In the spring of 1630 a group of gentlemen came together,
probably at Abbotsbury, to plan the draining of the Fleet Lagoon. This was,
perhaps, the most audacious civil engineering project to be carried out in
Dorset in the seventeenth century, and indeed, was hardly to be surpassed until
the coming of the railways. Earlier
commentators have expressed amazement at what was planned, indeed Christopher
Taylor (1970) went so far as to describe it as a ‘far-fetched and ill-considered
scheme to drain the Fleet’. However
closer reading of the evidence suggests that the scheme was far from being
‘far-fetched and ill-considered’, and though it was eventually unsuccessful,
this was as much due to machinations at the Court in Whitehall, as to a failure
to understand details of the local geology.
The Fleet is a
thirteen kilometre long lagoon separated from the open sea by the shingle ridge
of Chesil Beach. Several streams flow into the Fleet, and eventually reach the
sea at Smallmouth in Portland harbour.
At the north west end lay the Abbotsbury swannery, which, in the early
seventeenth century, was probably the most important economic asset of the
Fleet. Elsewhere the Fleet was fished, though the principle fishery lay in the
open sea off Chesil beach. To some
peoples mind the Fleet was an underused resource, ripe for improvement.
The agreement for the
draining of the Fleet was signed on 1 July 1630,
Between Sir John Strangways …..
and Sir George Horsee of Clifton in the said Countie of Dorset, Knight, William
Freke of North Cadburye in the County of Somerset, Esquire, George Peny of
Toller Welme in the said Countie of Dorset, Esquire, Simon Hill of London,
Gentleman, Robert Freke of Hilton in the said Countie of Dorset, Gentleman,
Arthur Freke of North Cadburye aforesaid in the said Countie of Somerset,
Gentleman, Robert Peny of Eastcoaker in the said Countie of Somerset,
Gentleman, and Anthonie Wright of London, Gentleman. (Raishley Papers 38a)
The adventurers, to
give them their seventeenth century title, agreed;
To use their best skill and
endeavours to and at ….. their own proper costs to drayne a certayne Meere
Fleete or parcel of Saltmarsh being the inheritaunce of the said Sir John
Strangways which, time whereof the memorie of man is not to the contrarie hath
layn under water and over and upon which Meere or Fleetes the sea doth and hath
used to ebb or flowe, commonly called or known by the name or names of East and
West Fleetes lying and being in the parishes villages limitts or precincts of
Abbotsburie Wyke Chickerell Fleete and Langton ……. containing in the whole by
estimation three thousand and one hundred acres. (Raishley Papers 38a)
The actual area of
the open water of the Fleet is, in fact, under half that estimated, about 1200
acres, and even allowing for changes over the intervening four centuries, there
can be no doubt that the size of the area to be drained was massively
overestimated. Why this should be, when
surveying methods available at the time were perfectly capable of measuring the
Fleet with reasonable accuracy, is unknown.
Sir John Strangways
was not investing any of his money in the scheme. He was supplying the land to be drained, and
would receive;
that part of the said Meere
Fleete which is called or knowen by the name of the West Fleete heretofore
severed or parted from the rest of the said Meere Fleete or Saltmarsh called
the East Fleete by an ancient banke, ridge or causeway called Bridgehill on the
east side thereof …… containeth by
estimation One hundred acres or thereabouts. (Raishley Papers 38a)
This time the area is about right. The draining of this part
of the Fleet, now known as the Abbotsbury embayment, would have effectively
destroyed the swannery, but this was apparently accepted by Sir John.
Work seems to have started at the beginning of 1631 and,
whilst there were problems, the adventurers were certain they would be
overcome. There was, however, a
difficulty which they had not foreseen.
The lease had been drawn up on the understanding that Sir John
Strangways owned the bed of the Fleet, but did he? When news of the activity in Dorset reached
London someone realised that Sir John’s ownership of the Fleet bed was far from
clear. If it had been a fresh water lake there would have been no problem, but
the Fleet was salt (or at least brackish) so was it an arm of the sea? if this
was the case then it would belong to the crown.
A courtier, George Kirke, one of the Grooms of the Kings Bedchamber, saw
an opportunity. He collected evidence that the Fleet was an arm of the sea (and
hence crown land).
