THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
The eighteenth century is the first time I have records of the Ascoughs living in the Toyntons. The enclosure of what were previously open fields in 1773 (see section on “THE TOYNTON VILLAGES BEFORE AND AFTER ENCLOSURE”) probably meant that by this time, the Ascough’s were employed by the new owners or tenants of these enclosed fields as farm labourers. But they might still have had an interest in the wild East Fen for catching fish and wildfowl as previous generations had done.
Although schemes to drain the fens were coming thick and fast, none concerned East Fen. So, whereas my ancestors were probably aware of what was going on in those areas, they were still able to enjoy the benefits of their own local fen that was in the same state as it had been for centuries.
H C Darby in his book Changing Fenland writes: In 1769 Thomas Pennant wrote: The East Fen is quite in a state of nature, and gives a specimen of the country before the introduction of drainage; it is a vast tract of morass, intermixed with a number of lakes, from half a mile to two or three miles in circuit, communicating with each other by narrow reedy straits: they are very shallow, none above four or five feet deep.
He continues: During the years that followed, there were many reports into the best way to improve the River Witham and benefit the adjacent fens (of which East Fen is one). Meetings and committees, of landowners and others interested in the project (finance for land), followed one another. Any proposal for new cuts and different sluices was opposed by rival schemes.
And, again, there were difficulties in settling upon a division of the drained land among those who had various rights in the various fens. The result was that neither meetings or committees nor reports led to any action. When Arthur Young visited the area in the closing years of the eighteenth century the land still remained in its lost and flooded condition – “a chain of lakes, bordered by great crops of reed.” He must have been talking about East Fen.
The following events only serve as a background to what was happening in the general area. J S Padley in his book The Fens and Floods of Mid-Lincolnshire with a Description of the River Witham in its neglected state before 1762 and improvements up to 1825 chronicles these events.
The first of these schemes resulted in an Act of parliament in 1762 to restore the navigation on the River Witham which runs down the west side of West Fen, and so formed a boundary to West, East and Wildmore Fens, finishing as it does at Boston Haven. This time the plan would serve to effect better drainage for the whole area with new cuts through Wildmore Fen. As a result, Acts of Parliament was passed in 1767 and 1770.
Following the Act of Parliament in 1762, the Grand Sluice (the control of water on the River Witham at Boston Haven) was inaugurated, but as Darby points out:
However the area that benefitted least from the Grand Sluice and its associated works lay to the north of Boston. Within it were Wildmore Fen and West fen, and adjacent to them, on a tract of peat, was East Fen.
These three fens together comprised some 40,000 acres which for many years were to remain a swampy forage ground. Despite some attempts at improvement here, and the reconstruction in 1734 of Maud Foster Drain and Sluice (the drain is only a very short distance from Cowbridge to the sluice into The Haven at Boston, so only on the southern fringe of this area. (Although it would play a huge part in drainage schemes to come). Both been made in 1569 and then enlarged in 1631, the interior tracts of these fens were generally covered by water.
THE GRUNDY REPORT
On the 14th November 1774, I Grundy, Engineer, published a report, map and a scheme for draining East Fen and East Holland (In his book Maps of the Witham Fens, R C Wheeler includes Map No 37 (MAP NO 8 in the section MAPS OF EAST FEN) “A Plan of the East Fen and Surrounding Grounds etc” by I Grundy Engineer 1774 - Engraving by M Darby).
The Grundy map shows proposed new cuts draining into Wainfleet Haven in the East. These proposals were never carried out, but the map shows that East Fen had not changed since Stukeley’s map of 1773, or that of Weceslaus Hollar of 1661.
Wheeler says: The landowners of the East Fen had appointed John Grundy before promoting a bill to drain the fen. His map is a sketch as it only supports an estimate, but it shows proposed new drainage cuts to Wainfleet Haven.
However, it is a dramatic representation of the state of the East Fen in 1774, complete with the East Fen Deeps still untouched at that date.
Wheeler continues: Grundy was paid for advice and not a fine map. Meanwhile the Court of Sewers had initiated more modest measures and in October 1776 further attempts at proposals for an Act of Parliament (by the landowners and Grundy) were postponed (until the effects of the works now carrying on under the Court of Sewers is seen”.
