STRETHAM, CAMBS.

The coprolite workings in Stretham started during the latter half of the nineteenth century, quite possibly as the result of the Hertfordshire surveyor, John Bailey Denton's speculating in the parish. He had been instrumental in the development of the coprolite industry in and around Ashwell in Hertfordshire in the late 1850s and, having formed his own company to raise them, went on to purchase land in Stretham. (O'Connor, B. (1993), 'The Ashwell Fossil Diggings', own publication) Much land in the parish was worked for coprolite and Mr. Denton may well have exploited the fossils.

The coprolite business was very profitable. During the 1860s and 70s demand for these phosphate-rich fossils from the nation's manure manufacturers was great. Dissolved in sulphuric acid the resultant mass, once dried and bagged, was marketed as superphosphate of lime. This was the world's first artificial chemical manure. It was sold at up to £7.00 per ton, half the price of the other popular manure at the time - guano. This was phosphate-rich bird droppings that were available since their imported in 1838 from the bird islands off the Chilean coast. Prices paid for the coprolites varied enormously. They depended on a number of factors, their phosphate content, the depth of the seam, its continuity, its fleetness (angle of dip), how clean the deposit was in terms of unwanted stones in it and even how far the workings were from the nearest watercourse for washing the fossils or roadside, wharf or railway station for transporting them. In the early 1840s - 1850s royalties ranged from as little as five shillings a ton up to three pounds. (£0.25 - £3.00). Later, when the method of payment changed to royalties being paid for each acre worked they averaged £100 but ranged from as little as £20 up to £400. Yields varied too. They averaged 250 tons per acre but around Cambridge it rose to 350 tons and at one working in Wicken was 2,000 tons. The profits to be made from having them raised were dramatically greater than farming revenue which explains the great interest in their extraction.

Mr. Denton must have been aware of the geological formation in which they were found and, with relatives in this area, had no doubt become aware of workings in nearby Wicken. He may have been involved there too but documentation has not emerged. In 1866, he purchased 30 acres in Stretham for £600 and later went on to rent a further 39a.3r.20p in the same field at £40 per acre (Field 615 on the Enclosure Award map). This latter plot he bought in 1870 for £800 and, given his involvement in the industry and subsequent map evidence, he must have exploited the fossils. (Cambs.R.O. J.B.Denton P147/25/3; 276/T; 283/B18/21)

There was the possibility that a local farmer, Johnathon Fison, may also have been involved if they were on his fields. The Fison family were very much involved in the Fen Ditton, Bottisham and Quy area. (Cambs.R.O. 1861 census; see author's account of those parishes)

Although there are no actual records which confirm that Messrs. Fisons or Denton were responsible for working the coprolite, geological reports confirm that it was worked in the parish from 1866. It was stated that they were found scattered in a sandy bed which lay above the Kimmeridge Clay at the foot of the Lower Greensand ridge. This ridge stretched from Haddenham, through Wilburton to Stretham where, to the east and south, the coprolites were worked along a two-mile stretch from Stretham Ferry Bridge to Stretham along the northern bank of the Ouse and on to Little Thetford. The extent of the workings can be seen on page . (Reed, R.C. (1897), 'Handbook to Geology of Cambridge,' p.51; Marr, J.E. & Shipley, A.E. (1904)," Handbook to Natural History of Cambs." ,p.23; Oakley, K. 'British Phosphates', Wartime Pamphlets, Vol.8 no.3.(see fig.5)

Further evidence of the work came in the summer of 1870 when the Burwell manure manufacturer, Thomas Thwaite Ball, whose men had finished the diggings in Wicken, appeared so anxious to get started on a newly found seam in Stretham, that he wrote to the owner, Charlotte Yarrow,

" I rather want to commence at Stretham as I have one of my Wicken foremen now ready to take charge and he will be leaving me unless I keep him on somewhere... It will take the men 2 or 3 weeks to get the washing mill up and the shed erected. I therefore wish you would take the first instalment (£70) and allow me to commence raising Mill etc."

(Cambs.R.O. 283/B13/25)

It is also quite possible that local landowners, especially those who owned small plots of coprolite land, would have similarly arranged to have the fossils raised, no doubt employing their own farm labourers. Unfortunately, it was generally the larger landowners whose legal agreements, correspondence and surveyors and solicitors' notes have been kept. Where the deposit was found on a larger scale, tenders were often invited with an advertisement being put in the press. Outside contractors, like Mr. Ball, would have put in offers to undertake the work. A large amount of capital was needed to purchase the necessary plant and machinery so there was scope for entrepreneurs to capitalise on the work.

