Thomas Fleetwood And The Draining Of Martin Mere
Thomas Fleetwood and the drainingo f Martin MereJohn VirgoeToday, Martin Mere, some six miles north of Ormskirk in westLancashire, is best known as a reserve o f the Wildfowl and WetlandsTrust, but the area was formerly the site of one o f the largestexpanses o f fresh water in the county, described by Leland in themid-sixteenth century as the ‘Greatest meare o f Lancastreshire’.1 Itsdimensions probably changed seasonally, as the shallows dried up insummer, but it was evidently about four miles long by two mileswide at its furthest extremities, with a perimeter about fourteenmiles in length and with a probable surface area between five and sixsquare miles. The Mere apparently had two outfalls: at the east endinto the River Douglas, and during times of flood, at the north-west,towards the sea.Five townships, Tarleton, Rufford, Burscough, Scarisbrick andNorth Meols, shared the shoreline between them. In the seventeenthcentury the economic use consisted o f fishing (each township havingits own separate fisheries); wildfowling and egg collecting; supplyingreeds for thatching; summer grazing on the islands for both horsesand cattle; and the use o f peat and ‘moss wood’ (tree stocks foundwithin the peat), as a source o f heat and light.2 Nowadays the areacovered by the former Martin Mere is high quality farming land dueto a series o f initiatives going back over three hundred years; onlythe area o f the wildfowl reserve is now covered by water due to thecreation o f a number o f ponds when the reserve was established in1Lucy Toulmin Smith, ed., The itinary o f John Leland in or about 15 3 5 -15 4 3 (5vols, London, 19 0 7-10 ), v, p. 43. Audrey Coney, ‘Fish, fowl and fen: Landscape and economy on seventeenthcentury Martin Mere’, Landscape History, XIV (1992), pp. 51-64.
28F ig u r e iJohn VirgoeSketch map o f south Lancashire places mentioned in the text.the 1970s. However, this situation is only maintained by continuouspumping at the pumping station at Crossens. If the pumps wereswitched off the waters would soon return.The first serious attempt to drain the Mere was made by ThomasFleetwood in the last years of the seventeenth century, but credit fordraining the water and turning the Mere into dry land is usuallygiven to Thomas Eccleston, of Scarisbrick Hall.3 This is probably3H. C. Collins, Lancashire plain and seaboard (London, 1953), pp. 55-67;Victoria County History (VCH) Lancashire (London, 19 0 6 -14 ), vol. 3, p. 269;Harold Brodrick, ‘Martin Mere’, Presidential address to Southport Society of
Martin Mere29because Eccleston, who was a large landowner in south-westLancashire and a notable agricultural improver in the area, wasawarded the gold medal of the Society for the Encouragement ofArts, Manufactures and Commerce in 1786 for his work on drainingMartin Mere.4 Eccleston came to Scarisbrick in 1778 , and as thelargest landowner on the Mere was soon in negotiation with theothers concerning his proposed scheme and to acquire leases. At thistime parts o f the Mere were constantly under water, and other partswere said to be very boggy, following the breakdown o f Fleetwood’sefforts.5 Eccleston carried out deepening and widening o f the sluiceswhich had been constructed by Fleetwood, cut over a hundred mileso f new ditches, and installed new flood gates. In 1784 some cropswere grown successfully, and Eccleston wrote an account o f thedrainage of the Mere, in which he acknowledged the backgroundand problems o f Fleetwood’s work, but was not shy to promote hisown, and his account has frequently been reprinted verbatim.6 Inretrospect, his success was short-lived, there being floods in 1786and 17 8 7 / The purpose of this paper is to re-assess the earlier andpioneering efforts o f Thomas Fleetwood in this undertaking.Wetland reclamation in early modern EnglandThe early seventeenth century saw an increasing interest through out Britain in the possibility o f draining and reclaiming thelowlands around the coast. This was part o f a general trend towardsagricultural improvement, and in places such as the Fens o f EastAnglia and the Somerset Levels was also stimulated by the involveNatural Science, 23 Oct. 1902; David Brazendale, Lancashire’s historic halls (Preston,1994). PP- 242-56.4 Angela M. Turton, ‘Thomas Eccleston 1754-18 0 9 : An eighteenth centuryagricultural improver’ (MA, Univ. o f Liverpool, 1995).5 Lancashire Record Office (Lancs. RO), DDPr 92/1, Lancashire Evening Postcollection.6 Lancs. RO, DDSc 78/3 (7), Scarisbrick Papers; Thomas Eccleston, ‘Theimprovement of Martin Mear’, Transactions of the Society for the Encouragemento f Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, VII (1789), pp. 50-74; Thomas Eccleston,‘Improvement of a bog’, Annals o f agriculture and other useful arts, VI (London,1786), pp. 1 - 1 0 ; J. Aiken, A description of the country from 30 to 40 miles roundManchester (1795, repr. Newton Abbot, 1968), pp. 3 17 -2 4 ; F. A. Bailey, A history ofSouthport (Southport, 1995), pp. 1 0 - 1 1 .7 Eccleston, ‘Improvement o f a bog’.
