To what extent did the draining of the Fens during the 17th century affect the local inhabitants?
Michael Grummit
BA (Hons) Archaeology and History
Abstract
The Fenland drainage schemes of the 17th century have tended to be perceived as a triumph over nature; the sea-drenched terrain was transformed into essential arable land, while the number of catastrophic flooding events were terminated or reduced. However, previous research has neglected the consequences for the local inhabitants and underrepresented the involvement of venture capitalists and the State. By examining contemporary primary sources from lords to locals, this study modifies prior perceptions, repositions the motives for the reclamation schemes and questions their success. The study argues that the State and venture capitalists were resolute in increasing their revenue by securing the newly-drained lands, comparing its procurement with that of the acquisition of Colonial territories. Further, it contends that the establishment strengthened the case for drainage by employing negative propaganda; pictures and poems were used to mock the inhabitants and represented their wetlands as worthless. The study finds that although the Fenlanders had some high-level support and fought back with riots, poems, and ballads, the momentum was not in their favour. As the wetlands became increasingly desiccated, the ecology changed forever, causing numerous inhabitants to lose their livelihoods. Their rights to common land vanished as the schemes acted as a form of enclosure, replacing egalitarianism with private capital that still exists today.
Introduction
Ever since Roman times, the low-lying Fenlands have provided their inhabitants with pastoral and water-based livelihoods, supported by the fertile attributes of the sea to the east and the rivers flowing in from the west. The Fenlanders made a living from the paludal environment and their rights to Common land, living by the egalitarian Fen by-laws. However, they were acutely aware of the balance between sustenance and saturation, as marine incursions and overflowing rivers could swiftly wipe out lives and livelihoods. During the 17th century, there was a concerted State effort to drain significant areas of the Fenland Levels. King James I declared his intention to prevent the hurtful inundations: ‘for the Honour of his kingdome, would not any longer suffer the Countries to be abandoned to the will of the waters.….’ (Darby, 1940, p. 38). Nevertheless, his words masked his real motives, and few of the inhabitants would celebrate the results.
Despite the numerous primary sources, the research into the extent that the Fenlanders were affected by the drainage schemes is minimal. This study aims to address the deficiency and debates the motives of the State and its backers, drawing comparisons with the exploitation of Colonial lands. To achieve these aims, the study critiques a range of primary sources in addition to secondary literature. Two core primary sources were Sir John Maynard’s 1690 The picklock of the old Fenne project and Sir William Dugdale’s 1662 History of imbanking and dryning. Maynard was a Whig MP for the south of England, nevertheless, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Fen people’s cause and against any Crown extravagancies (Hayton, 2020). His book contains a voluminous amount of speeches that he gave in the Exchequer Chamber, where he made scathing attacks on the motives and methods of the Crown, their backers, and the drainers. Dugdale was an established antiquary of the time, however, his book documenting the drainage projects was commissioned by a Lord who owned a drainage company (Willmoth, 1998, p. 281). Consequently, the study views his accounts with heightened scepticism; however, they help determine the prejudices against the Fenland inhabitants. A significant proportion of the secondary literature is dated and concentrates on the practicalities of the schemes. Keith Lindley (1982) provides detailed accounts of the riots, but his focus on the civil war is prioritised over any social aspects. Although he quotes a contemporary poem that connects the Colonies with Fen drainage, he makes little of its importance. Kate Mulray (2021) is the only one to recognise the poem’s significance, a point that highlights the lack of debate in this area. Henry Darby’s The Changing Fenland (1983) and The draining of the Fens (1940) also deliver sound documentary accounts and provide good footnotes for the sources he used; however, these too shine little light on the personal consequences of the removal of the wetlands. Joan Thirsk was a renowned agricultural historian (Dyer & Slack, 2015), and three of her works; The Isle of Axholme before Vermuyden (1953), English peasant farming (1957) and Fenland farming in the sixteenth century (1965), provide some indications into the experiences of the Fen people, and she moves away from the descriptive, although her works now appear dated. In contrast, Eric Ash (2017) provides a modern viewpoint and concentrates on the political motivations of the State and the consequences of the schemes. Individually, the literature would not carry much weight, but together they help tell the story of the Fen people and of their struggles.
