1 86 The Draining of the Fens 



was not well in the Bedford Level. Some of the complaints that followed 

 the final adjudication in 1652 were only to be expected — disputes about 

 the allotment of the reclaimed land, and about the management of the new 

 drains. These were problems of routine administration; they could be 

 setded by negotiation and compromise. But there were other difficulties 

 of a much more fimdamental character, difficulties that brought the very 

 success of the drainers near to disaster. Right up to the present day these 

 difficulties have remained important in all discussions about draining. They 

 are of two kinds. 



THE LOWERING OF THE LEVEL OF THE FENS 



The first group of difficulties resulted from the drying up of the peat fen. 

 As the peat was drained it rapidly became lower in level. This lowering 

 was due in part to the shrinkage of the peat, and in part to the wasting 

 away of the peat surface owing to bacterial action and owing to cultivation. 

 As a result, the surface of the peat soon became lower than the level of the 

 channels into which it drained. The channel beds were lined with sdt, and 

 so. escaped as rapid a lowering. This difference in height can be seen to-day 

 along many of the fen rivers; they are at a higher level than the land 

 through which they flow. The small drains right in the heart of the peat 

 area suffered most. In time, they came to flow at a lower level than the 

 main cuts into which they tried to discharge their waters ! And the more 

 these evils were combated by more effective draining, the more rapidly 

 the peat surface continued to sink. Thus it was, that the works of one 

 generation became inadequate for the needs of the next. 



An idea of the amount of this lowering can be seen to-day from Holme 

 post in Himtingdonshire just outside the boundary of Cambridgeshire, 

 along what was the south-western margin of Whittlesea Mere. In 185 1, 

 the top of this iron column was even with the surface of the ground. By 

 1870, nearly 8 ft. was exposed. To-day, it stands about 11 ft. high. This 

 case is fairly extreme. The amount of shrinkage in any particular locality 

 depends upon the original thickness of the peat as well as upon the intensity 

 of the drainage operations. Even a shrinkage of half an inch per annum is 

 important. It may be viewed with equanimity from one year to another, 

 but the result over a period of years becomes critical. 



Further, not all the Fenland is peat. This only made matters worse. The 

 coastal areas are composed of sUt (see Fig. 47), less Uable to slirinkage and 

 wastage than peat. Before the draining, the silt zone was over 5 ft. lower 

 than the peat area that lay inland. To-day, the silt area is about 10 ft. 

 higher than the peat. As a result of this differential shrinkage, the beds of 

 the outfall channels became almost as high as the peat fen behind.' 



' See p. 191 below. 