30John Virgoement of the Crown.8 The Fens, although some distance fromLondon, had a tradition o f supplying the city with foodstuffs.The pressures o f increasing demand for food, with increasing grainprices after the mid-sixteenth century, were cited as part o f theneed for land reclamation and the drainage of the Fens.9 Thisargument applied equally to south west Lancashire at the end o f theseventeenth century, with the growth of Liverpool.The historiography o f wetland reclamation in England is con cerned mainly with the Fens and the Somerset Levels.10 This is notsurprising since these are the two largest areas in the country o f lando f this type. Reclamation was a long process, and in these two areascan be considered to have proceeded in a number o f phases. Duringthe middle ages reclamation was piecemeal, with responsibility formaintenance at the local community level.11 The monasteries, asimportant land owners, played an important role, and followingtheir dissolution there is evidence o f neglect and confusion.12 Fromthe mid-thirteenth century, the overall responsibility for landdrainage and dealing with in-roads of the sea had been devolvedupon local Commissions o f Sewers, whose role was to enforceestablished customs and practices with regard to preventing incur sions o f the sea, maintenance o f water courses and navigations,banks, bridges and causeways. They were empowered to hold courts,raise taxes and levy fines.13Between 1600 and 1640 a number o f ambitious drainage schemeswere carried out in the Fens with Crown sponsorship, and employ ing the skills o f the Dutch engineer, Cornelius Vermuyden. Thisactivity was brought to a halt by the Civil Wars, but resumed againbetween 1649 and 16 5 3 .14 These schemes were expensive andrequired outside investment. The only security that could be offeredwas a portion of the reclaimed land. During this same perioddraining took place in Somerset on the peat moors, and, to a8 H. C. Darby, The changing fenland (Cambridge, 1983), p. 57; M. Williams, Thedraining o f the Somerset Levels (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 86-87.9 D. Summers, The Great Level: A history of drainage and land reclamation in theFens (Newton Abbot, 1976), pp. 55-56.10 H. C. Darby, The changing fenland; D. Summers, The Great Level; M. Williams,Draining the Somerset Levels.' 1 Summers, The Great Level, p. 46.12 Darby, The changing fenland, pp. 43-44.13 Summers, The Great Level, pp. 46—48.14 Darby, The changing fenland, pp. 52-9 1.
