Since ancient times, the fens of East Anglia were home to humans. The way of life of the "fenmen" changed very little for centuries, only adding new technologies as they became available; discarding stone for bronze, and then bronze for iron. In the 17th century, however, this changed. The lords who controlled these lands saw more value in using them as farmlands, than in following the traditional methods, and, using techniques developed by the Dutch, they were able to realize that idea. The draining of the fens, however, came at the expensive of the livelihoods of the many fenmen, and the plants and animals that made up the fen. This caused both social strife and ecological upheaval, all around the English Civil War.
In order to examine the problems and advantages of draining the fens, I intend to follow a set course. First, I will examine the life and activities of the fenmen, as well as the fens themselves. While much of this will come from secondary sources, two modern chronicles will provide some insight into life in the fens. Secondly, I will examine the causes and means of the draining of the fens, with the question in mind "Why did the local Lords opt to take this action?", and an eye towards explaining the methods of draining used in the seventeenth century. Lastly, I will turn towards describing and explaining the aftermath and consequences, both ecological and social, of draining the fens.
Humans have occupied the fens of East Anglia since ancient times. Sir Harry Godwin has traced Mesolithic cultures living in the area to seven or eight thousand years ago, based on the remains of their tools. Though the landscape was quite different at the time, there is ample evidence from pollen samples of marsh plants being common in the area. To the Mesolithic and Neolithic humans, the landscape of the fens would have been that of vast, marshy lowlands, with trees of birch and willow beginning to dot the landscape. Continuous occupation continued throughout the Stone and Bronze Ages, but was interrupted in the Iron Age and Romano-British period by incursions of the sea into the area. However, people still inhabited and made use of the area somewhat, likely for transport and salt extraction, the salinity of the tidal waters would have made it very difficult to live in the area.
By the sixteenth century, the tidal waters had long since subsided, and a system of living had grown up in the fens. As Hugo Candidus, a monk from Peterborough said in 1150:
This marsh, however, is very useful for men; for in it are found wood and twigs for fires, hay for the fodder of cattle, thatch for covering of houses, and many other useful things. It is, moreover, productive of birds and fish. For there are various rivers, and very many waters and ponds abounding in fish. In all these things the district is most productive.
H.C. Darby notes that, if you add turbaries and salt pans to the list, it is quite accurate, and remained so from the time that Hugo made the observations, until Michael Drayton made similar remarks in the Polyobion of 1622. Darby divides the work of the region into three main groups, based on where in the fenlands they took place. First, he cites the marsh-based activities, such as fishing, fowling, the making of salt, and the gathering of reeds. Second, there were the intermediate activities, which took place above the water level, but still in areas subject to frequent flooding. These included grazing, turbaries, and hay production. Finally, farming took place on the dry land of islands and the few portions of the fen permanently drained.
Fishing was perhaps one of the most important activities in the fens, with references throughout the Domesday Book and other contemporary documents to the activities of fishermen and grants of fisheries. Fish (including pikes, pickerels, perch, roach, burbots, lampreys, and especially eels) were so common, and so important, that eels were almost a form of currency. Many paid rents in eels, or gave them as gifts to the various monasteries. Fenmen caught fish in weirs, nets, on hooks, and with curious tools known as "gleaves" and "pilgers". A gleave somewhat resembles a five-tined trident, with the two extra tines extending off then central one. A pilger somewhat resembles a broad, flat paddle, split into several, close-set blades. Both were used to hook the eels from the water, on broad, serrated, tines and flip them into a net or boat.
In addition to the wealth made from fishing, many fenmen brought in money by cutting, binding, and selling reeds. Reeds were used in thatching, and formed an important part of many account rolls. In addition, fenmen took birds and their eggs from the fens in large numbers. Thomas of Ely remarked the following about the birds in the twelfth century:
There are numberless Geese, Fiscedulae, Coots, Dabchicks, Water-crows, Herons, and Ducks, of which the number is indeed great. At mid-winter, or when the birds moult their quills, I have seen them caught by the hundred, and even by the three hundreds, more or less. Sometimes they are taken in nets and snares as well as by bird-lime.
In addition to the birds that Thomas of Ely mentioned, swans, peacocks, cranes, and bitterns were found and trapped in the swamp. Many of these animals were destined for a lord's table, but the king would also make requests to his vassals for fowl for his table.
Salt panning also took place in the fens, though, unlike fishing and fowling, it was not done in every village. Much of it was done near where the uplands reached the sea, as a more ample supply of fuel to feed the evaporation process was available there. Salt was essential in the preservation of meat and important in the tanning of hide, and rock salt was not discovered in England until 1670, so the few salt-works there were were extremely valuable.