The drainage works had a set terminology; the schemes were often referred to as projects with the planners becoming the ‘Projectors’, drains were a form of artificial waterways, ‘sewers’ was the general term for all the various cuts that carried the drained water away, ‘undertakers’ were those who undertook the work, whilst ‘Adventurers’ were the financial investors in the projects.
To encompass the aspects of the question effectively, the study is broken down into four distinct areas. The pre-drainage lives of the Fenlanders are reviewed first to establish a baseline. The study then examines the inception of the schemes and their rationale, before exploring the turmoil during the actual works. Finally, the essay critiques the use of propaganda and the profiteering by the State and investors. It concludes that the Fenland inhabitants were viewed as inconsequential to the ventures and ultimately paid the price for what was essentially a land grab for State and private gains.
Fenland livelihoods before the drainage schemes
Before the drainage projects, the livelihoods of the Fenlanders was conditional on the amount of water that resided in the Fenland Levels that they occupied. The inhabitants of the marshy areas, located nearer to the Wash, rivers, or lower lands, were accustomed to the wet conditions and constant inundations. They tended to be poorer, as the environment necessitated that they held less animal stock and had to subsidise their income from waterborne produce (Thirsk, 1965, pp. 14-26). Others, located in the intermediate areas, maintained a pastoral livelihood, with graziers droving their animals to drier areas in the winter months or at times of flooding; for them, occasional flooding was a risk and a fact of life (Bevis, 2006, pp. 22-27). Indeed, some Fenmen were pleased with the infrequent inundations; in the parish of Over, they noticed that the winter floods increased the growth of the summer grass required for grazing (Bowring, 2011, p. 240). In the salt-marshes, the experienced locals knew when the tides were due and waited until the rain had washed the salt away before using them to pasture sheep (Thirsk, 1957, pp. 17). For these Fenmen, the cheaper acreage was worth the perils and inconvenience; however, the Crown extracted one-fifth of the overall area and used its appointees to select the best land (Thirsk, 1957, p. 20), illustrating the Crown’s attitude towards its poorest subjects. Figure 2 shows the locations of the Fenland Levels and places mentioned in the text.
The wetlands offered all the resources the inhabitants required. Reeds were used for thatching and ropes, peat would be used as building bricks and burned as fuel, whilst sea-salt afforded a means of food preservation (Darby, 1932, pp. 427-430). The waters were furnished with fish and encouraged a wide variety of wildfowl and were aside from their Common grazing rights for cattle, sheep, and oxen (Darby, 1932, pp. 427-430). Neilson (1920) pens that the right to pasture was an ancient custom that some villages charged a small rent for, with a portion of the ‘fennefaye’ being used for the upkeep of the dykes and drains (pp. 16-96). The fennefaye also incurred fines for Commoners who abused the system and charged a fee for every household that burned fuel (Neilson, 1920, p. 80), preventing over-consumption of the local peat. Pointedly, Neilson (1920) remarks that the Common rights were controlled via by-laws and were more important in the Fens than anywhere else in England (pp. 16-96). The 67 Fen bye-laws were written in 1591, and failure to abide by them would also incur a fine; examples of the laws are shown below:
That none shall fell any more Reeds Eldins Sallows or Rushes But such as they save gather up & carry Home By such time & time as the ffengreevs shall think convenient….And for them they do the contrary to fforfeit the same Reeds & Sallows (Davis, 1994, p. 18).
That every person between Midsomer and Michaelmas roade Scower and cleanse as often as need shall require their Labours as well in common Sewers & petty watercourses to the mayne Draines within the said ffen’s & in the said Mayne draines upon payne to fforfeit according to the Laws of Sewers (Davis, 1994, p. 18).
The first bye-law displays a fair method to control the Fen provisions, ensuring that nobody took more than they needed. The second one demonstrates that the drainage system was managed by allotting tasks equally to the residents. The responsibility for maintenance was organised at a community level, the Crown granted resident commissions of sewers and local Customs rights to act when required (Darby, 1983, p. 55). Despite the inhabitants in the wetter locations such as Cowbit enduring conditions that caused rheumatism, malaria and a complaint called the ‘ague’, they wanted to continue with their lives the way they knew and remained aggressively opposed to any changes. Their lives appeared miserable, but they had a wild autonomy where nature catered for their needs (Wheeler, 1990, p. 35-36). Unfortunately, as they made a substantial portion of their living from fish and fowl (Thirsk, 1957, pp. 19-27), they were more susceptible to any drainage schemes.
