Section III.
Effects of the desertion of the Ouse and Nene on Wisbeach and parts adjacent.
After the above mentioned disastrous aberration of the Ouse some plans, it seems, were formed, and royal Commissions issued to bring it back again into its old deserted channel by Wisbeach, but all proved in the end ineffectual and fruitless, so that the port of Wisbeach, of course would be materially injured. “Of old time” (says Badeslade—that is, while the Ouse and the Nene discharged themselves that way) “ships of great burden resorted to Wisbeach”—but after those rivers had deserted their ancient outlet, that town soon ceased to be accessible to large vessels. The bed or channel below the town being forsaken by the said rivers, (or at most occupied only by an inconsiderable branch of the Nene, which must have been insufficient to grind or scour it to its former or usual depth,) would gradually be filled up in time with silt and sand; and which evidently has been the case. This is confirmed by a remarkable circumstance related by Dugdale—That in deepening the Wisbeach river in 1635, (about 300 years after the desertion of the Ouse,) “the workmen, at eight feet below the then bottom came to another bottom which was stony, and there at several distances found seven boats that had lain there overwhelmed with sand for many ages.” [16a]
Atkins, who wrote in 1608, and dedicated his paper to Andrews bishop of Ely, speaks of the Wisbeach channel as “anciently an arm of the sea;” [16b] and says that the time was when all the waters of the Ouse, even those which then passed from Littleport Chair to Lynn had their passage by Welney and Well to the North Seas at Wisbeach, and from thence to the Washes—and he further observes that writers have said, that King John’s people perished in the Waters of Well. [16c] From Thorney Red Book he also shews, that Well Stream was an ancient appellation of the Wisbeach river. He further adds, that this outfall, or arm of the sea, had Holland and a part of the Isle on one side, and Marshland on the other; these were defended from it by great sea-banks, which in the time of Henry VI were ordained to be made and maintained fifty feet high. Hither of old resorted (he says) ships and vessels of great burden. But the sea, still forsaking the Isle, made the whole passage between Wisbeach and the Washes high marshes and sands; and by the decay of the river, the channel, or outfall, became so shallow and weak, as to admit of people often going over on foot, bare legged under the knees. He also imputes much blame to the people about Wisbeach, in not scouring and dyking the river, as by ancient laws and presentments they ought to have done; and not preserving and maintaining the petty sewers and drains. In consequence of these omissions, not only the fens were drowned, but the means were also lost of draining 13 or 14000 acres of inland grounds, the support of three or four towns on the North of Wisbeach.
That the bad effects of the desertion of the Ouse and Nene from their ancient outfall at Wisbeach, soon became very grievous to that town and the adjacent country, appears by the frequent complaints made, and laws enacted for their relief. Some of those laws were made in the reign of Henry VI, and measures were taken, it seems, in consequence of them, for the relief and benefit of the sufferers. The most important and beneficial of all those measures appears to be that adopted toward the latter part of the 15th century under the direction of bishop Morton. [18] “That prelate finding (says Atkins) that beside its being a very chargeable course to his people of the hundred of Wisbeach, once in four or five years to dyke this river, and that notwithstanding this dyking of the river, the outfall below to the seaward nevertheless decayed; and finding that without a great head of fresh waters, to scour both the river and the outfall, all would be lost, took a part of Hercules’ labour upon him, and strove to bring in great abundance of fresh waters, by divers courses, out of the Fens, to maintain this channel: viz. the rivers Nene and Welland from Southea, and the river of the great cross, or Plantwater, from the united branches of Nene and Ouse, descending by Benwick.” But the bishop’s principal undertaking seems to have been the cut of 14 miles, from Peterborough to Guyhorn, by which a large portion of the Nene was brought down to Wisbeach, and proved of up small benefit to that town and harbour, as well as to the drainage of the country. This cut has transmitted the bishop’s name deservedly and honourably to posterity; it being ever since known and distinguished under the denomination of Morton’s Leam. Happy had it been for the world, if all those of his order had deserved so well of their neighbours and of their country. [19]
