the condition of sea walls, jetties, groins and sluice^.'^ A description of Rye harbour in 1677 placed special emphasis on the impact of recent land drainage by means of sluices in the Upper Levels, suggesting that it had seriously diminished the extent of good navigation. Robert Culpeper, a merchant of Rye, writing at the end of the 17th century and confirming this emphasis, noted the first sluice across Appledore channel in 1623, and across Wittersham channel in 1646, with others following at fairly regular intervals for the rest of the century (Andrews 1956). It seems safe to assume that the scheme for a non- 145 Appledore channel from Thorney Wall to the sea would swarve up and impede navigation, and reports reaching commissioners meeting at Tenterden in May 1634 suggested that this was already happening. The magistracies of Rye and Tenterden later claimed that when the commissioners for the Upper Levels first discussed their proposals with the towns' representatives they had been assured that far from damaging the harbour and disrupting navigation the proposed scheme would improve both. Such assurances were still being given by the Newenden (i.e. Upper Levels') commissioners in March 1635, along with requests for patience. 'We may take it for a certain rule' they wrote, navigable sluice across the Rother at Thorney Wall to which Culpeper refers, which was proposed by the commission for the Upper Levels and put into operation in 1623 (Rendel 1962, 65; Eddison this volume, 156) was, in all essentials, the same as an earlier proposal which had been blocked by the Lord Warden in July 16 12 in the wake of representations from the inhabitants of Rye and Tenterden that it could only damage 'the ancient and navigable river of Rother' and impoverish both ports (HMC Rye, 148). It is doubtful whether Rye changed its view between 1612 and 1623, but resistance was softened by political weakness, by offers of compensation for delays caused by loading and unloading goods at Thorney Wall, and perhaps by hopes that the recent shift of emphasis in the work sponsored by the commission of the Upper Levels towards improving the channel downstream from Appledore would bring compensatory benefits to Rye. In so far as such hopes were entertained they were to be disappointed. By the end of the 1620s the commissioners for the Upper Levels were deciding, in view of the problems and costs involved in their attempts to clear the Rother channel, to revert to the idea of making a new course for the Rother through the Wittersham Level, an idea which they had promoted, unsuccessfully in the face of resolute opposition from Wittersham, at the beginning of the 17th century. Once again the Wittersham commissioners resisted, and over two years of wrangling ensued before a final agreement was reached, in February 1633, which provided for the re-direction of the Rother through the Wittersham Level (Rendel 1962, 66-69). Although relations between the commission for the Upper Levels and Rye corporation had not always run smoothly, until 1629 both had shared a common interest in improving the existing Rother Channel. But the whole idea of diverting the Rother south of the Isle of Oxney was, from the start, viewed with deep suspicion at Rye. At the very least, one likely consequence of diverting the Rother through the Wittersham Level was that the 'that in the main nothing can be hurtful to the harbour of Rye that is not likewise hurtful to our wet marshes, neither can there anything to be good to the general of the levels but must likewise be good for your harbour; therefore we need the less be jealous of one another. Hitherto there is nothing done but what was done by the hand of God, but when the sea shall be let into the great quantity of low lands of Wittersham, for which we pay so large a rent of purpose to make an indraught, we have no doubt but both we and you shall receive the good we hoped for by our work. Besides our charge and pains, we have had a great deal of patience and we must desire you to have a little, till our work be finished.' But no sooner had the Rother been diverted in 1635 than it was found that navigation to Appledore, Bodiam and beyond was 'greatly prejudiced'. At a rowdy meeting of the commission of sewers at Tenterden on 4th May 1635, in response to complaints - amongst others - from Rye, Appledore, Reading, Smallhythe, Tenterden, Newenden and Bodiam about navigation, it was decided, under the leadership of Sir Walter Roberts and despite the vigorous protests of a group of commissioners led by Sir Thomas Culpeper, that three pends be made in Maytham Wall, the earth bank (dating from the 14th century) which ran across the west end of Wittersham Level and which separated that Level from the Upper Levels, in order to return the Rother to