Q&A with Kathleen Saunders, author of Three Million Wheelbarrows - The story of the Eau Brink Cut
The history of the Fens is a fascinating and at times gripping story, and the draining of its marshes and wetlands – and the water management that accompanied that – is a big part of the fenland story.
Today I think there are two primary narratives about this: one paints the draining as an example of mankind’s heroic subjugation of nature; the other as a classic case of greed-driven hubris.
What is perhaps now not in doubt is that it has played a part in the environmental crisis that now confronts the world.
 |
| Kathleen Saunders |
In short, over the past four hundred or so years (longer if you consider that the Romans built some drainage canals and that Morton’s Leam was constructed in the fifteenth century) the fenlands have seen miles and miles of lodes, canals, drains, dykes, eaus, cuts and man-made rivers constructed, river courses altered, and many sluices, windmills (initially) and pumping stations (of which there are now 286) erected – a process that was highly controversial and has completely altered the landscape of the area. Historically drainage projects also met with huge resistance (and often violence) from local people.
Strikingly, there was frequently little or no consensus about how these projects should be undertaken and paid for, and they often provided only a partial or temporary solution.
One such scheme was the so-called Eau Brink Cut. Initially mooted in the 18th Century, the goal was to remove a seven-mile curve in the Great Ouse’s winding course around Norfolk’s Marshland by diverting it down a two-and-a-half-mile channel from near Wiggenhall St. Germans and then re-joining it to the river’s original course just before South Lynn (now part of King’s Lynn). This was intended to drain 300,000 acres of land and alleviate the dangers posed by navigation of the shallow bend in the river.
The plan sparked prolonged discussions and heated debates and it took years before consensus was eventually reached. As a result, the Cut was not completed until 1821. Even then, it only proved a temporary solution as it was too narrow and had subsequently to be widened. It also had to be extended in 1853 and, after floods in the 1940’s, a new relief channel had to be built as well.
The full story behind the Eau Brink Cut has been unearthed and written up by local historian Kathleen Saunders, who lives four miles from King’s Lynn in Clenchwarton.
The results of her research were published this summer in a book entitled Three Million Wheelbarrows – The story of the Eau Brink Cut.
Released to coincide with the Bicentenary of the opening of the Cut, Kathleen’s book is a demonstration of the value of local history, which often brings a different perspective and approach to that provided by professional historians.
As today marks the 200th Anniversary of the opening of the Eau Brink Cut, what better time to publish a Q&A with Kathleen Saunders. This can be read below.
The interview begins …
Q: Can you say something about yourself and why you decided to write Three Million Wheelbarrows? What was your aim?
A: I’m an independent researcher with an interest in local history, particularly in West Norfolk where I live.
I knew the basic story that the river’s course had been altered and with the Bicentenary of the opening of the Eau Brink Cut approaching on 31st July 2021, I decided to look into how local people had been involved or affected.
It proved to be a story about fascinating people living in interesting times.
Q: You have clearly done a great deal of research. How long did it take to write the book?
A: The research and the writing together took about five years.
Q: I believe the aim of the Eau Brink Cut was a) to improve navigation by removing a bend in the Great Ouse River and b) to drain 300,000 acres of land. Why did it prove so controversial a scheme and take so many years to implement?
A: The prime motive was to improve drainage by removing a long shallow bend which reduced the power of the river to clear accumulated silt. A straight short course would make the river run faster, clear silt and allow water to run to the sea more quickly. By law, any change had to preserve use of the river for navigation, but there was no plan to improve navigation as such.
The plan for the Cut severely conflicted with the navigational interests on which the transport of goods and produce over a wide area of Fenland depended. It would place barges, and King’s Lynn’s harbour, in constant jeopardy.
Three Million Wheelbarrows covers around fifty years leading to the completion of the Eau Brink Cut. Delays were caused by the distractions of political conflict at home, revolutions abroad which involved British Army and Navy forces, fear of Napoleonic invasion and difficulties in raising the funds.
Eau Brink Act
Q: I think the main disagreement was between the merchants of King’s Lynn and the landowners. Would you say that the landowners won the argument?
A: In the end it was a compromise. Both sides employed competent engineers, but each received advice which contradicted the other.
Eventually, both sides agreed to accept a joint plan if it could be agreed by the engineers working together, and this was the basis of the Eau Brink Act of 1795.
Q: At one point in your book you reference the Adventurers’ Lands and contrast them with Freeland. What is the difference between these two and what different interests did they represent when it came to discussions about constructing the Eau Brink Cut?
A: In 1630, the 4th Earl of Bedford joined with other investors, known as Adventurers, to drain the southern fens and make land suitable for farming, an area now known as the Bedford Level.
After the Civil War, the 5th Earl of Bedford formed a Corporation funded by Adventurers with the reward of 95,000 acres of land. They were authorised to charge a tax on 40,000 acres of this to fund maintenance and this was called the Adventurers’ land. The remaining 55,000 was Freelands, not subject to additional tax.