Shovels, spades, pick axes, crowbars, planks, dog irons (supports for the planks) and wheelbarrows were needed. Horses were used to pull coprolite trucks along tramways to the washmill. Carpenters and blacksmiths saw increased trade as well as the diggers. Foremen would have been taken on and gangs of men and boys hired. There were often gangs of outsiders brought in as the foreman, as in Mr. Ball's case, would often come from nearby workings and bring his own men. This occasionally led to confrontations and there is every likelihood the local "fen tigers" were involved in this sort of work. Work gangs were common in the fens and, although little has emerged of the social impact of the diggings, there were cases of unrest in the village with a number of farmers experiencing outbreaks of incendiarism from disaffected labourers, perhaps where outside labourers were taken on rather than them.

As Mr. Ball indicated, the washmill was first erected using the topsoil that was barrowed to one side of the field to be stored for replacement when the work was finished. In the early days this was a high mound on top of which a large circular iron tank was placed. If there wasn't a watercourse nearby a well was often sunk and a pump supplied the vast quantities of water needed to fill the tank. A horse was used to haul an iron harrow around the inside of the tank to clean the sand and earth from the stones but later, if the contractor could afford it, a steam-powered cylindrical washer was used, similar to the present day vegetable washers. The dirty water, or slurry, was released from the tank back into the pit and, in theory, allowed to dry out before the topsoil was replaced. The fossils were sorted in sheds from any unwanted pebbles and stored in heaps ready for transport by horse and cart, or by steam-engine hauled trucks if the contractor could afford it, down to the riverbank. There is actually a ramp up to the embankment by the river that may well have been erected by the men to allow the carts or barrows to empty the thousands of tons that must have been raised into either barges or lighters. (Author's conversation with Mike Petty, Cambs. Collection) These had brought down coal and other goods from King's Lynn and probably went back loaded with coprolites. Interestingly, John Denton, possibly a relative of Bailey Denton, was the Toll Keeper on the river at this time which, because of the increased traffic occasioned by coprolites, would have proved a lucrative related occupation. (Cambs.R.O.P147/25/3; 276/T; 283/B18/21)

The first documented agreement was on the 26th January 1871 when the landowners, John and Henry Hall of Ely, allowed Charles Roads, a coprolite merchant from Meldreth, Cambridgeshire, to raise the mineral from 14a.0r.33p. of their land in Stretham, possibly Hall Fen. The royalty was £100 per acre and the yearly tenant, William Drever, was compensated by Mr. Roads for the loss of revenue from the land out of cultivation. The agreement stipulated that his labourers had to work up to 15 feet deep at two and a half acres a year for four years. He also was allowed to take advantage of any gravel he raised, paying 9d. (£0.045) for every cubic yard. (Cambs.R.O. 515/B H. Hurrell's Madingley papers)

An interesting insight into the diggings was afforded by an examination of the 1871 census. It appeared that there were only eight people described themselves as being involved in Stretham, very few, given the circumstances. There were six men as diggers and two young girls aged 12 and 15 as pickers, whereas in Little Thetford there were 20 involved. These included a 30 year old woman and two young teenage girls and a 52 year old man with two nine year old boys. Details of these can be seen in the following table. There was only one man from Wilburton, probably walking down to work in the pits by the river. Only four actually lived in Stretham village proper; the rest lived outside or near Thetford or on the other side of the river.

The historian, Derek Plumb, in his account of the industry in the parish, commented that it had a short-term but significant impact on the local economy but omitted any references to actual workings in the parish. Over the twenty or so years the fossils were worked, the extra income generated for farmers and labourers alike would have been a very welcome addition, as would the trade it would no doubt have encouraged in subsidiary industries.

" Some 21 families had links with coprolite, but of the 28 persons employed by the mines, 22 were younger members of family groups, or indeed servants of, or lodgers in, those households. The fact that the majority of the heads of the households kept their previous employment, that they were not lured into taking up work in the new industry is important and shows a marked contrast to employment patterns on the railway."

