THE FRENCH WAR PERIOD 1793-1815
Two surveys made between 1793
and 1815 show the agrarian condition of the city. (fn. 73) Amid the fens
which, in 1794, extended east of
Ely for about a mile, the hamlets of
Quaney, Thorney, Northney, and Stuntney formed a
cultivated island, devoted equally to arable and pasture.
To the north of the city lay about 1,200 acres of firstgrade pasture, including 'the beautiful villa of New
Barns' (fn. 74) and stretching to the hamlet of Chettisham. In
this region also were 2 open fields of arable and many
inclosed acres, large and small, of very fruitful orchards
and nurseries. West of the city was 1 open arable field;
to the south were 2 more arable open fields and some
700 acres of inclosed pasture. The arable fields thus lay
in 5 distinct parcels or 'shifts', constituting about 2,100
acres, cultivated on the old strip system and using a
5-course rotation. About 500 acres of common were
reserved for turf-digging and the very profitable sedgegrowing. The rest of Ely's fenland was still often under
water and 'miserable indeed'. Inclosure was strongly
advocated by the surveyors.
By this date the ancient industries of coarse pottery
and 'white Ely bricks' were important.
Two decades later Gooch deplored the conservatism
of the arable farmers. Open-field cultivation still perpetuated a rotation 'foreign to every idea of modern
farming'. (fn. 75) In contrast, the inclosed lands of Thorney
attained perfection. In and around Ely a good deal of
hemp was still grown, a profitable but exhausting crop.
The New Barns estate had only recently ceased to
cultivate woad (fn. 76) on a large scale, a dye-crop which
had replaced the saffron-growing of earlier days. High
tribute was paid to market-gardeners, both large and
small. Turnpike roads were excellent, but other roads
were still deplorably bad.
Despite the urgent pressure of the age, expense and
clashing interests held up general inclosure of the open
fields for yet a generation.
The abnormally high prices commanded by agricultural producers during the war gave good profits
even without inclosure, for the wages bill lagged progressively behind. Population was growing rapidly and
widespread distress of the labouring classes confronted
both vestries and feoffees. The Ely authorities upheld
the view expressed by the Revd. Dr. James Nasmith,
Chairman of Quarter Sessions, when charging the grand
jury in 1799, (fn. 77) that 'reception into the workhouse
should not hastily be thought of': they had never
favoured it as the best policy for the aged or temporarily
sick. Nevertheless the workhouse changed its name to
the 'Poor House' during these difficult years. Nasmith's
novel dictum that parish surgeons should prescribe diet
as well as drugs met with sincere approval: bread, dairy
produce, and fuel were more generously provided than
in most places, but distress was severe in the nearfamine years. Nasmith's comments on the improving
standard of living of the poor, during the decades
immediately preceding the war, should be noted in conjunction with the rise in population. He did not share
Bentham's fear of undue pampering.
In view of the manifest sensitiveness to suffering, it is
strange to note the apathy respecting the state of affairs
in both the bishop's jail and the Ely House of Correction. Some little had been done between Howard's
visits in 1774-6 and Nield's in 1812, but conditions
were still a terrible indictment of the private ownership
of prisons. (fn. 78)