Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey (Cambridgeshire)

Heather Falvey

Abstract Improvement writers argued that drainage would bring prosperity and population growth to fenland communities; locals counter-argued that their communities were already thriving. The detailed surviving records from early modern Whittlesey, in the Isle of Ely, are analysed here to test the accuracy of these opposing claims. Using the returns of the 1523 Lay Subsidy, the 1563 ecclesiastical census, the Lady Day 1674 Hearth Tax records and the 1676 Compton Census, together with bishops’ transcripts and probate inventories, this article finds that although the population did indeed increase after drainage, the pre-drainage population was also increasing. The Michaelmas 1664 Hearth Tax records are analysed to uncover something of the character of the inhabitants and the 1674 Lady Day returns are then used to test the relative wealth of the community compared with that of sub-regions throughout England identified by Tom Arkell. Finally, there is a discussion of Whittlesey’s housing stock.

In 1589 Humphrey Bradley, a surveyor from Brabant, observing the condition of the undrained fens, asserted that, as a result of drainage, ‘a vague, deserted Empire without population [would be] turned into a fertile region; and wild and useless products therefrom into an abundance of grain and pasturage; humble huts into a beautiful and opulent city’.1 Fenmen, however, did not share his negative view of their region. In 1604, commoners within the Isle of Ely, opposing a drainage bill recently introduced into parliament, claimed that there were then some 22 towns in the Isle, each with 300 to 400 commonable tenements, and that even those inhabitants who were sub-tenants, and thus lacked legal common rights were capable of maintaining their families by their own labour.2 With reference to Whittlesey, and focusing on the demographic element of these opposing statements, this article will test their validity.3 Whittlesey, situated in the north-west of the Isle of Ely, some 6 miles (9.6 km) east of Peterborough and 11 miles (17.7 km) west of March, lies at the intersection of the route between those towns and that between Ramsey and Thorney, which continues on to

1 A Treatise Concerning the State of the Marshes or Inundated Lands (commonly called Fens) in the Counties of Norfolk, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Northampton and Lincoln, drawn up by Humphrey Bradley, a Brabanter, on the 3rd of December, 1589, translated in H.C. Darby, The Draining of the Fens (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1968), pp. 263–73, here at pp. 267–8. The original, in Italian, is British Library (hereafter BL), Lansdowne MS 60/34. 2 Cambridge University Library (hereafter CUL), EDR A8/1, pp.63–64. The term ‘commonable’ is defined below. 3 Space does not permit an examination of the community’s economy before and after drainage. See: H. Falvey, ‘Custom, Resistance and Politics: Local Experiences of Improvement in Early Modern England’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warwick, 2007), chapters 3 and 5.

Heather Falvey

Crowland.4 Prior to drainage, most of the land in the region was too unstable to support buildings of any kind; consequently those settlements that were established grew up on the few gravel ‘islands’ that emerged from the marshes. Although frequently simply referred to as ‘Whittlesey’ (as it will be here), the community actually comprised three distinct settlements. The original settlements of Whittlesey and Eastrea were built on two adjacent ‘islands’, in total some three miles (4.8 km) long and half a mile (0.8 km) wide, which rose about 26 feet (7.9 m) above sea level and just nine feet (2.7 m) above the surrounding peat fens. Exactly when they were founded is unclear: part of the surviving street layout suggests that Whittlesey may have been settled ‘very early’ but the names of certain streets, such as Scaldgate and Briggate indicate Danish influence and thus to ‘a late date for settlement’.5 Documentary evidence commences for Whittlesey in 972 and for Eastrea in 1020.6 A third settlement, the hamlet of Coates, to the east of Eastrea, on the same ‘island’, had become established by the thirteenth century.7 Whittlesey was divided into two parishes, St Mary and St Andrew. The two parish churches are within a quarter of a mile of each other and between 1570 and 1815 were served by the same incumbent. Together the parishes were effectively coterminous with the two large and valuable manors of the same names. Administratively the two manors were distinct entities: manorial properties were held from one or other manor and there were separate manor courts. Land in the common fields, however, was not in separate areas: adjacent strips might lie in the other manor. Indeed, over the centuries the physical boundaries between the two manors had become so blurred that a rental and survey taken in 1603 described only their combined external boundary.8 This encircled nearly 26,000 acres, including 18,689 acres of fen, 5,331 acres of meadow and 1,573 acres of arable.9 Given the frequent mismatch of parish and manorial boundaries, the erratic survival of sources and the vexed question of suitable multipliers, the quest for a series of population estimates for an early modern community is littered with obstacles. This aspect of Whittlesey’s history is, however, slightly less complex since each of the three settlements of Whittlesey, Eastrea and Coates was nucleated, not least due to the constant threat of flooding beyond the islands. Indeed, only after drainage in the 1630s were any houses built in the fens, and these were relatively few and highly visible. Unlike some of their

4 Except where noted, the following two paragraphs summarise: R.B. Pugh (ed.), The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, vol. IV (London, 1953) (hereafter VCH Cambs IV), pp. 123–35. 5 An extensive urban survey undertaken by the County Archaeological Office, Cambridgeshire County Council, revealed Roman activity on the two ‘islands’, see map of Roman landscape of Whittlesey in ‘Historic Towns of Cambridgeshire: Fenland District: Whittlesey’ (County Archaeology Office, 2000). 6 P.H. Reaney, The Place-names of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely (Cambridge, 1943), pp. 258, 259; see also: VCH Cambs IV, 126–7. 7 Reaney, Place-names of Cambridgeshire, p. 264. 8 CUL, Add MS 3826, ‘The Survay of the Mannours of Whittlesey St Maries and Whittlesey St Andrews Together with a Rental; and the Terrer or Feild Book of the Said Manours’, dated 1603, fol. 4r, the boundaries of the manors. 9 CUL, Add MS 3826, ff. 5r-6v, ‘a brief note and measure’ of the manors.

Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey counterparts elsewhere, therefore, taxation assessors at Whittlesey, proceeding along the various streets listing the inhabitants, could reasonably be expected to include everyone.10 As the boundaries of the two Whittlesey parishes and manors were coterminous, it is arguable that estimates based on civil taxation returns, compiled by township, and those based on ecclesiastical ‘censuses’, reported by parish, refer to the same population centres. This allows consistent analysis of four national reference points in the demographic history of early modern Whittlesey: the returns of the Lay Subsidy granted in 1523; the ecclesiastical census of 1563; the Hearth Tax returns of Lady Day 1674 (hereafter 1674L); and the Compton Census of 1676. There is a significant interval caused by the absence of the Ely returns to the 1603 Diocesan Census but this can be partially filled using two local sources: the rental drawn up in 1603 and an Exchequer decree, dated 1639, which allocated allotments in the drained fen. Although the latter two listings do not necessarily account for all households within Whittlesey at those times, they do provide useful pointers in an otherwise unmarked landscape. Analysis of the bishops’ transcripts, moreover, gives some indication of population trends during the period 1600 to 1669. Finally, in addition to an analysis of the Michaelmas 1664 Hearth Tax returns (hereafter 1664M) which indicate something of the nature of Whittlesey’s inhabitants, analysis of 1674L Hearth Tax returns enables a discussion of the relative wealth of the community within its regional and national setting, and also of its housing stock.

Population indicators from national sources In 1524 at Whittlesey 297 inhabitants were assessed for the first instalment of the Lay Subsidy granted in 1523: 253 on goods and 44 on wages.11 In theory the subsidy was levied on all adult males aged sixteen and over, but sometimes only heads of household were assessed; analysis suggests that the latter applies to Whittlesey. There are a number of recurring surnames such as Ground/Grounde (sixteen), Richar/Rycher (nine) and Kelfull/Kelffull (eight), but while five of these particular recurrences appear in pairs, perhaps indicating people in the same house being assessed, others appear singly. On the other hand, in all only nine pairs of people with the same surname were assessed consecutively. As it is unlikely that only nine families out of nearly 300 included more than one male over sixteen, it is arguable that heads of households were being assessed, especially as seven of those assessed were widows and two were specifically designated

10 See, for example, the problems encountered by assessors visiting the forest community of Duffield (Derbyshire): H. Falvey, ‘Searching for the Population in an Early-modern Forest’, Local Population Studies, 81 (2008), pp. 37–57. 11 The National Archives (hereafter TNA), E179/81/136, ‘Assessment of First Payment of the Subsidy, granted 14 Henry VIII, within the Hundreds of Ely and Wichford’. In addition to 297 individuals, the ‘church guild’ was also assessed. For the background to Tudor Lay Subsidies see: R.W. Hoyle, Tudor Taxation Records: A Guide for Users (London, 1994). For a detailed discussion of the returns of the subsidy granted in 1523, see: J. Sheail, The Regional Distribution of Wealth in England as Indicated in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Returns, ed. R.W. Hoyle, List and Index Society, Special Series, 28 & 29 (London, 1998).

9 Heather Falvey

Table 1 Population Figures for Whittlesey from National Sources

Date and source Number counted Multiplier Total 1524, Lay Subsidy 297 4.75 1,412 1563, Diocesan Census 355 4.75 1,686 1674, Hearth Tax 660 4.3 2,830 1676, Compton Census 2,117 1.4–1.7 2,964–3,599

Sources: Lay Subsidy, TNA, E179/81/136; Diocesan Census, BL, Harleian MS 594, fol. 200; Hearth Tax, TNA, E179/224/23; Compton Census, Whiteman (ed.), The Compton Census of 1676, p. 163.

‘sengilman/sengylman’.12 Perhaps the families of the ‘paired’ names lived together, or next door? Applying the multiplier for heads of households gives a total (taxable) population of about 1,412 (see Table 1).13 Nearly 40 years later, in 1563, the vicars of the two Whittlesey parishes reported to the bishop that there were 266 households in St Mary’s and 89 in St Andrew’s, giving a total of 355.14 Goose and Hinde have suggested that a range of multipliers should be used to allow for under-enumeration.15 It is, however, arguable that very few, if any, Whittlesey households were omitted at this time: despite the vast area encompassed by its parishes, parishioners inevitably lived close together since the areas of the ‘islands’ that were able to sustain the weight of their homes were small. The household multiplier equates to a combined population of some 1,686 souls. Thus the population may have increased by about 270 since 1524. The extra 58 households may include a few wherein the householder (or their predecessor) had been too poor to be taxed in 1524 but nevertheless the overall number had increased to 355 households. The 1674L Hearth Tax returns record the assessments of 660 dwellings in Whittlesey. When calculating population totals from the Hearth Tax returns, Tom Arkell has suggested a mean household size of 4.3 in both rural and urban areas outside London.16 This suggests that Whittlesey was then inhabited by some 2,830 people.17 Since the Diocesan Census of 1563, when the population was about 1,686, it had increased by some 1,144

12 The assessments of three of the widows, Agnes Richar, Joan Kelfull and Margaret Grounde, are recorded next to those of men of the same surname. 13 N. Goose and A. Hinde, ‘Estimating Local Population Sizes at Fixed Points in Time: Part II – Specific sources’, Local Population Studies, 78 (2007), pp. 74–88, here at pp. 79–80. 14 BL, Harleian MS 594, fols 198–200, ‘The true Certyficate made by the reverend Father in God Richard (Cox) Bushoppe of Elye, of all & singuler the Howsehowldes & the whole numbere thereof conteigned in the same Dyocesse & Jurisdiction. dat. 20 August 1563’. The returns for Whittlesey are on fol. 200. All of the returns have been transcribed in A. Dyer and D.M. Palliser (eds.), The Diocesan Population Returns for 1563 and 1603 (London, 2005). 15 Goose and Hinde, ‘Estimating Local Population Size’, p. 82. 16 T. Arkell, ‘A Method for Estimating Population Totals from the Compton Census Returns’, in K. Schürer and T. Arkell (eds.), Surveying the People: the Interpretation and Use of Document Sources for the Study of Population in the Later Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1992), pp. 97–116, here at pp. 101–2. 17 TNA, E179/224/23. The figure includes dwellings in Eastrea and Coates. The totals for the Isle of Ely were first published by C.A.F. Meekings in VCH Cambs IV, and have been reprinted in N. Evans and S. Rose (eds.), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax returns Michaelmas 1664, British Record Society, Hearth Tax Series, 1 (Cambridgeshire Records Society, 15) (London, 2000), p. lxxxix.

Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey

(68 per cent).18 The returns of the Compton Census, made just two years later, can be used to check population totals derived from the Hearth Tax. Historians have found that incumbents might interpret the instructions for the census differently; consequently Arkell has calculated particular ratios between Hearth Tax returns and those of the Compton Census that indicate the incumbent’s method.19 Where the ratio is nearest 3:1, the incumbent had counted the number of adults in the parish; a multiplier of 1.4 to 1.7 will provide the outer limits of the total population. In 1676 the vicar of Whittlesey reported that there were 2,021 conformists and 96 non-conformists in the two parishes, a total of 2,117 people, just over three times as many as in the Hearth Tax.20 Arkell’s multiplier suggests a population of between 2,964 and 3,599 souls, putting the increase since 1563 at somewhere between 1,278 (76 per cent) and 1,913 (113 per cent), somewhat higher than the national trend.21

Population indicators from local sources The significant gap between 1563 and 1674 in national population indicators can be partially filled using sources specific to Whittlesey. In 1603, a rental of both manors was drawn up listing 643 properties comprising land and/or a dwelling, which were held by 320 tenants.22 At this time there were 307 commonable ‘cottages’ (261 in Whittlesey, 31 in Eastrea and 15 in Coates) and 24 other dwellings.23 These were held by 254 tenants, so there were at least 77 surplus dwellings available for lease to sub-tenants. The other 66 tenants held land but no dwelling. Although some may have been absentees, the majority of tenants with land but no commonable cottage had the same surname as other tenants, suggesting that these particular tenants were not outsiders; doubtless most would have rented a ‘surplus’ cottage. Commonable cottages were usually ‘ancient cottages’, that is, not newly erected properties, with a small area of land and common rights attached. It must be emphasised, however, that whilst some commonable cottages were humble dwellings, others were more substantial buildings: ‘cottage’ was a legal rather than an architectural term. In

18 This increase of about 68 per cent fits with the national figures calculated by E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The Population History of England 1541–1871: A Reconstruction (London, 1981), p. 207, figure 7.1; pp. 531–2, table A3.3. Using back projection, they suggest that between 1563 and 1674, the total population grew from 3,048,188 to 5,008,493, an increase of about 65 per cent. 19 Arkell, ‘Method for Estimating Population Totals’, pp. 110–16. 20 A. Whiteman (ed.), The Compton Census of 1676: a Critical Edition (London. 1986), 163. The original census, held in the William Salt Library, Stafford, is MS Salt 33. 21 Wrigley and Schofield, Population History, p. 207, figure 7.1; pp. 531–2, table A3.3 suggest a total population of 5,003,488 in 1676 (a slight drop since 1674). This gives an increase since 1563 of 1,955,300 (64 per cent). 22 CUL, Add MS 3826, fols 8r–35v. 23 Five of the commonable cottages in Whittlesey were shared. The 24 other dwellings for which rent was paid to the lord of the manor comprised 2 copyhold cottages, 5 freehold cottages, 1 croft now a cottage, 1 house, 13 messuages and 2 tenements. As manorial tenants the 24 people who held these dwellings that were not designated ‘commonable cottages’ would have possessed some common rights.

Heather Falvey general, and legally after 1589, cottages should have had at least four acres attached; some may also have had land in the common fields. Leigh Shaw-Taylor has suggested that, at a particular point in time, a community might have decreed that all buildings then standing, or standing by some previous date, were commonable, and that no building erected later would qualify.24 Such a ruling would therefore fix the number of ‘ancient’ commonable properties and so regulate the number of tenants with legal access to the manorial commons. Commonable cottages were not, however, the only dwellings within a fenland community. Whereas tenants of commonable properties possessed de jure common rights in the fen, there were other inhabitants who were permitted de facto rights ‘for there releife’.25 The number of these ‘poor commoners’ varied over time and place and is, therefore, unquantifiable; occasionally, however, the size of this group within a particular community is recorded. At Wichford (Cambridgeshire) in 1621, for instance, 68 householders claimed common in the fens, of whom only 34 were ‘ancient’, that is, legal commoners.26 In 1622, at Brandon (Suffolk), meanwhile, there were 84 tenants of commonable tenements and 54 poor householders who were permitted to common in the fen.27 These examples suggest that the ratio of illegal to legal commoners could be about 1:2 but might reach 2:3. The ratio at Whittlesey might not have been quite so high, given the small area of the ‘islands’. Nevertheless since the 1563 Diocesan Census had counted 355 households, in 1603 there were clearly more households than simply those in the 307 commonable cottages and 24 other dwellings; a plausible estimate is over 400. Following the enactment in January 1631 of the Lynn Law, in 1632 drainage work commenced in the area that became known as the Bedford Level.28 Once the fens belonging to the Whittlesey manors had been drained, the ‘new’ lands were enclosed so that they could be cultivated or grazed more profitably.29 Eventually, in 1639, an enclosure agreement relating to these lands was ratified in the Exchequer. Under the terms of this agreement tenants of 381 commonable cottages and messuages received allotments of

24 L. Shaw-Taylor, ‘The Management of Common Land in the Lowlands of Southern England’, in M. de Moor, L. Shaw-Taylor and P. Warde (eds.), The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c. 1500–1850 (Turnhout, 2002), p. 71. Shaw-Taylor has found one definite example of this occurring: in Hitchin (Hertfordshire) an early eighteenth century by-law declared that no cottage or house built since 1589 had any right of common in the manor; Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies, 87805. He notes that it is probably not coincidental that 1589 was the year in which the statute against erecting cottages with less than four acres of land was enacted. 25 BL, Add MS 33466, fol. 198, Report of Jurors of Brandon to the Commissioners of Sewers, 20 February 1622. See also: C. Holmes, ‘Drainers and Fenmen: the Problem of Popular Political Conciousness in the Seventeenth Century’, in A. Fletcher and J. Stevenson (eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 166–95, here at p. 193. 26 BL, Add MS 33466, fol. 195, Report of Jurors of Wichford to the Commissioners of Sewers, October 1621. 27 BL, Add MS 33466, fol. 198, Report of Jurors of Brandon. 28 For details, see, for example, H.C. Darby, The Changing Fenland, (Cambridge, 1983), chapter 3, ‘The Fen Project: 1600–63’. For the Bedford Level Corporation, see S. Wells, The History of the Drainage of the Great Level of the Fens, called Bedford Level (2 vols., London, 1830). 29 For details, see Falvey, ‘Custom, Resistance and Politics’, pp. 281–95.

Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey land in the drained fens.30 Since 1603, therefore, the number of commonable dwellings within the manors had increased by 50 (15.1 per cent). Due to the lack of manorial court records, it is not possible to trace the mechanics behind the establishment of these new commonable dwellings: they may have been deemed commonable because they had been built on land that was already commonable. Nor is it possible to determine when they were erected, but it seems likely that they post-dated drainage. Records of the allotments indicate that some of the cottages had been divided, thus there were actually 397 households within commonable dwellings in 1639. The number of specifically non-commonable dwellings had also increased. In 1650 a jury of St Mary’s manor reported that 58 named inhabitants had previously erected cottages within the manor, against the form of the statute (presumably without four acres attached).31 Comparing names of the offenders with those of tenants in 1639 indicates that they fell into three categories: 20 (34 per cent) were manorial tenants; 16 (28 per cent) were members of local families; and the remaining 22 (38 per cent) were incomers. People in the two latter groups may have been poor and landless; those in the former were wealthier inhabitants who had been building to lease. In addition to these 58 cottages, several farmhouses, mostly inhabited by Walloon settlers, had been built in the enclosures within the drained fens.32 The exact number of new farmhouses is unknown but, in June 1646, George Glapthorne J.P. had reported to the Board of the Great Level that since drainage the former fens around Whittlesey had increased in rental value from scarcely 2d to as much as 10s per acre and now produced crops worth £4 an acre, adding that they were inhabited by ‘140 Wallons’ who employed ‘all the poore Round about them’.33 It is likely that some of these Walloons lived in the neighbouring parish of Thorney, where the fourth earl of Bedford had established a church for ‘Frenche & Dutche planters’.34 Nevertheless, this brief survey of local sources suggests that by 1650 the number of commonable dwellings, new cottages and farmhouses in and around Whittlesey exceeded 500.

30 The whole decree, dated 6 February 14 Charles (1639), is in TNA, E125/24. The text commences on p. 314 and follows on 52 unnumbered pages. 31 Cambridgeshire Archives (hereafter CA), 126/M2, Court Book of the Manor of Whittlesey St Mary, 4 October 1650 and 4 November 1650. The jurors did not give a time-scale for the illegal building so it is impossible to know when it had begun. 32 At least three of these new farmhouses were attacked during riots in Whittlesey fen in May 1643, (Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JO/10/1/152, 19 June 1643–29 June 1643, bundle dated 26 June 1643). The riots are discussed in detail in Falvey, ‘Custom, Resistance and Politics’, chapter 5. For a discussion of the Walloon settlement, see H. Falvey, ‘Interpreting the Instrument of Government: Objections to the 1654 Election in the Isle of Ely’, Parliamentary History, 31 (2012), pp. 133–51. 33 CA, R59/31/9/3, Proceedings of the Adventurers, The Third Journal, 15 Nov. 1649 – 8 Mar. 1651, (earlier entries at the back of the book), entry dated 25 June 1646. The 1674L Hearth Tax returns for Whittlesey include the names of at least 18 Walloon settlers, TNA, E179/224/23. 34 TNA, SP16/447/99, ‘Articles Proposed on the Behalfe of the Right Hon[ora]ble Francis Earle of Bedford’, 12 March 1639 [1639/40]. My analysis of the 1664M returns for Thorney suggests that perhaps 99 out of the 194 householders assessed were Walloons. The transcript is in Evans and Rose (eds), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax Returns, pp. 146–50.

Heather Falvey

Multipliers calculated to estimate population totals from tax assessments or diocesan returns are not necessarily applicable to individual listings such as rentals or lists of commonable properties. Sometimes, however, contemporary remarks can provide impressionistic population indicators. In October 1621, jurors at a commission of sewers reported that in the nearby town of March ‘ther is 192 houseses[sic] inhabited and of the inhabitants ther is 970’, that is, on average five people in each household at that time.35 Applying this figure to Whittlesey, in 1603 there were some 2,000 inhabitants and prior to 1650 some 2,500 in known households alone. Whilst these figures are somewhat tentative, they are not unreasonable since they fall between the estimates for 1563 and 1674, and they, therefore, confirm that the population of Whittlesey was increasing markedly during that period.

Vital events and population trends Vital events recorded in parish registers can be used to calculate natural rates of change within a particular parish. The earliest register from St Andrew’s commences in 1653 and that from St Mary’s in 1683.36 Some of the missing data are supplied by bishops’ transcripts, which commence in 1602 and 1600 respectively, but several transcripts have not survived and some of those that have survived are incomplete.37 Systematic aggregative analysis of vital events at Whittlesey is not, therefore, possible. The surviving records seem to indicate that average (mean) numbers of baptisms and burials did not increase until the 1640s and that they increased markedly in the 1660s (see Table 2).38 In her study of variations in levels of mortality across geographical contours, Mary Dobson has found not only that low-lying parishes experienced higher rates of mortality but also that rates in parishes on the same contour varied according to the natural drainage pattern, with salt marshes being the unhealthiest areas.39 She expresses mortality as the ratio of burials per 100 baptisms, thus parishes with ratios above 100 were those experiencing excess mortality.40 Although Dobson’s study concentrates on Essex, Kent and Sussex, her findings are of considerable relevance to fenland communities. Despite Whittlesey being situated just 26 feet above sea-level, its overall ratio of 92.5 indicates that it did not experience excess mortality during the period under consideration.41 Nevertheless, out of the 35 years for which complete records survive for both parishes, burials did exceed baptisms in eight of them.

35 BL, Add MS 33466, fol. 172, Report of Jurors of March to Commissioners of Sewers, 5 October 1621. 36 Registers for both parishes held at CA. 37 CUL, EDR 3/84, St Andrew’s Bishops’ Transcripts; EDR 3/85, St Mary’s Bishops’ Transcripts. Complete data from both parishes survive for only 35 of the years 1600–1669; St Andrew’s are complete for 55 years and St Mary’s for 42. 38 This may also have been the case in the 1650s, when records were not kept. 39 M. Dobson, Contours of Death and Disease in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1997). For the effect of natural drainage on mortality, see pp. 108–23. 40 Ibid., p. 102. 41 Ibid., p. 107, table 3.4, shows that the average ratio in parishes with saline marshes was 145 and in those with riverine marshes 123.

Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey

Table 2 Average (mean) Number of Baptisms and Burials in Whittlesey by Decade

Decade Average annual Average annual Years with complete recorded baptisms recorded burials data 1601–1610 79.3 44.7 1605–1610 1611–1620 77.8 60.2 1611–1613; 1615–1617 1621–1630 70.8 69.3 1622–1630 1631–1640 79.1 62.0 1633–1640 1641–1650 98.5 84.5 1641,1642 1651–1660 no data no data 1661–1670 153.3 173.8 1664, 1665, 1668, 1669

Note: Only years with complete data for both parishes have been used. Source: CUL, EDR 3/84 and 3/85.

It is not possible to calculate the natural growth rate of Whittlesey’s population between 1600 and 1669 from parish register data but it is highly unlikely to have been anything like the national rate of 23.9 per cent, especially given the almost static averages of baptisms and burials from 1600 to 1640.42 There are two particular factors that would have affected adversely the natural growth rate in these two particular parishes. Firstly the high number of infant burials in Whittlesey: 30.9 per cent of all recorded burials during the period (Table 3).43 Whereas the adults who were buried may have contributed to the population increase by having children before they died, the infants (obviously) did not, thus the higher the rate of infant mortality, the lower the natural rate of growth. Secondly the higher incidence of illness in fenland parishes compared with upland parishes: the former were notorious among contemporaries for their noxious airs.44 Perhaps some of the marked increase in the natural population growth that took place from the 1640s onwards was a direct result of some improvement in air quality after drainage; however, since drained lands frequently reflooded, air quality might not have improved by much. The slow rate of natural population increase and the significance of fenland fevers and agues notwithstanding, figures derived from taxation and diocesan censuses demonstrate that the population of Whittlesey increased dramatically between 1563 and 1674: from approximately 1,686 to about 2,830, an increase of some 68 per cent. Since the natural rate of increase was arguably low between 1600 and 1669, much of the overall increase must have been caused by an influx of migrants. It is likely that most of this in-migration occurred from the 1630s onwards, following drainage. We have, indeed, already noted that

42 The national growth rate is calculated from figures given by Wrigley and Schofield, Population History, pp. 531–2, table A3.3. Using back projection, they suggest that between 1600 and 1669, the total population grew from 4,066,132 to 5,036,598, an increase of 970,466 (23.9 per cent). 43 Whittlesey vicars consistently recorded ‘infans’ against the names of some of the children buried, suggesting that they were differentiating between babies and children under 16. Professor Richard M. Smith (private correspondence) has suggested that ‘infans’ referred to children under two, or, more specifically, children who were being breast-fed into their second year of life. 44 For a detailed discussion of the illnesses in such regions, see Dobson, Contours of Death, chapter 6, ‘Marshlands, Mosquitoes and Malaria’.

Heather Falvey

Table 3 All Recorded Baptisms and Burials in Whittlesey, 1600-1669, from Bishops’ Transcripts

Parish data St Andrew St Mary Both parishes Baptisms 1,935 2,638 4,573 Burials 1,750 2,480 4,230 Ratio of baptisms to burials* 90.4 94.0 92.5 Recorded infant burials 465 844 1,309 Percentage of infant burials 26.6 34.0 30.9

Note: * The ratio of baptisms to burials is the number of burials per 100 baptisms. This is the ratio used by Dobson, Contours of death, p. 102 when considering variations in levels of mortality across geographical contours. These figures include all of the extant data; missing years differ in the two parishes. Sources: CUL, EDR 3/84 and 3/85. the number of commonable cottages increased between 1603 and 1639; that additional non-commonable cottages were erected before 1650; and that new farms were created in the drained fens. The ready availability of ‘new’ land in the fens drew people to Whittlesey, probably from upland parishes to the west, rather than from neighbouring fenland parishes to the north, south and east, where drainage had also occurred. Although the general unhealthiness of the area affected the natural rate of increase in population, it failed to affect the actual rate. The prospect of wealth, or at least a living, outweighed that of ill- health, if the latter was considered at all.

Hearth Tax returns as an indicator of wealth Hearth Tax assessments may be used, with caution, to produce an overall profile of the distribution of wealth within a given community since there was clearly some correlation between hearths, house size, wealth and social standing, although in such studies historians often fail to define what they mean by ‘wealth’.45 Nevertheless, the assumption of correlation accords with the basis on which the tax was established: the more hearths there were in a house, the more the householder could afford to pay. Sir William Petty, writing in 1662, observed that ‘a Harth-money must be but small, or else ‘twill be intollerable; it being more easie for a Gentleman of a thousand pound per annum to pay for an hundred Chimneys (few of their Mansion-Houses having more), then for Labourers to pay for two’.46

45 C. Husbands, ‘Hearths, Wealth and Occupations: an Exploration of the Hearth Tax in the Later Seventeenth Century’, in Schürer and Arkell (eds), Surveying the People, pp. 65–77, here at pp. 66–68. Husbands notes that ‘[w]ealth is conventionally described as a stock whilst income is defined as a flow’(p. 68, n. 15). 46 W. Petty, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, together with The Observations upon Bills of Mortality, more probably by Captain John Graunt, ed. C.H. Hull (Cambridge, 1899), 2 vols. chapter 15, ‘Of Excize’, observation 11. See http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1677/30587, accessed on 26 January 2013.

Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey

Surviving Hearth Tax records fall into various categories, depending when in the taxation process they were generated, for example, initial assessments, lists of payments, or lists of arrears; consequently some are more detailed than others.47 The 1664M record for Cambridgeshire is particularly full, since it is a combined assessment and return.48 It comprises a copy of the Michaelmas 1662 (hereafter 1662M) assessments that the 1664M assessors checked and annotated with any alterations, such as changes in owner or tenant, or discrepancies, such as differences in the number of hearths assessed or failure to pay previous assessments. Nesta Evans has briefly discussed the annotations in the 1664M returns for Cambridgeshire as a whole and has noted that the proportion of alterations and discrepancies was apparently greater at Whittlesey than anywhere else in the county.49 In 1662, in Whittlesey 512 people were assessed for the tax, whereas in 1664, the total was 697. In these latter returns, of the 512 named in 1662M only 55 (11 per cent) had stayed in the same dwelling, had declared the correct number of hearths and had paid the relevant tax; there were alterations or discrepancies in the remaining 457 assessments from 1662. Analysis shows that although some of these differences were due to changes in ownership, many were due to evasion of the earlier tax. In 1662, 148 householders (29 per cent) had disclosed fewer hearths than they possessed; 169 (33 per cent) of those liable for the tax had never paid their assessment before 1664M.50 Evasion spanned the whole social spectrum: from 34 widows to George Glapthorne and his fellow magistrate Francis Underwood.51 Further evidence of evasion can be discerned in some of the 185 ‘new entries’ in 1664M. Of these, 104 were exempted houses that now had to be listed, a handful of the remaining 81 may have been built since 1662, but most had simply been omitted previously. Interestingly, Petty had predicted little, if any, evasion: it being easie to tell the number of Harths, which remove not as Heads or Polls do: Moreover, ‘tis more easie to pay a small Tax, then to alter or abrogate Harths, even though they are useless and supernumerary; nor is it possible to cover them, because most of the neighbours know them; nor in new Building will any man who gives forty shillings for making a Chimney be without it for two.52

47 For cautionary advice on using Hearth Tax returns, see, in particular, the work of Tom Arkell. For example, T. Arkell, ‘A Student’s Guide to the Hearth Tax: Some Truths, Half-truths and Untruths’, in N. Alldridge (ed.), The Hearth Tax: Problems and Possibilities (Hull, 1984), pp. 23–38; T. Arkell, ‘Identifying Regional Variations from the Hearth Tax’, Local Historian, 33 (2003), pp. 148–74; T. Arkell, ‘Printed Instructions for Administering the Hearth Tax’, in Schürer and Arkell (eds), Surveying the People, pp. 38–64. See also, E. Parkinson, The Establishment of the Hearth Tax 1662–66, List and Index Society, special series, 43 (Kew, 2008). 48 The document’s form is described in detail in Evans and Rose (eds), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax, p. xviii. 49 N. Evans, ‘How Comprehensive is the Hearth Tax Return?’, in Evans and Rose (eds), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax, pp. xxiii–xxvi. The figures in the following analysis are taken from my own database constructed from the information contained in the original returns (TNA, E179/84/437, mm. 40r–45v); they differ from those given by Evans. 50 Forty-eight of those Whittlesey householders who had not paid any assessment before 1664M had also declared fewer hearths than there actually were in their house. 51 Although eight of these widows were deemed not liable in 1664M, only three were specifically noted as ‘poore’ in 1662M; the remaining 26 had evaded the tax. 52 Petty, Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, observation 10.

Heather Falvey

As most homes in Whittlesey were easily accessible, the unavoidable conclusion, therefore, is that householders had connived with the collectors to declare and/or pay for fewer hearths than they actually had. Some of the blame did, indeed, lie with the constables, John Laxon and George Lambe, who had been responsible for collecting the 1662M assessment. On 28 August 1667 the Treasury issued a warrant for the arrest of George Lambe, ‘late constable of Whittlesea, in the Isle of Ely, for making untrue returns of the Hearth money there’.53 In 1662, moreover, both Laxon and Lambe had failed to declare their own hearths correctly.54 With men such as this collecting the tax, the level of evasion at Whittlesey is scarcely surprising. Evans suspected that the high level of under-payment and non- payment was achieved due to the ‘comparative remoteness’ of Whittlesey. On the other hand, Philip Saunders has suggested that it demonstrates that ‘a once thriving town [was] experiencing a downturn in fortune’.55 However, as we have seen that the population of Whittlesey was increasing and it is clear that the local economy was buoyant at that time, the latter explanation is unlikely.56 Given the political awareness of the inhabitants and their willingness to challenge authority, it is far more likely that, with the connivance of the constables, they had, indeed, been taking advantage of their distance from Westminster.57

The distribution of wealth in Whittlesey in 1674 Given these problems with the 1664M assessments, the following brief analysis uses the 1674L returns to examine the distribution of wealth within Whittlesey. Firstly, it applies a model that categorises the wealth of communities according to the number of hearths assessed; secondly, it considers the correlation of hearths, house size, wealth and status in Whittlesey using the probate inventories of known taxpayers. Since no houses with three or more hearths could be exempted from the Hearth Tax, Arkell has suggested that the number of such houses in any community provides a more accurate guide than previous categorisations to the relative wealth of that particular place and that such a comparator can therefore identify regional variations in wealth.58 To facilitate comparison between various areas he divided England and Wales into a series of

53 Qupted in Evans and Rose (eds), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax,p.xxiv. 54 In 1662M George Lambe had declared three hearths but only paid tax for two; the 1664M returns show that there were actually four hearths in his house. John Laxon senior had declared two hearths but only paid tax on one, TNA, E179/84/437, mm. 41r, 43v. 55 Evans and Rose (eds), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax, p. xxv; Philip Saunders, review of Evans and Rose (eds), Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax in Local Historian, 32 (2002), pp. 259–60, here at 260. When questioned about his interpretation Dr Saunders, then Deputy County Archivist for Cambridgeshire, admitted that it was based on ‘gut-feeling’ and the fact that the town was in decline during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, rather than on definite information about the town’s economy during the seventeenth century. 56 For the post-drainage economy of Whittlesey, see Falvey, ‘Custom, Resistance and Politics’, pp. 351–3. Both Samuel Hartlib, writing in 1651, and Sir William Dugdale, in 1657, commented on the profitability of the area. 57 For their political awareness, see Falvey, ‘Interpreting the Instrument of Government’ and H. Falvey, ‘Voices and Faces in the Rioting Crowd: Identifying Seventeenth-century Enclosure Rioters’, Local Historian, 39 (2009), pp. 137–51. 58 Arkell, ‘Identifying Regional Variations’, pp. 148–74.

Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey

Table 4 Households with Three Hearths and Over in Selected Rural Sub-regions

Number of hearths in households Total 3+ 1 2 3–4 5–9 10+ Non- households % % % % % % chargeable % Middlesex (south) 4,154 52.6 16.4 31.0 23.5 19.5 9.6 37 Isle of Wight (all) 1,743 32.8 36.6 30.6 25.0 6.1 1.7 18 Cambridgeshire 3,534 27.4 47.1 25.4 18.8 7.4 1.3 24 (centre & NE) Isle of Ely (north) 812 21.9 46.9 31.2 15.9 5.3 0.7 20 Isle of Ely (south) 927 21.4 48.5 30.1 14.5 6.0 0.9 22 Cambridgeshire (east) 823 20.7 51.4 27.9 16.3 4.0 0.3 37 Huntingdonshire (most) 3,949 17.3 54.9 27.9 12.2 4.3 0.8 21 Cambridgeshire (north) 758 15.4 49.9 34.7 10.8 3.6 1.1 22 Lincolnshire (south) 10,514 14.4 64.2 21.3 10.4 3.4 0.6 23 East Riding (south) 5,601 12.6 69.1 18.3 9.0 3.0 0.6 17 Isle of Ely (centre) 2,302 12.2 56.1 31.7 9.4 2.3 0.5 20 Cornwall (far west) 607 8.9 70.3 20.7 7.1 1.3 0.5 47 Westmorland (centre) 883 1.4 86.5 12.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 no data Whittlesey 660 13.5 35.9 32.6 10.8 2.0 0.7 18

Source: for Whittlesey, TNA, E179/224/23; for elsewhere, Arkell, ‘Identifying Regional Variations’, table 4.

Table 5 Hearths in Whittlesey Houses in 1674L Assessments

Number of Hearths in Households 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ Total Total entries hearths Charged 226 209 55 14 7 2 1 – 3 5 522 1,009 Empty etc 11 6 2 – – – – – – – 19 29 Exempt 119 – – – – – –––– 119119 Total houses 356 215 57 14 7 2 1 – 3 5 660 1,156

Source: TNA, E179/224/23.

Table 6 Percentages of Whittlesey Houses in 1674L Assessments

Exempt 1h 2h 3–4h 5–9h 10+h Total 3+h n/c + 1h entries Total houses 119 237 215 71 13 5 660 89 356 Percentage 18.0 35.9 32.6 10.8 2.0 0.7 100 13.5 53.9

Source: TNA, E179/224/23.

Heather Falvey sub-regions; Whittlesey was included in the Isle of Ely (centre). With only 12.2 per cent of its houses having three or more hearths, this region was one of only two southern areas that Arkell specifically identified as being ‘relatively under-developed’ in terms of housing stock, and therefore of wealth, the other area being Cornwall (Table 4).59 In Whittlesey itself just 13.5 per cent of the houses had three or more hearths (Tables 5 and 6). Although it is arguable that the number of non-chargeable dwellings within a community is an indicator of the level of poverty there, Arkell’s analysis of sub-regions demonstrates that the percentage of non-liable dwellings was not necessarily inversely proportionate to that of houses with three or more hearths: areas with the highest number of large houses did not have the lowest number of non-chargeable properties (Table 4). Indeed, with its non- chargeable properties standing at only 20 per cent, the Isle of Ely (centre) ranks third lowest in his table, behind the East Riding (south) (17 per cent) and the Isle of Wight (all) (18 per cent). Whittlesey itself had just 18 per cent, the same as the second lowest. This low proportion of non-chargeable properties is something of a conundrum in terms of Arkell’s analysis. Here was a community that had almost the lowest proportion of non-chargeable hearths, and, therefore, a low incidence of individual poverty; and yet, that same community was situated within one of poorest southern regions and itself conformed to the relevant criterion, namely that it had a very low percentage of houses with three or more hearths. Perhaps the best interpretation of these findings is that Whittlesey was situated in a generally poor area, where wealth was relatively evenly spread. Such an interpretation seems to be confirmed by the high percentage of two- hearth houses, which also indicates a relatively unpolarised share of wealth. At Whittlesey, 32.6 per cent of the housing stock had two hearths; the significance of these houses is discussed below.

Whittlesey probate inventories and the Hearth Tax Probate inventories can be used to test the socio-economic profile of Whittlesey suggested by the 1674L Hearth Tax assessments. Some of the 24 surviving Whittlesey taxpayers’ inventories drawn up between 1674 and 1680 will be analysed briefly here.60 Firstly, we will consider the twelve relating to people assessed on one chargeable hearth, in order to ascertain their social status and the range of their wealth (defined as the value of their inventory);61 secondly, whether there were any discernible variations in the nature of the inventoried houses.

59 Ibid., pp. 166–7, table 4; quotation from p. 161. 60 A period of six years and under was considered an acceptable time gap between the Hearth Tax assessments and the valuations of a taxpayer’s wealth. One of the inventories was that of Ralph Aslin, labourer, who was assessed as non-chargeable. The value of his inventory was £2 11s 6d, CA, inventory of Ralph Aslin of Whittlesey, appraised 4 December 1675. 61 A crude but arguably valid interpretation of wealth. For a more sophisticated assessment of inventory values and wealth, see T. Arkell with N. Alcock, Warwickshire Hearth Tax Returns: Michaelmas 1670 with Coventry Lady Day 1666, British Record Society, Hearth Tax Series, 7 (Dugdale Society, 43) (London, 2010), pp. 91–98.

20 Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey

In his study of communities in the Forest of Arden, Victor Skipp found that householders taxed on one hearth were ‘lesser husbandmen, smallholders, small craftsmen and labourers’.62 At Whittlesey the total inventoried wealth of the one-hearth-chargeable taxpayers ranged from £2 6s 8d (William Fawne) to £192 8s 4d (Isaac Gardner).63 Whilst Fawne, who was a labourer, fits neatly into the one-hearth status profile suggested by Skipp, Gardner does not. Although Gardner was indeed described as a husbandman, his inventory shows that he had nearly £80-worth of livestock, including seventeen cattle and fourteen horses, and £82-worth of crops. The occupations of Whittlesey’s one-hearth- chargeable householders did not vary greatly: they comprised one baker, five husbandmen, three labourers and one widow, the other two not being stated; none were yeomen. With one exception to which we will return, amongst the inventoried Whittlesey taxpayers there was a tangible difference between the homes of husbandmen and yeomen: those designated ‘husbandman’ had only one hearth, regardless of their wealth, whereas those designated ‘yeoman’ had two or more. There was, however, no such distinction between the number of (listed) rooms within those houses: four of the one-hearth houses apparently had at least as many rooms as some of the two-hearth houses. It is dangerous to draw conclusions from such a small sample, but perhaps it can be suggested that at Whittlesey the possession of an extra hearth actually was a plausible indicator of status. The various chapters in Houses and the Hearth Tax emphasise the impact of regional building styles on the number of hearths in a house.64 Thus regional variations in housing styles might mean that, when comparing hearth numbers in different regions, like is not necessarily being compared with like. Furthermore, Arkell’s methodology assumes that the number of hearths was fairly continuously related to wealth; however, where many houses were built to the same local specification, that is, where the variety of house types was limited, this relationship would not be continuous. Fenland cottages, for example, were compact and were heated by peat burned in blocks on open fires: The squat rooms of ancient fen cottages had been built to economise on heat and turf was ideal for them, smouldering cosily and aromatically into a creamy ash, seldom being allowed to go out all the year through, although they needed a clear outlet for the smoke which could sting the eyes when trapped.65 Pressure on building space within Whittlesey itself limited the floor plan, and therefore the number of downstairs rooms, in these dwellings but it did not necessarily limit the number of rooms with hearths or preclude the addition of an extra hearth. Indeed, it has already