The Affidavit of Allan Manisley
of London, Gent. Who made oath that
there lieth of the South Side of Weymouth a Creeke called the Fleete which hath
always been accounted as sea lying always under salt water and the Tide there
always flowing, the Beach lying South from this Fleet, between it and the South
Sea, this Ground being by estimation worth Fourpence an acre or thereabouts and
containeth Three thousand acreas as he verily believeth. (Raishley Papers 39a)
With this evidence he
sought and obtained;
A graunt of these premisses …
unto George Kercke one of his Majesty’s Bed Chamber and Thomas Allen Gentleman
for the consideration of [blank in original] pounds. (Raishley Papers 39a)
He seems to have been led to believe that the Fleet had
already been drained and that he would receive, either several thousand acres
of newly reclaimed land, or a payment from those who had actually done the work
so that they could keep the land they had drained. He was to be disappointed. Storms during the
winter of 1631/2 had damaged the works and the Fleet was again underwater.
George
Kirke was furious and, convinced that the works had been deliberately sabotaged
by the adventurers so that he would receive nothing for his grant, brought an
action against them. They were
questioned, and it soon became clear that they had not deliberately flooded the
Fleet, so George Kirke was left with the options of either abandoning the
project or draining the Fleet himself. He decided on the latter.
On
26 November 1633 he signed an agreement with Sir John Strangways, to drain the
Fleet anew. Sir John was still being very sensible, in not putting up any
money, but now would receive a much larger part of the reclaimed land;
The said Sir John Strangways and
his heires shall have in part of his or their three parts, all that part or
parcel of the said Fleete lying adjoining being or abbuting upon the Manor of
Abbotsbury so far as the Brook which devideth the Manor of Abbotsbury and
Langton containing by estimation Two hundred acres or Thereabouts (be it more
or less) (Raishley Papers 41a)
The various drainage attempts were clearly of interest to
visitors. In July 1635 Peter Mundy
visited the Fleet, and wrote in his diary;
This indraught which cometh about
by the Easter[n] end of Portland was in hand to bee dreyned to make Pasture
Land, whereon was spent great sommes of money in makeinge of sluces, trenches,
etts. Inventions to keepe the Tide from
comeing in, as also to lett out what is within. But as yet to litle purpose,
the maine sea soakeing through the beach all alonge. It is sayd they will
proceed afresh. (quoted in Richardson 1921)
Work seems to have progressed slowly so that in 1636 it
could be stated that
That the same John (Sir John
Strangways ) and his undertenants have cut off and enclosed from the sea the
aforesaid land and soil of le Fleete … or a greater part thereof at their own
charges (Raishley papers 43a)
Unfortunately this
isn’t conclusive evidence that the Fleet had been drained at this time. George Kirke seems to have decided to pull
out of the scheme and had agreed to support Sir John Strangways in obtaining a
grant of the Fleet for himself. A few paragraphs after the one just quoted the
document says;
We deign to graunt to the said
John Strangwaies and his heirs le Fleete and the land and soil thereof,
together with a certain bank of stones called le Beech … at the yearly Rent of
£10 to be paid after the work of cutting off and enclosing … shall have been
finished. (Raishley papers 43a)
For his help in obtaining the grant of the Fleet, George
Kirke received a lease of one quarter of it, presumably with a view to
reclaiming at least a part, however within four years he had returned his
portion to Sir John and ended his connection with the project. (Raishley papers
44a and 45a)
There was still the rent to the crown of £10 per annum,
payable for the reclaimed land. Apparently the crown was of the opinion that
the land had been drained and was demanding its money. In 1646 Sir John
Strangway applied for the payment to be stopped. The evidence for the failure of the drainage
scheme was clear
Affirdavit
made by one Joseph Master of Abbotsburye aforsaid …. that allthough much cost
and charges had been bestowed and much money spent in endeavouring to drayne
the said water called the Fleete and to inne the soyle from the sea and lay it
drye yett all the expense hath beene to no purpose but the said Fleete
continues still undreyned and not yet inned from the sea (Raishley papers 46a)
The document granting this exception for payment was summed
up succinctly in the note made on the outside.
The rent of 10£ per annum for the Fleet upon the new Patent,
which is not to be payd until the major pte. thereof be drayned which is not
nor will ever be done (Raishley Papers 46a)
The Methods employed.
The original lease drawn up in
1630, together with the answers given in response to the charges of deliberate
sabotage in 1633, draw a picture of how the Fleet was drained. However it must be remembered that the lease
was designed to cover all eventualities, and some of the methods mentioned may
not have been used.