By 1778 a number of reports for the drainage of these fens had been tabled.
No action was taken on these reports, and the fens remained in a most unsatisfactory state, owing to their lost and flooded condition, and also from the disorder in stocking, and from those having common rights sending in much larger quantities of stock than they were entitled to. Cattle stealing and disease also detracted from the value derived from the summer feeding, so that what was gained in one year was lost in another. In fact, it was stated that some of the largest common right owners had ceased for several years to send any stock to the fens.
The East Fen, being the lowest, was in the worst condition, and there were there 2,000 acres always under water. The West and Wildmore Fens are described as having ' whole acres covered with thistles and nettles, four feet high and more.' Numerous attempts were made to bring about the enclosure and drainage, but the matter was protracted, owing to the difficulty in settling the basis on which the land should be divided amongst those who claimed to have rights in the different fens.
THE COMMONER’S PETITION TO PARLIAMENT OF 1780
As a result of the proposals to drain the fen, the Commoners were becoming increasingly nervous about what would happen to their right of common and a submission by the Commoners to Parliament in 1780 not only puts forward a case for their rights, but gives a great insight into the state of the fens after the first attempts at drainage.
The fen called West Fen is the place where the ruffs and reeves (wading bird and pheasant) resort in greatest numbers, and many other sorts of water fowl which do not require the shelter of reeds and rushes, migrate hither to breed, for this fen is bare, having been imperfectly drained by narrow canals which intersect it for many miles.
Twenty parishes in the Soke of Bolingbroke have right of common on it, but an enclosure is now in agitation. The East Fen is quite in a state of nature, and exhibits a specimen of what the country was before the introduction of draining.
It is a vast tract of morass, intermixed with numbers of lakes (The Deeps), from half a mile to two or three miles in circuit, communicating with each other by narrow reedy straits (rows). They are very shallow, none above four or five feet deep, but abound with pike, perch, ruffs, bream, tench, dace, eels etc. The reeds which cover the Fens are cut annually for thatching, not only cottages but many good houses. The multitude of stares (starling) that roost in these reeds in winter break down many by perching on them. A stock of reeds well harvested and stacked is worth two or three hundred pounds.
The birds which inhabit the Fens are very numerous. Besides the common wild duck, wild geese, and waterfowl such as garganies, pochards, shovellers, and teals breed here, pewit, gulls and black terns abound; a few of the great terns or tickets are seen amongst them. The great crested grebes, called gaunts, are found in the East Fen. The lesser crested grebes, the black and dusky and the little grebe, cootes, water hens, water rails, ruffs, red shanks, lapwings or wypes, red-breasted godwits, and whimbrels are inhabitants of these Fens.
R C Wheeler in his Introduction to Maps of the Witham Fens discusses the probability of enclosing the fen:
Hitherto, only improvements to the drainage had been discussed, not enclosure.. However, it was clear that the cost of Grundy’s scheme could only be justified if enclosure followed. The Duchy of Lancaster, which owned the manorial rights in the East and West Fens, determined to investigate this and commissioned their own surveyor, Richard Richardson, to conduct a detailed survey. A formal commission was issued in January 1778 and maps were published in June.
In fact, Richardson exceeded his orders, in that he established the area owned by each proprietor in the parishes enjoying grazing rights in the two fens and he laid down on his maps (42 and 43) allotments in due proportion, except for the most intractable two thousand acres in the middle of East Fen, which was left for the commoners to fish and cut reeds from.
These maps may have killed the scheme, because grazing rights had traditionally attached to the occupancy of houses close to the fen as well as to the ownership of the land.
Anyone who saw the maps might reasonably presume that the occupiers were to be deprived of their rights by the Crown, just as had been attempted 140 years before.
The proprietors were still willing for enclosure to occur, but none wished to take the lead, except a newcomer, John Parkinson of Asgarby (his draft letter below). The Duchy was not prepared to be the sole promoter and the scheme was s dropped.
