BHO

Analysis of hearth tax assessments

Pages 273-278

A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 5. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1973.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:

Table of contents

ANALYSIS OF CAMBRIDGESHIRE HEARTH TAX ASSESSMENTS, LONGSTOWE AND WETHERLEY HUNDREDS, 1662, 1666, AND 1674

Introductory Note

The following analyses have been prepared from the Cambridgeshire Hearth Tax Assessments preserved in the Public Record Office for 1662 Michaelmas [E 179/84/436], 1666 Lady Day [E 179/244/22], and 1674 Lady Day [E 179/244/23]. The assessments have been fully described, and the nature of the tax and value of its records have been briefly discussed, in V.C.H. Cambs. iii. 500 and iv. 272. The 1662 lists were prepared by petty constables in June and early July 1662 and were designed to be simply lists of taxpayers, though during the next eighteen months many persons in the lists secured exemption. The 1666 lists were made out in the summer of 1666, after collection had taken place, by the officers of George Wilmot, the sub-farmer, and are drawn up under the headings 'Paid' and 'Unpaid'; many of the persons with one or two hearths included under the latter heading may have been entitled to exemption but the lists do not indicate them, since they were included as taxpayers in default. The lists for 1674 were made out by the sub-collectors of the receiver, Edward Miller, with the assistance of parish officials, during the spring and summer of 1674, after the collection had been made. These lists are divided into taxpayers and those legally exempted by certificate. Among taxpayers the owners of empty or recently destroyed houses or hearths, and the occupiers of houses recently built or with recently added hearths in them, are distinguished. The exempt may include paupers, even though paupers did not need to be certified. The exemption certificates themselves survive incompletely and heavily damaged [E 178/326/10].

The three documents have been analysed on the same principle. Against each place is given, in separate columns, the total of entries recording persons as occupiers of from one to ten hearths and a further column gives the occupiers of houses with 11 or more hearths; final columns give the total number of entries and hearths in each place. For 1662 only one line is needed for each place. For 1666 three lines are generally needed: for those recorded as 'Paid', for the 'Unpaid', and for the combined total of the two categories. For 1674 up to four lines may be needed: for the taxpayers, for those among the taxpayers who owned empty houses etc., for the exempt, and for the combined total of the three categories. For 12 out of the 25 places in the two hundreds no exempt are recorded. There are three possible reasons: there may have been no exempt to certify; the certified from two neighbouring parishes may have been included in a single certificate for one or the other (Caldecote and Toft, the Eversdens, Bourn and Hardwick were certainly so combined and others may have been); the certificate may have reached the clerk of the peace too late for enrolment. Among the 1674 certificates which survive there are none for places which are without exempt in the roll. Certificates also survive which were made out in 1672, or early in 1673, apparently for the three collections Lady Day 1672 to Lady Day 1673 [E 179/84/440]. They include certificates, or lists for two places on a single certificate, which cover seven places that are without exempt in 1674. There are none for the other five places (Caldecote, Hatley St. George, Kingston, Coton, Harlton), which suggests that those places may have had none needing certification, though all may have had paupers who did not need certificates. It has therefore been thought useful to give the number of persons in the certificates for 1672 in footnotes to each hundred in the table for 1674. The number is in some cases less than the number of names originally entered on the certificate, because in a few certificates some names were cancelled before, or when, the justices of the peace countersigned them. In general, attention is also drawn in footnotes to a few special entries, chiefly of alms-houses or town houses; and to differences, resulting from faulty addition, between the total number of hearths in the recorded entries and the total given in the documents.

In conclusion, a word may be said about the relative comprehensiveness of the assessments. It may be understood that in all lists a person may occur more than once when as a landlord he, or she, is entered for the hearths in a tenant's house, but in general the number of entries represents households. There is not much difference between the totals of entries in 1666 and 1674. The difference is of two or fewer for six places in Longstowe hundred and for five in Wetherley. It is only greater than six in four places, of which two, Orwell and Wimpole, lack exempt in 1674 but would, with exempt of about the same number as in 1672, show little if any difference. The only substantial difference in favour of 1674 is at Bourn (17); the largest difference in favour of 1666 is at Comberton (7). In Longstowe hundred the 1666 lists give the highest number of entries for nine places; for two places 1666 and 1674 have an equal number; for three places 1674 has the highest number. In Wetherley hundred the 1666 lists have the highest number of entries for nine places and in one place the 1662 and 1666 lists have an equal number; in one place the 1662 list has (slightly) the highest of all three. In the hundreds as a whole the 1666 lists have slightly the highest number of entries, even after allowing an addition to the 1674 totals for those places without exempt for which there were certificates in 1672. Since the 1662 lists were intended to include taxpayers only, their number of entries is naturally the lowest of the three assessments, but since far more details of the 1662 assessments than of any other are available for the country as a whole those lists are the most useful for comparative studies of England and Wales generally.