Martin Mere3ilesser extent, on the Levels.15 Thereafter, there was near stagnation indrainage activity on the Somerset Levels until after 1770, and in theFens the drains were deteriorating into a poor condition at the endo f the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.16 Drainage hadnot been as successful as had been hoped. There were unanticipatedproblems with lowering of the peat surface due to shrinkage as thepeat dried out, leading to consequent loss o f fall in the rivers andreduction o f carrying capacity and scouring action.17 In both areastoo, drainage schemes caused discontent amongst the fenlanddwellers and cottagers due to loss of traditional ways o f making aliving based on grazing, wild fowling, fishing, reeds and turbaries.18The lowlands of the south west Lancashire coastal plain had muchin common with the Fens and Somerset Levels, although theLancashire mosslands were but a fraction o f the area o f the othertwo regions. All three regions were low-lying areas o f badly-drainedland, subject to prolonged winter flooding and with some areaspermanently under water; all were subject to flooding both by thesea and from land water; and all had extensive areas o f peat. Southwest Lancashire provides evidence o f similar initiatives in thecontrol o f flooding to those practised in the Fens and Somerset.The court records of the townships adjoining low-lying lands of theRiver Alt between Maghull and Altcar contain details of localisedmaintenance o f drainage. The first co-ordinated attempt to considercontrolling flooding o f the area, especially as a result o f the seabreaking into the river basin, was made through the setting up of acommission in 1589, although there is no direct mention o f anyconstruction being undertaken. The first known sewer commissionfor the Alt was authorised in 1608, to be followed by several moreuntil 1779 when the Alt Drainage Act came into being.19Small-scale localised land reclamation o f the mosslands took placein the seventeenth century. Downholland Moss was enclosed in16 12 , and in the second half of the seventeenth century about 1,30015 Williams, Draining the Somerset levels, p. 95.16 Williams, Draining the Somerset levels, p. 110 ; Summers, The Great Level,pp. 1 1 0 - 1 1 .17 Summers, The Great Level, pp. 95- 9918 Summers, The Great Level, pp. 104-8; Williams, Draining the Somerset levels,pp. 88-89.This section is based upon Alison Maddock, ‘Watercourse management andflood prevention in the Alt Level, Lancashire, 1589—177 9 ’, Transactions o f theHistoric Society of Lancashire & Cheshire (THSLC) 148 ( i 999) pp. 59 94-
32John Virgoestatute acres o f mossland was enclosed in several townships on theMolyneux Estate through a large number of agreements for smallacreages with various tenants.20 An early reference to the reclama tion o f waste near Martin Mere is made in a deed of 13 0 3 , andlimited control of drainage in that area is evidenced by numerousreferences to ditches as boundaries in the Burscough Priorycartulary.21 This work was certainly undertaken by the early twelfthcentury and may have begun much earlier. It was claimed that therewere several attempts to protect the large tract o f land aroundMartin Mere from flooding by the sea and to drain it during theseventeenth century, but no details have been found.22Draining Martin MereIt was against this background that Thomas Fleetwood began thedrainage of Martin Mere in the 1690s. His was the first large-scaledrainage project in Lancashire, which he commenced withoutoutside financial backing. It was also significant on a nationalscale because Martin Mere was probably the largest area ofpermanent water that any one had attempted to drain up to thattime, far exceeding Meare Pool in Somerset. There is only limitedinformation on the draining of Meare Pool, the drainage o f whichwas first attempted about 1630, and which according to Leland was‘at high waters in winter a 4 miles in cumpace, and when it is lest a 2miles and a half and most communely 3 miles’ .23Fleetwood, born in 16 6 1, was the eldest son o f Sir RichardFleetwood, Bart, o f Calwich, Staffordshire and his wife Ann, neeGolding, o f Colston, Nottinghamshire, although the Fleetwoodfamily had its origins in Lancashire. Fleetwood married AnnBannister at Penwortham on 19 November 1683, the marriageprobably being arranged through his Lancashire connections.24She was the daughter and only child o f Christopher Bannister and20 A. J. Gritt, ‘Aspects o f agrarian change in South West Lancashire c.16 50 -18 5 0 ’(PhD, Univ. o f Central Lancashire, 2000), pp. 163-67.21 A. N. Webb, ‘An edition o f the cartulary of Burscough Priory’, CheethamSociety, 3rd series, 23 (1970), pp. 64, 6.22 John Beetham, ‘A report on the drainage o f Martin Mere’ for the Earl o f Derbyand Lord Lilford, 17 June 1893, in Southport Public Library.23 Williams, Draining the Somerset levels, pp. 105-8.24 James Croston, ed., Edward Baines, The history of the County Palatine andDuchy o f Lancaster (Manchester, 18 9 1) vol. IX, p. 133.