its old course. But after protracted dispute this decision was finally overturned in June 1636 (HMC Rye, 196; CSPD 1635-1636, 28-30). The impact at Rye of the change in the course of the Rother seems to have been mixed. Coastal exports from Rye in the later 1630s do appear to have been adversely affected as the volume of goods that could be conveyed to and from Rye by barge was permanently reduced. On the other hand, the Newenden commissioners had not entirely misled the corporation. In 1638 the 'men of most experience in Rye' did grudgingly admit that although the redirection of the Rother had not prevented harbour deterioration it might have done something to slow the pace of decay.20 Meanwhile inning continued to undermine all attempts to rescue the harbour. 'If it were not prejudicial . . . we should not oppose it', the corporation assured the Duke of 146 Stephen Hipkin Buckinghamz1 in response to his enquiries about a fresh project in November 1626. But 'our ancestors and we have found by experience for our own particulars that inning of lands near and about our harbour have been a principal cause of the decay of our harbour . . .This land which now is intended to be inned, if it be suffered, will be the utter destruction of our harbour and an inducement for the owners of many hundred acres of salt joining near our harbour to inn them, who may as well as they pretend that it will not hurt the same.' When Kenelm Digby stayed at Rye in September 1635 he concluded, in a private letter to Sir John Coke, that 'something must speedily be done for the preservation of the port, else in a few years it will be quite choked up' (HMC Rye, 179-180; HMC Coke, 93-95). As one of the few surviving pieces of relatively disinterested testimony on the condition of the harbour Digby's evidence deserves to be taken seriously. In March 1635 a commission was being organized by the Privy Council to view the haven of Rye and to report on the likely impact of yet another projected round of inning of land near the sea. The Council duly appointed a commission of enquiry which included the jurats of Rye, but by 1635 the big local landowners had had enough and attempted to silence the corporation. A group led by Thomas, Earl of Winchelsea, John, Earl of Thanet, Sir Henry Guldeford and Sir Norton Knatchbull attempted to have the jurats of Rye replaced as commissioners for the harbour by 'three or four knights or gentlemen of the country'. The commission, under the leadership of Sir Edward Hales, nonetheless confirmed in August 1636 that inning had 'conduced to the decay of the harbour' and that a great bank of sand cast up by the sea would shortly cause the haven to 'swarve up' (CSPD 1634-1635,607; CSPD 1635-1636,396-397). In October 1636 booms, buoys and lights had to be set up to guide shipping around the 'great bar' of sand which, according to Rye's 'best experienced seamen' in 1638, had risen 'not less than four feet' within the preceding four yeamZ2 Conflict over land reclamation schemes, and increasingly over the effects of sluice construction, continued to sour relations between the corporation and local landowners during the later 17th century. In 1652, for example, a dispute erupted between Rye and the Wittersham Level commissioners over a dam due to be laid at Knock. The corporation appealed to its MPS to References (Superscript numbers in the text refer to unpublished sources, listed below.) Published sources CSPD Calendars of State Papers, Domestic Various Dates. HMC Coke Historical Manuscripts Commission, 12th Report, Appendix Part 11, Manuscripts of the Earl of Cowper at Melbourne Hall, Derbyshire Vol.11. 1888. intervene on the town's behalf. But in this, as in other similar cases in 1676, 1692 and at the turn of the century, the corporation was thwarted by counter-petitions.23 Rye was still engaged in despairing attempts to get parliamentary aid for the harbour in the early 18th century (JHC 1699-1702,67, 125,314-315,511,541,664,701, 703,778-779). A report by a commission of investigation in 1652 included an optimistic assessment of the condition of the harbour, concluding that 'there may lie afloat at low water 15 or 20 sail of ships . . . and at the same time, further up in the channel may ride afloat at low water 50 or 60 sail' (HMC Rye, 219). The general tone of this report was endorsed a quarter of a century later in a 'brief narrative of the harbour' (Andrews 1956, 3942) which commented that 'it is well known by many yet still living that ... within these 20 years last past and less, more than 20 sail of good ships might ride afloat at low water in the harbour of Rye as high up as the ferry to East Guldeford.' But to those with nothing a little seems much. The harbour of mid 17th century Rye may not have been a 'duckpond' (the term used