Darby’s book Changing Fenland continues: During the years that followed, there were many reports into the best way to improve the River Witham and benefit the adjacent fens (of which East fen is one). Meetings and committees, of landowners and others interested in the project (finance for land), followed one another. Any proposal for new cuts and different sluices was opposed by rival schemes. There was also the objection of those fenmen, who in the words of the Petition of 1784, supported themselves and their families comfortably with the produce of the East Fen, by fishing and getting coarse and fine thatch."
W H Wheeler’s book The History of the Fens of South Lincolnshire is the most detailed authority on the drainage of the South Lincolnshire Fens. Originally published in 1868, the second edition of 1894 includes a Preface where he talks about more detailed research into various Acts of Parliament and many other documents. The wonderful thing about the book, for me, is that it is just the Southern Lincolnshire Fens with which he is concerned, East Fen being one of these.
On Page 211 he describes one drainage scheme. Mill Drain (that is the subject of the petition below) is located in the south of East Fen, south west of The Deeps and runs towards Anton Gowt before joining the River Witham before it reaches Boston.
In 1784, Mill Drain was deepened and enlarged by Mr. Pacey of Boston, acting under the direction of certain Proprietors of land, and the drain, leading from Nordyke Bridge to Cherry Corner, was lowered. This produced a partial drainage of the East Fen, and lowered the water in the deeps,' but the effect was also to destroy the herbage in the fen and hinder the navigation of the pools and dykes. The Fenmen thereupon erected a dam across the new cut.
THE COMMONER’S PETITION TO PARLIAMENT OF 1784
In a petition sent by the Fenmen relating to this drain, they say:
“It is well known that the temperate and industrious part of the
poor inhabitants of the Soke of Bolingbroke, has, for a long time,
supported themselves and their families comfortably with the produce
of the East Fen, by fishing and getting coarse and fine thatch-
Man} - of us, by the blessing of God and our own industry, has
procured a cow or two, which we used to graze in the said fen in the
summer, and get fodder for their support in winter, but, alas, of these
privileges we are in a great measure deprived by a set of men called
Commissioners, who hath imbibed such a rage for drainage, that
exceeds both utility and justice. Utility, because it destroys the
grass and herbage, and is hurtful both to farmers and poor men ;
justice, because it deprives the poor of their privileges—for the
fishery is ruined, the thatch is destroyed, the fodder very" scarce.
And to make our grievance the more intolerable, and to complete our
ruin, and show how unfeeling they are, they even now are depriving
us of the benefit we expected from the late rains, that is, of getting
our fodder and fuel to land, by running the water away out of both
fens. We, your petitioners, humbly pray you to take up our cause,
and, if possible, procure redress for us, by causing a temporary dam
to be made in Sibsey Cut for our present relief, and a permanent
stanch for our future supply; and, if practicable, we beg leave to
recommend to your consideration two Cuts, one on the north side
and the other on the south side of the fen, to set bounds to the cattle
and supply them with water, and secure a portion of land to bring
fodder and thatch. And your humble petitioners will be effectually
relieved from that state of distress and poverty which must be the
inevitable effect of the measures now pursued. And your humble
petitioners will ever hold themselves in gratitude and duty bound to
pray for your person and family."
This was signed by 105 Fenmen, of whom only 19 were unable to write their names, and the remainder made a mark.
As a result of this petition, a sluice was built across Valentine's Drain and the water in the East Fen retained at an agreed height.
At the time of the petition, John Ascough was 25 or 26, his elder brother Thomas was 27 or 28 and their father Thomas was 49. There is an outside chance that one of them signed the petition. However, they were living on the northern edge of East Fen on the opposite side of The Deeps from Mill Drain.
And by 1784, the common land of open fields around their villages, on slightly higher ground, had been, or was being enclosed by the Enclosure Act of 1773.
But as David Grigg relates in his book The Agricultural Revolution in South Lincolnshire, on the face of it, nothing had changed in East Fen.
To the east of the River Witham lay the East, West and Wildmore Fens. These extensive fens lay unenclosed and undrained until 1801; and so poor was the state of drainage that Arthur Young was rowed over them when he visited the region in 1799.
He recorded that the land remained in a lost and flooded condition: “a chain of lakes, bordered by great crops of reed”.
So, the century ends with East Fen in its original state. But in the next few years, all that was to change. Along came a new engineer, John Rennie.
