SIXTEENTH CENTURY
The main developments of the 16th century
were ecclesiastical and
economic. Religious change at Ely (fn. 91) meant change
in the flywheel around which city life revolved; yet
there was less disturbance here than in many monastic
centres. While two heretics were burnt, they were
not townsmen. (fn. 92) There were considerable sales of
monastic property (fn. 93) by the Crown, and within the
actual college precincts change was, of course, pronounced. The demolition of much of the ancient
monastery, the embodiment of parts of its remains in
the new prebendal dwellings, and the extension of
Bishop Alcock's palace by Bishop Goodrich (fn. 94) belong to
this century.
In the economic sphere Ely's main concern was with
the agrarian problems of the day. Inclosures here took
on a local colouring. They did not provoke open riot,
but danger was real. In 1548-9 William Saunders, the
bishop's bailiff, accounted for expenditure on 'persons
who diligently watched at the time of the commotion
in Norfolk, lest there should be any rebellion or insurrection', and on 'arms bought by him for the Bishop'. (fn. 95)
In reply to the Commission on Inclosures, appointed
in 1548, (fn. 96) over 70 complaints were lodged respecting
Ely: they involved most of the demesne farms. (fn. 97) In all,
in the period 1486-1548, about 329 acres were inclosed in Ely and Chettisham and 112 acres in Stuntney. In Bedwell Hay, Chettisham, Emery Barns, New
Barns, Barton, and Stuntney, there were individual inclosures which embraced areas of as much as 40 to 180
acres, but most of the complaints related to small or
very small inclosures. One of the commonest grounds
of protest concerned lost rights of shack over inclosed
lands. Many of the inclosures were for the purpose of
converting arable land to pasture, but more commonly
for dairy-farming than for sheep. There is no suggestion that the food supply was endangered. Moreover,
dairy-pastures did not curtail employment so seriously
as did sheep-runs. Nevertheless, both housing and employment problems did arise: there were farmers like
the tenant of Northney, who, in Henry VII's time, had
'kept an honest house', but who had given place to one
who 'used no tillage nor kept no house, but turned a
dayry', and thus threw labourers out of work, it was
said. In not a few cases two or more holdings were
combined, former dwellings being thereby left empty,
destroyed, or let without land. At least two of Ely's
ancient 'mansion houses', as well as many cottages,
suffered in this way: Ketons (fn. 98) manor house became a
barn; the old Almonry grange was pulled down and a
smaller tenement on the estate burnt. Some of the property mentioned in the complaints was copyhold; still
more was held on lease; but nothing is said here about
'arrearing of rents or fines'. There is one glaring attempt
to force copyholders to part with property. (fn. 99) Bishop,
prior, and almoner emerge none too well from the inquisition; (fn. 1) the equity of the manorial courts is not above
suspicion. (fn. 2) It is not without significance that Wolsey's
Commission of 1517 awakened no sympathetic echo
from the cloisters! There are many complaints of small
intakes from the waste-sometimes merely a few square
yards behind a town dwelling. For such there was the
excuse of long tradition, and there was still much open
fen available. It was urged, however, with abnormal
sanitary susceptibility, that three small urban' intakes
were used as dunghills for the adjoining gardens,
whereas, had they remained uninclosed, they would
have been liable to prosecution. The most serious
example of conversion of arable land to sheep-runs was
at Stuntney; a number of landholders, however, were
accused of surcharging the commons, with cattle if not
with sheep-e.g. at Thorney, Northney, New Barns,
and Stuntney. There are several instances of parts of
common streams being inclosed, and 'hurdels' con
structed for private fishing-e.g. at Turbutsey. Perhaps the commonest complaint is of the loss of public
droveways, consequent upon inclosures. Some 20 rights
of way had thus been obliterated or had led to illegal
demands for payment. (fn. 3) The whole body of evidence
conveys the impression of much petty irritation, occasioned as often by go-ahead small men as by large landholders; (fn. 4) of serious oppression in a few cases; and of
dangerous loss of public trust in the paternal integrity of
local rule.