ANALYSIS OF CAMBRIDGESHIRE HEARTH TAX: LONGSTOWE AND WETHERLEY HUNDREDS

1662 Michaelmas

Totals of entries, with hearths Totals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 over 10 Entries Hearths
Longstowe Hundred
Bourn 36 29 10 2 1 1 of 18 79 156
Caldecote 2 2 2 1 1 8 22
Caxton 12 10 2 3 2 1 1 1 of 16 33 108
1 of 12
Croxton 7 7 5 2 1 1 1 24 64
Eltisley 14 8 3 4 3 1 33 76
Eversden 15 20 4 4 2 2 1 48 113
Gamlingay 17 14 14 6 5 5 2 1 of 24 64 204
Little Gransden 21 19 2 1 1 44 75
Hardwick 2 12 1 3 1 19 47
Hatley St. George 5 4 1 4 1 of 12 15 44
Kingston 5 6 3 2 2 1 of 11 19 57
Longstowe 8 6 2 1 1 1 of 12 19 47
Toft 9 15 1 1 2 1 29 65
Total 153 152 50 34 12 19 3 2 1 1 7 (with 105) 434 1,078
Wetherley Hundred
Arrington (fn. 1) 10 6 1 2 1 of 11 20 44
Barrington 35 20 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 of 11 70 147
Barton 2 11 2 3 3 1 1 23 73
Comberton 13 17 7 2 1 1 41 89
Coton 6 5 1 3 2 1 18 56
Grantchester 10 9 4 1 1 1 2 1 of 27 29 96
Harlton 14 10 6 2 32 62
Haslingfield 7 28 6 5 1 1 1 of 22 49 134
Orwell 15 16 3 4 3 1 1 1 of 12 44 114
Shepreth 25 12 3 3 3 2 1 49 107
Wimpole 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 of 33 15 79
Total 140 135 40 24 22 7 7 4 2 6 (with 116) 390 1,001