The eighteenth century is the first time I have records of the Ascoughs living in the Toyntons. The enclosure of what were previously open fields in 1773 (see section on “THE TOYNTON VILLAGES BEFORE AND AFTER ENCLOSURE”) probably meant that by this time, the Ascough’s were employed by the new owners or tenants of these enclosed fields as farm labourers. But they might still have had an interest in the wild East Fen for catching fish and wildfowl as previous generations had done.
Although schemes to drain the fens were coming thick and fast, none concerned East Fen. So, whereas my ancestors were probably aware of what was going on in those areas, they were still able to enjoy the benefits of their own local fen that was in the same state as it had been for centuries.
H C Darby in his book Changing Fenland writes: In 1769 Thomas Pennant wrote: The East Fen is quite in a state of nature, and gives a specimen of the country before the introduction of drainage; it is a vast tract of morass, intermixed with a number of lakes, from half a mile to two or three miles in circuit, communicating with each other by narrow reedy straits: they are very shallow, none above four or five feet deep.
He continues: During the years that followed, there were many reports into the best way to improve the River Witham and benefit the adjacent fens (of which East Fen is one). Meetings and committees, of landowners and others interested in the project (finance for land), followed one another. Any proposal for new cuts and different sluices was opposed by rival schemes.
And, again, there were difficulties in settling upon a division of the drained land among those who had various rights in the various fens. The result was that neither meetings or committees nor reports led to any action. When Arthur Young visited the area in the closing years of the eighteenth century the land still remained in its lost and flooded condition – “a chain of lakes, bordered by great crops of reed.” He must have been talking about East Fen.
The following events only serve as a background to what was happening in the general area. J S Padley in his book The Fens and Floods of Mid-Lincolnshire with a Description of the River Witham in its neglected state before 1762 and improvements up to 1825 chronicles these events.
The first of these schemes resulted in an Act of parliament in 1762 to restore the navigation on the River Witham which runs down the west side of West Fen, and so formed a boundary to West, East and Wildmore Fens, finishing as it does at Boston Haven. This time the plan would serve to effect better drainage for the whole area with new cuts through Wildmore Fen. As a result, Acts of Parliament was passed in 1767 and 1770.
Following the Act of Parliament in 1762, the Grand Sluice (the control of water on the River Witham at Boston Haven) was inaugurated, but as Darby points out:
However the area that benefitted least from the Grand Sluice and its associated works lay to the north of Boston. Within it were Wildmore Fen and West fen, and adjacent to them, on a tract of peat, was East Fen.
These three fens together comprised some 40,000 acres which for many years were to remain a swampy forage ground. Despite some attempts at improvement here, and the reconstruction in 1734 of Maud Foster Drain and Sluice (the drain is only a very short distance from Cowbridge to the sluice into The Haven at Boston, so only on the southern fringe of this area. (Although it would play a huge part in drainage schemes to come). Both been made in 1569 and then enlarged in 1631, the interior tracts of these fens were generally covered by water.
THE GRUNDY REPORT
On the 14th November 1774, I Grundy, Engineer, published a report, map and a scheme for draining East Fen and East Holland (In his book Maps of the Witham Fens, R C Wheeler includes Map No 37 (MAP NO 8 in the section MAPS OF EAST FEN) “A Plan of the East Fen and Surrounding Grounds etc” by I Grundy Engineer 1774 - Engraving by M Darby).
The Grundy map shows proposed new cuts draining into Wainfleet Haven in the East. These proposals were never carried out, but the map shows that East Fen had not changed since Stukeley’s map of 1773, or that of Weceslaus Hollar of 1661.
Wheeler says: The landowners of the East Fen had appointed John Grundy before promoting a bill to drain the fen. His map is a sketch as it only supports an estimate, but it shows proposed new drainage cuts to Wainfleet Haven.
However, it is a dramatic representation of the state of the East Fen in 1774, complete with the East Fen Deeps still untouched at that date.
Wheeler continues: Grundy was paid for advice and not a fine map. Meanwhile the Court of Sewers had initiated more modest measures and in October 1776 further attempts at proposals for an Act of Parliament (by the landowners and Grundy) were postponed (until the effects of the works now carrying on under the Court of Sewers is seen”.