Ages Stretham Thetford

Males 9 - 13 0 4

14 - 18 1 2

19 - 24 2 7

25 - 30 2 3

Over 30 1 1

Females 9 - 13 1 2

14 - 18 1 0

25 - 30 0 1

Total 8 20

% of workers 1.5 16.2

% of total population 0.8 6.0

(Plumb, Derek J., 'The Parish of Stretham 1840-1890', Cambs. Collection,)

The fact that the workings in Thetford employed considerably more in 1871 suggests that the workings had progressed northwards along the river towards the village. These workings, like most newly uncovered seams, attracted the attention of the experienced coprolite surveyor from Ely, Charles Bidwell. In a talk he gave on coprolites to the Institute of Surveyors in 1874, he referred to the workings near Upware where the,

" ...coprolites are worth in the market about 25s. to 30s. per ton. The Soham, Thetford and Stretham coprolites are also of this class; but they are not found in such great quantities. Their value never exceeds £100 per acre, and rarely reaches it."

(Bidwell, C. (1874), 'On Coprolites', Trans.Inst.Surv., pp.305-6)

The diggings also attracted the attention of a number of geologists from Cambridge University, including J.H. Teall, Skertchley, Whitaker and Roberts. Their accounts of their visits and descriptions of the area's geology gave detailed references to the location of the workings. Prior to 1874 in fields west of Manor Farm (Plantation House), coprolites were found scattered through the sand with black Lydite pebbles and fragments of ironstone. A quarter of a mile southwest, at the south end of the spur, they were worked again before 1875 and nine feet of sands and sandstone appeared to have been completely removed to obtain the bed. This working is the site of the present sewage works. Further east, there were also pits in what was called Hundred Acres field. (Teall 1875,p.24; Whitaker and Skertchley, (1891), 'On the Geology of Cambs. and Suffolk', p.21; 6 inch.Cambs.30SW.)

They also noted other workings under Middle Common, northeast of Stretham Ferry Bridge and a mile south of the church. These were said to have been worked between 1875 and 1883. Further east, on the other side of Green End road, the largest operation took place but unfortunately, there was no indication as to who was operating them, on whose land, who was purchasing them etc. (Whitaker (1891), p.20.) Over seven acres were mentioned as being worked in the fen opposite Stretham Old Engine, which must have been a particularly profitable operation as the seam was found only two feet down. This would have entailed very little labour costs. This pit was in work before 1891 and, apparently, in some places pockets of coprolite were even found lying on surface of the Kimmeridge clay. Just south of Little Thetford, on left bank of Ouse, near the confluence of the Cam and Ouse, there were other workings in 1873 (6 inch Cambs.30S.W.) Here, beneath five feet of alluvium, sandy gravel was found with the coprolites in a seam 1ft.6ins. thick, resting on Kimmeridge Clay. (Skertchley 1877,p.253; Whitaker 1891,p.21.)

They were also worked along the line of Thetford Catchwater drain, about a mile S.S.W. of Little Thetford, towards Manor Farm and spoil heaps from these workings were still visible as late as 1939. This suggests that the contractor may well have been the farmer himself who, when prices dropped during the agricultural depression so as to make it uneconomic, he failed to restore the land.

In the latter years of the 1870s there were four consecutive years of bad weather, heavy rain and poor harvests which badly affected farmers and coprolite diggers alike. Wet weather made the work dangerous and incurred increased pumping costs. Economic problems were exacerbated by the then government’s introduction of Free trade. Vast quantities of cheap meat and grain surpluses from the American Prairies were shipped into Great Britain. Home prices plummeted. On top of this newly discovered rock phosphate from Charleston, Carolina started to be shipped into British ports. Much cheaper than coprolites it caused prices to drop to less than £2.00 a ton. Many pits were abandoned, coprolite contractors asked to be allowed reductions of their leases. Some landowners refused and forced them into bankruptcy. Farmers too tried to arrange rent reductions, some met with the same fate. Many farms were untenanted. The Agricultural Depression had set in. Manure manufacturers suffered too. Farmers weren’t buying fertilisers to grow food they couldn’t sell. The prices of “super” fell. This downward spiral in trade came full circle when the manure manufacturers reduced purchases of the overseas phosphates. There was no market for “super”.

By late-1881 there was a brief revival. It was mainly occasioned by inland manure manufacturers whose directors and shareholders in many cases were farmers or landowners with coprolite holdings. In the case of the Farmers Manure Company of Royston their managing director owned vast reserves of coprolites on his land in Bassingbourn! Colchester and Ball's Chemical Manure works at Burwell also needed supplies. There was also the fact that freight rates had gone up so buying in imported phosphates was not quite as economic as for the coastal manufacturers. Cheaper coprolites were still available.