The adventurers clearly
considered that Chesil beach would provide a natural sea defence to the south
west, a mistake that was to cost them dear, and so;
They did bestowe a very greate
deale of labour and charge in and towards the making of a great Dam or Bay of
greate bredth and length crossing betweene the land and the Sea Banke or Beach
therein soemuch that to their very great charge and with much payne or labour
the flowings of the broade Sea were restrayned or stopt out by the said Dam or
Barr from flowing into the said Fleet. (Raishley Papers 40b)
The dam was built of earth and rubble, and in the original
lease it was agree that the adventurers would be allowed to;
take up and carry away any quarry
or quarries of stones or any earth sand or soil whatsoever within the said
Meere Fleetes or parcel of Saltmarsh as any of them shall think needful to use
or employ about the said works (Raishley
Papers 38a)
The dam was possibly faced with stone on the seaward side,
as was the later Herbury wall (see below) and it contained several sluice gates
which seemed to have caused problems from the very beginning;
about Mich’mas last one of the
Sluces whch stood in the great Bay was worne through by the vyolence of the
Water wich would have endangered the whole Worke yf it had not been speedily
prevented. And allsoe the walls of the great stone Sluce suncke and fell down
insoemuch as yf it had not been remedyed with speed it would as this Defend’t
beleeves have endangered the whole Worke. (Raishley Papers 40b)
After the dam had
closed the end of the Fleet pumps, powered by wind or water mills, were to be
erected to pump the water away. Though
the adventurers were faced with certain restrictions, they could;
erect any mill or mills within
both the said Fleetes called the East and West Fleetes as they or any of them
shall think meet for the more commodious and better draining of both the said
Fleetes or any part thereof. And also to erect any mill or mills in or within
the aforesaid Meere or Fleete called the East Fleete to any such use or purpose
as they shall think fit so as the said mills or any of them be not made within
four miles of the town of Abbotsbury aforesaid. (Raishley Papers 38a)
Sir John Strangways owned the mill in Abbotsbury, and did
not want his monopoly in grinding corn threatened.
As the water level
dropped, drains were dug so that water from the streams that entered the Fleet
at Abbotsbury, Langton Herring and elsewhere, could be led away safely. The adventurers had agreed;
to cut and dig all and every such
rivers channels sewers draynes or ditches (Raishley Papers 38a)
and apparently they
had succeeded, as George Penny reported they had;
to their great like charge made
divers sluices of Stone and Tymber and other meanes and helpes to drayne and
convey away the Water out of the said Fleet into the Sea with an intent and
hope to have recovered some good quantity of dry ground …. and to have made use thereof for corne or
meadow grownds: (Raishley Papers 40b)
Where these drains
were concerned it was Sir John Strangways who was restricted in his actions by
the terms of the lease, as he had agreed that;
It shall not be lawful for the
said Sir John Strangways and Dame Grace his heirs or assigns or any of them at
any special and fit times of draining to lay any nets weels pottes or other
engines to take fish in or so nere any of the trunks sluices or fludgates ……..
as thereby to dull or hinder the free passage of the water through the said
trunks sluices or fludgates or any of them. (Raishley Papers 38a)
However;
In case any of the rivers
channels or drains intended to be made in the said Meere Fleets or Marsh ……
shall happen to be servicable for the carriage of boats barkes and other
vessels wherby commodities maie be transported to or from the town Abbotsburie
aforesaid free liberty for the said Sir John Strangways and Dame Grace his
heirs or assigns his her to their or any of their servants…. freely to passe
and return with boats or any other vessels through any of the locksluices or
channels made or to be made in the said Meere Fleet or Marsh. (Raishley Papers
38a)
For all these works
to be carried out, access to the works was needed;
also convenient and fittte waies
paths and passages into over and upon the lands tenements of the said Sir John
Strangways and in his possession lyeing and beinge in the said parish of
Abbotsburie aforesaid at convenient and apt places there to be allotted … for
…. every of their servants laborers and workman cattle and carriages to goe
come passe carie recarie and travaile into out of and from the said Meere or
Fleete ….. for the draining thereof and keeping the same from overflowing again
so often as need shall require. (Raishley Papers 38a)
The new land was to
be farmed and settled and the adventurers were to be allowed;
to erect within or upon the said
parte of the said Fleete called the East Fleete hereby graunted or anie parte
or partes thereof anie dwelling howse or howses so as to everie suche dwellinge
howse there be layd twentie acres of the same Fleete or more to bee used and
occupied with everie such howse. (Raishley Papers 38a)
The works seemed to
be progressing successfully, the land was slowly drying out, it was reported
that, ‘some part of the saide Fleete was put in soe good a way of Drayneinge as
that a man with boards fastened to his feet have gone therupon’, but then
something went very wrong.