Upland from the salt-works and fisheries, one would find meadow, pasture, and turbaries. "Meadows" as a land type, varied greatly. Some were never free from water, always under some inches, while others remained dry for long periods. All were subject to summer floods, which would ruin the great crop of the meadows: hay. Hay was used as winter fodder for animals, and was valuable enough to make one acre of meadowland twice as valuable as a similar acre of arable land. In addition to winter fodder, many meadows would be suitable for grazing in at least part of the year. Pasture rights were quite valuable, and the loss of them could easily break a manor.
In addition to meadowlands and pasturage, though, the middle-area of the fens also supported turving, or cutting peat for use as fuel. Turf, as the peat was known, was used not only for heating, but also for construction, like the sod houses of Midwestern folklore, if not practice. Randell, in his autobiography, provides the following description of turving from the early 20th century, and the methods used would seem to indicate that things had changed very little in the three hundred years since the draining began:
The turf diggers used an oval-shaped, sharp-edged spade set with a forward thrust into the handle, to remove the top surface and lay bare the peat. With a long knife, set in a wooden shaft, a cut was made all down one side of the cleared strip and another shorter one across the end. The turf was then sliced and lifted out in rectangular blocks by means of a becket, a toll which looked rather like a flat wooden cricket bat topped by a T-handle and fitted at the end with an iron plate with a flange jutting forwards about 4 inches at right angles.
The turf would then be dried somewhat before being arranged into stacks that would help complete the drying process. Weather was very important at this stage, as freezing even a slightly moist turve would result in its disintegration.
Agriculture in the upper fenlands was much like agriculture elsewhere in England, though more subject to flooding. When the high ground was cultivated, or marsh was somewhat reclaimed, the land would grow wheat, barely, oats, rye, beans and peas. Serious winter floods could destroy the embankments the protected reclaimed areas, and occasional incursions of the sea would leave the ground that was not washed away salted and barren.
As with medieval agriculture everywhere, though, these activities were bound by rules and customs so numerous that few could conceivably know them all. Indeed, there are many references to trials of fenmen and their lords for breaking the rules in various endeavors; from Randell's in-depth discussion of poaching to several instances that Darby quotes from primary sources Perhaps the most interesting, given the thrust of this paper, is that mentioned on page 84 of Darby's Medieval Fenland, as it deals with enclosure law. Why this is so interesting will be dealt with later, so let a case summary suffice for now.
The prior of Spalding was accustomed to enclosing an area of the land he held for his own use. Normally, this would have caused little more than grumbling amongst the fenmen. However, in 1294, the prior began to complain that some men of the village were taking turves cut for his own use. The villagers replied that, not only had the prior enclosed the unreasonably large amount of two thousand acres, but also he had done so for many years. The prior felt he had a right to do so, as it protected his turves from damage by cattle while they were drying, and that his rights as lord of that section of fen did not limit him to a certain number of acres. He won the case in 1301, but only for two years; it then came before the court again, this time with the revelation that the prior had left a gap in the enclosure and stationed men to ensure that only his cattle could graze on that land. The case went against him.
Why some lords decided to drain their fens is unknown; the factors involved in this are too numerous and complex to ever fully take into account. However, one major factor was likely population growth within England herself. Estimates vary, but England likely grew by some two to three million people in the seventeenth century. This would have placed a strain on the English agricultural system, and placed a premium price on farmland as opposed to fenland. The benefits of keeping fens were growing less and less, while the pressure for more grain grew and grew. In addition, the population boom meant that there was a glut of workers, meaning that land-holders could negotiate more favorable terms, and thus enclose more of their land for their exclusive use (and thus with a higher profit for themselves). The availability of Dutch technology and engineers certainly played a part, but without the drive of a population boom, and the advantages to the landholders of a high unemployment rate, the Dutch technology and expertise would have been ignored.
What precisely did this Dutch expertise consist of, however? King James invited the Dutch engineer Vermuyden to help with the drainage in 1621, and others retained Vermuyden after James's death in 1625. Vermuyden began first with a series of cuts, sluices, and drains to increase water flow and thereby making more land available for pasturage and lessening winter flooding. The cuts would sometimes divert rivers, so the lowland areas did not receive so much water; at other times, they were to drain water from those low-lying areas.