“By this doing” (says Atkins, referring to the works of bishop Morton) “Wisbeach Fens were made good Sheep pastures, and the fall of the water at Wisbeach became so great, that no man would adventure under the bridge, with a boat, but by veering through, &c. But succeeding ages (he further observes) neglecting these good provisions, have thereby lost the benefit.” The blame of this neglect, both Atkins and Sir Clement Edmunds seem to lay entirely on the total want of public spirit, or the selfish and sordid disposition of the people of Wisbeach, who strove at all events to avoid the expence, alleging that the benefit of cleansing and dyking the outfall would altogether accrue to the behoof of the upland country, and therefore that they [the inhabitants of the said upland country] ought to put their hands to the work, and contribute towards it in some reasonable measure. The uplanders, on the other hand, produced divers presentments, some of them as high as Henry VI, shewing, that they ought not to be charged; at the same time expressing a willingness to yield a reasonable aid, when the work was done, if it proved serviceable. But those of Wisbeach required a previous contribution, to be expended as the work should proceed. Their selfishness and perverseness, on these occasions, carried them, it seems, to very extravagant and ridiculous lengths, to elude the charge: “one while saying, they cared not if Wisbeach were a dry town; another while by thinking to keep it as a standing pool; [and again] another while enforcing [or urging] the making of a Sluice between the town and the sea, that the tide should not silt up the river, saying that otherwise the charge of dyking the river would be but cast away.—And to the charge of this Sluice they would call in the high-country people, such as they knew would not easily be brought to it, so that nothing might be done.” This preposterous conduct of the Wisbeachers appears to have effectually frustrated every reasonable and salutary proposal. Atkins, however, gives it as his firm opinion, “that were there in the Isle of Ely again another bishop Morton the country might well be regained by such means as might be easily set down.” [21a] But it does not appear that another bishop Morton has yet risen in the Isle, whatever may be said of the regeneration, reformation, or amendment of the good people of Wisbeach.
Nothing of any consequence appears to have been attempted since, for the benefit of the port or navigation of Wisbeach, except Kinderley’s Cut, made in 1721 and 1722, by order of the Board of Adventurers, and not without the consent of the town of Wisbeach likewise; only the adventurers [it seems] ought to have had their consent under their hands: at least so says Mr Kinderly. This cut, had it gone forward, would probably have been of great advantage to the river. But by the time that it was completed, and a dam was making across the old channel, to turn the river into the new one, “the Wisbeach gentlemen, falsely, or by mistake, apprehending the advantage of a wide indraught over all those spreading sands, and complaining that this new cut was not wide enough, (though it was wider than the river at Wisbeach by twenty feet) and that therefore their river would immediately be choked up, and their navigation lost. [So they now] violently opposed it, and raised the Country for demolishing the works; and after that obtained an injunction from the Lord Chancellor to stop all further progress.” [21b] A long vexatious Law Suit ensued, but the Adventures could not recover the Money they had laid out, amounting to nearly £2000, and the gentlemen of Wisbeach gave ample proof that they still inherited, in full measure, the genuine spirit of their ancestors, before mentioned. Their Harbour has been for some years in a most miserable state, and seems to stand in need of the aid of a Morton or a Kinderly as much as ever.
Section IV.
The Effects on Lynn, and on its Harbour and Navigation, of the great accession of Fresh Waters in the reign of Henry III.
Let us now attend to the Ouse and its sister streams, in their now or modern course, by Denver, Downham, St. German’s, and Lynn. By the addition of so many large rivers to its former waters, Lynn might be expected to have its Haven, by degrees, both widened and deepened, so as to contribute materially to its future naval consequence, and commercial importance. Previously to this great accession of water, the bed or channel of the river, about St. German’s, has been represented as so very narrow, that in some places a man might throw himself over with a pikestaff; and in Lynn Haven it is said to have been but six poles, or about an hundred feet wide. But afterward, by the said accession of fresh waters, Lynn Haven and channel were made in time so wide and deep as to become famous for Navigation. [22]