[2483] Proc. Geologists’ Association, ix, 1885-6 (1887), pp. 174-5.

[2484] ‘It is certain,’ wrote Dowker in 1876 (Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 59), ‘that when the sea swept the Stonar beach, Deal had no existence.’ Even men of science sometimes use the word ‘certain’ a little rashly. At that time Dowker asserted that the Stonar beach ‘must have travelled from the cliff between Dover and Deal’. In 1887 (Proc. Geologists’ Association, ix, 174-5) he ‘pointed to the stones of which it is composed as evincing their origin from the cliff at Pegwell.... To imagine it to have travelled from the south, we must,’ he said, ‘have a shore-line cutting far back beyond the Deal beach, of which at present there was no evidence.’

[2485] Itin. curiosum, 2nd ed., 1776, pp. 126-7.

[2486] It must be borne in mind that Stukeley wrote before the great increase of shingle in the neighbourhood of Walmer.

[2487] Ib.; C. R. S. Elvin, Records of Walmer, pp. 2-3, 5.

[2488] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of James I, 1611-8, p. 324 (vol. lxxxii, 129), under date 1615; ib., Charles I, 1625-6, p. 321 (vol. xxv, 82), under date 1626; ib., 1627-8, p. 200 (vol. lxv. 62), under date 1627. In the British Museum is a print, called ‘N.W. View of Deal Castle’, published in 1735, from which it would appear that at that time the castle was as close to the sea as it is now,—neither more nor less.

[2489] Records of Walmer, p. 5.

[2490] Coast Erosion, p. 3.

[2491] Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1888 (1889), p. 910. The following table, compiled by Major A. C. Hepper, R.E. (ib., 1885, p. 440), illustrates the movements of the shingle during the period between 1741 and 1884:—

IncreaseDecrease
PlaceFromToFeetFeet
Walmer Castle17411841308—
Walmer Castle18411859 34—
Walmer Castle18591872 33—
Walmer Castle18721884 10—
Deal Castle17411859 85—
Deal Castle18591872— 40
Deal Castle18721884 35—
Sandown Castle17411859—145
Sandown Castle18591872— 50
Sandown Castle18721884— 5
No. 2 Battery18591884140—