The aspiration and inception of new and drier lands
Ash (2017) notes that the intensity and frequency of flooding increased at the close of the 16th century. The consequences could be harsh, in 1570 Holinshed (as cited in Darby, 1983) penned:
‘this Yeere the fift of October chanced a terrible tempest of wind and raine … the sea brake in betwixt Wisbech and Walsocken, and at the crosse keies drowning many villages in Norfolk Marshland. In one place, a ship was driven upon an house. Corn and cattle were lost and salt-works were flooded to the utter undoing of manie a man’ (p. 46).
The increased flooding caused rifts between Fenmen from differing paludal zones, all of whom had diverse agronomic requirements and conflicting ideas of achieving them (Darby, 1940, pp. 48-51). Unable to reach a settlement, the local sewers commission asked the Crown to intervene; however, they saw an opportunity to instigate State jurisdiction and a chance to increase their revenue (Ash, 2017). A drainage scheme proffered by the Royal Counsel was swiftly accepted by the Crown and entailed draining large swaths of the Fenland Levels. The projects were outsourced to elites and Adventurers at a regional level, and local governance was removed (Ash, 2017). However, during the drainage process, private enclosures were introduced that encroached on the inhabitant’s Common land (Lindley, 1982, p. 1), boosting the livelihoods of the rich privateers and the Monarchy at the expense of the inhabitants. Nevertheless, the Crown insisted that the improvements would be of ‘immediate benefit of the public’, as it replaced ‘waste’ land with fertile earth ripe for arable crops (Thirsk, 1957, p. 21).
Towards the end of her reign, Queen Elizabeth I was presented with a ‘Petition to Parliament’ from several villages in South Holland that requested that the Deeping Fens should be drained; however, they were unaware of the extent of the proposed schemes and their consequences (Davis, 1994, p. 23). Subsequently, in 1597 Thomas Lovell, who held the favour of Lord Burghley (Lindley, 1982, p. 33), was granted one-third of the Fens in recompense for undertaking the works. His payment amounted to a generous 10,000 acres (The National Archives, 1602). England came under a new Drainage Act in 1600 that laid out advantageous remunerations for the undertakers, and three years later, under the new King James I, the Crown taxed the Deeping villages for the ongoing project (Davis, 1994, p. 23). However, the King’s lack of funds called for expediency (Thirsk, 1957, p. 19), and in 1621, he declared that ‘for the honour of this kingdom’ he would undertake the drainage of the salt-marshes for a fee of 12,000 acres (Darby, 1940, pp. 37-38). The move was undoubtedly an effort to advance State control and gain more significant capital at the expense of the locals, nevertheless, his death in 1625 stalled any progress (Holmes, 1980, p. 123). Despite Darby (1940) remarking that King Charles I favoured that his subjects should manage the projects (p. 39), Ash (2017) and Holmes (1980) claim that he was an interventionist and keen to progress the schemes. Indeed, less than a year into his accession, he contracted a Dutch entrepreneur and experienced engineer Cornelius Vermuyden to drain the 60,000 acres at the Isle of Axholme, with half of the land and profits going to the Crown (Holmes, 1980, p. 123).