On the south bank of the Ouse other workings were opened under the fen, 1/5th mile below Stretham Ferry Bridge and more pits a little to the southwest. All of these were worked before 1882 with, in some cases, the bed reaching 9 inches thick but dipping down to over 20 feet which must have curtailed the operations with extra labour costs. (6 inch Cambs.30 S.W.; Roberts, T., 'Jurrassic Rocks of Cambs.', p.23. Whitaker (1891), p.20.)

The geologists' notes suggest there was a revival of the work between 1879-82 after which it seemed the import of foreign phosphates had brought prices down and demand for coprolites dropped. The seams may well have been exhausted or too deep to be economic. Map evidence, dated 1887 and seen on page .., showed two disused Fossil Mills just east of Elford Closes in the 23 Acre field and not far from the Royal Oak public house. (Cambs. 25" XXIX.16) This pub would have been frequented by the diggers when the workings were in operation.

There was a brief revival at the end of the 1880's when, due to the high unemployment, some landowners allowed the work to continue at reduced royalties. Men from Quy, Horningsea and Fen Ditton were allowed to work Quy Fen at no royalty. (see author's accounts of those parishes)

The 1891 census shows 39 year old John Wesley, agricultural machinist, farmer, cake and manure merchant was living at Grove House. Whether he was involved in the diggings isn't certain. However, three Chapman children living at Green End, Ursula, 20, Esther Ann 15 and Harry 12, were described as fossil pickers. (Cambs.R.O. 1891 census) Later in the year the work came to a halt.

" STRETHAM. Work stopped because of rain. - Farmers and their prospects. At last we have had a few fine days which has enabled the farmers to get on the land once more, but, considering the state of the heavy lands, work is very much behind, and wheat sowing must be late. Although we have had a great deal of rain we have not suffered from floods as some parts have done. The coprolite pits were stopped for a few days but the men are working again, and have been all week. These small works are a great boon to the village, as they just employ all the surplus labour, which otherwise would be out of work during the winter."

(Cambridge Independent Press,7th November 1891 p.7)

Given the economic situation of cheaper foreign phosphates and low coprolite prices it is likely the revival was short-lived. When they actually finished is unknown. Little evidence remains today of the workings except the remains of a bank left when the work was finished (OS. 50767344 - 50977418) and perhaps some uneven fields where the land was not restored correctly.

During the Second World War, with the German navy threatening the shipping lanes there was a worry that phosphate supplies would be stopped. The Ministry of Munitions set up a team to investigate the local phosphates. K. Oakley reported that

“There are no large unworked occurrences of phosphorite in the Lower Greensand of Cambridgeshire. The Upware region is largely worked out. The coprolite bed has been proved over more than 200 acres in the Stretham region and has been partially exploited. The alluvial fen areas standing above the Ouse, southeast of the village, might be productive; also the ground lying to the east and northeast of the village. A yield of more than 200 tons per acre is doubtful.

…Stretham and Upware coprolites contain more alumina than those of the Cambridge Greensand. In the Stretham region the overburden consists of alluvium, fen deposits and sand. It is 6 - 10ft. thick on the sloping ground between the village and the River Ouse. Along the borders of the latter it consists wholly of alluvium and fen deposits, about 6-8ft. thick. This deposit is the only one possibly worth reworking; it is close to the river Ouse, 4 miles upstream from Ely with which it has easy road connections.“

(Oakley, K. 'British Phosphates', Wartime Pamphlets, Vol.8 no.3. (see fig.5)

It is uncertain whether it was worked as a major operation got underway in Trumpington and Grantchester, just southwest of Cambridge. These were the last coprolite workings in the country.

Unfortunately, the diggers destroyed evidence of Roman settlement in the area as in one set of diggings to the west of the road down Middle Common Drove, (OS. 513732) some pottery from that period was unearthed. (Cambs. Arch. 06877, 06905, 06928)

Today the fossils can still be found on the fields and there was a report of a farmer raking them up, piling straw over them and igniting the heap, using the resulting white powder as additional fertiliser on the fields. Another report is of a farmer digging a hole, filling it with coprolites, pouring concentrated sulphuric acid over them, stirring them with a long pole and using the resultant mash on his fields!

Most people are unaware of this unusual activity in this area during the latter half of the last century and this work has helped keep alive the memory of the men and women, girls and boys whose lives were influenced by it.

Bonney, 1875 pp.63-7

Keeping, H. 1868, pp.272-3

Keeping, W. 1883, pp.1-15

Reed, 1897, pp.51-2,61

Roberts 1892, p.65

Skertchly 1877, p.253

Strahan 1917, p.22

Walker 1867, p.309

Whitaker etc. 1891 pp.20-8,103-4)