Failure of the Scheme
George Kirke was
convinced that the drainage scheme had been sabotaged, he had some reason, as
Sir George Horsey admitted;
that hee …. being informed that
George Kirke Esquire one of the Groomes of his Ma’te Bedchamber had procured
from his Majestie a Graunte of the said Fleet and intended to outt and
dispossess this Defend’t and his partners thereof and to take the benefit of
their Industry labour and Charge [he] did say rather that it should …… turn
again to a Fish Poole. (Raishley Papers 40a)
However;
Nevertheless this Defend’t and his
Partners have been soe farr from doeing any hurt or Damage to the said worke as
they have spent and layd out about repayring the mayne Bay wch is made over
th’warth the said Fleete and certain Sluces therein a very good Some of mony to
preserve the same Baye and Sluces. (Raishley Papers 40a)
The problems the adventurers
faced were massive, as George Penny reported;
the Sea at tymes of stormy windes
and Tempests hath soken & flowen through the said gravely or sandy banke
into the said Fleet againe and cannot without great labour and continuall
charge bee kept out allso about Mich’mas last one of the Sluces whch stood in
the great Bay was worne through by the vyolence of the Water wich would have
endangered the whole Worke yf it had not been speedily prevented. And allsoe
the walls of the great stone Sluce suncke and fell down insoemuch as yf it had
not been remedyed with speed it would as this Defend’t beleeves have endangered
the whole Worke. And theruppon hee this Defend’t
did to his great charge of allmost Fortie pounds cause the same great breach to
bee amended and stopt upp agayne and so it now continues. (Raishley Papers 40b)
But these works
retained constant repair, Sir George knew what would happen if the works
weren’t maintained, he prophesised that the Fleet;
will of itself …. soone return to
his ancyent Forme if this Defend’t and his Partners doe but hold their hande
off it. (Raishley Papers 40a)
With storm damage to the dam and
water coming through Chesil Beach he was swiftly proved correct and the Fleet
flooded again.
One minor, probably short lived,
result of the drainage scheme may been the place name ‘New Works’ (the drainage
scheme at Herbury was formerly known as ‘Fry’s Works’ and is shown on the
current Ordnance Survey map as the ‘works’ ).
On 11 December 1641 the Golden
Grape was wrecked on Chesil beach, by the ‘New Works’. This was clearly
close to Wyke Regis as one of the injured seamen was carried to the home of
Andrew Gray, an ale house keeper of Wyke Regis. (Pope, 1920)
Later writers (for example Bird,
1971and Taylor, 1970) have generally been critical of the adventurers,
considering that their plans were ‘far-fetched and ill-considered’. In
particular they accuse the adventurers of naivety, bordering on stupidity, in
their apparent assumption that Chesil beach would form an impermeable barrier
to the sea. That an intelligent man looking at Chesil Beach might be misled
into thinking it would provide a suitable barrier to the sea is shown by the
comments made by E.H.T Atkinson (1927) when writing about the drainage attempt.
He suggested ‘that the Chesil beach in Charles I’s reign was not so high or solid as it is now’,
implying that he thought that the sea, in 1927, would not come over or through
Chesil Beach. The Earl of Ilchester, with
his considerable local knowledge, immediately corrected this statement, but it
does show that it was not unreasonable for someone to consider that Chesil
Beach was impermeable. It is also
possible that the adventurers had seen water percolating through the beach, but
hadn’t realised the volume, and thought that their scheme, in particular the
large drain (it was considered that it might have been big enough to act as a
canal) could deal with it. In view of the amazing drainage schemes successfully
undertaken by their contemporaries in East Anglia, their plans may well have
shown overconfidence, but were not
‘far-fetched and ill-considered’.