1666 Lady Day

Totals of entries, with hearths Totals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 over 10 Entries Hearths
Longstowe Hundred
Bourn, paid 47 23 3 3 1 1 of 18 78 137 (fn. 2)
unpaid 7 (fn. 3) 3 2 2 14 27
total 54 26 5 5 1 1 92 164
Caldecote, paid 6 4 2 12 20
unpaid 3 1 1 5 8
total 9 5 3 17 28
Caxton, paid 23 11 2 3 2 1 1 of 16 43 101 (fn. 4)
unpaid 5 2 1 2 1 11 25
total 28 13 3 5 1 2 1 1 54 126
Croxton, paid 21 6 4 1 1 33 60
unpaid 1 2 1 4 8
total 22 8 5 1 1 37 68
Eltisley, paid 15 6 3 2 1 1 28 55
unpaid 3 2 1 1 7 14
total 18 8 4 3 1 1 35 69
Great Eversden, paid 14 9 3 1 27 50
unpaid 1 1 1 3 10
total 14 10 1 3 1 1 30 60
Little Eversden, paid 12 3 2 3 1 1 22 48
unpaid 3 2 5 7
total 15 5 2 3 1 1 27 55
Gamlingay, paid 63 22 6 9 3 3 2 1 of 20 109 228 (fn. 5)
unpaid 5 (fn. 6) 5 2 1 2 1 (fn. 6) 16 45
total 68 27 8 10 5 3 2 1 1 125 273
Little Gransden, paid 24 19 1 1 1 46 74
unpaid 6 2 1 1 10 17
total 30 21 2 2 1 56 91
Hardwick, paid 9 9 1 1 1 21 40
unpaid 2 2 1 5 9
total 11 11 2 1 1 26 49
Hatley St. George, paid 5 4 2 1 1 1 14 35
unpaid 1 1 2 3
total 6 5 2 1 1 1 16 38
Kingston, paid 9 9 1 3 22 48
unpaid 2 2 1 5 10
total 11 11 1 1 3 27 58
Longstowe, paid 10 7 2 1 1 of 13 21 47
unpaid 2 2 1 5 10
total 12 9 2 2 1 26 57
Toft, paid 13 15 1 1 30 53
unpaid 3 3 1 1 8 16
total 16 18 1 2 1 38 69
Total 314 177 41 38 12 13 4 1 2 4 (with 67) 606 1,205 (fn. 7)
Wetherley Hundred
Arrington, paid 8 2 1 2 1 14 28
unpaid 4 2 2 1 9 18
total 12 4 3 3 1 23 46
Barrington, paid 38 18 5 2 1 1 65 112
unpaid 4 5 (fn. 8) 1 2 12 25
total 42 23 6 4 1 1 77 137
Barton, paid 11 9 2 2 1 1 26 63
unpaid 7 (fn. 9) 3 1 11 17
total 18 12 3 2 1 1 37 80
Comberton, paid 25 16 3 3 1 48 83
unpaid 1 2 (fn. 10) 1 4 12
total 25 17 5 4 1 52 95
Coton, paid 12 4 2 1 3 1 23 53
unpaid 4 2 1 7 12
total 16 6 2 2 3 1 30 65
Grantchester, paid 9 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 22 62
unpaid 9 4 1 1 15 29
total 18 9 1 3 2 1 2 1 37 91
Harlton, paid and unpaid, total (fn. 11) 13 10 4 1 1 29 54
Haslingfield, paid 22 20 2 4 1 1 of 20 50 110
unpaid 6 3 2 1 12 23
total 28 23 4 4 1 1 1 62 133
Orwell, paid 16 14 6 4 1 1 1 43 100
unpaid 10 4 2 1 17 28
total 26 18 8 5 1 1 1 60 128
Shepreth, paid 26 10 1 1 2 1 41 73
unpaid 3 2 2 1 8 18
total 29 12 3 1 3 1 49 91
Wimpole, paid 7 3 2 1 2 1 1 of 40 17 79
unpaid 5 3 1 1 10 18
total 12 6 3 2 2 1 1 27 97
Total 239 140 39 32 17 5 2 2 2 3 2 (with 60) 479 1,017