Uprisings upheavals, and upshots
The schemes caused riots, especially in Epworth, where any alterations to their Common lands were barred by a 14th-century deed and resulted in legal battles that lasted a century (Holmes, 1987, p. 192). The drainage was a disaster for the inhabitants; half of the Common ground was lost, some areas were too wet whilst others were so dry that the Fenmen had to carry the water in (Thirsk, 1953, pp. 22-26). The wetlands dried up, resulting in the wildfowlers and fishermen losing their livelihoods, whilst the parched land became less productive. When the fertile inducing floods were stopped, the Fenmen commented that the ‘thick, fat water’ was replaced with ‘thin, hungry, starveing water’ (Thirsk, 1953, p. 26). It was so bad that even the Exchequer Commissioners commented that significant mistakes were made, however, they added that the residents would have to pay to divert water back onto the Commons (Thirsk, 1953, pp. 22-26). Those in the wetter areas of the Deeping Fens, like Cowbit, stood to lose their Common rights to fish and fowl and were deeply opposed to the drainage projects and questioned how they could pay their taxes, especially when their wetlands were being taken away (Davis, 1994, p. 24). Ash (2017) states that their inability to pay tax was planned for, as they would lose their rights to the Commons, allowing the Crown to seize the land. Others joined the opposition when they realised that the schemes would result in the Enclosure and privatisation of their Commons. Heightened tensions in the Deeping Levels resulted in riots as the locals demolished the embankments (Lindley, 1982, pp. 33-34). The National Archives (1603) shows that in June 1603, ten men were held accountable at the Star Courts for ‘sedition; assault; conspiracy; deformation; destruction of property and unlawful assembly’. The alleged ringleader Thomas Wells was placed in the stocks by William Lacy, the local justice, who appears to have shown some allegiance to the protesters (Lindley, 1982, p. 34). The demolition of the embankments continued, and Lovell’s attempts were abandoned due to ‘unreasonableness of the times and riotous lets and disturbance of lewd people casting down its banks’ (Davis, 1994, p. 24). Subsequently, Thomas, Earl of Exeter, sought to capitalise on the project, however, his endeavours resulted in flooding downstream, leading one resident to quip, ‘so they drown us to drain us’ (Lindley, 1982, p. 15). Ultimately, the project failed as the ruptured embankments were wrecked further by the inhabitants, and in 1631 the contract was granted to another entrepreneur, Francis, Earl of Bedford, who enlarged the scheme and established the ‘Bedford Level Corporation’ (Lindley, 1982, p. 35).
However, not all elites agreed with the projects; Sir John Maynard, the Fenmen’s legal counsel, passionately argued their case in the Exchequer Chamber (Holmes, 1980, p. 121). In 1650 he stated that the King’s other method of raising capital, via ‘ship money’ had been considered treasonous, and yet the Fen projects took far more from the estates (Maynard, 1690, p. 5). Further, he accused the undertakers of bribing the King and declaring lands as ‘hurtfully surrounded’ (flooded) when they were not:
The Commissioners, many being Undertakers …. got upon Boston Steeple, and adjudged all they saw was hurtfully surrounded. They might, as well have got upon Pauls Steeple, and adjudged all the rich Meadows and Marshes on both sides the Thames to be hurtfully surrounded…. The Undertakers gave the King 3000 acres by way of bribe; and the King gave them 14000 acres, for being Judges and Parties; they might be their own carvers (Maynard, 1690, pp. 2-3).
Holmes (1987) comments that yeomen and the ‘middling sort’ acted as leaders for the Fenmen, raising petitions and establishing common funds (pp. 183-184). Keith Wrightson (2003) substantiates the assessment, stating that the yeoman formed ‘a sort of informal oligarchy’ that ran the country (pp. 44-45). Holmes (1987) also notes that a Lady Dymock and Robert Cawdron Esquire were suspected of inciting raids on enclosures in the Isle of Axholme in 1640 (pp. 183-184). The involvement of the higher classes diminishes the notion that class was a determining factor in opposing the schemes. To counter opposition from the likes of Maynard and to bolster support for the projects, the State and their elites employed defamation and misinformation tactics, denigrating the Fenlanders and downgrading the worth of the land (Mulry, 2021, p. 78).
Propaganda, poems, and profits
The negative representations of the Fen inhabitants were promoted by Sir William Dugdale, a respected antiquary who officially documented the drainage works (Willmoth, 1998, p. 281). An example of his disparaging works is illustrated in figure 3, where he demeans the local inhabitants and disregards their livelihoods, favouring the Realm. However, he later acknowledged that his writings were commissioned by Lord Gorges, one of the elites who ran the drainage company and who was an apologist for the restored Monarchy (Willmoth, 1998, p. 301).
Such mocking was commonplace; the Fen people were also described as being ‘according to the nature of the place where they dwell rude, uncivil, and envious to all others whom they call Upland-men: who stalking on high stilts, apply their minds, to grassing, fishing and fowling’ (Britannia, 1610, as cited in Darby, 1940). Whilst Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay described the inhabitants in his History of England as ‘a half savage-people, leading an amphibious life, sometimes rowing, sometimes wading from one firm mound to another, and known as Breedlings’ (Macaulay, as cited in Wheeler, 1990, p. 33). When the renowned diarist Samuel Pepys visited relatives in Parson’s Drove on the 17th of September 1663, he penned:
a heathen place, where I found my uncle and aunt Perkins, and their daughters, poor wretches! in a sad, poor thatched cottage, like a poor barn, or stable, … we took leave of our beggarly company, though they seem good people, too; and over most sad Fenns, all the way observing the sad life which the people of the place which if they be born there, they do call the Breedlings (Pepys, 1665).