Danger to the realm
A curious aside to the attempts to drain the Fleet can be
found in the state papers for 1636. It consists of a series of questions and
answers, trying to prove that by draining the Fleet the natural defences of
Weymouth and Sandsfoot castle would be destroyed and the area left wide open to
attack by an enemy.
Reasons to prove the drayneing of
the Flete neere Weymouth in the County of Dorset to be of dangerous
consequences to this State.
By means thereof an invading
enemy will there have a landing place of more easy descent and lesse danger not
only in that County but in the whole Kingdom.
The sandy Beache or Chesill (as they terme it) is by it severed from the
land, 5 or 6 miles in length as a greate mote or ditch for the countryes
Safegard, the land within riseing gently from it without any cliffes as in
other places, and the sea on the outsyde of the Beache shoare – deepe all
alongst the coast & free from rocks and Shelves &c. so as shippes of
good burthen may come close aboord it.
An enemy there landed though but
with meane forces may (by this meanes likewise) in a short tyme intrenche
himselfe with such advantage, that all the strength and forces of that part of
the Kingdom will hardly be able to remove him. The Isle of Portland and the
Peninsula of Wyke, both neere adjoyning to it, are places, already by Nature so
fortified, that a good trench of a mile in length, makes that of Wyke a place
of great strength and the like of halfe a mile, that of Portland impregnable,
where the enemy shall not only finde houses sufficient to lodge most of his
troops: but of corne cattle &c great plentye.
Being so landed and intrench’t he
will have the command of a good harbour and of one of the best Roades and the
opportunest of all that coast. Portland Roade is commanded by the Isle of
Portland on the one syde, and that of Wyke on the other, having good anchorage
and space and shelter enough for a greate Fleete of Shippes to ride in safety
most wynds and weathers. And Weymouth harbour adjoyning to it is a place
capable of as greate shippes as most that Dunkerk or St. Malo’s can afforde.
But because some objections may
be made against the reasons alleadged the most material of them are (together
with their answers) sett downe as followeth –
Ob. 1. That Coast from Portland westward (especially
about Beckington [Bexington] for two miles space) was as dangerous before, and
an enemy there landing might soone be att Weymouth, it being but 6 or 7 miles
distant. So as this will not much alter the case.
Anw. This arme of the
sea being taken away it will be ten tymes as dangerous as before: for the Flete
now lyes as a moate or ditch full of oaze and mudde of a greate dredth &
depth for 6 miles space betwixt the beache and the firme lande suppplyeing that
waye the want of that naturall defence of cliffes and high land which the rest
of the coast on both sydes hath: besides if this goe forward an enemy may land
on the backside of the towne where it hath no defence att all and that within a
mile or a little more, and so have a shorter marche and come more suddaynly on;
and (if occasion require) make a more safe and easy retreate to his shipping,
and likewise be neerer to Portland Roade to give on att the same tyme.
Ob. 2. The Ditches
and Draynes that will be made in this improved ground, will give an enemy some
stopp and impediment in his landing, and the two castles of Portland and
Sandsfoote will hinder any Suddain attempt howsoever.
Ans. Those Draynes
And Ditches will be no hinderance att all considering that in five miles space
the enemy may come on where he list and will perhaps make his advantage of
those Ditches to favour his retreate, and as for those 2 castles, they cannot
stand us in any steede, being that toward the land they are [not?] defensible,
they being made to command Portland Roade, and this landing place being made to
command Portland Roade, and this landing place being on the other side of
Portland and out of the 2 Castles Viewe.
Ob. 3. No Fleete of
Shippes will adventure into the West Baye of Portland, both from feare of
Stormes, and in regard of the disadvantages if they should be sett upon.
Answ. Experience shewes
the contrary for lesser Fleetes especially. Witnesse the 12 Sayle of Dunkerers
that have a good whiles now lately hovered up & downe in that Baye, betwixt
Portland and Dartmouth, some of them chaseing our Shippes into the very bottom
of the Bay into Lyme Roade and within shot of that Towne, as att other tymes
hath been donne heretofore; and witnesse those Shippes that nowe dayly ride att
anchor close aboard the Shore or att least within Shott thereof, and neere to
this place of danger spoken of. (Quoted in Anon.
1915)
This was clearly
written with no local knowledge at all since no one who knew anything about
Chesil beach would suggest that landing an army there would be;
of more easy descent and lesse
danger not only in that County but in the whole Kingdom.