1674 Lady Day

Totals of entries, with hearths Totals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 over 10 Entries Hearths
Longstowe Hundred (fn. 12)
Bourn, charged 33 27 8 4 1 1 1 of 18 75 159
empty 1 1 2 5
exempt (fn. 13) 32 32 32
total 65 28 9 4 1 1 1 109 196
Caldecote, charged 3 4 2 1 1 11 27
Caxton, charged 10 13 5 2 2 2 1 of 15 38 130
1 of 12
2 of 11
exempt 10 10 10
total 20 13 5 2 2 2 4 48 140
Croxton, charged 10 10 4 1 1 1 1 28 65
exempt 10 10 10
total 20 10 4 1 1 1 1 38 75
Eltisley, charged 9 9 4 3 3 1 29 72
Great Eversden, charged 9 11 2 3 1 26 54
demolished 1 1 6
total 9 11 2 3 1 1 27 60
Little Eversden, charged 10 4 4 2 2 1 23 57
exempt 8 8 8
total 18 4 4 2 2 1 31 65
Gamlingay, charged 37 20 12 9 7 4 2 1 of 27 92 249 (fn. 14)
empty 2 1 3 5
exempt 31 31 31
total 70 20 13 9 7 4 2 1 126 285
Little Gransden, charged 6 15 3 1 25 51
empty 2 3 (fn. 15) 4
exempt 24 24 24
total 30 17 3 1 52 79
Hardwick, (fn. 15) charged 3 14 1 1 1 20 44
Hatley St. George, charged 5 4 2 1 1 1 of 27 14 55
Kingston, charged 7 11 1 2 1 22 53
Longstowe, charged 3 4 3 1 1 1 of 13 13 44
empty 1 1 2
exempt 10 10 10
total 13 5 3 1 1 1 24 56
Toft, charged 8 19 1 1 2 31 69
exempt 1 1 1
total 9 19 1 1 2 32 70
Total 281 169 54 27 19 16 4 1 3 8 (with 134) 583 1,277
Wetherley Hundred (fn. 16)
Arrington, charged 3 2 4 1 1 of 11 11 40
empty 1 1 2 3
exempt 8 8 8
total 12 3 4 1 1 21 51
Barrington, charged 30 23 4 4 1 1 2 65 133
empty 1 1 1
exempt 9 9 9
total 40 25 4 4 1 1 2 75 143
Barton, charged 6 14 3 3 2 1 of 15 29 80
exempt 6 6 6
total 12 1 35 86
Comberton, charged 13 (fn. 17) 14 9 3 1 40 90
exempt 5 5 5
total 18 14 9 3 1 45 95
Coton, charged 10 4 4 4 1 1 24 65
Grantchester, charged 5 7 3 1 2 3 1 of 15 22 81
exempt 10 10 10
total 15 7 3 1 2 3 1 32 91
Harlton, charged 12 10 6 2 30 60
Haslingfield, charged 15 27 6 5 1 1 1 of 25 56 144 (fn. 18)
empty 1 1 2
total 15 28 6 5 1 1 1 57 146
Orwell, charged 19 17 5 5 3 1 1 1 52 127
Shepreth, charged 23 12 2 1 5 1 44 91
empty 1 1 4
total 23 12 2 2 5 1 45 95
Wimpole, charged 4 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 of 37 20 99
Total 180 136 46 27 23 5 6 3 4 1 5 (with 103) 436 1,058

Footnotes

  • 1. Because of damage to the edge of a membrane the number of hearths of seven Arrington entries are wanting in the roll, but the 1664 Michaelmas assessment gives a copy of the 1662 Michaelmas assessment, of which it was a revision, so that the missing details have been recovered from it.
  • 2. The book (p. 11) wrongly gives Bourn's total paid as 138 through wrongly totting the entries on p. 10 as 68 instead of 67; the auditor corrected the total of the page but not the full total.
  • 3. An unpaid entry of 1 hearth was in the town houses.
  • 4. The book wrongly gives Caxton's total paid as 102 through wrongly totting the entries on p. 1; the auditor did not correct the error.
  • 5. The book wrongly gives Gamlingay's total paid as 229 through wrongly totting the entries on p. 5 as 93 instead of 92; neither page nor full total was corrected by the auditor.
  • 6. An unpaid entry of 2 hearths was in the town house and the unpaid entry of 10 was in the alms-houses.
  • 7. Because of its three errors of totting, the book gives Longstowe hundred 999 hearths paid and a combined total of 1,208 hearths.
  • 8. An unpaid entry of 2 hearths was in the alms-houses.
  • 9. An unpaid entry of 1 hearth was in an alms-house.
  • 10. An unpaid entry of 3 hearths was in the alms-houses.
  • 11. The book lists all Harlton's entries under 'Paid', but at the end of the list is the note: Received 42, unpaid 12, in all 54.
  • 12. The numbers of persons in the 1673 Lady Day exemption certificates for Longstowe hundred were: Bourn 18; Caxton 5; Croxton 12; Eltisley 2; Great Eversden 3; Little Eversden 3; Gamlingay 32; Little Gransden 25; Longstowe 10. The 1674 Lady Day certificates for Bourn, Caxton, and Croxton survive.
  • 13. The exempt for Bourn include also those of Hardwick.
  • 14. In the roll the total of Gamlingay's charged and empty hearths is wrongly given as 253.
  • 15. One entry of an empty house in Little Gransden does not give the number of hearths.
  • 16. The numbers of persons in the 1673 Lady Day exemption certificates for Wetherley hundred were: Arrington 8; Barrington 11; Barton 6; Comberton 5; Grantchester 10; Haslingfield 11; Orwell 6; Shepreth 9; Wimpole 8. None of the 1674 Lady Day certificates survive.
  • 17. One of the Comberton entries is a forge.
  • 18. In the roll the total of Haslingfield's charged and empty hearths is wrongly given as 143.