Martin Mere33his wife M ary o f Bank Hall, Bretherton, Lancashire. Through thismarriage Fleetwood acquired the Bank Estate and lands in Cuerden,Lancashire, and other neighbouring areas, including land adjacent toMartin Mere. Thomas and Ann Fleetwood’s only child, a daughterHenrietta Maria, was born on 30 September 1684. Following his firstwife’s death, Fleetwood married as his second wife Letitia (Lettice)Bankes, widow o f William Bankes of Winstanley, Lancashire. Shewas the sister o f Peter Legh the Elder o f Lyme Park in Cheshire. Byhis second marriage Fleetwood thus became related to this wellknown Cheshire family, who were to play a part in the later historyo f Martin Mere. A second, and unusual, link with this family wasforged when Henrietta Maria, Fleetwood’s only daughter by his firstmarriage, became the wife o f Thomas Legh, Peter Legh the Elder’syounger brother.The principal landowners with lands adjacent to the Mere andwith interests in it were the Earl of Derby, Robert Scarisbrick o fScarisbrick, Thomas Hesketh o f Rufford, the Bolds o f North Meolsand Fleetwood himself. Fleetwood first proposed a scheme to theproprietors o f the land in about 1692, and after negotiation a leasewas signed between him and the Lords o f the Manors adjoining theMere on 22 August 1694.25 The agreement was ratified by an Act ofParliament in 1695.25 Although the passage o f the Bill throughParliament appears to have gone quite smoothly, with no petitionsraised against it, there must have been some opposition since adivision was necessary before it was finally passed. The nature ofsuch opposition is not evident.2'Fleetwood’s main objective, as stated in the original lease, was toturn the Mere into arable land as had been the intention in theLincolnshire fenland. This was an ambitious project, and althoughhis motivation is not stated, it seems reasonable to believe that heappreciated that the growth o f Liverpool, which was already wellunderway, and population increase with economic development insouth Lancashire generally, would open up new opportunities formarkets for food, which could best be supplied locally. Fleetwoodwas in a good position to recognise these developments, havinggood connections with Liverpool, where he was appointed a25 Lancs. RO, DDSc 143/23.26 1694 6 & 7 Wm. 3 c.15.27 Journal o f the House o f Lords, XV, pp. 495, 496, 502, 503, 525, 562; Journal ofthe House o f Commons, XI, pp. 242, 253, 256, 259, 282.
34John Virgoefreeman in 1699.28 He was also involved in at least one businessventure in the town, with shares in a rape seed mill and astorehouse in Liverpool, and a stock of rape oil at the millvalued at 400.” His appointment as a Liverpool freeman was‘gratis’, that is to say not by inheritance, apprenticeship orpurchase, but by the Corporation as someone they consideredwould be o f advantage to the town.30 In addition to being acountry gentleman, he obviously had a strong entrepreneurialside to his character. The seeking o f an Act of Parliament for thedraining o f Martin Mere was in keeping with a number o f otherlocal initiatives at that time, stimulated by demographic andeconomic change, especially in Lancashire, but also to a degree,by changes in the workings of Parliament.31Fleetwood’s original lease o f the Mere was for two lives (not threeas often stated) and an additional 31 years after the death o f thesecond life. The lives named were those o f Fleetwood himself, andhis daughter Henrietta Maria. Fleetwood died in 17 1 7 , and hisdaughter in 172 2, so that the lease ultimately expired in 17 5 3 , butthis was obviously not known to the parties at the time. Workstarted at Martin Mere soon after the Act was obtained, a channel orsluice being cut to the Ribble estuary, and a pair o f flood gateserected near the sea end to prevent the sea flooding back into theMere, which lies below sea level at spring tides. These gates closedwhen the sea rose higher than the water in the sluice, and openedagain when the sea level fell. There are few details o f how Fleetwoodmanaged the work: there are suggestions that Dutch drainageengineers or men from the Fens may have been employed, butthere is no evidence to back this up.32Before 1700 there were said to be sometimes up to 2,000 menemployed on the project. If this figure is to believed, then this was a28 R. W. B. (R. W. Buss of South Norwood, London), The Fleetwood family ofCalwich, County Stafford with a pedigree (privately printed, 1908).29 John Rylands University Library Manchester (JRULM), Legh o f Lyme Muni ments Box R. E., no. 3, Mr Fleetwood’s settlement o f his estate for payment of hisdebts, 18 July 1705.30 Thomas Fleetwood Esq., o f Banke adm. gratis, 30 Sept. 1699, in LiverpoolRecord Office, 352 MIN/COU 1, 4 (Liverpool Town Books). I am grateful to DrM. J. Power for this information.11S. Handley, ‘Local legislative initiatives for economic and social developmentin Lancashire, 16 8 9 - 17 3 1’, Parliamentary History, IX (1990), pp. 14 -37.32 Brazendale, Historic halls, p. 247.
