[2473] Archaeol. Cant., xxiv, 1900, p. 108.
[2474] Dict. Nat. Biogr., xlviii, 15.
[2475] Archaeologia, xxi, 1827, p. 505.
[2476] The Cinque Ports, 1888, p. 229.
[2477] I am glad to find that this remark has been anticipated by Mr. C. R. S. Elvin (Records of Walmer, 1890, p. 30).
[2478] Itinerary, 2nd ed., vii, 1744, fol. 127 (p. 116). Professor Burrows may perhaps have followed Hasted, who says (Hist. of Kent, iv, 1799, p. 163) that ‘Upper Deal was composed of the habitations of a few poor fishermen only, though at a less distance from the sea than at present, owing to the great increase of beach thrown on this shore afterwards’; and in note e he observes that ‘Leland ... seems to confirm this’. Leland, as I show in the text, does no such thing. Hasted goes on to say that ‘Even so late as the year 1624, a house ... on the west side of the Lower Street (the farthest at this time from the sea shore) is described in a deed of that date to abut ad le sea bank versus orientem’. Very likely: but the fact does not prove that the west side of Lower Street was an inch nearer the sea in 1624 than it is now; for the breadth of ‘le sea bank’ is not stated. Anyhow Deal Castle has not moved since 1624: therefore, if Hasted is right, the sea must then have made a sudden bend landward immediately north of Deal Castle, and formed a bay; which is absurd. The west side of Lower Street is now about 550 feet from the high-water mark of ordinary tides (Six-Inch Ordnance Survey, Sheets 58 and 58A).
[2479] The distance from the ‘high-water mark of ordinary tides’ to the nearest point of Upper Deal appears to be about 3,900 feet (Six-Inch Ordnance Survey, Sheet 58).
[2480] Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.
[2481] Ib., p. 58.
[2482] Ib., p. 59.