Windmills were introduced into the fens in the beginning of the seventeenth century. They had two prime advantages over sluices, first in that they were generally faster at draining and area, and secondly that they could drain an area that was otherwise beneath the local drainage-level. Unfortunately, however, their wind-driven pumps were less reliable than other methods, as the machinery required constant upkeep and was often at the mercy of winds that would blow too strongly, either toppling the windmill or destroying the machinery. William Henry Edwards has an account of the former:
This mill were doomed to disaster, though. For one thing, the tower tapered too much, and it must a-bin finished off something like a castle nut, as my father told me that it had pillars and spaces. The curb wheel laid on top, and the weight o' the sails broke through the casting so as she coul'n't luff herself, that is, so as she coul'n't turn herself to face the wind. Then one day, about March 1874, a south-west wind got up behind her, and off came her head. It bundled down into the mill drain, and some of it lays there still. Two men were working in her head when it happened, but they managed to jump down to the next floor, so nobody got hurt.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the fens had been drained to near their present state. While this was certainly aided by the introduction of the steam engine, the main reason the drainage took so long was the English Civil War taking place in the seventeenth century. Not only did this draw attention away from such public works project as draining the fens, but it also allowed fenmen to destroy drainage equipment with less fear of reprisal or repair. Thus, when the seven-year civil war ended in 1649, the fens "were wasted in the late times, and lie overflowed".
Wind was not the only thing that happened to drainage equipment, however. There are many accounts of lords enclosing then draining the fens that fenmen depended upon for their livelihood, only to have the drains and mills destroyed by irate fenmen.
In those areas where the riots and vandalism against drainage were not successful, the average standard of living greatly decreased. While the value of the land had increased, agriculture required far fewer people than intensive exploitation of the fens had, and so many people were without work. Those that did have work were often making less than they would have, since they were easily replaced if they complained, driving the standard of living even lower. This undoubtedly aided in the colonization of the Americas and other British territories, as poor Fenlanders would seek out opportunities for work and self-support, rather than rely on begging to eke out a meager living. On the other hand, the landowners themselves made out like bandits. Darby provides one example of some ten thousand acres belonging to the king. The draining expenses seem immense (£ 1000 per year), but those ten thousand acres would be making £3781, 11s, and 10d a year.
In addition to the social damage, however, was the environmental damage. The traditional nesting sites of the birds mentioned in part one was largely destroyed, as was the habitat of the many kinds of fish. Fenlands still existed, of course, but their size was much restricted from what it once had been, and thus so was the populations of various creatures.
In addition, peculiar properties of the peat caused great problems. Peat is tightly compacted marsh plant life. The reason it does not rot, however, is that when it falls, it is almost immediately covered by water, and thus kept out of the air. As it is compacts, it is pushed farther and farther from the air, and still kept from rotting. Once that water is drained away, however, the peat is open to bacterial infections and even simple desiccation, which will turn rich, useful, peat into a large amount of airborne dust, useless for nearly everything. That which did not turn into dust would subside, since it was not as full or thick as when saturated with water. Since the layers of peat in the former fenlands were often quite deep, the land would subside beneath it's former level, and therefore require more powerful pumping to achieve the same results. Godwin has a picture of the Holme Post, which was driven into the ground so it would be level with the peat in 1851. When G. Fowler it photographed in 1932, only 81 years later, the peat had subsided eleven feet and four inches! This was by no means uncommon, as the land wasted away under its desiccated conditions.
Even with this, the destruction of the fens may not seem like an especial ecological problem. However, that ignores the importance of wetlands, which the fens qualify as, in a broader ecological (and hydrological) sense. Wetlands provide for a diversity of plant-life, especially hydrophilic plants; a bio-diversity that helps to insulate an ecosystem against the ravages of disease. Though a more modern revelation, wetlands are also important in improving water quality by decreasing silt and removing toxins, and in increasing the recharge rate of groundwater. Given that much of the destruction of the land happened at a time when England was taking its first steps into the Industrial Revolution, a lack of these facilities was nearly crippling to the environment.
The English Fens were long a part of the ecosystem of the Isle of Britain, providing food and shelter for man, animal, and plant. However, the pressures of a growing population and the greed of landholders led to their destruction, with deep ecological impacts. As we learn more about the interactions of humans with non-human nature, we come to realize the impact of our actions have upon the world. I think it is time that human kind realizes that, if a butterfly flapping its wings can create a hurricane on the other side of the world, that humanity is like the mythical roc, able to create them wherever it goes.
Darby, H.C. The Changing Fenland. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of Cambridge, 1983
_________. The Medieval Fenland. Devon: Cambridge University Press, 1974
________, ed. Historical Geography of England Before 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963
Godwin, Sir Harry. Fenland: its ancient past and uncertain future. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978
Hills, Richard L. Machines, Mills, and Uncountable Costly Necessities. Norwich: Goose and Son, 1967.
Marshall, Sybil. Fenland Chronicle. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967
Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1980.
Randell, Arthur. Fenland Memories. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969
Ravensdale, J.R. Liable to Floods: Village Landscape on the Edge of the Fens AD 450-1850. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974
Ward, Andrew, ed. Environmental Hydrology. New York: Lewis Publishers, 1995