Up or down?

[johnalison]

Fascinating. I've no idea about the Gunfleet. I will guess that it has nothing to do with guns, though I have read that fifty or so Dutch ships were permanently on station there in the late 17th C.

I picked up a book about the Naze a few months from the new Essex wildlife shop there. This gives an interesting history of the Naze, whose land extended well across the current Wallet where it was farmed. The land around, and the Sokens, belonged to St Paul's for many centuries. The back of the book is filled with reminiscences from elderly locals which are particularly interesting.

 

[Marmalade]

Gunfleet - isn't that a derivative of a dutch term or phrase?
(my Thames Estuary history is on Marmalade so I'll have to consult it at a later date)

 

[Hydrozoan]

While I try to upload this week's NtM onto my web site (which seems to be suffering a major crisis), I might as well talk about the Wallet. ...

Thank you very much indeed for that comprehensive answer (and, my having drifted his thread, I am pleased that johnalison found it fascinating too). So am I right in concluding that whichever way it got its name, it really derives from the southern end of what we now know as the Wallet?

 

[tillergirl]

Yes, that's right Gunfleet nothing about Guns. between Holland on Sea and Clacton there used to be a river called the Gunn or Gunna (thought be named after a person). While the river was there, the sands were called 'The Spittes' (as did both ends). Hence the 'Spitway' in due course. Arguably (and bear in mind it is all arguable because names in the past changed and spelling changed [and you can bet the Danes changed places as they outed the Saxon]) the Gunfleet for a while created a separate sand behind the Spittes presumably the river caused a swatch opposite. But by the 17th century, the Gunn had effectively gone (how can it but probably the remains is now the Holland Brook?) and the Spittes was still called that. In 1628 (15th December actually) there was a debate about the 'entrance' of the Wallet. Coals to Newcastle, coals to Newcastle - believe it:

"334. [f.28v. Before 15 Dec. 1628] Shipmasters and owners trading on the north coast, to eastern parts and to Newcastle for coal etc. to Trinity House [See 336.]
The channel of the Spitts is grown very dangerous, with not above 7 or 8 ft at low water. Trinity House are asked to lay a buoy at the east end of the Gunfleet so that ships can go in and out at Goldmer Gat, which is a fair channel with 4 or 5 fathoms at low water. Since the provision and maintenance of the buoy will be a great charge, the petitioners will pay 10d per 100 tons on ships, or 10d per 50 chaldrons of coal (Newcastle measure).

335. [f.29v. 15 × 24 Dec. 1628] (fn. 1) Trinity House to the privy council
Owners and masters of ships trading to Newcastle for coal, and to Russia, Greenland, Norway, the Eastland and Hamburg have petitioned the corporation to set out a new channel to replace the Spitts which has grown dangerous. Trinity House have surveyed and buoyed a new channel called Goldmer Gat. The cost of buoys, chains, millstones and maintenance will be a great charge, and the masters and owners have offered to contribute 6d per 100 tons on shipping. It will be paid by the masters and owners on ships coming from the north to the Thames and Medway on every voyage inwards, and will not fall upon merchants or their goods. The privy council are asked to authorise Trinity House and their assignees to collect the dues at the Customs Houses of London, Rochester and elsewhere."

Exactly where 'the Spitts' are ie the swatch as opposed to the sand (there is no reference in that record of the 'Gunfleet' although there is an 1588 chart using the term) is not clear. But it is clear that shipping coming from the north kept close to the shore: so avoid the Cork Sands using this new Trinity House buoy (Mr Ponnyett got £20 a year to service the buoy) shipping could come inside the sands intending to get to the London River.

"Those concerned agree to pay the proposed charge of 6d per 100 tons, provided that the channel is well buoyed and maintained so that they no longer have to use the dangerous channel of the Spitts."

Did shipping still come up past Crouch Creek? Not by the 17th century I think. By then it had to use the Spitway. A 1647 chartlet shows the gap between Gunfleet and the Spitts but the Buxey was not fully formed and arguably was due southish of what is now Clacton. Yes I agree that the name of the Wallet or Wallot started at the south end of the channel because it was opposite where the Crouch and Roach Creeks exited from land round the Wallet or Wallot island. For the want of a name, the Wallet appears to have gathered its name to the north and bit by bit contracted at the south end.

The Naze area and the Deben 2000 years ago would be entirely different. Dredging seacoals off the Naze wouldn't have helped.

Wasn't £20 a lot of money in 1628?

 

[Hydrozoan]

... Wasn't £20 a lot of money in 1628?

I believe the average wage in the early/mid C17th was about 8d/day, so £20 would be the equivalent of 3 man-years. Rye was about 20d/bushel (56lb), cheese 2.3d/lb, coal 8.4d/cwt and clothing canvas 7.5d/yd. That's a crudely simple way to grasp it. On the other hand, you can get a huge range of modern equivalents (ca £3.6k to ca.£890k, on various bases) at the 'Measuring Worth' site.