The evidence throws light on the structure of the
Ely demesne manors or granges, and also illustrates the
transitional stages through which inclosure was passing
in this region. By the end of the 15th century on most
estates a good deal of the property was in more or less
consolidated blocks, though there were often also scattered portions. Some of the 16th-century activity was
directed towards assembling these isolated parcels. A
certain amount of actual hedging or ditching is
suggested, but holdings, for the most part, still lay
physically open to the waste. Hence arose certain of
the disputes. There was considerable confusion as to
the rights of the general inhabitants over these semiinclosed lands, and the continued rights of the inclosers
over the commons. (fn. 5) The compromise agreement ultimately reached in the case of the New Barns estate,
some decades later, admirably illustrates the transitional
conceptions of severalty still obtaining.
As explained to the Commissioners, the New Barns
farm was already in consolidated blocks in the late 15th
century, let to Richard Baker, who maintained 5 ploughteams. He also held Chettisham Bushes. Pasture inclosures began under his successor, who converted about
110 acres in the western part of the farm. In 1537
Thomas Goderyk (fn. 6) held the lease and inclosed 70 more
acres for pasture. Further closes-'Safron ground and
Sprynge close' (fn. 7) -were presently included in the pasture. Part of the farm was sublet. Only two ploughteams were now employed. Trouble had also begun
concerning the closing of five public droveways passing
through Thomas Goderyk's lands, and a further droveway in the hands of John Goderyk, leading from Newnham through 'the pytts' to 'litell Tyrbesy and thence to
Waterden'. For the use of this latter drift, in 1539,
John demanded 14s. a year under threat of legal action.
A certain Mr. Rudston-possibly the bishop's bailiff-
posed as an intermediary and, by a piece of gross
chicanery, persuaded the inhabitants to pay the rent
once, (fn. 8) only to find the sum 'ever sythens required' of
them! In the course of the next generation difficulties
repeatedly occurred. (fn. 9) The estate was not physically
inclosed, nor was it held in complete severally. The
sheep should, apparently, have been hurdled within the
estate, but frequently strayed on to the surrounding
fens, infringing the rights of the general citizens. Cattle
legitimately grazing on the wastes wandered over the
growing crops of the estate. The question of droveways was also still at issue. In 1566 (fn. 10) it was agreed
between the disputants to submit all matters to the
arbitration of Bishop Cox. Under his decree the tenant
was to inclose the manor by hedge and ditch, leaving
specified free droveways. (fn. 11) Private breeding stock and
swine of the estate were to be kept within the inclosure;
other of the tenant's cattle, using the waste, were to be
reasonably stinted, the tenant behaving 'as a neighbour
among neighbours'. The citizens were to relinquish
their former right of shack over the holding, in consideration of a thirty-year lease of 200 acres of its
pasture land to representative citizens, at a fixed rent,
this land to be separately inclosed at the cost of the
users. (fn. 12)
Two other cases brought before the Commissioners
merit notice: they relate to the Steward family. (fn. 13) The
bishop's bailiff had evidently inclosed parts of the Barton manor (q.v.) in the late 15th century, using them
for pasture. These included the 'Tylekyln close' and
the 'Gravell Pytte close'. Nicholas Steward took over
the lease in the 16th century, having 206 acres of
arable, about 155 acres of pasture and an inclosure of
32 acres. He was interested in sheep, and added to his
farm by attaching a part of the adjoining common of
Cawdle Fen and by encroaching on the highway. For
this last offence he had been 'divers times amercyed in
the lord's courte, but it is thought his fine has been pardoned and soo no redress is had'. Symon Steward was
a still more sinister figure. When he bought Stuntney
manor (q.v.), part of its 130 acres had already been inclosed for pasture by his predecessor. (fn. 14) He himself
closed one highway, and his son Edward another one,
which the tenants had used to gather their crops from
Bury Fen. Moreover, the Commissioners found that
whereas formerly 500 sheep, belonging to inhabitants
and tenant, had found pasture, now 600 were fed,
but that the tenants owned few or none of them. Steward
permitted his sheep to trespass on the neighbouring
common, but allowed no other sheep to use it-'to
worry the tenants so that they shall be constrained to
sell their copyholds that he may have the whole township in his own occupying'.
Bishop Cox's survey of Ely, in 1563, gives the total
number of householders as 400: in Holy Trinity parish
with Stuntney there were 246; in St. Mary's parish
with Chettisham 154. (fn. 15)