By 1778 a number of reports for the drainage of these fens had been tabled.
No action was taken on these reports, and the fens remained in a most unsatisfactory state, owing to their lost and flooded condition, and also from the disorder in stocking, and from those having common rights sending in much larger quantities of stock than they were entitled to. Cattle stealing and disease also detracted from the value derived from the summer feeding, so that what was gained in one year was lost in another. In fact, it was stated that some of the largest common right owners had ceased for several years to send any stock to the fens.
The East Fen, being the lowest, was in the worst condition, and there were there 2,000 acres always under water. The West and Wildmore Fens are described as having ' whole acres covered with thistles and nettles, four feet high and more.' Numerous attempts were made to bring about the enclosure and drainage, but the matter was protracted, owing to the difficulty in settling the basis on which the land should be divided amongst those who claimed to have rights in the different fens.
THE COMMONER’S PETITION TO PARLIAMENT OF 1780
As a result of the proposals to drain the fen, the Commoners were becoming increasingly nervous about what would happen to their right of common and a submission by the Commoners to Parliament in 1780 not only puts forward a case for their rights, but gives a great insight into the state of the fens after the first attempts at drainage.
The fen called West Fen is the place where the ruffs and reeves (wading bird and pheasant) resort in greatest numbers, and many other sorts of water fowl which do not require the shelter of reeds and rushes, migrate hither to breed, for this fen is bare, having been imperfectly drained by narrow canals which intersect it for many miles.
Twenty parishes in the Soke of Bolingbroke have right of common on it, but an enclosure is now in agitation. The East Fen is quite in a state of nature, and exhibits a specimen of what the country was before the introduction of draining.
It is a vast tract of morass, intermixed with numbers of lakes (The Deeps), from half a mile to two or three miles in circuit, communicating with each other by narrow reedy straits (rows). They are very shallow, none above four or five feet deep, but abound with pike, perch, ruffs, bream, tench, dace, eels etc. The reeds which cover the Fens are cut annually for thatching, not only cottages but many good houses. The multitude of stares (starling) that roost in these reeds in winter break down many by perching on them. A stock of reeds well harvested and stacked is worth two or three hundred pounds.
The birds which inhabit the Fens are very numerous. Besides the common wild duck, wild geese, and waterfowl such as garganies, pochards, shovellers, and teals breed here, pewit, gulls and black terns abound; a few of the great terns or tickets are seen amongst them. The great crested grebes, called gaunts, are found in the East Fen. The lesser crested grebes, the black and dusky and the little grebe, cootes, water hens, water rails, ruffs, red shanks, lapwings or wypes, red-breasted godwits, and whimbrels are inhabitants of these Fens.
R C Wheeler in his Introduction to Maps of the Witham Fens discusses the probability of enclosing the fen:
Hitherto, only improvements to the drainage had been discussed, not enclosure.. However, it was clear that the cost of Grundy’s scheme could only be justified if enclosure followed. The Duchy of Lancaster, which owned the manorial rights in the East and West Fens, determined to investigate this and commissioned their own surveyor, Richard Richardson, to conduct a detailed survey. A formal commission was issued in January 1778 and maps were published in June.
In fact, Richardson exceeded his orders, in that he established the area owned by each proprietor in the parishes enjoying grazing rights in the two fens and he laid down on his maps (42 and 43) allotments in due proportion, except for the most intractable two thousand acres in the middle of East Fen, which was left for the commoners to fish and cut reeds from.
These maps may have killed the scheme, because grazing rights had traditionally attached to the occupancy of houses close to the fen as well as to the ownership of the land.
Anyone who saw the maps might reasonably presume that the occupiers were to be deprived of their rights by the Crown, just as had been attempted 140 years before.
The proprietors were still willing for enclosure to occur, but none wished to take the lead, except a newcomer, John Parkinson of Asgarby (his draft letter below). The Duchy was not prepared to be the sole promoter and the scheme was s dropped.