62 V. Skipp, Crisis and Development: an Ecological Case Study of the Forest of Arden, 1570–1674 (Cambridge, 1978), p. 78. For a detailed discussion of various models put forward for analysing socio-economic profiles suggested by Hearth Tax assessments, see Falvey, ‘Custom, Resistance and Politics’, appendix 3. 63 CA, inventory of William Fawne of Whittlesey, appraised 1 October 1674; inventory of Isaac Gardner of Whittlesey, appraised 18 May 1676. 64 P.S. Barnwell and M. Airs (eds), Houses and the Hearth Tax: the Later Stuart House and Society, CBA Research Report 150 (York, 2006). 65 A. Day, Turf Village: Peat Diggers of Wicken (Cambridge, 1985), p. 3.

Heather Falvey been noted that the town had a high proportion of dwellings with two hearths. From the few extant early modern cottages in Whittlesey, and from pictures of others now demolished, it is clear that these were small buildings and that neighbouring cottages were very close, or even adjoined.66 Lack of building space may also help to explain the low proportion of dwellings at Whittlesey with three or more hearths, which Arkell has assumed denotes a lack of wealth. Indeed, the number of hearths in an individual house did not necessarily indicate the level of the occupier’s wealth. Paul Barnwell has observed that individuals might have chosen ‘to invest their money in things other than buildings or expensive moveable goods, so that neither the number of hearths on which they were assessed, the value of their goods, their houses, nor even a combination of all three, necessarily bears a direct relationship to their wealth’.67 Perhaps David Le Counte, assessed at Whittlesey on four hearths, did choose to invest some of his obvious wealth in his house. However, this building is not quite the anomaly it appears in Whittlesey’s housing stock: Le Counte, a Walloon, lived at Nordy Gravel, where his farmhouse was built within the drained fen, an area with no pressure on building space.68 His number of hearths confirms Sarah Pearson’s finding in Kent that new houses were likely to have more hearths than old ones: ‘occupiers of older buildings were slow to upgrade them, while new ideas about what constituted an acceptable level of heating meant that newly erected buildings were far better equipped’.69 Le Counte’s ‘husbandman’ designation probably refers to the fact that his property was leasehold rather than an ‘ancient’ manorial holding and thus his status is not necessarily anomalous either. This discussion of an incomer inhabiting a new house leads us back to our original exploration of the demography of Whittlesey.

Conclusion We began by contrasting Humphrey Bradley’s observation, in 1589, that the negligible population of fens would increase dramatically after drainage with the claim, in 1604, of some inhabitants of the Isle of Ely that the population was already thriving. Our subsequent investigation has demonstrated that, as the 1524 Lay Subsidy returns for Whittlesey recorded 297 taxable households, this was indeed already a substantial community, suggesting that its pre-drainage economy was buoyant. Furthermore, an increase of perhaps as many as 58 households by 1563 indicates that the population was growing before drainage. On the other hand, the population figures obtained from the

66 See, for example, Anon., Millennium Memories of Whittlesey, 1 (compiled for the Whittlesea [sic] Society, Whittlesey, undated, but c. 2000). 67 P.S. Barnwell, ‘Houses, Hearths and Historical inquiry’, in Barnwell and Airs (eds), Houses and the Hearth Tax, pp. 177–83, here at 177. 68 CA, inventory of David Le Counte of Nordy Gravel, husbandman, appraised 20 September 1676. He was clearly a successful farmer: the total value of his inventory (£813 16s 2d) was by far the highest of all 70 Whittlesey inventories surviving from 1650–1681; the next highest was valued at £446 4s 6d. 69 S. Pearson, ‘The Kent Hearth Tax Records: Context and Analysis’, in D. Harrington (ed.), Kent Hearth Tax A, British Record Society, Hearth Tax series, 2 (Kent Archaeological Society, 29) (London, 2000), p. ci.

22 Assessing an Early Modern Fenland Population: Whittlesey

1524 Lay Subsidy returns and the 1676 Compton Census indicate that Bradley had a point: the population of Whittlesey more than doubled in that period. Owing to large time gaps between the various national markers it is impossible to pinpoint when the population began to increase significantly; however, some local records provide an indication. Allotments of drained fen were made to tenants of ‘commonable cottages’: between 1603 and 1639 there had been a 15 per cent increase in the number of these legal properties. Analysis of the patchy bishops’ transcripts indicates that natural growth in the population commenced in the 1640s, and increased appreciably in the 1660s (and perhaps in the 1650s, when no records were kept). Nevertheless, given the general unhealthiness of the fens, the rate of natural increase alone cannot account for the doubling of the population: the balance must have been made up by in-migration. Manor court records show that 58 new cottages were built before 1650 and other documents indicate foreigners dwelling in new farmhouses built in the drained fens: people were being attracted to Whittlesey. When used as an indicator of wealth and status, hearth numbers suggest that at the end of the period wealth within the community was relatively evenly spread: only 13.5 per cent of the housing stock had three or more hearths but only 18 per cent were exempted from the Hearth Tax. The latter figure suggests that the enclosure of the vast common fens, and the creation of allotments and new farms within the enclosures, did not lead to the immiseration of the population. In the case of Whittlesey the fenmen of 1604 were not wrong to claim that communities were thriving before drainage, but, as Bradley predicted, after drainage the fens were able to support a much larger population.