by contemporaries to describe the Seaford harbour in the 16th century), but, even after some of the conventional rhetoric of petitions has been discounted, the weight of evidence pointing to a sustained and serious deterioration in the condition of the harbour since the mid 16th century must be respected. As described in 1652 it could not have accommodated half the number of boats known to have been based at Rye a century earlier. However, more important than this was the harbour's inability to protect ships from storm damage. Long before 1650, deteriorating conditions at Rye had undermined the ability of the town's staple industry, fishing, to compete with a growing number of rivals. Acknowledgements I am grateful for advice and assistance to Jill Eddison and to my doctoral supervisor, Dr Joan Thirsk. Figure 11.1, Philip Symondson's map of the decayed harborough of Rye, dated 1594, is reproduced by permission of Rye Town Council with whom copy rights remain. This map must not be further copied or reproduced without the Council's permission. Jane Russell undertook the final drawing of Figure 1 1.2. HMC Rye Historical Manuscripts Commission, 13th Report, Appendix Part IV, The Manuscripts of Rye and Hereford Corporations 1892. JHC Journals of the House of Commons 1699-1702. Andrews, J.H. 1956: Rye Harbour in the Reign of Charles 11. SAC. 94, 35- 42. Brandon, P.F. 1971: The Origins of Newhaven and the Drainage of the Lewes and Laughton Levels. SAC 109, 94-106. Dugdale, W. 1662: History of Drainage and Imbanking (London). The Impact of Marshland Drainage on Rye Harbour, 1550-1650 Eddison, J. 1985: Developments in the lower Rother valleys up to 1600. Arch. Cant. 102, 95-110. Eddison, J. 1995: Attempts to clear the Rother Channel, 1613- 1624. In Eddison, J. (editor), Romney Marsh: the Debatable Ground. OUCA Monograph 41, 1995, 148-163. Farrant, J. H. 1972: The Evolution of Newhaven Harbour and the lower Ouse before 1800. SAC. 110, 44-60. Gruenfelder, J.K. 1969: Rye and the Parliament of 1621. SAC. 107, 25-35. Kepler, J.S. 1976: The Exchange of Christendom: The International Entrepot at Dover 1622-1641 (Leicester University Press). Rendel, W.V. 1962: Changes in the course of the Rother. Arch. 147 6. Hipkin, Economy of Rye, chs 4, 8, and Appendix One; RYE 99113. 7. RYE 9511; RYE 98111. 8. RYE 9411-3; RYE 9511-2; RYE 9611-4; RYE 9711-3; RYE 98/9-12; RYE 117 fols. 511r, 526v, 532v, 535, 548v; RYE 47168. 9. RYE 471131; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 253-255. 10. RYE 4711 13; RYE 1113 fol. 146v; RYE 9512; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 298. Cant. 77, 63-76. Russell, C. 1979: Parliaments and English Politics 1621-1629 (Oxford University Press). Unpublished sources 1. East Sussex Record Office RYE (hereafter RYE) 471129. 2. RYE 9911. 3. RYE 9912-4; BL Add. MS, 5704 fol. 20; RYE 9915; The Guldefords, proprietors of the Saltcote (Playden) ferry and of the harbour known as Wenway or Wainway creek, were active during the 15th century acquiring marshland and inning on the east side of the Rother estuary, culminating c. 1465 with the enclosure of the East Guldeford Level by Richard Guldeford. By 1490 it had become practical to enter the marsh at this point. 4. RYE 13214-6; RYE 7212. 5. RYE 9511; RYE 9611-3; RYE 9711; RYE 98/8-11; RYE 991 8-11; Hipkin S. A. 1985: The Economy and Social Structure of Rye 1600-1660. University of Oxford D.Phil thesis (hereafter Hipkin, Economy of Rye), 101-102. 11. RYE 47168; BL Add. MS, 34218 fols. 174-180, esp. fol. 174. 12. RYE 99/12. 13. RYE 47172; RYE 47/75; RYE 99/13; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, Part Two. 14. RYE 47175-78; RYE 118 fols. 116r, 119r, 163v, 218v. 15. RYE 47180-84; RYE 119 fols. 334v, 351v, 3557, 380r, 421r, 429r, 4.54~. 457r, 462v, 465, 477v, 484v, 486v, 488r, 494r, 500v, 533v, 581r, 584v, 589r, 590v. 16. RYE 119 fol. 542r. 17. RYE 117 fol. 509v; RYE 118, fols. 198v, 250r, 264v; RYE471 76, 78; RYE 47197; RYE 119 fol. 574r; RYE 1110 fols. 211r, 217r. 18. Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 49-50; BL Add. MS, 5705 fol. 140; RYE 47194; RYE 1110 fols. 72v, 83r, 93r. 19. RYE 1/11 fols. 153r, 180, 187, 189r, 195, 197-198,210,228, 236v, 291v, 328r; RYE 47/95; RYE 471109; RYE 99114, 15, 19, 23-56; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 298-300, 308. 20. Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 138; RYE 471117; RYE 471126; RYE 471129. 21. Buckingham had by this date had added the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports to his inventory of perquisites. 22. RYE471126; RYE 471129; RYE 1112 fols. 205v, 294v; RYE 11 14 fol. 232r; RYE 471157; Hipkin, Economy of Rye, 320-321. 23. RYE 1114 fols. 56r, 57v, 58v, 59v, 60r, 89v, 123v, 149r, 150r; RYE 471146; RYE 471148; RYE 471152; RYE 991 71.