Darby’s book Changing Fenland continues: During the years that followed, there were many reports into the best way to improve the River Witham and benefit the adjacent fens (of which East fen is one). Meetings and committees, of landowners and others interested in the project (finance for land), followed one another. Any proposal for new cuts and different sluices was opposed by rival schemes. There was also the objection of those fenmen, who in the words of the Petition of 1784, supported themselves and their families comfortably with the produce of the East Fen, by fishing and getting coarse and fine thatch."
W H Wheeler’s book The History of the Fens of South Lincolnshire is the most detailed authority on the drainage of the South Lincolnshire Fens. Originally published in 1868, the second edition of 1894 includes a Preface where he talks about more detailed research into various Acts of Parliament and many other documents. The wonderful thing about the book, for me, is that it is just the Southern Lincolnshire Fens with which he is concerned, East Fen being one of these.
On Page 211 he describes one drainage scheme. Mill Drain (that is the subject of the petition below) is located in the south of East Fen, south west of The Deeps and runs towards Anton Gowt before joining the River Witham before it reaches Boston.
In 1784, Mill Drain was deepened and enlarged by Mr. Pacey of Boston, acting under the direction of certain Proprietors of land, and the drain, leading from Nordyke Bridge to Cherry Corner, was lowered. This produced a partial drainage of the East Fen, and lowered the water in the deeps,' but the effect was also to destroy the herbage in the fen and hinder the navigation of the pools and dykes. The Fenmen thereupon erected a dam across the new cut.
THE COMMONER’S PETITION TO PARLIAMENT OF 1784
In a petition sent by the Fenmen relating to this drain, they say:
“It is well known that the temperate and industrious part of the
poor inhabitants of the Soke of Bolingbroke, has, for a long time,
supported themselves and their families comfortably with the produce
of the East Fen, by fishing and getting coarse and fine thatch-
Man} - of us, by the blessing of God and our own industry, has
procured a cow or two, which we used to graze in the said fen in the
summer, and get fodder for their support in winter, but, alas, of these
privileges we are in a great measure deprived by a set of men called
Commissioners, who hath imbibed such a rage for drainage, that
exceeds both utility and justice. Utility, because it destroys the
grass and herbage, and is hurtful both to farmers and poor men ;
justice, because it deprives the poor of their privileges—for the
fishery is ruined, the thatch is destroyed, the fodder very" scarce.
And to make our grievance the more intolerable, and to complete our
ruin, and show how unfeeling they are, they even now are depriving
us of the benefit we expected from the late rains, that is, of getting
our fodder and fuel to land, by running the water away out of both
fens. We, your petitioners, humbly pray you to take up our cause,
and, if possible, procure redress for us, by causing a temporary dam
to be made in Sibsey Cut for our present relief, and a permanent
stanch for our future supply; and, if practicable, we beg leave to
recommend to your consideration two Cuts, one on the north side
and the other on the south side of the fen, to set bounds to the cattle
and supply them with water, and secure a portion of land to bring
fodder and thatch. And your humble petitioners will be effectually
relieved from that state of distress and poverty which must be the
inevitable effect of the measures now pursued. And your humble
petitioners will ever hold themselves in gratitude and duty bound to
pray for your person and family."
This was signed by 105 Fenmen, of whom only 19 were unable to write their names, and the remainder made a mark.
As a result of this petition, a sluice was built across Valentine's Drain and the water in the East Fen retained at an agreed height.
At the time of the petition, John Ascough was 25 or 26, his elder brother Thomas was 27 or 28 and their father Thomas was 49. There is an outside chance that one of them signed the petition. However, they were living on the northern edge of East Fen on the opposite side of The Deeps from Mill Drain.
And by 1784, the common land of open fields around their villages, on slightly higher ground, had been, or was being enclosed by the Enclosure Act of 1773.
But as David Grigg relates in his book The Agricultural Revolution in South Lincolnshire, on the face of it, nothing had changed in East Fen.
To the east of the River Witham lay the East, West and Wildmore Fens. These extensive fens lay unenclosed and undrained until 1801; and so poor was the state of drainage that Arthur Young was rowed over them when he visited the region in 1799.
He recorded that the land remained in a lost and flooded condition: “a chain of lakes, bordered by great crops of reed”.
So, the century ends with East Fen in its original state. But in the next few years, all that was to change. Along came a new engineer, John Rennie.