Martin Mere35massive undertaking requiring considerable management skills andprovision o f facilities. Problems would have included the arrange ment of temporary accommodation, the recruitment of labour fromoutside the area, and the coping with the domestic, social andorganisational requirements o f a population equivalent to a mod erately large town of the time. This was recognised by his con temporaries, if in rather fanciful language, when Charles Leigh wrotein 1700 that ‘to surmount all the natural and artificial oppositions ofthe work there was highly needful a person o f so generous andpiercing a spirit and so extraordinary a temper as the worthy andsuccessful undertaker’.33 Unfortunately, the sources to tell us howthis was achieved do not appear to have survived.It was estimated that an experienced canal navvy could shifttwelve cubic yards of earth in a day.34 Fleetwood’s initial sluice waseight yards wide, probably involved about eight miles of mainditching, and assuming it was at least three feet deep, then itwould require about 10,000 man days o f intensive digging. Butfor 2,000 men that would only amount to one week’s work. Theemployment of large numbers o f men would ensure that the workwas completed in a short time, but such an achievement is notrealistic. The work rate outlined above was for an experienced navvyat the end of the eighteenth century, and Fleetwood’s labour force,being inexperienced, would not match such figures. In view of thelogistical problems, it also seems unlikely that as many as 2,000 menwere employed. Even if there were that many men on site it wasunlikely that they were all digging and some may have been involvedin supplying support services. Some reservations must be held aboutthe number o f men employed, although the work was undoubtedlycompleted in a short time.Fleetwood seems to have been a competent engineer, and in 1697he, together with two other gentlemen, Edward Booth and JohnLiddell, submitted a petition claiming to have invented a new enginefor draining water by means o f ladles, drivers or forcers, turningcircularly about their axes, which drove the water progressivelythrough a trough or channel to the desired height or place. Thisapplication was submitted on 9 March 1697, and the patent was33 Charles Leigh, The natural history of Lancashire and Cheshire and the Peak inDerbyshire (Oxford, 1700), p. 19.34 A. Burton, The canal builders (Newton Abbot, 19 8 1), p. 158 quotingW. Tatham, The political economy o f inland navigation (1799).
36John Virgoefinally published as patent no. 359 on 1 December 1698.35 It seemsclear that the Thomas Fleetwood o f the patent is Thomas Fleetwoodo f Bank, but unfortunately there are no addresses or other identi fying information given in the patent, and Booth and Liddell havenot been identified further.The location of the main drainage sluice seems to have been wellconsidered and dug in the best place. At a court case in 17 14 , PeterRimmer, who worked on the drainage o f the Mere and wasemployed in sounding the depths o f the water, gave evidence thatthe deepest part was where the great sluice was made, the greatestdepth being about seven feet. His evidence was corroborated byThomas Ball, who had also been employed on the drainage.36Although Celia Fiennes went out o f her way to avoid passing byMartin Mere during her travels through the area in 1698 because shewas apprehensive o f the dangers of the district, she was well awarethat drainage working was taking place there. Her words give aconcise contemporary commentary recognising both the expense,the objective, the necessary endeavour and the potential reward:Som e part o f the M er one M r Fleetwood had been at the expense to draineso as to be able to use the ground for tillage, having b y trenches andfloodgates w ith banks shutt out the w aters that still kept it a m arsh andm oorish ground, but it was a very great charge; how ever it shews byin dustry and som e expense if gentlem en w ould set about it m ost o f thew aste ground that is n ow a fenny m oor and m ostly water, m ight berendered useful and in a few yeares answ ere the first great charge on it.37The work must have been initially successful, because Fleetwoodleased land on what was virtually the centre of the former mere toThomas Berry, Henry Low and William Wiggins amongst others,who soon erected dwelling houses and outbuildings on theirholdings.38 The land leased to Berry was forty-nine customaryacres (approximately ninety statute acres) and to Wiggins eightcustomary acres.39 It was estimated that Fleetwood was entitled to35 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (CSPD), 9 Mar. 1697, p. 53, 22 Apr. 1697,pp. 12 1- 2 2 ; Bennet Woodcraft, Alphabetical index o f patentees o f inventions 16 1 7 1852 (3rd edn, New York, 1969), British Patent no. 359 (1698).36 Lancs. RO, DDSc 143/23.37 C. Morris, ed., The illustrated journeys o f Celia Fiennes 16 8 5 -17 15 (London,1982), p. 16 1.38 Lancs. RO, DDHe 58/33 (Hesketh o f Rufford Papers)39 Lancs. RO, DDHe 58/41.
