WAINFLEET AND CONCEPTION OF EARLY INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WASH

Unlike many east facing estuaries like the Tyne and Tees, the Humber or the Thames the Wash escaped much industrial development. That does not mean it was not considered. Rather the Wash became a haven for shipping but the changing channels, sand banks and sea lanes of this estuary made it particularly hazardous and as shipping grew in size was increasingly problematic.

This is not to say that as the industrial age emerged, and the railways in particular took over from barges, various opportunities were not considered including development of wharfs and railway bridgeheads. The ports of the Wash had at one time been considerable in activity with mercantile shipping trade in Boston and Kings Lynn rivalling that of London at various times.

Nowadays it is hard to imagine that Wainfleet, southerly of Skegness, was once considered for development as a port and here I explain the history behind this.

A “fleet” is an old English word found as far back as the twelfth century to refer to a tidal inlet or water channel. Wainfleet was originally one such channel that as the East and Wildmore Fens were drained saw water diverted to Boston. If this had not occurred it is possible that Wainfleet could have been a significant port rivalling Boston, at least that was the speculation and belief in the past.

Campbell’s Political Survey of Great Britain in 1774 speculates that Wainfleet once was a significant port possibly developed by the Romans. With the shape of the coast at that time this is plausible.

The introduction of the railways heralded the downfall of some ports like the Wash port of Spalding. In 1845 railway growth saw speculation that Wainfleet might be developed as a port to deliver coal to Lincoln that arrived by ship:

“RAILWAYS IN LINCOLNSHIRE – The Lincoln and Wainfleet Railway is progressing in public estimation. The speculators have got hold of it already, and the shares are at a premium! The project is looked upon very favourably at Nottingham and Derby and it is rumoured (though we believe without any foundation) that the Midland Company have their eye upon Wainfleet, in opposition to the port of Grimsby, which seems to have fallen into the hands of the Manchester and Leeds Company. Be that as it may the capabilities of Wainfleet as a port and harbour are scarcely to be equalled on the coast, and men wonder that so excellent a scheme was not taken up years ago. It is understood that a company of coal proprietors in the north have guaranteed delivery of the best coals in Lincoln via Wainfleet and the railway at 12s. per ton. It will certainly interfere to some extent with the Grimsby Docks Railway.”[1]

This illustrates the nature of the times, and whilst the preference of Wainfleet over Boston may be considered as bizarre today it needs to be considered that historically Boston itself was an unreliable port, prone to silting up and difficulty of access. As a port it often relied upon its “Haven” in Boston Deeps of the Wash where ships could be offloaded into barges. Indeed it was this nature of the port that helped keep Spalding port functioning, a port that came under the same jurisdiction of management. Indeed, for Boston to function as a port historically it relied heavily upon access via neighbouring coastal parishes, especially Fishtoft and Skirbeck. When Boston first developed as a port the Wash was a different shape and the scour was greater. From taxes raised by the port of Boston in 1205 it is apparent that the activity at Boston almost matched that at London and in various periods up to the sixteenth century it sometimes exceeded it.

Commerce attracts commerce, money attracts money, and so is the case with Boston, despite various difficulties it retained its activity. This is key to understand when looking at the proposed Wainfleet port development, the financial and political clout of Boston was so great that it could suppress such local rivalry to protect its own mercantile interests.

We see similar opposition to proposed developments in the Freiston Shore Railway Bill of 1875 that would have seen a massive pier and dock able to service larger ships on a wider range of tides than Boston docks. This was successfully opposed by Boston. The Wainfleet proposal had opposition from Grimsby as well as Boston for in serving Lincoln with coal it would be to the detriment of activity at Grimsby.

This illustrates the nature of industrial development that we see with both the railways and proposed port development in the Wash and elsewhere. It is particularly true of the railways where a proposal would be made, investors sought, and the process driven by various self-interests rather than a wider planned approach.

Prior to the industrial age ports often formed organically as need and opportunity occurred. But the industrial age saw competition and investment and many failed schemes depending upon money, viability and influence. If railways had been developed with greater thought without competing companies trying to grasp market share we would have seen fewer railways laid and better planning, and possibly fewer subsequent cuts by Dr. Beeching in the 1960’s, indeed we may not have needed his report. The problem was, in my opinion, when the railways were nationalised in 1948 the government effectively bought an uncommercial network that had been developed by speculation and potential for profit created by competing companies. Competition between ports saw developments suppressed by various self interests against commercial and practical sense as we see in the opposition to Freiston shore pier and possibly to a lesser extent Wainfleet.

Such conflicts  between different ideas and interests are very much the story of development around the Wash and indeed show themselves in the development and promotion of many schemes around the Wash. Added to this mix as we entered the twentieth century was conservation and environmental interests that found an ever increasing voice.

[1] Derby Mercury September 1845

Dutch Map of the Wash in 1680