1606, Cambridgeshire inhabitants seek exception from fen draining

The inhabitants of the towns on the west side of Cambridgeshire bordering the river Ouse. SP 14/18 f. 154 (1606)

The humble peticion of the inhabitantes of the townes on the west side of the countie of Cambridge which border south uppon the river of Ouss:

Humblie shewe that our lowe groundes lie uppon the skirts of a hilly cuntrie subject cheifelie to the overfloweinge of upland brookes from which the said undertakers neither can, by reason of the scituacion nor ever professed to secure in the summer season at which times they are sometimes hurt: as for the winter overfloweinge by the white waters from the hills we have found by experience they fatt and inritch the groundes makeinge them much more fruitfull in the summer followeinge

And whereas the said groundes are comprised within their demaunds by reason of the comon name of fennes (as we conceive) which is generallie used in regard of the levell rather then for any other cause:

We doe affirme that many of the said groundes are of a perfect uplande soile as earth clay and gravell and nothinge at all morishe affordeinge fine and good feedeinge grasse, as good or better then most river meadowes, and of as great valewe beinge worth some x shillings some xx shillings, and some xxx shillings the acre yearelie:

All which groundes also are much more certen then most river meadowes commonlie are, were yt not for nusances latelie suffered and done by private men for their perticular profitts contrarie to right: so as they beinge already in so good estate they need not the helpe of any forraine undertakers:

Wherefore we most humblie pray that they may be exempted out of their designe:

Report of Penny Bidgood

This petition, in the Calendar of State Papers for February, 1606(1), is just one in a series of five that year, and many others over time, that address issues about whether the fens should be drained and, if so, who should do it.   There are ongoing conflicts over many years between the local inhabitants and various speculators and investors who wanted to make money from exploiting the fens.

The Cambridgeshire fens cover an area of about 500km2 of very flat terrain west of the Wash, now mostly agricultural land.  There are six main rivers -the Great Ouse, Little Ouse, Nene, Granta, Lark and Wissey.(2)  Without artificial drainage and flood protection the fens are liable to periodic flooding, particularly in winter, although this makes for richer meadows in the following year.(3)

It was recognised for many years that the peat in the fenland area was full of nutrients and so could provide a very good basis for growing crops – indeed there is some evidence that the Romans tried to drain parts of the fens.(4)

However, in Anglo-Saxon times the fenlands were regarded as “wild wilderness”,(2) and it is probably due to this isolation that many monks and hermits settled there as Christianity spread through England.  The other inhabitants of the fen lands were described as “a thriftless race whose only strong passion was a love of freedom.”(2)   This may explain the actions of some of their descendants in the 17th century.

Hence, in time, the largest landowners were the abbeys and the diocese of Ely, which came to hold the greatest responsibility for maintaining the fens and overseeing repairs.  With the dissolution of the monasteries and redistribution of their wealth, new landlords wanted to make healthy profits from the fens.  Much of the fens was common pasture or was in the hands of tenant farmers, with few large estates.  Hence no-one had the interest or enough money to improve the land; many locals were opposed to any schemes which involved them in spending money or energy and interference by outsiders was resented.(2)

In 1531, in the reign of Henry VIII, The Act of Sewers(5) was passed; although there had been Commissioners before, this act made their powers more permanent, rather than having to be renewed at each Parliament.  The act created Commissioners and Courts to oversee management of coastal marshlands and, of greater relevance here, productive but flood-prone agricultural land.  The Commissioners, gentlemen and nobles, could compel individual land owners to carry out maintenance and repairs, such as constructing drainage ditches.

The General Drainage Act of 1600, in Elizabeth I’s reign, brought in the idea of “undertakers” i.e. people who would undertake the “draining and keeping dry perpetually” such fens as contracted by lords of the manor, commoners of the common fens and owners of fen grounds.(2)

Sir John Popham’s scheme to drain the fens and opposition to it

In 1603, at the beginning of the reign of James I, a plan to reclaim the whole of the Great Level was put forward.  This is the largest region of fenland in eastern England and includes the lower drainage basins of the Nene and Great Ouse, covering about 1500km.(2)

On 18 June 1604 a state paper(6) lists eighty-eight noblemen and gentlemen appointed as Commissioners of Sewers for the Isle of Ely, and the counties of Lincoln, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Northampton and Huntingdon, and notes the extent of the Commission.  This is followed by a letter to these eighty eight Commissioners for Sewers to “certify the names of persons willing to give up part of their land, now surrounded, to such as will undertake to drain them.”(7)

The Commissioners thus appointed included Martin Heton, Bishop of Ely, who would later support the cause of the local inhabitants against the speculators.  The see of Ely was one of the largest land owners in the region, and hence had vested interests in what happened to the fens. (2)

Martin Heton(8) was born in Greater London in March 1554, a son of George Heton and his second wife, Joanna whose father, Martin Bowles, had been Lord Mayor of London in 1545.  Martin was educated at Westminster School and Christchurch, Oxford and, after being Vice-Chancellor of Oxford (1588) and Dean of Winchester (1589) became Bishop of Ely in 1599 until his death in 1609.  He is buried in Ely Cathedral where there is a monument to him in the presbytery.