Martin Mere37sums totalling about 800 for fines and contracts for leases on theMere.40 Additional evidence o f early success is also provided byThomas Fleetwood’s application in March 1700 for a grant for a fairto be held three times a year on Martin Mere over two days in April,June and September. Fleetwood claimed that he made this applica tion in response to demands from the local inhabitants who wishedto sell their cattle and other goods more easily.41 A warrant to holdthe fair was granted the following month.42Yet further indication of the success of the drainage is suggestedby the bringing o f a court case in 17 1 4 between Lord Derby andRobert Scarisbrick on the one hand and Fleetwood and the otherland owners o f the townships adjoining the Mere on the other,concerning the boundaries of the lands within the drained areawhich were formerly occupied by the waters of the Mere. This casemay be considered, at least in part, a testament to the relative successo f Thomas Fleetwood in draining the Mere since the adjacentlandowners were apparently keen to lay claim to the land withinit.43 Robert Scarisbrick was desirous of having boundary stones setup on the land.44 Nicholas Blundell, the diarist, makes passingreference to events at this time: ‘M r Scarisbrick went out afterdinner upon Business about martin meer’.45The case hinged to a great degree on the rights which the variousowners of land adjacent to the Mere had over the Mere when it wascovered with water, and in particular the fishing rights. Fleetwood,in his evidence to the court, claimed ignorance of both theboundaries and whether the owners knew the bounds o f theirown shares. Because of the expenses o f the work he had mortgagedthe Mere to Benjamin Bathurst o f Middlesex, to whom he hadpassed the deeds, and so was unable to consult their contents.46 Healso stated that he did not know what means there were todistinguish each party’s interests when the area was covered withwater. The outcome o f the case was summarised in minutes of theproceedings as ‘the boundaries o f the fishery as the plaintiffs40 JRULM, Legh Muniments, Box R. E., no. 3.41 CSPD, 1 1 Mar. 1700.42 CSPD, 8 Apr. 1700.43 Lancs. RO, DDSc 143/23.44 Lancs. RO, DDHe 58/36-745 F. Tyrer, ed„ The Great Diurnal o f Nicholas Blundell, o f Little Crosby, Lancashire1/ 0 2 -17 2 8 (3 vols, Record Society o f Lancashire & Cheshire (RSLC), 1968-72), I,pp. 97- 98.46 Lancs. RO, DDHe 58/35.
38John Virgoeevidence describes give no right to the soil now drained’, so that inthis sense Fleetwood won the case, although the victory was o f littlevalue to him.47Costs and benefitsThe main source o f information for the pre-drainage economy ofMartin Mere comes from the depositions o f witnesses called to thecourt case o f 17 14 -48 Witnesses were asked whether they knew theMere and places around it, did they live nearby and for how long,what did they know o f the boundaries within the Mere and o f theextent of the fisheries.49 Witness included old men such as HughWalthew, who was 83, and had known the Mere since childhood andwas employed as a workmen in the draining of the Mere. He gaveevidence on the boundaries as did Thomas Forshaw. ThomasTitherington and John Summer gave evidence o f grazing cattle onthe Mere, whilst Henry Halsall and James Worthington attested tothe taking o f wildfowl and eggs. The landlords, at the time Fleet wood’s lease was granted, had considered the Mere to be o f little orno use or profit except for fishing.50 Other uses to which the lake wasput included the gathering o f reeds for thatching, and the summergrazing o f horses and cattle.51 Cattle were grazed on the Mere notonly by local residents, but by people from further afield, presum ably on payment o f a fee. After William Finch o f Mawdesley died in17 0 1, his widow had to pay for someone to go to Martin Mere,where he had cattle, to collect them and take them to market inOrmskirk.52Drainage o f the Mere brought more land into agriculturalproduction, but adversely affected the small number o f peoplewho had been dependant upon its pre-drainage condition fortheir livelihood. In this respect it was analogous to the enclosureo f former open or common land. At nearby Croston, the enclosureo f the Finney had led to opposition from the commoners who haddepended on it, and has been seen as a major factor in changing thesocial make up of the township from a place with a large populationo f independent small-holding cottager farmers to a village with a47495152Lancs. RO, DDHe 58/40.48 Coney, ‘Fish, fowl and hen’, p. 51.Lancs. RO, DDHe 58/36.50 Lancs. RO, DDSc 143/23.Coney, ‘Fish, fowl and hen’, pp. 59-60.Lancs. RO, WCW William Finch, Mawdesley, 17 0 1.