Although Pepys sympathised with the Fen folk, it appears as though he maintained the judgemental and moralistic attitude prevalent at the time. The undrained lands that the Fen people inhabited were not immune from condemnation, they were considered ‘waste’ and characterised as unhealthy, diseased, and worthless (Ash, 2017). In one example, the Fens were compared to an ill man’s faltering kidneys, ‘the stopping of the urine…it first filleth up all the veins of the body…and then drowns the patient in his own water’ (Ash, 2017). All the negative campaigning was undertaken for one purpose, to allow the lands of the Fen people to be taken from them for entrepreneurial gain.
The Adventurers saw investment opportunities in the drainage and were predominantly outsiders, such as London merchants or the ‘landed gentry’ (Darby, 1940, p. 21). They could be described as a version of the ‘gentlemanly capitalists’ noted by Peter Cain and Anthony Hopkins (Cain & Hopkins, 1992, pp. 150-181). Although Cain and Hopkins placed their concept of gentlemanly capitalism from circa 1688 to 1850, with interests in overseas investments and expansion (Cain & Hopkins, 1992, pp. 150-181), such enterprises were apparent earlier and on home soil. Indeed, the ‘Bedford Level Corporation’ may be compared to other Crown backed capital ventures, including the ‘Royal Adventurers into Africa’, the forerunner of the ‘Royal African Company’. These were also predominately backed by profiteering London merchants (Bernstein, 2012, p. 207). Irvine (2017b) notes that such Adventurers would typically get 4000 acres for an investment of 500 pounds, whilst King Charles I would receive 12,000 acres per contract (p. 25), showing the profits to be made and the disparity between the Crown and other investors. The comparison between Fenland drainage and overseas colonisation is manifest in a 17th-century pro-drainer’s poem that encourages investment in the local schemes:
And Ye, whom hopes of sudden Wealth allure,
Or wants into Virginia, force to fly,
Ev’n spare your pains; heres Florida hard by,
All Ye that Treasures either want, or love,
And who is he, whom Profit will not move?
Would you repair your fortunes, would you make,
To this most fruitful land yourselves betake(Fortrey, 1685, as cited in Lindley, 1982, p. 4).
However, Samuel Fortrey was prejudiced, as he was a mercantilist who served in the Privy Council (Fonseca, 2017). As an Adventurer in the drainage projects, Fortrey dismissed the plight of the inhabitants, stating that they ‘were little better than animals with dull wits and were led only by unthinking, bestial sensation, or passion, not by civilised reason’ (Mulry, 2021, p. 87). This is another example of how those who were pro-drainage used negative propaganda to enhance their profit-making schemes. Figure 4 from 1607 could be viewed as visual propaganda; the image illustrates the suffering and damage the floods caused to people, livestock, and homes (Ash, 2017). However, it may have been used to promote the pro-drainers cause; there is nothing more evocative than a baby in distress.
A literary war emerged between the pro and anti-drainage lobbyists, with satirical poems scribed by both sides. Another moralistic ode penned by Fortrey in 1685 indicates that the removal of the wetlands would instil good manners and work ethics into the Fenlanders. It insinuates that it would make them into honourable men that would cease thieving and become loyal churchgoers instead:
When with the change of Elements, suddenly’
There shall a change of men and Manners be;
Hearts, thick and tough as Hydes, shall feel Remorse,
And Souls of Sedge shall understand Discourse,
New hands shall learn to work, forget to Steal,
New legs shall go to Church, new knees shall kneel
(Fortrey, 1685, as cited in Irvine 2017a, p. 6).
For their part, the Fen people penned material such as The Anti-Projector: or, the History of the Fen Project produced in 1646. Figure 5 is an excerpt that describes how the undertakers have continually maligned the Fens and have deceived Parliament by stating that they were a ‘quagmire’. They list how they live off the land that supports poor cottagers, stating that they provide food for the Navy and bemoan how the drainers are destroying their lands.