It was generally agreed that the Great Level was in a poor state, but some argued that the reason for this was neglect(2) as the Commissioners of Sewers were themselves land holders in the area and did not carry out their duties well.  On 19 October 1605 Sir John Peyton, MP for Cambridgeshire, writes to the Earl of Salisbury about the “miserable calamity” of the land around Ely.(2)

The idea of draining the fens to produce rich agricultural land suitable for crops attracted the attention of eminent people from outside the area.  One such was Sir John Popham (1531-1607),(9) from Wellington in Somerset, who had been educated at Balliol College Oxford after which he entered Middle Temple as a law student.    As Attorney General (1581-1592) he was involved in the trial of Mary, Queen of Scots and, as Lord Chief Justice (1592-1607) he presided over the trials of Sir Walter Raleigh and the conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot including Guy Fawkes.  He is buried in the Church of St John the Baptist, in Wellington, where there is a monument to him.

In 1605 Sir John Popham , with others ,  contracted with the Commissioners of Sewers to drain the fens between the Ouse and the Peterborough uplands.(2)  They agreed to maintain for ever any works they made and any existing watercourses they made use of.  In return they were given 130,000 acres of the worst part of every fen.  Inhabitants who did not contribute in land had to pay towards the expenses of the scheme as determined by the Commissioners.  Pophams Eau, a channel connecting the Nene to the Great Ouse was completed at this time.(2)

This scheme caused much opposition from the men of the fens, whose traditional livelihoods of fishing, wild fowling, eel catching and gathering reeds, rushes and sedge for building material, would be affected adversely;  also they were against the use of French contractors doing the work.

The first state paper on this matter in February 1606(10) presents arguments in favour of a bill for draining the fens and allows the people undertaking this to have one eighth of the drained lands. .   An act was passed subsequently for “the Draining of Certain Fens and Low Grounds in the Isle of Ely” subject to Hurt by surrounding containing about 6,000 Acres, compassed about with certain Banks commonly called and named the Ring of Waldersley and Coldham”.(11)

In the next state paper (12) French contractors put forward their tender to carry out the work to the Commissioners of the Sewers.  It is noted that although English contractors have made better offers they would “probably leave the work unfinished, not having the requisite experience or perseverance” and hence it is urged to accept the French offer.  This led to the petition detailed above where the inhabitants argue that the fens are being exploited by private persons and that they do not need foreigners’ help.

State paper 103(13) gives a detailed account of the banks, rivers, drains and outfalls of the Fen Country; also the means of avoiding the danger threatening Wisbeach if the river bed rises.  In state paper 104(14) an unnamed man of the fens outlines to the Commissioners the reason for the poor condition of the fens; he then proposes a contract to drain them himself. 

Later Events concerning draining of the Fens

Despite the opposition, the scheme was started but then abandoned after about 3 years, although in 1609, the Commissioners recommended that it be resumed.   They write, on 16 August 1609, to the Earl of Salisbury about “opposition to some of the lower sort in Cambridgeshire to the charges of draining the level of the Ouse and Grant” (15) and later on 16 October 1609 “that they hope that their public duties may not involve their private estates”.(16)

Discussions in Parliament, the Privy Council and Sessions of Sewers continued intermittently and in 1619 another scheme was suggested but not taken up.  King James I  engaged a Dutchman, Cornelius Vermuyden to undertake the work, but again the use of a foreigner angered the inhabitants of the fens and so nothing was completed in his reign.(2)

Charles I also engaged Vermuyden to undertake recovery of the Level, but again this resulted in local opposition.  Some progress was made in 1630, when Francis Russell, the fourth Earl of Bedford a local landowner, headed a group of 14 “adventurers”, i.e. investors, to turn all of the Great Level into agricultural land.  Fen men known as the Fen Tigers, tried to sabotage the scheme (3) The Great Level is also known as the Bedford Level.

The conflict between local people and speculators continued over the years with the major part of the draining of the fens not completed until the early 19th century when coal-fired steam engines replaced wind pumps.(3)

The fens today are protected by 97km of coastal embankments and 154km of river embankments.  There are now eleven internal drainage board groups who maintain 286 pumping stations and 6,100 km of watercourses.

References

  1. ‘James I: Volume 18, January-February, 1606’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 277-294. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp277-294.
  2. ‘The Middle Level of the Fens and its reclamation’, in A History of the County of Huntingdon: Volume 3, ed. William Page, Granville Proby and S Inskip Ladds (London, 1936), pp. 249-290. British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hunts/vol3/pp249-290
  3. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fens
  4. www.britainexpress.com/counties/Cambridgeshire/fens.htm
  5. www.en.wikipedia/wiki/Commissions_of_Sewers_Act_1708
  6. British History Online: State Papers Domestic- James  I  no 108 June 18 1604
  7. ‘James I: Volume 8, May, 1604’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 103-140. British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp103-140.
  8. wikisource/wiki/Heton_Martin(DNB00)
  9. wikipedia/wiki/John_Popham_(judge)
  10. ‘James I: Volume 18, January-February, 1606’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 277-294. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp277-294.
  11. www.archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_HL_PO_PU_1_1606_4Jln13
  12. ‘James I: Volume 18, January-February, 1606’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 277-294. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp277-294.
  13. ‘James I: Volume 18, January-February, 1606’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 277-294. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp277-294.
  14. ‘James I: Volume 18, January-February, 1606’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 277-294. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp277-294.
  15. ‘James I: Volume 47, July, August, 1609’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 524-540. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp524-540 .
  16. ‘James I: Volume 48, September-October, 1609’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603-1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 540-555. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp540-555. 

    This report is part of a series on ‘Petitioners in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, 1600-1625’, created through a U3A Shared Learning Project on ‘Investigating the Lives of Seventeenth-Century Petitioners’.