Or describe it as a
‘sandy Beache’!
This whole account
was probably based on a map and a few local reports (the reference to the
Dunkirk Privateers) and was, I suspect, an attempt by someone else at Court to
spoil any chance of George Kirke making any profit from his grant of the Fleet.
Other attempts to drain the Fleet.
Herbury
The attempts of the 1630’s clearly showed that it was
virtually impossible to drain the whole of the Fleet, but the idea of land
reclamation refused to go away. Whilst it was clearly impossible to drain all
the Fleet, it seemed as if it might prove possible to drain part. In a lease dated 6 June 1665;
the said William Fry his
executors administrators and assigns shall ….. endeavour to drain and make dry
the said plott or peece of ground called Yerberry Hope.(Raishley Papers 57a)
William Fry was steward of the Abbotsbury estate, a
practical man who had chosen his ground well.
The bay at Herbury (SY 610 812) is large and shallow with a
comparatively narrow entrance, Hope or Ope is a local word for bay, still used
on Portland (e.g. Church Ope Cove). His
plan was simple, a sea wall was to built across the entrance to keep the waters
of the Fleet out. A small stream flowed into the bay from the north, but this
would not have posed a problem to contemporary technology. There seems to have
been no reason why this scheme should have failed, but it did so. Within a hundred and fifty years hardly
anything was remembered of William Fry’s attempt. In 1808 Robert Pittman the
decoyman at Abbotsbury, then aged 60, was asked about past aspects of the
Fleet. Amongst other things he;
Says that at a point called
Yerbury in the Parish of Langton there is an embankment thrown up called Frys
works that it appears to be the rems of an Old wall & has heard old people
say that a man by the name of Fry tried to drain that part of the Fleete. Don’t
know who Fry was. (Dorset Records Office D/FSI 312)
Fleet Manor
Evidence of a much smaller land reclamation scheme can be
found at Fleet, just below Moonfleet Manor Hotel, formerly Fleet Manor House
(SY 6199 8042). Here a small bay is
closed off by the remains of a sea wall and other walls link this to the coast.
The area which would have been drained is very small, about 6000 m2. Other structures in the area include the
remains of a nineteenth century pier and a small artificial island, probably
also nineteenth century. These
structures are probably garden features,
the sea wall and land reclamation scheme being linked to formal late
seventeenth or early eighteenth century gardens around Fleet Manor (Le Pard
2000). This formal garden is unlikely to
have survived the storm of 1824 which caused extensive damage along this
section of the Dorset Coast ( Le Pard 1999).
Gold!
Finally on September 14 1904 the Dorset Natural History and
Antiquarian Field Club held a meeting on Chesil Beach. Here Mr C.E.A. George gave them a short talk
on the waters of the Fleet, in which he mentioned that;
He was approached not very long
ago with a proposal for enclosing certain portions of the Fleet with a view to
obtaining gold. He had not known or imagined before that the Fleet water was a
gold mine (laughter) but it seemed that there were works near Hayling Island,
worked on the principle of enclosure and deposit. So far nothing had come of
the proposal.
The amusement of the
Field Club member was understandable, as can be imagined, and nothing came of
the proposal.
Surviving
evidence
It is curious that the drainage
attempts of the 1630’s are so well attested in the documentary record, but have
left no clear physical traces surviving to the present, whilst the attempted
draining of Herbury, of which there is only slight documentary evidence, has
left very clear physical remains. It is,
perhaps, easier to consider the remains at Herbury before examining what might
survive from the earlier drainage attempt.
Across the entrance to Herbury
‘works’ lies a bank, submerged at high water. This has an overall length of 340
metres, and consists of a spread of pebbles and broken limestone fragments,
about 30 metres wide. At a point about 100 metres from the southern end is a
shallow area, usually completely covered by water. At several points on the
south western side of the bank are the footings of a wall about one metre wide,
made of slabs of local limestone. Fragments of this limestone are to be found
scattered all over the higher parts of the bank. At both the northern and southern end of the
embankment are clear traces of old quarries, probable sources of material. This would suggest that the Herbury Works
consisted of a substantial stone wall, backed by an earth and rubble bank.
Similar sea walls, of seventeenth and eighteenth century date, can be found to
the west of Lymington in Hampshire.
Though requiring regular maintenance, the design is an effective one,
which only deepens the mystery of how the works could have failed and been
forgotten so quickly.