The Fenlanders also scribed verses of protest, a ballad named ‘The Powte’s Complaint’ from circa 1619 is shown in figure 6 and summarises their plight (Darby, 1983, p. 60). It predicted how their wetlands of fish, fowl and reeds will be replaced by livestock and cereals in a near premonitory manner and how they wished that the ‘ancient waters’ would drain the Adventures purses. The last three verses cite battles, inferring their determination to fight the drainers, whilst stating that ‘Captain Floud’ will come to help them. The excerpt is from a book of Dugdale’s, who included it as an example of the ‘libellous songs’ used by the Fenmen to impede the efforts of the Adventurers and drainers (Borlik & Egan, 2018, p. 1).
Ultimately, ‘Captain Floud’ did not come to save the inhabitants of the Fens, and although rioting continued into the next century with legal disputes taking even longer, the Fenlands became dry (Lindley, 1982, pp. 253-259).
After draining, the once moist and fertile peat topsoil disappeared, leaving the less fruitful clay behind on a lowered landscape. Ironically, this led to more flooding, and the inhabitants would see numerous wind-driven pumps materialise to propel the water up into the drains (Hills, 2003, pp. 62-65). Thirsk (1953) remarks that the prophecies in The Powtes Complaint became a reality as the Fenmen’s traditional wetland and pastoral produce was replaced by that of cereals and arable crops. However, she argues that Cornelius Vermuyden’s design was to replace one form of economy for another, not to escalate State profits (p. 17). Nevertheless, there seems little point in undertaking all that work and investment for neutral gains and appears to be a failed theory. The 17th century State was aware that its population was increasing rapidly and that victuals had to match the growth (Miller, 2017, pp. 144-145). Indeed, the inhabitants of the pastoral areas of the Fenlands doubled from 1563 to 1670 as unskilled workers hoped to use the ever-shrinking Common lands to raise animals or scrape a living from the wetlands (Wrightson, 2003, pp. 130-135). It is perceivable that the authorities merely wanted to recover what it perceived as wastelands to produce more staple crops such as cereals. However, there seems to be little evidence for this and leaves the incentive for wrecking the livelihoods of the Fen folk as a land grab for personal and State gain.
Conclusion
The effects of drainage on the Fenland inhabitants during the 17th century have been effectively chronicled in various areas. Their traces in the historical record is unusual, as it is often the poorer members of society that become invisible. Notwithstanding this visibility, the inhabitants of the Fens have still been overlooked, their accounts being under-researched and underrepresented. Even though their troubles led to the largest riots of the century in England (Lindley, 1982, p. 62), they often play ‘second fiddle’ to other upheavals such as those of the Enclosures and the antics of the Levellers (Wood, 2001, pp. 82-111).
The indigenous Fenland inhabitants lost their Common grounds and their paludal and pastoral livelihoods to the State. Their customs were cast aside whilst the Crown and the Adventurers gained more land and profits. The similarities with the occupation of the New Americas and search for new lands is palpable and was evident at the time, as shown in Fortrey’s poem. However, few academics have explored this connection, tending instead to concentrate on the overseas cultures. The negative portrayal of the Fen folk by the authorities aimed to render the Fenlanders as worthless ‘Breedlings’ who inhabited a wasteland, making the removal of their livelihoods less controversial. However, the Fenland communities often had the backing of the ‘middling sort’ and validates the theory that it was little to do with class, whilst the Fenlanders use of literature illustrates their aspirations and exasperations in countering the negative propaganda. The eventual outcomes of the drainage schemes would also see a less cultural, agronomic, and ecologically diverse landscape that lost a significant amount of fertility in certain areas.
The study did not have the scope to analyse all the primary sources; there is an array of archived material that necessitates further inquiries. Additional research could investigate the fate of the Fenlanders, how many were able to adopt the new method of land provision, and how many of those adapted from paludal to drained livelihoods? More significantly, what happened to those that failed to adopt and adapt?
References
Ash, E. H. (2017). The draining of the Fens: Projectors, popular politics, and State-building in Early Modern England. Johns Hopkins University Press. Kindle Edition.
Bernstein, W. L. (2012). A splendid exchange. Adfo Books.
Bevis, T. A. (2006). Flooded Fens. T.A.Bevis.
