A HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



tanners of Heathfield, one of Uckfield, and one 

 ofNewtimber were charged with similar offences. 17 

 Not only was the tanner liable to prosecution if 

 his hides were badly tanned, as happened to 

 Richard Mascall, a prominent tanner of Wivels- 

 field, in i528, 18 but he must only sell his wares 

 in the open market, John Robinson of Northiam, 

 Thomas Brokers of Chichester, and John Monk 

 of Ashington, all being charged in 1562 with the 

 offence of selling tanned hides in their own 

 houses. 19 Further, the hides so exposed for sale 

 must be stamped by the proper officer, so that 

 Thomas Cheryman of Pulborough, in 1568, had 

 to answer for selling to a cordwainer of Chichester 

 eight dakers (the daker being ten hides) of 'upper- 

 lether ' worth 4 the daker, and eight dakers of 

 ' Backs and Solelether,' worth 6 the daker, 

 before they had been sealed and registered. 20 All 

 these regulations having been duly observed, the 

 remaining possibilities of infringing the laws 

 rested with the purchaser, who must not buy 

 tanned hides with the object of re-selling them, as 

 Alan Rowlands did in 1560 ; 21 nor might he if 

 a shoemaker prepare and curry the leather for his 

 own use himself, but he must take it to a 

 currier, several Sussex shoemakers being accused 

 of currying tanned leather in their own houses 

 in is66. 22 



Another offence of common occurrence was 

 the endeavour to evade payment of the export 

 duty on hides. Tanned hides appear in the 

 customs accounts of the Sussex ports in I466, 23 

 and formed one of the chief articles of export 

 about I490, 24 the value of a daker of hides at 

 this time being about i. The trade continued 

 to flourish down to the end of the eighteenth 

 century, the chief centres in East Sussex during 



the period 1540-1640 being, on the evidence of 

 the wills at Lewes and other documents, Henfield, 

 Hurstpierpoint, Cuckfield, Lewes, in which town 

 there were a large number of saddlers at this 

 time, Barcombe, Mayfield, Heathfield, Hellingly, 

 Herstmonceux, Ninfield, Idcn, and Winchelsea. 

 At the last-named town the tanyard lay below 

 the cliff at the south-east angle, near the Strand 

 well, and was in use down to about 1820." By 

 the end of the eighteenth century the smaller 

 lanyards were dying out, and the industry was 

 concentrating in the larger towns, while shortly 

 after this date the tremendous development of 

 the Bermondsey yards began to make itself felt. 

 The establishment of this industry at Bermondsey 

 is said to have been due to Huguenot exiles, who 

 had first settled at Rye, 26 but the statement that 

 they left the latter town because of the constant 

 raids made upon it by their compatriot persecutors 

 is so unfounded as to throw doubt upon the whole 

 story. The first effects of the growth of the 

 Bermondsey trade may have been partly bene- 

 ficial to Sussex, as some of the big firms appear 

 to have given out work to the small tanners in 

 this county, 27 but as methods and accommodation 

 in the Bermondsey yards improved, and greater 

 facilities of transport grew up, the Sussex trade 

 rapidly dwindled. From 1851 to 1871 the 

 number of tanners in this county stood constant 

 at 135, but by 1901 it had fallen to 85, and 

 since then there has been further decrease, the 

 Lewes tannery being amongst those recently 

 closed down, so that the only firms now remain- 

 ing are those of Messrs. Gibbings, Harrison & Co. 

 at Chichester and Horsham, G. A. Bacon at 

 Battle, and T. J. Kingsbury at Groombridge, on 

 the borders of Kent and Sussex. 



BREWING 



The drink of the English has always been a 

 malt liquor, but the mediaeval ale was very different 

 from even the unadulterated varieties of the 

 beverage which now goes by that name ; it was, 

 in fact, a kind of thick sweet wort. Enormous 

 quantities of this ale must have been consumed 

 in early times, for an examination of monastic 

 corrodies and similar documents shows that a 

 gallon of good ale, with very often a second gallon 

 of weaker quality, was a normal daily allowance 

 for one person. Not only did every religious 

 house, every gentleman's seat and many farms 

 have brew-houses, but in every village were com- 



" Mem. R. K.R. 10 Eliz. Hil. m. 116-19. 



18 Ibid. 19 Hen. VIII, Hil. m. 35. 



19 Ibid. 4 Eliz. Mich. mm. 164, 179, 180. 



10 Ibid. 10 Eliz. Hil. m. 119. 



11 Ibid. 2 Eliz. Mich. m. 1 79. 



" Ibid. 8 Eliz. East. mm. 86, 1 1 3. 



" Customs Accts. f. M Ibid. %f-, S. 



mon brewers and ale-wives, who supplied the 

 liquor to their neighbours, either in their own 

 houses and taverns or for outside consumption. 

 The universality of the industry might exclude 

 it from treatment here were it not that the trade 

 is one of the very few that still flourish in the 

 county, and that there are several features of 

 interest in the earlier history of brewing in 

 Sussex. 



From at least as early as the reign of Henry III, 

 and probably from a much earlier date, brewing 

 was controlled by legislative regulations, the 

 assize of beer being almost always in the hands 

 of the manorial lord. From the extreme regu- 

 larity with which all the brewers appear to have 

 been presented at the courts for breaking the 

 assize it is clear that the legal restrictions of the 



260 



15 Cooper, Hist, of Winchelsea, 121. 

 * y.C.H. Surrey, \\, 330 w. 

 "Ibid. 337. 