Unlike the Herbury
land reclamation scheme the drainage attempt of the 1630’s have left no traces
that have yet been discovered. Two sites
within the Fleet have been suggested as being associated with the drainage (Whittaker 1978), the Herbury bank and the submerged causeway or wadeway
below Chesters hill to the south west of the Abbotsbury embayment. This causeway is shown on eighteenth and
nineteenth century estate maps, where it is called Brudgell or Bridgehill, and
it is mentioned in the 1630 lease as, ‘an ancient banke, ridge or causeway
called Bridgehill’. It clearly has
nothing to do with the 1630 drainage scheme, and is currently the subject of a
separate study. It is suspected to be of
medieval date.
So if remains relating to the drainage scheme have not yet
been located, where might they be? Some
clues lie in the 1630 lease, the answers to the questions posed in the legal
action of 1633 and other contemporary sources, but all these must be treated
with caution. Furthermore the lease of 1630 was highly detailed in order, one
suspects, to cover every eventuality and for this reason cannot be taken as an
accurate guide to what was actually carried out. What the documents do make
clear is that a substantial dam was built between Chesil beach and the
mainland, which resulted in the draining of, at least part of, the Fleet. In
addition drains or sluices were almost certainly dug in the Fleet bed to assist
in the draining, and the possibility that some pumps were erected must also be
considered. From the sources it is
possible to make some tentative conclusions.
It was intended to
drain most of the Fleet, the areas to be drained are situated in all the
parishes from Abbotsbury to Wyke Regis.
This would suggest that the dam lay to the south eastern end of the
Fleet, where there was a place called ‘New Works’ in 1645. The fact that the dam
could be seriously damaged by storms also suggests a location close to the
south eastern end of the Fleet. Any structure here would be sheltered from
south westerly gales by Chesil beach, but exposed to easterly gales. These
often caused damage to ships moored off Smallmouth before the building of the
Portland breakwater in the 1840’s.
However, it is
unlikely that the dam was built as far east as Smallmouth, simply because there
is no mention in the 1630 lease of a possible land link with Portland, and the
tolls that could have been charged on the use of such a link, and it seems
unlikely that as detailed a document as the lease wouldn’t have mentioned
it. The most likely location for the dam
would therefore be at the south eastern end of the Narrows, in Wyke parish.
This is, as the name implies, the narrowest part of the Fleet, and therefore
the obvious place to build a dam, in a position exposed to easterly gales and
yet far enough away from Smallmouth not to be of any use as a land bridge to
Portland.
Further evidence as to how the
adventurers tried to drain the Fleet might come from three possible sources;
documentary, archaeological and environmental.
Documentary – whilst it is unlikely that any
more documents will be discovered relating directly to the drainage scheme, it
is possible that apparently unconnected items may provide important clues to
the location of the works. For example the place name ‘New Works’ is only
recorded in the account of a shipwreck on Chesil Beach.
Archaeological – the great dam, and other works
should have left physical traces, that may be discovered.
(i)
The
remains of the dam:- Whist the construction of the dam is unclear, it may
either have been entirely of earth and rubble or, as the slightly later Herbury
Works Wall was, faced with a stone wall. It is clear that the dam had
substantial stone and timber sluices.
After the failure of the project the site would probably have been
robbed for building material, but some traces should survive. Perhaps blocks of
worked stone on the Fleet bottom?
(ii)
Ancillary
structures, drains, sluices and pumps.
‘Divers sluices of Stone and Tymber’ were built and remains of these
could still survive buried under the sediment at various places in the
Fleet. It is less certain if pumps were
ever erected, and in any case such structures would probably have been
prefabricated and semi portable, and could have been removed after the venture
failed. If any water mills were built to power the pumps, then lower portions
of any structures might remain in the sediment. However as no buildings are
mentioned in any account of the scheme then the existence of water driven pumps
must be considered as very unlikely. However it is perfectly possible that wind
mills were erected and they would have been as easily removed as the pump
itself. In this case the only traces that might survive would be the base of
the post on which the mill was mounted, or the post hole where it had been
situated.
Environmental – the effects of the drainage might be found in the
sediment record. The partial draining of
the Fleet would have caused local changes in the environment, which would have
left their record in the sediments. The drainage could have had three different
effects.
(i)
Drying
completely, causing the death of the normal Fleet organisms, and possibly the
short term colonisation by terrestrial plants.