Borlik, T. A., & Egan, C. (2018). Angling for the “Powte”: a Jacobean Environmental Protest Poem. English Literary Renaissance, 48(2), 256–289. https://doi.org/10.1086/697753
Bowring, J. (2011). Between the Corporation and Captain Flood: The Fens and drainage after 1663. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Custom, improvement and the landscape in Early modern Britain (pp. 235–317). Routledge.
Cain, P., & Hopkins, A. (1992). VIII Gentlemanly capitalism and British expansion overseas I. the old colonial system 1688–1850. South African Journal of Economic History, 7(1), 150–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/20780389.1992.10417196
Darby, H. C. (1932). The human geography of the Fenland before the drainage. The Geographical Journal, 80(5), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.2307/1784229
Darby, H. C. (1940). The draining of the fens. Cambridge University Press.
Darby, H. C. (1983). The Changing Fenland. Cambridge University Press.
Davis, S. (1994). Embanking, draining: The changing Fens. South Holland District Council.
Dugdale, W. (1662). History of imbanking and dryning of divers fenns and marshes, both in forein parts and in this Kingdom and of the improvements thereby. Alice Warren. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=bS6-fDCYwoYC&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PP6
Fonseca, G. (2017). Samuel Fortrey. The History of Economic Thought. https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/fortrey.htm
Hayton, D. (2020). Maynard, Sir John (1604–90), of Gunnersbury, Mdx. The History of Parliament. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/member/maynard-sir-john-1604-90
Hills, R. L. (2003). The drainage of the Fens. Landmark Publishing.
Holmes, C. (1980). Seventeenth-century Lincolnshire: History of Lincolnshire. History of Lincolnshire Committee for the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology.
Holmes, C. (1987). Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of popular political consciousness in the seventeenth century. In A. Fletcher & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (pp. 166–195). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511560552.008
Irvine, R. (2017a). Anthropocene East Anglia. The Sociological Review, 65(1), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081176917693745
Irvine, R. (2017b). East Anglian Fenland water: The work of imagination, and the creation of value. In F. Hastrup (Ed.), Waterworlds: Anthropology in fluid environments (pp. 23–45). Berghahn Books.
Knittl, A. (2007). The design for the Initial drainage of the Great Level of the Fens: An historical whodunit in three parts. The Agricultural History Review, 55(1), 23–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40276127
Lindley, K. (1982). Fenland riots and the English revolution. Adfo Books.
Maynard, J. (1690). The picklock of the old Fenne project: or, Heads of Sir John Maynard his severall speeches, taken in short-hand, at the committee for Lincolneshire Fens, in the exchequer chamber. Consisting of matter of fact. Matter of law. Presidents quæres and answers. J.B. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A88998.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
Miller, J. (2017). Early Modern Britain, 1450–1750. Cambridge University Press.
Mulry, K. L. (2021). An Empire transformed: Remolding Bodies and landscapes in the Restoration Atlantic. NYU Press.
Neilson, N. (Ed.). (1920). A Terrier of Fleet Lincolnshire. In The British Academy: Records of the social and economic history of England and Wales (Vol. 4, pp. 12–214). Oxford University Press.
Pepys, S. (1665). The Diary of Samuel Pepys. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1663/09/17/
The Anti-Projector: Or, the history of the Fen project. (1646). https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=pcRjAAAAcAAJ&pg=GBS.PP10
The National Archives. (1602). Contemporary copy law of Court of Sewers. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/34ce4f8d-dc5a-43dd-ab18-fe55ce3faa3b
The National Archives. (1603). Short title: Attorney General v Welles. Plaintiffs: Sir Edward Coke, Attorney General. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5568212
Thirsk, J. (1953). The Isle of Axholme before Vermuyden. The Agricultural History Review, 1(1), 16–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40272714
Thirsk, J. (1957). English peasant farming: The agrarian history of Lincolnshire from Tudor to recent times. Routledge.
Thirsk, J. (1965). Fenland farming in the sixteenth century. Leicester University Press.
Wheeler, W. H. (1990). A History of the Fens of South Lincolnshire. Paul Watkins Publishing.
Willmoth, F. (1998). Dugdale’s history of imbanking and drayning: A ‘Royalist’ antiquarian in the sixteen‐fifties. Historical Research, 71(176), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2281.00065
Wood, A. (2001). Riot, rebellion, and Popular politics in Early Modern England (2001). Red Globe Press.
Wrightson, K. (2003). English Society, 1580–1680. Routledge.