Neither favoured any particular
interest but the Corporation never raised sufficient tax from the Adventurers’
land to pay for adequate maintenance. Siltation in the river and flooding
gradually worsened.
Those opposing the Eau Brink Cut suggested flooding was due to poor maintenance and inefficiency of the Corporation. They fought for, but lost, the principle of untaxed Freelands. When discussions about the Eau Brink Cut were active again after Waterloo, funds had to be raised elsewhere.
Costs
Q: There were a number of different estimates of the likely costs of building the Cut. In the event, the final bill was in excess of £500,000. This was somewhat higher than anyone anticipated I believe. How was it eventually paid for?
A: The actual build of the Cut was funded mainly through the Public Works Loans Act of 1817, created to fund employment on public works. A system of taxes on land which benefited was also in place
£500,000 was an estimate of all costs, including substantial lawyer’s fees and widening the Cut a few years later.
Q: To check my understanding: the
Eau Brink Cut diverted the course of the Great Ouse, rather than providing an
additional channel in the manner of the Old and New Bedford Rivers?
A: That’s right.
Q: I ask because if you look on Google Maps you still see a bend in the Great Ouse from around Wiggenhall to just south of the A47 but there is also a straight water course called the Relief Channel. I assume the latter is not the Eau Brink Cut but something that was added later?
A: Correct.
Successful?
Q: Was the Relief Channel created later because the Cut proved insufficient in addressing all the problems?
A: Modern
maps do not distinguish the Eau Brink Cut as distinct from the original course
of the River Great Ouse. Huge changes have had to take place in the intervening
years to control the river, the relief channel being just one.
Q: Where exactly did the Eau Brink Cut start and where did it end, and how many miles in length was it?
A: The Cut stretched from close by Wiggenhall St. Germans in a straight run for two and a half miles to re-join the river’s original course just before South Lynn. It cut off a curve of around seven miles.
 |
| The Eau Brink Cut is the red line (from Donald and Milne,1790-94, for Wm. Fade) |
A: My research did not extend to 1853.
Q: Why was it called the Eau Brink
Cut? Google Maps shows an Eau Brink Road, but I do not see a place called Eau
Brink. Does Eau Brink itself no longer exist?
A: The original course of the River Great Ouse took a sharp bend just after Wiggenhall St. Germans. Eau Brink was a mansion and farm on the opposite bank. The mansion was demolished in the late 1990s although the area retains the name.
Q: Would you say the Eau Brink Cut was successful?
A: Drainage was the aim but its improvement was temporary. A critical issue was its width, which proved to be too narrow and so silt built up again. Consequently, Thomas Telford widened it by a third in 1824.
Q: As I understand it, as part of the process of constructing the Eau Brink Cut a bridge was built for the first time at King’s Lynn. Would that be where the A47 now crosses the river?
A: There
have been several bridges since the first, which was replaced in 1890’s,
including a railway bridge and road bridges to accommodate modern traffic. They
have all run very close to each other, and now incorporate the route of the
A47.
Voices
Q: You include a lot of dialogue in your book spoken by those who were involved in the Eau Brink discussions and decisions. Did you take this dialogue from meeting reports and other historical documents written at the time or did you invent it yourself, or perhaps a bit of both?
A: Both. Quotes or summaries were taken from the engineering reports or contemporary newspapers and updated for ease of modern reading. Meeting reports were normally only statements of decisions made, but background research on the people involved often hinted at their interests or concerns, and used to flesh out the personalities while keeping to the facts.
Q: What do you think were the
benefits of writing the book in this way?
A: It allowed me to broaden what might have been simply a list of events to show the emotional reactions to proposals and the complexity of the issues involved. It emphasises that decisions could be made on instinct or cultural forces as well as very limited information.
Q: You also use the voice of the river to highlight ecological issues. And on the back of the book, it says that the river [the Great Ouse] “continues to offer a cautionary message about the perils of accelerating natural change and the consequences of man’s activities on our environment”. What in your view are these perils and are we sufficiently aware of them today? Did the Eau Brink Cut planners give any thought to environmental issues as we understand them today?
A: I found no evidence that environmental issues as we understand them were considered at all. The priority at the time was to convert ‘wastes’ into productive land. By the time of the Eau Brink Cut, it was known, for example, that peat was shrinking, but this was seen simply as a mechanical drainage issue.
The perils are now repeatedly made clear to us. Global warming leading to higher sea levels and flooding in low lying areas like East Anglia, loss of diversity, pollution and overuse of natural resources.
Q: Looking back, do you think that draining the fens was a
mistake, or that perhaps it should have been done differently and /or less
aggressively?
A: We cannot apply modern criteria to decisions taken two hundred years ago, or look back in judgement with our modern advantages and precise measuring equipment that give us so much more information about the world around us.
What we can do is change what we now know to be destructive, putting environmental repair at the heart of our reasoning and practice.
Comments