(ii)
Water,
becoming more saline. Where salt water remained, or entered the lagoon, and
wasn’t either diluted with fresh water, or flushed by a direct link to the sea,
evaporation would have created hypersaline conditions.
(iii)
Water,
becoming fresher. Where freshwater streams or springs enter the lagoon, and the
access of salt water was restricted, there could have been a local build up of
fresh water conditions.
[In the summer of 2002 Dr.
Patrick O’Sullivan of the University of Plymouth reported that he had found
evidence of reduced saline conditions in a core of Fleet sediments taken off
Langton Hive. Unfortunately it is
impossible to date this layer but it is possible that it may relate to the
drainage attempts of the 1630’s (O’Sullivan per. comm.)]
(iv)
Whilst
the construction works could have caused
a.
Layers
of ‘made ground’ a bank, perhaps alongside one of the sluices or drains, will
appear in the sediment record as a mixed layer, apparently interpolated between
the ‘normal’ layers of deposition within the Fleet.
b.
Truncation
of the sediment record. Where channels were dug in the mud to facilitate
draining the record would be truncated, and an unconformity (to used a
geological term) would be created.
It is only by means of discoveries
in the future that we will ever be able to solve the mysteries that still
surround the Draining of the Fleet.
Acknowledgements
I would like to
acknowledge the interest and assistance shown by several members of the Fleet
Study Group, in particular Dennis Seaward, John Whittaker and Patrick
O’Sullivan.
Sources
The primary source for the story of the attempted draining
of the Fleet are the ‘Raishley papers’. This is a collection of documents made
in 1888 as evidence in a court case.
Transcripts of these documents were privately published in a substantial
volume, a copy of which is in the library of the Dorset Natural History and
Archaeological Society.
The documents quoted
are;
38a Sir John Strangways to Sir George Horsey and others …… of
the East Fleet in consideration of their draining the whole Fleet.
39a A particular of the Fleet 25 June 1631
40 Bill and answers
1633
40a Answers of Sir George Horsey
40b Answers of George Peny esq.
41a Agreement
between George Kirke and Sir John Strangways 26 November 1633
43a Patent Roll 12 Charles I
13 July 1636
44a Lease from Sir John Strangways to George Kirke of a fourth
part of the Fleet June 1637
44a Regrant by George Kirke to Sir John Strangways of a fourth
part of the Fleet 2 November 1641
46a Order in
exchequer acquitting Sir John Strangways from the payment of £10 for the rent
of the Fleet, till it should be drained 1646
47a Lease by Sir John Strangways to John Herne .. of the Decoy at Abbotsbury .. in consideration of the expenses of the
making the said decoy 2 February 1655/6
57a Lease by Sir John Strangways to William frye of a parcell
of the Fleete called Yerberry Hope 7 June 1665
Bibliography
Anonymous 1905 Summer
Meeting, Chesil & the Fleet Proceedings
of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 26.lxvii-lxix
Anonymous 1915 Reasons against the Draining of the Fleet
1636 Somerset & Dorset Notes &
Queries 14. 10-13
Atkinson,
E.H.T 1927 Some Abbotsbury Records Proceedings
of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 48.69-85
Bird,
E.C.F. 1971 A 17th century attempt to drain the Fleet. Dorset
17. 8-10
Bird,
E.C.F. 1971 The lost wall. Dorset 21.
Carr, A.P. & Blackley,
M.W.L. 1973 Ideas on the Origin and
Development of Chesil Beach, Dorset Proceedings
of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 95.9-17
Le
Pard, G.F. 1999 The Great Storm of 1824 Proceedings
of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 121.023-36
Le
Pard, G.F. 2000 Gardens in the Sea? Intertidal Structures in The Fleet, Dorset Nautical Archaeological Society Newsletter 2000.1,
8-9
Pope, F.J. 1918-1919 A Wreck on the Chesil Beach in 1641 Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries
16. 241-2
Richardson,
N.M. 1921 The travels of Peter Mundy in Dorset Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society
42.42-50
Sparks,
W. 1893 Langton Herring Proceedings of
the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 14.165-178
Taylor, C. 1970 Dorset 134
Whittaker, J.E. 1978 The
Fleet, Dorset - A Seasonal study of the watermass and its vegetation Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History
and Archaeological Society 100.73-99