Martin Mere39large underclass of landless agricultural labourers.5’ This was not thecase at Martin Mere, however, where the area reclaimed was largelywater and the land holders affected were the relatively small numberwith holdings adjacent to the Mere: in this respect Martin Mere wastypical fenland.54 Whereas in both the Somerset levels and the Fensthe commoners were opposed to drainage, there is no informationon any adverse response in south west Lancashire.53An interesting measure o f the increased availability o f land as theresult of drainage is the emergence of Martin Mere as a distinctlocality in the Croston parish registers.56 Between 1696 and 17 14there is no mention of Martin Mere. From 1 7 1 5 to 17 2 7 there were44 baptisms and 24 burials of individuals identifies as ‘o f MartinMere’. All but two of these events took place at Rufford, theexceptions being baptisms at Tarleton. Rufford and Tarleton weretownships with land on the Mere and with chapels within Crostonparish. This is clearly indicative of a population being established onthe recently-drained Mere, and the excess of baptisms over burialssuggests that such a population had a bias to younger people whichis to be expected o f an immigrant area.Despite the initial technical success o f Fleetwood’s work, withina few years of the work being completed the sands of the Ribbleestuary had drifted into the outfall, and this, together with mudwhich built up against the flood gates in spring tides, made thescheme less effective. By 17 1 4 it was decided to raise the sill at thefloodgate by twenty inches, which together with some othermeasures, cured this last problem. But the loss of fall made thedrainage less satisfactory, and part o f the land which had been usedfor arable now became flooded again in winter, so that it couldonly be used for summer pasture.57 Some time after Fleetwood’sdeath his successors erected a new pair o f floodgates nearer to theoutfall which improved the situation again, but as time for thelease to expire approached maintenance was neglected, and with53 G. Rogers, ‘Enclosure and social change in west Lancashire’, AgriculturalHistory Review, 41 (1993), PP- 1 37 - 5 4 54 A. Reeves & T. Williamson, ‘Marshes’ in J. Thirsk, ed., The English rurallandscape (Oxford, 2000), p. 150.55 Williams, Draining the Somerset levels, p. 89; Summers, The Great Level,pp. 10 5-7.56 H. Fishwick, ed., The registers of the Parish Church of Croston (2 vols, Preston,1900-4).57 Lancs. RO, DDSc 78/3 (7).
40John Virgoethe expiry o f the lease the land reverted from one leaseholder toseveral land owners, w
Martin Mere from flooding by the sea and to drain it during the seventeenth century, but no details have been found.22 Draining Martin Mere It was against this background that Thomas Fleetwood began the drainage of Martin Mere in the 1690s. His was the first large-scale d
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Fleetwood reserves the right to approach corrective measures in any way it deems appropriate and reasonable. Fleetwood does not restock - goods; "cancelled" orders will be billed in full for materials and labor expended. 8. Fleetwood furnishes a "Limited Lifetime Warranty", as appropriate to the project, for all windows and doors. 9.
o Academic Writing , Stephen Bailey (Routledge, 2006) o 50 Steps to Improving your Academic Writing , Christ Sowton (Garnet, 2012) Complete introduction to organising and writing different types of essays, plus detailed explanations and exercises on sentence structure and linking: Writing Academic English , Alice
